Turas Mamlla =: Turras Mamlla: A Grammar of the Syriac Language 9781463201838, 2012027231, 1463201834

Citation preview

‫ܐ‬

‫ܬܘܪܨ‬

Tūrrāṣ Mamllā Orthography

‫ܐ‬

‫ܬܘܪܨ‬

Tūrrāṣ Mamllā A Grammar of the Syriac Language

Volume 1

Orthography

George Anton Kiraz

9

34 2012

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2012 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.

2012

‫ܛ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-4632-0183-8

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kiraz, George Anton. Syriac orthography / by George Kiraz. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Syriac language--Grammar. I. Title. PJ5423.K58 2012 492'.35--dc23 2012027231 Printed in the United States of America

‫ܒܐ‬

‫ܐ ܣ ܪ‬

‫ܐ܁ ܘ‬

‫̈ܐ‬

‫ܐܕ‬

̈‫ܒ‬

‫ܐ܁ ܘ ܒ ܐܢ‬ ‫ܘ ܒ ܬ ܙܘܓ‬ ݂

‫ܒ ܐ ܓܒ ܐ‬

To my children TABETHA GABRIELLA, SEBASTIAN KENORO, AND LUCIAN NURONO who made Syriac for me a living daily experience and to my wife CHRISTINE who norishes this experience.

‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐܪܗ‬ ‫ܓ‬ ّ ‫ܓܘ ܠ‬

‫ܝ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܝ ܒܗ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ّܡ ܐ‬

‫ܒܐܒ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܓܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܒܓ‬. ‫ܒ ܕ ܢ‬ ‫ ܗܕܐ ܗܘ ܐ ܐܣ‬. ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܝ‬ ‫ ܗܕܐ ܗܘ‬. ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܗܝ ܒܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܗܕܐ ܗܘ ܝ‬.‫ܘܐܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ .‫ـ‬ ‫ܬܘܪܨ‬ ‫ًܐ‬

Grammar is the gate through which all students enter.

All knowledge is unattainable without it. It is the foundation without which a building will be shaken. It

guides the inexperienced to the truth. Through the rules of grammar, the misdirected is led to the true path. It is

for this reason that the Malphāne called it ṭūrrāṣ mamllā ‘the correctness of speech’.

Isḥāq al-Shadrāwī (Sciadrensis) (d. 1663)

Contents at a Glance Preface

xix

1. Sources and their Historical Context

1

I. The Graphemic Inventory

29

2. Consonantal Graphemes

31

3. Vowel Graphemes

59

4. Grammatical Graphemes

91

5. Editorial, Liturgical and Musical Graphemes

115

6. Ancient Prosodic Graphemes or Accents

131

7. Numbering Systems

159

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

175

8. Graphotactics

177

9. Writing

209

10. Ductus

227

III. Garšūnography, Adaptation, and Alloglottography

289

11. Garšūnography I: Syriac as the Target Script

291

12. Garšūnography II: Syriac as the Source Language

323

13. Nongaršūnographic Adaptations of the Syriac Script

353

14. Alloglottography

359

IV. Technological Developments

363

15. Lithography and Mimeography

365

16. Typewriters

369

17. Digital Typography

377

18. Coding Standards

389

vii

viii

Table of Contents

Contents Preface

xix

Plates and Credits

xxv

Transcription and Transliteration

xxvii

Note on Examples

xxvii

Abbreviations and Symbols

xxix

Bibliography

xxxiii

1. Sources and their Historical Context

1

1.1.

Preliminaries

2

1.2.

Old Syriac Sources

8

1.2.1.

The Consonantal System

8

1.2.2.

The Vocalization System

9

1.2.3.

Other Symbols

1.3.

10

Early Manuscripts

10

1.3.1.

The Consonantal System

11

1.3.2.

The Vocalization System

12

1.3.3.

Other Symbols

12

1.4.

The Classical Grammarians

13

1.5.

The Mašlmānūṯā

15

1.6.

European Grammarians and Philologists

17

1.7.

Late Manuscripts of the Received Tradition

18

1.8.

Chronology of Events

19

ix

x

Table of Contents

I. The Graphemic Inventory

29

2. Consonantal Graphemes

31

2.1.

The Consonantary

31

2.2.

Mnemonics and Consonantal Subsets

34

2.3.

Typology of Consonants

36

2.4.

Grapheme Resemblance

37

2.5.

Orthographic Variations and Spelling Development 40 2.5.1.

Ālāp̱

41

2.5.2.

Waw

44

2.5.3.

Yūḏ

46

2.5.4.

Other Consonants

48

2.6.

Homography

49

2.7.

Frequency of Occurrence

53

2.8.

Alphabetization

55

3. Vowel Graphemes

59

3.1.

The Matres Lectionis System

61

3.2.

The Pointing System

64

3.2.1.

One-Point Vocalization

65

3.2.2.

Multi-Point Vocalization

69

3.2.3.

The Fully Developed Pointing System

70

3.2.4.

Syāme as an /e/ Vowel

73

3.3.

3.4.

Alphabetical Linear Vocalization

73

3.3.1.

Jacob of Edessa

74

3.3.2.

Gabriel Ḥawwā

76

‘Greek’ Nonlinear Vocalization

79

Table of Contents

xi

3.5.

Summary of Phonemic to Graphemic Relationships 83

3.6.

Vowel Names

84

3.7.

Orthographic Variants

87

3.8.

Frequency of Occurrence

90

4. Grammatical Graphemes 4.1.

4.2.

Phonological Graphemes

92

4.1.1.

/d/ vs. /r/ Marker

92

4.1.2.

Sound Deletion Markers

92

4.1.3.

Schwa Markers

96

4.1.4.

Fricatization Markers: Qūššāyā and Rūkkāḵā

100

4.1.5.

Doubling Marker

102

Morphological Graphemes

103

4.2.1.

Verbal Markers

103

4.2.2.

The Plural Marker Syāme

108

4.2.3.

Gender Marking of the Object Pronominal Suffix

4.3.

91

Lexical Markers

5. Editorial, Liturgical and Musical Graphemes

112

113 115

5.1.

Punctuation Graphemes

115

5.2.

Marking Corrections

117

5.3.

Quotation Marks

118

5.4.

Abbreviation Mark

119

5.5.

Textual Marks

126

5.6.

Liturgical and Musical Graphemes

128

xii

Table of Contents

6. Ancient Prosodic Graphemes or Accents 6.1.

6.2.

6.3.

6.4.

Marks above the Line

133

6.1.1.

One-Point Marks above the Line

133

6.1.2.

Two-Point Marks above the Line

138

6.1.3.

Three-Point Marks above the Line

141

Marks below the Line

142

6.2.1.

One-Point Marks below the Line

142

6.2.2.

Two-Point Marks below the Line

147

6.2.3.

Three-Point Marks below the Line

148

Marks upon the Line

149

6.3.1.

One-Point Marks upon the Line

149

6.3.2.

Two-Point Marks upon the Line

150

The Prosodic Marks by Function

7. Numbering Systems 7.1.

7.2.

131

154 159

Old Syriac Numerals

160

7.1.1.

Numerals in Early Inscriptions

160

7.1.2.

Numerals in Manuscripts

163

Alphabetic Numerals

164

7.2.1.

Early Sequential System

164

7.2.2.

Early Additive System

165

7.2.3.

Standard System

166

7.3.

Indic and Arabic Numerals

172

7.4.

Greek and Coptic Letters for Numerals

173

7.5.

Cipher

173

Table of Contents

xiii

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

175

8. Graphotactics

177

8.1.

Background

177

8.2.

The Consonantal Tier

179

8.2.1.

Allography, Cursivity, and Joining

180

8.2.2.

Ligatures

187

8.3.

The Grammatical Tier

193

8.4.

The Disambiguation Tier

195

8.5.

The Vocalism Tier

195

8.6.

The Fricatization Tier

197

8.7.

Well-Formedness Condition

197

8.8.

Orthographic Space

199

8.8.1.

Space on the Consonantal Tier

199

8.8.2.

Inter-Tier Spacing

206

9. Writing

209

9.1.

Medium and Writing Tools

209

9.2.

Directionality

211

9.3.

Scripts

214

9.4.

Line Fillers

220

9.5.

Writing Sequence

224

10. Ductus

227

10.1.

Allographic Resemblance

228

10.2.

Stroke Types

229

10.3.

Graph Anatomy

229

10.4.

Cursivity and Pen Lifting

232

xiv

Table of Contents 10.5.

Ductus Characteristics

233

10.6.

Ālap̱

238

10.7.

Bēṯ

241

10.8.

Gāmal

243

10.9.

Dālaṯ and Rīš

245

10.10. Hē

247

10.11. Waw

249

10.12. Zayn

251

10.13. Ḥēṯ

252

10.14. Ṭēṯ

254

10.15. Yūḏ

257

10.16. Kāp̱

259

10.17. Lāmaḏ

261

10.18. Mīm

264

10.19. Nūn

267

10.20. Simkaṯ

269

10.21. ʿē

271

10.22. Pē

273

10.23. Ṣāḏē

275

10.24. Qāp̱

277

10.25. Rīš

278

10.26. Šīn

279

10.27. Taw

280

10.28. Ligatures

282

10.29. Ductus of Other Graphs

284

Table of Contents

xv

10.29.1. Points

284

10.29.2. Lines

285

10.29.3. ‘Greek’ Vowels

286

III. Garšūnography, Adaptation, and Alloglottography

289

11. Garšūnography I: Syriac as the Target Script

291

11.1.

On Garšūnography

291

11.2.

Syro-Arabic

294

11.3.

Syro-Armenian

298

(by Hidemi Takahashi) 11.4.

Syro-Greek

304

11.5.

Syro-Hebrew

306

11.6.

Syro-Kurdish

306

11.7.

Syro-Latin

309

11.8.

Syro-Malayalam

312

11.9.

Syro-Sogdian and Persian

313

(by Nicholas Sims-Williams) 11.9.1. Syro-Sogdian

313

11.9.2. Syro-Persian

316

11.10. Syro-Ottoman

319

(by Benjamin Trigona-Harany) 11.11. Appendix: Syro-English in the Making

321

12. Garšūnography II: Syriac as the Source Language

323

12.1.

Arabo-Syriac

323

12.2.

Armeno-Syriac

325

(by Hidemi Takahashi) 12.3.

Greco-Syriac

326

xvi

Table of Contents 12.4.

Hebrao-Syriac

326

12.5.

Latino-Syriac

329

12.5.1. Ambrosio’s Transcription

329

12.5.2. Widmanstetter’s Transcription

331

12.5.3. Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Transcriptions

12.6.

332

12.5.4. Standard Transcriptions and Transliterations

333

12.5.5. Liturgical Transcriptions

334

12.5.6. Computer Encoding

337

12.5.7. Library Romanization

339

12.5.8. Chat Alphabet

339

Malayalo-Syriac

343

(by Thomas Joseph) 12.7.

Turco-Syriac

346

(by Mark Dickens and Peter Zieme) 13. Nongaršūnographic Adaptations of the Syriac Script

353

13.1.

Christian Palestinian Aramaic

353

13.2.

NENA Neo-Aramaic

354

13.3.

Ṭuroyo Neo-Aramaic

356

14. Alloglottography

359

IV. Technological Developments

363

15. Lithography and Mimeography

365

15.1.

Lithography

365

15.2.

Mimeography

367

Table of Contents 16. Typewriters

xvii 369

16.1.

Underwood Typewriter

369

16.2.

The Adler Typewriter

369

16.3.

Olympia Typewriter

372

16.4.

IBM Typewriter

373

16.5.

Hermes (Potential) Typewriter

373

16.6.

The Ḥujådå Typewriter

374

17. Digital Typography

377

17.1.

Plotter Technology

377

17.2.

Bitmap Fonts: The DOS Era

379

17.3.

Outline Fonts: The Windows Age

382

17.4.

Open-Type Fonts

385

18. Coding Standards

389

18.1.

Language Name Code: ISO 639

389

18.2.

Script Name Codes: ISO 15924

390

18.3.

Grapheme Codes: Unicode (ISO 10646)

390

18.4.

Keyboard Layouts

391

18.4.1. The ‘Standard’ Keyboard

392

18.4.2. The MLS Keyboard

394

18.4.3. The Windows/Meltho Keyboard

394

General Index

397

Authority Index

431

Biblical Citations

443

CV Patterns

445

Grammatical & Technical Terms

447

xviii

Table of Contents

Graph Index

453

Manuscripts Index

461

Word Index

465

Quotations Index

481

Preface The treatment of writing and orthography in Syriac grammars is extremely scanty, and what already exists is dated. T. Nöldeke (1836–1930) devotes only 13 pages to the subject in his 1898 Kurzgefasste Grammatik, undoubtedly the most cited of Syriac grammars. Earlier, R. Duval (1839–1911) covered orthography in more detail in his 1881 Grammaire. C. J. David (1829–1890), Syriac Catholic bishop of Damascus and the only Eastern scholar to compile a comprehensive grammar after Bar ʿEbroyo (1225/6– 1286), devoted an extensive chapter to writing. Well over a century has now passed since these accounts appeared, during which the field of philology gradually became overshadowed by modern linguistics. A linguistically-based field of writing systems emerged half a century ago with the pioneering work of Gelb, followed

by

Sampson,

DeFrancis,

Coulmas,

Rogers,

and

Gnanadesikan, and there is even a monograph on computational models of writing systems by Sproat (see bibliography). This volume, the first in a

ܳ

‫̱ـ‬

ܳ ‫݁ܽܬ‬ ܰ ‫ܘܪܨ‬

series, attempts to bring the

study of Syriac writing closer to such modern linguistic accounts, while keeping the Syriac scholar in mind. This is not an introductory text, and it is assumed that the reader is already familiar with the Syriac language and its basic grammar. It is written with the intention that it will be followed by a volume on phonology. As such, discussion of the orthography-phonology interface is limited to what is necessary for the description of orthography and writing. Matters that pertain to the phonological system are reserved for the subsequent volume. The reader will no doubt notice that there is a discontinuity in the examples cited from manuscripts (hereinafter, MSS) with a xix

xx

Preface

concentration on early MSS as well as very late ones, but almost nothing in the intervening period. For the early MSS, I have relied on the

ܶ ‫ܰ ـ ݂ ܳ ̈ܐ ܰ̈ܪ ݁ܶܒܐ‬

before me who had direct access to such MSS

(e.g. Wright, Hatch, Segal). Cited examples from late MSS are not the result of a systematic study of such MSS; rather, observations made while chanting on the gudo. (Fellow deacons: I was not texting; I was merely taking notes!) As for early printed books, I have examined all the illustrations in Coakley’s Typography as well as my private rare book collection. No attempt was made to examine other rare collections. When citing examples, I generously borrowed from earlier grammarians, who in turn borrowed from others, this chain of citation being extremely helpful in determining the history of the grammatical tradition. The presentation here is neither diachronic nor synchronic, but rather thematic. When possible, a diachronic account is given to express the development of the topic at hand (e.g. the vocalization system in Chapter 3). Chapters 9 and 10 on writing and ductus, respectively, are entirely synchronic. I have tried to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, though I could not help but insert a few prescriptive comments here and there! Having said that, as I rely mostly on the grammatical tradition, some statements here might implicitly be prescriptive. The grammatical tradition does not always agree with what one finds in the manuscript tradition. The book is organized as follows: Chapter 1 provides preliminaries and general definitions of terms used throughout the work, as well as a chronological overview of the writing system and its sources. Thereafter, the book is divided into four main parts: Part I gives an account of all Syriac graphemes or symbols. Chapters 2 and 3 are devoted to segmental graphemes; i.e. graphemes which correspond to a phonological segment: the former

Preface

xxi

presents the consonantal system, while the latter the vocalization system. Chapter 4 presents grammatical graphemes that pertain to phonology and morphology. Chapter 5 accounts for editorial marks such as punctuation marks and various editorial signs, as well as signs found in liturgical MSS. Chapter 6 explores ancient accent signs, most of which are hardly used and whose function is not always clear. Chapter 7 presents numbering systems. Part II describes how the graphemes enumerated in Part I are arranged together to form words, and how each grapheme is written. Chapter 8, probably the only chapter to claim originality, presents a theory of graphotactics; i.e. the rules that determine how graphs are arranged together to formulate larger texts. Chapter 9 looks at writing in general, while Chapter 10 examines writing at the graph level, and presents the ductus of each graph from a synchronic perspective. Part III is dedicated to garšūnography, the use of the Syriac script to write other languages (Chapter 11), as well as the use of other scripts to write the Syriac language (Chapter 12). Chapter 13 looks at the adaptation of the Syriac script to write other forms of Aramaic. Finally, Chapter 14 discusses alloglottography, the art of reading Syriac texts in languages other than Syriac. Part IV deals with technological developments post movable type including lithography and mimeography (Chapter 15), typewriters (Chapter 16), and digital typography (Chapter 17). Finally, Chapter 18 discusses coding standards. The book concludes with a number of indices. I have relied on many works of the great scholars who came before me,

ܶ ‫ܺ ̈ ݂ܐ‬

ܰ ‫ܰ ̈ ܶܐ‬

to use a liturgical expression. I have not

xxii

Preface

shied from citing many examples from their works,1 and my debt to them will be apparent to the reader. A number of scholars contributed to sections on garšūnography: Mark Dickens and Peter Zieme on Turco-Syriac (12.7), Thomas Joseph on Malayalo-Syriac (12.6), Nicholas Sims-Williams on Syro-Sogdian and Syro-Persian (11.9), Hidemi Takahashi on SyroArmenian (11.3) and Armeno-Syriac (12.2), and Benjamin Trigona-Harany on Syro-Ottoman (11.10). When quoting from these sections, I suggest that scholars follow the same style used for citing chapters within a collection. A draft of the entire work was read by Sebastian P. Brock, Lucas Van Rompay, Chip (J. F.) Coakley, Andreas Juckel, Daniel King, and Hidemi Takahashi. Their comments helped to make the book a better one. Melonie Schmierer of Gorgias Press carefully copy edited the final draft. All mistakes, of course, remain mine. My unfamiliarity with Latin, French, and to a lesser degree German has always been a

ܳ ܳ ‫ܺ ܽ ݂ܬܐ ܰܪ݁ܒ ݂ ܐ‬

. I am grateful to Daniel

King who translated for me Merx’s Historia, and Adam McCollum who translated for me the first part of Duval’s Grammaire (parts two and three were translated by Michael Penn and Maria Doerfler). I hope to repay them by publishing their translations. Mar Emmanuel Yosip answered questions on matters pertaining to the E. Syr. ductus, Mor Polycarpus Eugene Aydin on matters Ṭuroyo, Daniel Benjamin on matters E. Syr. (and provided his elegant font Assyrian which I use for East Syriac texts), John 1

During my work on this book, my daughter Tabetha published her

first book, My Baby Brother Lucian (2010), during which she learned about citation etiquettes, and original writing versus plagiarism. Shocked when she saw me copying down extensive lexical entries from J. Margoliouth for a section on orthographic variants and homography, she rebuked “

ܶ ܳ ܰ ܺ ݂ ‫ ܐ‬stealing from ‫݂ ̈ܒܐ‬

?”

Preface

xxiii

Healey on matters Old Syriac, Heleen Murre-van den Berg on matters Neo-Aramaic, Alessandro Mengozzi on matters Garšūnī, and Richard Sproat on matters linguistics. Mar Awa Royel made me aware of Syriac-into-Swāḏāyā alloglottography. Chip Coakley shared his article on the origin of the W. Syr. vocalization system prior to its publication which resulted in a rewrite of my presentation on the topic (q.v. §174). Michael Sokoloff shared with me lists extracted from a database version of his Lexicon which helped me study homography (q.v. §113). David Taylor made available his classroom handouts that pertain to writing. Andreas Juckel,

ܽ ‫ܰ ݂ܒ ܳ ܐ ܘ݂ܰܒ ܐܘܪ ܳ ܐ‬

, shared with me his vast

knowledge of Syriac MSS over a number of visits. Adam McCollum provided me with numerous examples from MSS he is cataloguing at the Hill Museum & Manuscript Library (HMML). Members of the hugoye-list, the discussion group of Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, answered many queries. Jack Tannous, Hoda Mitwally, Thomas Carlson, James Walters, and Lev Weitz were very helpful in providing me with electronic versions of publications that I had no access to at the Beth Mardutho Research Library. James Walters collated Serṭā and E. Syr. grapheme examples from MS images for purposes of Chapter 10. My wife Christine adapted the directionality images (§§365, 445) from The Unicode 5.0 Standard (p. 47). Diane Collier made many changes to the Serto Jerusalem font, always on short notice. An anonymous toddler in Seat 29E on flight CO 1502 in early 2010 generously shared with me her coloring pencils when I ran out of ink while proofreading an earlier draft. The team at Gorgias Press ran the operation very efficiently allowing me to indulge myself in a sabbatical during 2010–2011, albeit a part-time one: Christine, Jasmaile, Katie, Doug, Hoda, Erin, Phoebe, Rachel, Mary Ann, and of course my automation creation Flo Chart… thanks for providing a

xxiv

Preface

productive environment at Gorgias that allowed me to play scholar. Various individuals and institutions provided images for the plates: J. F. Coakley, the Beth Mardutho Research Library, the British Library, Haluk Perk Museum, John F. Healey, HMML (thanks to Columba Stewart and Adam McCollum), Christine I. Kiraz, Museum für Asiatische Kunst, and Yale University. Objects from my private collection were photographed by Shehnaz Abdeljaber. These days college kids have a nickname for every subject under the sun. My wife Christine was tutoring some girls at Rutgers University in organic chemistry, or as they called it orgo. I wanted to be hip and cool too, so I began talking about my ortho. Working at times when I should have been giving my children some attention, my then eight-year old daughter Tabetha, a bilingual in Kthobonoyo and English, would often ask, sometimes in frustra-

ܰ ܰ

tion: ‘‫ ݁ܒ ݁ܐܒܐ‬, when is

ܳ ܳ ‫݂ ܰ ܺ ݂ܪܬܘ‬

ܳ ܳ ܳܳ ‫ܐܪܬܘ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ݂

gonna

ܶ

ܶ ܳ ?’, ‫ܗܘܐ‬

and ‘

ܳ ‫ܳܗ‬

?’ I dedicate this work on Syriac ortho to Tabetha

Gabriella, and my sons Sebastian Kenoro and Lucian Nurono. May

ܳ ܽܳ ܽ ‫ܪ‬

they develop enough passion for ‫݂ܬܐ‬

.

At the Beth Mardutho Research Library, Piscataway, N.J. June 5, 2012, Commemoration of the ḥasyo

George Anton Kiraz

Plates and Credits Pl. 1

Top. Old Syriac inscription dated A.D. 73; © John F. Healey; text translation from Drijvers and Healey 193–94. Bottom. The tomb of Naʿʿūm Faʾiq Palak (1863–1930); © Christine I. Kiraz.

Pl. 2

Top. Orpheus Taming Wild Animals; photograph from S. P. Brock and D. G. K. Taylor, The Ancient Aramaic Heritage (The Hidden Pearl: the Syrian Orthodox Church and its Ancient Aramaic Heritage I. Rome: 2001, 177; text translation from Healey, ‘A New Syriac Mosaic Inscription’. Bottom. Text of the Orpheus mosaic; © John F. Healey.

Pl. 3

Old Syriac parchment dated A.D. 9 May 243; © Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University.

Pl. 4

Top. The oldest dated Syriac manuscript; from Hatch, Album. Bottom. A modern Syriac and Garšūnī manuscript; © Shehnaz Abdeljaber.

Pl. 5

Top. Palimpsest manuscript; © Shehnaz Abdeljaber; photograph from Cureton, Fragments of the Iliad. Bottom. Liturgical manuscript with a musical symbol; © Shehnaz Abdeljaber.

Pl. 6

The Chronicle of Michael Rabo; photgraph from G. Y. Ibrahim, The Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex of the Chronicle of Michael the Great 478 (2009); © the Hill Museum & Manuscript Library, Saint John’s University, MN.

Pl. 7

Top. Syro-Persian garšūnographic Psalter from the Turfan collection; © Museum für Asiatische Kunst, Staatiche Museen zu Berlin, Kunstsammlung Süd- Südost und Zentralasien; thanks to Erica Hunter, Mark Dickens, and Lilla Russell-Smith. Bottom. Lining board; © Shehnaz Abdeljaber.

Pl. 8

Kṯāḇā ḏ-nūhār šarwāye from a manuscript dated 1889; © Shehnaz Abdeljaber.

xxv

xxvi Pl. 9

Plates and Credits Top. Syriac incised on metal; © Haluk Perk Museum. Thanks to Haluk Perk and Özcan Geçer. Bottom. Silver Gospel cover; © Shehnaz Abdeljaber.

Pl. 10

Top. Prima Elementa; © Shehnaz Abdeljaber. Bottom. Syriac print punches; © J. F. Coakley.

Pl. 11

Top. The Maronite Gabriel Ḥawwā invented…; © the Hill Museum & Manuscript Library, Saint John’s University, MN. Bottom. In 1966 Abrohom Nuro proposed…; © Shehnaz Abdeljaber.

Pl. 12

Top. A plate from Deir al-Zaʿfarān press. Bottom. Lithographic edition of the Šḥīmā from a copy preserved at the Venkadathu Qasheeshe Alexandrayos & Joseph Collection, Kottayam; © George A. Kiraz.

Pl. 13

İntibâh [Awakening]; © Shehnaz Abdeljaber.

Pl. 14

The Adler Typewriter; © Shehnaz Abdeljaber.

Pl. 15

Page printed with Multi-Lingual Scholar™; © Shehnaz Abdeljaber.

Pl. 16

Puzzles; © Shehnaz Abdeljaber.

Transcription and Transliteration IPA equivalences, when applicable, appear in square brackets, [ ].

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫݂ܒ‬ ‫ܓ‬ ‫݂ܓ‬ ‫ܔ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫݂ܕ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܙ‬ ‫ܚ‬ ‫ܛ‬ ‫ܜ‬ ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܟ‬

ʔ

‫݂ܟ‬ ‫ܠ‬ ‫ܡ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܣ‬ ‫ܥ‬ ‫ܦ‬ ‫݂ܦ‬ ‫ܨ‬ ‫̇ܨ‬ ‫ܩ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܫ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫݂ܬ‬

b ḇ

[v]

g g̱ j

[Ɣ]

d ḏ

[δ]

h w z ḥ

[ħ]

ṭ

[tˁ]

ẓ

[zˁ]

y

[j]

ḵ

[χ]

l m n s ʕ p p̱ ṣ

[f]

ḍ

[dˁ]

[sˁ]

q r š

[ʃ]

t ṯ

[θ]

schwa ᵊ

k

In addition, ʾ and ʿ are used instead of ʔ and ʕ, respectively, in proper nouns and grammatical terms; e.g. Bar ʿEbroyo, mšaʾʾlānā, Pʿal. Initial ʾ is omitted in kaylā terms; e.g. Ap̱ʿel not ʾAp̱ʿel.

