Neo-Aramaic Dialect Studies: Proceedings of a Workshop on Neo-Aramaic held in Cambridge 2005 9781463211615

Citation preview

Neo-Aramaic Dialect Studies

Neo-Aramaic Studies 1

Series Editor Geoffrey Khan

Neo-Aramaic Dialect Studies

Edited by Geoffrey Khan

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 978-1-59333-423-9 ISSN 1935-4428

Gorgias Press

180 Centennial Ave., Suite A, Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA www.gorgiaspress.com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Neo-Aramaic dialect studies / edited by Geoffrey Khan. p. cm. -- (Neo-Aramaic studies ; 1) Includes index. 1. Syriac language, Modern--Grammar--Congresses. 2. Syriac language, Modern--Dialects--Congresses. I. Khan, Geoffrey. PJ5802.N46 2008 492’.3--dc22 2008009194

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 PREFACE ........................................................................................................... v NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC AND THE MIDDLE ARAMAIC DIALECTS Samuel Ethan Fox .................................................................................. 1 THE NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF SAT (HAKKÂRI, TURKEY) ........................................ Hezy Mutzafi........................................................................................ 19 THE NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECTS OF THE TIYARI ASSYRIANS IN SYRIA: WITH SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THEIR PHONOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS .................................. Shabo Talay ......................................................................................... 39 THE JEWISH NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF ìALLA ....................................................... Steven E. Fassberg ............................................................................... 65 SOME FEATURES OF THE VERBAL SYSTEM OF THE NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF KARAMLESH ................................................................................................ Roberta Borghero................................................................................. 75 SOME NOTABLE FEATURES IN NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECTS OF IRAQ ....... Eleanor Coghill .................................................................................... 91 REMARKS ON THE FUNCTION OF THE PRETERITE AND THE PERFECT IN NORTHEASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC ............................................................................... Geoffrey Khan .................................................................................... 105 BETWEEN NOUNS AND VERBS IN NEO-ARAMAIC ...................................................... Olga Kapeliuk .................................................................................... 131

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SYNTACTIC FOCUS MARKING IN JEWISH ZAKHO........................................................ Eran Cohen .........................................................................................149 THE BEGADKEPHAT IN WESTERN NEO-ARAMAIC ...................................................... Werner Arnold ....................................................................................171 THE FIVE SCROLLS IN JEWISH NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECTS ............................................ Yona Sabar..........................................................................................177 INDEX ...........................................................................................................197

PREFACE This volume brings together a wide range of articles relating to NeoAramaic. The majority are based on papers given at a workshop on NeoAramaic that was held in July 2005 at the University of Cambridge with the support of the British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). Most articles are concerned with the North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) dialects. This is the most extensive and diverse group of NeoAramaic, which includes dialects spoken by Christian and Jewish communities originating in northern Iraq, south-eastern Turkey and Iran. A large number of these NENA dialects are now highly endangered and there is a great urgency in the task of documenting them. This is because of the great upheavals that were suffered by the Christian and Jewish Aramaic-speaking communities in the region during the twentieth century. Since the First World War a large proportion of the Christian communities have been displaced from their original places of residence. Virtually all the village communities of south-eastern Turkey were destroyed and the survivors were forced to flee their villages. Many of the Christian villages in northern Iraq have been destroyed in more recent times due to political disturbances in the region. These catastrophes have driven a large proportion of Aramaic speaking Christians out of the Middle East and forced them to make a new life in other countries. They have settled throughout the world, the largest centres of settlement being in North America, Australia and Western Europe. The Jewish communities all left the region in a mass exodus in the 1950s and now live, for the most part, in Israel. Many of the articles in this volume make important contributions to the documentation of endangered dialects. These include sketches of several hitherto undescribed dialects, which present data gathered from Christian and Jewish Aramaic-speaking informants. Some articles are of a more analytical nature, examining especially issues of syntactic structure and function, based on oral texts recorded on fieldtrips or on literary texts. The ques-

VI

PREFACE

tion of ‘contact-induced’ linguistic change is addressed by some authors, which is a fascinating aspect of Neo-Aramaic. The volume also includes a contribution on Western Neo-Aramaic, describing a development of historical phonology that contrasts with what is found in NENA. The final article presents an analysis of the use of language in NENA Bible translations, which in many cases preserve archaic linguistic features. The study of the Neo-Aramaic dialects is important in many respects. These dialects are the last surviving vernacular vestiges of Aramaic, which is a language with one of the longest attested histories, the earliest texts being being datable to around 1,000 BCE. The modern vernaculars, however, are not direct descendants of the earlier literary forms of the language and contain many aspects of linguistic structure that could not have developed directly from these. The spoken dialects also contain items of vocabulary that are not found in the literary forms of the language. A particularly interesting feature of Neo-Aramaic is the way in which numerous linguistic developments of earlier Semitic undergo a new cycle. This often helps us interpret the diachronic evolution of ancient Semitic, in that some developments that are only hypothesized as having taken place in a proto-form of the ancient languages can be observed directly in the historical evolution of the NeoAramaic dialects. It is hoped that this volume will give a stimulus to future work in this important field. Geoffrey Khan Cambridge, February 2008

NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC AND THE MIDDLE ARAMAIC DIALECTS SAMUEL ETHAN FOX The relationship of the North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) dialects to their Middle Aramaic predecessors has never been clearly defined. Stoddard (1856: 108–11), writing at the beginning of western study of the modern languages, sees the modern verbal forms as direct descendents of those of Syriac. It was Nöldeke (1868: xxxv–xxxvii) who first stated that the modern dialects could not descend from Syriac, pointing out that some modern forms more closely resemble Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (JBA), the language of the Babylonian Talmud, than they do Syriac. Nöldeke specifically refers to the passive participles of the Class II verbs, those which correspond to earlier pa‫ܡܡ‬el and ‫ܥ‬aph‫ܡ‬el, certain demonstrative pronouns, the pa‫ܡܡ‬el infinitive, and the possessive suffixes, but also mentions some “Kleinigkeiten,” without specifying what they might be. In fact, in his first glance at the question of the relationship of NENA to the Middle Aramaic (MA) dialects, Nöldeke immediately noted most of the data which I shall discuss in this paper. In the introduction to his comparative grammar of the modern dialects, Maclean (1895: xv) specifically denies that they originate in classical Syriac. He once again mentions the infinitive of the Class II verbs, the past participle, and several other forms which cannot be derived from the Syriac. However, Maclean does not suggest that NENA is closer to JBA than to Syriac. Brockelmann (1908: 20) in the catalog of Semitic languages with which he begins his comparative grammar, simply calls the modern dialects “Ostaramäisch” without suggesting a special relationship with any particular form of Middle Aramaic. To which form of MA, then, does NENA have the closest affinities? Is it, by and large, closest to Syriac, to JBA, or perhaps even to Mandaic? Certainly it is not a direct continuation of any of these languages,

2

SAMUEL ETHAN FOX

but perhaps if we catalog the chief points of departure from the various forms of MA which are native developments and not clearly due to influence of other languages, we shall find it closest to one of them. This project sounds fairly simple, but it faces some important difficulties. The foremost of these difficulties have to do with the uneven and imperfect documentation of the Middle Aramaic dialects. First of all, Syriac is a fairly uniform standardized literary language. This uniformity conceals whatever variation may have been present in the spoken language. On the other hand, Syriac does have two separate traditional systems of vowel notation and pronunciation. Our information on the pronunciation of JBA is much less clear. Most JBA texts are unpointed and so leave much of the pronunciation uncertain. Our best insights into the vocalization of JBA come from the traditional Yemenite pronunciation of the Talmud, which was studied extensively by Morag (1988, 2001). Of course, we cannot be certain that the Yemenite tradition preserves the original pronunciation accurately. JBA is not as standardized a language as Syriac, and so a substantial amount of variation can be observed. Mandaic has a traditional system of vocalization which provides a great deal of insight into its pronunciation. However, the relationship of this vocalization to the traditional pronunciation of the classical language is hardly straightforward. As with JBA, our picture of the original pronunciation of Mandaic depends on the faithful transmission of a tradition of pronunciation over more than a millennium. Another difficulty is inherent in the project. The attested MA dialects are only points in a continuum of otherwise lost varieties of the language. The dialects spoken 1700 years ago may well have been as varied as those of present-day Aramaic, which are startling in their diversity. Boyarin (1981) discusses the position of Syriac among the MA dialects, concluding that it occupies an intermediate position between eastern and western dialects, and suggesting that a wave-theory model is more appropriate for explaining the relations of the various forms of MA than is the Stammbaum. The influences of other languages on NENA are well-known and striking, and have occupied much of the attention of scholars in the field. However, within NENA itself there is a great deal of influence of one dialect on another, complicated greatly by the geographical shifts of speech communities over time. In general, the dialect geography of NENA seems much more amenable to description in terms of wave theory than as a family tree. Innovations, particularly in phonology, are found in geographically contiguous areas

NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC AND THE MIDDLE ARAMAIC DIALECTS

3

which include dialects which otherwise are very different. For example, Baz and Jilu were spoken in neighboring areas of Hakkari. They share loss of intervocalic t (though this is carried through much more consistently in Jilu), while differing in such basic points of morphology as the third person masculine singular possessive suffix, which is –e in Jilu and –ũf in Baz. In addition, as pointed out in Fox (1994), a number of innovations are shared by the otherwise diverse dialects located in the core of the NENA area, while they are absent in those dialects both on the eastern and western peripheries. We shall see some additional examples of this phenomenon below. While NENA shares a number of highly idiosyncratic features which point to its origin in a fairly coherent group of dialects, Proto-NENA was probably not ever a uniform speech community. Some dialect differences seem to date back to before the NENA stage. For example, Hoberman (1988) reconstructs Proto-NENA pronouns and pronominal affixes. However, in most cases he found it necessary to reconstruct two or more Proto-NENA forms because the modern dialects showed forms which could not have developed from a single common ancestor. Let us consider some features of NENA which seem to reflect closer ties to one or another of the MA dialects, or show that Proto-NENA differed from any of them. Although there are some lexemes in NENA which are present only in one or another of the MA dialects, we shall limit ourselves to morphological features, since as Hetzron (1976: 98) emphasizes, these are the surest indicators of genealogical relationship. We shall examine each of these to determine whether the Proto-NENA form resembled either JBA or Mandaic, or whether it differed from both of them.

1. MORPHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF THE LOSS OF UNSTRESSED FINAL VOWELS A well-known and striking feature of Syriac is the loss of unstressed final vowels (Nöldeke 1880: 33–35). The deleted vowels were still represented in the plene spelling, but they were not vocalized, and were ignored in poetic meter.

1.1. Imperative Plural Suffix In sound verbs this rule affects (a) the third person masculine plural of the perfect, which falls together in pronunciation with the third person masculine singular, (b) the feminine singular imperative, and (c) one variant of the masculine plural of the imperative, which fall together with the masculine

SAMUEL ETHAN FOX

4

singular. Another variant of the masculine plural imperative ends with an -n, which has preserved the vowel before it. Orthography

Pronunciation

qҨl qҨlw qҨwl qҨwlw qҨwlwn qҨwly

qҨál qҨál qҨúl qҨúl qҨúlun qҨúl

‘he killed’ ‘they (masc.) killed’ ‘kill! (masc. sing.)’ ‘kill! (masc. pl.)’ ‘kill! (masc. pl.)’ ‘kill! (fem. sing.)’

In JBA the imperative plural is written with a final vav (Epstein 1960: 38) and has no variant with final -n. The spelling with final vav is significant, because in the perfect, the third person masculine singular is often written with an infixed vav and no suffix, perhaps reflecting umlaut followed by loss of the final vowel. No such infixed forms are cited by Epstein for the imperative, although Kutscher (1977: 247) suggests that a search of manuscripts might find some. In the Yemenite reading tradition the suffix is pronounced, as in (Morag 1988: 131) šqulu ‘take’. In Mandaic the imperative normally has no suffix, regardless of gender or number. However, occasionally a suffix -un is found in the plural (Macuch 1965: 263). In NENA the perfect tense has disappeared almost without a trace, 1 so we have nothing to compare the MA forms to, but the imperative survives. In sound verbs, the feminine imperative is identical to the masculine, but the plural has a suffixed -u or -un, depending on the dialect. For example, we find an -u suffix in Aradhin (Krotkoff 1982: 29): Singular

Plural

dmux dwuq

dmu:xu dwu:qu

‘sleep!’ ‘seize!’

An example of the -un type is Bohtan:

1

Singular

Plural

šwur xur

šwurun xurun

‘jump!’ ‘look!’

The one exception is the verbal affix -wa, which descends from the perfect of the verb hwa ‘to be’.

NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC AND THE MIDDLE ARAMAIC DIALECTS

5

The dialects with the -u suffix are found principally in the center of the NENA area: Aradhin, Jilu (Fox 1997: 33), Baz (Mutzafi 2000: 306), Tkhuma (Jacobi 1973: 109), Tisqopa (Rubba 1993: 164), Qaraqosh (Khan 2002:97). Those with the –un suffix are mostly on the eastern or western peripheries. East: Jewish Azerbaijan (Garbell 1965: 71), Urmi (Hetzron 1969: 120), Senna (Panoussi 1990: 121). 2 West: Bohtan, BŖҁpũn (Sinha 2000: 106), Hertevin (Jastrow 1988: 52). However Jewish Amedia (Hoberman 1989: 196) has -un only a few kilometers from Aradhin, with -u, and Nerwa (Talay 2001: 21) has -un just south of Jilu. The NENA evidence is difficult to interpret. The two imperative plural suffixes, -u and -un, may be continuations of identical Middle Aramaic antecedent forms which have always existed alongside each other. However, there are two other possibilities. First, they may both reflect a proto-form with –u, which has been extended by -n in some dialects. Supporting this possibility is the existence in NENA, for example in the Jilu dialect, of variable -n suffixes. The second person singular independent pronouns are usually et and at, but forms etũn and atũn are also used. Bohtan, with the form oyün ‘he/she’ is one of a number of dialects which have such forms in the third person singular independent pronouns. Also, in Jilu a sporadic suffix -ni is found on the imperative: tu/tuni ‘sit! (sing.). The existence of nonetymological -n suffixes elsewhere in the dialect suggests that the -ni suffix on the imperative could be an addition, rather than a survival in Jilu. Such an addition of –n could be responsible for the -un forms throughout NENA. However, it is also possible that the –u suffix was lost in Proto-NENA, as in Syriac, while the –un suffix continued in use. In this scenario, the single common NENA form was –un, which has been preserved on the periphery of the dialect area, while an innovating group of dialects in the center has deleted the final -n. On the whole, this seems more likely because the occurrence of -un on both the eastern and western peripheries makes it more likely that this is a survival than an innovation. Further, the disappearance of the feminine imperative for sound verbs throughout NENA argues strongly for the operation of final unstressed vowels in the imperative. In this feature Proto-NENA was more similar to Syriac, with –un suffix, than JBA, which may have retained –u.

2 Some eastern dialects have a plural suffix -mun after stems ending in a vowel, while others, like Jewish Sulemaniyya (Khan 2004: 93) use -mun even after consonant-final stem.

SAMUEL ETHAN FOX

6

1.2. First Person Singular Possessive Suffix Another form affected by the loss of final unstressed vowels in Syriac is the first person singular possessive suffix –i: Orthography

Pronunciation

mlk mlky

mle˘ malk

‘king (absolute form)’ ‘my king’

In JBA the first person singular suffix is sometimes, but not always, written (Epstein 1960: 121–2). When the suffix is present, it is sometimes written with only a yod, but more often with aleph yod, presumably representing –ay. Likewise, in Mandaic the suffix is often deleted, but where present it is –e (Macuch 1965: 157). This was originally the suffix only for plural nouns, but it has spread to the singular as well in Eastern Aramaic (Brockelmann 1908: 308). In NENA the possessive suffix is always preserved, as in these Jilu forms (Fox 1997: 44): biyi xai

+

‘my house’ ‘my sister’

Several explanations have been offered for the NENA suffix, which seems to continue some dialect which did not undergo vowel deletion. The NENA suffix may actually represent an earlier –i, it may be a contraction of –ay, 3 or it may have been lost and then restored based on analogy with the words bi ‘in me’ and li ‘to me’, where the vowel was stressed, and so was not deleted in Middle Aramaic. 4 Based on the evidence of Mandaic and the JBA spelling, it seems to me most likely that in NENA the suffix was either lost entirely or preserved only in the form -e. The most likely source for the restored -i is not bi or li, but rather the independent possessive pronoun didi. This form is found in MA only in JBA, the corresponding form in Syriac and Mandaic being dil–. 5 In Syriac the first person singular suffix is null, while in both JBA and Mandaic it is -i:

3

A possibility suggested by Nöldeke (1868: 78-79). This suggestion was made by Brockelmann (1908: 308), and Hoberman (1988: 571) considers both possibilities. 5 Nöldeke (1880:44), Macuch (1965: 161). 4

NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC AND THE MIDDLE ARAMAIC DIALECTS

Syriac

JBA

Mandaic

dɦl dɦlan

didi didan

dili dilan

7

‘my’ ‘our’

In NENA the corresponding forms once again differ between the periphery and the center. Peripheral dialects 6 have did-, while central dialects generally have di-. 7 This suggests again that the Proto-NENA form was did-, which has been simplified in the innovating central dialects to di-. The suffix -i was restored to nouns based on analogy with the independent pronoun didi ‘my’: bayta didan bayta didi

:: ::

baytan bayti

‘our house’ ‘my house’

To summarize, in the case of the imperative plural, it seems that ProtoNENA may just as well have been similar to Syriac with only an -un suffix as to JBA which may have retained the -u suffix. As for the first person singular suffix, it was probably either lost or retained only as -e in Proto-NENA, but restored based on analogy with a form which is attested only in JBA.

2. ATTACHMENT OF PLURAL PRONOMINAL SUFFIXES Hoberman (1988: 569–70) reconstructs these Proto-NENA possessive pronominal suffixes: First Person Plural Second Person Plural Third Person Plural

-an, -ayni -ayxun, -awxun -ayhũn, -ay

Hoberman points out that “PNENA is like Mandaic and Babylonian Jewish Aramaic in that the possessive suffixes that originally attached only to plural nouns, with the ay, now link to singular nouns as well.” 8 Here are examples of singular nouns with plural possessive pronominal suffixes in Syriac 9 and JBA. 10

6

Bohtan, Hertevin, JKS (Mutzafi 2004: 62), Barzani (Mutzafi 2002: 54), Jewish Azerbaijan (Garbell 1965: 60), Jewish Sulemaniyya (Khan 2004: 75). 7 But Qaraqosh (Khan 2002: 83) and Zakho (Sabar 2002: 141 for singulars only) have did–, while Tisqopa (Rubba 1993: 52) has both. 8 Recognized already by Nöldeke (1868: 81) for the third person plural. 9 Nöldeke (1880: 79).

SAMUEL ETHAN FOX

8

Syriac 1pl. 2pl. 3pl.

dinan dinxon dinhon

JBA. ‘our law’ ‘your (m.pl) law’ ‘their (m.) law’

‫ܥ‬r‫ܡ‬yn pwmyykw gwbhyyhw

‘our land’ ‘your (m.pl.) mouth’ ‘their height’

3. PA‫ܡܡ‬EL PASSIVE PARTICIPLE The active and passive participles of the Syriac pa‫ܡܡ‬el differ in the vowel that occurs after the second radical, which is e in the active participle and a in the passive (Nöldeke 1880: 99): mqaҨҨel mqaҨҨal

active passive

This distinction is similar to that of the Arabic second form, which has kasra in the active, and fatȖa in the passive (Wright 1967: 300): mufa‫ܡܡ‬il mufa‫ܡܡ‬al

active passive

In JBA the lack of vocalization makes the original pronunciation of the passive participle unclear. Further, the active and passive participles have the same consonantal structure, so that it can be hard to know whether an active or passive participle was intended in a JBA text. However, if we turn to the Yemenite tradition we find that there are two different pronunciations of the pa‫ܡܡ‬el passive participle which are used in different instances: mCaCCaC and mCuCCaC (Morag 1988: 151): mũfaššar mũfunnaq

‘interpreted’ ‘pampered’

Since the latter form resembles the Hebrew pu‫ܡܡ‬al, we might suspect it of being a simple contamination. However, its authenticity is backed up by the fact that such forms are also found occasionally in Mandaic (Macuch 1965: 191). Class II verbs in NENA correspond to the MA pa‫ܡܡ‬el, and the P-stem is the descendant of the MA passive participle. The form of the P-Stem in Class

10

Examples from Epstein (1960: 123–24) who also cites versions of the suffixes without the y originating in the plural.

NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC AND THE MIDDLE ARAMAIC DIALECTS

9

II verbs normally has an o or u after the first radical. 11 Here are some examples from various dialects: mbušille mpušiqle mšodũrre kopũšle

‘he cooked’ ‘he derived’ ‘he sent’ ‘he collected’

Aradhin (Krotkoff 1982: 136) Aradhin (Krotkoff 1982: 138) Jewish Amedia (Hoberman 1989: 197) Jilu (Fox 1997: 70)

The resemblance in the vocalism between the NENA Class II P-stem and the JBA pa‫ܡܡ‬el passive participle represents another point in which NENA is more closely related to JBA than to Syriac.

4. PƮ‫ܡ‬AL INFINITIVE The form of the infinitive of the pũ‫ܡ‬al verb in Syriac is lmeCCaC, 12 as in lme˘ta¤ ‘to write’. This form was absent from the earliest forms of Aramaic, but spread widely at an early date. It can be seen in Biblical Aramaic as miCCaC. 13 However, this typical Aramaic infinitive is entirely absent from NENA. Class I verbs in NENA are the main descendants of earlier pũ‫ܡ‬al verbs (though in some dialects, such as Jewish Azerbaijan, there has been extensive reassignment of class), and in these verbs the infinitive pattern is CCaCa: pLJa:xa nšaqa kLJawa

‘to open’ ‘to kiss’ ‘to write’

Aradhin (Krotkoff 1982: 143) Jilu (Fox 1997: 138) Jewish Amedia (Hoberman 1989: 197)

This pattern does exist in Syriac, and is a common type of verbal noun. 14 The situation in JBA is much the same as in Syriac. The pũ‫ܡ‬al infinitive is miCCaC, 15 but there is a frequent verbal noun form CC&C&: 16 kҧ&b& pҧ&˘& gr&r&

‘written document’ ‘commencement’ ‘dragging’

11 The situation is complicated in some dialects by shifting verb class membership. Also, Class II has attracted borrowed verbs, so that many of its members today were not part of the language in the MA period. 12 Nöldeke (1880: 98), Muraoka (1997: 42). 13 Rosenthal (1974: 45). 14 Nöldeke (1880: 64). 15 Epstein (1960: 38). 16 Examples from Sokoloff (2002).

SAMUEL ETHAN FOX

10

s¤&r&

‘logical deduction, conclusion’

In systematically using the CCaCa pattern, NENA differs from the MA dialects and also from earlier Aramaic, but agrees with antecedents elsewhere in Semitic. Brockelmann (1908: 345) suggests that this is the oldest Semitic infinitive form, preserved only in Akkadian (von Soden 1969: 60, 13*) and in NENA. Here are examples of the infinitives of G Stem in Akkadian (von Soden 1969: 13*):

par&su paq&du lam&du

‘to cut’ ‘to take care of, manage’ ‘to learn’

It is certainly possible that the infinitive pattern in the Akkadian substratum contributed to the dominance of the CCaCa pattern in NENA. It is worthwhile to point out in this connection that the Hebrew absolute infinitive pattern CaCoC also continues this infinitive form. 17 In the Bohtan dialect of NENA, which has undergone a change of & > Ω similar to that which occurred in Hebrew three millennia earlier, the infinitive patterns are very reminiscent of those of Hebrew: Bohtan ptoxa xpora

Hebrew ‘to open’ ‘to dig’

liftoaȖ laȖpor

So the use of the pattern CCaCa in the NENA pũ‫ܡ‬al infinitive does not suggest that the modern dialects are closer either to Syriac or to JBA or Mandaic. Rather, the modern dialects make more consistent use of an inherited Semitic pattern which was not used so systematically in any of the MA dialects.

5. PA‫ܡܡ‬EL INFINITIVE The form of the pa‫ܡܡ‬el infinitive in Syriac is mCaCC&Cu (Nöldeke 1880: 98, Muraoka 1997: 42). However, the infinitive of Class II verbs in NENA is the unrelated pattern (m)CaCoCe: mbašo:le mpašo:qe mšadore

17

‘to cook’ ‘to derive’ ‘to send’

Aradhin (Krotkoff 1982: 136) Aradhin (Krotkoff 1982: 138) Jewish Amedia (Hoberman 1989: 197)

Noted already by Nöldeke (1868: 213).

NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC AND THE MIDDLE ARAMAIC DIALECTS

kopoše

‘to collect’

11

Jilu (Fox 1997: 70)

Though the NENA pattern is unrelated to the corresponding form in Syriac, the JBA form is CaCCoCe (Epstein 1960: 46), pronounced in the Yemenite tradition as CaCCawCe, e.g. šaddawre ‘to send’, lũȖaddawše ‘to make a new thing’ (Morag 1988: 152). A similar form (m)CaCuCia is found in classical Mandaic, e.g. barukia ‘to bless’, mpaqudia ‘to order’, though it does not survive into the modern language (Macuch 1965: 284). The pa‫ܡܡ‬el infinitive, mentioned already by Nöldeke (1868:214), is one of the most striking features linking NENA with JBA and Mandaic, as opposed to Syriac.

6. THE PRESENT MARKER The active participle of Syriac is used, without any prefix, to indicate the present, either momentary or continuous (Nöldeke 1880:186, Muraoka 1997:66), and has largely taken the place of the imperfect. In JBA the active participle is used similarly, but is often preceded by the particle q&–, which is derived from q&‫ܥ‬em via q&‫ܥ‬e. 18 Classical Mandaic, like Syriac, has no present marker. However, modern Mandaic has a prefix qV- to mark the present: 19 qag&Ҩel qah&dar qombarrex

‘he kills’ ‘he turns around’ ‘he blesses’

Most NENA dialects have some form of present marker which marks the participle in its use to indicate the present tense. In some dialects the present marker is ɦ–, evidently derived from ɦLJ ‘there is’. However, in other dialects this present marker takes the form k–, a prefix which clearly descends from the JBA or some very similar form. In some dialects, like Jewish Azerbaijan, the distribution of the prefix is restricted to a small group of verbs, while in others, such as Christian Urmi, it is applied generally. 20 Examples are: gd&‫ܥ‬ir kŖse Òšadũr 18

‘he returns’ Jewish Zakho (Sabar 2002: 118) ‘he comes’ Jewish Zakho (Sabar 2002: 118) ‘he sends’ Urmi (Hetzron 1969: 115)

Sokoloff (2002: 676-677). Macuch (1965: 277-284). 20 See Fox (1994: 158). 19

SAMUEL ETHAN FOX

12

The present marker is another point in which NENA is more closely related to JBA (and modern Mandaic) than it is to classical Syriac. However, the relationship can be demonstrated only for those dialects which have the k– prefix.

7. ‘THE TWO OF THEM’ The number two in Syriac has a special form when pronominal suffixes are added (Nöldeke 1880: 88, Muraoka 1997: 38): trŖn traykon trayhon

‘two’ ‘the two of you (masc.)’ ‘the two of them (masc.)’

Similar forms are found for other numerals, and one example exists in Biblical Aramaic as well: tl&tayhon tl&tehon

‘the three of them (masc.)’ ‘the three of them (Daniel 3:23)’

In JBA, ‘the two of them’ has a different form, with a –w– intervening between the stem and the suffix: tre / tren tarwe / tarway trwyhw

‘two’ ‘the two of’ ‘the two of them (PesaȖim 3b)’

Such forms also are found occasionally in Classical Mandaic: 21 tartuinun tartuinan

‘both of them’ ‘both of us’

In NENA, some dialects have this same infixed –w–:

tũrwanté tréwehũn tirwΩxun tũ‫ڟ‬rwenan / tũrwáҧnenan

‘the two of them’ ‘both of them’ ‘the two of you’ ‘the two of us’

Jilu (Fox 1997: 67) Umra (Hobrack 2000: 170) Jewish Zakho (Sabar 2002: 312) Qaraqosh (Khan 2002: 224)

Maclean (1895: 69) cites such forms for a number of other dialects. These forms represent another point of resemblance between NENA and

21

Macuch ( 1965: 232) wonders if these forms may be simply a misreading.

NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC AND THE MIDDLE ARAMAIC DIALECTS

13

JBA. However, there are other NENA dialects which attach pronominal suffixes to the number ‘two’ without and –w–:

tírnu ‘the two of them’

Jewish Sulemaniyya (Khan 2004: 205)

8. ‘LIKE’ The NENA preposition meaning ‘like’ has a striking alternation in some dialects. Rather like the case of ‘two of’ mentioned above, the form with pronominal suffixes has an affix –waҧ which intervenes between the preposition and the suffix. ax axwái ‫ܥ‬ax ‫ܥ‬axwáҧi mox moxwasox

‘like’ ‘like me’ ‘like’ ‘like me’ ‘like’ ‘like you’

Jilu Qaraqosh (Khan 2002: 231) Jewish Zakho (Yona 1999: 235)

It is striking that in several dialects on the Western perimeter of the NENA area there is a different, probably unrelated, word xũn for ‘like’. However, this word has a similar alternation: Ȗen Ȗenwatew xũn xũnxwoti Ȗũn Ȗũnwatan

‘like’ ‘like him’ ‘like’ ‘like me’ ‘like’ ‘like us’

Hertevin (Jastrow 1988: 189) Bohtan Umra (Hobrack 2000:130)

Further, a similar word and alternation are found in Ӆuroyo, a bit farther to the West:

xũd-‫ܥ‬alóho xtóҧe

‘like God’ ‘like him’

In Turoyo and Bohtan, the long a of the suffix has become o. Further, in Turoyo the w of the suffix has been elided. In Bohtan the x of the preposition has been duplicated between the preposition and the suffix. On the other hand, in Tkhuma the pronominal suffix must be attached to d- ‘of’: aǪ dɦji

‘like me’

Tkhuma (Jacobi 1973: 227)

Still other dialects, such as Jewish Azerbaijan, use entirely different words to express this idea:

SAMUEL ETHAN FOX

14

magon magon magonew

‘like’ ‘like’ ‘like him’

Jewish Azerbaijan (Garbell 1965: 318) Jewish Koy Sanjaq (Mutzafi 2004: 177)

Among the MA dialects, we find a similar alternation in Syriac: ax axw&te

‘like’ ‘like him’

(Muraoka 1997: 39)

On the other hand, in JBA and Mandaic we find only forms with –w&tand a pronominal suffix. There is no alternate form without a suffix. In this case, most NENA dialects seem most closely related to Syriac, rather than to JBA or Mandaic.