Note on Examples Whenever possible examples are given with full vocalization and rūkkāḵā/qūššāyā marking for uniformity, with the understanding that ancient MSS do not have such markings; e.g.

ܳ ܰ ݂

to illus-

trate the rūkkāḵā point from a MS dated 615, a time when ‘Greek’ vowels did not even exist.

xxvii

Abbreviations and Symbols 1st

= 1st person

2nd

= 2nd person

3rd

= 3rd person

abs.

= absolute

act. part. = active participle C

= consonant

Cd

= dual-joining consonant

Cr

= right-joining consonant

cf.

= confer, compare

co.

= column

const. = construct CT

= consonantal tier

DT

= disambiguation tier

E.

= east

e.g.

= exempli gratia, for example

emph. = emphatic f.

= folio

fem.

= feminine

GT

= grammatical tier

i.e.

= id est, that is

illus.

= illustration

impf. = imperfect impt. = imperative IPA

= International Phonetic Alphabet

ln.

= line

masc. = masculine MS

= manuscript

MSS

= manuscripts

n.

= note (in a cited reference to refer to a footnote)

N.p.

= no place, no publisher (in bibliography) xxix

xxx

Abbreviations

opp.

= opposite

p.

= page

pass. part. = passive participle perf.

= perfect

Pl.

= plate

pl.

= plural

q.v.

= quod vide, which see

RQT

= rūkkāḵā and qūššāyā tier

Syr.

= Syriac

V

= Vowel

viz.

= videlicet, that is to say

vs.

= versus

VT

= Vocalism Tier

W.

= West

WFC

= well-formedness condition

P-C

indicates a root or a verb whose first consonant is C; e.g.

ʿ-C L-C

‫ ܐ‬is a P-‫ ܐ‬verb.

indicates a root or a verb whose second consonant is C; e.g. ‫ܬ‬

‫ ܒ‬is a ʿ-‫ ܘ‬root.

indicates a root or a verb whose third consonant is C; e.g. is a L-‫ ܥ‬verb.

< > enclose graphemic transliterations. []

enclose phonetic transcriptions.

//

enclose phonemic transcriptions.

{}

enclose morphemic transcriptions.

↗

marks rising intonation.

↘

marks falling intonation.

:

marks a long vowel in a phonetic transcription.

Abbreviations

xxxi

+

joins lexemes or morphemes forming one word.

-

marks syllable boundary.

#

marks word boundary. reads ‘rewrites’, or ‘becomes’ in a rewrite rule.

/

marks a context in a rewrite rule.

ø

represents an empty string.

√

represents a root.

◌

represents a consonant place holder on which a diacritic is placed.

˽

represents space.

*

is Kleene star in regular expressions; uncanonical form.

+

is Kleene plus in regular expressions.

CAPS

indicate orthographic, phonological, or morphological features.

bold

indicates a technical term.

Biblical Books. This work follows SBL’s abbreviations as follows: Gen.

Isa.

Jn.

Exod.

Jer.

Acts

Num.

Lam.

Rom.

Josh.

Ezek.

1–2 Cor.

Judg.

Dan.

Gal.

1–2 Sam.

Amos

Col.

1–2 Kgs.

Mic.

Jas.

Job

Mt.

1–2 Pet.

Ps.

Mk.

Prov.

Lk.

For English translations of Biblical verses, use was made of The Antioch Bible when available:

xxxii

Abbreviations

Childers, Jeff W. (tr.) and George A. Kiraz (ed.). The Syriac Peshiṭta Bible with English Translation, Matthew. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2012. Greenberg, Gillian (tr.), Donald M. Walter (tr.), George A. Kiraz (ed.), Joseph Bali (ed.). The Syriac Peshiṭta Bible with English Translation, Isaiah. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2012. Greenberg, Gillian (tr.), Donald M. Walter (tr.), George A. Kiraz (ed.), Joseph Bali (ed.). The Syriac Peshiṭta Bible with English Translation, The Twelve Prophets. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2012.

Bibliography Last names of grammarians are used in the footnotes throughout; e.g. Duval = Duval’s Traité de Grammaire Syriaque. Initials in references are used only for disambiguation; e.g. the Assemani cousins (J. S. vs. J. A.). In cases where the author has more than one work in the bibliography below or when the abbreviation is not straightforward, the following list can be used as a guide: Bar ʿEbroyo, Ṣemḥe = Moberg, Le Livre des Splendeurs. BFBS = The New Testament in Syriac (British and Foreign Bible Society). Coakley, Typography = Coakley, The Typography of Syriac. Coakley-Robinson = Coakley, Robinson’s Paradigms. CSD = J. Margoliouth, Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Elia of Ṣoba = Gottheil, A Treatise on Syriac Grammar. GEDSH = Brock et al., Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage. Healey = Healey, Leshono Suryoyo. Kiraz, CESG = Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels. Kiraz, Primer = Kiraz, The New Syriac Primer. Manna = Manna, Kitāb al-ʾuṣūl al-jalīla. Mosul Bible = Biblia Sacra Juxta Versionem… Pschitta. Muraoka, CS = Muraoka, Classical Syriac: A Brief Grammar. Muraoka, CS4H = Muraoka, Classical Syriac for Hebraists. Nestle = Nestle, Syriac Grammar with Bibliography. Nöldeke = Nöldeke, Compendious Syriac Grammar. Segal = Segal, The Diacritical Point. Uhlemann = Hutchinson, Uhlemann’s Syriac Grammar. Abbeloos, Jean-Baptiste and Thomas Joseph Lamy. Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Ecclesiasticum. 3 vols. Louvain: Excudebat Car. Peeters, 1872–77. Reprint, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2012.

xxxiii

xxxiv

Bibliography

Abouna, Albert. Qawāʿid al-luğa al-ʾārāmiyya (Grammaire de la langue Araméenne). Irbil: ʿAzīz Nabātī, 2001. [in Arabic] Abramowski, Luise and Alan H. Goodman. A Nestorian Collection of Christological Texts, vol. 1. London: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Acurensis, Josephus [Yūsif al-ʿĀqūrī]. Ğramaṭīqī ʾawkīṯ tūrāṣ mamllā ḏlešānā suryāyā (Grammatica linguae Syriacae.) Rome: Ex Typogr. Sacrae Congreg. de Propaganda Fide, 1647. [in Syro-Arabic] al-ʾAbrāšī, Moḥammad ʿAṭiyya, ʿAli ʿAnānī, and Leon Meḥrez. alMufaṣṣal fī qawāʿid al-luğa al-suryāniyya wa ʾādābihā wa-lmuwāzana bayn al-luğāt al-sāmiyya. Cairo: al-Maṭbaʿa alʾAmīriyya, 1935. [in Arabic] al-Dibs, Joseph. Kṯāḇā ḏ-qūrāḇā ʾa(y)ḵ ʿyāḏā ḏ-ʿīdtā ḏ-ʾanṭīyūḵīya ḏmārūnāye. Beirut: al-Maṭbaʿa al-ʿUmūmiyya al-Kāṯūlīkiyya, 1888. [in Syriac] Al-Jadir, Adil. ‘Numbers and Dating Formulae in the Old Syriac Inscriptions’. Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 6 (2006): 3–17. al-Kafrī, Niʿmatallah. Kitāb mawrid al-taḥqīq fī ʾuṣūl al-ğrāmāṭīq, muḵtaṣar qalīlan. Quzḥayya, 1896. [in Syro-Arabic] al-Khūrī, Mūsā Dīb. Qissat ʾiḵtirāʿ al-ʾarqām, al-ṭarīq al-ṭawīl min al-wāḥid ʾilā al-ṣifr. N.p.: Maṭbaʿat al-Hayʾa al-ʿĀmma al-Sūriyya li-l-Kitāb, 2010. [in Arabic] al-Ḵidma al-ʾilāhiyya fī al-kanīsa al-suryāniyya al-ʾurṯūḏuksiyya. Jerusalem: St. Mark’s Monastery, 1987. [in Syriac and Arabic] Alphabetum Chaldaicum Antiquum Estranghelo Dictum, una cum Alphabeto Syriaco, Oratione Dominicali, Salutatione Angelica, & Symbolo Fidei. Rome: Typis Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, 1636. Ambrosio, Teseo. Introductio in Chaldaicam linguam, Syriacam atque Armenicam, & decem alias linguas Introductio. N.p.: n.p., 1539.

Bibliography

xxxv

Amira, Georgius Michaelis. Ğramaṭīqī sūryāytā ʾaw kaldāytā ḏ-p̱ īlīsūp̱ ā w-

ṯewoloğos gewargī breh d-mīḵāʾel men beṯ ʿmīra ʿḏīnāyā mārūnāyā men ṭūrā ḏ-leḇnān, lwāṯ zahyā mʿalyā ʾāp̱ myaqrā kardīnal

gayṭanos (Grammatica syriaca, sive chaldaica). Rome: Typographia Linguarum Externarum, apud Jacobum Lunam, 1596. [in Latin]

Arayathinal, Thomas. Aramaic (Syriac) Grammar. 2 vols. [Mannanam,] Kerala: St. Joseph’s Press, 1957. Reprint, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2007. Assad, Assad Sauma. Tafsīr mār ʾafrām al-suryānī li-sifr al-takwīn (Mar Ephrem’s Commentary on Genesis, a critical edition with Arabic translation, introduction, and notes). Aleppo: al-Maktaba alSuryāniyya, 2007. Reprint, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2010. [in Arabic] Assemani, Joseph Aloysius. Codex Liturgicus Ecclesiæ Universæ. 12 vols. Rome: Ex Typographia Komarek, 1749–66. Reprint titled Liturgies of the Universal Church, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2010. Assemani, Joseph Simonius. Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana. 4 vols. Rome: Typis Sacræ Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, 1719–28. Reprint, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2002. ———. Sancti Patris Nostri Ephraem Syri Opera Omnia. Rome: Apud Joannem Mariam Henricum Salvioni, 1737. Assfalg, Julius. ‘Arabische Handschriften in Syrischer Schrift (Karšūnī)’. In Grundriß der Arabischen Philologie, edited by W. Fischer, 291– 303. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert, 1982. Audo, Thoma. Sīmtā ḏ-lešānā suryāyā (Dictionnaire de la langue chaldéenne). 2 vols. Mosul: Imprimerie des pères dominicains, 1897–[1901].1 Reprint in 1 vol., Chicago: Assyrian Language

1

On the date of vol. 2, see J. F. Coakley and David G. K. Taylor,

‘Syriac Books Printed at the Dominican Press, Mosul’, in Malphono w-

xxxvi

Bibliography and Culture Classes Incorporated, 1978; Stockholm: The Assyrian-Federation in Sweden, 1979; Glane/Losser: Bar Hebraeus Verlag, 1985. Reprint in 2 vols. titled Treasure of the Syriac Language, A Dictionary of Classical Syriac, with a new introduction by G. A. Kiraz and abbreviation list by Y. Unval, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2008. [in Syriac]

Aydin, Ḥanna Nuʿmān. Geḏše w-šaḇṭe d-ṭūr ʿaḇdīn (Gedsche Ushabte d’Turabdin). Glane/Losser: Bar Hebraeus Verlag, 1997. [in Syriac] Aydin, Robert (tr.). Kṯāḇā qādīšā meṭūl ṭlāyē. Glanne/Losser: Bar Hebraeus Verlag; Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2008. [in Syriac] Barsom, Murad (tr.), and Athanasius Yeshue Samuel (ed.). Ma’de’dono: The Book of the Church Festivals. Beirut: n.p., 1984. Reprint, Piscataway: Gorgias Press & Beth Antioch Press, 2012. [in Syriac and English] Barsoum, Gabriel. Yārtūṯā sūryāytā, mīmrē, luqāṭē wqūṭāp̱ ē ḥeḵmāṯānāyāṯā

w-mardūṯānāyāṯā ḏa-znīn znīn, vol. 1. Gütersloh: n.p., 2009. [in

Ṭuroyo] Barsoum, Peter. Assyrian Apostolic Church, Prayer, Hymn and Liturgical Service Book. Worcester, MA: St. Mary’s Assyrian Apostolic Church, 1957. Bazzi, Michael. Chaldean Prayers and Hymn. El Cajon, CA: St. Peter Chaldean Catholic Church, 1997. [in Syriac and English] Becker, Adam H. The Fear of God and the Beginning of Wisdom: The School of Nisibis and the Development of Scholastic Culture in Late Antique Mesopotamia. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 2006.

Rabo d-Malphone, Studies in Honor of Sebastian P. Brock, edited by George A. Kiraz, 71–110 (esp. 98–99), Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2008.

Bibliography

xxxvii

Bedjan, Paul. Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum. 6 vols. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1890–97. Reprint titled Acts of Martyrs and Saints, Acta Martyrum…, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2008. [in Syriac] ———. Homiliae Selectae Mar-Jacobi Sarugensis. 5 vols. Leipzig: William Drugulin, 1902–10. Reprint titled Homilies of Mar Jacob of Sarug, Momiliae Selectae…, 6 vols., Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2006. [in Syriac] Benjamin, Daniel. Kṯāḇā ḏ-ṯūrgāmē w-rūšmā ḏ-ṭeksā ḏ-amšamšānē. Chicago: Daniel Benjamin, 1996. [in Syriac] Bernstein, Georg H. Chrestomathia Syriaca cum Lexico. Leipzig: Cnobloch, 1832. Biblia Sacra Hebraice, Chaldaice, Græce, & Latine… Plantinus excud. Antuerpiæ. 8 vols. Antwerp: 1569–72. Biblia Sacra Juxta Versionem Simplicem quæ dicitur Pschitta. 3 vols. Mosul: Typis Fratrum Prædicatorum, 1887–91. Reprint C. J. David, The Syriac Bible According to the Mosul Edition, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2010. [in Syriac] Bosman, Hendrik Jan and Constantijn J. Sikkel, Format of a PIL Running Text File. Leiden: The Peshitta Institute, 2005. [unpublished report] Boyajy, Gabriel. Everlasting Calendar of the Orthodox Church. New York: College Point, 1914. [in Syro-Ottoman] Briquel Chatonnet, Françoise and Alain Desreumaux. ‘A Study and Characterization of the Syro-Malabar Script’. Journal of Semitic Studies 55, no. 2 (2010): 407–21. Brock, Sebastian P. ‘Limitations of Syriac in Representing Greek’. In The Early Versions of the New Testament, by Bruce Metzger, 83–98. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977. ———. ‘A Fourteenth-century Polyglot Psalter’. In Studies in Philology in Honour of R. J. Williams, edited by G. E. Kadish and G. E. Freeman, 1–15. Toronto: Benben Publications, 1982.

xxxviii

Bibliography

——— ‘Armenian in Syriac Script’. In Armenian Studies: In Memoriam Haïg Berbérian, edited by Dickran Kouymjian, 75–80. Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 1986. ———. Catalogue of Syriac Fragments (New Finds) in the Library of the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Mount Sinai. Athens: Mount Sinai Foundation, 1995. ———. ‘Some Diachronic Features of Classical Syriac’. In Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 118), edited by M. F. J. Baasten and W. Th. Van Peursen, 95–111. Leiden; Paris; Dudley, MA: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies, 2003. ———. ‘Les signatures en chiffres arithmétiques dans les manuscrits syriaques de la British Library’. In Sur les pas des Araméens chrétiens: Mélanges offerts à Alain Desreumaux, edited by F. Briquel Chatonnet and Muriel Debié, 159–67. Paris: Geuthner, 2010. ———. ‘Christian Palestinian Aramaic’. In GEDSH 96. ———. ‘Dawid bar Pawlos’. In GEDSH 116–17. ———. ‘Yaʿqub bar Shakko’. In GEDSH 430–31. ———. ‘Yuḥanān bar Zoʿbi’. In GEDSH 440. ———. ‘Dating Formulae in Syriac Inscriptions and Manuscripts of the 5th and 6th Centuries’. In G. A. Kiraz and Z. Al-Salameen, From Ugarit to Nabataea, Studies in Honour of John F. Healey, 85–106. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2012. Brock, Sebastian P., Aaron Butts, George Kiraz, and Lucas Van Rompay. Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2011. Brock, Sebastian P. and George A. Kiraz. ‘Būḥānā’. In Lectionary of the Syriac Epistles, [edited by George A. Kiraz,] pp. G-J. Glane/ Losser: Bar Hebraeus Verlag, 1991. ———. Ephrem the Syrian, Select Poems. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 2006.

Bibliography

xxxix

Brockelmann, Carl. Syrische Grammatik mit Paradigmen, Literatur, Chrestomathie. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard; New York: Lemcke & Buechner, 1912. Reprinted many times. Budge, Ernest Alfred Thompson. Syrian Anatomy, Pathology and Therapeutics; or, ‘The Book of Medicines’. London: Oxford University Press, 1913. ———. By Nile and Tigris: A Narrative of Journeys in Egypt and Mesopotamia on Behalf of the British Museum Between 1886 and 1913. 2 vols. London: John Murray, 1920. Bugatus, Gaetano. Daniel secundum editionem LXX. Milan: ex typographio Monasterii imperialis S. Ambrosii, 1788. Burkitt, F. Crawford. Evangelion da-Mepharreshe: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, With the Readings of the Sinai Palimpsest and the Early Syriac Patristic Evidence. 2 vols. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1904. Reprint, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2003. Butts, Aaron M. ‘Papyri, Syriac’. In GEDSH 320–22. ———. Language Change in the Wake of Empire: Syriac in its Greco-Roman Context. [in progress] Cardahi, Gabriel. al-Lubāb, wahwa kitāb fī al-luğa al-ʾārāmiyya alsuryāniyyah al-kaldāniyya (Al-Lobab seu Dictionarium SyroArabicum). 2 vols. Beirut: al-Maṭbaʿa al-Kāṯūlīkiyya, 1887–91. Reprint titled al-Lubab: Syriac-Arabic Dictionary, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2007. [in Syriac and Arabic] ———. Al-Manāhegh seu syntaxis et rhetoricae syrorum institutions. Rome: Ex Typographia Polyglotta, 1903. Caspar, [Widow of] W. Psalmi Davidis Regis & Prophetæ, lingua Syriaca. Leiden: Typographia Erpeniana Linguarum Orientalium, 1625. Ceriani, Antonio M. Codex Syro-Hexaplaris Ambrosianus photolithographice editus (Monumenta sacra et profana 7). Milan: Impensis Bibliothecae Ambrosianae; Augustae Taurinorum et Florentiae: Hermannum Loescher; London: Williams et Norgate, 1874.

xl

Bibliography

———. Translatio Syra Pescitto Veteris Testamenti ex codice Ambrosiano saec. 6 potolithographice edita (Monumenta sacra et profana 6). 2 vols. Milan: A. della Croce, 1876–83. Çiçek, Julius Yeshuʿ (ed.). Kap̱ ā ḏ-habāḇē. Glane/Losser: Bar Hebraeus Verlag, 1981.

———. Kṯāḇā ḏ-ḇeṯ gazā ḏ-neʿmāṯā ḏ-ʿīdtā sūryāytā ṯrīṣaṯ šūḇḥā. Glane/Losser: Barhebraeus Verlag, 1985. ———. Šḥīmā, ṣlawāṯā ḏ-šabṯā šḥīmtā ḏ-ʿīdtā sūryāytā trīṣaṯ šuḇḥā. Glane/Losser: Bar Hebraeus Verlag, 1999. [large format edition] Clemens, Raymond and Timothy Graham. Introduction to Manuscript Studies. Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press, 2007. Coakley, J. F. ‘Edward Breath and the Typography of Syriac’. Harvard Library Bulletin 6, no. 4 (1995): 41–64. ———. Robinson’s Paradigms and Exercises in Syriac Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. ———. The Typography of Syriac: a Historical Catalogue of Printing Types, 1537–1958. New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll Press; London: The British Library, 2006. ———. ‘Assyrian Printers in the U.S.A., 1915–1943: A Preliminary Bibliography’. Aram 21, no. 1/2 (2009): 117–48. ———. ‘When Were the Five Greek Vowel-Signs Introduced into Syriac Writing?’ Journal of Semitic Studies 66, no. 2 (2011): 307–25. ———. ‘Syriac in Library Catalogues’. Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 15, no. 1 (2012): 49–63. Costaz, L. Grammaire syriaque. Beirut: Librairie Orientale, 1955. Reprint, Beirut: Impr. Catholique, 1964. Coulmas, F. Writing Systems: An Introduction to their Linguistic Analysis. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Cowper, B. Harris. The Principles of Syriac Grammar, translated and abridged from the work of Dr. Hoffmann. London: Williams and Norgate; Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1858. Crinesius, C. Gymnasium Syriacum. Wittenberg: n.p., 1611.

Bibliography

xli

Cross, Frank M. and David N. Freedman. Early Hebrew Orthography: A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1952. Cureton, William. Fragments of the Iliad of Homer from a Syriac Palimpsest. London: Richard Taylor, 1851. Darlow, Thomas H. and Horace F. Moule. Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of the Holy Scripture in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society. 4 vols. London: The Bible House, 1903– 1911. Darmo, Thoma. Hudra. 3 vols. Kerala: Mar Narsai Press, 1960–61. [in Syriac] David, C. Joseph [Qlīmīs Yūsuf Dawūd]. Kitāb al-lumʿa al-šahiyya fī naḥw al-luğa al-suryāniyya ʿalā kilā maḏhabay al-ğarbiyyīn wa-lsharqiyyīn (Grammaire de la Langue Araméenne selon les deux dialects Syriaque et Chaldaique). 2 vols. 2nd edition, [edited by Raḥmani?].2 Mosul: Imprimerie des Pères Dominicains, 1896– 98. [in Arabic] De Dieu, L. Apocalypsis Sancti Johannis, ex manuscripto exemplari è bibliotheca clariss, viri Iosephi Scaligeri deprompto. Lugduni Batavorum: Ex typographia Elzeviriana, 1627. Dean, James Elmer. Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures, the Syriac Version. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935. DeFrancis, J. Visible Speech, the Diverse Oneness of Writing Systems. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1989. Degen, Rainer. Altaramäische Grammatik der Inschriften des 10.–8. Jh. V. Chr. (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 38.3), 25– 28. [Mainz]: Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft; Wiesbaden: Kommissionsverlag f. Steiner, 1969.

2

For the possible editor of the 2nd edition, published posthumously,

see Kiraz, ‘Lexica and Grammars of the Late Syriac Tradition’ 160.

xlii

Bibliography

Desreumaux, Alain. ‘Comment peut-on écrire en syriaque? ou Des problèmes du scribe devant sa page blanche’. In Manières de penser dans l'Antiquité méditerranéenne et orientale. Mélanges offerts à Francis Schmidt par ses élèves, ses collègues et ses amis, edited by Christophe Batsch and Mădălina Vârtejanu-Joubert, 105– 26. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Dickens Mark and Peter Zieme, ‘Syro-Uigurica I: A Syriac Psalter in Uyghur Script from Turfan’. In Scripts Beyond Borders. A Survey of Allographic Traditions in the Euro-Mediterranean World, edited by J. den Heijer, A. B. Schmidt and T. Pataridze. Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming. Dolabani, Yūḥanna. Kitāb al-ʾasās fī qawāʿid al-luğa al-suryāniyya. Mardin: al-Maṭbaʿa al-Suryāniyya, 1915. [in Arabic] [Dolabani, Yūḥanna], Mušḥāṯā ḏ-mor(y) grīgoryos yūḥanān bar ʿebrāyā map̱ ryānā qadīšā ḏ-maḏnḥā. Jerusalem: al-Maṭbaʿa al-Suryāniyya bi Deir Mar Marqos, 1928. [in Syriac]

Dolabani, Yūḥanna, René Lavenant, Sebastian P. Brock, and Samir Khalil Samir. ‘Catalogue des manuscrits de la bibliothèque de patriarcat syrien orthodoxe à Ḥomṣ (Auj. à Damas)’. Parole de l’Orient 19 (1994): 555–661. Drijvers, Han J. W. and John F. Healey. The Old Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene, Texts, Translations, and Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Duval, Rubens. Traité de Grammaire Syriaque. Paris: F. Vieweg, 1881. Ecchellensis, Abraham [Ibrahīm al-Ḥāqillānī]. Linguae Syriacae, sive Chaldaicae perbrevis institution ad eiusdem nationis studiosis. Rome: typis Sac. Cong. de Prop. Fide, 1628. Ewald, Heinrich. Über das syrische Punctationssystem, nach syrischen Handschriften, Abhandlungen zur orientalischen und biblischen Literatur. Göttingen: Dieterrich, 1832.

Bibliography

xliii

———. ‘Weitere Erläuterungen der syrischen Punctation, aus syrischen Handschriften’. Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 1 (1837): 204–12 Fiano, Emanuel. ‘Albonesi Ambrogio degli’. In GEDSH 13–14. Flügel, Gustav. Kitâb Al-Fihrist. Mit Anmerkungen Herausgegeben. 2 vols. Leipzig: Verlag von F. C. W. Vogel, 1872. Gabriel of St. Joseph. Syro-Chaldaic (Aramaic) Grammar. Mannanam, Kerala: St. Joseph's Press, 1961. Gacek, Adam. Arabic Manuscripts, A Vademecum for Readers. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Gelb, Ignace J. A Study of Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963. Gelston, Anthony. The Eucharistic Prayer of Addai and Mari. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Gershevitch, Ilya. ‘The Alloglottography of Old Persian’. Transactions of the Philological Society 77, no. 1 (1979): 114–90. Gnanadesikan, Amalia E. The Writing Revolution: Cuneiform to the Internet. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Goldsmith, John. Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell, 1990. Gottheil, Richard H. A Treatise on Syriac Grammar by Mâr Eliâ of Ṣobhâ. Berlin: Wolf Peiser Verlag, 1887. Reprint, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2003. ———. ‘A Midrashic poem on the Alphabet Attributed to David bar Paul’. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete 8 (1893): 86–99. Guidi, Ignatius. Chronica Minora (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 1–2). Leuven: Secrétariat du CSCO, 1903. Haddad, Benyamin ‘Development of the Numbers over History’. Journal of the Syriac Academy 2 (1976): 221–76. Haralambous, Yannis. ‘Sabra, a Syriac TEX System’. In SyrCOM-95: Proceedings of the First International Forum on Syriac Computing, ed-

xliv

Bibliography ited by George A. Kiraz, 3–23. Cambridge, UK: The Syriac Computing Institute, 1995.

Harrak, Amir. Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions of Iraq (Recueil des inscriptions syriaques 2). Paris: Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, 2010. Hary, Benjamin. ‘Judeo-Arabic in Its Sociolinguistic Setting’. Israel Oriental Studies 15 (1995): 129–55. Hatch, William H. P. An Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts. Boston: The American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1946. Reprint with a Foreword by Lucas Van Rompay, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2002. Healey, John. ‘The Earliest History of the Syriac Script. A Reassessment’. Journal of Semitic Langauges 45 (2000): 55–67. ———. Leshono Suryoyo, First Studies in Syriac (Gorgias Handbooks 2), 2nd edition. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2005. ———. ‘A New Syriac Mosaic Inscription’. Journal of Semitic Studies 51, no. 2 (2006): 313–27. Heller, Chaim. Peshitta in Hebrew Characters with Elucidatory Notes, Part I Genesis. Berlin: Druckerei Gutenberg, 1928. ———. Peshitta in Hebrew Characters with Elucidatory Notes, Part II Exodus. Berlin: Druckerei Gutenberg, 1929. Heva [Ḥawwa], Gabriel. Liber Psalmorum Davidis Idiomate Syro. Rome: Ex Typographia Perri Ferri, 1737. [in Syro-Arabic and Syriac] Hoffmann, Andreas G. Grammaticae Syriacae. Halle: Impensis librariae Orphanotrophei, 1867. Hoffmann, Georg. Opuscula Nestoriana. Kiel: G. von Maack, 1880. Hughes, Gareth. ‘A Guide to Numerals in Syriac’. 5 February 2010. [unpublished working paper] Hunter,

Erica

and

Mark

Dickens,

Verzeichnis

der

Orientalischen

Handschriften in Deutschland 5,2. Syrische Handschriften. Teil 2: Texte der Berliner Turfansammlung. Syriac Texts from the Berlin Turfan Collection. Stuttgart: VOHD, forthcoming.

Bibliography

xlv

Hussmann, Heinrich. Ein syro-melkitisches Tropologion mit altbyzantinischer Notation, Sinai Syr. 261. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1975–78. Hutchinson, Enoch. Uhlemann’s Syriac Grammar. New York: D. Appleton, 1855. Ibrahim, Gregorios Yuhanna. The Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex of the Chronicle of Michael the Great (Texts and Translations of the Chronicle of Michael the Great 1). Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2009. Ifrah, Georges. The Universal History of Numbers from Prehistory to the Invention of the Computer. New York: Viking, 1994. Jahn, Johann. Elementa Aramaicae seu Chaldaeo-Syriacae linguae. Vienna: A. Schmid, 1820. Jasim, Peter (ed.). Proceedings of the First Ashurbanipal Library Computer Conference. Chicago: Ashurbanipal Library Press, 1989. Jones, F. Stanley. ‘Early Syriac Pointing in and behind British Museum Additional Manuscript 12150’. In Symposium Syriacum VII (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 256), edited by René Lavenant, 429– 44. Rome: Pontificio Instituto Orientale, 1998. Juckel, Andreas. ‘Introduction to the Ḥarklean Text’. In Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels, edited by George A. Kiraz, vol. 1, xxxi– lxxxii. Leiden: Brill, 1996. ———. ‘Masora’. In GEDSH 276–79. Kaplan, Ayda. Paléographie syriaque. Développement d’une méthode d’expertise sur base des manuscrits syriaques de la British Library (Ve–Xe siècles). Ph.D dissertation, Université catholique de Louvain, 2008. ———. ‘Les copistes du manuscrit syriaque BL Add. 12 153 (Homélies de Gregoire de Nazianze)’. Orientalia Christiana Periodica 77, no. 2 (2011), 327–49.

xlvi

Bibliography

Kaufman, Stephen. The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, Text Entry and Format Manual. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987. ———. Jacob of Sarug’s Homilies on Elijah. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2009. al-Kfarnissy, Boulos. Ğrāmāṭīq al-luğa al-ʾārāmiyya al-suryāniyya, ṣarf wanaḥw. 2nd edition. Beirut: Maṭbaʿat al-Ruhbāniyya al-Mārūniyya al-Lubnāniyya, 1962. Reprint titled Grammar of the Aramaic Syriac Language, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2005. [in Arabic] King, Daniel. ‘Elements of the Syriac Grammatical Tradition as these Relate to the Origins of Arabic Grammar’. In The Foundations of Arabic Linguistics, Sībawayhi and Early Arabic Grammatical Theory (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics, 65), edited by Amal Elesha Marogy. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming. Kiraz, George Anton. ‘A Proposed Syriac Computer Keyboard Layout’. In Proceedings of the First Ashurbanipal Library Computer Conference, edited by Peter Jasim. Chicago: Ashurbanipal Library Press, 1989. ———. Alaph Beth Font Kit. User Manual. Los Angeles: Alaph Beth Computer Systems, 1990. ———. ‘Computers: Innovation and New Future to Syriac Studies’. In V Symposium Syriacum 1998, edited by René Lavenant 451–58. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1990. ———. A Computer-Generated Concordance to the Syriac New Testament. 6 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993. ———. ‘Automatic Concordance Generation of Syriac Texts’. In VI Symposium Syriacum 1992, edited by René Lavenant, 461–75. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1994. ———. Introduction to Syriac Spirantization. Losser: Bar Hebraeus Verlag, 1995. [in Arabic, Syriac, and English]

Bibliography

xlvii

———. Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels, Aligning the Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshitta and Harklean Versions. 4 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996. Reprint, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2004. ———. MELTHO: Syriac OpenType Fonts for Windows XP/2000™ and Windows 95/98/ME™ User Guide Version 1.2. Piscataway: Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2001. [electronic file distributed with the Meltho fonts] ———. The New Syriac Primer, an Introduction to the Syriac Language with a CD (Gorgias Handbooks 9). Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2007. ———, ed. The Searchable and Bookmarked Syriac-English Dictionary: A Searchable PDF of J. Payne Smith’s A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2007. [eBook] ———. ‘Lexica and Grammars in the Late Syriac Tradition: The Three Bishops: Audo, Manna, and David’. In Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II, Colloquia of the International Syriac Language Project, edited by P. J. Williams, 155–63. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2009. ———. ‘Forty Years of Syriac Computing’. Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 10, no. 1 (2011): 37–60. ———. ‘Syriac’. In The World Encyclopedia of Calligraphy, edited by Christopher Calderhead and Holly Cohen, 261–62. New York: Sterling: 2011. ———. ‘Taw Mim Semkath’. In GEDSH 397. ———. ‘Yuḥanon Qashisho’. In GEDSH 447. ———. ‘Old Syriac Graphotactics’. Journal of Semitic Studies 57, no. 2 (2012): 231–64. ———. ‘Challenges in Syriac Text Editions using the DOS-based Word Processor Multi-Lingual Scholar’. In The Letter Before the Spirit: The Importance of Text Editions for the Study of the Reception of Aristotle, edited by A. M. I. van Oppenraay. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming.

xlviii

Bibliography

———. ‘Garshunography: Terminology and Some Formal Properties of Writing One Language in the Script of Another’. In Scripts beyond Borders. A Survey of Allographic Traditions in the EuroMediterranean World, edited by J. den Heijer, A. Schmidt, and T. Pataridze. Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming. ———. Garshuni Primer with Chrestomathy. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, forthcoming. Koonammakkal, Thomas. ‘An Introduction to Malayalam Karshon’. The Harp 15 (2002): 99–106. Kreyenbroek, P. G. ‘The Lawîj of Môr Basîliôs Shimʿûn: A Kurdish Christian Text in Syriac Script’. Journal of Kurdish Studies 1 (1995): 29–53. Kṯāḇā ḏ-mazmūre ḏ-ḏāwīḏ malkā wa-nḇīyā. Quzḥayya: 1610. [in Syriac] Kṯāḇā ḏ-qūrāḇā ʾa(y)ḵ ʿyāḏā ḏ-mārūnāye. Rome: 1592–94. [in Syriac] Lahmo dhayé: The Book of the Divine Liturgy According to the Rite of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch. Beirut: 2002. [in Syriac and Arabic] Lantschoot, Arnold van. ‘Un texte arménien en lettres syriaques’. In Mélanges Eugène Tisserant III, Orient chrétien, Deuxième partie (Studi e Testi 233) 419–28. Vatican City: 1964. ———. Inventaire des Manuscrits Syriaques des fonds Vatican (490–631), Barberini Oriental et Neofiti. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1965. Löfgren, Ulf. Ludde vo telefon, translated into Ṭūrāyā by Besim Aydin. Estland: Arjovi Förlag, 2010. [in Ṭuroyo] Loopstra, Jonathan Andrew. Patristic Selections in the “Masoretic” Handbooks of the Qarqaptā Tradition. 2 vols. Ph.D. dissertation, The Catholic University of America, 2009. Maggi M. and P. Orsatti, ‘Two Syro-Persian Hymns for Palm Sunday and Maundy Thursday’. In idem (eds.), The Persian language in history (Beiträge zur Iranistik 33), 247–85. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert, 2011.

Bibliography

xlix

Makdasi, Jérémie. Tūrrāṣ mamllā (Grammaire Chaldéenne). Mosul: Imprimerie des pères dominicains, 1889. Reprints, Baghdad: Maṭbaʿat Offset al-Mašriq, 1978; with Arabic translation by Kawṯar Najīb ʿAbd al-ʾAḥad, Irbil: Maṭbaʿat al-Ḥāj Hāšim, 2006; in W. Syr. script edited by Barsaumo Samoil Dogan, Enschede: B. S. Dogan, 1997. [in Syriac] Malki, Joseph A. al-Mabādiʾ al-ʾawwaliyya lil-lahja al-suryāniyya alṭūrāniyya. Qamishli: J. Malki, 2006. [in Arabic] Manna, Awgīn. Kitāb al-ʾuṣūl al-jalīla fī naḥw al-luğa al-ʾārāmiyya ʿalā kilā maḏhabayy al-šarqiyyīn wal-ğarbiyyīn (Cours de Langue Araméenne selon deux dialects Syriaque et Chaldaique). Mosul: Imprimerie des Pères Dominicains, 1886. [in Arabic] ———. Marge peg ̱ y̱ ānāye ḏ-mardūṯā ḏ-ʾārāmāye (Morceaux choisis de

Littérature Araméenne). 2 vols. Mosul: Imprimerie des Pères Dominicains, 1901–02. Reprint, Bagdad: Maṭbaʿat al-Mašriq, 1978. [in Syriac]

Margoliouth, David Samuel. ‘The Syro-Armenian Dialect’. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1898): 839–61. Margoliouth, Jessie P. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1903. [reprinted many times] Martin, Paulin. ‘Histoire de la ponctuation ou de la massore chez les Syriens’. Journal Asiatique 7 no. 5 (1875): 81–208. Masius, Andreas. Grammatica linguae Syriacae Inventore Atq Avctore. Antwerp: Excudebat Christophorus Plantinus Architypographus Regius, 1573. McCarthy, John. ‘A Prosodic Theory of Nonconcatenative Morphology’. Linguistic Inquiry 12, no. 3 (1981): 207–63. McCollum, Adam. ‘Divine Invocations and Daxologies in Manuscripts of Some Languages of the Christian East’. Hill Museum & Manuscript Library Chronicle. Entry posted May 2, 2011. http://www.hmml. org/news10/AM.htm.

l

Bibliography

Mengozzi, Alessandro. ‘The History of Garshuni as a Writing System: Evidence from the Rabbula Codex’. In CAMSEMUD 2007: Proceedings of the 13th Intalian Meeting of Afro-Asiatic Linguistics, edited by Frederick Mario Fales and Giulia Francesca Grassi, 297– 304. Padova: SARGON, 2010. ———. ‘Sureth’. In GEDSH, 385–86. Merx, Albert. Historia artis grammaticae apud Syros (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 9.2). Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1889. Michaelis, Christianus Benedictus. Syriasmus, id est grammatica linguae Syriacae: cum fundamentis necessariis, tum paradigmatibus plenioribus, tum denique ubere syntaxi, et idiomatibus linguae, instructa. Halle: Impensis Orphanotrophei, 1741. Michaelis, Johann David. Ioannis Davidis Michaelis Grammatica Syriaca. Halle: Impensis Orphanotrophei, 1784. Mingana, Alphonse. Clef de la langue araméenne ou grammaire complète et pratique des deux dialectes syriaques occidental et oriental. Mosul: Impr. des Pères Dominicains, 1905. ———. Catalogue of the Mingana Collection of Manuscripts. 3 vols. Cambridge, UK: W. Heffer and Sons, 1933. Reprint, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2006. Moberg,

Axel.

‘Über

den

griechischen

Ursprung

der

syrischen

Akzentuation’. Le monde oriental 1, no. 2 (1906): 87–100. ———. Le Livre des Splendeurs, la Grande Grammaire de Grégoire Barhebraeus, texte Syriaque édité d’après les manuscrits avec une introduction et des notes (Skrifter utgivna av K. Humanistiska vetenskapssamfundet i Uppsala 4). Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, [etc.],

1922.

Reprint

titled

Kṯāḇā

ḏ-ṣemḥe

ḏ-ʿal

īḏaʿṯā

ğramaṭīqāytā ḏ-lešānā suryāyā (Grammar of the Syriac Language), [Södertälje]:

Utgiven

av

Kommitté, 1983. [in Syriac]

Syrianska

Riksforbundets

Kultur

Bibliography

li

Moller, Garth I. ‘Towards a New Typology of the Syriac Manuscript Alphabet’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 14 (1988): 153– 97. Müller-Kessler, Christa and Michael Sokoloff. A Corpus of Christian Palestinian Aramaic. 5 vols. Groningen: STYX Publ, 1996. Muraoka, Takamitsu. Classical Syriac for Hebraists. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1987. ———. Classical Syriac: A Basic Grammar with a Chrestomathy. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1997. Murre-van den Berg, H.L. From a Spoken to a Written Language. The Introduction and Development of Literary Urmia Aramaic in the Nineteenth Century. Publication of the “De Goeje Fund” No. XXVIII, (1999). Leiden, 1999. http://hdl.handle.net/1887/7891. Nadwat tawḥīd al-ḵaṭ al-suryānī / Min buḥūṯ nadwat al-ḵaṭ al-suryānī.3 Baghdad: ʾIttiḥād al-ʾUdabāʾ wal-Kuttāb al-ʿIrāqiyyīn / ʾIttiḥād al-ʾUdabāʾ wal-Kuttāb al-Suryān, 2006. [in Arabic] Nau, François. ‘Notes d’astronomie indienne’. Journal Asiatique 10 (1910): 209–25. Nelson, Paul, George A. Kiraz and Sargon Hasso. ‘Proposal to Encode Syriac in ISO/IEC 10646’. Cupertino, CA: Unicode Technical Committee Meeting, 1998. Nestle, Eberhard. ‘Zur Geschichte der syrischen Punctation’. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 30 (1876): 525–33. ———. Syriac Grammar with Bibliography, Chrestomathy, and Glossary, edited by K. C. Hanson. Berlin: Reuther’s Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1889. Reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002. Nöldeke, Theodor. Grammatik der neusyrische Sprache am Urmia-See und in Kurdistan. Leipzig: T. O. Weigel, 1868. Reprint, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2009.

3

First title is on the title page; second title on book cover.

lii

Bibliography

———. Compendious Syriac Grammar. Translated by James Crichton. London: Williams & Norgate, 1904. Reprint, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Nuro, Abrohom. ʾEsṭrangelāyāṯā šaryāṯā. Beirut: 1966. [booklet, in Syriac and Arabic] ———. Sulaqa. Aleppo: A. Nuro; Hengelo: Hengelo Smit, 1989. [in Syriac] Oberleitner, Andreas. Chrestomathia Syriaca una cum Glossario SyriacoLatino. Vienna: Schmid, 1826. Oez, Mikael. Cyriacus of Tagrit and his Book on Divine Providence. 2 vols. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2012. Ögunc-Schüsche, Bitris. Buyük Ayin (Kuddas). [Augsburg]: Druckerei Blasaditsch, 1977. Palacios, Ludovicus. Grammatica Syriaca. Rome: Desclée, 1954. Palmer, Andrew N. ‘Corpus of Syriac Inscriptions from Tur ʿAbdin and Environs’. Oriens Christiatus 71 (1987): 53–139. ———. ‘The Syriac Letter-Forms of Ṭūr ʿAbdīn and Environs’. Oriens Christianus 73 (1989): 68–89. Penn, Michael P. ‘Monks, Manuscripts and Muslims: Syriac Textual Changes in Reaction to the Rise of Islam’. Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 12, no. 2 (2009): 235–57. Pennacchietti, Fabrizio. ‘Un manoscritto curdo in karshuni da Aradin (Iraq)’. Annali dell'Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli 36 (1976): 548–52. Phillips, George. A Letter of Mār Jacob, Bishop of Edessa, on Syriac Orthography: Also a Tract by the Same Author, and a Discourse by Gregory bar Hebraeus on Syriac Accents. London: Williams and Norgate, 1869. ———. ‘Syriac Accents’. Journal of Philology 9 (1880): 221–29. Postel, Guillaume. Linguarum duodecim characteribus differentium alphabetum, introductio, ac legendi modus longè facilimus. Linguarum

Bibliography

liii

nomina sequens proximè pagella offeret. Prostant Parisiis: Apud Dionysium Lescuier …, [1538]. Pusey, Philip Edward and George Henry Gwilliam. Tetraeuangelium sanctum: juxta simplicem Syrorum versionem ad fidem codicum Massorae, editionum denuo recognitum. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1901. Reprint titled The fourfold Holy Gospel in the Peshitta Syriac version: as revised in accordance with the readings of ancient manuscripts and early editions with an introduction by Andreas Juckel, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2003. Qarabāši, ʿAbd al-Masīḥ Nuʿmān. Zmīrāṯā ḏ-ʿīdtā. Qamišlī: Maṭbaʿat alŠabāb, 1968. [in Syriac] Rahmani, Ignace Ephrem II. al-Mabāḥiṯ al-jaliyya fī al-līturjiyyāt alšarqiyya wal-ğarbiyya, tatanāwal muʿāraḍat baʿḍihā bi-baʿḍ (Les Liturgies Orientales et Occidentales, compares entre elles et étudiées séparément). Charfet, Mont Liban: Imprimerie Patriarcale Syrienne, 1924. [in Arabic] Risius, Geo. al-Kitāb seu Grammatica et Ars Metrica Languæ Syriacæ. Beirut: n.p., 1897. Robinson, Theodore H. Paradigms and exercises in Syriac grammar. 4th edition. Revised by L. H. Brockington. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1962. [reprinted many times] Rödiger, E. ‘Die Syrischen Zahlzeichen’. ZDMG 16 (1862) 555–78. Rogers, Henry. Writing Systems: A Linguistic Approach. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Rubio, Gonzalo. ‘Writing in Another Tongue: Alloglottography in the Ancient Near East’. In Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures, edited by Seth L. Sanders (Oriental Institute Seminars 2) 33–66. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2006. Rudimentum Syriacum. Rome: Paulinus, 1618. Ruska, Julius. Das Quadrivium aus Severus Bar Šakkû’s Buch der Dialoge. Leipzig: W. Drugulin, 1896.

liv

Bibliography

Sabar, Yona. ‘On the Nature of the Oral Translations of the Book of Exodus in Neo-Aramaic’. Maarav 5–6 (1990): 311–17. ———. ‘The Hebrew Bible Vocabulary as Reflected through Traditional Oral Neo-Aramaic Translations’. In Semitic Studies in honor of W. Leslau, edited by A. S. Kaye, vol. II, 1385–1401. Wiesbaden: 1991. Sampson, Geoffrey. Writing Systems: A Linguistic Introduction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1985. Sauget, J. M. ‘Vestiges d’une célébration Gréco-Syriaque de l’Anaphore de Saint Jacques’. In After Chalcedon, Studies in Theology and Church History offered to Professor Albert Van Roey for his Seventieth Birthday, edited by Carl Laga, Joseph A. Munitiz, and Lucas Van Rompay, 309–45. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1985. Schaaf, Carolus. Lexicon Syriacum Concordantiale. Leiden: Boutesteyn & Luchtmans, 1717. Schmidt, Andrea. ‘Arménien et syriaque’. In Arménie: la magie de l’écrit (exposition, Marseille, Centre de la vieille charité, 27 avril–22 juillet 2007), edited by C. Mutafian, 345–48. Paris: Somogy, 2007. Schwartz, Martin. ‘A Page of a Sogdian Liber Vitae’. In Corolla Iranica: Papers in Honour of Prof. Dr. David Neil MacKenzie, edited by Ronald E. Emmerick and Dieter Weber, 157–66. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1991. Sciadrensis, Isaac [Isḥāq al-Šadrāwī]. Ğramaṭīqī ḏ-lešānā sūryāyā (Grammatica Linguae Syriacae). Rome: Collegio Maronitarum, 1636. [in Syriac] Segal, J. B. The Diacritical Point and the Accents in Syriac. London; New York; Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1953. Reprint, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2004. ———. ‘Some Syriac Inscriptions of the 2nd–3rd Century A.D’. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 16 (1954): 13–36.

̄ A Historical Introduction’. Journal of Se———. ‘Quššaya and Rukkaka: mitic Studies 34, no. 2 (1989): 483–91.

Bibliography Segert,

Stanislav.

Altaramäische

Grammatik.

lv Leipzig:

Verlag

Enzyklopädie, 1975. Seife, Charles. Zero, The Biography of a Dangerous Idea. New York: Viking Penguin, 2000. Shabo, Eli (ed.). Syriac Reading Lessons by Malfono ʿAbd-Mshiho dQarabash. Midland Park, NJ: Fr. Eli Shabo/Aramaic American Association, 2006. Sims-Williams, Nicholas. ‘Syro-Sogdica III: Syriac elements in Sogdian’. In A Green Leaf: Papers in Honour of Professor Jes P. Asmussen, edited by Werner Sundermann, Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin and Fereydun Vahman, 145–56. Leiden: Brill, 1988. ———. ‘Christian Literature in Middle Iranian Languages’. In The Literature of Pre-Islamic Iran (History of Persian Literature 17), edited by Ronald E. Emmerick and Maria Macuch, 266–87. London: I. B. Tauris, 2009. ———. ‘Early New Persian in Syriac Script: Two Texts from Turfan’. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 74 (2011): 353–74. Sivanand, Sunil and Daniel Benjamin. ‘An Early Aramaic (Syriac) Word Processor under DOS’. Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 14, no. 2 (2011): 307–13. Smith, Robert Payne. Thesaurus Syriacus. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1868–1901. Reprint, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2007. Sokoloff, Michael. A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin; Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns; Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2009. Sproat, Richard. A Computational Theory of Writing Systems (Studies in Natural Language Processing). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Strothmann, W. ‘Die syrische Schreibmaschine’. In Paul de Lagarde und die syrische Kirchengeschichte, edited by Göttinger Arbeitskreis für syrische Kirchengeschichte, 265. Göttingen: Lagarde-Haus, 1968.

lvi

Bibliography

Syriac Modern New Testament. New York: American Bible Society, 1948. Syriac Academy. Mašrūʿ al-ḥarf al-suryāni al-muwaḥḥad. Baghdad: Syriac Academy, 1975. [in Arabic and Syriac] Takahashi, Hidemi and Jos J. S. Weitenberg. ‘The Shorter SyriacArmenian Glossary in Ms. Yale Syriac 9’. Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 10 (2010): 68–83. ———. ‘Bar ʿEbroyo’. In GEDSH 54–56. ———. ‘The Shorter Syriac-Armenian Glossary in MS. Yale Syriac 9; Part 2: Glossary in Transcription/Translation’. Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 14, no. 1 (2011), 87–144. ———. ‘Armenisch-Garschuni (Armenisch in syrischer Schrift)’. In Scripts Beyond Borders. A Survey of Allographic Traditions in the Euro-Mediterranean World, edited by J. den Heijer, A. B. Schmidt and T. Pataridze. Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming. Tannous, Jack. Lovers of Labor at the End of the Ancient World: Syriac Scholars Between Byzantium and Islam. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies; Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, forthcoming. Taylor, David G.K. The Syriac Versions of the De Spiritu Sancto by Basil of Caesarea. Leuven: Peeters, 1999. ———. An Annotated Bibliography of Printed Syriac Lexica. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, forthcoming. Taylor, Isaac. The Alphabet: An Account of the Origin and Development of Letters. London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co, 1883. Tekso Dkurobo Aloyoyo. Istanbul: Matbathö dbeth Kilimci, 2001. [in Syriac and Turkish] Teule, Herman. ‘Eliya I of Tirhan’. In GEDSH 141. ———. ‘Eliya of Nisibis’. In GEDSH 143. Thackston, Wheeler M. Introduction to Syriac: An Elementary Grammar with Readings from Syriac Literature. Bethesda, MD: Ibex Publishers, 1999.