9. CONCLUDING REMARKS Having surveyed a number of different criteria, we are now in a position to summarize our results. In the cases we have considered, does the evidence suggest that the proto-language was similar to Syriac, to JBA, or to neither? Section

Topic

Closer to

1.1. 1.2.

Imperative plural suffix First person singular possessive suffix

Syriac JBA

2. 3.

Attachment of plural pronominal suffixes Pa‫ܡܡ‬el passive participle

JBA JBA

4. 5.

Pũ‫ܡ‬al infinitive Pa‫ܡܡ‬el infinitive

Neither JBA

6. 7.

Present marker ‘The two of them’

JBA JBA

8.

‘Like’

Syriac

In six cases the Proto-NENA form must have been closer to JBA, in two it was closer to Syriac, and in one the development is entirely separate. Overall, the morphological criteria indicate that Proto-NENA, while it was not identical to either JBA or Syriac, was closer to the former than to the latter. This result is not surprising, given the locations where JBA and Syriac were recorded. Syriac was the dialect of Edessa, modern-day Sanliurfa, which is located in southern Turkey, well to the West of the Ӆuroyo-

NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC AND THE MIDDLE ARAMAIC DIALECTS

15

speaking area, and more than 300 kilometers from the western edge of the area in which NENA dialects were spoken prior to 1915. 22 While the Talmudic academies in which JBA was recorded were no closer to the modern NENA speaking area, they were to the South, rather than the West. The lines of communication from North to South along the Euphrates were likely always much easier than those leading overland from Edessa to Bohtan and the districts farther East. Therefore, the dialects of Aramaic spoken on the Moҁul plain could be expected to be more similar to those of Sura and Pumbedita than to those spoken around Edessa.

REFERENCES Boyarin, D. 1981. “An Inquiry into the Formation of the Middle Aramaic Dialects.” In Bono Homini Donum, Essays in Historical Linguistics in Memory of J. Alexander Kerns, edited by Y. L. Arbeitman and A. R. Bomhard, eds, Part II, 613–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Brockelmann, C. 1908. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. Vol. 1. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard. Epstein, J. N. 1960. A Grammar of Babylonian Aramaic. In Hebrew. Jerusalem: Magnes. Fox, S. E. 1994. “The Relationship of the Eastern Neo-Aramaic Dialects.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 114: 154–62. ———. 1997. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Jilu. Semitica Viva 16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Garbell, I. 1965. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Persian Azerbaijan: Linguistic Analysis and Folkloristic Texts. The Hague: Mouton. Hetzron, R. 1969. “The Morphology of the Verb in Modern Syriac (Christian Colloquial of Urmi).” Journal of the American Oriental Society 89: 112–27. ———. 1976. “Two Principles of Genetic Reconstruction.” Lingua 38: 89– 108. Hoberman, R. D. 1988. “The history of the Modern Aramaic Pronouns and Pronominal Suffixes.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 108: 557–75.

22

Starting in the 1930’s many NENA speakers settled in the Khabur valley, far closer to Sanliurfa.

16

SAMUEL ETHAN FOX

———. 1989. The Syntax and Semantics of Verb Morphology in Modern Aramaic: A Jewish Dialect of Iraqi Kurdistan. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Hobrack, S. 2000. Der neuaramäische Dialekt von Umra (Dereköyü), Lautund Formenlehre – Texte – Glossar. Unpublished Masters thesis. Friedrich-Alexander-Universität, Erlangen–Nürnberg. Jastrow, O. 1988. Der neuostaramäische Dialekt von Hertevin (Provinz Siirt). Semitica Viva 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Jacobi, H. 1973. Grammatik des thumischen Neuaramäisch (Nordostsyrien). Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. Khan, G. 2002. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Qaraqosh. Leiden: Brill. ———. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Suleimaniyya and ɂalabja. Leiden: Brill. Krotkoff, G. 1982. A Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Kurdistan: Texts, Grammar, and Vocabulary. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Kutscher, E. Y. 1977. “ 43) 7!)4 %6 )%7 !% .” In '!43) 7!)4 7!4- , edited by Z. Ben-Hayyim, A. Dotan and G. Sarfatti, 226–55. Jerusalem: Magnes. Maclean, A. J. 1895. Grammar of the Dialects of Vernacular Syriac. Cambridge: University Press. Macuch, R. 1965. Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co. Morag, S. 1988. Babylonian Aramaic: The Yemenite Tradition. In Hebrew. Jerusalem: Ben Zvi Institute. ———. 2001. The Traditions of Hebrew and Aramaic of the Jews of Yemen. In Hebrew. Jerusalem: Afikim. Muraoka, T. 1997. Classical Syriac, A Basic Grammar with a Chrestomathy. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Mutzafi, H. 2000. “The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Maha Khtaya D-Baz, Phonology, Morphology, and Texts.” Journal of Semitic Studies 45: 293-322. ———. 2002. “Barzani Jewish Neo-Aramaic and its Dialects.” Mediterranean Language Review 14: 41-70. ———. 2004. “Features of the Verbal System in the Christian Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Koy Sanjaq and their Areal Parallels.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 124: 249–64. Nöldeke, T. 1868. Grammatik der Neusyrischen Sprache. Leipzig: T. O. Weigel. ———. 1880. Kurzgefasste Syrische Grammatik. Leipzig: T. O. Weigel. Panoussi, E. 1990. “On the Senaya Dialect.” In Studies in Neo- Aramaic, edited by W. Heinrichs W. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC AND THE MIDDLE ARAMAIC DIALECTS

17

Rosenthal, F. 1974. A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Rubba, J. E. 1993. Discontinuous Morphology in Modern Aramaic. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Sabar, Y. 2002. A Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dictionary, Dialects of Amidya, Dihok, Nerwa and Zakho, northwestern Iraq. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Sinha, J. 2000. Der neuostaramäische Dialekt von Bespoen (Provinz Mardin, Südosttürkei). Eine grammatische Darstellung. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Von Soden, W. 1969. Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik. Rome: Pontificum Institutum Biblicum. Sokoloff, M. 2002. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan. Stoddard, D. T. 1856. “Grammar of the Modern Syriac Language as Spoken in Oroomiah, Persia, and in Koordistan.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 5: 1–180a-h. Talay, S. 2001. “Grammatikalische Anmerkungen und Texte zum neuaraäischen Dialekt von Nerwa (Nordirak).” Mediterranean Language Review 13: 1–37. Wright, W. 1967. A Grammar of the Arabic Language. 3rd edition. Cambridge: University Press. Yona, M. 1999. *%!) !)4 – !4# – !4- . Jerusalem: Grafit.

THE NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF SAT (HAKKÂRI, TURKEY)

1

HEZY MUTZAFI Sat (s&t), today called ʝkiyaka, was a large Assyrian village situated in a valley at the foot of the Sat Daǧ mountain range in the Ottoman province of Hakkâri, just two kilometres North of the present Iraqi border, nine kilometres South-East of the large Kurdish village of Oramar (now officially called Daǧlıca) and roughly twenty kilometres South-East of the district of Jilu. 2 My informants recounted that in its heyday on the eve of the First World War Sat was a conglomerate of seven neighbourhoods, formerly contiguous small villages, each with its own church. 3 There is no mention of a Neo-Aramaic dialect unique to the village of Sat in any known source, and scarcely anything about the Assyrians who lived there (the satnaye). 4 The latter were peasants living in a state of serf-

1

Notes on transcription: Stress is penultimate unless indicated otherwise. Emphatic words are indicated by a preceding superscript plus sign, e.g. +wana ‘ewe’. Apart from the short vowel phoneme ũ, the phonemes i, e, a, o and u are generally short in closed syllables and open unstressed final ones, and long otherwise, as in ybešlutun [ybešlu:tun] ‘you (pl.) cook’, šodrile [šodri:le] ‘he sent them’, qaroya [qa:ro:ya] ‘cock’, xe [xe:] ‘one’, ktu [ktu:] ‘write (sg.)!’, mini [mi:ni] ‘who?’ A few cases of long vowels in closed syllables are indicated by a macron, e.g. štӣn ‘drink (pl.)!’ In historical forms, however, long vowels are always indicated by a macron. 2 For the geography of the area of Sat and Sat Daǧ together with photographs see Dickson (1910: 360, 371–75). 3 The churches of Sat were called Mar Mari, Mar Giwargis, Marta, Mat Maryam, Mar Lazar, Mar Adday and Mat Laqalayta. 4 The first mention of the Christians of Sat known to me goes back to 1610, in which time Sat was a bishopric of the Ancient Church of the East; see Wilmshurst

20

HEZY MUTZAFI

dom under the yoke of Kurdish feudal lords. The satnaye were mostly Nestorians, but in the second half of the nineteenth century some of them embraced Catholicism. 5 It was one of the very few successes of the Catholic Church in Hakkâri, whose Christian inhabitants remained overwhelmingly loyal to the Ancient Church of the East. By the beginning of the twentieth century Sat has been partly inhabited by Kurds of the local Herki tribe. In 1915 Sat was ravaged as part of a general onslaught of Kurdish forces loyal to the Ottoman regime against their Assyrian neighbours. Those of the satnaye who were not massacred fled for their lives with the other Assyrian refugees of Hakkâri, and after a long period of wandering and persecutions, in which yet more satnaye perished, they arrived in 1918 in Iraq and were later on scattered and resettled by the British authorities in villages in the province of Moҁul. A British military report of 1933 counts only forty families from Sat, 6 and since then intermarriage with non-Sati Assyrians and the effect of other Christian NENA dialects and the koine that gained currency among the Assyrians in Iraq 7 took their toll, so that today very few reliable speakers of the dialect remain, and it seems that even the most competent of them cannot furnish good narratives in their ancestral dialect. There are, however, Sat speakers from whom quite accurate grammatical and lexical data can readily be retrieved. Such are my Sat informants, who now live in Chicago, and were recorded during fieldwork I carried out there in 2001. A few phonological, morphological and lexical traits of the hitherto entirely unknown Neo-Aramaic dialect of Sat are given in what follows:

(2000: 278, 287, 300). The English traveller William Ainsworth (1842, II: 285), who visited the area in 1840 mentioned “Sati” in a list of so-called “Chaldean tribes.” Likewise, most of the later travellers, such as the British military attaché in Van, Captain B. Dickson (1910: 374), merely mentioned the existence Christians in Sat. The Anglican missionary Wigram (1922: 160–61), who visited the village in the beginning of the twentieth century, remarked on the quarrelsome nature of its inhabitants. 5 According to one source, in 1913 there were 300 adherents of the Chaldean Catholic Church in Sat, with one priest and one church; see Wilmshurst (2000: 283284). 6 See Blay (1976: 69). 7 For this Neo-Aramaic koine see Odisho (1988: 19ff.).

THE NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF SAT (HAKKÂRI, TURKEY)

21

1. PHONOLOGICAL FEATURES 1.1. Word-emphasis As in some other Christian NENA dialects of Hakkâri, such as Jilu and Baz, and as in the Christian dialects of the districts of Urmi and Salamas in Iran, Sat exhibits word-embracing pharyngalization. Minimal pairs involving emphatic versus plain words are given below: + bũzza ‘hole’ (*bez‫)> &ܡ‬ (*Ȗ&Ǫt& >*Ȗa‫ܡ‬ta >) +xata ‘mesquite’ 8 + sawa ‘thirst’ (*ҁahw& >)

: : :

(*bezz& >) (*Ȗ&t& >) (*s&¤& >)

bũzza ‘breast’ xata ‘sister’ sawa ‘old man’

Word-emphasis is regularly triggered by an etymological pharyngal ‫ܡ‬, including ‫ < ܡ‬Ǫ, or emphatic ҁ, Ҩ, but there are cases of word-emphasis without these historical consonants, primarily in words with a liquid consonant l or r, e.g. (*‫&˘ܥ‬l& >) +xala ‘food’, (*qć&l& >) +dala (sic) ‘neck’, (*marr& >) + mera ‘spade, hoe’, (*mbaddΩrŖ >) +bodore ‘to spill’.

1.2. The Diphthongs aw and ay An archaic phonological feature of Sat is the retention of both historical diphthongs aw (including aw deriving from *a¤) and ay, as in the following examples: aw: tawra ‘ox’, mawta ‘death’, zawga ‘pair’, sawta (< *sa¤t&) ‘old woman’. ay: tray ‘two’, bayta ‘house, home’, layle ‘night’, zayta ‘olive; olive tree’.

1.3. Raising of a to e One of the phonological hallmarks of Sat is the vowel raising a > e, most notably preceding historical gemination. The phonetic background of this raising is yet to be accounted for.

8

To be precise, Syrian mesquite (Prosopis fracta), a plant with edible pods.

HEZY MUTZAFI

22

1.3.1. Raising a > e preceding historical gemination Whenever the vowel a preceded a geminated consonant, it was raised to e. The latter vowel was lengthened with the simplification of gemination and subsequent opening of the closed syllable. A few examples from the nominal system are given below: *Ȗaҧҧ& 9 *kakk& 10 *Ȗaҁҁ& 11 *bratt& 12 *šappɦr& *šarrӣҧ& 13 *madd&l&

> > > > > > >

*xett& *kekk& *xeҁҁ& *brett& *šeppɦr& * šerrӣҧ& *medd&l&

> > > > > > >

xeta ‘new’ (vs. *Ȗ&ҧ& > xata ‘sister’) keka ‘tooth’ + xesa ‘back’ breta ‘daughter’ šepira ‘beautiful’ šeruta ‘lunch’ medala ‘centipede’

In the verbal system this process has occurred in the neo-pa‫ܡܡ‬el stem (stem II), e.g. in *mbaššel > *mbeššũl > bešũl ‘he might cook’, and likewise throughout the paradigm: bešla ‘she might cook’, bešlax ‘we might cook’, etc. The vowel e in neo-pa‫ܡܡ‬el forms such as bešũl distinguishes this stem from neo-pũ‫ܡ‬al (stem I), which has an initial vowel a, as in the following minimal pairs: Neo-pũ‫ܡ‬al (stem I)

Neo-pa‫ܡܡ‬el (stem II)

bašũl + palũt basũm

+

‘it might be cooked’ ‘he might go out’ ‘he might recuperate’

bešũl pelũt besũm

‘he might cook’ ‘he might take out’ ‘he might heal, cure’

There are only three known exceptions for the rule of raising preceding gemination: *rabb& *qašš& *šamm&š& 9

> > >

+

raba qaša šamaša

‘many, much, very’ ‘priest’ ‘deacon’

Historically derived from *Ȗaćũҧ&; cf. Neo-Mandaic h&ҧҧa ‘new’ (Macuch 1993:

384). 10

Cf. Neo-Mandaic kakk& ‘molar tooth’ (Macuch 1965: 511b). Cf. Western Neo-Aramaic Ȗaҁҁa (Arnold 2006: 83), Neo-Mandaic haҁҁa (Macuch 1965: 492b). 12 Cf. Neo-Mandaic baratta (Macuch 1965: 499a) and variants such as beratta (Macuch 1993: 371). 13 Cf. šarrӣҧa in the Western Neo-Aramaic dialect of Jubb‫ܡ‬adɦn (Arnold 1990: 357). 11

THE NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF SAT (HAKKÂRI, TURKEY)

23

It is due to the influence of other Christian dialects, and in the case of qaša and šamaša in all likelihood also the influence of the partly non-local clergy of Sat (see §1.4. below), that the expected forms *+reba, *qeša and *šemaša did not come into being, or were replaced by the current forms.

1.3.2. Raising a > e in neo-‫ܥ‬aph‫ܡ‬el and quadriradical verbs The vowel raising a > e occurs also in neo-‫ܥ‬aph‫ܡ‬el (stem III) and quadriradical verbs by analogy with neo-pa‫ܡܡ‬el. Examples: *m&lep *mad˘er *mšarbeҨ

> > >

melũp metxũr + šerbet

‘he might teach’ ‘he might remind’ ‘he might whip’

1.3.3. Raising a > e in non-geminated nominals The vowel raising under consideration occurs in the nominal system also in quite a few cases where no gemination was involved. These cases are almost exclusively nominals of the pattern *C1aC2C3a > C1eC2C3a, e.g. in *garm& > germa ‘bone’ by analogy with geminated nouns of the pattern *C1aC2C2a > *C1eC2C2a, such as (*qarn& >) *qenna > qena ‘horn’. Further examples: *qamx& *talg& *Ȗamš& *kalb& *ga¤r&

> > > > >

qemxa telga xemša kelba gewra

‘flour’ ‘snow’ ‘five’ ‘dog’ ‘man, husband’

There are also three attested cases where the historical pattern is other than *C1aC2C2a: *Ȗać > *xa *kҧ&¤& *‫ܡ‬arҧ&

> > >

‘one’ 14 ‘letter, book’ ‘co-wife’

xe ktewa + ‫ܥ‬erta

1.4. Reflexes of *Ȗ The regular reflex of *Ȗ is x, as in: *mešȖ& *šl&Ȗ&

14

> >

mũšxa šlaxa

‘oil; liquid butter’ ‘to take off (clothes)’

As in Jilu xe ‘one, m.’ (Fox 1997: 66, 147).

HEZY MUTZAFI

24

*Ȗurg&

>

xurga

‘stepson’

A marginal reflex of *Ȗ is h, which is restricted to a few classicisms: *mšɦȖ& *šlɦȖ& *maćũbȖ&

> > >

mšiha šliha madũbha

‘Christ’ ‘apostle’ ‘altar’

This aberrant change of *Ȗ to h has most probably arisen as an imperfect imitation of the pronunciation of Chaldean priests from the area of Moҁul who (according to an informant) served the local Catholic proselytes of Sat. The Chaldean priests pronounced mšiȖa, šliȖa, maćũbȖa, whereas the Sat speakers who tried to imitate the clergy substituted Ȗ, which is not part of the phonetic inventory of the dialect, with h. The treatment of Ȗ in these classical words is as in Arabic loanwords, e.g. Arab. Ȗky > Sat hoqoye ‘to speak’.

1.5. Reflexes of *‫ܡ‬ The classical Aramaic pharyngal *‫ ܡ‬has the following reflexes in Sat: A. ‫ ܥ‬in word-initial position preceding a vowel and as a first radical in verbal forms, preceding a vowel, as in: *‫ܡ‬attɦq& *b‫ܡ‬Ŗ d-‫&ܡ‬req

> >

‫ܥ‬etiqa + b‫ܥ‬arũq

‘ancient, old’ ‘he will run, flee’

B. y inter-vocalically, as in: *dr&‫&ܡ‬ *š‫ܡ‬o‫&ܡ‬

> >

+

draya + Òoya

‘arm’ 15 ‘smooth’

C. *‫ ܡ‬was fully assimilated to a preceding non-initial consonant, as in: *peq‫ &ܡ‬16 *‫ܥ‬el‫&ܡ‬

> >

+

pũqqa ‫ܥ‬ũlla

+

‘frog’ ‘rib'

15 A shift of *‫ ܡ‬to y is difficult to be accounted for on phonetic grounds only. Perhaps it was, rather, initially an elision of ‫ ܡ‬followed by the intrusion of y as a glide in the plural form only, viz. *dra‫ܡ‬e > *drae > +draye, whilst the singular form *+dr&a acquired its y by analogy with the plural form. Compare Sabar (2002: 144b): dra‫ܥ‬a ‘yard, cubit’, pl. dra‫ܥ‬e, draye. 16 This word is attested in late Syriac (Brockelmann 1928: 590a), quite possibly as an intrusion from the vernacular, cf. Qaraqosh as pũq‫ܡ‬a (Khan 2002: 740a), Hertevin pũq‫ܥ‬a (informant).

THE NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF SAT (HAKKÂRI, TURKEY)

*Ҩ&l‫ܡ‬ɦn

>

+

talli

25

‘they might fall asleep

D. *‫ ܡ‬was fully assimilated to a preceding r, yielding rr, which was later degeminated. All known cases are of the pattern *Car‫&ܡ‬: *‫ܥ‬ar‫&ܡ‬ *tar‫&ܡ‬ *kar‫&ܡ‬

> > >

*+‫ܥ‬arra *+tarra *karra

> > >

*+‫ܥ‬erra *+terra *kerra

> +‫ܥ‬era > +tera > kera

‘land, soil’ ‘door’ ‘butter’

E. *‫ ܡ‬was elided in all other positions: *‫ܡ‬zΩl *b‫ܡ‬Ŗleh *ta‫ܡ‬l& *z&re‫ܡ‬

> > > >

+

zol bele + tala + zare

‘spin (yarn)!’ ‘he wanted; loved’ ‘fox’ ‘he might sow’

+

1.6. Reflexes of *Ǫ The classical Aramaic consonant *Ǫ merged with *‫ ܡ‬already in Proto-NENA and its reflexes in Sat are identical with those of *‫( ܡ‬see §1.5. above), as in the following instances: *sy&Ǫ& *n&rǪ& *lǪint& *šǪ&š& *t&Ǫt&

*+sy&‫&ܡ‬ *+nar‫&ܡ‬ *+l‫ܡ‬ũnt& *+š‫&ܡ‬š& *+ta‫ܡ‬t&

> > > > >

> > > > >

+

syaya nerra > +nera + lũnta + šaša + tata +

‘fence, hedge’ ‘axe’ ‘vat’ ‘to shake (tr., intr.)’ ‘cock’s comb’ 17

The consonant Ǫ is marginally retained in a small number of vernacularized classicisms: *paǪr& *šǪušy& *sǪ&ć&

> > >

paǪra žǪušya sǪada

‘body’ 18 ‘turmoil’ 19 ‘to worship’

17 For the origin of +tata from *t&Ǫt&, an unattested f. form of classical Aramaic t&Ǫ& ‘crown’, see Mutzafi (2005: 96-97) and consider also the Alqosh cognate form ta‫ܥ‬a, from t&Ǫ&. 18 Cf. the use of paǪra restricted to religious or sacred context in Alqosh and other Christian NENA dialects of the plain of Moҁul, against the use of gušma for ‘body’ in general in these dialects, and see Coghill (2003: 20), where the word paǪra is correctly identified as a classicism. 19 A doublet of +š&ša ‘to shake’ above.

HEZY MUTZAFI

26

2. MORPHOLOGICAL FEATURES 2.1. Independent Pronouns Person

singular

plural

1 2 3

‫ܥ‬ana ‫ܥ‬eti ~ ‫ܥ‬etũn m. ‫ܥ‬awũn, f. ‫ܥ‬ayũn

‫ܥ‬axni ‫ܥ‬axtun ‫ܥ‬ani

The 3sg. forms and the longer alternant of the 2sg. form exhibit an augmented ending ũn, which is not part of the etyma of these pronouns. The processes that gave rise the Sat 3sg. forms appear to be as follows: 20 *‫&ܥ‬hu > *‫&ܥ‬hi >

*‫&ܥ‬w + *‫&ܥ‬y +

-ũn -ũn

> >

Sat Sat

‫ܥ‬awũn ‫ܥ‬ayũn

‘he’ ‘she’

The most intriguing pronoun is ‫ܥ‬eti. One might be tempted to assume that it is a reflex of the classical Aramaic 2sg. feminine form ‫ܥ‬atti, so that, prima facie, the Sat form ‫ܥ‬eti seems to be extremely archaic in preserving the final vowel i which was lost already in classical Eastern Aramaic, namely in Syriac, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and Mandaic. I would rather suggest a less transparent, yet more plausible etymology, whereby the Sat pronoun ‫ܥ‬eti is related to Jilu ‫ܥ‬Ŗt, which is derived from ‫ܥ‬ayũt. 21 The history of the Jilu 2sg.c. independent pronoun ‫ܥ‬Ŗt and the parallel Sat form ‫ܥ‬eti can be summarized as follows, based on links attested in various NENA dialects: Phase 1: The common 2sg. form *‫ܥ‬at(t) splits according to gender into m. ‫ܥ‬ahũt and f. ‫ܥ‬ahat by analogy with ‫ܥ‬ahu ‘he’, ‫ܥ‬ahi ‘she’ and the verbal inflectional endings -ũt for the 2sg.m. and -at for the 2sg.f. 22 Phase 2: The forms ‫ܥ‬ahũt and ‫ܥ‬ahat develop into ‫ܥ‬ayũt and ‫ܥ‬ayat, respectively, with a glide instead of the glottal fricative h. 20

The postulated antecedent forms are still preserved in various conservative NENA dialects, e.g. ‫ܥ‬ahu and ‫ܥ‬ahi in Hertevin (Jastrow 1988: 22), Qaraqosh (Khan 2002: 75) and Belatha-Ӆyare, and ‫&ܥ‬w, ‫&ܥ‬y in Ko-Ӆyare. 21 See Fox (1997: 41). 22 For these endings, shared by virtually all NENA dialects, see §2.6.

THE NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF SAT (HAKKÂRI, TURKEY)

27

Phase 3: The forms ‫ܥ‬ayũt and ‫ܥ‬ayat converge phonetically into ‫ܥ‬ayt > ‫ܥ‬Ŗt, the form attested in Jilu. Phase 4: In Sat the form ‫ܥ‬Ŗt was lengthened to ‫ܥ‬eti by a process of metanalysis when a copula was attached to the pronoun, as follows: ‫ܥ‬ét-iwũt > ‫ܥ‬éti-wũt ‘you (m.) are’, ‫ܥ‬ét-iwat > ‫ܥ‬éti-wat ‘you (f.) are’. 23

2.2. Pronominal Suffixes Person

Singular m.

1 2 3

c. -i

-ox -ew

Plural f. -an -oxũn -ũn

-ax -aw

2.3. Demonstrative Pronouns

Attributive/ Independent: Attributive:

Proximate deixis

Distant deixis

sg.m sg.f.

pl.c.

sg.m. sg.f.

pl.c.

da

na

wo

yo

ne

‫ܥ‬aw

‫ܥ‬ay

‫ܥ‬an

da

Demonstrative pronouns used attributively are usually prefixed and bear the primary stress of the compound. Examples for the employment of attributive/independent demonstrative pronouns: dá-xurta ‘this poplar tree’, da míni-le? ‘who is this?’; yó-baxta +tummoho ‘that woman over there’, yo + tummoho ‘that one over there’. The distant attributive demonstrative pronouns are anaphoric or refer to absent objects: ‫ܥ‬áw-našũd qamxazelan tũmmal ‘that man whom we saw yesterday’. The form da is ostensibly very unusual in the linguistic landscape of local Christian NENA dialects, but, in fact, it is very much related to the paral-

23

Cf. the same metanalysis in the Sat interrogative daxi ‘how’, from *dáx-ile ‘how is he?’, *dáx-iwũt ‘how are you?’ etc. > dáxi-le, dáxi-wũt etc.

HEZY MUTZAFI

28

lel demonstrative pronoun form ‫ܥ‬aha or ‫ܥ‬a in neighbouring dialects such as Jilu, Gawar, Baz and Dez. The Sat form da clearly combines the relative particle d- and the demonstrative ‫ܥ‬a. Consider the fact that in all dialects which evince the demonstrative pronoun a (or ‫ܥ‬aha), the latter is prefixed by dafter a preposition, as in mũn d-a geba ‘from this side’. In Sat the form da (< *d-a) 24 became lexicalized and is no longer restricted to a post-prepositional position. The distant deixis pronouns wo, yo and ne have probably developed from forms such as the ones attested in Baz: ‫ܥ‬awá, ‫ܥ‬ayá and ‫ܥ‬ané, which have presumably undergone aphaeresis of the first syllable and then vowel rounding as regards the former two forms.

2.4. Verbal Stems and Inflectional Bases Stem I (Neo-pũ‫ܡ‬al) Stem II (Neo-pa‫ܡܡ‬el) Stem III (Neo-‫ܥ‬aph‫ܡ‬el) P: Pt: S: O: I:

ptũxptixa patũx ptox ptaxa

šodũršodra šedũr šedũr šodore

motxũrmotxũrra metxũr metxũr motxore

In stems II and III the first vowel is o instead of expected e (as in *šaddΩrŖ > *šeddΩrŖ > *šedore) by assimilation to the second vowel.

2.5. L-set Suffixes Person

Singular m.

1 2 3

c.

Plural f.

c.

-lax -la

-lan -loxũn -na, -ũn

-li -lox -le

The unique 3pl. L-set suffix allomorphs -na and -ũn have replaced an ltype suffix such as -lay (as in Baz) by analogy with the 3pl. present copular form -na (see §2.7.) 25 and the 3pl. pronominal suffix -ũn (see §2.2.), respec-

24 Cf. the forms do, de, deyya after prepositions and bound nouns in Jewish Amedia (Hoberman 1989: 196). 25 A similar analogy has occurred independently also in the Christian NENA dialect of Hassane, where preterital bases ending in a vowel or a consonant other than l,

THE NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF SAT (HAKKÂRI, TURKEY)

29

tively. The allomorph -ũn is restricted to verbs with a final radical n, as in zwũnnũn ‘they bought’ and qamzabũnnũn ‘they sold them’, while the allomorph –na occurs elsewhere, as in zũlna ‘they went’, smena ‘they went blind’ and boqũrna ‘they asked’.