Bibliography

lvii

The Aramaic Scriptures Research Society in Israel. The New Covenant Commonly Called The New Testatment, Peshiṭta Aramaic Text with a Hebrew Translation. Jerusalem: The Bible Society, 1986. The Four Gospels in Modern Syriac: Turoyo. New York: American Bible Society, 1995. The New Testament in Syriac. London: The British and Foreign Bible Society, 1950. The Order of Holy Qurbana for the Use of the Faithful. San Jose: Adiabene Publications, 2001. The Service Book of the Holy Qurbana. Udayagiri, Kerala: Seminary Publications, 1994. [in Syriac and English] Tremellius, Immanuel. Testamentum Novum: Est autem interpretatio Syriaca Novi Testamenti. Geneva: Henr. Stephanus, 1569. Trigona-Harany, Benjamin. ‘A Bibliography of Süryânî Periodicals in Ottoman Turkish’. Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 12, no. 2 (2009): 287–300. ———. ‘A Description of Syro-Ottoman’. In Between Religion and Language: Turkish-speaking Christians, Jews and Greek-speaking Muslims and Catholics in the Ottoman Empire (Türk dilleri araştırmaları dizisi 48), edited by Evangelia Balta and Mehmet Ölmez. Istanbul: Eren, 2011. Tullberg [aka Tuliberg], Hampus Kristoffer. Initia linguae syriacae. Lund: Berling, 1837. Tuma, Severus Jacob. Tārīḵ al-kanīsa al-suryāniyya al-hindiyya. Beirut: Maṭābiʿ Faddūl, 1951. [in Arabic; English translation: Ignatius Jacob III, History of the Syriac Church of India, translated by Matti Moosa, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2009] Uhlemann, Friedrich G. Elementarlehre der syrischen Sprache, mit vollständigen Paradigmen, syrischen Lesestücken und dem dazu gehörenden Wörterbuche, für akademische Vorlesungen. Berlin: T. H. Riemann, 1829. [references are made to Hutchinson’s translation]

lviii

Bibliography

Ungnad, Arthur. Syrische Grammatik mit Übungsbuch. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1913. Unicode Consortium. The Unicode Standard, Version 3.0, edited by Joan Aliprand et.al. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 2000. ———. The Unicode Standard, Version 5.0, edited by Julie D. Allen et al. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 2007. Unval, Yuyoqim. [An Abbreviation List of the Sigla in Touma Audo’s Lexicon.] In Treasure of the Syriac Language: A Dictionary of Classical Syriac, by Thomas Audo, vol. 1, 7–15. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2008. [in Syriac] Van Rompay, Lucas. ‘Some Preliminary Remarks on the Origins of Classical Syriac as a Standard Language. The Syriac Version of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History’. In Semitic and Cushitic Studies, edited by G. Goldenberg and S. Raz, 70–89. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2004. ———. ‘A Precious Gift to Deir al-Surian (AD 1211): Ms. Vat. Syr. 13’. In Malphono w-Rabo d-Malphone, Studies in Honor of Sebastian P. Brock, edited by George A. Kiraz, 735–49. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2008. ———. ‘Ishoʿyahb bar Malkun’. In GEDSH 219. ———. ‘Mushe of Mardin’. In GEDSH 300–01. Voigt, Rainer. ‘Das Vokalsystem des Syrischen nach Barhebraeus’. Orienst Christianus 81 (1997): 36–69. Wardini, Eli. Neologisms in Modern Literary Syriac: Some Preliminary Results. Master thesis, University of Oslo, 1995. Warfield, Benjamin B. ‘The Massora Among the Syrians, freely translated and adapted from the French of the Abbé J. P. P. Martin’. Hebraica 2, no. 1 (1885): 13–23. Wernberg-Møller, P. ‘Some Scribal and Linguistic Features of the Genesis Part of the Oldest Peshiṭta Manuscript (B.M. Add. 14425)’. Journal of Semitic Studies 13 (1968): 136–61.

Bibliography

lix

Widmanstetter, Johannes. Syriacæ Lingvae Iesv, Christo Eivsqve Matri… Prima Elementa. Vienna: 1555. Wilkinson, Robert J. The Kabbalistic Scholars of the Antwerp Polyglot Bible. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ———. Orientalism, Aramaic and Kabbalah in the Catholic Reformation, the First Printing of the Syriac New Testament. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Wiseman, Nicholas P. Horae syriacae: seu, Commentationes et anecdota res vel litteras syriacas spectantia. Rome: F. Bourliè, 1828. Wright, William. Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum. 3 vols. 1870–72. Reprint, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2002. Yeates, Thomas. A Syriac Grammar Principally Adapted to the New Testament in that Langauge. London, 1819. Young, R. Shorter catechism agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster now for the first time translated into the Syriac language. Edinburgh: Robert Young, 1853. Zitoun, Zeki. The Book of the Divine Mass of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch. Sydney: Z. Zitoun, 1992. Zschokke, Hermanno. Institutiones Fundamentales Linguae Aramaicae seu Dialectorum Chaldaicae ac Syriacae. Vienna: Braumueller, 1870.

1. Sources and their Historical Context

The beginning and foundation of orthoepy and orthography are the written letters.

Elia of Ṣoba (975–1046), Tūrrāṣ mamllā

But this book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written.

Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), Il Saggiatore

§1.

Orthography and the writing system are an integral com-

ponent of linguistic description. They interface closely with phonological description, and, to a lesser extent, with morphological and syntactic descriptions. In recent years, linguists have built on the terminology used for phonology to describe writing systems. Hence, in writing systems one now speaks of graphs, graphemes, and allographs, terms coined to be conceptually analogous with the terms phones, phonemes, and allophones of phonology, and the terms morphs, morphemes, and allomorphs of morphology. In typography, one speaks of glyphs and ligatures. This chapter introduces the terms used in subsequent chapters (1.1) and provides a discussion on the sources (1.2 ff.). Terms and concepts that are confined to one chapter are introduced in that chapter. §2.

Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic with a literature spanning

from the 3rd or 4th century until the present day. The earliest examples of writing come from the area of Edessa and its surroundings in Mesopotamia, which has led scholars to consider Syriac the Aramaic dialect of Edessa. Later, Syriac expanded beyond this

1

2

Sources and their Historical Context

§2.

geographical area to become the main medium of writing for most Christians of the Middle East. §3.

As noted by Coakley, Syriac ‘is the name of a language and

of a script’.1 The script, the earliest example of which in the form of an inscription dated A.D. 6, was used to write not only the Syriac language, but also a wide range of Semitic and non-Semitic languages such as Arabic, Neo-Aramaic, Armenian, Persian, Turkish, Malayalam, and others. As a language, while primarily written in the Syriac script, it has also been written in other scripts. This book is concerned with Syriac as both a language and a script.

1.1.

Preliminaries

§4.

A few technical terms are used throughout the book. A

graph is the most basic unit of written language, and typically corresponds to a letter of the alphabet, a diacritic, a punctuation mark, or a digit. For instance, we say that the Syriac word ‘spot, mark’ consists of three graphs and

‫ܡ‬

, ,

‫< ܡ‬m>. (Angle brackets, , enclose orthographic trans-

literations.) In this case, the initial and final shapes of differ, and, hence, are considered unique graphs. §5.

A grapheme is defined at a more abstract level. It is de-

fined as the minimally significant unit in the writing system. In the word

‫ܡ‬

, for example, the first graph is the letter

Mīm; so is the last graph. As their shapes differ, they are considered two separate graphs. But the difference in shape is merely contextual: at the beginning of the word the shape is end the shape is

, but at the

‫ܡ‬. This is not considered a significant difference, and for this reason it is said that both graphs, and ‫ܡ‬, are the 1

ch. 1

Coakley, Typography 4 n. 18.

Sources and their Historical Context

§6.

3

same grapheme . Indeed, they are allographs of the same grapheme realized as variants in writing. §6.

Segmental graphemes pertain to graphemes that are pre-

sent in speech, viz. consonants and vowels. In Syriac writing, however, consonants and vowels are not on equal footing. In fact, the writing system is a consonantary;2 i.e. texts consist primarily of consonantal graphemes. Vowels are rarely written, and in fact were not introduced to the writing system until much later in the history of the language. Hence, the writing system is phonologically underspecified; e.g.

‫ܢ‬

‘our Lord’ is read /māran/

where both vowels are lacking in the orthography.3 (Solidi, //, enclose phonemic transcriptions.) This consonantal feature of the writing system may have to do with the morphological nature of the language; viz. its root-and-pattern morphology. In such a system, a consonantal root is rendered into many derivational forms by the imposition of vowels; e.g.

‫ܒ‬

can be /kṯaḇ/ ‘he

wrote’, /kāṯeḇ/ ‘he writes’, and /kṯāḇ/ ‘book ABS.’. It is the consonants that give the common semantic specification.

2

Most grammars refer to the consonantal letters as the ‘alphabet’.

Gelb (147 ff.) argued that the West Semitic writing system, at least prior to vocalization, is not alphabetic but rather syllabic, where each consonant represents a CV syllable; so did Segal (7 & 10). However, linguists of writing systems today all agree that our domain here is a consonantary, not a syllabary. 3

This is not too far from modern usage of the English language in

the genre of ‘texting’, where omitting letters saves time and money. The first letters to go are vowels. One finds today advertisements such as FSTR

TXT

for ‘text faster’, which a few decades ago—and most probably in the

future when this genre becomes obsolete—would have made no sense.

4

Sources and their Historical Context

§7.

§7.

Consonantal graphemes are those segmental graphemes

that are part of the ‘alphabet’4 proper; i.e. the consonantary. The consonants are always written on the base line, right-to-left, in a predictable order. For this reason, they are called linear elements. Chapter 1 is devoted to the consonantal system. §8.

Vowel graphemes are those optional segmental graph-

emes that indicate vowels. As they are written above (supralinear) or below (sublinear) the consonantal graphemes, they are called nonlinear elements; e.g. the symbols on Chapter 1 is devoted to the vocalization system. §9.

‫ܳ ܰܢ‬

.

Nonsegmental graphemes (called auxiliary marks or signs

by Gelb)5 appear in writing but not in speech. To this category belong punctuation and editorial marks (Chapter 5), as well as digits and numbers (Chapter 7). §10.

Syriac has a wide range of what may be called supra-

segmental graphemes; i.e. graphemes that affect speech beyond a phonological segment. These pertain to a number of linguistic levels that affect pronunciation. Grammatical graphemes (Chapter 4), for instance, are diacritics that encode grammatical information. Some are obligatory, such as the syāme grapheme in

‫ܰ ̈ ـ ܶܐ‬

‘kings’ which represents morphological PLURAL (q.v. §225).

Others are optional, such as the supralinear- and sublinear-point graphemes in

ܰ ‫݁ ݂ ݂ܒ‬

‘he wrote’ which represent the phonological

features PLOSIVE and FRICATIVE, respectively (q.v. §210), or the diacritical points that distinguish homographs (q.v. §237). Prosodic graphemes (Chapter 6), or accent points, are very ancient points which are also arguably supra-segmental as they mostly 4

I use the term quoted because technically an alphabet consists of

both consonants and vowels, such as the Greek and Latin alphabets. 5

ch. 1

Gelb 248.

Sources and their Historical Context

§12.

5

affect prosody. Their function cannot always be ascertained now with clarity. They were used to instruct the reader on vocalization and intonation, especially in Biblical texts. In earlier periods, these and the punctuation graphemes mentioned above were intertwined. §11.

Graphotactics is the study of the arrangement of graphs,

(cf. with phonotactics, i.e. the study of the arrangement of sounds, and morphotactics, of morphemes). While usually used in western languages to express spelling rules, the term is extended here to study the arrangement of linear and nonlinear graphs which sit on various horizontal tiers or levels. A theory of Syriac graphotactics is proposed in Chapter 1. §12.

Further terms used throughout include the following: Free

graphemes occur independently, such as all consonantal graphemes. Bound graphemes occur only in combination with other graphemes, such as all vowel and grammatical graphemes which cannot stand on their own. The notion of free and bound can be extended to graphs. A polygraph is a sequence of two or more graphemes which represent one phoneme. There exists only one consonantal polygraph in Greek loan words where the Syriac sequence

represents the Greek phoneme /ξ/. Once in

Syriac, however, the Greek phoneme is broken into two Syriac phonemes, /k/ and /s/, as evidenced by the application of phonological processes on one of the phonemes only; e.g. applying fricatization on /k/ in

‫ܳ ܳܐ‬

ܰ ݂‫ܐ‬

‘foreigner’, from Greek ξένος. A linear

grapheme and a nonlinear grapheme may together form a polygraph in native Syriac words, usually forming vowel phonemes; e.g. the sequence

ܽ ‫< ◌ܘ‬ūw> represents the phoneme /ū/ in ‫݁ ܽ ܳ ܐ‬

/pūmā/ ‘mouth’. One may even encounter three phonemes in a

ܽ

polygraph as in

ܽ ܽ ‫ܗܘ‬ ̣ ‘he’ (the vowel ◌, the Waw, and the

sublinear point for /ū/). A polyphone occurs when a single

6

Sources and their Historical Context

§12.

grapheme represents more than one phoneme (e.g. the English grapheme representing the phoneme sequence /ks/). Syriac has no polyphones. §13.

In typography, a glyph is a graphical representation of a

written symbol in a particular typeface. While every graph is a glyph, more than one graph can form a unique glyph called a ligature. For instance, the Serṭā graph sequence represented by the ligature

‫ܐ‬

is

. Ligatures are of two types:

obligatory ligatures, such as Serṭo , and optional ligatures, such as

for the sequence

. All Syriac ligatures are

nonstructural in the sense that they are not graphemes, nor do they have a place in the alphabetical sequence (unlike the Arabic structural ligature

‫لا‬, for the sequence , which has a slot in

the alphabet after the letter Waw.) A sort is a piece of (typically metal) type that represents a particular symbol which may be a graph or a ligature. Some print types, for example, have a single

ܰ

sort that combines a character and a vowel such as ‫ܒ‬. §14.

As for rule formalism, a formal notation is used amongst

linguists to describe historical change, phonological processes, or sound change. In this notation, A

B

reads ‘A rewrites as B,’ or ‘A changes into B’.6 In diachronic descriptions, A usually describes an earlier form of B. Sometimes the change is bound by contextual constraints. A context is usually specified with the notation A

6

B / X___Y

It is more common to see the operator > instead of

erature. However, borrowing from formal language theory,

in the litis used

here in order to avoid confusion with the grapheme markers . ch. 1

Sources and their Historical Context

§15.

7

which reads ‘A changes into B when preceded by X and followed by Y’ (the slash separates the transformation from the context and the short line where the transformation takes place). Here, X is the preceding context, and Y the following context.7 For instance, in a phonological description, one may say ʔ

y / V___V

which reads ‘the glottal stop /ʔ/ changes into a /y/ when preceded by a vowel and followed by a vowel’ as in W. Syr.

ܶ ‫ܳ ܐܡ‬

/qoyēm/ where the Ālap̱ is pronounced as if it were Yūḏ. The word boundary symbol, #, may also be used to specify context. In such a case, /___# reads ‘word-finally’, and /#___ reads ‘wordinitially’. §15.

As for dating, the entirety of Syriac literature belongs to

the Christian Era, the first dated writing being from A.D. 6. As such, all dates are A.D. unless explicitly expressed otherwise. When citing examples, the phrase ‘as early as’ simply indicates the earliest example I have personally encountered. A number of dates appear throughout and are listed here for convenience: 6 is the date of the earliest dated inscription, written in Old Syriac. 240–243 is the date of the three legal parchments, also written in Old Syriac. 411 is the date of the earliest dated literary manuscript. 7th century is the period around which one begins to find distinctiveness between E. and W. Syr. 708 Jacob of Edessa dies.

7

The use of left-context and right-context for X and Y, respectively,

is avoided as these terms are more appropriate for left-to-right languages. Using them to describe right-to-left Syriac will no doubt cause confusion.

8

Sources and their Historical Context

§16.

§16.

As already indicated in the preface, the arrangement in

this book is neither diachronic nor synchronic but rather thematic. Statements regarding a particular phenomenon or rule cannot be generalized over periods of time. The dates of examples can sometimes, but not always, be a dating guide. The remainder of this chapter gives a historical narrative of Syriac writing based on the various available historical sources.

1.2.

Old Syriac Sources

§17.

The earliest evidence of Syriac writing comes from Old

Syriac, a form of Syriac that predates Classical Syriac and is known to us from inscriptions, mosaics, coins, and three legal parchments. The earliest dated inscription is from the year 6, while the parchments (three, to be exact) are from the 240s. The following conclusions can be drawn from these texts. 1.2.1.

§18.

The Consonantal System

The twenty-two graphemes of the consonantary are all

present in Old Syriac.8 This period, however, differs from the later Classical Syriac period in graphotactics and ductus. §19.

In terms of allography, the graphemes in Old

Syriac have distinct isolated and final allographs in most instances. One dotless grapheme is used for and , viz.‫ܖ‬. §20.

Graphotactically, the joining properties of the graphemes

differ substantially from Classical Syriac. I have demonstrated elsewhere9 that graphemes were quite disjointed in the early periods of Old Syriac and became more joined together over time.

8

For a brief discussion and references to the origins of the Syriac

script, see Drijvers and Healey 1–2. 9

ch. 1

Kiraz, ‘Old Syriac Graphotactics’.

Sources and their Historical Context

§24.

Hence, one finds texts such as

‫ ܒ ܖܚ ܐܖܖ ܫ ܬ‬for

9

‫ܒ ܚ ܐܕܪ‬

‘in the month of March, the year of’10 where the are all disjointed (see Pl. 1). In contrast, at first glance the parchments show a great degree of cursivity in writing, much more so than Classical Syriac (see Pl. 3). Having said that, the graphotactics of the parchments have not been studied in detail. §21.

In terms of writing and ductus, the shape of letters differs

somewhat from one inscription to the next and varies more in different media types. A good description, with charts, is given by Drijvers & Healey.11 In general, letters are closer to Esṭrangelā than Serṭā. For example, is mostly like Esṭrangelā but sometimes approximates Serṭā. Worth noting is the variant shape of which still exists in late MSS as  (q.v. §539). §22.

As for orthographic features, is used to represent

Semitic /ś/; e.g.

for

‘twenty’,

‫ܖܐ‬

for

‫ܕܐ‬

‘witness’. 1.2.2.

§23.

The Vocalization System

Early Old Syriac inscriptions and legal parchments exhibit

orthographic characteristics that may shed light on the early development of the matres lectionis system, the earliest form of vocalization. Here, as in later Classical Syriac, the graphemes ,

‫ܐ‬

‫< ܘ‬w>, and ‫< ܝ‬y> are used to mark vowels.12 No other

marks are known in this period for vowels. §24.

The grapheme

‫ܘ‬

is often absent in words which

appear with it in Classical Syriac. In Old Syriac, one finds

‫ܐ ܩ‬ ܶ݁ ܶ ܽ ܽ for ‫‘ ܐ ܘܩ‬I shall polish’, ‫ ܬ ܩ‬for ‫‘ ܬ ܘܩ‬you/she shall escape’, 10

Inscription As55, ln 1.

11

Drijvers and Healey 5–16.

12

Drijvers and Healey 23.

10

‫ܐ‬

Sources and their Historical Context for

‫ܪ‬

ܽ ‫ܪܘ ܳ ܐ‬

‘drawing’. In particular,

§24.

‘all’ is written

without in the parchments and inscriptions, indicating that and ‫ܠ‬ §25.

must have coexisted in Classical Syriac.

The absence of is less frequent in Old Syriac, but

one still finds

‫ܐ‬

for

‫ܬ‬

‫ܒ‬ ܳ‫݁ܰܬ ܺ ݂ ܐ‬

for

݂ ‫݁ܶܒ‬

‘house’,

‘pupil’, and

‫ܐ‬

‫ܘܢ‬

for

‫ ܕ‬for ‫‘ ݁ܺܕ ـ ܽ ܘܢ‬theirs’, ‫‘ ݁ ܽ ܪ ܳ ܐ‬chair’. These

examples occur in the inscriptions. The parchments do not seem to have omissions of . §26.

The use of as a mater lectionis seems to have already

developed by the 3rd century. 1.2.3.

Other Symbols

§27.

Old Syriac does not have any graphemes apart from the

consonantary. Even points that distinguish from are absent. Syāme, diacritical points, lines, etc. are all not to be found. §28.

Old Syriac, however, makes use of an ancient Aramaic sys-

tem for numerals which is discussed in §335 ff.

1.3.

Early Manuscripts

§29.

The earliest dated Syriac MS, from 411, sheds some light

on early Syriac writing. It demonstrates that Syriac writing has evolved far beyond Old Syriac, even taking into consideration the fact that the 411 codex is a medium that is substantially different from the Old Syriac media (stone, mosaic, coins, and legal parchments). Not only is the consonantary fully developed in the 411 codex, but one now finds an additional system that augments the consonantary: the diacritical point. It is used for various orthographic and grammatical purposes. Indeed, as King13 suggests, 13

ch. 1

King, ‘Elements of the Syriac Grammatical Tradition’ 190.

Sources and their Historical Context

§32.

11

this can be seen as an indication of the beginnings of the Syriac grammatical tradition. 1.3.1.

The Consonantal System

§30.

The twenty-two graphemes of the consonantary are car-

ried over from Old Syriac, but the graphotactics and ductus differ substantially. In terms of allography, the dotless grapheme

‫ܖ‬

is

now expanded into two separate graphemes distinguished by a point:

‫ܕ‬

for and

‫ܪ‬

for . It seems that this process was

gradual as there are a few cases in the 411 codex where one still finds the dotless ‫ܖ‬.14 In the MSS of the 5th and 6th centuries, the position of the point with respect to the body of the graph is not fixed; e.g.

‫ܗܕܐ‬.

17

graph §31.

‫ܕ ̣ܥ‬

for

‫ܕ ܥ‬,15

‫ ܓ ܁‬for ‫ܓ‬, ‫ ܖ ̣ ܗܕܐ‬for 16

‫ܕ‬

It is possible that the point was used in the vicinity of the

‫ ܖ‬and was then anchored to it later on. Graphotactically, by 411 the development of the joining

properties must have already halted. With the sole exception of , which is mostly right-joining in this period (but dualjoining in later periods), the joining properties in 411 agree with later Syriac. §32.

As for the script, the only known script of this period is

what later came to be known as Esṭrangelā. A Serṭā-like script must also have coexisted, as later Serṭā resembles the script in Old Syriac parchments and some early colophons.18

14

Jones, ‘Early Syriac Pointing’ 439.

15

Hatch Pl. I (fol. 40v, co. 1, ln. 14).

16

Hatch Pl. I (fol. 40v, co. 1, ln. 19).

17

BL Add. 17,126, 5th/6th century, fol. 24, ln. 4 from Hatch.

18

Healey, ‘The Early History of the Syriac Script’.

12

Sources and their Historical Context

1.3.2.

§33.

§33.

The Vocalization System

By the early 5th century, the matres lectionis system was

fully developed, yet readers still struggled with the lack of full vocalization. By the time of the 411 codex, a new system had emerged where a diacritical point was used to distinguish homographs. Jones19 claims that most of the pointing in the 411 codex, apart from the first 39 folios, is by a second hand. He points out that there are a few instances in the first 39 folios where a supralinear point on

‫̇ܐ‬,

‫ ܐ‬denotes an /a/ vowel; e.g. ‫ܐ‬

sublinear point denotes an /e/-like sound; e.g.

‫̇ܐ‬, ‫̇ܐܘ‬. A

̣ ‫ܕ‬.

Early MSS of the 5th to 7th centuries demonstrate an ad-

§34.

vanced usage of the diacritical point to mark vowels for purposes of disambiguating homographs (q.v. §139 ff.); e.g.

‫ܰ ݁ ܳܐ‬

‘king’ opp.

‫ܐ‬

ܳ ̣ for ‫ܶ ݁ ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

̇

for

‘advice’. By the year 600, one

finds traces of two points within one word (q.v. §147 ff.). During the 8th and 9th centuries, the use of a grapheme that is devoted entirely to a specific phonemic vowel appears; e.g. for /e/, and

ܵ ◌

ܿ ◌ܼ for /a/, ◌ܸ

for /ā/ (q.v. §154 ff.). These marks are seldom

used and are only employed for purposes of disambiguation; i.e. one never finds fully-vocalized texts. By the time of Jacob of Edessa (d. 708), the system was still in flux; had it not been so, Jacob would not have devised his own new vocalization system (for which see §162 ff.). 1.3.3.

§35.

Other Symbols

By the time of the 411 codex, the single diacritical point

was used for a few additional purposes, in even the first 39 folios. In terms of morphological marking, syāme, a pair of supralinear

19

ch. 1

Jones, ‘Early Syriac Pointing’ 439.

Sources and their Historical Context

§40.

13

points, marks plurals (q.v. §225). A single supralinear point

̇

marks the feminine ending on ‫( ܗ‬q.v. §235). §36.

Lexically, the demonstrative pronoun appears in the 411

codex (in the first 39 folios) with a supralinear point, distinguish it from the personal pronoun

‫ܗܘ‬

‫‘ ̇ܗܘ‬that’, to

‘he’ which is un-

marked. In later MSS, the personal pronoun would acquire a sublinear point, ‫̣ܗܘ‬. §37.

The first 39 folios of the 411 codex also show an early us-

age of a single point as an accent to mark pauses in readings and intonation. The location of the point (above, below, or on the line) is not easy to ascertain in many cases. This system of accent marks is developed further in the MSS of the 6th to 8th centuries. §38.

Another early symbol is the abbreviation mark (q.v.

§255). The early MSS of the 8th or 9th century show traces of this mark. It became common from the 10th century onward. §39.

During the 7th century, the Syro-hexapla of the Old Testa-

ment and the Harqlean of the New Testament were produced. These works used a number of signs to indicate textual choices (q.v. §271).

1.4.

The Classical Grammarians

§40.

The classical grammarians provide another source for our

understanding of the writing system, keeping in mind that the grammatical genre is naturally prescriptive and does not always agree with the manuscript tradition. (Indeed, it is this disagreement that motivates grammarians to write.) The earliest known grammarian is Joseph Ḥūzāyā, a 6th century maqryānā at the

14

Sources and their Historical Context

§40.

school of Nisibis.20 Another grammarian is Thomas the Deacon, who authored a list of accent points during the 7th century. §41.

Jacob of Edessa (d. 708) is the first to write a full gram-

mar, but of more importance for our purposes, a letter on orthography. It is Jacob who informs us about the status of writing during his time, especially the diacritical point system. We can conclude from his writings that, in addition to the one-point system described earlier, a two-point system was used to distinguish three-way homographs (q.v. §147). It is highly unlikely that a full vocalization system using points existed at his time as he found himself in a position to devise a radical vocalization system that made use of letters on the baseline (on equal footing with consonants) to indicate vowels (q.v. §162). Jacob’s system was, however, hardly used. §42.

Other grammarians of this period21 include John the

Stylite, a contemporary of Jacob, whose grammar was a source for later grammarians. Another is Dawid bar Pawlos (8th/9th century)22 who wrote a treatise on the accent points, a short grammar, and a poem on the alphabet. Ḥunayn bar Isḥaq (809–873), one of the prominent translators of the Abbasid period, also wrote a grammar, now lost. The writings of these early grammarians overlap with another genre of grammatical, or rather paragrammatical, literature called the mašlmānūṯā (the so-called ‘Masora’), discussed below. §43.

During and post-mašlmānūṯā literature, in particular dur-

ing the 11th and 13th centuries, a number of grammarians pro20

Becker, The Fear of God and the Beginning of Wisdom.

21

For a discussion, see King, ‘Elements of the Syriac Grammatical

Tradition’ 197–99. 22

ch. 1

Brock ‘Dawid bar Pawlos’, in GEDSH 116–17.

§44.

Sources and their Historical Context

15

duced grammars. These works are more detailed and their concentration on the writing system varies. In general, the later grammarians began their grammars with a discussion on writing: the consonants, vowels, points and other marks. These grammarians include Elias of Tirhan (d. 1049) who, in addition to writing a grammar, wrote three treatises on accents and diacritics,23 Elias of Ṣoba (975–1046), aka Bar Šīnāyā, who wrote a detailed grammar,24 and Joseph bar Malkūn who wrote a treatise on points.25 All of these grammarians were of the E. Syr. tradition. W. Syr. grammarians include Jacob bar Šakko (d. 1241) who wrote a grammar in his Book of Dialogues,26 and Bar ʿEbroyo (1225/6– 1286) who, in addition to writing a comprehensive grammar called Ṣemḥe, composed a metrical grammar.27 Ṣemḥe is the most comprehensive of all classical grammars and is the most detailed amongst them with regards to the writing system.

1.5.

The Mašlmānūṯā

§44.

During the 8th and 9th centuries, perhaps as a result of the

Islamic conquest and the rise of Arabic, a new genre of paragrammatical works began to appear. These were mainly concerned with preserving the readings and orthography of biblical and patristic texts; i.e. the mašlmānūṯā ‘tradition’ (so-called ‘Masora’ by modern scholarship).28 A few MSS of the mašlmānūṯā 23

Teule, ‘Eliya I of Ṭirhan’, in GEDSH 141.

24

Teule, ‘Eliya of Nisibis’, in GEDSH 143.

25

Van Rompay, ‘Ishoʿyahb bar Malkun’, in GEDSH 219.

26

Brock, ‘Yaʿqub bar Shakko’, in GEDSH 430–31; the grammar is

published in Merx 2*-48*. 27

Takahashi, ‘Bar ʿEbroyo’, in GEDSH 54–56.

28

Juckel, ‘Masora’, in GEDSH 276–79; on the history of the term

‘Masora’, see Loopstra, Patristic Selections 30 ff.

16

Sources and their Historical Context

§44.

exist (see Juckel’s list)29 but thus far there has not been a critical edition of their content (which is obviously an arduous task).30 §45.

The MSS of the mašlmānūṯā constitute an important re-

source to the writing system and the phonology of the 8th to 10th centuries. The mašlmānūṯā is basically a list of readings from biblical and patristic texts, marked with diacritical points as well as rūkkāḵā and qūššāyā points (and sometimes ‘Greek’ vowels). Marginal notes give variant readings. These lists are usually appended in the manuscript tradition with the grammatical works of Jacob of Edessa and others. One has to be careful, however, not to over emphasize and over generalize the role of the mašlmānūṯā MSS in the wider Syriac context. Their domain is not the entire Syriac language, but rather a subset of its literature (biblical and patristic texts). The overloaded accent points used in these MSS had already become incomprehensible by the time of Bar ʿEbroyo in the 13th century. §46.

The MSS of this period, even non-mašlmānūṯā MSS, show

the immergence of the ‘Greek’ (W. Syr.) vocalization system (q.v. §174). While traces of the system appear in 8th and 9th-century MSS, their systematic use, according to a recent study by Coakley,31 dates from the 10th century. Here too, the vowels are used only to clarify readings. §47.

While investigating the MSS of the mašlmānūṯā as primary

sources falls beyond the scope of the present work, the information they provide about the writing system is indirectly presented

29 30

Juckel, ‘Masora’, in GEDSH 276. For a discussion on the difficulty of publishing such MSS, see

Loopstra, Patristic Selections 44. 31

ch. 1

Coakley, ‘When were’.

§49.

Sources and their Historical Context

17

here through references to the works of Martin, Merx, and Segal (see bibliography).

1.6.

European Grammarians and Philologists

§48.

Elias bar Abraham, one of the Maronite delegates to the

Fifth Lateran Council (1512–17), taught Syriac to the Italian humanist Theseus Ambrosius (1469–ca. 1540).32 Ambrosius then published his Introductio (see bibliography) in 1539 where he introduced, inter alia, Syriac to Europeans for the very first time. Also during the 16th century, during or shortly after 1549, a Syriac Orthodox priest called Mushe of Mardin33 arrived in Rome. Mushe is primarily known for his collaboration with Johann Widmanstetter in the publication of the editio princeps of the Syriac New Testament. Mushe’s hand, however, can also be seen in Widmanstetter’s Prima Elementa (1555), the first Syriac primer to be published in Europe. Mushe became the tutor of Andreas Masius (1514–1573), another humanist, who then wrote the first systematic grammar of Syriac in a western language.34 §49.

The next few grammars to appear in Europe were mostly

written by Maronites and were based on the Syriac grammatical tradition in conjunction with the European grammatical tradition. Jirjis ʿAmira (d. 1644), who later became Maronite patriarch, wrote, in Latin, a significant Syriac grammar titled Grammatica Syriaca, sive chaldaica (1596). The 17th and 18th centuries witness grammars by C. Crinesius (1611), A. Ecchellensis (1628), J. Acurensis (1647), C. B. Michaelis (1741), and J. D. Michaelis

32

Fiano ‘Albonesi, Teseo Ambrogio degli’, in GEDSH 13–14.

33

Van Rompay, ‘Mushe of Mardin’, in GEDSH 300–01.

34

Masius, Grammatica linguae Syriacae.

18

Sources and their Historical Context

§49.

(1784). Acurensis (Yūsif al-ʿĀqūrī)35 listed grammars by Buṭrus alʿĀqūrī, Mūsā al-ʿNīsī, ʿAmira, Sarkīs al-Rizzī, Yūḥanna al-Ḥaṣrūnī, Isḥāq al-Šadrāwī (Sciadrensis), and Ibrāhīm al-Ḥāqillānī (Ecchellensis). All of these grammars begin with a description of writing, and their coverage of the material varies. They mostly discussed the consonants, vowels, and some orthographic marks such as the diacritical point, syāme, and the serṭūnā. Many such early grammars (which were accessible to me) have been used in this study and are cited throughout. §50.

This period also marks the systematization of the Syriac

scripts and the writing system through printing. Fully vocalized texts begin to appear, probably more often in material printed in the West than in contemporary Syriac MSS in the East. This may be the beginning stages of a later tradition of publishing fully vocalized texts. §51.

The 19th century produced more systematic and detailed

grammars, viz. Nöldeke (1868), Duval (1881), and David (1896). Duval and David wrote in more detail than any previous grammarian on the writing system. As for the complex subject of diacritical and accent points, the most influential work, from the 20th century, is that of Segal (1953). His work provided much of the data on the vocalization and pointing systems found in the present work.

1.7.

Late Manuscripts of the Received Tradition

§52.

In addition to the aforementioned sources, the present

work makes use of data found in late MSS, as late as the 20th century. This is primarily a result of personal familiarity with such MSS and not a systematic study of the late tradition. 35

ch. 1

Acurensis ‫ܕ‬.

Sources and their Historical Context

§54. §53.

19

Finally, this work also makes use of the undocumented

received tradition. This too stems from personal affinity with the subject matter. In a few cases when the received tradition contradicts statements made by grammarians, this has been indicated in the footnotes.

1.8.

Chronology of Events

§54.

The following is a chronology of events based on the con-

tent of this work; i.e. events that have escaped discussion in this work are not mentioned in the following chronology. It is hoped that this chronology can serve as a ‘bird’s eye’ view of the development of the writing system over the past 20 centuries. 1st Century 6

Earliest known dated Syriac writing in the form of an inscription. Features include the use of Old Syriac numerals [§335], and partial matres lectionis to denote vowels [§131 ff.].

3rd Century 240–3 The earliest Old Syriac texts written on three parchments. 240

The earliest known example of an early alphabetical numbering system [§347].

4th Century Aphrahaṭ, early in the century, composes acrostics that demonstrate the order of the alphabet [§123]. MSS are produced mostly using vellum or parchment [§440]. 5th Century Grammarians and scribes begin to compile lists of homographs, the beginnings of the mašlmānūṯā (i.e. so-called ‘Masora’) [§113].

20

Sources and their Historical Context

§54.

Symbols such as on ‫ ܐܘ‬from Gr. W [§241].

The point on

< < used to mark scribal errors [§251].

28

Sources and their Historical Context

§55.

or a cross-like symbols used to mark the omission of a word or a phrase [§249]. Small circles marking the end of readings in lectionary MSS [§274]. Greek or Coptic letters used to number quire signatures [§366] Liturgical cross-like graphemes to mark the making of the sign of the cross, and marks for chanting [§275].

‫ܒ ܬ ܙܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܓܐܘ‬ ‫ܗ ܕ‬ ‫ܘ ܐ܀‬ ‫ܕ ܒ ܐܘ ܘܗ‬

ch. 1

I. The Graphemic Inventory Part I aims to give an exhaustive account of all Syriac graphemes. Chapters 2 and 3 cover segmental graphemes; i.e. graphemes that correspond to a phonological segment: Chapter 2 is devoted to the consonantal system, while Chapter 3 gives the development of the vocalization system. Chapter 4 describes suprasegmental graphemes that provide grammatical and lexical markings such as syāme that indicates PLURAL. Chapter 5 covers nonsegmental graphemes; i.e. graphemes that do not correspond to a phonological segment such as punctuation and editorial marks. Chapter 6 gives a catalogue of what has been traditionally called ‘accent points’, marks that mainly affect prosody. Finally, Chapter 7 describes various numbering systems.

29

2. Consonantal Graphemes It is not the language of the Syriacs, therefore—I mean

this Edessene speech—that does not allow them to reproduce foreign sounds, but this system of writing of

theirs on account of its imperfection and its lack of vowels.

Jacob of Edessa (d. 708), On Orthography

2.1.

The Consonantary

§56.

The Syriac ‘alphabet’,1 or rather the consonantary, consists

of twenty two consonants, each represented by a unique grapheme. (Vowels are not considered part of the alphabet proper and are treated in Chapter 1.) Syriac grammarians call the consonants

ܳ ̈ܳ ܳ ̈ ܽ ܶ‫‘ ܐ‬elements’2 ‫ܐܬܘܬܐ‬ ݂ܳ ݂ ܺ ‘signs’, ‫݂ ܶ ܐ‬ ܶ ‫‘ ݁ ݂ ̈ ݂ ܳܒ ݂ ܐ‬signs of writings’,3 or ‫ܗܓ ܳ ܳ ܐ‬ ݂

(from Gr. στοιχεῖον),

ܳ ܳ ‫ܐܬܘܬ‬ ݂̈ ݂

ܳ ܳ ‫ܬܘܬ‬ ݂ ̈ ݂ ‫‘ ܐ‬signs of annunciation’.4

As the consonants are always written, as opposed to the optional vowels, the ancient grammarians referred to them written’.5 §57.

ܳ ܺ ‫݁ ݂ ̈ ݂ ܳܒ ݂ ܐ‬

‘the

Each of the consonants is assigned a name whose gender is

feminine; e.g.

ܳ ‫ܽ ݂ܕ ݂ ܺܒ ݁ܬܐ‬

‘Yūḏ with the vowel

◌ܺ’.6

The naming

system is acrophonic in that a letter’s name begins with that same 1

Strictly speaking, the term ‘alphabet’ in writing systems refers to

full fledged alphabets that consist of both consonants and vowels such as the Greek alphabet. 2

David §1; Duval §42; A. Hoffmann I.I.§7.

3

Nestle §2.b.

4

Risius §171.

5

Duval §42.

6

Bar ʿEbroyo, Ṣemḥe, intro §3, p. 4.

31

32

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§57.

letter. The names may vary in some grammars. Dālaṯ, for instance, has a W. Syr. variant Waw has an E. Syr. variant

݂ ܰ ‫݁ܳܕ‬.7

‫ܵܘܘ‬.9

Hē has a variant

‫̇ܗܘ‬

Zayn has three variants:

[sic].8

ܶ‫ܙ‬, ‫ܰܙܝ‬,

‫ܰܙܐܝ‬.10 Pē has an orthographic variant ‫ ݁ ܶ ܐܐ‬.11 Rīš hasܰ an E. Syr. variant ‫ ܸܪܫ‬Rēš.12 Taw has an orthographic variant ‫ ݁ܬܐܘ‬.13 There is

and

also a romanized variation for Ṣāḏē: Çādhē.14 §58.

In Mount Lebanon, consonants whose name is bisyllabic

are pronounced with a second long vowel; e.g. [ʔola:f] (against [ʔo:laf]) for

݂

ܰܳ

ܰ ‫݁ܳܓ‬, [dola:ṯ]

, [goma:l] (against [go:mal]) for

(against [do:laṯ]) for

݂ ܰ ‫݁ܳܕ‬, etc.15 The encounter of the Maronites

with western Europeans can be seen in the pronunciation in the Introductio by T. Ambrosio (1539) where one finds:

ܰܳ

), ‫ܐܠ‬

§59.

ܰ ‫( ܳܓ‬against

ܰ ‫) ܳܓ‬, etc.16

ܰܳ ‫( ܐ ܦ‬against

The consonants exist in three scripts: Esṭrangelā, Serṭā,

and East Syriac (E. Syr.). The table on the opposite page gives the consonantary in the three scripts, along with their names and phonemic representation. (Scripts are discussed in more detail in §453 ff.)

7

Brockelmann §2; David §1; Nöldeke §1.B; Nestle §2.b.

8

Abouna 29.

9

Brockelmann §2; Costaz §1; David §1.

10

Brockelmann §2; Nöldeke §1.B.

11

Amira 6.

12

Brockelmann §2; David §1; Nöldeke §1.B.

13

Brockelmann §2; Costaz §1; Nöldeke §1.B.

14

Robinson §2.

15

David §1 n. 1.

16

Ambrosio fol. 9a, illus. in Coakley, Typography 154. Acurensis,

however, lists the letters without a long vowel: ch. 2

ܰܳ

,

ܰ ‫ ܳܓ‬, etc.

Esṭrangelā

Serṭā

E. Syriac

The Syriac Consonantary

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܓ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܙ‬ ‫ܚ‬ ‫ܛ‬ ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܟ‬ ‫ܠ‬ ‫ܡ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܣ‬ ‫ܥ‬ ‫ܦ‬ ‫ܨ‬ ‫ܩ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܫ‬ ‫ܬ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܓ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܙ‬ ‫ܚ‬ ‫ܛ‬ ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܟ‬ ‫ܠ‬ ‫ܡ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܣ‬ ‫ܥ‬ ‫ܦ‬ ‫ܨ‬ ‫ܩ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܫ‬ ‫ܬ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܓ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܙ‬ ‫ܚ‬ ‫ܛ‬ ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܟ‬ ‫ܠ‬ ‫ܡ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܣ‬ ‫ܥ‬ ‫ܦ‬ ‫ܨ‬ ‫ܩ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܫ‬ ‫ܬ‬

Name

Ālap̱ Bēth

Phoneme

݂

ܰܳ

݂ ‫݁ ܶܒ‬ ܰ ‫݁ ܳܓ‬ ݂ ܰ ‫݁ ܳܕ‬ ‫ܶܗܐ‬ ‫ܰܘܐܘ‬ ‫ܰܙܐ‬ ݂ ܶ ܶ ݂ ‫ܽ ݂ܕ‬ ݂ ܳ݁ ݂ܰ ܳ ܺ ‫ܽܢ‬ ݂ ܰ݁ ܶ ‫ܶܐ‬ ‫݁ ܶܐ‬ ‫ܳܨ ݂ ܶܕܐ‬ ‫ܳ ݂ܦ‬ ‫ܺܪ‬ ܺ ܰ ‫݁ܬܐܘ‬

Gāmal Dālaṯ Hē Waw Zayn Ḥēṯ Ṭēṯ Yūḏ Kāp̱ Lāmaḏ Mīm Nūn Semkaṯ ʿē Pē Ṣāḏē Qop̱ Rīš Šīn Taw

33

ʔ b g d h w z ḥ (IPA [ħ]) ṭ (pharyngealized [t]) y k l m n s ʕ p ṣ (pharyngealized [s]) q (pharyngealized [k]) r š (IPA [ʃ]) t

34

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§60.

§60.

When written in isolation, especially as numbers, a few

letters are doubled,1 most notably Kāp̱, , and Nūn, . There are cases when Nūn is doubled when combined with other letters in numbers; e.g. page number

‘350’.2 One also comes across

doubled Zayn, ‫ܙܙ‬, to avoid confusion with ‫( ܐ‬e.g. page and more rarely doubled ʿē, page

‫‘ ܬ ܙ‬447’),3 , to avoid confusion with ‫( ܠ‬e.g.

‘70’).4 Occasionally, Mīm is also doubled,

§61.

.5

Additional graphemes, mostly adaptations of existing ones,

were introduced in later periods to assist in garšūnographic writing; e.g.

‫ ܔ‬in Syro-Arabic garšūnography. These are introduced

in Part III.

2.2.

Mnemonics and Consonantal Subsets

§62.

Syriac grammarians devised mnemonics (voces memoriales

or memoria technica) to help pupils remember various subsets of consonants. The order of the alphabet is known by the mnemonic

ܰ ܰ

ܰ ܰ

ܺ ܰ ܰ ܰ ܰ ܰ ‫ܐܒܓ ܗܘܙ‬

ܰ ‫ܰ ܰـ‬

/ʔabgad hawwaz ḥaṭṭī

kalaman saʕpaṣ qaršat/6 (note the doubling of in /hawwaz/ and of in /ḥaṭṭī/ even in W. Syr., probably an

ِّ ‫ُح‬ influence from the Arabic usage of the ‫طي‬

‫)أَْبَجْد َهَّوْز‬.

1

Arayathinal §2.3; Costaz §6; Nöldeke §1.C; Uhlemann §1.R.5.

2

Manna, Morceaux choisis de Littérature Araméenne, p.

3

MS Teaneck, Phanqitho, p. ‫ܙ‬

4

Merx, p.

5

Elia of Ṣoba ‫ ܘ‬and ‫ܙ‬.

.

‫ܬ‬.

.

‫ܒ‬, ‫ ;ܚ‬Ambrosio 9v; Amira 10; Bar ʿEbroyo, Ṣemḥe, iv.1.§3, p. 194; David §1; Niʿmat-allah ‫ ; ܓ‬Gabriel of St. Joseph 6

Abouna 28; Acurensis

§6; al-Kfarnissy §2; Kiraz, Primer 45; A. Hoffmann §7 (p. 80) gives the variant

ܰ ܰ ܰ ܰ

ܰ

ܽ

ܺ ܰ ܰܰ ܰ ܰ ‫ ܐܒܓ ܗܘܙ‬from Abraham Ecchellens, p.

5; Manna 7; Makdasi ‫ ;ܝ‬Risius §171. ch. 2

Consonantal Graphemes

§68. §63.

35

The set of consonants that undergo fricatization is known

ܳ ܶ ܳ ܳ ݂ ݂ ݁ ݂ ‫ ݁ܒ ݂ܳܓ‬/bg̱āḏkp̱āṯ/; e.g. ݂ ݂ ݁ ݂ ‫ܐܬܘܬ ݁ܒ ݂ܳܓ‬ ݂̈ ݂ ݂ ܶ 7 ‘six bgā ̱ ḏkp̱ āṯ letters’. This mnemonic is also ubiquitous in westܰ ܰ ܰ ܰ in §62 above, the ern grammars. When added to the ‫ܐܒܓ ܗܘܙ‬ ܰ ܰ ܰ ‫ ܰ ܰ ܰ ܰ ܰܬ‬... ‫ܗܘܙ‬ ܰ ܰ ‫ܐܒܓ‬ ܰ ܰ /ʔabgad sequence becomes  ݂ ‫ܒܓ‬ ݂ ݂ ݂݂݂ 8 hawwaz … saʕpaṣ qaršat ṯaḵaḏ ḇagp ̱ ̱ap/ where the last  is the by the mnemonic

Greek π (q.v. §214). §64.

The set of prefixes that precede a stem is known by the

mnemonic

ܳ ܰ݁ ܰ ܶ ܳ ‫ ݁ܒ ݂ ܽ ܘܠ‬/bḏūl/; e.g. ‫ܐܬܘܬ ݁ܒ ݂ ܽ ܘܠ‬ ‫݂ܐ‬ ݂ ̈ ݂ ‫ܐܪܒ‬

ܽ ݁ ‘each

of the four bḏūl letters’.9 §65.

The set of impf. and participial prefixes is known by the

mnemonic

ܰ ݂ܰ ‫ܐ‬

/ʔamnaṯ/; e.g.

ܰ ܰ ‫݁ ܰܕ ܐ ܰ ݂ ݁ ܰܕ‬

four ʔamnaṯ [letters] which we have enumerated’.

ܰ݁ ܰ ‫ܐܪܒ‬

ܶ ‫ܳܗ‬

‘these

10

§66.

The set of consonants that provide the contextual con-

straints for the application of the mhaggyānā (q.v. §205) and marhṭānā (q.v. §206) is known by the mnemonic or phrase

ܳ ܽ ‫ܗܪܐ‬

/ʕamlay nūhrā/.11

§67.

Less popular mnemonics include:

ܽ ܺ ܶ ‫ܰܒ ܳ ܬ‬

cludes all W. Syr. vowels. It appears in print in 1555. §68.

ܰ ̈ܰ

which in-

12

The letters and their place of articulation are known by

the tongue-twisting mnemonic

‫ܪܕ‬

‫ܝ ܙ‬

‫ܓ‬

7

Bar ʿEbroyo, Ṣemḥe, iv.2.§1, p. 209; Elia of Ṣoba

8

Bar ʿEbroyo, Ṣemḥe, iv.1.§3, p. 194.

9

Bar ʿEbroyo, Ṣemḥe, iv.2.§1, p. 209; Elia of Ṣoba

Šakko (in Merx)

‫ܐܗ‬

; David §11. ; Jacob bar

̣.

10

Bar ʿEbroyo, Ṣemḥe, ii.1.§2, p. 89; Jacob bar Šakko (in Merx)

11

Audo 221b; David §62.

12

Widmanstetter, Prima Elementa; Nestle §3.

̣.

36

I. The Graphemic Inventory

‫ ܒ‬, and the bgā̱ ḏkp̱ āṯ letters by  ‫ܓ ܬܒ‬

§68.

, where the final

Greek π (q.v. §214).13 §69.

‫ ܦ‬is

The mnemonics, particularly the popular ones, become

morphologically productive, especially as adjectives; e.g.

ܰ ܺ ‫ܐ ݂ ܐ ݁ ܳܐ‬

ܳ ܳ ܽ ‫‘ ݂ ܰ ݂ܕܒ ݂ ܽ ̈ܘ ܳ ܳ ݂ ܐ ܶ ܪܘ ݁ ܳ ݂ ܳ ܐ ݂ ܰ ݂ܕܒ ݂ܳܓ ݂ ݁ ̈ ݂ ܳ ݂ ܳ ݂ ܐ ܳ ݁ ܳܒܐ‬there are [cases] where

14 the bḏūl letters disallow the softening of the bgā ̱ ḏkp̱ āṯ letters’.

2.3.

Typology of Consonants

§70.

Ancient Syriac grammarians spent much time on the clas-

sification of consonants into—sometimes overlapping—categories. The primary division was the distinction between ‘generic letters’ as opposed to

ܰ ܳ ‫ܶ ݁ ݁ܬܘ ݂ ܳ ̈ ܳ ݂ ܐ‬

ܳ̈ ܳ ܳ ܳ ‫ܐܬܘܬܐ ݂ ܶܓ ܳ ܳ ̈ ݂ ܐ‬ ݂ ݂

‘additional letters’.15

(This distinction is rooted in the grammatical tradition and is still practiced today in seminary schools in the Middle East.) The former group constitute root radicals; e.g. ‘killed’ from √

and

‫ܠ‬

ܺ

in

. By extension, Joseph bar Malkūn (13th cen-

tury) called the points that distinguish ‘generic points’.16 The three categories:

ܰ ܳ ‫ܶ ݁ ݁ܬܘ ݂ ܳ ̈ ܳ ݂ ܐ‬

ܳ ܳ݁ ܽ ܳ ̈ ܰ ݂

A.

‫ܩ‬, ‫ܛ‬,

‫ ܕ‬from ‫ ܪ‬as ‫ܽ ̈ ܶܐ ݂ ܶܓ ̈ ܳ ܳ ܶܐ‬

are in turn subdivided into

‘[letters] giving meaning’: the letters in a

word that are the product of a morphological derivation such as

ܺ

in

above, or

from √‫ܪ‬ B.

.

‫݂ ܽ ܪ ܳ ܳܐ‬

‫ ܡ‬in the participial derivation

ܳ ‫ܰ ݁ ܳܪ‬

‘helper’

‘[letters] for differentiation’: the letters at the

end of words used to avoid homography; e.g. the final ‘one hundred’ against ‫ܐ‬

ch. 2

‫ܝ‬

ܳ

ܳ ܰ

‫ܐ‬

in

‘what’, ‫‘ ݁ܬ݂ܕܐܐ‬spring’ against ‫‘ ݁ܬ ݂ܳܕܐ‬breast’.

13

Bar ʿEbroyo, Ṣemḥe, iv.1.§3, p. 194; Elia of Ṣoba 26.

14

Bar ʿEbroyo, Ṣemḥe, iv.2.§1, p. 209.

15

Jacob bar Šakko (in Merx)

16

Merx 136.

.

‫ܳ ܐܐ‬

Consonantal Graphemes

§75. C.

‫ܳ ݂ܺܓ ܰ ܐ‬

ܳ ܳ ܶ‫ܶ ܐ‬

37

‘[letters resulting] from etymology’:

letters that are silent in a particular word, but become pronounced in derived forms. The idea being that these letters are retained in the source word for etymological purposes; e.g.

ܳ ܺ ‘cities’, ‫ ܕ‬in ‫݁ ̱ ݁ܬܐ‬

ܳ ‫ܺ ݂ ܳ ̈ ݂ܬܐ‬

ܳ ‫݂ܺ ̱ ݁ ܐ‬

‘city’

§71.

Letters that constitute prefixes are referred to as

ܳ ‫݂ܺ ̈ ܳ ݂ ܐ‬

‘church’

in

‘churches’.

ܳ ‫ܰ ݁ ̈ ܳـ ݂ ܐ‬

‘fallen [letters]’ as they ‘fall’ before words. These include the

ܰ ‫( ݁ܒ ݂ ܽ ܘܠ‬q.v. §64) and ݂ ܰ ‫ ܐ‬letters (q.v. §65). §72.

‫ܳ ـ ܳܐ‬

Letters that constitute morphological suffixes are termed ܽ ܽ ܰ ܳ ܳ ܽ ‫ܐܬܘܬ‬ ݂ ̈ ݂ ‘letters of completion’ such as the ‫ ܬܘܢ‬in ‫݁ ݂ ݂ܒ ݁ ܘܢ‬

§73.

According to sound, letters were classified by ancient

‘you (m.) wrote’.17

ܺ ‫‘ ܰ ̈ ݁ ܶ ܐ‬thin’ or ‫‘ ܰ ̈ ܶܐ‬narrow’, ܰ ܳ ‫‘ ݂ ܰܒ ̈ܐ‬thick’ or ‫‘ ݁ ݂ ܳ ̈ܐ‬broad’, and ‫‘ ܶ ̈ ܳ ܶܐ‬in between’.18 §74. The letters ܳ ܑ ܳ ܺ that ܳ ̈ ܳ ܳ constitute matres lectionis (‫ܐ‬, ‫ܘ‬, and ‫ )ܝ‬are known as ‫݂ܬܐ‬ to the re݂ ‫ܐܬܘܬܐ‬ ݂ ݂ ‘weak/sick letters’ in contrast ܳ ̈ܳ ܳ ܳ ܳ̈ ܺ maining consonants, which are known as ‫݂ ܐ‬ ‫ـ‬ ‫ܐܬܘܬܐ‬ ݂ ݂ grammarians into three categories:

‘healthy/perfect letters’.