2.6. E-set suffixes Person

Singular m. f.

Plural c.

1 2 3

-ũn -ũt -ø

-ax -utun -i

-an -at -a

2.7. Copula Present

Present

Past

Deictic

Past Deictic

negative 1sg.m.

(i)wũn

laywũn

(i)wũnwa

(hay)dowũn

dówũnwa

1sg.f.

(i)wat

laywan

(i)wanwa

(hay)dowan

dówanwa

1pl.

(i)wax

laywax

(i)waxwa

(hay)dowax

dówaxwa

2sg.m.

(i)wũt

laywũt

(i)wũtwa

(hay)dowũt

dówũtwa

2sg.f.

(i)wat

laywat

(i)watwa

(hay)dowat

dówatwa

2pl.

(i)wutun

láywutun

(i)wútuwa

(hay)dówutun

dowútunwa

3sg.m.

(i)le

layle

(i)wa

(hay)dole

dowa

3sg.f.

(i)la

layla

(i)wa

(hay)dola

dowa

3pl.

(i)na

layna

(i)wa

(hay)dona

dowa

As a rule, the longer i-allomorph of a present or past copular form is attached to a predicate ending in a consonant, whereas the shorter i-less allomorph is attached to a predicate ending in a vowel: xéwran-ile ‘he is our friend’, +mũ‫ڟ‬rya-le ‘he is ill’, mátũn-iwa ‘it was their village’, máti-wa ‘it was my village’. The deictic copula is used both as an auxiliary in present perfect and present progressive constructions (see §2.9. below) and also as an inde-

n, r take the 3pl. L-set suffix form -ne, as in ittüne ‘they sat’ (Jastrow 1997: 279) by analogy with the 3pl. present copula form -ne.

30

HEZY MUTZAFI

pendent presentative particle, as in haydola qam +aynux ‘here she is in front of your eyes!’

2.8. The Tense-Mood-Aspect (TMA) system Sat displays a largely symmetric TMA system of basic tenses and past derivations: Basic TMA categories

Past TMA categories

Preterite

Plupreterite

nšũqle ‘he kissed’

nšũ‫ڟ‬qwale ‘he had kissed’

Present perfect

Past perfect

ha-nšíqa ~ (hay)dole nšiqa ‘he has kissed’ t-ile nšiqa ‘who has kissed’

dowa nšiqa ‘he had kissed’ t-iwa nšiqa ‘who had kissed’

Jussive-subjunctive

Past subjunctive

našũq ‘he might kiss’

našũqwa ‘he might have kissed’

Present

Habitual Past

ynašũq ‘he kisses’

ynašũqwa ‘he used to kiss’

Future

Past prospective

bnašũq ‘he will kiss’

bnašũqwa ‘he would have kissed’

Present progressive

Past progressive

ha-bbũnšáqa ~ (hay)dole bũnšaqa ‘he is kissing’ t-ile bũnšaqa ‘who is (m.) kissing’

dowa bũnšaqa ‘he was kissing’ t-iwa bũnšaqa ‘who was (m.) kissing’

Imperative nšoq ‘kiss (sg.)!’ The present perfect with the presentative particle ha occurs only in the 3rd person: ha-+xíla ‘he has eaten’, kawdũnti ha-gnúta ‘my mule has been (and is) stolen’, ‫ܥ‬aqlatew ha-zíre ‘his legs are swollen’. In the present progressive the particle ha is used for all persons: +baloti +ha-bbũmráya ‘my throat is aching’, ‫ܥ‬axni +ha-bbũzdáya ‘we are afraid’. In all tenses involving a copula, when the verbal form is part of a relative clause, the only copula possible is

THE NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF SAT (HAKKÂRI, TURKEY)

31

the non-deictic present or past copula (e.g. -ile, -iwa) following t-, an allomorph of the relative particle d-, as in né-bnate t-ina bũrqada tama ‘those girls who are dancing there’, qamó lá-mũrrux qayi t-iwũtwa kpina? ‘why didn’t you tell me that you were hungry?’ Likewise, after interrogative particles the only copula possible is the non-deictic one, e.g. mini le mũxyux ‘who has beaten you?’, modi wa bzobone? ‘what was he selling?’. The imperative is inflected as follows: sg. pl.

-C: ‘kiss!’

III-w ‘write!’

III-y ‘drink!’

nšoq nšuqun

ktu ktӣn

m. šti, f. štay štӣn

The III-w pl. form ktӣn has developed from *ktuwun (< *kҧӣ¤un). The III-y pl. form štӣn was introduced by analogy with the III-w pl. form and supplanted the older form štaw (still preserved in certain NENA dialects, e.g. Belatha-Ӆyare).

2.9. I-‫ ܥ‬and I-‫* < ܥ‬I-‫ ܡ‬weak verbs Historically first ‫ ܥ‬weak verbs evince a vowel raising a > e in inflections of base S. Examples: ‫ܥ‬ezũl ‘he might go’ ‫ܥ‬emũr ‘he might say’ + ‫ܥ‬exũl ‘he might eat’

y‫ܥ‬ezũl ‘he goes’ y‫ܥ‬emũr ‘he says’ + y‫ܥ‬exũl ‘he eats’

b‫ܥ‬ezũl ‘he will go’ b‫ܥ‬emũr ‘he will say’ + b‫ܥ‬exũl ‘he will eat’

This vowel raising does not apply to I-‫ ܥ‬verbs with a historical first radical ‫ܡ‬, as in: ‫ܥ‬awũd ‘he might do’ + ‫ܥ‬awũr ‘he might enter’ + ‫ܥ‬arũq ‘he might run’

y‫ܥ‬awũd ‘he does’ + y‫ܥ‬awũr ‘he enters’ + y‫ܥ‬arũq ‘he runs’

b‫ܥ‬awũd ‘he will do’ + b‫ܥ‬awũr ‘he will enter’ + b‫ܥ‬arũq ‘he will run’

An exception is the historically I-‫ ܥ‬verb +‫ܥ‬-s-r ‘to tie’, which exhibits no vowel raising, thus, e.g., +y‫ܥ‬asũr ‘he ties’. In all other inflectional bases original I-‫ ܡ‬verbs have completely merged with I-‫ ܥ‬verbs: ‫ܥ‬-m-r (< *‫ܥ‬-m-r) ‘to say’: mũrre ‘he said’, dole mira ‘he has said’, dole mara ‘he is saying’, mor ‘say!’ +

‫ܥ‬-w-r (< *‫ܡ‬-b-r) ‘to enter’: wũrre ‘he entered’, dole +wira ‘he has entered’, dole +wara ‘he is entering’, + wor ‘enter!’ +

32

HEZY MUTZAFI

2.10. II-y and II-w verbs These verbs behave as strong verbs, except for the II-y imperative forms. Thus in the verbs m-y-t ‘to die’ and š-w-q ‘to leave’: mũtle ‘he died’, haydole mita ‘he is dead’, haydola mũtta ‘she is dead’, mayũt ‘he might die’, mayta ‘she might die’, mot, mutun ‘die!’, haydole bũmyata ‘he is dying’; šwũqle ‘he left’, dole šwiqa ‘he has or is left’, dola šwũqta ‘she has or is left’, yšawũq ‘he leaves’, yšawqa ‘she leaves’, šwoq, šwuqun ‘leave!’, dole bũšwaqa ‘he is leaving’.

2.11. III-y and III-y < *III-‫ ܡ‬weak verbs: Historically III-y and III-‫ ܡ‬verbs coalesced in all inflectional bases other than S: x-z-y (< *Ȗ-z-y) ‘to see’: xzele ‘he saw’, dole xũzya, dola xzeta ‘he, she has seen’, dole bũxzaya ‘he is seeing’, xzi, xzay, xzӣn ‘see!’ +

š-m-y (< *š-m-‫‘ )ܡ‬to hear’: šmele ‘he heard’, dole +šũmya ‘he has heard’, dola +šmeta ‘she has heard’, dole +bũšmaya ‘he is hearing’, +šmi, +šmay, +šmӣn ‘hear!’ +

In base S historically III-‫ ܡ‬verbs are distinguished from original III-y verbs by gemination of the second radical: x-z-y : yxaze ‘he sees’, yxazya ‘she sees’, yxazi ‘they see’ +

š-m-y: yšamme ‘he hears’, +yšamma ‘she hears’, +yšammi ‘they hear’

+

The verb ‫ܥ‬-t-y ‘to come’ illustrates both I-‫ ܥ‬and III-y verbs, as in the following forms: tele ‘he came’, téwana ‘they had come’, dole ‫ܥ‬ũtya ‘he has come’, dola teta ‘she has come’, y‫ܥ‬ete ‘he comes’, y‫ܥ‬etya ‘she comes’, dole bitaya ‘he is coming’. The imperative of ‫ܥ‬-t-y is highly irregular and unique: sg. hoyto ‘come!’, pl. hoytun. The Sat form hoyto combines both a reduced form of the innovative imperative hayyo and the old imperative form ta, thus:*hayyota > *hoyta > vowel assimilation: hoyto. The imperative form hayyo is found in a large number of Christian NENA dialects in northern Iraq and as far north as Bohtan and Sarspidho-Ӆyare, both in Turkey, and is

THE NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF SAT (HAKKÂRI, TURKEY)

33

probably related to hayyo and hayya ‘quickly’ in Jewish NENA dialects and to !! ‘quickly’ 26 in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, and possibly also to Arabic hayy& ‘come on!’ The pl. form hoytun has the regular imperative plural ending of the strong verbs, as in šqulun ‘take (pl.)!’

2.12. III-w Weak Verbs Representative inflections of the verb k-t-w ‘to write’ are ktule ‘he wrote’, dole ktiwa ‘he has written; it (m.) is written’, dola ktuta ‘she has written; it (f.) is written’, yk&tu ‘he writes’, ykatwa ‘she writes’, ykatwi ‘they write’, ktu, ktӣn ‘write!’, haydole bũktawa ‘he is writing’.

2.13. Verbs with Object Affixes P-base tenses, viz. the preterite and plupreterite, have suppletive S-base inflections with a prefix qam- and L-set object suffixes, e.g. tolũqle ‘he lost’ ൺ qamtelũqla ‘he lost her’, qamtelũqna ‘he lost them’; tolũ‫ڟ‬qwale ‘he had lost’ ൺ qamtelũ‫ڟ‬qwalux ‘he had lost you’. In the third persons the pronominal object can alternatively be indicated by E-set suffixes incorporated into the P-base conjugation, as in tolqale ‘he lost her’, tolqíwale ‘he had lost them’. S and O-base tenses take L-set object suffixes, as in ygamšana ‘she squeezes them’, gmošna ‘squeeze them!’ Tenses involving a copula, i.e. tenses based on Pt or I, take possessive suffixes as object markers, e.g. haydole +xzidew ‘he has reaped it (m.)’, babi + ha-bbũzráyũn ‘my father is sowing them’.

2.14. Negation of Verbs Verbal inflections of bases P, S and O are negated with a prefixed negation particle lá-, e.g. lá-dogũlle ‘he did not lie’, lá-ydegũl ‘he does not lie’, lá-degũl ~ lá-deglũt ‘do not lie!’. Verbal inflections of bases Pt and I with a present or deictic copula are negated with a preposed negated present copula, e.g. layle šliga ‘he has not plucked’, layla bũšlaga ‘she is not plucking’. These inflections are alternatively negated with a prefixed negation particle lũ‫ڟ‬- with gemination of the following consonant, if this precedes a vowel. The latter type of negation is possible only if the subject is overt, e.g. ‫&ܥ‬wũn lũ‫ڟ‬-bbũšlagew ‘he is not plucking it’, baxti lũ‫ڟ‬-šlũgtũn ‘my wife has not plucked them’. 26

See Sokoloff (2002: 375b).

HEZY MUTZAFI

34

The negation of inflections of bases Pt and I with a past copula involves a preposed negated past copula such as la + iwũnwa > 1sg.m. láywũnwa, la + iwũtwa > 2sg.m. láywũtwa 'you (sg.m) were not', e.g. láywũnwa zobna ‘I (m.) had not sold’, láywa bdogole ‘he/she was not lying; they were not lying’.

3. LEXICAL FEATURES A few noteworthy lexical items characteristic of Sat are presented below:

3.1. ‫ܥ‬ũdra ‘sorghum, durra’ Whereas other known NENA dialects use a Kurdish loanword for this crop, e.g. Betanure xrowiye, Ӆyare xяoяiye (< Kurdish xirovî) 27 , the Sat word ‫ܥ‬ũdra appears to be of Aramaic pedigree. The precursor of this word is likely to be *dr&, an unattested Aramaic cognate of Arabic ćurah. 28

3.2. dũxra ‘ram’ The inherited Aramaic word for ‘ram’ (e.g. Biblical Aramaic *!4 #‰ A ‘rams’) is still preserved in Sat, and similarly in Jilu as +dũxra and in Gawar as +daxra, whereas the vast majority of NENA dialects replaced this word with the adapted loanword barana, from Kurdish beran. 29 The old Semitic denotation of dũxra as ‘male’ is found in the archaizing dialect of Qaraqosh 30 and in oral and written Bible translations of certain Jewish NENA dialects, e.g. Jewish Koy Sanjaq 31 and Jewish Urmi. 32

3.3. syamita, pl. syame ‘traditional heelless shoe’ The etymon of this word is attested in Geonic Jewish Babylonian Aramaic as )!, ‘shoe’, which is related to the verbal root ं ', ( *rũm‫&ܡ‬n& > *rũm&n& > *rm&na > *‫ܥ‬ũrm&na > assimilation of the initial consonant to m > *mũrm&na.

34

See Jastrow (1988: 217). See Fox (1997: 30, 31 and passim). 36 See Leslau (1991: 470b). 35

36

HEZY MUTZAFI

REFERENCES Ainsworth, W. F. 1842. Travels and Researches in Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Chaldea and Armenia. 2 vols. London: J.W. Parker. Arnold, W. 1990. Das Neuwestaramäische, V. Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Arnold, W. 2006. Lehrbuch des Neuwestaramäischen. 2nd edition. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Blay, A. 1976. The Assyrians in Iraq: Their History from Mar Shimun’s Deportation to World War II (August 1933—September 1, 1939). In Hebrew. Unpublished MA thesis, Tel Aviv University. Brockelmann, C. 1928. Lexicon Syriacum. 2nd edition. Halle: Niemeyer. Chyet, M. L. 2003. Kurdish-English Dictionary, Ferhanga Kurmancî-Inglîzî. New Haven: Yale University Press. Coghill, E. 1999. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Alqosh. Unpublished PhD. Dissertation, University of Cambridge. Dickson, B. 1910. “Journeys in Kurdistan.” The Geographical Journal 35/4: 357–78. Fox, S. E. 1997. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Jilu. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hoberman, R. D. 1989. The Syntax and Semantics of Verb Morphology in Modern Aramaic: A Jewish Dialect of Iraqi Kurdistan. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Jastrow, O. 1988. Der neuaramäische Dialekt von Hertevin (Provinz Siirt). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 1997. “Zur neuaramäischen Dialekt von Hassane (Provinz ҝirnak).” In Humanism, Culture and Language in the Near East: Studies in Honor of Georg Krotkoff, edited by A. Afsaruddin and A. H. Mathias Zahniser, 275-81. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Khan, G. 2002. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Qaraqosh. Leiden: Brill. Leslau, W. 1991. Comparative Dictionary of Ge‫ܡ‬ez (Classical Ethiopic). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Maclean, A. J. 1901. Dictionary of the Dialects of Vernacular Syriac. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Macuch, R. 1965. Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic. Berlin: Walter de Gryuter. ———. 1993. Neumandäische Texte im Dialekt von Ahw&z, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Mutzafi, H. 2004. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Koy Sanjaq (Iraqi Kurdistan). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

THE NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF SAT (HAKKÂRI, TURKEY)

37

———. 2005. “Etymological Notes on North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic” Aramaic Studies 3.1: 83-107. Odisho, E. Y. 1988. The Sound System of Modern Assyrian (Neo-Aramaic). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Oraham, A. J. 1943. Dictionary of the Stabilized and Enriched Assyrian Language and English. Chicago: Consolidated Press. Sabar, Y. 2002. A Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dictionary. Dialects of Amidya, Dihok, Nerwa and Zakho, Northwestern Iraq. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Sokoloff, M., 2002. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. Wigram, W. A. and Wigram, E. T. 1922. The Cradle of Mankind: Life in Eastern Kurdistan. 2nd edition. London: A & C Black. Wilmshurst, D. 2000. The Ecclesiastical Organisation of the Church of the East, 1318-1913. Leuven: Peeters. Yeshurun, H. n.d. 6)# !40, 47 7!)4) 743! 7!)4% 7%%3 . Holon.

THE NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECTS OF THE TIYARI ASSYRIANS IN SYRIA: WITH SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THEIR PHONOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SHABO TALAY The term Tiyari is the name of an Assyrian tribe. It was one of the independent “Mountain Nestorian” tribes, which until the First World War used to live in the Hakkari region in the south-eastern area of present-day Turkey. With 51 villages and more than 50,000 members, according to Gabriele Yonan 1 , Tiyari was considered the largest and most powerful among the semi-autonomous Assyrian tribes, known as aširatte. 2 In Hakkari the Tiyari people used to inhabit both sides of the Greater Zab River (Zawa). The tribe was divided into two branches, designated Upper Tiyari (Ӆyare ̈̈eša) and Lower Tiyari (Ӆyare xteša) respectively. Each branch used to be ruled by a chief, known as a mallik, whose power was hereditary. The malliks remained as tribal leaders until the sixties of the twentieth century. Among both branches of the Tiyari there were also sub-tribes, called šawҨe. The chief of these was known as a яayyŨs, who was under the command of the mallik. One of these sub-tribes of Tiyari was WalҨo, which belonged to the Upper Tiyari branch. After the incidents during the First World War in the Hakkari region, almost all Assyrian tribes left their homeland. After a long march as refugees through Iran and Iraq they were settled with without any clear political status in northern Iraq by the British authorities. Their insecure refugee

1 2

Yonan (1989: 213). Some times tribes are also called “mŨllatte.”

SHABO TALAY

40

status and concern about their future role in the newly constituted Iraq forced thousands of Assyrians from different tribes (aširatte and šawҨe) under the leadership of Mallik Yaqo, the chief of Upper Tiyari, to leave Iraq and seek asylum in Syria, which was under the French mandate. In addition to the turbulent political situation in Iraq, the massacre of Assyrian civilians of the region of Simele in 1933 by the new Iraqi Army (parmŨn d-SŨmmele) provided the ultimate motivation to leave Iraq. From 1933 to 1935 about ten thousand were settled in north-eastern Syria in camps, then subsequently in villages on both sides of the Khabur River. About a quarter of these refugees were members of the Tiyari tribe, mostly of the Upper Tiyari branch. The Upper Tiyari people were settled in the town of Tall TammŨя, in the camps of Bnerumta (Arabic: Tall Ӆawɦl) and WalҨo (Tall Naҁri), and in the small hamlets of Tall AȖmar 3 , Tall Ašn&n Šarqi, Tall Ašn&n Ȇarbi 4 . All the new settlements were called camps (Aramaic: kampe). The Tiyari refugees, who were settled in these camps, came originally from different villages and they belonged to different clans. For example, all the people of WalҨo, a big branch of Upper Tiyari, with four large villages in the homeland (XŨdy&n, RešŨnnera, Mat Maryam, SŨrҨa and Šwawuta), were settled in one camp, named WalҨo, which later was given the Arabic name Tall Naҁri. Also some of the members of the Lower Tiyari followed Mallik Yaqo from Iraq to the Khabur area in Syria. These included, among others, all the inhabitants of the large village Sarspido, who belonged to the Lower Tiyari. They were given their own camp called Sarspido, in Arabic: Umm WaǪafa. Other Assyrians from the sphere of influence of the Lower Tiyari, including the people of Halmun and LewŨn, were among settlers in Syria, but these people claim that they do not belong to the Tiyari tribe. Their dialects, moreover, differ in many features from the neighbouring Tiyari dialects. As mentioned above, there are in Syria many dialects from the Tiyari, mainly Upper Tiyari. We can distinguish the following sub-dialects of the Upper Tiyari in Syria: (1) the dialect of Tall TammŨя (Aramaic: TŨll Tammoяe), (2) Bnerumta and (3) WalҨo. The dialect spoken in Tall Ašn&n and Tall AȖmar is exactly the same as that in Tall TammŨя. On the other 3

Tall AȖmar was founded in the 1960s for the farmers who undertook animal husbandry, after this was forbidden in the town of Tall TammŨя. 4 The Assyrians call Tall Ašn&n Šarqi and Tall Ašn&n Ȇarbi zome or zomaҧa (pl. of zoma), because the inhabitants of these hamlets work in agriculture and conduct animal husbandry. Zoma is the term used for the pastures in the homeland, where the Assyrians drove their animals in summer time.

THE NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECTS OF THE TIYARI ASSYRIANS IN SYRIA

41

hand we have one dialect from the Lower Tiyari, which is the dialect of Sarspido. When I speak about the Tiyari dialects in what follows I shall be referring to these four dialects. The main distinctive feature that is common to these dialects is the monophthongization of /ay/ to /Ų/ in all positions. In addition, all Upper Tiyari dialects exhibit the shift of the interdental spirant /ҧ/ in certain circumstances to /š/. Charateristic features of the lexicon are the interrogative pronoun Ųdi ‘who?’ and the verbal roots Ò‫ܥ‬y ‘to know’ (< *k-yć‫)ܡ‬, and p‫ܥ‬y ‘to want’ (< *b‫ܡ‬y). In this paper I shall focus mainly on phonological characteristics of the Tiyari dialects. I shall deal only briefly with features of morphology. A sample text from Tall TammŨя is given as an example for this dialect group. 5

1. THE VOWEL SYSTEM 1.1. The Vowel Inventory The Tiyari dialects have the following seven vowel phonemes and two diphthongs: /i/ /e/

/Ũ/

/u/ /o/

/iw/

/Ų/ /a/

/aw/

1.2. Vowel Quantity In general the vowels /i/, /e/, /a/, /u/ and /o/ are long in open syllables and short in closed ones. In contrast /Ũ/ is always short and is found only in closed syllables. All vowels reach their absolute length when stressed. If they are not stressed, they are only half long or short: máxe maxéle

[‫چ‬mæ:xe] ‘(that) he beat’ [mæٞ‫چ‬xeٝle] ~ [mæ‫چ‬xe:le] ‘(that) he beat him’

Vowels in final position are realised as short. But when they are extended by suffixes, they have the normal length of long vowels. Therefore the final vowels are to be interpreted as basically long vowels. hóna 5

[‫چ‬ho:næ]

‘brain, mind’

For further details concerning these and other dialects spoken in the Khabur region, see Talay (2008a and 2008b).

SHABO TALAY

42

honána

[hoٞ‫چ‬næٝnæ]

‘intelligent’

1.3. The Opposition // : /&/ in Open Syllables As mentioned above, vowels are short in closed and long in open syllables. This means that generally the vowel quantity has no phonemic status. Only in the case of /a/ is there a phonemic opposition between short // and long /&/, as can be seen in the following minimal pairs 6 : tmŨn tamŨn

(< *tamrŨn) (< *tama iwŨn)

‘(that) I (f.) say’ ‘I (c.) am there’

mrŨn marŨn

(< *mar‫ܥ‬Ũn) (< *mara iwŨn)

‘(that) I (f.) will be ill’ ‘I (c.) am saying’

The existence of this opposition is mostly caused by the elision of an etymological /‫ܡ‬/, as is the case in mrŨn, which is derived historically from mar‫ܥ‬Ũn < *mar‫ܡ‬Ũn, or by the simplification of the gemination, as is the case in tmŨn, which is derived historically from tammŨn < *tamrŨn.

1.4. Long Vowels in Closed Syllables At the same time the Tiyari dialects may have long vowels in closed syllables, even in inherited or adapted forms. This is mostly caused by contraction or synaeresis of a hiatus. A new type of genitive formation, used in place of the old periphrastic genitive formation, also produced long vowels in closed syllables. m&t (< *m& &t) mara brӣn malka x&l baxti

‘What are you saying?’ ‘prince’ ‘the maternal uncle of my wife’

In recent borrowings all vowels are preserved as they are in the languages of origin. So, in such words one finds short vowels in open syllables or long vowels in closed syllables: garҁΩn maxšӣš mafhӣm

6

(< Arab. < French) (< Arab.) (< Arab.)

‘waiter’ ‘adulterated’ ‘understandable’

The same situation is to be found also in many other NENA dialects, so in the dialect of the Jews from Rustaqa (according to Khan 2002: 397).

THE NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECTS OF THE TIYARI ASSYRIANS IN SYRIA

43

1.5. The Short Vowel /Ũ/ and its Phonemic Status On the one hand, in many positions the short vowel /Ũ/ seems to be a free variant for the vowels /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/ and /u/. On the other hand, its phonemic opposition to the short vowels /a/, /i/ and /u/ is proved by the existence of minimal pairs, as can be seen below. There are no minimal pairs demonstrating its opposition to /e/ and /o/. Minimal pair for the opposition /a/ : / Ũ/: tŨrya tarya

‘wet (ms.)’ ‘(that) she will be wet’

Minimal pairs for the opposition /i/ : /Ũ/ (Examples from WalҨo) garšŨt garšit

‘(that) you (f.) pull’ ‘(that) you (m.) pull’

btaxlŨn btaxlin

‘I (f.) will eat’ ‘I (m.) will eat’

Minimal pairs for the opposition /u/ : /Ũ/ (Examples from WalҨo): grišlux grišlŨx

‘you (m.) pulled’ ‘you (f.) pulled’

kҧiwlux kҧiwlŨx

‘you (m.) wrote’ ‘you (f.) wrote’

1.6. The Diphthongs The Neo-Aramaic dialects have diachronically at least the two diphthongs, /ay/ und /aw/. Some dialects have the additional diphthong /iw/, as it will be shown below. The Tiyari dialects changed the diphthong /ay/ in all positions to a monophthong, while /aw/ is mostly preserved:

1.6.1. Diphthong /ay/ > /Ų/ In the Tiyari dialects /ay/ is generally contracted to the vowel quality /Ų/ in all positions. The monophthong /Ų/ is a half open to open unrounded front vowel. Its realisation varies between [e] and [æ]. Often it is impossible to hear a difference in the realisation of /Ų/ and of the regular vowels /a/ and

SHABO TALAY

44

/e/. The following minimal pairs prove its phonemic opposition to /a/ and /e/: The opposition /a/ : /Ų/ xala xŲla

‘meal’ ‘strength, power’

ana Ųna

‘I’ ‘spring, source’

dawa dŲwa

‘gold’ ‘madness’

xišla xišlŲ

‘she went’ ‘they went’

The opposition /e/ : /Ų/ Minimal pairs from Tall TammŨя mpolléle mpóllŲle

‘he distributed’ ‘he has distributed’

pewa pŲwa

‘he wanted’ ‘they wanted’

Minimal pairs from Sarspido: beta bŲҧa

‘egg’ ‘house’

lŲlŲ lŲle

‘they are not’ ‘he is not’

1.6.2. Diphthong /aw/ The diphthong /aw/, which derives historically either from *aw or *a¤, is mostly preserved, though occasionally it contracts to /o/. Examples from WalҨo: /aw/ jawяa ҁawma zawda

‘husband’ ‘fast’ ‘more’

/aw/ > /o/ l-šopa ‘instead’ zona ‘time’ hona ‘brain’

THE NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECTS OF THE TIYARI ASSYRIANS IN SYRIA

qawla

‘promise’

xoяuta

45

‘friendship’

1.6.3. The diphthong /-iw/ < *ɦ¤ The postvocalic fricative /¤/ preceded by the vowel /i/ in the same syllable has resulted in a new diphthong. In the majority of the NENA dialects this diphthong is monophthongized to /u/ because the /i/ in the closed syllable has been shortened and centralized to /Ũ/, as is the case in Tall TammŨя and elsewhere. But in the dialects of Sarspido and WalҨo the shortened /i/ is not centralized and therefore the diphthong /iw/ remains. This is found especially in the preterite base of verb forms of roots that are etymologically tertiae /*b/. /iw/ < /*i¤/ is monophthongized to /u/ in Tall TammŨя and Bnerumta: tule < *tŨwle < *tiwle < *yũҧɦ¤-leh kҧule < *kҧŨwle < *kҧiwle < *kũҧɦ¤-leh

‘he sat down’ ‘he wrote’

/iw/ is preserved as a diphthong in WalҨo and Sarspido as is shown by the following examples: qariwta xšiwta tiwla hiwle

‘near (f.), godmother’ ‘counted (f.), thought (f.)’ ‘she sat down’ ‘he gave’

2. THE CONSONANT SYSTEM 2.1. The Realisation of the bgdkpt Phonemes 2.1.1. General Remarks The majority of the allophones of the six bgdkpt phonemes are preserved as phonemes in the Neo-Aramaic dialects. The situation is the same in the Tiyari dialects. Nevertheless, contrary to the general bgdkpt rule even after diphthongs and (sometimes) consonants we can find the fricative allophones of the bgdkpt as can be seen in the following 7 :

7 This is not an innovation within Tiyari or NENA, but is found already in Biblical Aramaic, where bayt& ‘house’ is pronounced bayҧ& according to the Masoretic reading tradition (Rosenthal 1961: 13).