2.4.

Grapheme Resemblance

§75.

A number of graphemes, or graph combinations, resemble

each other in shape.19 The Serṭā graphs

‫ܐ‬

and

both vertical but the latter is much shorter; e.g.

‫ܙ‬

are

‫< ܐܙܠ‬ʔzl> for

17

Merx 104.

18

Duval §18.

19

Al-Abrāshī et al. 22; Amira 11; Costaz §5; Cowper §4; Healey 4;

A. Hoffmann §4; Kiraz, Primer 210 §11; C. B. Michaelis §II.a; Muraoka, CS4H §2; Muraoka, CS §4; Nöldeke §1.C; Palacios §8; Sciadrensis ‫ܚ‬.

38

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§75.

ܶ ‫‘ ܰܐܙܠ‬he went’. Note that ‫< ܠ‬l>, although as tall as ‫< ܐ‬ʔ>, is slanted. (For allographic resemblance, q.v. §485 ff.)

§76.

The graphs

‫< ܒ‬b> and

resemble each other in all

scripts in initial and medial forms, but not in final or isolated forms,

‫ܒ‬

and

distinguished. §77.

, respectively, which are readily

‫ܟ‬

The Serṭā graph

‫< ܓ‬g> resembles final ‫< ܠ‬l> but the

former is written below the line and the latter above it;20 e.g.

‫‘ ݁ܰܓ‬to put in motion’. §78. The graphs ‫< ܕ‬d> and ‫< ܪ‬r> are in essence homographs distinguished by a sublinear or supralinear point on the glyph ‫ܖ‬. ̈ ܽ The ancient Syriac grammarians called the two points ‫ܶܐ‬ ܶ ‫‘ ݁ܶܓ ܳ ܳ ̈ܐ‬generic points’ (q.v. §70). §79. The Serṭā graph ‫< ܗ‬h> and ‫< ܘ‬w> both have a bowl (for graph anatomy terminology see §492), but ‫ ܗ‬has an addiܳ tional stroke on the right; e.g. ‫< ܗܘܐ‬hwʔ> for ‫‘ ܗܘܐ‬to be’. §80. The graphs ‫< ܘ‬w> and ‫< ܩ‬q>, especially in Serṭā, are both rounded with a bowl, but are distinguished by their joining properties (q.v. §377):

is right-joining and ‫ ܩ‬is dual-joining; ܳ ܽ e.g. ‫< ܘ ܪܐ‬wqwrʔ> for ‫‘ ܘ ܪܐ‬and cold’. The distinction is more pronounced in Esṭrangelā (‫ )ܩ & ܘ‬and E. Syr. (‫ ܘ‬and ‫ )ܩ‬where

‫ܘ‬

is more angular. Other Serṭā rounded graphemes (with a bowl) include ‫< ܗ‬h> and ‫< ܣ‬s>. §81.

The graph

, in initial and medial forms, can be

confused in combination with itself, with especially in MSS—with .

ch. 2

20

Al-Abrāshī et al. 22.

21

Kiraz, Primer 17.

,21 and—

Consonantal Graphemes

§86.

39

‫ ܺ ܺ ݂ ܳ ܳ ܐ‬, without vocalization ‫ܐ‬ ܳ ܺ ‘only-begotten’; ‫ ܳ ܐ‬, without vocalization ‫ܐ‬

Examples include:

‘cord, string’. In late MSS, one finds a small line, ◌̗, under the

‫< ܝ‬y>, not to be confused with the vowel point (for ܽ which see §154); e.g. ‫ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܘܢ‬for ‫‘ ݁ܕ ܰ ܰ ̈ ܘܢ‬for their lives’.22 One

rarely encounters a sublinear point on in the absence of an adjacent when the vowel preceding is not /ī/, although this may be a late phenomenon; e.g. Resurrection’.

23

ܳ ‫ܰܘ ̣ ܳ ݁ ܐ‬

In Esṭrangelā MSS, the initial and medial graphs

of and ‫< ܚ‬ḥ> are easily confused, as in §82.

The graphs

‫ܠ‬

and

‫ܥ‬

length and sometimes by angle; e.g. §83.

In Esṭrangelā MSS, medial

medial §84.

, as in ‫ܢ‬ Serṭā

‘and the

‫ܒܐ‬

‫ܐ‬.24

are distinguished by

ܰ

‘on’.

can be confused with .25

‫< ܦ‬p> and ‫< ܩ‬q> have a bowl, but the former is

higher which results in the counter on the lower-right corner of the graph. §85.

The right-most starting points of the initial graph

and

at the base line, particularly in Esṭrangelā MSS, can

be confused with the sequences

and

,

respectively. §86.

In typography, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish

graphs in some types or fonts, but not in others. For instance, in a Serṭā type made by the London founder Vincent Figgins in 1814

22

MS Paramus, Winter Phanqitho 392, ln. 6.

23

Kṯāḇā ḏ-qūrāḇā ʾ(y)ḵ ʿyāḏā ḏ-mārūnāye 149.

24

MS BL 12,150, f. 154, co. 3, ln 16 from Hatch.

25

MS BL 12,150, f. 154, co. 3, ln 34–35 from Hatch.

40

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§86.

(W36 in Coakley),26 upon which the Meltho font Serto Malankara is based, and are easily confused; this has been somewhat fixed in the Serto Malankara font:

͗

and

Ͳ

. The same two graphs are distinguishable in other types such as the F. Savary de Brèves type from 1612 (W11.C in Coakley)27 upon which the Meltho font Serto Jerusalem is based: and

‫ܒ‬

. Another example is from the Meltho font Es-

trangelo Qenneshrin, based on calligraphy by Isa Benjamin, where ͵ and ΄ resemble each other in length. §87.

Yeates is the only grammarian I am aware of who lists the

Serṭā consonants by their similar appearance:

‫ ܬ‬.‫ܠ‬

. .

.

.

‫(ܘ‬

. ‫ ܕܪ‬.

= ).

‫ ܒ‬.‫ܐ ܙ‬

28

2.5.

Orthographic Variations and Spelling Development

§88.

While Syriac is generally considered a conservative lan-

guage, particularly with respect to spelling, a number of orthographic variations affect consonants. A few historical developments have been dated by Brock29 and Van Rompay.30 A complete dating of all spelling variations, however, would require an exhaustive study of the manuscript tradition which is beyond the scope of this work. The vast majority of orthographic variants affect the matres lectionis.

ch. 2

26

Coakley, Typography 104–06.

27

Coakley, Typography 59–61.

28

Yeates 2.

29

Brock, ‘Some Diachronic’.

30

Van Rompay, ‘Some Preliminary’.

Consonantal Graphemes

§90. 2.5.1.

§89.

41

Ālāp̱

Initial /ʔī/ words: in early MSS of the 5th and 6th centuries,

an initial prosthetic is common in initial /ʔī/ words. The is absent in later MSS; e.g.

ܳ ܺ ‫ܐ ݂ܰ ݂ ܐ‬

ܳ ‫݂ܺܰ ݂ ܐ‬

ܺ ‫ܐ ݂ ܰܥ‬

‫ܺ ݂ ܰܥ‬

[ʔīḏaʕ]31 ‘he knew’,

[ʔīḏaʕṯā]32 ‘knowledge’, and many other similar

forms.33 In later E. Syr. texts, a supralinear

‫ ܐ‬appears on ‫ܝ‬, as in ܑ ܵ ܿ ܑ ܑ ‫ܥ‬ǶȦȁ݂ [ʔīšūʕ] ‘Jesus’, Ȯȗdzȁ ݂ ܼ ܼ ‘knowledge’.34 The supralinear ◌ also ܵ ܑܸ ܵ ‘standing’.36 appears intervocalically; e.g. ȐȂȂǹȋ ܑܹ ܵ ‘gird’,35 ȮȌȂȡ §90.

Initial CC words: in early MSS, is common in initial

CC (historically CᵊC) clusters, especially when the first C is . The is absent in later periods (but normally retained in CCV- sequences where the first C is a sibilant); e.g. [rwīḥā]37 (was it [ʔᵊ/a/erwīḥā]?) ‘spacious’,

ܳܳ ‫ܐܪܘܙܐ‬

ܺ ‫ܐܪܘ ܳ ܐ‬ ‫ܺܪܘ ܳ ܐ‬ ܳ ܳ [rwāzā]38 ‫ܪܘܙܐ‬

(was it [ʔᵊ/a/erwāzā]?) ‘exultation’. Later vocalization tends to have

◌ܰ,

sometimes

‘document’.39

◌ܶ,

on the ; e.g.

31

Brock, ‘Some Diachronic’ 97.

32

Brock, ‘Some Diachronic’ 97; David §42.

33

CSD includes:

‘month’ (14b),

ܺ ‫ܐ ܺ ݂ ܳ ܳܐ‬

‫ܳܐ‬ ܺ ܳ ‫‘ ܐ ݂ ܶܒ‬to be dried up’ (185b), ‫݂ ܽܒ ݂ܬܐ‬ ‘only one’ (13a),

ܺ ܰ , ‫ܐܶ ܳ ܳ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܪܘ ܳ ܐ‬

ܺ ܺ ‫‘ ܐ‬he grew’ (14a), ‫ܐ ܰ ܚ‬ ܺ ‫‘ ܺܐ‬giving’ (189a), and

others. 34

David §42.

35

Mosul Bible, Isa. 32:11.

36

Mosul Bible, Isa. 37:27.

37

Brock, ‘Some Diachronic’ 98.

38

Van Rompay, ‘Some Preliminary’ 75.

39

CSD includes:

‫ܐܒ ܳ ܳܪܐ‬

‘receipt’ (40b),

ܰ ‫‘ ܷܐ ݁ ܰܒ‬perhaps’ (15a), ‫ܺ ݂ ܳ ܐ‬ ܺ ܰ ‘bridal veil’ (27b), ‫݁ ܳ ܐ‬ (27b), ‫ܐܪܕ ݂ ܳ ܐ‬ ܳ ܺ ܰ ‘sprinkling’ (30a), ‫‘ ܐܪ ܐ‬firmament’ ‘meal’ (12a),

ܰ ‫ܐܓ ܺ ݂ ܳ ܐ‬

‘ice’ (70b),

ܰ ܳ ‫ܐ ܳ ܺ ݂ܐ‬

ܰ ܺ ܰ ‘desirable’ ‫‘ ܐ‬key’ (27a), ‫ܐܪܓ ݂ܳܓܐ‬ ݂ ܰ ܰ ‘open space’ (28a), ‫ܰܐܪ ܺ ܳ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܪܘ‬ ܳ ܺ ܰ (549b), ‫‘ ܐܪܬ ݂ ܐ‬trembling’ (30b),

42

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§91.

This variation also occurs in the Old Syriac Gospels (written in Classical Syriac); e.g. for

ܶ ܶ ‫̈ܪܓ‬ ݂ ‘feet’ (Jn. 20:12).40

§91.

ܶ ܶ ‫ ܳܐܪ ܽ ݂ܬ‬for ‫‘ ܳܪ ܽ ݂ܬ‬Ruth’ (Mt. 1:5), ‫ܐ̈ܪܓ‬ ݂

The reverse also occurs where words without begin

‫[ ܐ̱ ܺ ܳ ܐ‬ḥrīnā]41 ‘another’ (note that the ‫)ܐ‬, or after a ‫ ݁ܒ ݂ ܽ ܘܠ‬prefix, e.g. ̱ ݁ ̈ ܰ ݂ ‫݁ܺܒ‬ ̱ ݁ ̈ ܰ ݂ ‫‘ ݁ܺܒܐ‬in

to acquire one; e.g. ‫ܐ‬

root is

ܳ ܺ

your (f.) hands’.42 In recent times, this mechanism was utilized in the nomenclature term

‫ܐ̱ ܽ ܪ ܳ ܳ ܐ‬

for

‫ܽ ܪ ܳ ܳܐ‬

[sūryāyā] ‘Syriac/

Syrian, Assyrian’ probably around the late 19th century. Word medially: early MSS lack but after the 11th or

§92.

12th century, one begins to see an in W. Syr. while E. Syr. retains the original spelling. In all these cases, the is silent;

ܳ ܰ ܵ ܿ ‘dew’,43 after [ā] ‫ ݁ܳܓܳܐܙܐ‬opp. ǨǷܵǭܵ ‘to cut ‫ ܐ‬opp. ȷȉǻ ܼ ܳ ܰ ݁ )’,44 after [e] ‫ܶ ݂ ܽ ݁ ܳ ܐ‬ ‫[ ܶ ܐ ݂ ܽ ݁ ܐ‬meḵultā]45 (act. part. of ‫ܓ‬ ‘food’ (note that the root is ‫ )ܐ‬and, in a closed syllable, ‫݁ ܶ ܐ ܳ ܳ ܐ‬ ܳܳܶ opp. ‫‘ ݁ ܐ‬harp’ which then becomes open in W. Syr. [ke-no-ro] ܳ ܽ ܺ ܳ ܽ ܺ݁ opp. [ken-nā-rā],46 after [ē/ī] ‫݁ ݂ܬܐ‬ ‫[ ܐ ݂ܬܐ‬kīnūṯā]47 ‘justice’.48 e.g. after [a]

ܰ ܳ ܶ ܳ ܺ ܰ ‫‘ ܐܪ ܺ ܳ ܐ‬firmament’ (549b), ‫‘ ܐܪܬ ݂ ܐ‬trembling’ (30b), ‫ܐ ܳ ܐ‬ ܳ ܰ ܳ݁ ܶ ‘document’ (39b), ݂ ܺ ܺ ‫‘ ܐ‬apparently’ (31a), and ‫‘ ܐ ܐ‬six’ (31a).

kling’ (30a), 40 41

Kiraz, CESG 345. Van Rompay, ‘Some Preliminary’ 75; Brock, ‘Some Diachronic’

98. 42

Van Rompay, ‘Some Preliminary’ 75.

43

Brock, ‘Some Diachronic’ 101.

44

CSD 66b.

45

Van Rompay, ‘Some Preliminary’ 75; Brock, ‘Some Diachronic’

98.

ch. 2

46

CSD 202a.

47

Brock, ‘Some Diachronic’ 98.

48

For other examples, see David §42, p. 277.

Consonantal Graphemes

§95.

43

In verbal forms, an inserted is common in the Pʿal impf. of P-‫ ܐ‬verbs; e.g.

‫ܶܐ ܽ ܪ‬

opp.

‫ܶܽ ܪ‬

‘to bind’ (√

‫)ܐ‬.49 It is also ܶܰ ܿ common medially in Ap̱ʿel forms; e.g. ‫ ܐ ݂ܐܒ‬opp. Ǭ݂ǻ ܸ ‫‘ ܼܐ‬he inܰ ܿ ܳ ܰ ܵ ܵ ܼܿ ‘lifeformed’,50 ‫ ܐ ܶܐ‬opp. ǧǹܹȋܼ ‘gives life’,51 ‫ ܐ ܳ ܐ‬opp. ǧȏȂǹȋ ܶܰ ܶܰ ܶ ݂ ܶ ݂ ܶ opp. giver’,52 ‫ ݁ܐܒܐܫ‬opp. ‫‘ ݁ܐܒ‬to be evil’ and its reflexive ‫ܐܬܐܒ‬ ܶ ݂ ܶ ݂ ܶ .53 Very rarely the Paʿʿel may have [a] represented by ; ‫ܐܬܒ‬ ܶ ‫ ݁ܰܕܐ‬opp. ܶ ‫‘ ݁ܰܕ‬to designate’.54 e.g. ܳ §93. In the adverbial suffix ݂ ܺ ‫ܐ‬: -insertion is attested in ܺܳ ܺ ܳ ܺ݁ ܰ the adverbial suffix; e.g. ݂ ܺ ݂ ݂ ‫[ ܰ ݁ ݂ ܐ‬ḥattītāʔīṯ]55 (was it [ḥattīṯāyīṯ]?) ‘accurately’.

ܶ̈ ܺ ܶܺ ‫ܐܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ opp. ‫݂ܒ ̈ܐ‬ ݂ ܳ ̈ܳ ܺ ܳ ܽ ܺ ܳ ܽܺ ܳ ܳ ‘prophets’,56 ‫ܐܬܐ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ݂ ‫ ݂ܒ‬opp. ‫‘ ݂ ܺܒ ̈ ݂ ܐ‬prophetesses’,57 ‫ܐܘܬܐ‬ ݂ ‫ ݂ܒ‬opp. ܶ ܳ ݂ ‫݂ܒ‬ ܶ ܳ 58 ‘prophecy’. It becomes sometimes ; e.g. ‫ ܐ ܐ‬opp. ‫[ ܐܐ‬yāyē] ܽܰ ܽܰ ‘suitable’.59 In suffixes of L-ʔ verbs, one has ̱ ‫ܐܘܘ‬ opp. ̱ ‫ܐܘ‬ ܳ ܽ ܽܰ ܳ ܽ ‘fullness’.60 opp. ̱ ‫‘ ܘܘ‬they called me’, ‫ܐܐ‬ opp. ‫ܘܐ‬ §94.

Intervocallically: is preserved in

§95.

Metathesis: metathesis occurs word initially in a few

words, most notably E. Syr.

ܳ ܳ (early MSS also ܵ ܵ opp. W. Syr. ‫ܪܐܙܐ‬ Ǩ‫ܐܪܙ‬

49

CSD 24b.

50

CSD 34a.

51

Brock, ‘Some Diachronic’ 101; Duval §56 n.

52

Brock, ‘Some Diachronic’ 101.

53

CSD 34a.

54

David §33.

55

Van Rompay, ‘Some Preliminary’ 74; Brock, ‘Some Diachronic’

98. 56

Van Rompay, ‘Some Preliminary’ 75.

57

Van Rompay, ‘Some Preliminary’ 75.

58

Van Rompay, ‘Some Preliminary’ 75.

59

CSD 184a.

60

Duval §56.

44

I. The Graphemic Inventory

have

‫)ܳܳܪܙܐ‬61

‘sacrament’. Other examples include

‘double’,62 and §96.

§95.

ܳ ܺ ܰ ܳ ‫ ܐ‬opp. ‫ܺ ܐ‬

‘borrowed’.63

ܰ ‫ܐ ݁ܳܐ‬

opp.

‫ܰܐ ܳ ܐ‬

There are a number of lexical variant spellings with and

without . These include E. Syr.

Syr.

ܺ ‫ܐ‬

§97.

ȊȁȤȒȁ‫ܐ‬ opp. W. ܹ ܵ ܸ and ȊȁȤȒȁ ܹܵ

ܶ ‫ܳܐ‬ 64 proper nouns ending in ܶ ܰ ܳ ܰ ‘Israel’ ܰ ܳandܰ many other 65 ‫ܐ‬, ݂ ݂ opp. Other lexical variants with ܳ ܽ ݂ܺ ‫‘ ܳ ݂ ܐ‬firstly’. ܽ ܺ ܳ ‫ ݁ܰܓ‬opp. ‫‘ ݁ܰܓ ܳ ܐ‬treasure’,67 include ‫ܐܒ ݂ܬܐ‬ opp. ‫‘ ݂ܒ ݂ܬܐ‬ark’,66 ‫ܐܙܐ‬ ݂ ܰ ‫ ܐ ݁ ܳ ܐ‬opp. ‫ ܰ ݁ ܳ ܐ‬opp. ‫‘ ܰ ܐ ܳ ܐ‬double’.68 (and vice versa): this may occur word-

ܺ ܰ ܶ and ‫‘ ܺ ܶܟ‬be ‫ܐܨܦ‬ careful’,69 ‫ܐܪܟ‬ ݂ ܰ and ‫‘ ܰ ݂ܦ‬be ݂ ݂ ܺ‫‘ ݁ܒ‬fortress’,71 ‫ ݁ ܰ ܺܐ ݂ ܳܒܐ‬and its rare counterpart ܽ ‫ ݁ ܺ ܐ‬and ܳ ܽ ܺ ݁ ‘a storm’.73

initially or medially; e.g.

ܳ ‫݁ܬܐ‬ ‫‘ ݁ ܰ ܺ ݂ ܳܒܐ‬suffering’,72 ܳ long’,70

2.5.2.

§98.

ܳ݁ ܺ݁ ‫ܐܪܬܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬

and

Waw

In closed syllables: it is frequently absent in closed sylla-

bles in early 6th and 7th century MSS; e.g.

ch. 2

61

Brock, ‘Some Diachronic’ 100.

62

CSD 25b.

63

CSD 31a.

64

Brock, ‘Some Diachronic’ 100; David §42.

65

Van Rompay, ‘Some Preliminary’ 74.

66

Wernberg-Møller, ‘Some Scribal’ 141.

67

Wernberg-Møller, ‘Some Scribal’ 141.

68

CSD 25b.

69

CSD 27a.

70

CSD 29a.

71

CSD 34a.

72

CSD 201a.

73

CSD 202a.

‫ܒ ܐ‬

for

‫ܽ ݂ܒ ܳ ܐ‬

Consonantal Graphemes

§101.

45

ܽ ‫ ܪ ܐ‬for ‫[ ܪܘ ܳ ܐ‬rušʕā]ܽ75 ‘wickedness’, ‫ܗ‬ ܳ ‫[ ݁ ܽ ܳܪܗ‬kurhānā]76 ‘sickness’, ‫ ܐܪ ܐ‬for ‫[ ܐܘܪ ܳ ܐ‬ʔurḥā] ‘way’.77

[šuḇḥā]74 ‘praise’, §99.

for

Open syllables: in a few lexemes, is absent in open

syllables, but usually replaced with ‘falcon’.78

◌ܳ;

e.g.

‫݁ܽܒ ܺܙ ܳ ܐ‬

opp.

‫݁ܳܒ ܺ ܳ ܐ‬

§100. Morphologically, may be omitted in the perf. 3rd pl. m.; e.g.

ܰ

for

̱

ܰ

‘they mixed’.79

§101. Lexically, the use and non-use of varies in the following cases: A.

‫݁ܽ ܠ‬

and

concurrently with

ܽ ‫ܶ ܠ‬ ܽ ݁ and

: it is present in

ܽ ܶ

is more frequent in 5

‫݁ܽ ܠ‬

and

‫ܠ‬

ܽ ܶ

,

. In early MSS, the presence of

and 6th century MSS than its ab-

th

sence. The reverse is true for post-6th century MSS.80 The reappears in the 20th century, promoted by A. Nuro (q.v. §186),81 but its use remains infrequent. B. is present in the Apocalypse, but word.

‫݁ܶܓ ـ ܳ ܳ ܐ‬

82

ܳ

‫‘ ݁ܶܓ‬revelation’ when it refers to

with the general meaning of the

ܳ ‫ ܽ ݂ ܰܒ‬opp. ‫ܽ ݂ܒ‬ ‫ ܽ ݂ܒ ـ ܽ ܘܢ‬and ‫ܽ ݂ ܰܒ ـ ܽ ܘܢ‬

C. Metathesis occurs in which is productive, as in them’.83 74

Brock, ‘Some Diachronic’ 98.

75

Brock, ‘Some Diachronic’ 98.

76

Brock, ‘Some Diachronic’ 98.

77

Van Rompay, ‘Some Preliminary’ 75.

78

CSD 37b.

79

D. Taylor, The Syriac Versions … Basil of Caesarea 191.

80

Brock, ‘Some Diachronic’ 96.

81

Nuro, Suloko.

82

Van Rompay, ‘Some Preliminary’ 76.

‘against’ ‘against

46

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§102.

D. Orthographically, -doubling occurs in some nominal forms; e.g. ‘fatness’.85 2.5.3.

ܳܳ ܽ݁ ‫ܓ ܘܙ‬

opp.

ܳܳ ܽ݁ ‫ܓܙ‬

‘flame’,84

ܳ ‫݁ܽܕ‬ ܳ ‫ܘܘܗ‬

opp.

ܳ ‫݁ܽܕ‬ ܳ ‫ܘܗ‬

Yūḏ

§102. Morphologically, the suffix of the perfect 3rd fem. pl. is zero in 5th and 6th century MSS, and remains so to this day in E. Syr. In other words, it is a homograph with the 3rd masc. pl.; e.g.

݂ܰ

‘they (f./m.) took’. After the 7th century, W. Syr. began to

distinguish the two forms by adding a silent suffix and syāme; e.g.

̱ ‫ܰ ݂̈ܒ‬

ܶ ‫‘ ܶܗ‬they (f.) took’.86

§103. The suffix of the impf. 3rd fem. sing. was originally zero;

ܽ ܶ ‫‘ ݁ ܶܬ ݂ ݁ ݂ܘܒ‬she shall write’. W. Syr. adds the silent suffix ; ܽ e.g. ̱ ‫ܘܒ‬ ݂ ݁ ݂ ‫ ݁ܬ‬. The earliest example is from a 7th century MS, with e.g.

this phenomenon becoming more frequent after the 9th century,

but never normative even today.87 §104. The suffix of the perfect 3rd fem. sing. is normally . By analogy with §102 and §103 above, W. Syr. may sporadically

ܶ ‫ܬܝ‬ ̱ ݂ ܰ ‫‘ ܐ‬she said’.88 Other formations include impf. ̱ ‫‘ ݁ܬ ܰ ݁ ܰܒ‬she praises’.89

add ; e.g. sing 3rd fem.

§105. Lexically, the use and non-use of varies in the following:

ch. 2

‫ܺܪ ܳ ܐ‬

opp. earlier and E. Syr.

ܹܵ ǧȥ‫ܪ‬

‘head’.90 Regardless of

83

D. Taylor, The Syriac Versions … Basil of Caesarea 190.

84

CSD 63b.

85

CSD 85a.

86

Brock, ‘Some Diachronic’ 99.

87

Brock, ‘Some Diachronic’ 100.

88

Brock, ‘Some Diachronic’ 100.

89

D. Taylor, The Syriac Versions … Basil of Caesarea 192.

90

Wernberg-Møller, ‘Some Scribal’ 141.

Consonantal Graphemes

§109.

dialect, is missing in the following:

ܺ ‫ܐ ݁ ܰܓ ݁ ܳ ܐ‬

‘double door’,

opp.

ܺ ‫ܐܙ ݁ ܰܓ ݁ ܳ ܐ‬

47

ܺ ܳ ‫ܐ݂ ܳ ݂ܐ‬

opp.