SHABO TALAY

46

Syriac

Tiyari

ũ

kawk ¤& mawt&

kŨxwa mawҧa, moҧa

‘star’ ‘death’

kalb& qurdaye

Òalwa/kalwa qurćaye

‘dog’ ‘Kurds, Muslims’

2.1.2. The Bilabial Fricative /p۷/ The unvoiced bilabial fricative /p۷ / is very rare in all NENA, because it merged usually very early with its plosive counterpart. In many NeoAramaic dialects the fricative /p۷ / has developed into the semi vowel /w/ in a few words: 8 : Syriac

Tiyari

rap۷ š& Ҩl&p۷ ȖŖ nap۷ Ҩ& Ҩup۷ s&

яawša, яoša, яuša Ҩlawxe, Ҩloxe nawҨa, noҨa Ҩusa

‘shoulder blade, shovel’ ‘lentils’ ‘petroleum’ ‘example’

The direct shift of the fricative /p۷ / to /w/ is not possible. Rather the /w/ must have developed from the fricative /¤/, which was an allophone of /b/. So, it must be assumed that the plosive unvoiced /p/ first shifted to voiced /b/. This very shift is attested in the noun nbš ‘soul’ (< npš) already in Old Aramaic 9.

2.1.3. The Phoneme /ǩ/ The velar fricative /ǩ/ merged together with the pharyngal /‫ܡ‬/, which subsequently shifted to glottal stop /‫ܥ‬/ and then was in most cases elided. In WalҨo and Sarspido it shifted to /y/ in intervocalic position: syaya šraya яayŨš яawola

(< *sy&ǩ&) (< *šr&ǩ&) (< *rǩš) (< *r&ǩΩl&)

‘fence, fencing’ ‘oil lamp’ ‘to wake up, to realise’ ‘canyon’

8 These examples are common to all Khabur and are found also in other NENA dialects. 9 See Beyer (1985–2005: 420).

THE NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECTS OF THE TIYARI ASSYRIANS IN SYRIA

47

In Tall TammŨя it is pronounced as a glottal stop /‫ܥ‬/: š‫ܥ‬išli я‫ܥ‬išli

(< *šǩišli) (< *rǩišli)

‘I shaked’ ‘I realised, I woke up’

2.1.4. The Interdental Fricatives /ҧ/ and /ć/ Both interdentals /ҧ/ and /ć/ are usually preserved in the Tiyari dialects, with the exception of WalҨo, where the two interdental spirants have shifted to the corresponding plosives /t/ and /d/: Tall TammŨя

WalҨo

/*ҧ/

Ҩlaҧa aҧяa gupҧa

Ҩlata atяa gupta

‘three’ ‘country’ ‘cheese’

/*ć/

aćŨm dići awći

adŨm didi awdi

‘Adam’ ‘my’ ‘(that) they do’

Unlike the voiced fricative /ć/, the unvoiced /ҧ/ has shifted to /š/ in all Upper Tiyari dialects (Tall TammŨя, WalҨo and Bnerumta) in certain positions. The rule for the occurrence of this shift is as follows: /*ҧ/ shifted to /š/ whenever it was preceded by /Ų/, which derives from the diphthong /ay/: /*ҧ/ > /š/ bŲša zŲša kҧŲša štŲša

‘house’ ‘oil’ ‘chicken, hen’ ‘drinking, drink’

Also in the feminine forms with the ending *-ayt& > -Ųša: šluxŲša gawŲša qamŲša xaюŲša

‘naked (f.)’ ‘inner’ ‘first (f.)’ ‘last (f.)’

/ҧ/ has shifted to /š/ also in the feminine ending *-iҧa miša ‘dead (ms.)’. In principle the shift took place only before front vowels that derive from diphthongs, viz. /Ų/ < /*ay/ or /i/ < /*iy/. The shift /*ҧ/ > /š/ usually does not occur in initial position in a word. In the verb root ‫ܥ‬ҧy I ‘to come’, III ‘to bring’, however, the shift has been extended throughout the paradigm including the preterite, the progressive form and the feminine forms of the perfect. The beginning of this extension may have begun with the 3fs. form šiša ‘come’ (fs.)’, which derives from *ҧiša /j/ jana jawяa jarma

‘self’ ‘husband’ ‘bone’

Of particular interest are some verbal roots with an originally weak first radical that now have /Ò/ as the first radical of the root: Òyd (< *k-‫ܡ‬yd ?) Òzl (< *k-‫ܥ‬zl) Òy‫* s (e.g. sŖle 8 ‘he came’), *ć > d (e.g. ‫ܥ‬udli ‘I did’) as against Zakho and Gzira s and z, Amedia t and z, Dohok and Betanure t and ć, Aradhin t and d. 9 t shifts to t, however, in the forms of the particles of existence ‫ܥ‬ɦt ‘there is’ (e.g., ‫ܥ‬ıtw&li ‘I had’) and lŖt ‘there is not’ (e.g. lıtw&li ‘I didn’t have’).

1.3. Pronouns 1.3.1. Independent Pronouns 1 s. 2 ms. 2 fs. 3 ms. 3 fs. 1 pl.

‫&ܥ‬na ‫&ܥ‬hıt ‫&ܥ‬hat ‫&ܥ‬ya (‫ )&ܥ‬10 ‫&ܥ‬ya ‫ܥ‬axnan

7 For features of of these dialects, see Hoberman (1989), Sabar (2002), Mutzafi (2002), Mutzafi (2008). 8 The transcription adopted in this article is basically that employed by Yona Sabar in his publications of Jewish Zakho and other lishana deni dialects. Stress, which is usually on the penult, is indicated only when it falls on a different syllable. On the whole, long vowels are marked only when stressed. 9 On the reflexes of ҧ and ć in the Neo-Aramaic dialects, see Kapeliuk (1997). 10 ‫ &ܥ‬is frequent before the postpositive particle ži (‫&ܥ‬-ži).

THE JEWISH NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF ìALLA

2 pl. 3 pl.

67

‫ܥ‬axtun ‫&ܥ‬ni

1.3.2. Pronominal Suffixes 1 s. 2 ms. 2 fs. 3 ms. 3 fs. 1 pl. 2 pl. 3 pl.

-i -ox -ax -e -a -an, -Ŗni 11 -Ŗxun 12 -u

The base of the independent genitive pronoun is dɦd-: dɦdi, dɦdox, dɦdax, dɦde, dɦda, dŖni, dŖxun, dɦdu (e.g. b&b dɦde, b&bıd dɦda, liš&na dŖni).

1.3.3. Demonstrative Pronouns Near

Far ‫ܥ‬iyya (ya) ‫ܥ‬anna (‫ܥ‬an)

s. pl.

s. pl.

‫ܥ‬Ŗ 13 ‫ܥ‬anna (‫ܥ‬an)

1.3.4. Relative Pronoun d-

1.3.5. Reflexive pronoun gy&n-

1.3.6. Reciprocal Pronoun ‫ܥ‬ıǪd&d(e), lıǪd&d(e), mıǪd&d(e)

11

The suffixes –an and -Ŗni are free variants in ìalla as they are, e.g., in Jewish Zakho. Cf. the marking of ‘exclusiveness’ by the 1 pl. suffix –enij noted by Polotsky (1961: 19-20) for Christian Urmi. 12 As in the Nerwa texts from the 17th century (Sabar 1984: 240); cf. Zakho -Ωxun. 13 Infrequently Shabtay uses the Jewish Zakho form ‫ܥ‬Ω.

STEVEN E. FASSBERG

68

1.4. Verb 1.4.1. Stems Three stems are used in Jewish ìalla: G (e.g., šq&la ‘take’), D (mȖakΩye ‘speak’), and C (maȖmΩle ‘make stand’).

1.4.2. Verbal Bases The following inflectional verbal bases are attested:

Preterite šqılli ‘I took’ , šqıllox, šqıllax, šqılle, šqılla, šqıllan/šqı ‫ڟ‬llŖni, šqı ‫ڟ‬llŖxun, šqıllu

Subjunctive šaqlın(a), šaqlan(a), šaqlıt(ın), šaqlat(ın), š&qıl, šaqla, šaqlax(ın), šaqlŖtun(a), šaqli

Perfect wın šqɦla, wıt šqɦla, wat šqɦla, le šqɦla, la šqılta, wax šqɦle, wŖtun šqɦle, lu šqɦle

Imperative s. ms. ms.

šqΩl(ına) ‘take!’, pl. šqΩlun Ǫzɦ ‘see!’, fs. ǪzŖ, pl. Ǫzӣn sɦ ‘go!’, fs. sŖ, pl. sӣn

Note the variant forms of the subjunctive 14 with final -a (1 sg., 2 pl.) and -ın (2 ms. and fs., 1 pl.). It is noteworthy that the preterite may be inflected with incorporated object affixes: xpıqınne ‘he embraced me’, etc. Unlike in some lishana deni dialects, in Jewish ìalla there is no syntagm of the type *qam x&pıqli ‘he embraced me’.

14 The general present is expressed by the subjunctive form with prefix g/k, e.g., gd&re ‘he places’, kŖmır ‘he says’ and the future by b/p, e.g., b&zın ‘I shall go’, pšaqlın ‘I shall take’.

THE JEWISH NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF ìALLA

69

1.4.3. Copula Present Copula (‫ܥ‬ɦ)wın(a), (‫ܥ‬ɦ)wıt(ın), (‫ܥ‬ɦ)wat(ın), (‫ܥ‬ɦ)le, (‫ܥ‬ɦ)la, (‫ܥ‬ɦ)wax(ın), (‫ܥ‬ɦ)wŖtun, (‫ܥ‬ɦ)lu

Past Copula (w)ınwa, (w)ıtwa, (w)atwa, (w)Ŗwa, (w)&wa, (w)axwa Some forms of the present copula, like the forms of the subjunctive and the particles of existence (see below), have the optional endings -ın and -ına.

1.5. Particles 1.5.1. Particles of Existence ‫ܥ‬ɦt(ın/ına), lŖt(ın/ına)

1.5.2. Dative Particle ta, Ҩ&si, Ҩ&sox, Ҩ&sax, etc. The dative relationship is also frequently expressed by the dative particle base Ҩas- and the independent genitive pronoun: Ҩas dɦdi, Ҩas dɦdox, Ҩas dɦdax, etc.

1.5.3. Jussive Particle mın (mıl), e.g., mın h&we ‘let it be’! (cf. Zakho šud-). 15

2. VOCABULARY The following are a few salient lexical items in Jewish ìalla vis-à-vis other Neo-Aramaic dialects: pl&Ҩa ‘go out’ and mpalΩҨe ‘take out’ (cf. root npq in some other dialects), pl&xa ‘work’ (cf. root j/šǪl) qadΩme ‘tomorrow’ (cf. bınhe), bıšҨor ‘better’ (cf. bıšҨo, bıšҨof), ‫ܥ‬áqqara ‘so much’ (cf. ‫ܥ‬Ωqqada); qamqam ‘before’ (in addition to qam), básbasır ‘after’ (in addition to basır), Ȗ&l-u-masale ‘the matter, situation’ (cf. MlaȖsô Ȗ&l w masale, 16 Zakho Ȗ&l-uqıҁta, 17 Jewish Aradhin Ȗ&l-u-‫ܥ‬aȖw&l 18 ). 15

The origin of the particle would appear to be the preposition mın. E.g., Jastrow (1994: 76). 17 Meehan and Alon (1979: 182 n.39); Sabar (2002: 163). 16

STEVEN E. FASSBERG

70

3. SAMPLE TEXT The following text was recorded February 4, 2001 at the home of Shabtay ‫ܡ‬Amrani. It was told in the presence of his relative, Mr. AȖiya Hashiloni, who also comes originally from ìalla. The text has been slightly edited.

Text walȖ&ҁıl, ‫&ܥ‬ya-ži zılle. QoҨo. d‫ܥ‬ırrŖni 19 ‫ܥ‬ıllıt QoҨo. QoҨo xa Hgıbӣr‫ ڟ‬H wŖwa. ҁɦwa ‫&ܡ‬ҁı ‫ڟ‬rw&le. hatxa ̸&ye makúšw&lu mınnıd dɦde. xa-yΩma sŖle. ‫ܥ‬ı ‫ڟ‬tw&le xa ‫&ܥ‬Ǫa šımme Qárani Ŗwa, xa spɦsa. sŖle l-t&ma. m&d ǪzŖle go bŖsa šqɦlɦle. ‫&ܥ‬-ži kŖmır ‫ ڟ‬H gbe har Ҩ&se: “‫&ܥ‬Ǫa, d-anna yalunke, m&, m& Ωdın ‫ܥ‬ıbbıd dɦdu? xa Hsmɦxa mk&sın ‫ܥ‬ıbbıd dɦdu 20 .” kŖmır: “k&fır, la-mȖ&kıt”! ‫&ܥ‬-ži kŖmır: “‫&ܥ‬Ǫa, m&d ‫ܥ‬ıtwa, wŖtu šqɦle. dax la ‫ܥ‬Ωdun! y&ni, yalunkŖni mŖsi m-qarsa H‫ܥ‬oH pŖši la-mkaswe, la Òu-mındi.” ‫&ܥ‬ya-le go gӣba le pl&xa QoҨo. har šqılle Hmakél u-mutȖılleH gΩp&la Ҩraq 21 u-Ҩraq u-Ҩraq u-Ҩraq. mxŖle ‫ܥ‬ıllıd dɦde. QoҨo ‫ܥ‬ɦda d&re ‫ܥ‬ıllıd dɦde. wä̈a QoҨo qımle, tar‫ܥ‬a duqle. kŖmır: “da-ȖmΩl”! drŖle xa-‫ܥ‬aqla-ži gy&ne. krΩx! h&dax ‫ܥ‬udle ‫ܥ‬ılle. ‫ܥ‬udle pastŖla. 22 kŖmır: “da-ȖmΩl”! la ‫&ܥ‬ni ‫&ܥ‬Ǫ&ye-lu-ži, gy&nu lu wɦdellu ‫&ܥ‬Ǫ&ye. qımle zılle. pılle go Hmit&H‫ ڟ‬pıšle naxwaš. QoҨo h&dax le wɦda ‫ܥ‬ılle, xor tŖna mrıÒta le wɦda ‫ܥ‬ıllıd dɦde. le mrɦÒa-lle lıǪd&de. wä̈a zılle. ‫ܥ‬Ŗga ‫&ܥ‬ni kud bınhe ‫&ܡ‬dıtu-la, gbe ‫&ܥ‬zıl dɦwan ‫&ܥ‬Ǫa š&te HkafŗH ksıl dɦde. kud bınhe. xa-yΩma Qarani la-zılle, tre-yΩme la-zılle, pıšlu ‫ܥ‬arba la-zılle, pıšlu ‫ܥ‬ıšta lazılle. b&bo, ma tımle ‫ܥ‬ılle? kımri: “wä̈a ‫&ܥ‬Ǫa naxwaš-ɦle.” ‫&ܥ‬Ǫa? m& ‫&ܥ‬Ǫa-le? xa kalba bır kalba-le, m&re hınna m&re HmΩwaxH-ɦle. ‫&ܡ‬qıl-ɦle. kŖmır: “sӣn maҁΩȖe. mŖnxun ‫ܥ‬ılle hatxa ‫ܥ‬Ωdun ‫ܥ‬ılle. ‫ܥ‬ın Òfılle, y&‫ܥ‬ŗtuna hud&ye lu mıxye-lle. ‫ܥ‬ın laÒfılle, ‫ܥ‬iyya HmaȖal&H‫ ڟ‬-ɦla.” wä̈a zıllu ksıl dɦde. tӣlu mȖokŖlu l-bŖs dɦde. walȖ&ҁıl xıdda-ži ‫ܥ‬atta ҁabo‫ܥ‬te Òik&le. HkfıҁleH. wä̈a zıllu mırru: “‫&ܥ‬Ǫa.” kımri: “wä̈a ‫&ܥ‬Ǫa, m&d mırrox h&dax-(ɦ)la.” Hbe‫ܥ‬emétH ‫ܥ‬iyya Qárani rŖše la-mΩqımle m-t&ma

18

Mutzafi (2002: 486). For expected da‫ܥ‬rax ‘let’s return!’ or gda‫ܥ‬rax ‘we return’. 20 The government of the object by ‫ܥ‬ıbbıd is unexpected. One expects either ‫ܥ‬ıllıd dɦdu or mk&sınnu. 21 Onomatopoeia. 22 This is an Aramaized form (with the definite article suffixed) of the Modern Hebrew pastél ‘pie’, which entered Hebrew from Ladino (Nehama 1977: 416 ‘pâté’). The word also exists in Turkish pestıl (‘fruit pulp’; cf. Hony 1957: 287) and it is possible that Shabtay was influenced by an idiom such as pestili çikarmak ‘to beat s.o. to a jelly’. 19

THE JEWISH NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF ìALLA

71

mıtle. skıtle, H‫ܥ‬axí naxΪnH skıtle. 23 my&sa kodax tuxma lŖwe ¥&š. walȖ&ҁıl zılle. ‫ܥ‬atta ma ‫ܥ‬Ωdi p-QoҨo? m& la ‫ܥ‬Ωdi p-QoҨo? kud-yom HsibΪtH kud-yom HsibΪtH. xayΩma HmoȖlıtluH ksıl gy&nu. kımri: “nablɦle rıš ‫ܥ‬Ŗn Galli.” ‫ܥ‬Ŗn Galli ktaxrıtta? 24 wŖtun pɦde mın t&ma. wä̈a ‫ܥ‬ɦt xa-škafta l-t&ma яapsa. xa-yΩmıt ‫ܥ‬ıry&na hatxa qŖmi 25 nablɦlu l-t&ma. zıllu я&ba Qurd&ye.“b&zax nŖÒır QoҨo gbe ‫&ܥ‬se mınnŖni.” nbıllu b-xurҨӣsa. nbıllu l-t&ma ‫ܥ‬ıry&na-le. xapÒi lu tlɦle. zıllu ‫ܥ‬udlu nӣra go škafta. kımri ta QoҨo: “mb&sımle ‫ܥ‬iyya nӣra.” ‫ܥ‬aǪ-gıb tan-gıb wä̈a kıple. wä̈a mındŖlu qam skɦne, qam xanj&re. qŖmi patpũtɦle. šΩqɦle l-t&ma. sŖlu muydŖlu. kımri: “QoҨo wax qҨɦle-lle. sӣn mŗsule kallaxıd dɦde.” he, ‫&ܥ‬-ži zılle.

Translation In short, he too died. 26 QoҨo. We returned to QoҨo. QoҨo was strong. He would squeeze wood. In this way would he make sap come out from it. One day he came. There was an agha whose name was Qarani, (he was) a rotten one. He came there. Whatever he found in the house he took. He (QoҨo) even says to him: “Agha, these children what, what do I do with them? I must still cover them with a blanket.” He (Qarani) says: “Infidel, don’t talk!” He (QoҨo) also says: “Agha, what there was, you have taken. Don’t do like this! That is to say, our children may die from cold or they will remain uncovered, (with) nothing.” He is at the loom, QoҨo is working. He (Qarani) just took a stick and he began (to hit him with) the stick: thud and thud and thud! He hit him. QoҨo punches him. 27 By God, QoҨo arose, he shut the door. He says: “Stop!” He also put one foot himself (on Qarani). Smash! 28 23 Shabtay uses sk&ta (< Arabic skt ‘be silent’) for the death of animals, as opposed to my&sa, which is said of human beings. Cf. Maclean (1901: 230): sâqiҨ ‘to die, used of a dog or a bad man, esp. of Mussulmans, also of a man who is killed in an accident’. This is from the Arabic sqҨ ‘fall’. 24 He directs this question to AȖiya Hashiloni. 25 Note that the speaker alternates the preterite, perfect, and subjunctive forms in his narration of the story. 26 Literally ‘went’. 27 Literally ‘he puts a hand to him’. 28 The common meaning of the verb krx in Neo-Aramaic is ‘be wrapped around, surround’ from which it appears to have developed a secondary meaning in ìalla (or just in the idolect of Shabtay?) of ‘wrap oneself around s.o.’ > ‘be all over s.o.’ > ‘smash s.o.’ G. Khan (p.c.) wonders if this is not krx < qrx, which in some Christian dialects can mean ‘to knock down (leaves, twigs from a tree)’, presumably < *qrx ‘to become/to make bald’. On the use of the imperative (krΩx) as an imperative of narration, see most recently Henkin (1994).

STEVEN E. FASSBERG

72

Like this he did to him. He made mincemeat of him. 29 He says: “Stop!” They are not even aghas, they made themselves out to be aghas. He (Qarani) up (and) went. He fell to (his) bed and was ill. QoҨo, such has he done to him, like a crushed date he has made him. He has crushed him together. By God, he went. Now then, they, every morning, their custom is, one should go to the Agha’s chambers to drink coffee with him. Every morning. One day Qarani didn’t go, two days he didn’t go, it was four days he didn’t go, it was six days he didn’t go. My God! What happened to him? They say: “By God, the Agha is ill.” Agha? What Agha is he? He is a dog, son of a dog, he’s got, that thing, he’s got a brain, he’s intelligent. He 30 says: “Go check!” Look at him! Do something like this to him! If he is startled, you should know that the Jews have beaten him. If he isn’t startled, this is an illness.” By God, they went to him. They sat, they talked at his house. In short, one now poked (Qarani with) his finger. He jumped. By God, they went, they said: “Agha.” They say: “By God, Agha, what you said, so it is.” Truly, this Qarani did not raise his head from there, he died. He ‘was silent’. The most correct (way of saying it is) he ‘was silent’. ‘Dying’ for (this) type isn’t appropriate. In short, he died. 31 Now what should they do with QoҨo? What shouldn’t they do with QoҨo? Every day (there were) excuses, 32 every day excuses. One day they decided among themselves. They say: “They should lead him to the spring at Galli.” 33 The spring at Galli, do you remember it? You have passed by there. By God, there is a cave there, a big one. One rainy day, in this way they up and lead him there. Many Kurds went. “We’ll go hunting. QoҨo must come with us.” They led him by force. They led him there, it was rainy. They got a bit wet. They went, they made a fire in the cave. They say to QoҨo: “Fix this fire”! 34 In the course of it, 35 by God, he bent over. By God, they attacked with knives, with daggers. They up (and) shred him. They leave him there. They came, they announced. They say: “We have killed QoҨo. Go bring his corpse.” Yes, he too died. 36

29

See n. 22 above. Another agha. 31 See n. 26 above. 32 Literally ‘reasons’. 33 Galli was a Christian village on the Turkish-Iraqi border. 34 Literally ‘make this fire pleasant’. 35 Literally ‘here-side there-side’. Cf. Arabic min hΩn la-hΩn. 36 See n. 26 above. 30

THE JEWISH NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF ìALLA

73

REFERENCES Ben-Yaacob, A. 1980. Kurdistan Jewish Commuunities, 2nd edition. In Hebrew. Jerusalem: Kiryath-Sepher. Henkin, R. 1994. “On the Narrative Imperative in Negev Arabic and in Russian.” Journal of Semitic Studies 39: 245–83. Hoberman, R.D. 1989. The Syntax and Semantics of Verb Morphology in Modern Aramaic: A Jewish Dialect of Iraqi Kurdistan. American Oriental Series 69. New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society. Hony, H.C. 1957. A Turkish-English Dictionary, 2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Jastrow, O. 1994. Der neuaramäische Dialekt von MlaȖsô. Semitic Viva 14. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kapeliuk, O. 1997. “Spirantization of ҧ and ć in Neo-Aramaic.” In Hebrew. Massorot: Studies in Language Traditions and Jewish Languages 9–11: 527–544. Maclean, A. J. 1901. Dictionary of the Dialect of Vernacular Syriac as Spoken by the Eastern Syrians of Kurdistan, North-west Persia and the Plain of Mosul. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mann, J. 1931. Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature, 2 vols. Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College. Meehan, C. and Alon, J. 1979. “The Boy Whose Tunic Stuck to Him: A Folktale in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Zakho.” Israel Oriental Studies 9: 174–203. Mutzafi, H. 2002. “On the Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Aradhin and its Dialectal Affinities.” In “Sprich doch mit deinen Knechten aramäisch, wir verstehen es!” 60 Beiträge zur Semitistik: Festschrift für Otto Jastrow zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by W. Arnold and H. Bobzin, 479–88. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2004. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Koy Sanjaq (Iraqi Kurdistan). Semitica Viva 32. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2008. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Betanure (Province of Dihok). Semitic Viva 43. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Nehama, J. avec la collaboration de Cantera, J. 1977. Dictionnaire du judéoespagnol. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas. Polotsky, H. J. 1961. “Studies in Modern Syriac.” Journal of Semitic Studies 6: 1–32. Rivlin, Y. Y. 1959. Širat Yehudei ha-Targum. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute.

74

STEVEN E. FASSBERG

Sabar, Y. 1984. Homilies in the Neo-Aramaic of the Kurdistani Jews on the Parashot WayȖi, BeshallaȖ and Yitro. In Hebrew. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. ———. A Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dictionary: Dialects of Amidya, Dihok, Nerwa and Zakho, Northwestern Iraq. Semitica Viva 28. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Türk. 1964. Türk Ansiklopedisi vol. 12. Ankara: Milli Eǧitim Basimevi. Yona, M. 2003. Kurdish Jewish Encyclopedia, 3 vols. In Hebrew. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute.

SOME FEATURES OF THE VERBAL SYSTEM OF THE NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF KARAMLESH ROBERTA BORGHERO The dialect of Karamlesh belongs to the North-Eastern group of Neo-Aramaic (NENA). The village of Karamlesh is located in Northern Iraq, about 18 miles South East of Moҁul, and a few kilometres North East of the village of Qaraqosh. Karamlesh was and still is populated by Chaldean Christians. However during the past decades, and increasingly in the past few years, many of the original inhabitants have left the village for America, Australia, England, and several other countries. The material presented below was gathered during fieldwork with immigrants from Karamlesh in Detroit (winter 2004) and in Sydney (autumn 2005). These were recent immigrants form Iraq, some having left their country less than a year before I interviewed them. In this paper I shall examine some aspects of the verbal system of Karamlesh. The focus will be on the morphology of verbs, with occasional remarks on the function of some verbal forms. I shall compare some of the features of Karamlesh with other NENA dialects, and in particular with the neighbouring dialect of Qaraqosh. As it will appear, the two dialects of Karamlesh and Qaraqosh have some aspects in common, but also some significant differences.

1. VERBAL STEMS Most of the verbs are based on triliteral roots, which are conjugated according to three different patterns of inflections (stem I, II, and III). In addition to these, there is a small group of verbs that are based on quadriliteral roots. They form a separate stem of inflection. The four stems with their various bases of conjugations are given below.

76

ROBERTA BORGHERO

Stem I: šql I ‘to take’ Present base: Past base (transitive, intransitive): Stative participle (transitive, intransitive, passive): Imperative: Infinitive:

šaqũlšqũlšqila šqol šqala

Stem II: bšl II ‘to cook’ Present base: Past base (transitive, intransitive): Stative participle (transitive, intransitive, passive): Imperative: Infinitive:

mbašũlmbušũlmbušla mbašũl mbašolũ ~ bašolũ

Stem III: plx III ‘to use’ Present base: Past base (transitive, intransitive): Stative participle (transitive, intransitive, passive): Imperative: Infinitive:

maplũxmuplũxmúplũxa maplũx maploxŪ

Quadriliterals drmn ‘to cure’ Present base: Past base (transitive, intransitive): Stative participle (transitive, intransitive, passive): Imperative: Infinitive:

mdarmũnmdurmũnmdúrmũna mdarmũn mdarmonũ ~ darmonũ

The three triliteral stems generally correspond to the earlier Aramaic pũ‫ܡ‬al, pa‫ܡܡ‬el, and ‫ܥ‬aph‫ܡ‬el conjugations. The preservation of the three stems is a conservative feature that Karamlesh shares with many Christian dialects of Iraq.

THE VERBAL SYSTEM OF THE NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF KARAMLESH

77

The present and past bases derive respectively from the original active and passive participles of earlier Aramaic. In most NENA dialects the /m-/ prefix of derived and quadriliteral stems, which was originally typical of the present and past bases (deriving historically from earlier Aramaic participles), has been extended by analogy to the imperative and to the infinitive forms. In Karamlesh the prefix occurs as a rule in the imperatives of all derived and quadriliteral verbs, and in the infinitives of stem III verbs. In infinitives of stem II and quadriliterals, however, forms with the initial /m-/ alternate with forms without the prefix, e.g. mbašolũ ~ bašolũ ‘to cook’, mdarmonũ ~ darmonũ ‘to cure’. It is worth comparing the forms attested in Karamlesh with the very archaic forms documented in Qaraqosh, where the /m-/ does not occur either in the infinitive or in the imperative forms of derived stems and quadriliterals. Karamlesh

Qaraqosh

mqaҨũl mqaҨolũ ~ qaҨolũ

qaҨũl qaҨolũ

maqҨũl maqҨolũ

‫ܥ‬aqҨũl ‫ܥ‬aqҨolũ

mdarmũn mdarmonũ ~ darmonũ

darmũn darmonũ

Stem II Imperative Infinitive Stem III Imperative Infinitive Quadriliterals (drmn ‘to cure’) Imperative Infinitive

Alternations between forms with initial /m-/ and forms lacking the prefix in stem II and quadriliteral verbs are documented in other NENA dialects, for instance in Alqosh mȖaloqe ~ Ȗaloqe ‘to throw’, mšaxlope ~ šaxlope ‘to change’. 1 Rather than being vestiges of earlier Aramaic forms (as the forms attested in Qaraqosh), the infinitives lacking the initial /m-/ in Karamlesh appear to be due to a secondary phonetic process, i.e. the assimi-

1 Coghill (2003: 122–23). In Alqosh the alternation between forms with and without the prefix /m-/ is attested also in the past base of stem II and quadiliteral verbs, e.g. mȖulũq ~ mȖulũq, mšuxlũp ~ šuxlũp.

ROBERTA BORGHERO

78

lation of the /m/ to the first radical of the verb. As a matter of fact, forms lacking the prefix are not attested in first weak verbs, where the assimilation of the /m/ to the initial radical has not taken place, e.g. myaqorũ (but not yaqorũ) ‘to respect’ (—yqr II). This could also explain why the /m-/ prefix is never lacking in infinitives of stem III verbs, where the /a/ vowel following the /m/ prevents the assimilation of the consonant.

2. INFLECTION OF THE PRESENT BASE The full paradigm of the present form of stem I strong verbs is as follows: A-suffixes

Present base + A-suffixes

3 ms. fs. pl.

-Ø -a -i

šaqũl šaqla šaqli

‘He takes’ ‘She takes’ ‘They take’

2 ms. fs. pl.

-ũt -at -utun

šaqlũt šaqlat šaqlutun

‘You (ms.) take’ ‘You (fs.) take’ ‘You (pl.) take’

1 ms. fs. pl.

-ũn -an -ax

šaqlũn šaqlan šaqlax

‘I (ms.) take’ ‘I (fs.) take’ ‘We take’

The /ũ/ vowel in the second syllable of the present base of stem I šaqũl- and stem II mbašũl- is preserved only in the 3ms., where no suffix is attached to the verbal base. In all the other persons the vowel is elided when the A-suffixes are attached, and the present bases become šaql- (e.g. šaqli ‘They take’) and mbašl- (e.g. mbašlax ‘We cook’). The /a/ vowel in the first syllable of stem I and II verbs is pronounced long only in the 3ms, where it is in a stressed open syllable. In all the other inflections the first syllable has become closed due to the attachment of the personal suffixes, and the /a/ vowel is therefore shortened. The present base for stem III verbs is maplũx-, which corresponds to the 3ms form. In all other inflections two different patterns are used, maplũx- and mapũlx-, e.g. máplũxũt ~ mápũlxũt ‘You (ms.) use’. Both patterns have originated by the elision of the short vowel /ũ/ in the second syllable of the original base *maCCũC as a consequence of the addition of the inflectional endings. To avoid the cluster *CCC an epenthetic /ũ/ is inserted either between the first and the second consonant (mapũlx-) or between the second and third consonant (maplũx-) of the root. This epenthetic is ignored for the

THE VERBAL SYSTEM OF THE NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF KARAMLESH

79

purposes of stress placement, and the stress is maintained on the first syllable, e.g. máplũxa ~ mápũlxa ‘She uses’, máplũxax ~ mápũlxax ‘We use’. This happens in all forms except the 2pl., where the stress falls on the penultimate syllable, e.g. maplũxútun ~ mapũlxútun ‘You (pl.) use’. Also in quadriliteral verbs the stress is maintained on the first syllable, again with the exception of the 2pl., e.g. mdármũn ‘He cures’, mdármũnat ‘You (fs.) cure’, mdarmũnútun ‘You (pl.) cure’. The form šaqũl without a prefixed particle functions as a subjunctive. The indicative particle is /k-/, e.g. k-šaqũl ‘He takes’. When in contact with a voiced consonant the /k-/ prefix is often voiced to /g-/, e.g. g-zawũn ‘I buy’, g-loša ‘She dresses’. Before a verbal form that begins with a consonant the /k-/ prefix is sometimes elided, therefore neutralising the distinction between the indicative and the subjunctive, e.g. xazũ ‘He sees / (that) he sees’.

3. INFLECTION OF THE PAST BASE The grammatical subject of verbs with a past base is expressed by L-suffixes, which are added to the past base šqũl-. The full paradigm for stem I strong verbs is as follows. L-suffixes

Past base + L-suffixes

3 ms. fs. pl.

-lũ -la -ley

šqũllũ šqũlla šqũlley

‘He took’ ‘She took’ ‘They took’

2 ms. fs. pl.

-lux -lax -loxun

šqũllux šqũllax šqũlloxun

‘You (ms.) took’ ‘You (fs.) took’ ‘You (pl.) took’

1 sing. pl.

-li -lan

šqũlli šqũllan

‘I took’ ‘We took’

The past base and its inflection are the same for transitive and intransitive verbs, e.g. qҨũllũ ‘He killed’, plũҨlũ ‘He departed’. The L-suffixes assimilate to the final /n/ of a verbal root, e.g. zwũnnux ‘You (ms.) bought’ (< *zwũn + lux), mhuymũnna ‘She believed’ (< *mhuymũn + la). The /l/ of the suffixes are assimilated also to a final /r/. In this case, however, the /r/ is not geminated and the preceding vowel is lengthened by compensation, e.g. gwerũ ‘He married’ (< *gwũr + -lũ), merax ‘You (fs.) said’(< *mũr + -lax), mšuderi ‘I sent’ (< *mšudũr + -li).

ROBERTA BORGHERO

80

4. COMPOUND VERBAL FORMS CONTAINING THE COPULA The copula may be combined with various verbal bases to form compound verbal constructions.

4.1. Copula Combined with the Stative Participle Forms constructed by combining the stative participle and the copula are generally used with the function of ‘present perfect’ (present copula) and ‘past perfect’ (past copula).

4.1.1. Stative Participle + Present Copula Forms of this type are generally used to express the ‘present perfect’. The full paradigm for stem I strong verbs is the following. Deictic copula

Enclitic copula

3 ms. fs. pl.

kilũ šqila kila šqũlta kiley šqilũ

šqílelũ šqŪ‫ڟ‬ltela šqíleley

‘He has taken’ ‘She has taken’ ‘They have taken’

2 ms. fs. pl.

kiwũt šqila kiwat šqũlta kiwútun šqilũ

šqílewũt šqũ‫ڟ‬ltewat šqílewutun

‘You (ms.) have taken’ ‘You (fs.) have taken’ ‘You (pl.) have taken’

1 ms. fs. pl.

kiwũn šqila kiwan šqũlta kiwax šqilũ

šqílewũn šqũ‫ڟ‬ltewan šqílewax

‘I (ms.) have taken’ ‘I (fs.) have taken’ ‘We have taken’

The forms above are used both with transitive and intransitive verbs, e.g. kilũ šqila ‘He has taken’, kila zũlta ‘She has gone’. Both the forms with the deictic copula and with the enclitic copula are used. The enclitic copula, however, tends to be used more often in questions, e.g. zílela? ‘Has he gone?, while the deictic copula is normally found in assertions.

4.1.2. Stative Participle + Past Copula These forms are generally used, both with transitive and intransitive verbs, to express the so-called ‘past perfect’. The full paradigm for stem I strong verbs is as follows. Deictic copula

Enclitic copula Contracted enclitic copula

THE VERBAL SYSTEM OF THE NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF KARAMLESH

81

3 ms. kiwa šqila fs. kiwa šqũlta pl. kiwa šqilũ

šqílewa šqŪ‫ڟ‬ltewa šqílewa

šqílewa šqŪ‫ڟ‬ltewa šqílewa

‘He had taken’ ‘She had taken’ ‘They had taken’

2 ms. kiwũtwa šqila fs. kiwatwa šqũlta pl. kiwútunwa šqila

šqílewũtwa šqŪ‫ڟ‬ltewatwa šqílewutunwa

šqíletwa ‘You (ms.) had taken’ šqŪ‫ڟ‬ltetwa ‘You (fs.) had taken’ šqílutunwa ‘You (pl.) had taken’

1 ms. kiwũnwa šqila fs. kiwanwa šqũlta pl. kiwũxwa šqilũ

šqílewũnwa šqŪ‫ڟ‬ltewanwa šqílewũxwa

šqílenwa ‘I (ms.) had taken’ šqŪ‫ڟ‬ltenwa ‘I (fs.) had taken’ šqílexwa ‘We had taken’

As in the compound forms with the present copula, the decitic copula is preferred in assertive clauses, while the enclitic copula is more commonly used in questions. The enclitic copula can be contracted. In the second and first persons the contracted copula closely resembles the subject inflection of verbs in the so-called ‘imperfect’ form. Compare, for instance, the contracted forms above with forms attested in the dialect such as k-šaqlanwa ‘I (fs.) used to take’, k-šaqlútunwa ‘You (pl.) used to take’. Similar compound forms with a contracted copula that appears to imitate the structure of verbal forms are found in various other NENA dialects, like in Ashitha qҨíltatawa ‘You (fs.) had killed’ 2 , in Christian Urmi tpíqenva ‘I (ms.) had visited’ 3 , and in the Jewish dialect of Persian Azerbaijan mírexwa ‘We had said’. 4

4.2. Copula Combined with the Present Indicative and with the Infinitive to Express the ‘Progressive Aspect’ In Karamlesh a progressive activity, both in the present (‘present continuous’) and in the past (‘past continuous’) can be expressed by means of two different types of compound copular forms, one with the copula and the present indicative of the verb, the other with the copula and the infinitive of

2

Borghero (2005: 332). Hetzron (1969: 116). 4 Garbell (1965: 69, 73). For a discussion of the tendency of the compound forms with the stative participle qҨila to acquire verbal properties see Borghero (2005: 325–36). 3

ROBERTA BORGHERO

82

the verb. The two constructions are considered as equivalent by the speakers of the dialect, but the first one is more common than the second.

4.2.1. Copula + Present Indicative (Primary) A progressive activity in the present (‘present continuous’) is most commonly expressed by the present copula followed by the present indicative of the verb. The full paradigm of the form is as follows. 3 ms. fs. pl.

kilũ k-šaqũl kila k-šaqla kiley k-šaqli

‘He is taking’ ‘She is taking’ ‘They are taking’

2 ms. fs. pl.

kiwũt k-šaqlũt ‘You (ms.) are taking’ kiwat k-šaqlat ‘You (fs.) are taking’ kiwutun k-šaqlutun ‘You (pl.) are taking’

1 ms. fs. pl.

kiwũn k-šaqlũn kiwan k-šaqlan kiwax k-šaqlax

‘I (ms.) am taking’ ‘I (fs.) am taking’ ‘We are taking’

The same construction with the same function is documented in Qaraqosh, e.g. kilũ k-qaҨũl ‘he is killing’. 5 A progressive activity in the past (‘past continuous’) can be expressed in Karamlesh by a parallel type of construction: past copula +‘imperfect’ form, e.g. kiwa k-šaqũlwa ‘He was taking’.

4.2.2. Copula + b-+Infinitive (Marginal) Occasionally a progressive activity can be expressed by a combination of the copula and the infinitive of the verb (preceded by the preposition b-). To express an activity that takes place in the present (‘present continuous’) the infinitive is combined with the present copula. The full paradigm of the form is given below. 3 ms. fs. pl.

5

Deictic copula

Enclitic copula

kilũ b-šqala kila b-šqala kiley b-šqala

b-šqálelũ b-šqálela b-šqáleley

Khan (2002: 331).

‘He is taking’ ‘She is taking’ ‘They are taking’

THE VERBAL SYSTEM OF THE NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF KARAMLESH

83

2 ms. fs. pl.

kiwũt b-šqala kiwat b-šqala kiwutun b-šqala

b-šqálewũt b-šqálewat b-šqálewutun

‘You (ms.) are taking’ ‘You (fs.) are taking’ ‘You (pl.) are taking’

1 ms. fs. pl.

kiwũn b-šqala kiwan b-šqala kiwax b-šqala

b-šqálewũn b-šqálewan b-šqálewax

‘I (ms.) am taking’ ‘I (fs.) am taking’ ‘We are taking’

The forms with the deictic copula are preferred in assertive clauses, while the forms with the enclitic copula are more often used in questions. To express an activity that takes place in the past (‘past continuous’) the infinitive is combined with the past copula, e.g. kiwa b-šqala ‘He was taking’. These types of constructions, which are marginal in Karamlesh, have equivalents in several other NENA dialects, e.g. Christian Urmi b-tpáqele ‘He is visiting’, b-tpáqenva ‘I (ms.) was visiting’. 6 It should be pointed out, however, that the construction is not attested in Qaraqosh.

4.3. Copula Combined with the Active Participle This type of construction is only attested with the verbs ‫ܥ‬LJy ‘to come’ and ‫ܥ‬zl ‘to go’.

4.3.1. Active Participle + Present Copula Deictic copula

Enclitic copula

3 ms.

kilũ ‫ܥ‬aLJaya kilũ ‫ܥ‬azala

‫ܥ‬aLJáyelũ ‫ܥ‬azálelũ

‘He is going to come’ ‘He is going to go’

3 fs.

kila ‫ܥ‬aLJeLJa kila ‫ܥ‬azalta

‫ܥ‬aLJéLJela ‫ܥ‬azáltela

‘She is going to come’ ‘She is going to go’

This form is commonly used with the function of an immediate future, and can normally be translated with English ‘going to’. As in other compound copular forms, the deictic copula is preferred in assertive clauses, while the enclitic copula is more often used in questions.

6

Hetzron (1969: 116).

ROBERTA BORGHERO

84

Parallel forms are found in Qaraqosh, e.g. kilũ ‫ܥ‬aLJoya ‘He is coming’, kila ‫ܥ‬azolta ‘She is going’. 7 As their Karamlesh equivalents, the constructions documented in Qaraqosh are only found with the verbs ‘to come’ and ‘to go’. In Qaraqosh, however, the forms appear to have the function of a present continuous rather than of an immediate future. It is worth noting that in Karamlesh the constructions of the type kilũ ‫ܥ‬aLJaya ‘He is going to come’ (immediate future) contrast in function with constructions like kilũ k-aLJũ ~ kilũ b-iLJaya ‘He is coming’ (present continuous).

4.3.2. Active Participle + Past copula Deictic copula

Enclitic copula

3 ms.

kiwa ‫ܥ‬aLJaya kiwa ‫ܥ‬azala

‫ܥ‬aLJáyewa ‫ܥ‬azálewa

‘He was going to come’ ‘He was going to go’

3 fs.

kiwa ‫ܥ‬aLJeLJa kiwa ‫ܥ‬azalta

‫ܥ‬aLJéLJewa ‫ܥ‬azáltewa

‘She was going to come’ ‘She was going to go’

These forms have normally the function of a ‘future in the past’, and are often used in a counterfactual sense, i.e. ‘He would have come’, ‘He was supposed to come’ for instance kíwa ‫ܥ‬aLJáya l-‫ܥ‬Ņta,| bás zũ‫ڟ‬llũ l-šùqa | ‘He was supposed to come to the church, but he went to the market’. Also in this case parallel forms are attested in Qaraqosh, but with a different function, that is of a past continuous, e.g. kiwa ‫ܥ‬azola ‘He was going’, kiwa ‫ܥ‬aLJoya ‘He was coming’. 8 Note that in Karamlesh the constructions of the type kiwa ‫ܥ‬aLJaya ‘He was going to come’ (‘future in the past’) contrast in function with the constructions kiwa k-aLJewa ~ kiwa b-iLJaya ‘He was coming’ (past continuous).

5. EXPRESSION OF THE FUTURE Two different constructions can be used in Karamlesh to express the general future.

7 8

Khan (2002: 349). Khan (2002: 349).

THE VERBAL SYSTEM OF THE NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF KARAMLESH

85

5.1. zi + L-suffixes + Present Base (Primary) 3 ms. fs. pl.

zilũ šaqũl zila šaqla ziley šaqli

‘He will take’ ‘She will take’ ‘They will take’

2 ms. fs. pl.

zilux šaqlũt zilax šaqlat ziloxun šaqlutun

‘You (ms.) will take’ ‘You (fs.) will take’ ‘You (pl.) will take’

1 ms. pl.

zili šaqlũn zilan šaqlan

‘I shall take’ ‘We shall take’

The auxiliary preceding the present base of the main verb is formed by a base zi- derived from the root ‫ܥ‬zl ‘to go’ followed by the L-suffixes. It should be pointed out that this form does not correspond either to the present form za + L-suffixes (e.g. k-zalũ ‘He goes’), or to the past form zũl-+L suffixes (e.g. zũllũ ‘He went’) of the verb ‘to go’. Similar future constructions are found in Alqosh, e.g. zílũn ‫ܥ‬àmrũn ‘I (m) am going to say’, zílũx ‫ܥ‬àmrũx ‘We are going to say’. 9 There are, however, some significant differences between the two dialects. Unlike the forms attested in Karamlesh, in which the subject of the verb is expressed by L-suffixes, the forms documented in Alqosh are constructed by means of the past base zil + A-suffixes. Moreover, the forms attested in Alqosh appear to have the function of an immediate future, while the forms attested in Karamlesh are used as a general future. Finally, while the forms attested in Alqosh are marginal and only used with the first persons, the forms attested in Karamlesh are common and can be found with subjects of any gender and number. 10

5.2. b- + Present Base (Marginal) Occasionally the future can be expressed by the preposition b- followed by the present base, e.g. b-zalũ ‘He will go’, b-napla ‘She will fall’. This form, only marginal in Karamlesh, is the main future form in many NENA dialects. The preposition b- is often devoiced to p- by partial assimilation to the fol-

9

Coghill (2003: 163). A similar construction is used in Telkepe to express the general future, e.g. zílũn zàli‫‘ چ‬I am going to go’ (E. Coghill, personal communication). 10

ROBERTA BORGHERO

86

lowing consonant, e.g. p-šaqũl ‘He will take’. When followed by a labial the /b/ is often fully assimilated to the following consonant, e.g. mbašũl ‘He will cook’ ( qҨũlla

‘they killed’ cf. Peshabur qҨũllŲy, Alq. 5 qҨũllŲ

*‫ܥ‬ilay > ‫ܥ‬ila

‘they are’

cf. Peshabur -ilŲy, Alq. -ilŲ

This term is being used to refer to forms found in Syriac and other ancient written forms of Aramaic. 4 Another variant was *-ayhʏn. Cf. Hoberman (1988: 564–65, 569–70) for these reconstructions of the 3pl. pronominal suffixes in Proto-NENA, the hypothetical mother language of modern NENA dialects. 5 Henceforth Alq.= Alqosh.

ELEANOR COGHILL

94

*‫&ܥ‬nay > ‫&ܥ‬na

‘those’

cf. Tisqopa, Karimlesh ‫&ܥ‬nay, Alq. ‫&ܥ‬nŲ

Note that the 3pl. pronominal suffix on nouns is realized as -éy (cognate with Alq. -Ų‫ڟ‬y), e.g. beLJéy ‘his house’, suggesting an origin in the PNENA variant *-áyhʏn, rather than *-ay.

1.2.3 *-&h The earlier Aramaic 3fs. suffix *-&h has two realizations in Telkepe. As a pronominal suffix on nouns, it is realized as /a/, along with *-ay: *bayҧ&h > beLJa

‘her house’

In the L-suffixes (< *l-&h) it is realized as /]/, along with *-&: *qҨɦl l&h > qҨũll]

‘she killed’

This is not surprising, as the two have different realizations in other dialects. Usually this involves the retention of the *h (as /h/ or /Ȗ/) in the pronominal suffix, but never, to the author’s knowledge, in a final L-suffix (nor in the copula, which follows the L-suffixes), e.g. Alq. bŲLJ-aȖ ‘her house’ and qҨũl-l-a ‘she killed’. Therefore it is likely that in PNENA the /h/ was preserved in the pronominal suffix but lost in the L-suffix, splitting the morpheme *-&h into two forms. This would explain why the suffix attached to lbecame -], as the shift from *-a to -] is already established. Hence Telkepe /a/ derives from PNENA *-ah, while /]/ derives from PNENA *-a, even 6 though the two have a common origin in earlier Aramaic *-&h: on nouns, most prepositions on l-suffix

Earlier Aramaic *-&h

PNENA *-ah *-a

Telkepe -a -]

6 Cf. Hoberman (1988: 563) for a reconstruction of these PNENA 3fs. suffixes as -ah and -a respectively (also 3ms. -eh and -e). Note that he also actually reconstructs two PNENA nominal suffixes for each 3rd person, e.g. 3ms. *-eh and *-ew, 3fs. *-ah and *-aw, which would explain the forms –ew, -u (3ms.) and -aw, -o (3fs.) found in many dialects. In both cases he derives the two variants from a single, even earlier form: *-ayhu and *-ahu. The PNENA variants with /w/ have no reflexes in Telkepe, so will not be considered here.

SOME FEATURES IN NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECTS OF IRAQ

95

1.2.4 Summary The derivations of the two ‘a’ vowels may be summarized as follows: Final /]/ < PNENA *a (both vowel of inflection and vowel of 3fs. L-suffix) beLJ] < PNENA *bayLJa < Earlier Aramaic *bayҧ& qҨũll] < PNENA *qҨũlla < Earlier Aramaic *qҨɦl l&h Final /a/ < PNENA *ay OR *ah: qҨũlla < PNENA *qҨũllay ‫&ܥ‬na < PNENA *‫&ܥ‬nay beLJa < PNENA *bayLJah < Earlier Aramaic *bayҧ&h ‘her house’

1.2.4 Chronological Development of Final ‘a’ vowels There are four main developments that have taken place. The first development (1), which most probably had already occurred in PNENA, is the divergence of earlier Aramaic final *-&h. Why has a phonetic (and phonemic) distinction arisen where there had been none? As will be shown, a shift may be blocked in one case, if there is a semantic distinction that it would beneficial to preserve; and this can lead to a new phonemic distinction. First to be considered is why the final /h/ should be elided at all. It is common for sounds to be lost over time, especially a less audible sound like /h/. This seems to have happened to the 3fs. L-suffix *۷-l-&h already in PNENA. No potential for ambiguity arose from this loss. But if the final /h/ of the possessive suffix *-&h had been lost at the same time, then the dialect would have risked losing the distinction between ‘house’ and ‘her house’. It was beneficial to keep the original distinction between *bayҧ& ‘house’ and *bayҧ&h ‘her house’, and this was achieved by preserving the *h on the pronominal suffix on nouns. This was a shift that took place in PNENA. In Telkepe two new phonetic shifts took place: (2) PNENA *a (earlier Aramaic *&), 7 in final un-

7

N.B. No assumption is being made that PNENA final /a/ was short: its length is not relevant to the argument.

ELEANOR COGHILL

96

stressed position, was backed and slightly rounded. This affected all such vowels, both the -a inflection on nouns, and the vowel of the 3fs. L-suffix: Earlier Aramaic >

PNENA >

*(‫)ܥ‬n&ša *qҨɦl-l&h

Telkepe > n&š] ‘man’

>*qҨũlla

> qҨũll] ‘she killed’

Meanwhile (3) final unstressed *-ay was monophthongized to [æ]. 8 The final shift (4) that took place was that the /h/ of the 3fs. possessive suffix was elided in Telkepe. But by this time the rule of final */a/>/]/ was no longer productive and it did not operate on the now final /a/. Instead it was realized as a front vowel [æ], distinct from -]. Thus the distinction between ‘house’ and ‘her house’ continued to be preserved, even without the /h/. Another useful distinction preserved in the process was that between the 3fs. and 3pl. L-suffixes. When the latter (*-lay) shifted to -la, due to the monophthongization of *ay, there was no danger of confusion with the 3fs. suffix, as this had already shifted to -l].

1.3. Excursus on Disambiguation in Third Person Pronominal Suffixes in NENA The distinction between *bayҧ& ‘house’ and *bayҧ&h ‘her house’ is important in NENA, as all dialects known to the writer either retain a distinction, or use the independent possessive pronoun where the speaker wishes to avoid ambiguity. In some, the /h/ is simply preserved, as in BarҨũlle, 9 BaҨnaya and ‫ܡ‬Ankawa (all: beLJah ‘her house’). In Alqosh, 10 Qaraqosh, 11 Tisqopa, Karimlesh and Peshabur, /h/ has shifted to /Ȗ/, which is more audible and hence less likely to be missed by the hearer or dropped by the speaker. In other dialects the independent possessive pronoun is used instead of, or in addition to, the 3rd person possessive suffixes. Some use it optionally, as in Ashitha, e.g. bŲLJa ‘house’ or ‘her house’, bŲLJa diya ‘her house’ 12 and 13 Aradhin. In Iҁҁin, it is apparently obligatory in the case of the 3fs, e.g. 8

Likewise to [Ų] in Alqosh. Personal communication from Kristine Mole. 10 Coghill (PhD 2003: 109). 11 Khan (2002: 76). 12 Borghero (PhD 2005: 86). 13 Cf. various examples in Krotkoff (1982: 70, paragraph 11; 106). 9

SOME FEATURES IN NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECTS OF IRAQ

97

beLJ-a diy-a ‘her house’, and usual with the other 3rd persons. In some dialects, such as Shosh-u-Sharmin (near ‫ܡ‬Aqra), the 3rd person independent pronouns have, by constant use, become bonded to the noun: besũd-did-a ‘her house’. The forms used for the 3fs. usually have their equivalents for the other 3rd persons, which are likewise distinct from the affixes attached to -l-. See, for example, Telkepe 3ms. tore ‘his ox’ (compare qҨũl-l-ũ ‘he killed’, torũ ‘oxen’); Alq. 3fs. bŲμ-aȖ ‘her house’, 3ms. bŲμ-ũȖ ‘his house’ (compare 3fs. qҨũl-l-a ‘she killed’, 3ms. qҨũl-l-ũ ‘he killed’); Iҁҁin beμ-a diya ‘her house’, 3ms. beμ-ũ diyũ ‘his house’. The use of disambiguating forms with other 3rd persons could be the result of analogy, but in fact there is also a possibility of ambiguity, although much more limited, with the 3ms. suffix -e (< *-eh), where it is identical to the plural suffix -e (< *-Ŗ). This ambiguity might occur when the suffix was attached to plurals ending in -e in which the stem does not change, e.g. Shosh-u-Sharmin tawra ‘ox’, tawre ‘oxen (or, marginally,) his ox, his oxen’, but tawrũd-dide ‘his ox’. Both factors may have played a role.

1.3 Summary The development of the ‘a’ vowels in Telkepe and their cognates in other dialects is summarized in the following table:

sg. noun inflection 3fs. suffix on nouns 3fs. L-suffix 3pl. L-suffix

Earlier maic > *-&

Ara-

PNENA > *-a

Other NENA

Telkepe

-a

-]

*-&h

*-ah

-ah/-aȖ/-a diya etc.

-a

*-l-&h

*-la

-la

-l]

*-lay

-lŲy/-lŲ etc.

-la

2. CHRISTIAN PESHABUR: DEGREES OF DEIXIS IN PRONOUNS, COPULA AND ADVERBS. Peshabur (peš&bur, Arabic Faysh kh&bӣr) is a village situated near Zakho, very close to the borders with Syria and Turkey. It was destroyed in 1976. The data below is mainly from two middle-aged informants living in Detroit.

ELEANOR COGHILL

98

In Peshabur there are four degrees of distance in the deictic pronouns, as shown in the table below. These are near, far, very far and extremely far: Near ‫ܥ‬awwa ‘this’ ‫ܥ‬Ųyya ‘this’ ‫ܥ‬anna ‘these’

m. f. pl.

Far ‫ܥ‬aw&Ȗa ‘that’ ‫ܥ‬ay&Ȗa ‘that’ ‫ܥ‬an&Ȗa ‘those’

Very far ‫ܥ‬aw&&Ȗa ‫ܥ‬ay&&Ȗa ‫ܥ‬an&&Ȗa

Extremely far ‫ܥ‬awa‫ܥ‬Ȗa ‫ܥ‬aya‫ܥ‬Ȗa ‫ܥ‬ana‫ܥ‬Ȗa

These pronouns exhibit two interesting features. One is the pharyngals in the far deixis pronouns. Many dialects have ‫ܥ‬aw&ha or ‫ܥ‬awa‫ܥ‬ha as far deixis, among them Aradhin, Billin, Derabun, Shosh-u-Sharmin, Tũn and Umra d-Shish. Peshabur is so far unique in having pharyngals in these forms. The other interesting feature is the existence of four degrees of distance. The extra degrees express something like colloquial English ‘that one, way over there’, ‘that one all the way over there’. 14 The degree named here as ‘very far’ is achieved by lengthening the vowel of the far deixis pronouns. As this vowel is already long, it becomes extra long [a::] (written here as &&). According to the informant this denoted a distance further than ‫ܥ‬aw&Ȗa but not as far as ‫ܥ‬awa‫ܥ‬Ȗa. The glottal stops in the extremely far forms are usually pronounced with exaggeration: ‫ܥ‬awa‫ܥܥ‬Ȗa or ‫ܥ‬awa‫ܥܥ‬ũȖa. (They will always be written, however, with one /‫ܥ‬/.) It seems that both a simple lengthening of the vowel and the insertion of the /‫ܥ‬/ are means of extending the pronoun to reflect the length of the distance itself. The same strategy is used with deictic adverbs: adv.

Near ‫ܥ‬axxa ‘here’

Far tam&Ȗa ‘over there’

Very far tam&&Ȗa ‘way over there’

Extremely far tama‫ܥ‬Ȗa ‘all the way over there’

TEven the deictic copula can be extended to express very far and extremely far deixis: 3ms. 3fs.

14

Unmarked hole hola

Or ‘way, way over there’.