ܳ ܺ ‫݂ܐܕ ܳ ݂ ܐ‬

‘ambassador’. This is more

ܺ ܶ‫ ܐ‬and ‫‘ ܐܶ ܺ ܳ ܐ‬circle’.91 ݂ ݂ ܳ݁ ܺ݁ ܺ ܳ 92 Other examples include: ‫ ܒ‬vs. ‫‘ ݁ܒ‬eggshaped’. Someܰ ܰ ܳ ܽ ܽ݁ ܰ ݁ times varies with an ◌ or ◌ܹ vowel; e.g. ‫ܓ‬ ‫ܐ‬ opp. ܳ ‫ܐܓ‬ ܳ ܰ݁ ܶ ܳ ܰܶ ݁ ‘letter’.94 ‘struggle’,93 ‫ܓ ݂ܬܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬opp. ‫ܐܓ ݂ܬܐ‬ ‫ ݁ܳܒ݂ܶܒ‬and §106. is sometimes omitted after long ◌ܹ; e.g. ‫‘ ݁ܳܒ݂ܶܒ‬Babylon’.95 pronounced in Greek loan words; e.g.

‫ܳܐ‬ ܳܳ݁

§107. is sometimes repeated orthographically, with /ī/; e.g.

‫݁ܰܒܐ ܺ ܳ ܐ‬

opp.

‫݁ܰܒܐ ܺ ܳ ܐ‬

‘barren’,96 E. Syr.

ܿ ȃǫǭ ܼ ܼ

opp. W. Syr.

ܺ ‫ܓܒ‬ ݂ ܰ

‘my side’.97 Additionally, is inserted in W. Syr. MSS after an

ܵ ܼܿ ǭܹ ‘gehana’.98 ◌ܺ that corresponds to E. Syr. ◌ܹ; e.g. ܳ ܰ ‫ ݁ܺܓ‬opp. ǧȎǵ §108. For

, see under .

ܰ ݂ ‫ ܐ‬when itܰ is used in compounds; same’, and ܳ ݂ ‫‘ ܐ‬as’ (historically, the

§109. is not written in e.g.

ܰ ݂ ܰ ݂‫ܐ‬

and

ܰ ‫ܐ ݂ ݂ܳܐ‬

‘the

original form may have been without , which was then added to

ܰ ݂ ‫)ܐ‬.99 It is sometimes missing in modern texts (but very

rarely), though this may be attributed to more phonetic spelling;

ܰ

e.g. ‫ ݂ܐܟ‬for

ܰ ݂ ‫‘ ܐ‬as’.100

91

CSD 24a.

92

CSD 43a.

93

Brock, personal communication.

94

CSD 12b.

95

CSD 34b.

96

CSD 34a.

97

CSD 58b.

98

David §33.

99

D. Taylor, The Syriac Versions … Basil of Caesarea 184.

100

Brock, personal communication.

48

I. The Graphemic Inventory

2.5.4.

§110.

Other Consonants

§110. There are very few instances when consonants are affected

ܳ ܳ ܳ ‫ ܶ ݂ܨܒ ݂ ܐ‬opp. ‫‘ ܶܨ ݂ ݂ ܐ‬ornament’,101 ‫ܶ ݂ܓ ݂ ܐ‬ ܳ ܰ݁ ܳ ܰ ܳ ܶ݁ ܳ݁ ܶ ܳ ܶ opp. ‫‘ ݂ ݂ ܐ‬dish’,102 ‫ ݁ܒ ـ ܐ‬opp. ‫ܒ‬ ‘cup, bowl’, ‫ܐ‬ opp. ‫ܐ‬ ܳ ܰ ݁ ܶ and ‫‘ ܺܐ ݁ ܰܒ ܳ ܐ‬buffalo’, ܳ ‫ ݁ܶܓ‬opp. ܳ ‫‘ ݁ܶܓ ـ‬hay’,104 ‘bow’,103 ‫ܐܙܒ ݁ ܐ‬ ̱ ܳ‫ ܰ ݁ ܽ ܘ ܐ‬opp. ‫‘ ܰܨ ݁ ܽ ܘ ܳ ܐ‬chest’,105 ݁ ‫ ݁ܶܓ‬opp. ݁ ‫‘ ݁ܶܓ‬side’ (abs. of ‫)݁ܰܓ݁ܳܒܐ‬,106 ̱ ܳ݁ ܶ ܳ݁ ܶ 107 ‫ ݂ܒ ܐ‬opp. ‫‘ ݂ܒ ̱ ܐ‬brick’. by orthographic variations;

§111. Grammatical (usually morphological) variants also exist with consonants. For instance, may be added to the perf.

ܰ ܰ ‫ ܐ ܺ ܽ ܢ‬for ܺ ‫‘ ܐ‬acquired’,108 and the 1 pl. ܰ ‫ ݂ ܰ ـ‬for ܰ ݂ ‘we fell’.109 Lexically, one encounters ܰ ‫( ܰܐ‬Duval ܰ ܶ‫ )ܐ‬for ܰ ‘we’. In ʿ-weak verbal Eṯpʿel and Ettap̱ʿal forms, gives masc. 3rd pl. suffix; e.g.

early 5th and 6th century MSS frequently have a single as opposed to later spellings;110 e.g. [nettzīʕ]111 ‘be moved’, added’.

ܰܶ ݂ ܰ ‫݁ܐܬܘ‬

for

ܰ ܶ ݂ ܰ ‫݁ܐܬ ݁ܬܘ‬

‫ܶ ݁ ܺܙ‬

for

[ʔettawsap̱]112 ‘was

101

D. Taylor, The Syriac Versions … Basil of Caesarea 190.

102

CSD 242b

103

CSD 229a.

104

CSD 69b.

105

Van Rompay, ‘A Precious Gift to Deir al-Surian’ 737.

106

CSD 58a.

107

CSD 58a.

108

D. Taylor, The Syriac Versions … Basil of Caesarea 192.

109

D. Taylor, The Syriac Versions … Basil of Caesarea 192.

110

Van Rompay, ‘Some Preliminary’ 77; Brock, ‘Some Diachronic’

98–99.

ch. 2

‫ܶ ݁ ݁ܬܺܙ‬

111

D. Taylor, The Syriac Versions … Basil of Caesarea 195.

112

D. Taylor, The Syriac Versions … Basil of Caesarea 195.

Consonantal Graphemes

§113.

49

§112. From a synchronic perspective, E. and W. Syriac differ in spelling in a number of ways (bearing in mind that E. Syr. tends to preserve archaic spellings). At the lexemic level, Sokoloff’s dictionary gives 172 E. Syr. variants (against W. Syr. forms), and 80 W. Syr. variants (against E. Syr. forms), a total of 252 variants (only 1.36% of the total lexemes). The CSD gives 112 E. Syr. variants and 41 for W. Syr., a total of 153 variants (or 0.97% of the total lexemes).113

2.6.

Homography

§113. The root-and-pattern (or templatic) nature of Syriac morphology gives rise to an abundance of homographs. Segal has noted:114

The word in Syriac is normally constructed by the addition of one or more of a limited number of formatives to a base of three radical letters. That would in itself have led inevitably to a multiplicity of homographs.

This, coupled with the fact that the writing system is a consonantary and lacks most of the vowels, led to an elaborate system of pointing (discussed in subsequent chapters) in order to alleviate difficulties in reading. Additionally, scribes and grammarians compiled lists of homographs as early as the 6th century to help copyists and authors. Such lists were usually called

ܶܳ ܳ ܳ ܳ ‫̈ ݂ ܳܕ ܳ ̈ ݂ ܐ ܘ ܶ ݂ ݁ ܰ ݁ ܳ ̈ ܳ ݂ ܐ‬ 113

ܳ ݂ ̈ ‫݁ܒ‬

‘words [that are] similar [in form] and

The variants were determined by a search on the strings ‘E-Syr’

and ‘W-Syr’ in G. A. Kiraz (ed.), The Searchable and Bookmarked SyriacEnglish Dictionary. The total number of lexemes, ca. 15,700, was determined by Kristian Heal from a typed version of CSD by counting the number of paragraphs in the document (actually 15,759 paragraphs but some entries are in multiple paragraphs). 114

Segal 7.

50

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§114.

doubtful [in meaning]’.115 A special class of teachers, the

‫ܳ ܶܐ‬

ܰ

maqryānē, were entrusted with the task of teaching proper reading.116 §114. Homography exists in Syriac at two levels: consonantal and proper. A consonantal homograph is a string of consonants that represents more than one meaning, but may sound differently after vowels are applied; e.g. the consonants in represent

‫ܰ ݁ ܳܐ‬

/malkā/ ‘king’ and

‘advice’. It can be said that

‫ܐ‬ ̈ ܰ ܶ ݁ graph. (If one was to add ‫ܐ‬

‫ܶ ݁ ܳܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

/melkā/

constitutes a two-way homoand

‫ܶ ̈ ݁ ܶܐ‬

, it would become a 4-

ܳܳ

is either ‘sand’ or ‘un-

way homograph.) A proper homograph is a vocalized word that represents more than one meaning; e.g.

cle’. Note that proper homographs are a subset of consonantal homographs. Statistically, proper homography is far less frequent than consonantal homography, as vowels are usually not written. Sokoloff’s revision of Brockelmann’s lexicon,117 which contains 18,500 lexemes, has 97 (0.52%) two-way, 28 (0.15%) three-way, 2 (0.01%) four-way, and 1 (0.005%) five-way proper homographs.118 Computing statistics for consonantal homographs is more labor intensive. A random search119 showed ca. 1,675 (9%) two-way consonantal homographs. While the random search re-

115

Duval §63.

116

Segal 9. On the maqryāne, see Becker, The Fear of God and the

Beginning of Wisdom. 117

Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon.

118

These numbers were computed by performing a search on the

strings #5, #4, …, #1 in an electronic list of homographs which Sokoloff kindly generated for this purpose. 119

Page 100 and every 100th page thereafter were checked for con-

sonantal homographs. ch. 2

Consonantal Graphemes

§116.

51

sulted in zero three-, four-, or five-way homographs, I have come across (in a different search) at least one five-way consonantal homograph, viz.,

.

§115. Morphologically speaking, homography occurs at three levels: root, lexeme (dictionary entry), and word. Root homographs may not always result in actual homographs. In most cases, however, the root consonants give rise to lexeme homographs in various grammatical categories; e.g. √‫ ܙܗܪ‬gives rise to the homograph verb

‫ܰܙܗܪ‬

‘1to shine, 2to admonish’ and to the

ܳ ܺ adjective ‫‘ ܙܗ ܐ‬1illuminated, 2wary’.

§116. Lexeme homographs may be the result of various functions: A. A root homograph that gives rise to other homographs as the case of √‫ ܙܗܪ‬above. In the case of verbal homographs, the various senses do not always co-exist in all morphological verbal

ܰ ‫݁ܒ‬, for instance, is a three-way homograph. ܶ ‫ܐܬܒ‬ ݁ ݂ ܶ ‘have a bulging Its first sense exists in the Eṯpʿel form ( ܶ ‫‘ ݁ܰܒ‬to obstruct’). eye’). Its second sense exists in the Paʿʿel form ( ܶ ‫‘ ݁ܰܒ‬to cause to rot’), Apʿel Its third sense exists in the Paʿʿel ( ̱ ܶ ܰ ܶ ܶ ݁ ( ‫ ݂ܐܒ‬also ‘to cause to rot’), and Eṯpʿel ( ‫‘ ݂ܐܬܒ‬to rot’) forms. templates. The verb

B. Two nouns, one derived from a Syriac root and the

other a substantive; e.g.

ܶ ‫ܐ ܳܐ‬

‘command’ from √

‫ ܐ‬and ‘lamb’ ܳ ܳ (also a consonantal homograph with ‫‘ ܐ ܐ‬she says’). ܰ ܳ ܽ C. Two substantive nouns; e.g. ‫‘ ܐܪ ܳ ܐ‬lion’ and ‘leprosy’, ‫ܙܘܙܐ‬

‘coin’ and ‘type of onion’.

D. Two denominative verbs derived from two different

ܳ ‫‘ ܰܙ ݂ܓ ܶ ݂ܓ‬to shine’ (from ‫‘ ܙ ݂ܽܓ ݂ܺܓ ݂ ܐ‬glass’) and ‘to play ܽ ܰ like a child’ (from ‫ܘܓܐ‬ ݂ܳ ‫‘ ܙ ݂ܓ‬small bell’). nouns; e.g.

E. Two nouns that are loan words, sometimes from two

different source languages; e.g.

َ َٔ ). ‘type of plant’ (from Arab. ‫ارطا‬

ܳ ܰ ‫‘ ܐܪ ܐ‬virtue’ (from Gr. ἀρετή) and

52

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§116.

F. Two nouns that become homographs as a result of suf-

ܳ ܽ ܺܰ ‫ܘܬܐ‬ ‫‘ ܐ‬art ܰ ݂ ܳ ܺ (from ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬ Arab. ‫)أَمير‬.

fixation; e.g.

of speaking’ (from √

‫)ܐ‬

and ‘emirate’

G. Words of different grammatical categories; e.g.

could be the noun

ܳ ܰ of ‫݂ ܐ‬

݂

ܰܶ

(abs. of

‘one thousand’), the verb

and the proper noun

ܰܳ

ܶ

‫݂ܳܐ‬

ܶ ܰ ݂

‘ship’), the noun (Ap̱ʿel of √

ܶ ܳ ݂

(abs.

‘to teach’),

‘Ālap̱’. H. A number of lexeme homographs are distinguishable

݂

with fricatization (q.v. §210). The following are consonantal homographs:

ܶ ܰ ‫‘ ݂ܶܳܐܒܐ‬father’ and ‫‘ ݁ܳܐܒܐ‬fruit’ ܰ ‫‘ ܰ ݂ ܳܐܒ ܳ ܐ‬feather’ and ‫‘ ܶ ݁ ܰܐܒ ܳ ܐ‬lead’ ܳ ܳ ݁ ‘roof’ ‫ܐܓ ܳ ܐ‬ ‘wage’ and ‫ܐܓ ܐ‬ ݂ ܳ ܳ ‘?’ and ‫ܐܕܪܐ‬ ܳ ݁ ܳ ‘Holm Oak’ ‫ܐܕܪܐ‬ ݂ܺ ܰ ‫‘ ܐ ݂ ܳ ܐ‬hand’ and ‫‘ ܐ ݁ ܳ ܐ‬which’.

The following are homographs even with vocalization:120

ܶ ܰ ݁ ܰ (Paʿʿel of ‫ܐܓ‬ ܰ ݁ ܰ (Ap̱ʿel of ‫݂ܰܓ‬ ‫ܐܓ‬ ݂ܰ ‘to hire’) and ‫ܐܓ‬ lengthen’)

‫ܽܒ ܪ ݁ ܳ ܐ‬

‘bowing’ and

‫ܽܒ ܪ ݂ ܳ ܐ‬

(the latter being a homo-

graph as well, ‘benediction’ and ‘borax’)

‫‘ ݁ܽܓ ݁ ܳܒܐ‬well’ and ‫‘ ݁ܽܓ ݂ ܳܒܐ‬beam’ ܳ ݁ ‫‘ ݁ܰܓ‬leper’ ‫‘ ݁ܰܓ ݂ ܳ ܳܒܐ‬leprosy’ and ‫ܒܐ‬ ܳ ‫‘ ܰ ݂ ܽ ݂ܘܬܐ‬joy’ and ‫‘ ܰ ݁ ܽ ݂ܘܬܐ‬bride’ ܳ ݁ ܽ ‘idle’ and ‫ܓܒܐ‬ ܳ ݁ ݁ ܽ ‘porter’ ‫ܓܒܐ‬ ݂ ܳ ݂ ܽ ‘stork’ and ‫ܪܒܐ‬ ܳ ݁ ܽ ‘desert’ ‫ܪܒܐ‬ ‫‘ ܶ ݂ ܳ ܐ‬mercy’ and ‫‘ ܶ ݁ ܳ ܐ‬shame’ ‫‘ ܶ ݂ܓ ݁ ܳ ܐ‬drawing up (of a net)’ and ‫‘ ܶ ݂ܓ ݁ ܳ ܐ‬scourging’ ‫‘ ܰ ݂ ܳܒܐ‬thinness’ and ‫‘ ܰ ݁ ܳܒܐ‬dried up’ ܳ ܳ ‫‘ ܺ ݂ ܳܐ‬treasure’ and ‫‘ ܺ ܳ݁ ܐ‬composition’ ݁ ܰ ‘sound’ ‫ܨܘܬܐ‬ ݂ ܰ ‘conversation’ and ‫ܨܘܬܐ‬ 120

ch. 2

‘to

Kiraz, Spirantization 15 (English section).

Consonantal Graphemes

§117.

53

ܳ ܳ݁ ܶ ‫‘ ܶ ݂ ܐ‬bow’ and ‫ܐ‬ ‘stubble’ ܽ݁ ܳ ܳ݁ ܽ݁ ‫‘ ܬܘ ܽ ݂ ܳܐ‬third’ and ‫‘ ܬܘ ܽ ܳ ܐ‬a 3-year old’ ‫‘ ݁ܬ ݂ܘܬܐ‬sycamore’ and ‫‘ ݁ܬ ݁ܘܬܐ‬mulberry’. 2.7.

Frequency of Occurrence

§117. The letters of the alphabet appear in various frequencies in the Syriac corpora. The frequencies of occurrence in the Syriac New Testament corpus are as follows:121 Letter Frequency

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܓ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܙ‬ ‫ܚ‬ ‫ܛ‬ ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܟ‬ ‫ܠ‬ ‫ܡ‬ 121

Percentage

64,536

13.9%

19,750

4.3%

4,127

0.9%

29,761

6.4%

25,765

5.5%

47,113

10.1%

2,890

0.6%

10,478

2.3%

3,807

0.8%

41,762

9.0%

13,725

3.0%

34,311

7.4%

29,519

6.4%

This frequency study is based on Kiraz, ‘A Proposed Syriac Com-

puter Keyboard Layout’. The statistics are based on the New Testament corpus which consists of 464,615 characters. Comparing percentages of the results with those posted by David G. K. Taylor for the text the Commentary of Daniel of Ṣalaḥ on the Psalms, vol. 1 (hugoye-list, June 29, 2009) yields striking similarity with an average difference of only 0.01%. Maximum difference is 1.6% for

which may just mean that the

NT text has more suffixes than Daniel of Ṣalaḥ. The next difference is only 1.1% for ‫ܘ‬.

54

I. The Graphemic Inventory

‫ܣ‬ ‫ܥ‬ ‫ܦ‬ ‫ܨ‬ ‫ܩ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܫ‬ ‫ܬ‬

44,594

9.6%

6,078

1.3%

11,987

2.6%

6,939

1.5%

1,514

0.3%

6,726

1.4%

20,262

4.4%

13,190

2.8%

24,624

5.3%

§118.

Total 464,615 §118. Matres lectionis are among the most frequent, as they play two roles: ‫ ܐ‬at 13.9%, ‫ ܘ‬at 10.1%, and ‫ ܝ‬at 9.0%. §119. Letters that occur in prefixes and suffixes have a higher frequency than others. The letter

just exceeds

‫ܝ‬

at 9.6%, not

surprisingly considering that it occurs in imperfect prefixes and

‫ ݁ܒ ݂ ܽܘܠ‬letters also occur in higher frequencies than other letters with ‫ ܠ‬at 7.4%, ‫ ܕ‬at 6.4% and ‫ܒ‬, the most infrequent amongst them, at 4.3% (‫ ܘ‬was mentioned above at 10.1%). The letter ‫ ܡ‬is also high at 6.4%, as it is used as a nominal formative. The letter ‫ܗ‬, found in many suffixes, ranks at 5.5%. The letter ‫ܬ‬, found in a good number of prefixes and suffixes, invarious suffixes. The

cluding perfect and imperfect verbs and feminine nouns, is surprisingly low in frequency, ranking at 5.3%. The letter

, used

in a number of suffixes, ranks at 3.0%. §120. Among the letters that do not occur in prefixes or suffixes,

‫ ܪ‬is the most frequent at 4.4%. All other letters occur less than 3% as follows: ‫ ܫ‬at 2.8%, ‫ ܥ‬at 2.6%, ‫ ܚ‬at 2.3%, ‫ ܦ‬at 1.5%, ‫ ܩ‬at 1.4%, ‫ ܣ‬at 1.3%, ‫ ܓ‬at 0.9%, ‫ ܛ‬at 0.8%, ‫ ܙܙ‬at 0.6%, and ‫ ܨ‬at 0.3%. §121. The ten most frequent letter pairs are (occurs 10,193 times in the NT corpus), (9,851 times),

ch. 2

Consonantal Graphemes

§123.

55

(8,890 times), (6,660 times), (6,249), (6,130 times), (5,425 times), (5,341 times), (5,184 times), and (4,998 times). The sequence occurs in pronouns like

ܶ ݁ ܰ ܶܶ ̱ ‫ܐ‬, ‫ܐ‬

ܶ ‫ ܳܗ‬, the interrogative ܶ ‫ ܰܐ‬, the 2nd and 3rd fem. suffixes of

and

the prefect, the 2nd fem. suffix of the imperfect, and the object pronominal 2nd fem. suffix

ܶ.

The frequent sequences and , as well as the

ܽ

sequence , occur in the 3rd masc. suffix ‫ܗܘܢ‬. The sequence

is probably due to the feminine suffix. The sequences , and constitute lexemes in addition to constituting substrings of other words.

2.8.

Alphabetization

§122. The sequence of letters in the consonantary follows that of the earliest West Semitic consonantary, the first evidence of which appears in an Ugaritic ordered list of the cosmology. The order is:

‫ܐܒܓܕܗܘܙܚܛܝܟܠܡܢܣܥܦܨܩܪܫܬ‬ §123. The earliest use of the order of the consonants, albeit incomplete, is found in an early alphabetical numbering system in the parchment dated 240 (q.v. §347). A complete ordering of the consonants is found in acrostics by Aphrahaṭ (fl. early 4th century) and Ephrem (d. 373). Dawid bar Pawlos (8th/9th century) composed an acrostic on the alphabet itself.122 Alphabetical word lists were compiled as early as the 6th century. The first author to compile an alphabetical list of words, now lost, was Joseph Ḥūzāyā (d. 500). The first such list to survive was compiled by

122

Gottheil, ‘A Midrashic poem on the Alphabet’.

56

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§123.

ʿNanīšoʿ (650–690), published by G. Hoffmann.123 The order is purely alphabetical; hence, participles are under masc. forms under

‫ܡ‬,

impf. 3rd

, and impf. fem. forms are under ‫ܬ‬.124 There

are also a number of anonymous MSS of such lists; e.g. BL Add. 12,178 which Wright dates to the 9th or 10th century, explicitly mentions alphabetization in its title:

ܰܳ ݂ ‫݂ ݁ ܶܒ‬

ܰ

ܳ ̈ ݁ ܰ ‫݂ ܰܕ‬

‫݁ ܰ ܽܨܘ ݁ ܶ ܐ ݂ܕ ܽ ̈ ܶܐ‬

݂ܳ

ܽ

‘diacritical points arranged alphabeti-

cally’.125 Such lists led to the later compilation of dictionaries arranged alphabetically. §124. The order of words in dictionaries according to root, rather than alphabetically, is a western invention. (In such dictionaries, roots themselves are arranged alphabetically.) Dictionaries arranged by root are found as early as Valentin Schindler (d. 1604) in his Lexicon pentaglotton, Hebraicum, Chaldaicum, Syriacum (1612).126 In this particular work, quadriliteral roots were given separately at the end of each alphabetic section, but later dictionaries incorporated them with trilateral roots. In some dictionaries (e.g. Brockelmann), lexemes are arranged under roots according to morphological forms (Pʿal, Paʿʿel, Ap̱ʿel) rather than the order of the alphabet. Ancient Syriac grammarians did not employ this typology, nor did the medieval Maronite grammarians.127 A. Masius was the first to write a Syriac grammar in Latin making use of the Pʿal, Paʿʿel, and Ap̱ʿel typology.128 The listing of

123

G. Hoffmann, Opuscula Nestoriana.

124

Merx 103.

125

Wright I, 110, no. 5.

126

D. Taylor, An Annotated Bibliography of Printed Syriac Lexica, en-

try under 1612.

ch. 2

127

Merx 103.

128

Masius 15 ff.; Merx 272.

Consonantal Graphemes

§127.

57

words according to rhyme, as is the case in some Arabic lexica (e.g. al-Zubaydī’s tāj al-ʿarūs) is unknown in the Syriac tradition. §125. The order of the alphabet is realized at the graphemic level, allographs having no affect on the sequence. Ligatures have no affect on the sequence either (not even , unlike Arabic

‫ لا‬that

has a slot in the alphabet). Similarly, nonlinear graphemes (e.g. vowels) have no affect on alphabetization. §126. In a computational system where ordering strings is useful for indexing and search algorithms, one must make practical choices as to how nonlinear graphemes affect sorting and indexing. Additional choices, when applicable, need to be made for the sorting order of auxiliary graphemes such as the Old Syriac dotless ‫ܖ‬. One may choose to have them listed directly after, or ca-

nonically equivalent to their respective source forms: Garšūnī with

‫ܔ‬

‫ܓ‬, Old Syriac ‫ ܖ‬with ‫ ܕ‬or ‫( ܪ‬it was placed after ‫ ܕ‬in Unicode,

though Unicode does not assume sorting order per se), and Garšūnī ‫ ܜ‬with ‫ܛ‬. §127. Ancient grammarians such as Bar ʿEbroyo129 justified the order of the alphabet by classifying letters into different types of sounds (q.v. §73):

ܰ ‫݁ ݂ ܳ ̈ܐ‬

‘broad’, and

‫‘ ܰ ̈ ݁ ܶ ܐ‬thin’ ‫‘ ܶ ̈ ܳ ܶܐ‬in

or

ܺ ‫ܰ ̈ ܶܐ‬

‘narrow’,

‘thick’ or

between’. They argued that the

alphabet began with ‘thin/narrow’ sounds ‘thick/broad’ sounds

ܳ ‫݂ ܰܒ ̈ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

to

‫ܛ‬,

followed by

‫ ܝ‬to ‫ܩ‬, and the ‘in-between’ sounds ‫ ܪ‬to ‫ܬ‬.130

This idea originated with Dionysius Thrax.

‫ܒ ܐ‬

̈ ‫ܐܬܘܬܐ‬

‫ܘܕ‬

̈ ‫ܐܬܘܬܐ ܘ‬

‫܀‬

129

Bar ʿEbroyo, Ṣemḥe iv.1.§3; Sciadrensis ‫ܙ‬.