Very far hoole hoola

Extremely far hu‫ܥ‬le hu‫ܥ‬la

SOME FEATURES IN NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECTS OF IRAQ

99

The simple deictic copula hole is the unmarked form, which can be used with any of the adverbs. To express very far or extremely far distance, either hole can be used with one of the extended adverbs, or hole itself can be extended; or both strategies can be used together: hola tam&&‫ ڮ‬Ȗa! ‘She is way over there’ hóole tam&h‫ܑ ڮ‬a! ‘He is way over there’ hú‫ܥ‬le tamà‫ܥ‬Ȗa! ‘He is all the way over there’ The deictic copula can also be used without an adverb to point out a location, e.g. hòle! ‘Here it is!’, hù‫ܥ‬le! ‘There it is!’. The extended versions can also be used in the present progressive, if the action is taking place in the distance: hoole bũ‫ܥ‬r&qa ‘There he is running way over there’ hu‫ܥ‬le bũ‫ܥ‬r&qa ‘There she is running all the way over there’ The pronouns described above (‫ܥ‬awwa, ‫ܥ‬aw&Ȗa etc.) are used when something can be pointed towards. In English, we may say ‘over there’ and point. The thing or person indicated is not necessarily visible. It can be behind something or on a street some distance away, as long as the speaker can indicate the direction. Another set of pronouns exists to denote something which is absent and cannot be pointed towards it, for instance if the referent is in a different country or the speaker is talking about the past:

m. f. pl.

Independent ‫&ܥ‬wa ‫&ܥ‬ya ‫&ܥ‬ni

Absent, non-directional Attributive Meaning ‫ܥ‬aw‘that’ ‫ܥ‬Ųy‘that’ ‫ܥ‬an‘those’

The independent forms are not distinguishable from the personal pronouns in form, but the existence of attributive forms, which cannot be confused with personal pronouns, makes it clear that there is a separate category of deixis here. The use of ‫&ܥ‬wa and ‫ܥ‬aw- for absent deixis is common across the dialects. Some examples from Peshabur are: ‫ܥ‬áw-gawra mũ‫ڮ‬rre ‘That man said’ (someone absent or in the past) ‫ ڟ‬a mũ‫ڮ‬rre ‘He/That one said’ (someone absent or in the past) ‫&ܥ‬w ‫&ܥ‬wa d-ile bũ‫ܡ‬y&ša b-‫ܡ‬ũr&q ‘That one who is living in Iraq’ ‫&ܥ‬ni d-ilŲy bũ‫ܡ‬y&ša b-‫ܡ‬ũr&q ‘Those who are living in Iraq’

ELEANOR COGHILL

100

‫ܥ‬Ųy-baxta d-ila bũ‫ܡ‬y&ša bg&wũd ‫ܥ‬iҨ&liya ‘That woman who is living in Italy’ ‫ܥ‬an-n&še d-ilŲy b-iҨ&liya ‘Those people who are in Italy’ The same distinction is found among deictic adverbs, with the form t&̸a ‘there (absent)’: Near ‫ܥ‬axxa T‘here’

Far tam&Ȗa ‘there’

Very far tam&&Ȗa ‘over there’

Extremely far tama‫ܥ‬Ȗa ‘way over there’

Absent, n-d 15 t&̸a ‘there’

TSome examples of its use are: ‫ܥ‬an-n&še d-ilŲy b-iҨ&liya, ‫ܥ‬an-n&še d-ilŲy t&̸a ‘Those people in Italy, those people there…’ t&̸a gu-‫ܡ‬ũr&q kӣzi h&dax. ‘There in Iraq they do like this.’ Another dialect with a complex system of deictic pronouns is Aradhin. R. Borghero 16 has confirmed the existence of the following pronouns that Krotkoff (1982: 20) found: (m.) ‫ܥ‬aw, ‫&ܥ‬wa, ‫ܥ‬awwa, ‫ܥ‬awa‫ܥ‬ha (~‫ܥ‬aw&ha), ‫ܥ‬awxa‫ܥ‬ha. Krotkoff makes different distinctions, however, to the ones I have found in Peshabur. According to him ‫ܥ‬awwa and ‫ܥ‬awa‫ܥ‬ha ‘both point at objects within the range of visibility’, while in Peshabur, they might not be visible, as long as their direction is known. A further distinction is made between absent (‫&ܥ‬wa) and remembered (i.e. past) which is ‫ܥ‬awxa‫ܥ‬ha, while in Peshabur both are denoted by ‫&ܥ‬wa. Neither Krotkoff or Borghero found a distinction between far and very far deixis. The degrees of deixis and their distribution in the different word classes may be summarized in the following table: m. f. pl. Adv. Cop.T

15 16

Near ‫ܥ‬awwa ‫ܥ‬Ųyya ‫ܥ‬anna ‫ܥ‬axxa hole —

Far ‫ܥ‬aw&Ȗa ‫ܥ‬ay&Ȗa ‫ܥ‬an&Ȗa tam&Ȗa

Very far ‫ܥ‬aw&&Ȗa ‫ܥ‬ay&&Ȗa ‫ܥ‬an&&Ȗa tam&&Ȗa hoole

Extremely far ‫ܥ‬awa‫ܥ‬Ȗa ‫ܥ‬aya‫ܥ‬Ȗa ‫ܥ‬ana‫ܥ‬Ȗa tama‫ܥ‬Ȗa hu‫ܥ‬le

Non-directional. Personal communication from Roberta Borghero.

Absent, n-d ‫&ܥ‬wa (‫ܥ‬aw-) ‫&ܥ‬ya (‫ܥ‬Ųy-) ‫&ܥ‬ni (‫ܥ‬an-) t&̸a —

SOME FEATURES IN NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECTS OF IRAQ

101

3. THE CHRISTIAN DIALECT OF IҙҙIN: 3RD PERSON PRONOMINAL SUFFIXES AND A SHIFT FROM /h/ TO /LJ/ Iҁҁin (‫ܥ‬ũҁҁũn, also known as Siy&ne) was a village in the Nahla–‫ܡ‬Aqra district. Its Chaldean inhabitants fled in 1961. The following is data taken from one brief session with a middle-aged female informant. 3ms. 3fs. 3pl. 2ms. 2fs. 2pl. 1s. 1pl.

Pers. Pronouns ‫&ܥ‬wa ‫&ܥ‬ya ‫&ܥ‬ni ‫&ܥ‬ti ‫&ܥ‬ti ‫ܥ‬axtu ‫&ܥ‬na ‫ܥ‬axni

Pron. Suffixes -ũ diyũ, -ũ -a diya -eLJũn -ux -ax -oxun -i -an

The pronouns of most interest are the third person pronominal suffixes. Examples of the singular suffixes in use are: beLJũ-díyũ ‘his house’ beLJa-díya ‘her house’ These singular suffixes have the -ũ or -a suffix repeated on the noun and the independent possessive particle. This construction is also to be found in the dialects of Aradhin and Tũn (whose other pronouns are also similar). Where Iҁҁin diverges from Tũn and Aradhin is in the 3pl. suffix: while these, like many others, have -Ųhũn, Iҁҁin has -eLJũn with a dental fricative. No other dialects have yet been documented with this 3pl. suffix.

4. THE CHRISTIAN DIALECTS OF THE VILLAGES AROUND ‫ܡ‬AQRA: PROGRESSIVE ASPECT 4.1. Introduction Various villages around the city of ‫ܡ‬Aqra were populated by Chaldeans until 1961 when the Christian inhabitants were forced to flee. The ‫ܡ‬Aqr&ya dialect spoken in several of these villages is very distinct. The variations between the villages are sometimes significant but the dialects are nevertheless highly mutually comprehensible. The villages speaking this dialect include

ELEANOR COGHILL

102

the neighbouring villages of Nargizine (nargũzine) and Kharjawa (xarj&wa), which may be considered as a single dialect, the neighbouring villages of Shosh and Sharmin (šoš-u-šarmũn), which again spoke a single dialect; and Khirpa (xũrpa). The ‫ܡ‬Aqra dialects are marked by several unusual features, among them the shift from *ҧ to /s/, e.g. *bayҧ& > besa ‘house’; 17 as well as the presence of an /m/ on 2pl. forms where many other dialects have /n/, e.g. Nargizine-Kharjawa bes&xum ‘your (pl.) house’, Shosh-u-Sharmin pqaҨlөtum ‘you (pl.) will kill’, Shosh-u-Sharmin qҨөlum ‘kill! (pl.)’ Another unusual feature is the merger of the three triradical verb derivations, known as ‘stems’ (historic pũ‫ܡ‬al, pa‫ܡܡ‬el, ‫ܥ‬aph‫ܡ‬el), to only two verb stems, corresponding structurally to pũ‫ܡ‬al and ‫ܥ‬aph‫ܡ‬el. This is a feature typical of the eastern Jewish dialects of NENA, including those surrounding ‫ܡ‬Aqra, namely Barzan, Shahe and Bũjil. 18 It is also attested in a few other Christian dialects in the far South East of NENA, i.e. Koy Sanjaq and Sulemaniyya, while tendencies in this direction are also to be found in Senna (Sanandaj). 19 These dialects are very distant from ‫ܡ‬Aqra; it should be considered therefore whether this feature in Christian ‫ܡ‬Aqra is a result of influence from neighbouring Jewish dialects. The people of these villages still preserve their distinct dialect in their homes, but usually adapt their speech to a more standard Chaldean NeoAramaic when speaking to outsiders, avoiding those features of their dialect which are particularly unusual.

4.2. The Progressive Particle The feature that will be discussed here is the expression of progressive aspect in these dialects. This is represented by an uninflected particle before the indicative present: particle + k-q&Ҩũl. In Nargizine-Kharjawa and Shosh17

Among the Christian dialects this shift is rare and has occurred independently in quite distantly related dialects: in addition to the ‫ܡ‬Aqra dialects it is found in Senna (Sanandaj) in Iran (Panoussi 1990: 108), and Peshabur and Marga near Zakho. 18 Mutzafi (2002: 41-42, 55-56). 19 Cf. Mutzafi (2004: 259) for a discussion of this as an areal feature. In Christian Senna Stem II (< pa‫ܡܡ‬el) still remains but structurally it has made some analogical adaptations to the first and third stems, the present base being mostly identical to that of Stem I, and the past base being mostly identical to that of Stem III. Furthermore some historical Stem II verbs have become Stem I, e.g. bšl I (historical bšl II) ‘to cook’; cf. Panoussi (1990: 118-120) for examples of the different stems.

SOME FEATURES IN NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECTS OF IRAQ

103

u-Sharmin this particle is nũ-, e.g. nũ-kkexũl ‘he is eating’; in Khirpa it is ho-, 20 e.g. ho-kkexũl ‘he is eating’. Most NENA dialects express progressive aspect with the deictic copula and b- + infinitive, e.g. Alqosh wolũ b-ix&la ‘he is eating’. However, there is a minority which express it with an uninflected particle before the present base. These dialects are found mostly in the region stretching from ‫ܡ‬Aqra to the far South-East of the NENA area. They include Jewish Arbel l& p&lũ‫ڟ‬x, 21 Jewish Dobe n&-p&lũ‫ڟ‬x, Jewish Barzani ‫ܥ‬ale (y-)p&tũx, Christian Koy Sanjaq l&-kp&t‫ ڟ‬ũx, and Christian ‫ܡ‬Ankawa dũ-k-p&LJũx, all meaning ‘he is opening’. 22 Khan (1999: 111-114) suggests that the origin of the Arbel particle l& lies in the (3fs.) deictic copula ‫ܥ‬ila, suggesting that originally the progressive was expressed by the copula before q&Ҩũl, both parts being inflected; then the copula became fossilized in the 3fs. form, and lost the initial /‫ܥ‬i/. There are in fact dialects South-East of Moҁul which express the progressive using the inflected deictic copula plus indicative present, e.g. Qaraqosh kilũ k-&xũl ‘he is eating’, 23 Karamlesh kilũ k-š&qũl ‘he is taking’. 24 The existence of such a form in modern dialects supports Khan’s reconstruction of the Arbel particle from the copula. It seems reasonable that the ‫ܡ‬Aqra forms might also derive from a (deictic) copula + k-q&Ҩũl construction. The difference between the the two ‫ܡ‬Aqra forms, nũ- and ho-, is on the surface surprising. However it is entirely explicable if we derive both particles from the ‫ܡ‬Aqra 3ms. deictic copula hole. It could thus be that Khirpa elided the final /le/ of the form, while the other dialects elided the initial /ho/. As for the derivation of nũ- from *le-, the shift from /l/ to /n/ or vice versa is not uncommon in the world’s languages, nor in NENA itself. 25 This derivation may be summarized as follows: *hole k-q&Ҩũl *hole k-q&Ҩũl

20

> lũ-k-q&Ҩũl

> nũ-k-q&Ҩũl > ho-k-q&Ҩũl

Sh-Sh, Narg-Kharj. Khirpa

The k- of the indicative present prefix is geminated with some verba primae /‫ܥ‬/. The underlying form is nũ-k-q&Ҩũl. 21 Khan, G. (1999: 111–4, 265). 22 See Mutzafi, H. (2004: 260–2) for a detailed listing and discussion of the progressive particles found in NENA; also Mutzafi (2002: 59) for Barzani in particular. 23 Khan (2002: 331). 24 Also BarũҨle (personal communication from Kristine Mole). 25 Cf. the verb ‘to take (someone)’: nobolũ in Alqosh, lawbole in Peshabur, presumably from a historical Stem III (‫ܥ‬aph‫ܡ‬el) verb *mawbole.

104

ELEANOR COGHILL

As mentioned above, progressive particles are an areal feature in the south-eastern part of the NENA area. A progressive particle, ‫ܥ‬ale (le following a vowel), is indeed found in the Jewish dialects of the ‫ܡ‬Aqra area (Jewish Barzani), and this may have been a factor in the development of a progressive particle in the neighbouring Christian dialects.

REFERENCES Borghero, R. 2005. The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Ashitha. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge. Coghill, E.J. 2003. The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Alqosh. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge. Hoberman, R.D. 1988. “The history of the Modern Aramaic Pronouns and Pronominal Suffixes.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 108: 557– 75. Khan, G. 1999. A Grammar of Neo-Aramaic: The Dialect of the Jews of Arbel. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2002. The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Qaraqosh. Leiden: Brill. Krotkoff, G. 1982. A Neo-Aramaic dialect of Kurdistan. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Mutzafi, H. 2002. “Barzani Jewish Neo-Aramaic and its Dialects.” Mediterranean Language Review 14: 41–70. ———. 2004. “Features of the Verbal System in the Christian Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Koy Sanjaq and Their Areal Parallels.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 124: 249–64. Panoussi, E. 1990. “On the Senaya dialect.” In Studies in Neo-Aramaic, edited by W. Heinrichs, 107–29. Harvard Semitic Studies 36. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

REMARKS ON THE FUNCTION OF THE PRETERITE AND THE PERFECT IN NORTH-EASTERN NEO-

ARAMAIC GEOFFREY KHAN 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Most North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) dialects have distinct verbal forms to express the preterite and the perfect. A common configuration is for the preterite to be expressed by a past base qҨil– conjugated by L-suffixes (e.g. qҨille < qҨil-le) and for the perfect to be expressed by a compound construction consisting of the resultative participle qҨila and a form of the verb ‘to be’ (e.g. hole qҨila, qҨilŲle < qҨila-ile). Both of these forms developed in NENA under the influence of Iranian languages, especially Kurdish. The preterite form qҨille, for example, is in origin an ergative type of construction, which has parallels in the preterite verbal forms of Kurdish (MacKenzie 1961: 193–94). In such constructions past actions are expressed as a passive construction with the patient being presented as the grammatical subject and the agent being expressed by an agentive phrase (‘by X’), e.g. baxta qҨila-le ‘He killed the woman’ (literally ‘The woman was killed by him’). Kurdish also has a parallel type of compound construction to express the perfect (MacKenzie 1961: 187–89). It is important to observe, however, that there are some differences between the NENA dialects and the local Kurdish dialects in these two verbal forms. In Kurdish the ergative type construction of the preterite with the patient of the action being the grammatical subject and the agent expressed by an oblique agentive phrase is naturally restricted to transitive verbs. In most NENA dialects, however, the ergative type of inflection with an agentive phrase expressed by the preposition l- has been extended by analogy to intransitive verbs, e.g. qim-le ‘He has risen’. This has not happened in Kurd-

GEOFFREY KHAN

106

ish or any other Iranian language in the NENA area. In fact, in some Iranian languages the precise opposite has happened, namely the active intransitive construction with the verb agreeing with the grammatical subject has been extended by analogy to the transitive past conjugation. This is the case, for example, in Modern Persian. The extension of the ergative inflection to intransitives seems, rather, to be a development internal to NENA. Vestiges of the original system in which the ergative inflection is restricted to transitive verbs has survived in a few Jewish dialects on the eastern periphery of the NENA area (e.g. J. Sulemaniyya, J. Kerend and J. Sanandaj). 1 Another difference between NENA and Kurdish is the fact that in most NENA dialects the compound perfect construction is not ergative. The grammatical subject of transitive verbs is the agent rather than the patient. In Kurdish, on the other hand, the corresponding compound construction, which appears to have been the model for the NENA construction, is ergative in form when the verb is transitive. The lack of the ergative inflection in the NENA dialects is again a development internal to NENA. The original ergative type of construction is found only in a few Jewish dialects on the eastern periphery. 2 The purpose of this paper is to examine some aspects of the function of these preterite and the perfect forms. There are differences in this respect across the NENA dialect group. Here I shall present a case study based on one dialect, namely the Christian dialect of Barwar (Dihok province, Northern Iraq). 3

2. QӅILLE 2.1. Recent Past Events In conversational discourse the normal function of the qҨille form is to express with perfective aspect the occurrence of a punctual event in the recent past. The margin of the recent past may extend up to the present moment. The form may be used, therefore, when the endpoint of the event is wit-

1

Hopkins (1989), Khan (2004: 6–7, 85–93). Hopkins (2002), Khan (2007b). 3 For a full description of this dialect see Khan (2008). References in the examples relate to the numbering of the transcribed texts in the text corpus of this grammar. 2

THE PRETERITE AND THE PERFECT IN NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC

107

nessed in the present moment. It is appropriate to translate the form in such contexts by the English perfect of recent past, e.g. (1) gáwяi LJéle mҨáši gànux!| ‘My husband has come back. Hide yourself!’ (A22:29) (2) xázũx mӟdũяìlux,| Ҩla-mò?| ‘I see you have brought them back. Why?’ (A17:14) (3) ‫ܥ‬Ũ‫ڮ‬dyo| mu-ҁҨímlux bŲ‫ڮ‬LJi,| ‫ܥ‬áti wídlux hátxa hátxa bìyi?| ‘Why have you ruined my house and done such a thing to me?’ (A15:14) The results of such events that occur in the very recent past are likely to have some relevance in the present. It is important to note, however, that the qҨille form does not assert the existence of a resultant state in the present, rather it is only an implicature. This applies also to constructions with verbs with stative actionality such as yð‫‘ ܥ‬to know’, where the qҨille form is most appropriately translated by the English present, e.g. (4) ‫ܥ‬u-hadíya ðíli ‫ܥ‬ána manáy díyux mòdila| ‫ܥ‬u-t-màlka.| ‘Now I know what you mean and what the king means.’ (A17:35) The basic meaning of the qҨille form here is ingressive, expressing the event of entering into the state denoted by the verbal lexeme in the recent past (‘I have just come to know’). The existence of a resultant state is an implicature. Verbs that acquire this ingressive sense in the qҨille form characteristically express a continuous state rather than iterative action in the imperfective qaҨũl base forms, e.g. yðe ‘He knows’, yðewa ‘He used to know’. They should be distinguished from verbs that express the entering into a state in their basic lexical meaning, e.g. ‫ܥ‬tw ‘to sit down’, kly ‘to stand up’, kpn ‘to become hungry’. The latter type of verb can be interpreted as having an ingressive sense in the qҨille form, e.g. tiwle ‘He has sat down’ (= he has entered the state of sitting), klele ‘He has stood up’ (= he has entered the state of standing), kpinne ‘He has become hungry’. This ingressive sense, however, arises from the telic lexical meaning of the verb rather than from the qҨille form, as is shown by the fact that the imperfective qaҨũl base forms of these verbs characteristically express iterative rather than continuous action, e.g. y-atwũnwa tama ‘I used to sit there’, ‫ܥ‬i-kalewa tama ‘He used to stand there’, har ‫ܥ‬i-kapũnwa ‘He was always becoming hungry’. The function of the qҨille form is occasionally exploited to denote an event that is about to take place in the immediate future by presenting it as if it has just happened, e.g.

108

GEOFFREY KHAN

(5) mítli m-kŨ‫ڮ‬pna.| ‘I have (almost) died of hunger = I am dying of hunger.’ (A27:31) (6) ‫ܥ‬ána zìlli kũs-bábi.| ‘I have (almost) gone to my father = I am going just now to my father.’ (A14:102). The qҨille form is sometimes used to express a perfective event that overlaps with the present moment in that it takes place by virtue of the utterance of the clause, i.e. in a performative function. The verbs in (7) and (8) can be interpreted in this way: (7) mũ‫ڟ‬re byũn Ҩalbũ‫ڟ‬nna brátux Ҩla-xòni.| mũ‫ڟ‬re hiwàli.| ‘He said “I want to ask for the hand of your daughter for my brother.” He said “I give her to you.”’ (A32:11-12) (8) xa-zawũ‫ڟ‬nwala ‫ܥ‬amũ‫ڮ‬rwa| ‫ܥ‬ána puxlàli Ҩlálux.| ‘One would buy it and say “I (hereby) relinquish it (and give it back) to you.”’ (B8:38) When the endpoint of the past event is adjacent to the present moment, the qҨille form is sometimes combined with the deictic copula, which refers to the grammatical subject of the verb, e.g. (9) hóle dìяяe.| ‘He has returned.’ (A22:39) (10) Mir-Zándin hóle LJèle.| ‘Mir-Zandin has come.’ (A26:46)

2.2. Past Perfective in Narrative In narratives the qҨille form is used as a preterite to refer to punctual events in the past with a perfective aspect, e.g. (1) LJéle xa-náša swarìyya| rakáwa.| ҁléle rŨš-xa-‫ܥ‬Ų‫ڮ‬na.| tìwle,| xílle mŨ‫ڮ‬ndi,| štéle mìya.| ‘A horseman, a rider came. He alighted at a spring. He sat down, ate something and drank some water.’ (A15:1) (2) b-lŲ‫ڮ‬le,| zìlla,| síqla xa-máLJa xèta.| ‘At night they went off, and went up to another village.’ (A15:10) (3) zílla báre báre dìye.| wírre gu-xa-bòya.| ‘She went after him. He entered a hole.’ (A20:5) The event that is referred to by the qҨille form may extend over a long period of time. The crucial feature is that the speaker presents the event with perfective aspect, i.e. a complete, delimited event. This applies to cases such as the following: (4) píšla xà-šabLJa,| tré šabbàLJa,| kpìnna.| ‘A week, two weeks went by

THE PRETERITE AND THE PERFECT IN NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC

109

and they became hungry.’ (A20:9) (5) píšla yóma Ҩla-yòma,| yóma Ҩla-yòma,| píšla b-šũ‫ڮ‬nne.| ‘She went on (like this) from day to day, day to day, she went on for years.’ (A21:1) The qҨille form is occasionally used in contexts where the action is iterative, consisting of a series of punctual events in the past. The speaker uses the perfective qҨille form to focus on one of these punctual events as representative of the series. The iterativity of the event is an implicature of the context, e.g. (6) mxéla l-Ǫðàðe| ha-Ҩ̈áLJna mìtla.| ‘They beat one another until the three of them died.’ (A22:35) Conversely, a series of qҨille forms are sometimes used in narrative to express a gradual execution of a single event, each form expressing a component phase of the event, e.g. (7) ‫ܥ‬u-sìqla-w| ‫ܥ‬u-sìqla-w|‫ܥ‬u-sìqla-w| ‫ܥ‬u-sìqla-w| ‘She (gradually) came up and up and up and up.’ (A4:17)

3. QӅILWALE The qҨille form may be augmented by the past tense affix wa resulting in the form qҨilwale. The basic function of the qҨilwale form is to denote the occurrence of an event in the past with the deictic reference point in the present. The difference between the qҨille form and the qҨilwale form in conversational discourse is that qҨille refers to the recent past, the margin of which may extend up to the present moment, whereas qҨilwale is detached temporally from the present. The action expressed by the qҨilwale form, however, is not necessarily in the remote past. It may have occurred a few minutes prior to the present moment. There is, in fact, a degree of overlap between the absolute temporal reference of the qҨille and the qҨilwale. Informants, however, tend to judge that it is not felicitous to use the perfect qҨille to refer to an event that took place on the previous day or prior to it, whereas the time reference of qҨilwale can be extended indefinitely into the past. It is misleading to interpret the qҨilwale form as a pluperfect or past perfect, since its basic meaning is not to denote a state that held at the time of a past action as a result of an event further in the past. It denotes an event rather than a resultant state, although such a state may be an implicature of the verb form.

GEOFFREY KHAN

110

The relationship between qҨille and qҨilwale in conversational discourse may be summarized as follows: (i) Immediate past temporal reference qҨille: ‘He has just now come’

diya LJele

(ii) Recent past temporal reference qҨille: ‘He came five minutes ago’ 4

LJele qam xamša daqiqe

qҨilwale: ‘He came five minutes ago’

LJewale qam xamša daqiqe

(iii) Remote past temporal reference qҨilwale: ‘He came yesterday’ ‘He came a year ago’

LJewale tũmmũl LJewale qam-xa šeta

In some expository discourse or direct speech the qҨilwale form is used as a narrative preterite interchangeably with qҨille narrative preterites, e.g. (1) har-mũdre-táma xzélũn n&š-dìyũn,| muplũ‫ڟ‬šlũn bé‫ܥ‬e smòqe| sá‫ܥ‬ũt ‫ܥ‬árba-w pálge qèdamta.| ‫ܥ‬u-mũn-táma zílwalũn xílwalũn Ҩàmta.| ‘Again we saw our relatives, we knocked red eggs together at half past four in the morning. Then we went and ate breakfast.’ (B15:9) (2) ‫ܥ‬ána gšìqli,| xzéwali qa-t-‫ܥ‬ó-fũlsa ‫ܥ‬Ų‫ڟ‬ka mpìlle.| ‘I looked and saw where that coin fell.’ (B15:34) The qҨilwale form is rarely found in the narrative sections of folktales. In cases where it is used, it expresses an event that is not sequential to the verb in the main narrative line that precedes it. It occurred prior to it (3–4) or, in some cases, overlapped with it temporally (5). Although the form can often be felicitously translated by the English pluperfect, it is important to

4 It should be noted that in English the present perfect is not used in a clause containing certain time adverbials although the event has relevance for the present moment.

THE PRETERITE AND THE PERFECT IN NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC

111

note that it expresses an event and not a resultant state. Any resultant state is only an implicature not a component of its meaning: (3) dŨ‫ڟ‬rya ‫ܥ‬íðe b-brΩn-dìye.| brΩn-díye qìmwale.| mŨ‫ڟ‬re ha-bábi mò byũt?| ‘He put his hand on his son. His son had woken up (at some point prior to this, implying that he was at that point awake). He said “Hey, father, what do you want?”’ (A9:6) (4) kút-yoma ҁàle,| wíðwale xa-dúkLJa mҨašéwa tàma.| ‘Every day he would go down — he had made (at some prior point) a place to hide in (implying that it was in existence for him to use).’ (A14:81) (5) nÒíltũlle rèše-w| rùše-w| kúlla rupŲ‫ڮ‬LJũlla.| ‫ܥ‬áp-‫ܥ‬aw mìtwale| har-a-dàna.| ‘She pulled its head and its shoulder apart and threw everything down. At the same time he also died.’ (A12:53)

4. QƮM-QAӅƮL 4.1. Preliminary Remarks There is no functional difference between the qҨille form and the qũm-qaҨũl form, which also expresses past perfective aspect. The qũm-qaҨũl form is used as a suppletive substitute for qҨille when the verb takes a pronominal object expressed by an L-suffix. Direct or indirect pronominal objects of the 3rd person may be expressed by incorporation into the past base qҨille form, e.g. qҨille ‘He killed him’, qҨilale ‘He killed her’, qҨilile ‘He killed them’. The qũmqaҨũl form is the usual means of expressing pronominal objects of the 1st and 2nd person on a past perfective verb, e.g. qũm-qaҨũlli ‘He killed me’, qũmqaҨũllux ‘He killed you’, and it expresses 3rd person objects interchangeably with the qҨille form with object incorporation. Examples of its use are as follows:

4.2. Recent Past Events (1) ‫ܥ‬áti qũm-xalҁàtli| mũn-d-áwwa mòLJa.| ‘You have saved me from death.’ (A14:35) (2) xzi-‫ܥ‬aláha lá qũm-msapélũn l-iLJàLJa.| ‘See, God has not delivered us into their hands.’ (B9:26) (3) ‫ܥ‬áwwa Màr-Múše qũm-mayéla ‫ܥ‬áyya biyŲ‫ڟ‬xu.| ‘St. Muše has brought this upon you.’ (B18:17)

GEOFFREY KHAN

112

4.3. Past Perfective in Narrative (1) LJéla qũm-mparqíli m-gu-‫ܥ‬iLJàLJux.| ‘They came and saved me from your hands’ (B17:15) (2) záwna qũm-‫ܥ‬awŨ‫ڟ‬dlux lebàna.| ‘The time made you a trickster.’ (A1:22) (3) qũm-Ҩarũ‫ڟ‬dle LJéle zìlle| be-‫ܥ‬ámte dìye.| ‘He drove him away and he went back to his aunt’s house.’ (A23:33) On some occasions in a narrative the qũm- prefix is omitted from the form in verbs that follow an initial qũm-qaҨũl form in a closely knit sequence. The resulting reduced forms consist only of qaҨũl base and L-suffixes, but still have past time reference, e.g. (4) LJéla jũ‫ڮ‬nne,| qũm-šaqlìle,| nablìle,| mattìle| ‫ܥ‬al-Ҩúrũt Jazíra Bòta.| ‘Jinn came and took him. They took him away and put him on the mountain of Jazira Bota.’ (A26:19) (5) rwèle| qũm-doqále p-àqle,| xrrr garšále nablále gu-ÒàÒma.| ‘He became drunk and she grasped him by his legs, dragged him along and took him to the bathroom.’ (A17:26) (6) qũm-Òarxíle dawqìle.| ‘They surrounded him and caught him.’ (A28:24)

5. QƮM-QAӅƮLWA The qũm-qaҨũl form may be augmented with the past suffix –wa. As is the case with the qũm-qaҨũl form, the qũm-qaҨũlwa is used only with L-suffixes. The qũm-qaҨũlwa form is functionally equivalent to the qҨilwale form. Some examples of its use are as follows: (i) Immediate past temporal reference qũm-qaҨũl: ‘I have just now seen him’

diya qũm-xazũnne

(ii) Recent past temporal reference qũm-qaҨũl: ‘I saw him five minutes ago’ qũm-qaҨũlwa:

qũm-xazũnne qam xamša daqiqe

THE PRETERITE AND THE PERFECT IN NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC

‘I saw him five minutes ago’

113

qũm-xazũnwale qam xamša daqiqe

(iii) Remote past temporal reference qũm-qaҨũlwa: ‘I saw him yesterday’ ‘I saw him a year ago’

qũm-xazũnwale tũmmũl qũm-xazũnwale qam-xa šeta

Examples (1) and (2) below from expository texts contain qũm-qaҨũlwa forms functioning as a preterite. Note that in (2) the preterite form qũm-‫ܥ‬oðũ‫ڟ‬nwale is used with the same time reference as the adjacent form qũm-‫ܥ‬oðũ‫ڟ‬nne, which is also used as a preterite, as is usual in narrative: (1) ‫ܥ‬ína báte qámLJa Ҩìna-wŲwa.| ‫ܥ‬u-píšwala Ҧ-amrũ‫ڟ‬xwa qàҁre,| béna ‫ܥ‬áwwa lŲ‫ ڟ‬y-amrũ‫ڟ‬xwa bàte| y-amrũ‫ڟ‬xwa qàҁra.| sab-bíš muntèwalŲ| šũ‫ڟ‬mma díya qũm-mšaxũlpìwale.| ‘Formerly, however, houses were made of mud. They (the houses) became villas, as we called them. We did not call them houses, we called them villas. Since (people) were more prosperous, (they built bigger houses) and they changed the name of them.’ (B5:198) ‫ ڟ‬ũ Nùne,| ‫ܥ‬áxÒi là gu-‫ܥ‬Ʊn ‫ ڟ‬ũ Núne (2) ‫ܥ‬áyya šètũ| t-zílli l-‫ܥ‬àLJяa,| ‫ܥ‬Ʊn | qũm-‫ܥ‬oðũ‫ڟ‬nne ‫ܥ‬éða, qũm-‫ܥ‬oðũ‫ڟ‬nwale gu-Dòhok,| har-mũdre-táma xzélũn n&š-dìyũn,| maplũ‫ڟ‬šlũn bé‫ܥ‬e smòqe| sá‫ܥ‬ũt ‫ܥ‬árba-w pálge qèdamta.| ‫ܥ‬umũn-táma zílwalũn xílwalũn Ҩàmta.| ‘This year, when I went to the land, Ʊn Nune — but I did not spend the festival in Ʊn Nune, I spent it in Dohok — again we saw our relatives, we knocked red eggs together at half past four in the morning. Then we went and ate breakfast.’ (B15:9)

6. PERFECTS CONSISTING OF THE RESULTATIVE PARTICIPLE AND THE VERB ‘TO BE’ 6.1. General Remarks Concerning the Resultative Participle The resultative participle (qҨila stem I, mquҨla stem II, muqũҨla stem III) relates to a situation that results from a past event. It exhibits a semantic profile that includes both dynamicity and stativity. In this respect it shares features with verbs, which typically express dynamic events, and with adjectives, which denote properties with a degree of durability and stability in time. The morphological form should be regarded as indeterminate with regard to dynamism and stativity in that it may have a dynamic (verbal) or

GEOFFREY KHAN

114

stative (adjectival) interpretation according to the context in which it is used. The interpretation of the participle with regard to dynamicity depends on (i) the actionality of the verb by virtue of its lexical meaning and (ii) the transitivity of the clause. It is convenient to adopt here the classification of the actionality of verbal events proposed by Vendler (1957, 1967). These include statives, activities, achievements and accomplishments. Verbs with stative actionality denote a durative, homogeneous state, e.g. to believe. Activities are durative, homogeneous dynamic events, e.g. to run. The homogeneity of states and activities is shown by the fact that any interval during which they take place can be divided into homogeneous sub-intervals. They are said to be ‘atelic’ events, in that they do not have an inherent, internal endpoint. Achievements and accomplishments, by contrast, are ‘telic’ since they have an inherent endpoint by virtue of their meaning. They contain an internal boundary, whereby they are non-homogeneous at two sub-intervals of the action. They include a dynamic component and an endpoint (telos) attained by the completion of the event. The difference between achievements and accomplishments lies in the feature of durativity. The dynamic component of achievements is not durative, e.g. to sit down, whereas durativity is present in the dynamic interval of accomplishments and can be quantified by a temporal adverbial indicating a period of time, e.g. to boil (‘The water boiled in five minutes’). A further type of actionality is that of ‘punctual’ verbs, which denote atelic dynamic events that have only minimal duration. As with other types of atelic events, punctual events are homogeneous and do not result in a clear state that is defined by the event, e.g. to sneeze. This scheme of classification may be summarized in the following table: durative

dynamic

homogeneous

stative

+

—

+

activity

+

+

+

achievement

—

+

—

accomplishment

+

+

—

punctual event

—

+

+

The resultative participle may occur in a predicate of an intransitive clause. Such constructions contain only a subject argument, which is the affected participant in the event. The participle in these clauses may have a

THE PRETERITE AND THE PERFECT IN NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC

115

verbal or adjectival interpretation. The crucial conditioning factor is the actionality of the verb. If the actionality of the verb is telic, the resultative participle can have both a verbal and an adjectival interpretation. In the verbal interpretation, the predicate expresses the telic event including both its dynamic and final static endpoint, the subject of the clause being either the agent or the experiencer of the event. In the adjectival interpretation, it expresses only the resultant state of the endpoint. Verbs of this nature falling into the category of achievements, according to the classification described above, include, for example, ‫ܥ‬tw ‘to sit down’, kly ‘to stand up’, Ҩl‫‘ ܥ‬to go to sleep’, dmx ‘to lie down, go to sleep’, rkw ‘to mount (an animal)’, mҨy ‘to arrive’, npl ‘to fall down’, pq‫‘ ܥ‬to split’, sps ‘to rot’, ‫ܥ‬ҁy/ҁy‫‘ ܥ‬to get stuck’, gðl ‘to become frozen’: (1) ‫ܥ‬áw hóle tìwa| ‘He has sat down’ (verbal) ‘He is seated’ (adjectival) |

(2) ‫ܥ‬áw hóle Ҩlìya

‘He has gone to sleep’ (verbal) ‘He is asleep’ (adjectival)

(3) ‫ܥ‬áw hóle npìla| ‘He has fallen’ (verbal) ‘He is (lying) fallen’ (adjectival) The adjectival function of the resultative participle of such verbs is demonstrated by the fact that it can function as an attributive modifier of the participant that is affected by the event, i.e. the subject noun, e.g.

(4) ‫ܥ‬aw-náša hóle tìwa| naša tiwa| (5) ‫ܥ‬aw-yála hóle Ҩlìya| yala Ҩliya|

‘A seated man’ ‘The child is asleep’ ‘A sleeping child’

(6) ‫ܥ‬aw-yála hóle npìla| yala npila

‘The man is seated’

|

‘The child is (lying) fallen’ ‘A fallen child’

Furthermore the adjectival interpretation of the copula predicate is shown by the fact that it can be combined with the adverbial heš ‘still’ in cases where the resulting state is not permanent, e.g. héš hóle tìwa| ‘He is still seated’, héš hóle Ҩlìya| ‘He is still asleep’.

GEOFFREY KHAN

116

The category of telic achievements include various verbs that denote ingressiveness into a state. The subject of these is typically an experiencer rather than an agent, e.g. pҁx ‘to become merry’, xðy ‘to become happy’, krb ‘to become angry’, myLJ ‘to become dead, die’: (7) ‫ܥ‬áw hóle xũ‫ڮ‬ðya|

‘He has become happy’ (verbal) ‘He is happy’ (adjectival)

naša xũðya (8) ‫ܥ‬áw hóle mìLJa|

‘A happy man’ (adjectival attribute) ‘He has died’ (verbal) ‘He is dead’ (adjectival)

naša miLJa

‘A dead man’ (adjectival attribute)

Various telic intransitive verbs have a dynamic component with some degree of quantifiable durativity and so should be classified as accomplishments, although in some cases the subject is inanimate. These include, for example, m-qrn ‘to grow up’, m-nty ‘to succeed’, rLJx ‘to boil’, ÒܑmÒܑ ‘to wither’, qry ‘to study (i.e. to apply one’s mind purposefully to the acquisition of knowledge), to be educated’: (9) bróni hóle mqӟrũ‫ڮ‬na|

‘My son has grown up’ (verbal) ‘My son is grown up’ (adjectival)

brona mqӟrũna

(10) míya hóla rLJìxe

‘A grown-up son’ (adjectival attribute)

‘The water has boiled’ (verbal) ‘The water is boiling’ (adjectival)

miya rLJixe (11) ‫ܥ‬áw hóle qũ‫ڮ‬rya|

‘Boiling water’ (adjectival attribute) ‘He has studied’ (verbal) ‘He is educated’ (adjectival)

naša qũrya

‘An educated man’ (adjectival attribute)

If the resultative participle in an intransitive clause is from an atelic verb, which by its nature does not express an event with an inherent resultant state, only a verbal interpretation is possible. The participle does not function as an adjective expressing a state, as shown by the fact that it can-

THE PRETERITE AND THE PERFECT IN NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC

117

not serve as an attributive adjectival modifier of the affected participant of the event nor can it be combined with the adverbial heš ‘still’. Attested atelic intransitive verbs include those classified as activities and statives. Activity verbs include, for example, zmr ‘to sing’, bxy ‘to weep’, spr ‘to wait’, plx ‘to work’: (12) ‫ܥ‬aw-náša hóle zmìra|

‘The man has sung’ (verbal)

*naša zmira (13) ‫ܥ‬aw-náša hóle plìxa|

‘The man has worked’ (verbal)

*naša plixa Punctual activities include such verbs as tpLJ ‘to sneeze’, m-tnx ‘to sigh’ (14) ‫ܥ‬aw-náša hóle tpìLJa|

‘The man has sneezed’

*naša tpiLJa (15) ‫ܥ‬aw-náša hóle mtùnxa|

‘The man has sighed’

*naša mtunxa The resultative participle is combined with the copula also in the predicate of transitive clauses, which contain an argument in addition to that of the subject. In such constructions the participle always has a verbal interpretation. The participle and the copula agree with the subject, e.g. (16) ‫ܥ‬aw-náša hóle dwíqa bàxta.| ‘The man has seized a woman.’ (verbal) Perfective transitive events are typically telic, in that they result in a state which constitutes an inherent endpoint. The affected participant in the event is generally the goal of the action, in (16) ‘a woman’, rather than the subject referent. A resultative participle can only be used adjectivally when it is a predicative or attributive adjective of the affected participant of a telic event. It follows that the participle can be used adjectivally in a passive construction such as (17), in which the affectee of the event is subject. This is shown by the fact that it can be combined with the adverb heš ‘still’, which can only be used in relation to states, e.g. (17) ‫ܥ‬ay-báxta hóla dwìqta.|

‘The woman is seized’.

‫ܥ‬ay-báxta héš hóla dwìqta.|

‘The woman is still seized’.

‫ܥ‬ay-baxta dwiqta

‘The seized woman’

GEOFFREY KHAN

118

Such passive constructions can also have a perfective verbal interpretation, e.g. (18) ‫ܥ‬ay-báxta hóla dwìqta.|

‘The woman has been seized’.

The agent is optionally expressed in a phrase introduced by the preposition l- or mũn. This can be used both when the participle has a verbal interpretation and also when it is adjectival, e.g. (19) ‫ܥ‬aw-qðíla hóle mtúrҁa l-baznàye| ‘The key has been made by Baz people’ (verbal) ‫ܥ‬aw-qðíla hóle mtúrҁa l-baznàye| ‘The key is made by Baz people’ (adjectival) qðila mturҁa l-baznaye ‘A key made by Baz people’ (adjectival attribute) In transitive clauses such as (16) the resultative participle and the copula agree grammatically with the subject of the clause, which refers to the agent, rather than the object, which refers to the affectee, so only a verbal interpretation is possible. Furthermore, the grammatical agreement with the subject, which is the agent of the event, forces the participle to be interpreted with an active rather than passive voice. This active interpretation is further demonstrated by the fact that pronominal objects are expressed by attaching L-suffixes, which are used elsewhere to express the pronominal object of active verbs, e.g. (20) ‫ܥ‬aw-náša hóle dwìqũlla| ‘The man has seized her’. cf. ‫ܥ‬aw-náša b-dawũ‫ڮ‬qla| ‘The man will seize her’. The behaviour of the resulative participle in the various structural configurations discussed above may be summarized in the table below: Function

Grammatical agreement

Intransitive telic

Verbal/adjectival

Grammatical subject

Intransitive atelic

Verbal

Grammatical subject

Transitive active

Verbal

Grammatical subject

Transitive passive

Verbal/adjectival

Grammatical subject

The following historical development of the construction may be hypothesized. The resultative participle was originally an adjectival form

THE PRETERITE AND THE PERFECT IN NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC

119

qualifying the affectee of an event, denoting the resultant state of the affectee in a telic intransitive event or a transitive event. When used predicatively an ambiguity developed between the interpretation of the function of the construction as the expression of the resultant stative property (adjectival) or the verbal event that brought about the state (verbal). The verbal interpretation was extended by analogy to intransitive atelic predicates, which do not result in any state and could not by themselves provide the semantic basis required for the formation of the resultative participle. It was also extended by analogy to transitive active predicates. The feature of agreement with the grammatical subject was extended by analogy from the original intransitive/passive construction to the transitive active construction.

6.2. Function in Non-Narrative Discourse We shall now examine in greater detail the function that these resultative constructions have when used verbally. It is important to make a distinction between its usage in narrative texts and its usage in non-narrative discourse. In non-narrative discourse the resultative form is used to denote the result of a past verbal event that is in existence in the present. It is generally appropriate to translate it with the English present perfect. The deictic copula is used with the participle to draw particular attention to a current situation. There is a certain amount of subjectivity in the use of the deictic copula, but it is generally employed in assertive clauses to draw attention to a resultant state that has some kind of relevance to the immediate present moment in time, e.g. hole ‫ܥ‬ũLJya ‘He has come’. In interrogative clauses the enclitic copula is used, e.g. ‫ܥ‬ũLJyŲle? ‘Has he come?’ The construction is negated in both assertions and questions by the negative copula, e.g. lŲle ‫ܥ‬ũLJya ‘He has not come’, lŲle ‫ܥ‬ũLJya? ‘Has he not come’. The expression hole ‫ܥ‬ũLJya ‘He has come’ denotes that the subject has the property of ‘having come’, which is the result of a prior event of coming. It asserts the existence in the present of the result of an event without referring directly to any specific event that brought about this result. Therefore, without further specification by a time adverbial in the clause or by the discourse context, the statement hole ‫ܥ‬ũLJya denotes that he has the property of ‘having come’ as a result of some unspecified event of coming that occurred some time in the past. There is no restriction on when the event occurred

120

GEOFFREY KHAN

other than that it was some time before the present. The qҨille form, 5 by contrast, refers directly to a specific event in the past and not to its result. The event has typically occurred in the recent past and this may extend up to the present moment. The expression dìya LJéle| ‘He has come just now’ would be used to assert the occurrence of a specific event that has just taken place. Likewise the qҨilwale form LJewale denotes the occurrence of a specific event in the more remote past. It may be the case that the result of the actions of qҨille and qҨilwale have some kind of relevance in the present. This is especially the case with regard to qҨille, which, in conversational discourse, is often translated most appropriately with the English ‘perfect of recent past’. 6 Such resultant present relevance is, however, an implicature of their use rather than a component of their meaning. As remarked, the endpoint of an event expressed by qҨille may be the present moment. The qҨille form LJele ‘He has come’ would be used by a speaker when he sees a person walking through the door of his home and the greeting said to the visitor on his arrival would be b-šŲ‫ڮ‬na LJélux!| ‘You have come in peace!’ The resultative form refers to a resultant state that holds at a period that is not adjacent temporally with the endpoint of the event. The resultant state is disconnected from the event temporally in that the resultative form is typically used after some time has elapsed after the event, crucially when none of the event can be witnessed directly. The resultative form hole ‫ܥ‬ũLJya ‘He has come’, for example, would be used when a guest is sitting in the house and nothing of the event of his coming is to be seen. The form LJele would be used if any phase of the event of coming can be seen directly by the speaker, even if this is only the static endpoint of his standing at the door. One says dìya LJéle| ‘He has come just now’ referring explicitly to the fact that the endpoint of the event coincides with the present moment, but the expression *diya hole ‫ܥ‬ũLJya would not be felicitous. The resultative form is disconnected from the event also referentially in that it does not make any direct reference to the specific event that caused the result in question. The result expressed by the resultative form may be an actual perceptible situation or an experiential property of the subject referent, e.g.

5 For the sake of conciseness we shall dispense with noting in all cases the fact that the qũm-qaҨũl and qũm-qaҨũlwa forms are suppletive variants of transitive perfective qҨille and qҨilwale forms when pronominal suffixes are added. 6 For this type of English perfect see Comrie (1976: 60).

THE PRETERITE AND THE PERFECT IN NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC

121

(1) hón xíla gũ‫ڮ‬rðo.| ‘I have eaten stew.’ (2) xílli gũ‫ڮ‬rðo.| ‘I have eaten the stew.’ Example (1) may be interpreted as asserting that at the present moment there is a perceptible result of my having eaten stew at some unspecified time in the past, e.g. I had a large stew for lunch and cannot eat much dinner. This construction could also be interpreted as asserting that I have the permanent property of being in the state of having eaten stew, i.e. it has been part of my life experience. In this interpretation it denotes that on some occasion, possibly on more than one occasion, I have eaten stew, though not necessarily recently. The purpose of the deictic copula in both interpretations would be to draw attention to the relevance of the past event to the present moment in time. In both cases there is a degree of indeterminateness concerning the event. The verbal form implies the existence of at least one unspecified member of the set of past events of eating. In the first interpretation the implication from the discourse context in which it is used (e.g. in response to the question ‘Why do you not want to eat your dinner?’) is that there was only one unspecified event. In the experiential interpretation the possibility remains open that there were more than one. In example (2) the qҨille form, by contrast, refers to the occurrence of one specific event that occurred at a specific point in time in the recent past. In such a construction the noun gũrðo would, therefore, normally be definite with a specific identifiable referent. The context may force a definite interpretation of an object nominal of a resultative construction, e.g. (3) A: ‫ܥ‬Ų‫ڟ‬kŲle gũ‫ڮ‬rðo?| B: hón xílũlle gũ‫ڮ‬rðo.| ‘A: “Where is the stew?” B: “I have eaten the stew.”’ (4) A: ‫ܥ‬Ų‫ڟ‬kŲle gũ‫ڮ‬rðo?| B: xílli gũ‫ڮ‬rðo.| ‘A: “Where is the stew?” B: “I have eaten the stew.”’ The difference between these is as follows. The resulative construction in (3) asserts a present state that is disconnected temporally from the event that caused it, so the event must have happened at some time in the past that is not adjacent to the present moment, e.g. several hours ago or yesterday. The qҨille form would be used as in (4) when the endpoint of the past event is adjacent to the present, i.e. I have just now eaten it, where a translation with the English perfect of recent past would be appropriate. The indeterminateness of the event signified by the resultative form means that the individual referents of plural nouns or nouns of mass in the

122

GEOFFREY KHAN

clause can be interpreted as being distributed over more than one event during a particular duration of time, e.g. (5) ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڟ‬dyo hón xíla rába xabùše.| ‘Today I have eaten many apples.’ (6) ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڟ‬dyo hóla ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڟ‬LJye rába nàše.| ‘Today many people have come.’ (7) ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڟ‬dyo hón xíla lũ‫ڮ‬xma.| ‘Today I have eaten bread.’ Example (5), with a plural patient argument ‘apples’, can be interpreted as meaning that during the course of today up to the present moment there have been various occasions on which I have eaten apples. The consumption of ‘many apples’ may have been distributed over various events, with a few apples being eaten on each occasion. It could also be interpreted as denoting the result of a single event of apple eating. Likewise example (6), which has a plural subject argument, can be interpreted as meaning either that the ‘many people’ came separately in a series of discrete events or that they arrived together. The construction reports only that ‘many people’ are in the resultant state of ‘having come’, without denoting that this was the result of one or of a series of events. The interpretation of (7), which has a noun of mass ‘bread’ as an object argument, could be that I have eaten some bread on various occasions today or only one occasion. Contrast this with the equivalent clauses with qҨille forms: (8) ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڟ‬dyo xílli rába xabùše.| ‘Today I ate many apples.’ (9) ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڟ‬dyo LJéla rába nàše.| ‘Today many people came.’ (10) ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڟ‬dyo xílli lũ‫ڮ‬xma.| ‘Today I ate bread.’ The qҨille form denotes a specific event and (8)–(10) must be interpreted as referring to single events. The adverbial ‫ܥ‬ũdyo ‘today’ would normally force the interpretation that the endpoint of these events occurred before the present moment and so they must be translated with the English preterite. In some circumstances the context indicates the specific event that caused the present result. If, for example, the clause contains a punctual time adverbial binding the event to a particular point in time with no duration, the event is fully specified. Clauses containing the resultative form combined with such time adverbials, therefore, assert the existence of a present state and the context signals that it has been caused by this specific event. These would still differ from corresponding clauses with the qҨille form, which assert the occurrence of the event but the existence of a present state is only a possible implicature, which may be cancelled. Note that in

THE PRETERITE AND THE PERFECT IN NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC

123

English the present perfect is not used when the clause contains such time adverbials, e.g. (11) xóni hóle ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڟ‬LJya ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڟ‬dyo b-sá‫ܥ‬ũt ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڟ‬ÒÒܑ aܑ -w pàlge.| ‘My brother came today at half past nine.’ (12) xóni LJéle ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڟ‬dyo b-sá‫ܥ‬ũt ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڟ‬ÒÒܑ aܑ -w pàlge.| ‘My brother came today at half past nine.’ The construction (11) with the resultative form asserts that my brother is currently in the state of ‘having come’ and so would be the natural construction to use if he is still here. Construction (12) could be interpreted as implying that he is still here, but this implicature could be cancelled and the form would still be felicitous (13). Any corresponding denial of the existence of the present result with the resultative construction would not be felicitous (14), e.g. (13) xóni LJéle ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڟ‬dyo b-sá‫ܥ‬ũt ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڮ‬ÒÒܑ aܑ ,| bás plíҨle báLJũr pàlgũt-sa‫ܥ‬ũt.| ‘My brother came today at nine o’clock, but left after half an hour.’ (14) ?? xóni hóle ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڟ‬LJya ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڟ‬dyo b-sá‫ܥ‬ũt ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڮ‬ÒÒܑ aܑ ,| bás hóle plíҨa báLJũr pàlgũt-sa‫ܥ‬ũt.| ‘My brother came today at nine o’clock, but left after half an hour.’ The functional features of the resultative that have been described above are also discernible in its negated form lŲle qҨila. The negative form lŲle ‫ܥ‬ũLJya ‘He has not come’ can be analysed as meaning that he is currently not in a state of ‘having come’. Thus no specific event is negated. The implication is that no event of coming has occurred at any time. The negative la qҨille form, on the other hand, negates the occurrence of a specific event in the recent past. The event has its specificity and definiteness by being bound to a particular point in time in the discourse context. Consider (15): (15) lat-nxàpa!?| xá ‫ܥ‬axwáLJi mìra| dráya šlámi ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڮ‬llux| ‫ܥ‬u-‫ܥ‬áti tíwa l-Ҩìzux!| lũ‫ڟ‬mo la-qìmlux?| ‘Are you not ashamed!? A prince like me greets you and you sit on your bum. Why did you not get up?’ (A26:48) Here the question with the negated qҨille form la-qìmlux is intended to ask why the addressee did not get up specifically at the time that the speaker greeted him. The translation of such negated qҨille forms by the English perfect of recent past is appropriate in a context where an event was expected to occur and the endpoint of its occurrence was expected to be adjacent with the present. If somebody is expected to arrive at a house at a particular time, somebody in the house may say LJèle? ‘Has he come?’ The

124

GEOFFREY KHAN

response to this could be là LJéle ‘He has not come’, which would deny that he has come at this expected specific point in time in the recent past, with no necessary implication that he will come in the future. After uttering this, it would be appropriate to assert an action that is sequential to this specific point in time, e.g. là LJéle.| ‫ܥ‬àzũx.| ‘He has not come. Let’s go’. The negated qҨille form là-LJela in (16) should be interpreted in this way: (16) xéna ‫ܥ‬ána qŲ‫ڟ‬mũn ‫ܥ‬ázũn ‫ܥ‬ùmra,| ‫ܥ‬ánna xonwáLJa là-LJela.| ‘Well, I shall go to church. These brothers have not come back (now when I expected them to come).’ (A37:2) Note also (17), in which the absence of expectation that the man will come in the future is made explicit: (17) xóni zílle ‫ܥ‬u-lá LJèle.| ‫ܥ‬u-díya ‫ܥ‬ána hon-xšáwa leš-‫ܥ‬àLJe.| ‘My brother has gone and has not come back, and now I think he will no longer come back.’ (A8:60) The negated qҨille form can be combined with the temporal adverbial particles referring to the present moment, such as heš ‘still’ and hal-diya ‘until now’. These underscore that that the action that is negated was expected to happen at a point in the immediate past adjacent to the present moment, e.g. heš-là LJéle,| ‫ܥ‬àzũx!; hal-díya là LJéle,| ‫ܥ‬àzũx!| These could be paraphrased: We have waited for him until the present moment, when he was expected to come, but he has not come at the expected time, so now let’s go. It would not be appropriate to use the negated qҨille form là LJéle if there is still an expectation that the person will come. If there is such an expectation the negated resulative form lŲle ‫ܥ‬ũLJya would be used. The latter form asserts that he is currently not in a state of ‘having come’ but it does not assert that this state is permanent. This is because the negative copula does not specify the permanency of the state. It may denote either a permanent or a contingent state. The form lŲle ‫ܥ‬ũLJya, therefore, could be used if the speaker expects this state to be temporary and assumes he will come at some point in the future. If the construction is combined by the particle heš ‘still, yet’ (e.g. heš lŲle ‫ܥ‬ũμya ‘He has not yet come’), the scope of the assertion is narrowed to the present moment, i.e. at the present moment he is not in a state of ‘having come’, which implies that he may come at some point in the future. Since a negative resultative such as lŲle ‫ܥ‬ũLJya ‘He has not come’ has generic temporal reference (‘at no time in the past’), it is normal to use this construction with negative generic time adverbials such as Òu-ga ‘never’, e.g.

THE PRETERITE AND THE PERFECT IN NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC

125

(18) Òú-ga lŲ‫ڟ‬le ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڮ‬LJya.| ‘He has never come.’ (19) Òú-ga lát xũ‫ڮ‬zyũlle?| ‘Have you not ever seen him?’ In what follows we shall present various examples from direct speech in recorded narrative texts containing resultative forms and qҨille/qũm-qaҨũl forms that should be translated by the English present perfect. The reasons that led the speaker to choose one form rather than the other will be examined in the light of the foregoing discussion. (20) sígũn ‫ܥ‬áti bŲ‫ڟ‬LJi muxrùlux!| … mŨ‫ڟ‬ra hàtxŨt wíða?| mŨ‫ڟ‬ra hot-ҁҨìmũlle bŲ‫ڟ‬LJŨt xálux.| ‘Go away! You have destroyed my house! [This is said to the culprit when still on the scene of the event. The endpoint of the event is the present moment]’ (A23:32) …‘She said “Have you done this?” She said “You have ruined the house of your uncle. [Said by the mother of the culprit after an interval of time has passed since the endpoint of the event and the culprit has moved away spatially from the scene of the event]”’ (A23:39) (21) mũ‫ڟ‬ra málka Ҧ-áwũt basìma,| brátux hóla Òíttũllux Ҧ-ázũt kũslŲ‫ڮ‬ni.| ‫ܥ‬áxni maxzũ‫ڮ‬xxe bŲ‫ڟ‬LJa,| ‫ܥ‬áti Ҧ-áLJũt mũnnŲ‫ڮ‬ni.| mũ‫ڟ‬re ‫ܥ‬áy bráti híwũnna ta-xánaša špìla.| gu-tanúra qũm-ÒŲdàli.| ‘They said “King, may you be healthy, your daughter has invited you to come to us. [The event of the daughter’s issuing the invitation is temporally and spatially detached from the present speech situation] We shall show you the house. You will come with us.” He said “I have given this daughter of mine to a paralysed man. [This event took place some time ago, at a temporal and spatial distance from the speech situation] She has invited me to an oven (house) [i.e. she has just invited me, I have just received the invitation now, here in temporal and spatial proximity to the speech situation] ”’ (A40:9–10) (22) ‫ܥ‬o-qamàya| ‫ܥ‬ámŨr ‫ܥ‬òh| zúzi munšìli.| qŲ‫ڟ‬mŨn dŲ‫ڮ‬яŨn| ‫ܥ‬ázŨn šáqlŨn zùzi| m-rŨš-‫ܥ‬Ų‫ڮ‬na.| ..... ‫ܥ‬àmŨr| mpálŨҨla zùzi!,| ‫ܥ‬Ũ‫ڟ‬mma dináre ‫ܥ‬ána honmùnšŨlla láxxa.| lázŨm yawŨ‫ڮ‬tla.| ‘The other said “Oh, I have forgotten my money. [i.e. ‘I have just now forgotten’, said while he is still on the road leading away from the place where the money was left, so the event is temporally and spatially close to the speech situation] I’ll return and go to take my money from on top of the spring.” … He said “Bring out my money! I have forgotten one hundred dinars here. [This is said after a longer interval of time has intervened between the present moment and the occurrence of the event] You must

126

GEOFFREY KHAN

give it (to me).”’ (A15:2–3) (23) mũ‫ڟ‬re xàli| xmàre,| šáwwaLJna hóla xíle l-dèwa,| mũ‫ڟ‬re qũm-mŲLJũ‫ڟ‬nna qurҨanèy.| ‘He said “Uncle, the asses, the seven of them have been eaten by wolves.” [The event happened some time ago, temporally and spatially remote from the speech situation]. He said “I have brought their blankets. [i.e. just now, referring to an event that is temporally and spatially adjacent to the speech situation]”’ (A23:15)

6.3. Function in Narrative In the narrative sections of folktales the resulative form is frequently used with the function of a preterite to relate a specific punctual event in the past without any assertion of the existence of a resultant state in the present. When it has this function, it is normally used with the enclitic copula rather than the deictic copula. Since in narrative it denotes a punctual event rather than a durable resultant state, it may be used to express a chain of sequential events, e.g. (1) qìmela| b-lèle| Ҩrípũlla Zìne| ‫ܥ‬u-mùLJyũlla,| núblũlla kũs-Mmo.| núblũlla kũs-Mmo.| dmìxela.| яìštŲla,| zìptũllela| Ҩla-Mmo.| ‘At night they went and seized Zine and brought her, they took her to Mmo. They took her to Mmo. They slept. She woke up and pushed Mmo (out of bed). (A26:3) (2) nùblũlle| súsũt Qára Tèždin,| gríšũlle m-rũš-gũ‫ڮ‬lla| m-xàla,| síяũlle ‫ܥ‬o-dáw šópe dìye| ‫ܥ‬u-sìqŲle.| síqŲle mũxyŲle l-tra.| ‘He took the horse of Qara Teždin. He pulled it from the grass he was eating and tied his own in its place, then went up. He went up and knocked on the door.’ (A26:29) The copula is sometimes omitted from the participle when it has this narrative preterite function. This typically occurs in a series of clauses that open with a verb with the copula. The clause or clauses without the copula express events that are closely sequential to that of the opening clause. The purpose of the speaker is to present these as components of one overall event rather than as a series of discrete events. The initial verb in the chain is often a verb of movement or the verb qym ‘to arise’, which in narrative frequently loses its original meaning and is used simply to mark the onset of a new event, e.g. (3) ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڟ‬LJyela jmìye.| ‘They came and gathered together.’ (A22:2)

THE PRETERITE AND THE PERFECT IN NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC

127

(4) ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڟ‬LJyŲle wìra.| ‘He came and entered.’ (A26:47) (5) qímŲle ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڟ‬LJya síqa l-gàre.| ‘He got up, came and went up onto the roof.’ (A26:40) Normally in such chains of events the clause with the participle without the copula has the same subject as the preceding clause, as is the case in the examples above. When there is a change in subject a copula is generally used, e.g. (6) síqŲle mũ‫ڟ‬xya l-tra| ‫ܥ‬u-plíҨҨŲla Sũttìye.| ‘He went up and knocked on the door and Sũttiye came out.’ (A26:29) (7) ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڟ‬LJyŲle tíwa b-dìwũn| ‫ܥ‬u-náše kúlla tìwela| gu-dìwũn.| ‘He came and sat down in the reception room, and everybody else sat down in the reception room.’ (A26:63) In the case of a sequence of two verbs that are closely related and presented as a tightly knit unit in the same intonation group, the copula is sometimes put only on the second participle of the sequence. This is most often found where the first verb of the sequence expresses movement, e.g. (8) ‫ܥ‬áwwa gáwяa díya síqŲle l-Nìnwe,| díяa ‫ܥ‬Ũ‫ڮ‬LJyŲle.| ‘Her husband went up to Nineveh, then returned and came back.’ (A13:2) (9) ‫ܥ‬aw-‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڟ‬LJya wìrŲle.| ‘He came and entered.’ (A34:14) In narratives the preterite qҨilŲle form is used interchangeably with the qҨille/qũm-qaҨũl form, which is the other main narrative verb form. The narrator constantly shifts from one form to the other. These shifts often coincide with some kind of reorientation in the narrative, especially where there is a change in subject and the narrator directs attention to another character, e.g. (10) qímŲle lŲ‫ڮ‬le šũ‫ڟ‬tya qáwa.| tíwŲle l-xáҁũ súse dìye| ‫ܥ‬u-díяŲle ҁũ‫ڟ‬lyŲle rũš-d-Ų‫ڮ‬‫ܥ‬Ųna.| ‫ܥ‬Ų-‫ܥ‬Ų‫ڟ‬na Ҧ-ìle ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڟ‬LJya qamáye réša.| Qára Téždin dìяяe| LJéle bŲ‫ڮ‬LJa| ‫ܥ‬ámũr hà| báxta kŲ‫ڟ‬le ‫ܥ‬àrxa?| ‘He got up and did not drink the coffee. He sat on the back of his horse and went back down to the spring, the spring to which he had come previously. Qara Teždin returned home and said “Ah, wife, where is the guest?”’ (A26:32-33) (11) síqŲle l-gàre| maxzóyũlle Jazíra Bòta.| Zìne| ‫ܥ‬u-‫ܥ‬án-xaddamyáLJa díya ҁléla rũš-‫ܥ‬Ų‫ڮ‬na.| ‘He went up onto the roof to show him Jazira Bota. Zine and her maid-servants went down to the spring.’ (A26:40)

128

GEOFFREY KHAN

The use of the qҨilŲle construction in narratives to express sequential events in the past seems prima facie to be unusual. It is unlikely that the normal function of qҨilŲle to express present resultant states has been here exploited to give vividness to past events. More effective means of expressing such vividness are available to the narrator in the qҨille form, which expresses events in the immediate past, or the perfective qaҨũl, which expresses punctual events taking place in the present moment. The resultant states expressed by the present perfect qҨilŲle, moreover, are temporally unbounded and would more naturally be used to express temporally overlapping states rather than be concatenated to express sequential situations. A more satisfactory explanation is to regard this function of the qҨilŲle form in narratives to have originated in the use of the present perfect as an evidential verbal form. In many languages present perfect verb forms have developed the function of expressing past events for which the speaker has no direct evidence. Such forms are used when the speaker has not witnessed the event first hand, but has acquired knowledge of the event only by hearsay report or by inference from indirect evidence. The propensity of the present perfect to develop this function in languages is due to the fact that it does not present an event directly but only through its results (Comrie 1976: 108–10; Aikhenvald 2004: 112–15)). The stimulus for the NENA present perfect to have its function extended in this way was probably given by language contact. A likely candidate for the source of this influence is Turkish. This language has an evidential verbal form (distinguished by the affix -mi҅), which is associated morphologically and functionally with the perfect. A relevant feature of the Turkish evidential form is that it is used in fictional narratives with no basis in reality, such as myths and folktales (Slobin and Aksu 1982, Aksu and Slobin 1986, Aksu-Koç 1988: 25), which are the type of narrative text where the qҨilŲle preterite is most often encountered in the C. Barwar dialect. A perfect verb form extended to express the evidential denotes perfective events rather than present states and so can be used felicitously to express sequential narrative events. It should be noted, however, that in the Christian Barwar NENA dialect, it appears that the qҨilŲle perfect form is not used with an evidential function outside of narrative contexts. In contexts that would typically trigger an evidential form, informants use both qҨille and qҨilŲle with their usual distinction in temporal-aspectual function, e.g. (12) márŲle xóni ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڟ‬LJyŲle qedàmta.| ‘He says that my brother came this morning.’

THE PRETERITE AND THE PERFECT IN NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC

129

(13) mabyónela xóni ‫ܥ‬ũ‫ڟ‬LJyŲle qedàmta.| ‘It seems that my brother came this morning.’ (14) márŲle xóni dìya LJéle.| ‘He says that my brother has just come’ (15) mabyónela xóni dìya LJéle.| ‘It seems that my brother has just come’ Furthermore speakers use 1st person qҨilŲle forms in narratives. This is difficult to reconcile with an evidential function, which is characteristically used when a speaker has indirect evidence of an event in which he/she has not participated, e.g. (16) mára zílũn l-trũt pũrdŲ‫ڮ‬sa| … xìlũn| ‫ܥ‬u-šŨ‫ڮ‬tyũn.| … ‫ܥ‬u-‫ܥ‬ámũr qáša ‫ܥ‬u-‫ܥ‬àna?| ‫ܥ‬ámũr dũ-klì!| ‫ܥ‬ámũr hádũx ‫ܥ‬áp-‫ܥ‬ati ‫ܥ‬Ũ‫ڮ‬LJyũt.| ‫ܥ‬ámũr ‫ܥ‬Ũ‫ڮ‬LJyŲt.| mŨ‫ڟ‬Ҩyũt kũslèy.| ‘He says “I went to the door of Paradise … I ate and drank.” … The priest says “And me?” He says “Wait!” He says “Meanwhile you also came.” He says “You came and went up to them.” (A2:7-9) (17) ‫ܥ‬ána-ži m-kŲ‫ڟ‬rbi ‫ܥ‬Ũ‫ڟ‬LJyũn ‫ܥ‬á-kLJŲLJa múttũnna rũš-núra ‫ܥ‬u-xìlũnna.| ‘I, out of my anger, came and put the chicken on the fire and ate it.’ (A2:11) In the light of the foregoing, it is easiest to regard the qҨilŲle preterite as a narrative verbal form, characteristic of fictitious discourse, which originally developed in imitation of the use of the Turkish evidential verbal forms with –mi҅ in fictitious narrative. It did not, however, come to be used as a fully functional evidential form that could be used outside of narrative.

REFERENCES Aikhenvald, A.Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aksu-Koc, A. and D. Slobin. 1986. “A psychological Account of the Development and Use of Evidentials in Turkish.” In Evidentiality: the Linguistic Encoding of Epistemology, edited by W. Chafe and J. Nichols, 159–67. New Jersey: Norwood. Aksu-Koc, A. 1988. The Acquisition of Aspects and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hopkins, S. 1989. “Neo-Aramaic Dialects and the Formation of the Preterite.” Journal of Semitic Studies 37: 74–90. ———. 2002. “Preterite and Perfect in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic of Kerend.” In “Sprich doch mit deinen Knechten aramäisch, wir verstehen es!” 60 Bei-

130

GEOFFREY KHAN

träge zur Semitistik: Festschrift für Otto Jastrow zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by W. Arnold and H. Bobzin, 281–98. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Khan, G. 2004. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Sulemaniyya and ɂalabja. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2007a. “The North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic Dialects.” Journal of Semitic Studies 52: 1–20. ———. 2007b. “Indicative Markers in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic.” In XII Incontro Italiano di Linguistica Camito-semitica (Afroasiatica). Atti, edited by M. Moriggi, 85–97. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino. ———. 2008. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar, Leiden: Brill. MacKenzie, D.N. 1961. Kurdish Dialect Studies-I. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Slobin, D.I and A. A. Aksu. 1982. “Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Use of the Turkish Evidential.” In Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics, edited by P.J. Hopper, 185–200. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: Benjamins. Vendler, Z. 1957. “Verbs and Times.” Philosophical Review 56: 143–60. ———. 1967. “Verbs and Times.” In Linguistics in Philosophy, edited by Z. Vendler, 97–121. Ithaca–New York: Cornell University Press.

BETWEEN NOUNS AND VERBS IN NEO-ARAMAIC OLGA KAPELIUK 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS The hypothesis that word classes, or parts of speech, such as noun, adjective and verb, are not discrete entities, as described in traditional grammar, but rather present a gradual passage from one category to another, has been extensively discussed in contemporary linguistics since the early 1970’s. In a contribution to the collective work: Syntax: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung entitled ‘Syntactic categories and sub-categories’ Hans-Jürgen Sasse chose to describe the formation of tenses in Neo-Aramaic as an example of a language which can “acquire or loose word-classdetermining categories in the course of its historical development.” 1 In what follows I have borrowed from H.-J. Sasse the convenient terms “verby”, “verbiness”, “nouny”, “nouniness” and the “N(oun)-V(erb) scale”, but I have refrained from adopting the two more audacious although quite adequate neologisms “nerbs” and “vouns”, employed in describing certain Australian languages. 2 Sasse’s case study deals only with the simple verb, but the Neo-Aramaic tense system has not stopped at the stage of verbalization of the ancient participles in their absolute form, and in many dialects has been expanded on the base of the infinitive and of the ancient emphatic passive participle. 3 It

1

Sasse (1993: 1. 660). See the bibliography on word classes adduced there. Sasse (2001: 1. 498–99). 3 The Jewish dialect of Arbel is a rather rare case of a dialect which has no compound tense either with the infinitive or with the partciple (Khan 1999: 7); for another combination instead of the infinitive and the participle in the dialect of Senaya and for an interesting explanation of this marginal phenomenon see Heinrichs (2002: 240–42 et passim). 2

OLGA KAPELIUK

132

is with them that I shall deal in what follows, referring also briefly to the noun of action and to the deverbal adjective in -ũnũ. The parameters for classification on the scale of nouniness and verbiness, or on the N–V scale, will be the following: the kind of pronouns which the nominal form governs and their function, its manner of governing an explicit object, its capacity to act as the predicate of an independent sentence and its use as a subordinate clause. Contrary to Sasse’s, mine is a purely synchronic study and it is based exclusively on texts in the Christian Urmi dialect 4 and occasionally on examples from the Jewish Zakho dialect, with sporadic references to other dialects. The examples unmarked for dialect are all in Christian Urmi.

2. NOUN OF ACTION Though not functioning as part of the verbal system, the noun of action has some morpho-syntactic characteristics which distinguish it from an ordinary noun. It has the form ptũxtũ in the 1st stem, pũrũqtũ in the 2nd stem, tũmmũztũ, tũxmũntũ in the 3rd stem, and mũplũxtũ in the 4th stem. 5 Being an abstract noun it has no plural. Among the deverbal nouns it stands at the nouny extremity of the N–V scale. Contrary to the infinitive and the participle, it may be qualified by a demonstrative pronoun and an adjective (1). It receives the pronouns of the adnominal “possessive” series, suffixed or independent, both as the subject and the object. 6 The use of the pronoun as subject, most uncommon with the infinitive, is a distinctive indicator of the relatively high nouniness of the noun of action (2), (3), (4):

(1) tilun gũhũ xitũ. Ijtũ b ũhũ tetũ xitũ vilun savur®j (PAH 70/23-24) ‘They came another time. Then, in this other coming, they have started cursing me’.

4

Mostly from the 1930’s published in the Soviet Union and written in the Soviet Latin script. In this transcription the symbol ũ stands for front a and the symbol ® for central i. For abbreviations indicating the source of the examples refer to the list at the end of the article. 5 For the classification of the verbal stems in Urmi see Kapeliuk (2005). 6 Kapeliuk (1992: 71–71). It is interesting to point out that in Urmi the adnominal pronouns may mark the object also with non-deverbal nouns. Thus in the following example the pronoun refers to the object b xi҅҅-u pi҅tivũnvũ (HIS 15/7) ‘I had remained longing [for] him (= in his longing).

BETWEEN NOUNS AND VERBS IN NEO-ARAMAIC

133

(2) min vet-oxun sũvitun (HSI 4/24) ‘You are old from your birth’. (3) b x҅ũvtũ dijij (MGM 12/19) ‘According to my thinking’. (4) qũ pũrũqtũ dije, qũ palaҬt-e al xũ urxũ qũlultũ (HSI 30/16-17) ‘For saving them, for leading them on an easy path’. The noun of action governs its explicit object mostly as a noun, within the annexation complex with d (5); this d is also present with the nota accusativi (7), and with a prepositional complement (8), literally meaning ‘not looking of at the discomfort’. I have found only one example of a verby government of the object from an oral text, which may point out to a nonliterary usage (6). 7 The noun of action does not enter the tense system together with the copula. Nevertheless it is very frequently found in subordinate gerundial clauses with the preposition b, comparable to the use of the infinitive biptũxũ which is a proof of its partial verbiness (6), (7). Exceptionally, with negation, it is even used without the preposition b (8): (5) qũ mũnjũxtũ u qũ ҅qũltũ d ҅intũ (MPX 69/34) ‘For resting and getting [some] sleep’. (6) b xzet-o bũxt-u d bitũjivũ (CTN 29/15) ‘Upon seeing his wife who was coming’. (7) saldat, b xzetũ d illij, susũvũti xumjeli (MPX 70/12-13) ‘The soldier, upon seeing me, stopped the horses’. (8) lũ gũ҅ũqtũ d al narahatuta d dukũ, kul-xũ b҅op-u Ҭl®l® (MPX 69/4) ‘Not considering the discomfort of the location, every body fell asleep in his place’.

3. INFINITIVE In Urmi and in other Neo-Aramaic dialects the infinitive, given an appropriate syntactical setting, covers almost the whole scale between a noun and a verb. If we apply to it the same parameters as to the noun of action we may say that morphologically the Neo-Aramaic infinitive is a noun 8 since it re-

7

I have replaced the original transcription of CTN by the Soviet alphabet. The verbs gxũkũ ‘to laugh’, bxũjũ ‘to cry’, (r)xũ҅ũ ‘to go’, plũxũ ‘to work’ have also a purely nominal form gixkũ, bixjũ, rix҅ũ and pilxũnũ, used as an alternative for the infinitive, e.g. ũnij brix҅ivũ bizmũrũ u bgixkũ (HS I 3/11) ‘They were marching, 8

134

OLGA KAPELIUK

ceives, like the noun of action, the suffix pronouns of the possessive series, as in (9) where it is clearly opposed to the enclitic pronouns series used with the preterite or in (10) in which it is opposed to the l- series of pronouns employed with the more verby form pũtix and with the imperative; in Zakho even the independent possessive pronouns are used with the infinitive (11): 9 (9) mutv-in-ni l birkũku, vili mũ҅xun-ij (MPX 61/21-22) ‘He sat me on his knees, he started warming me up’. (10) ũj ki zũvviggij-lũ am dũhũ xabra, kũd miltũ hajjaranta tũluq-e-la tre zo® qũmũji ij (MGM59/2-4) ‘One combines it with that word while the auxiliary verb looses its first two sounds ij’. (11) Zakho: bı-nš&qa dɦda baxta (SZJ 141a) ‘Kissing the woman’ (= Urmi: bin҅ũq-o bũxtũ). Contrary to the noun of action, with the infinitive the pronouns normally mark its object and not its subject (12). It is only extremely rarely as in (13) where it follows two nomina actionis, that the pronoun suffixed to the infinitive acts as its subject. Also the infinitive, contrary to the noun of action, governs its explicit object in the verby way, either directly (18) or with the preposition l (14) and not by way of annexation with d. Moreover, we witness, on the comparative level, a process by which the infinitive becomes more verby in its association with pronouns. Thus we learn, for instance, from Hezi Mutzafi’s recent book 10 that in the Jewish dialect of Koy Sanjaq in the 1st and 2nd persons of the actual present the object pronouns are no more from the possessive series but rather from the l series which accompanies normally the more verby base pũtix and the genuine verbal imperative ptux (15), (16). A similar tendency is found in the Jewish dialects of Azerbaijan 11 where in the Northern branch the infinitive receives in the actual present the same enclitic subject pronouns as pũtix instead of the copula, which is yet another step forward on the scale of verbiness, as well as the pronoun of the l series as an object (17). To a similar tendency should be

singing, and laughing’; qũmu levit pilxũnũ (from H.J. Polotsky’s unpublished material on the verb in Urmi; cf. Kapeliuk, 2005: 349) ‘Why aren’t you working?’ 9 See Polotsky (1994: 93). 10 See MKS: 100 et passim. 11 See GAJ: 63–65.

BETWEEN NOUNS AND VERBS IN NEO-ARAMAIC

135

attributed the use of the pronouns with the nota accusativi ill- in the first and second persons in the Jewish dialect of Sulemaniyya: 12 (12) bigrũ҅ivũ hiççum al jimmij, kũd xũrbus-o lgo qunçijtũ (MXM 19/13) ‘He was attacking my mother, pushing her into a corner’. (13) hivij d plaҬt-ij mũxxũ qҬ®la, pjũ҅t-ij b urxũ u tlũq-ij bitũjinũ qũm ajn-®j (MPX 65/14-15) ‘The hope of getting out of here was cut, my staying on the road and my getting lost are coming before my eyes’. (14) kũd b®blaja l d®mm® d ajno (MPX 51/27) ‘Swallowing the tears of her eyes’. (15) Koy Sanjaq: mapҁoxáwũttu (< mapҁoxa+wet+lӣ) (MKS100) ‘You (pl.) are making them happy’ (= Urmi: mũbsum-e-tun). (16) Koy Sanjaq: ‫&ܥ‬na, Ǫz&‫ܥ‬á-wet-ti šér-wen (MKS 2004: 190/2) ‘I, you see me, am a lion’ (= Urmi: bixzũj-ij-vit). (17) Jewish Azerbaijani (North): máto-ijlet, let qjara? xdug-ox wad-ín-ne (GAJ 139/32) ‘How are you, are you being cold? I am worried about you’ (= Urmi: bivũd-u-vin). In Urmi, in order to form the actual present, the infinitive basically needs not only the predicative element in the form of the copula but also the preposition b which imparts to it an adverbial status as a gerund. 13 However, sometimes, in an appropriate syntactical setting, the infinitive has its verbiness increased to the point of being able to discard the preposition b. Although b is missing in Urmi only occasionally in the 1st stem, with verbs beginning with a labial consonant and regularly with stems 2-4 because of phonetic reason, 14 in some other dialects there is no b at all not even in the

12

See Khan (2004: 138–39) For a similar gerundial use of the infinitive with a prepositon in Kurmanji Kurdish see Kapeliuk (1996: 285–86). 14 This statement is correct as far as texts from the former Soviet Union, written in the Latin script during the late 1920’s and the 1930’s, and teaching material printed in Iran during the 1960’s and the 1970’s are concerned. In the Neo-Aramaic texts written at present in the Nestorian script in the diaspora, as represented by the articles and stories published in the Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies printed in the United States, the use of b in front of the infinitive is extremely inconsistent and it is missing more often than not. The same applies to the particle ki for the general 13

136

OLGA KAPELIUK

1st stem, notably in the Azerbaijani Jewish dialect 15 (17), in the dialect of Koy Sanjaq (except with verbs primae infirmae where the form of the infinitive is different) (16) and in the Jewish dialect of Sulemaniyya, 16 which means that the infinitive itself is felt as verby enough to act as a gerund without the preposition b. But even in Urmi texts we encounter cases, mainly with negation, in which the preposition b is missing (18) similarly to the loss of b beside the noun of action in (8) above. It is not impossible that the negation itself has some kind of stronger predicating effect which allows the elision of the preposition b. On the other hand in (19) the repeated infinitive has become an almost frozen adverbial expression with a single stress on the last syllable of the first infinitive. In terms of syntax the verbiness of the gerundial infinitive is not uniform. Sometimes it is more nouny, almost equivalent to an adjective used as an attribute (20) and in other cases it is more verby as a full predicate of a subordinate clause (21). The dividing line seems to run between intransitivity and transitivity. Exceptionally, the verbiness of the gerundial infinitive is felt strong enough so as to be used in an independent sentence, without the copula, as in no (22) which is a complete sentence placed between two full stops, and such is also the case in the Russian original in note 17. Perhaps with time such forms might develop into independent sentences: (18) lũ dũrdux jaqurta bit hojũ, in metit jimmux lũ xzũjũ (HSI 21/3222/1) ‘Won’t your pain be heavy if you die not seeing your mother!’ (19) rxaҬá-rxaҬa xd®r-e-l® ũrzijbũni d arpa vagun® (MXS 55/27) ‘Running he circled the surroundings of four train cars’. (20) b sippũtu birgũdũ qr®l® qũtij (MPX 60/31-32) ‘He called me with trembling lips’. (21) kũd bijũv-u wũrũqũ qũtu (PIO 216/2) ‘Giving him the paper’. (22) ũhũ zi lũ b®daja li҅ũnũ d rusnaj® (MPX 34/28) 17 ‘This one too doesn’t know the Russian language’. present. It is hard to say whether it is a dialectal trait of the writers or simple negligence. 15 See Goldenberg (2000: 84). 16 But here the form of the infinitive in the 1st stem has changed and is similar to that of the 2nd stem except for the first syllable ma-; see Khan (2004: 100–101). 17 In the Russian original also a complete sentence: ҾΏ˧Ŀ ȩĿ ſȩĿҹ ȰΏ-КևÌÌˠͨ.

BETWEEN NOUNS AND VERBS IN NEO-ARAMAIC

137

4. THE ADJECTIVE IN -ƮNƮ The deverbal adjectives, designated by A. J. Maclean as “Nouns denoting the agent” 18 serve as ordinary adjectives or as nouns. However, I have been able to collect during my readings a few interesting examples in which this form, when accompanied by the copula, seems to correspond to an immediate future (23), (24), (25), 19 which can also be converted into the past (26). The form in -ũnũ may govern a pronominal object in the same way as the participle which shows that it is more verby than an ordinary adjective (26) but it governs an explicit object by means of annexation with d, like the noun of action (27): (23) ũx mũbjunilũ, ũnũ mũxxũ levin palҬana (MPX 47/22-23) ‘As it seems, I won’t be going out of here’. (24) lelũ mũhlum, mũnijli ũtjũnũ jũn mudij pij҅ili mujũ (MGM 45/15-16) ‘It is not known who is coming and what has been brought’. (25) bu҅ spajla sũprũx, bũlkũ hũvij ũzũni min mdijtũ qũ tama ( PAH 71/28) ‘It is better to wait, perhaps [some people] from the town will be going there’. (26) bũlki, hũr ũnũ ijvũnvũ qaҬlant-u (HSI 17/2-3) ‘Maybe I just have killed him’. (27) xlũp҅mũ nizbũttũjũ, jan® madd®jana d nizbũtutũ (MGM 46/7) ‘Relative pronoun, it means indicating a relation’.

5. PARTICIPLE The participle ptijxũ, ptixtũ, ptjixi is a deverbal adjective which can also act alone, without a predicalizer such as the copula, as the predicate of a subordinate clause. Consequently, it is placed further than the adjective in -ũnũ towards the verby extremity of the N–V scale. It is customary to use the terms passive, perfect or past in referring to the participle but I shall use

18

Maclean (1895: 223–25, 241–44). These forms resemble the forms kilũ ‫ܥ‬aLJaya and ‫ܥ‬aLJayela ‘He is going to come’, composed of the noun of agent and the copula, discussed by Roberta Borghero in her contribution to this volume. It is interesting to note that she included this compound form as a tense in its own right in the verbal system of the dialect. 19

138

OLGA KAPELIUK

simply the term “participle” because there is no active nor present participle in Neo-Aramaic to which it may be opposed. 20 Morpho-syntactically the participle combines with the adnominal pronouns of the possessive series in a manner similar to the infinitive (28), (29), and in Zakho it governs the independent possessive pronouns 21 (30), (31). However, as in the case of the infinitive, on the synchronic level, the morpho-syntactic status of the participle as a purely nominal form has become destabilized and it shows in some dialects the tendency to replace the adnominal possessive pronouns denoting the direct object by pronouns with ill-, the nota accusativi, or those from the l series. Thus in the dialect of Ashitha, as described by Roberta Borghero, the present perfect does not receive the possessive adnominal pronouns to mark its object but rather the fully adverbal ill- 22 (32) and the same happens in the Jewish dialect of Sulemaniyya except for the pronoun of the third person. 23 In Jewish Koy Sanjaq it is the pronoun of the l series that is attached to the participle in the present perfect when the copula follows the participle (33), but not when it precedes it, in which case the “possessive” pronoun is retained (34). This tendency is doubtless an expression of the fact that in its combination with the copula the participle usually becomes active as the present perfect tense both of intransitive and transitive verbs: (28) Ҭl®bta zi mucixt-ux ijvũn (MPX 30/8) ‘I have also found you a bride’. (29) dukkani d litvũlun tũlgũ, dvijq-e-vũ ũtjũni qũmũji (MPX 69/11) ‘The first-comers had occupied the places in which there was no snow’. (30) Zakho: šud h&wŖw& šwɦqa dΩhun (SZJ 295b) ‘He should have left them’ (= Urmi: ҅vijq-e ). (31) Zakho: wax mҨušye do:hun kullu: Òakke: u marginya:sa de:ni (AZJ 93/33-34) ‘We have hidden all our weapons and pearls’ (= Urmi:

20 Forms such as xabr® mrũkvi (MGM 25/28) ‘compound words’, mdabranuta (KDM 5.9.1934) ‘leadership’ or mdũvqũnũ (ODA 265/8) ‘adhesive’ are to be considered either as direct borrowings form Old Syriac or as neologisms (cf. Kapeliuk 2005: note 6). 21 See Polotsky (1994: 97). 22 See Borghero (2005: 334–36). In the article there are some very interesting on increased verbiness. 23 See Khan (2004: 137–38).

BETWEEN NOUNS AND VERBS IN NEO-ARAMAIC

139

Ҭu҅j-e). (32) Ashitha: qҨilillele (