130

Duval §18.

‫ܕ‬

‫ܗ‬

3. Vowel Graphemes Vowel sounds are thick and thin. Again, every word, that is, every member of a clause—where it is thick or

broad in vowel sound, there it takes a point above; where it is fine or thin, it takes a point below. If it is

medium, between fine and thick, and there are two

other words similar to it in spelling, it takes two points, one above and one below.

Jacob of Edessa (d. 708), On Orthography

Now when I was in Rome I saw three Chaldeans [i.e. Maronites]… I saw them reading their Psalter without

points, and asked them, ‘Have you points, or any signs to indicate the vowels?’ and they answered me, ‘No! But

we have been conversant with that language from our youth till now, and, therefore know how to read without points’.

Elias Levita (1469–1549), Massoreth ha-massoreth

§128. Syriac grammarians referred to the vowels using different

ܳ ̈ܳ ܳ ܶ ̈ ‫ܐ‬ ‘beats’, ‫‘ ܰܙܘ ܐ‬movements [of the ݂ ܳ ‫‘ ܶ ݁ ݁ܬ ܺܙ ܳ ܽ ݂ܬܐ‬movements’2 (according to Duval, on

terms:

mouth]’,1 or account that

they are considered movements of the auditory system in order to produce sounds). Early grammarians called them

ܶ ‫ܳ ̈ܐ‬

,3 not to be

confused with the plural sign which has the same name (for which q.v. §158).

1

David §15; Dulabani 1; Duval §42; al-Kfarnissy §3.

2

Jacob bar Šakko (in Merx, 4th question); Segal 7.

3

Acurensis ‫ ;ܒ‬Amira 34; Duval §75.

59

60

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§129.

§129. The earliest system of marking vowels in the Syriac consonantally-biased writing system appears in inscriptions, the earliest of which is from A.D. 6, and legal parchments dated 240– 243. In this system, originally introduced by Aramaeans in the 9th century B.C.,4 vowels were partially marked by three ‘weak’ letters:

‫ܐ‬

,

‫ܘ‬

, and

‫ܝ‬

. The early Aramaic system

applied only to vowels at the end of words, but by the time of the Old Syriac inscriptions it had already been extended to apply in the middle of the word as well. By the time of the 411 MS, an additional system was in place which made use of a single diacritical point to disambiguate homographs. By the time of Jacob of Edessa (d. 708), this system had been extended to use two diacritical points to disambiguate three-way homographs. Jacob, finding a need for a more comprehensive vocalization system, devised special letters to mark vowels, but did not intend for them to be used widely (lest all the MSS of his time become obsolete). Jacob’s system was hardly used, and by the 8th or 9th century a fully developed pointing system had appeared in which each vowel was marked either by two diacritical points, or by a single diacritical point in combination with a mater lectionis. In W. Syr., the pointing system was augmented with a symbolic system where each vowel was marked by a nonlinear symbol (i.e. written above or below letters) derived from Greek letters; hence, ‘Greek’ vocalization. This system, according to a recent study by Coakley,5 was developed in the 10th century (traces of these vowel

4

Early

Segert, Altaramäische Grammatik 62–64; Cross and Freedman, Hebrew

Orthography;

Degen,

Inschriften des 10.-8. Jh. V. Chr. 25–28. 5

ch. 3

Coakley, ‘When were’.

Altaramäische

Grammatik

der

Vowel Graphemes

§131.

61

graphemes can be seen in earlier MSS).6 The timeline of the development of the various vocalization systems is then as follows: A.D.

Event

6

Earliest inscription

100

System used partial matres lectionis

200

240s

Legal parchments

300

Matres lectionis fully developed

400

411

MS Add. 12,150

Single diacritical point

500

Two diacritical points

600

Jacob of Edessa’s linear system (defunct)

700

708

Jacob of Edessa died

800 900

MS Vatican 152

Pointing system fully developed ‘Greek’ vocalization introduced

§130. Each subsequent system was an augmentation to its predecessor, not a replacement. Hence, in W. Syr. one finds the ‘Greek’ system alongside the pointing system, and obviously alongside the matres lectionis system.

3.1.

The Matres Lectionis System

§131. The set of weak letters is known in Syriac as

ܳ ܳ ̈ܳ ܳ ‫ܐܬܘܬܐ ݂ ܺ ܳ ݂ܬܐ‬ ݂ ݂

‘weak/sick signs’,7 and in Latin by the term matres lectionis, literally ‘mothers of reading’, a translation from the Hebrew grammatical expression ‫אֵם ְקרִיאָה‬.

6

Wright III, p. xxx.

7

Bar ʿEbroyo classifies Nūn as weak but not in the sense of matres

lectionis.

62

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§132.

§132. Matres lectionis begin to appear in Old Syriac (for which see §23 ff). As for Classical Syriac,8 the 411 MS shows a fully developed matres lectionis system. §133. represents the following vowels, in order of frequency: A. /ā/, primarily at the end of the word (usually, /ā/ in the middle of a word is unmarked). Almost all emphatic nouns end in /ā/ marked with ; e.g. tan’,

‫ܒ‬

/sāṭānā/9 ‘Sa-

‫ܐ‬

‫< ܒ ܐ‬brʔ> /brā/ ‘son’. The following verbal forms, with √

, also end in /ā/ marked with /ʔ/:

1. Act. part. sing. 3rd fem.; e.g. a. Pʿal ‫ܒܐ‬

/kāṯbā/ ‘she writes’.

b. Paʿʿel

/mḵattḇā/.

c.

/maḵtḇā/.

‫ܒܐ‬ Ap̱ʿel ‫ܒܐ‬

2. Pass. part. sing. fem.; e.g. a. Pʿal ‫ܒܐ‬

/kṯīḇā/ ‘it is written’.

b. Eṯpʿel c. d. e. f.

‫ܒܐ‬ /meṯkaṯbā/. Paʿʿel ‫ܒܐ‬ /mḵattḇā/. Eṯpaʿʿal ‫ܒܐ‬ /meṯkattḇā/. Ap̱ʿel ‫ܒܐ‬ /maḵtḇā/. Ettap̱ʿal ‫ܬ ܒܐ‬ /mettaḵtḇā/.

3. Many of the L-ʔ forms (while ʔ is part of the root, it loses its consonantal value); e.g. a. Perf. sing. 3rd masc. ‫ܐ‬ b. Inf. ‫ܐ‬

‫ܒ‬

/meḇkā/.

c. Impt. Paʿʿel

8

‫ ܒ‬/bḵā/ ‘he cried’.

‫ ܒ ܐ‬/bakkā/.

Brockelmann §4; Costaz §10; Duval ch. ix; Healey 8; Muraoka,

CS4H §7; Nöldeke §4.A; Palacios §13; Uhlemann §2; Zschokke §3.2. 9

ch. 3

MS BL Add. 12,150, f. 154, co. 2, ln 40 from Hatch.

Vowel Graphemes

§133.

d. Impt. Ap̱ʿel forms.

‫ܐܒ ܐ‬

63

/ʔaḇkā/, and their reflexive

B. /ē/, at the end of the word, but also in the middle. It appears marked with at the end of most masculine plural nouns; e.g.

‫̈ܬ ܐ‬

/ṣawtāp̱ē/10 ‘partakers’. It appears in P-ʔ and P-y verbs; e.g. E. Syr. ȤȋǦȎ ܼܿ ܹ /nēmar/ ‘he shall

say’, W. Syr.

݂ ܰ ‫ܶܐ‬

/lmēlap̱/ ‘to learn’. It is also present in many of the L-ʔ verbs; e.g. with √ ‫ܒ ܐ‬: 1. Impf. sing. 3rd masc. ‫ܐ‬

‫ܒ‬

2. Sing. fem. ‫ܐ‬ 3.

4. 5.

/neḇkē/ ‘he shall cry’.

‫ ܬܒ‬/teḇkē/. Sing. 2 masc. ‫ ܬܒ ܐ‬/teḇkē/. Sing. 1st ‫ ܐܒ ܐ‬/ʔeḇkē/. Pl. 1st ‫ ܒ ܐ‬/neḇkē/, and the nd

corresponding forms in

the remaining measures. Also in act. part. sing. 3rd masc. masc.

‫ܒ ܐ‬

/bḵē/, Eṯpʿel

/meṯbakkē/, Ettap̱ʿal ‫ܐ‬

‫ܬܒ‬

‫ ܒ ܐ‬/bāḵē/; pass. part. sing. 3rd ‫ܒ ܐ‬ /meṯbḵē/, Eṯpaʿʿal ‫ܒ ܐ‬ /mettaḇkē/.

C. E. Syr. /ē/ (= W. Syr. /ī/) in the middle of the word;

e.g. ‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

/kēp̱ā/ (W. Syr. /kīp̱ā/) ‘rock’.11 ܰ ‫ ܺܐ‬/nīmar/ ‘he shall say’. D. /ī/ in W. Syr. P-ʔ verbs; e.g.

Also in Greek loan words; e.g.

‫ܐ‬

‫ܕ‬

/dīyaṯīqī/ (E.

Syr. /dīyaṯēqē/) from διαθηκη ‘covenant’,

‫ܐ‬

‫ܘ‬

/qaṯūlīqī/ (in both W. and E. Syr.) from καθολική ‘universal’. These tend to have variant forms that end in . (Note that in Greek η was originally pronounced /ē/ and in the first centuries of the Christian era shifted to /ī/.) E. /a/, both in the middle and at the end of the word. This occurs

in

Greek

loan

words;

e.g.

‫ܐ‬

‫ܕܐ‬

10

MS BL Add. 12,150, f. 154, co. 2, ln 7 from Hatch.

11

MS BL Add. 12,150, f. 154, co. 2, ln 32 from Hatch; MS BL Add.

14,425, f. 95, co. 1, ln 27 ff. from Hatch.

64

I. The Graphemic Inventory

/dīyaqonīyya/ from διακονία ‘service’,

‫ܘܢ‬

§134.

‫ܕܐ‬

/dīyaṭesaron/ from διατεσσάρων ‘diatessaron’.

§134. represents two phonemes, /ū/ and /o/; e.g. /ṭūḇānā šemʕon/

‫ܢ‬

12

‫ܒܐ‬

‘blessed Simon’.

Both phonemes are collapsed into /ū/ in W. Syr. §135. represents two phonemes, /ī/ and /ē/; e.g.

/qḏīm/13 ‘old’,

/šāwēn/14 ‘deserve’.

§136. Reversely, the list below gives phoneme to grapheme mapping: 1. /a/ is represented by . 2. /ā/ by . 3. /e/ by or < y> (most plural nouns end in ). 4. /ē/ by or < y>. 5. /ī/ by or . 6. /ū/ by . 7. /o/ by . §137. In connection with the use of as matres lectionis, Greek loan words also used to represent Greek /ε/; e.g.

‫ܶ ݁ ܺ ܽ ܢ‬

3.2.

λεξικόν ‘lexicon’.

The Pointing System

§138. The origin of the pointing system lies in the disambiguation of homographs (on homography, q.v. §113 ff.). Three stages of development can be identified. In the first stage, already appearing in the 411 MS, a single diacritical point was placed above

ch. 3

12

MS BL Add. 12,150, f. 154, co. 3, ln 34–35 from Hatch.

13

MS BL Add. 12,150, f. 154, co. 1, ln 6 from Hatch.

14

MS BL Add. 12,150, f. 154, co. 1, ln 28 from Hatch.

Vowel Graphemes

§140.

65

or below two-way homographs. The location of the point was not random, but followed specific phonological rules (discussed below). In the second stage, two diacritical points—one supralinear, the other sublinear—were introduced to disambiguate three-way homographs. The two-point system begins to appear, albeit rarely, around 600, and is mentioned in the grammar of Jacob of Edessa (d. 708) quoted at the beginning of this chapter. In the third stage, a more comprehensive pointing system was introduced where each vowel phoneme had its unique pointing grapheme. The third stage was probably developed in the 8th or 9th century, and continues to the present day. 3.2.1.

One-Point Vocalization

§139. This system made use of a single point,15 in later gram-

‫‘ ݁ ܳ ܽ ܘ ܳ ܐ‬distinguisher’, ‫‘ ܽ ̈ ܶܐ ݂ ܳ ܽ ܘ ܶܐ‬distinctive ܽ ܳ ܶ̈ ܳ ‘distinctive signs’ (where ܶ then had its points’,16 or ‫ܐ ݂ ܘ ܶܐ‬

mars termed pārūšā

original meaning ‘sign’)17 to disambiguate between homographs.

Disambiguation is always made between two words of the same grammatical category; i.e. when both are nouns, verbs, or prepositions. §140. The system is alluded to in a text attributed to St. Ephrem (d. 373),18 although the attribution is incorrect. Commenting on the word ‫ܐ‬ 15

‘donkeys’, the text reads:

Amira 51 ff.; Duval §63–69; Segal 9. Grammarians who merely

mention the one-point system include Brockelmann §5; Costaz §11; A. Hoffmann I.I. §9, p. 85; Nestle §6.a; Nöldeke §6; Palacios §15; Uhlemann §4; Zschokke §3.3. 16

Nestle §6.a.

17

Duval §71.

18

Martin, ‘Histoire de la ponctuation’ 92; Segal 12; the text is in J.

S. Assemani, Sancti Patris Nostri Ephraem Syri Opera Omnia I, 184.

66

I. The Graphemic Inventory

ܰ݁ ܰ ݁ ܰ ܰ݁ ܶ ܶ ‫̈ܪܬ‬ ‫ܐܐ‬ ܳ ܶ ݂ ‫ܳ ܺ ̈ܒ‬ ̱‫݁ ܰܕ ܐ ݁ ܰܒ ̱ܘ ܐ‬

§141.

ܶܳ ‫ܙܕܩ ܶ ݁ ܰ ܥ ݁ ܰܕ ݂ ܰ ܳ ܐ ܳ ܪ ݁ ܳ ܰܐ‬ ܺܰ ̈ ܰ ݂ ܺ ݁ ‫ܕ ݂ܐܬ ܳ ܘ‬ ݂‫ܐ ܐ‬ .‫ܰ ܺ ݂ ܽ ݂ܬܐ‬

It is necessary to know that up to now we have read in the two testaments ḥemrē and not ḥmārē as some igno-

rant people claim.

As both ḥemrē (the lesser plural) and ḥmārē (the greater plural) are consonantal homographs,19 shown in Esṭrangelā above, the scribe must have used a device to distinguish them in writing. That device was probably the diacritical point, already well attested in the 411 MS. §141. The disambiguation of homographs with the vowels /a ā e/ systemically follows the following rules (rūkkāḵā and qūššāyā points are not indicated in the examples to avoid confusion with the diacritical points, but are shown in the phonological transcription): A. /a e/ vs. /ā/. If the distinction is to be made between the vowels /a/ or /e/ on the one hand, and /ā/ on the other, a single sublinear point marks either /a/ or /e/, while a single supralinear point marks /ā/; e.g. 1. 2.

‫̣ܒ ܐ‬ ‫̣ ܐ‬

/ʕaḇdā/ ‘slave’ and ‫ܐ‬

/sep̱rā/ ‘book’ vs. ‫ܐ‬ Other common homographs include: 3. 4. 19

20

‫̇ܒ‬ ̇

/ʕāḇdā/ ‘she makes’. /sāp̱rā/21 ‘scribe’.

‫ ̣ܗ ܢ‬/hēnnūn/22 ‘these’ vs. ‫ ̇ܗ ܢ‬/hānūn/23 ‘those’. ‫ ̣ܒ‬/ḥaḇlā/ ‘cord’ vs. ‫ ̇ܒ‬/ḥḇālā/ ‘corruption’.

For the lesser plural (for 10 or fewer items) and greater plural (for

larger items), see Bar ʿEbroyo, Ṣemḥe i.5.§2, p. 29; see also Audo 353.

ch. 3

20

MS BL Add. 14,445, f. 3b from Segal 21.

21

MS BL Add. 14,425, f. 136a from Segal 21.

22

MS BL Add. 14,425, f. 3b from Segal 21.

23

MS BL Add. 12,150, f. 48b from Segal 21

Vowel Graphemes

§142. 5. 6.

67

‫ ̣ ܐ‬/ʕelṯā/ ‘cause’ vs. ‫ ̇ ܐ‬/ʕlāṯā/ ‘offering’. ‫ ̣ ܒܐ‬/ṭēḇā/ ‘rumor’ vs. ‫ ̇ ܒܐ‬/ṭāḇā/24 ‘good’.

B. /a/ vs. /e/. If the distinction is to be made between /a/ on the one hand, and /e/ on the other, then a single supralinear point marks /a/, while a single sublinear point marks /e/; e.g. 1. 2.

‫ܐ‬ ̇

̇

/malkā/25 ‘king’ vs. ‫ܐ‬

/man/27 ‘who?’ vs.

̣

̣

/melkā/26 ‘advice’.

/mēn/28 ‘from’ (/mān/ ‘what

(ABS.)’ takes a supralinear point as well). In verbs, the same distinction must be made between Pʿal, historically Pᵊʿal with schwa, and Paʿʿel forms; e.g. (historically /qᵊṭal/) and

̇

/qaṭṭel/ ‘he killed’.

̣

/qṭal/

§142. The disambiguation of homographs with the vowels vs. their respective diphthongs also employed a single point. As stated earlier (§131 ff.), the letters

‫ ܘ‬and ‫ ܝ‬play two roles: as

pure consonants or as matres lectionis for the vowels /ū/ and /ī/,

respectively. A single supralinear point indicates a consonantal value (i.e. diphthong), while a single sublinear point indicates the vowel sound; e.g. 1.

̇

/sāymīn/ ‘they place’ vs.

placed’ (and all such verbal forms). 2. 3.

̣

/sīmīn/ ‘are

̇ /haw/29 ‘that MASC’ vs. ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ̣ /hū/30 ‘he’. ‫ܗܝ‬ ̇ /hāy/31 ‘that FEM’ vs. ‫ܗܝ‬ ̣ /hī/32 ‘she’.

24

MS BL Add. 14,431, f. 17b from Segal 21.

25

MS BL Add. 12,150, f. 210a from Segal 21.

26

MS BL Add. 14,431, f. 129a from Segal 21.

27

MS BL Add. 14,425, f. 4a from Segal 21.

28

MS BL Add. 14,425, f. 104b from Segal 21.

29

MS BL Add. 12,150, f. 211b from Segal 14.

30

MS BL Add. 12,150, f. 210a from Segal 14.

31

MS BL Add. 12,150, f. 212b from Segal 14.

68

I. The Graphemic Inventory 4. 5.

§143.

‫ ܐ ̇ ܐ‬/ʔaydā/ ‘which?’ vs. ‫ ܐ ̣ ܐ‬/ʔīḏā/ ‘hand’. ̇ /ʕawlā/33 ‘wicked’ vs. ̣ /ʕūlā/34 ‘infant’ (there is also ̇ /ʕawālā/ ‘wicked person’).

§143. The use of the single point was extended in later periods with derivatives of the homographs, even—as is usually the case—when the derivatives themselves have no homographs; e.g.

̇ /malkūṯā/ ‘kingdom’ from ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬ ‫ ̣ ܐ‬/melkā/36 ‘advice’).37 The point categories: the verb ̣ /ḥlem/ ‘to

̇

/malkā/35 ‘king’ (vs.

also crossed grammatical dream’ took a sublinear

point, but the point was then extended by analogy to

/ḥelmā/.

38

Similarly, the noun

point from the verb ‫ܬ‬

̣

/ḥḏeṯ/.

‫̣ ܬܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

̣

/ḥaḏṯā/ ‘new’ inherits the

§144. Although above we attempted to place the diacritical point above or below the consonant that preceded (in the phonological string) the vowel, in MSS it is not uncommon to find the point in various positions. For instance, one may see ‘offering’ (dot above ) or

‫̇ ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

̇

/ʕlāṯā/

(dot above ) or between

and . Similarly, one usually finds the point on tween the two letters.

‫ ܗ݀ܘ‬be-

§145. Reversely, the list below gives phoneme to grapheme mapping: 1. /a/ is indicated by ◌̣ (against /ā/), or ◌̇ (against /e/). 2. /ā/ by ◌̇ (against /a e/).

ch. 3

32

MS BL Add. 14,425, f. 3a from Segal 15.

33

MS BL Add. 17,107, f. 24a from Segal 21.

34

MS BL Add. 17,107, f. 24a from Segal 21.

35

MS BL Add. 12,150, f. 210a from Segal 21.

36

MS BL Add. 14,431, f. 129a from Segal 21.

37

Segal 21.

38

Duval §65.

Vowel Graphemes

§148.

69

3. /e/ by ◌̣ (against /a ā/). 4. /ī/ by ‫̣ܝ‬.

5. /ū/ by ‫̣ܘ‬.

§146. The graphemes ◌̣ and ◌̇ are bound, and have no segmental value of their own. In fact, their segmental value cannot be determined from the base grapheme upon which they are placed; rather, the entire lexeme—and in practice, even a larger context such as a phrase—is required to determine their segmental value. 3.2.2.

Multi-Point Vocalization

§147. By the year 600 one finds, although rarely, traces of two points used to distinguish three- or four- way homographs; e.g. 1.

‫ܐܬܐ‬ ̣ ̇ /ʔāṯā/ ‘sign’ vs. ‫ ̇ܐܬܐ‬/ʔāṯē/ ‘he comes’ vs. ‫ ̣ܐܬܐ‬/ʔēṯā/ ̇ /ʔīṯē/ ‘I shall come’, the point here ‘he came’ (vs. ‫ܐܬܐ‬

marks the 1st person, q.v. §221.B.2).39 In the late E. Syr. tradition,

2.

‫ܬ‬.

Ǩ‫ܐܬ‬ ̤ ‘sign’ appears with two points below

40

̣̇

/man/ ‘indeed’ (Greek μέν) vs.

/mān/ ‘what’ vs.

̣

̇

/man/ ‘who?’ or

/men/ ‘from’.

There is a tendency to use two-dots for the word that belongs to a different grammatical category; e.g. while both

‫̇ܐܬܐ‬

/ʔāṯē/ and

‫̣ܐܬܐ‬

‫ܐܬܐ‬ ̣ ̇

or

Ǩ‫ܐܬ‬ ̤

/ʔāṯā/ is a noun,

/ʔēṯā/ are verbs. Note that the

position of the points varies in MSS and is not always fixed. §148. From the 7th century onward, two vowels may be indicated within the same word. Two one-point graphemes are used, each representing a distinct vowel, usually ◌̇ for /a/ and ◌̣ for /e/;

̣ ‫̇ܘܐ‬

e.g.

/wʕaseq/41 ‘and he lift up’, Paʿʿel

39

MS BL Add. 12,166, f. 159a from Segal 21.

40

Mosul Bible, Isa. 11.10 and elsewhere.

41

MS BL Add. 7,157, f. 144a from Segal 26.

̣ ̇

/paqqeḏ/42 ‘he

70

I. The Graphemic Inventory

commanded’,

‫̇ ̣ܒ‬

/mqabbel/43

‘he

§148.

accepts’,

‫ܘܢ‬

̣ ̇

/qaṭṭeltūn/44 ‘you fought’. Here too the graphemes ◌̇ and ◌̣ are bound and have no segmental value of their own (q.v. §146). 3.2.3.

The Fully Developed Pointing System

§149. In the fully developed pointing system, a vowel phoneme is represented either by a single two-point grapheme, or a polygraph consisting of a one-point grapheme and a mater lectionis grapheme. §150. The first two-point grapheme to appear marked the vowel /a/. Traces of this grapheme can be found prior to the 7th century, but it appears more frequently by the middle of the century. This two-point grapheme consists of a supralinear point and sublinear point; e.g. ‫ܝ‬ §151.

̣̇

/šarī/45 ‘began’.

After the 7th century, a sublinear two-point grapheme be-

gan to be used exclusively to mark the vowel /e/; e.g. /dḥel/46 ‘he was afraid’,

̤ ̣̇

/qāṭṭel/47 ‘he fought’.

̤‫ܕ‬

§152. During the 8th century, two two-point, slanted graphemes emerged. The first was supralinear and marked the vowel /ā/; e.g.

‫ ܵܒ ܐ‬/bāḵyā/48 ‘she cries’, ܵ

/qām/49 ‘he rose’. The second

was sublinear and marked the vowel /ē/; e.g.

ch. 3

42

MS BL Add. 14,460, f. 34a from Segal 26.

43

MS BL Add. 14,460, f. 12a from Segal 26.

44

MS BL Add. 7,157, f. 103a from Segal 26.

45

MS BL Add. 14,460, f. 14b from Segal 28.

46

MS BL Add. 14,460, f. 14b from Segal 28.

47

MS BL Add. 14,471, f. 2b from Segal 28.

48

MS BL Add. 14,448, f. 1a from Segal 29.

49

MS BL Add. 14,448, f. 1a from Segal 29.

50

MS BL Add. 14,448, f. 78a from Segal 29.

ܹ

/lēh/50 ‘to him’,

Vowel Graphemes

§154.

71

‫ܬܪܬ‬ ܹ /tartēn/51 ‘two’. The position of the two points with respect

to each other varied, appearing vertically on top of each other as

ܵ ݃ ◌ or ◌݄ (e.g. ‫‘ ܒܐ ܕܨ ̈ ݄ ܐ‬Book of Ṣemḥē’),52 slanted downwards to ܵ ܵ the left as ◌, or slanted downwards to the right as ◌. In old MSS, the vowels ◌ܸ and ◌ܹ are sometimes interchangeable.53

§153. Parenthetically, in the 8th-century manuscript BL Add. 7157, Greek υ is marked with with

‫ܣ‬

‫;̣ܘ‬ ̣

e.g.

‫̤ ܘܣ‬

‫ ̤ܘ‬,

Greek οι with ‫݄ܘ‬, and Latin u

κυπρος ‘Cyprus’,

‘Lucius’.54

‫ܹ ܪ ݄ܐ‬

κυρηνη ‘Cyrene’,

§154. Later grammarians more or less fixed on seven vowels which now appear in all grammars.55 These are:

ܿ

1. /a/ is indicated by ◌ܼ .

ܵ ܵ ◌ or ◌. /e/ is indicated by ◌ܸ. /ē/ is indicated by ◌ܹ. /ī/ is indicated by ‫ܼܝ‬. /ū/ is indicated by ‫ܼܘ‬. ܿ /o/ is indicated by ‫ܘ‬.

2. /ā/ is indicated by 3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 51

MS BL Add. 14,448, f. 1a from Segal 29.

52

MS HMML SOAH (Syr. Orth. Archdiocese of Homs) 52, p. 1, from

McCollum, ‘Divine Invocations and Doxologies’. 53

Nöldeke §8.

54

Segal 30.

55

Abouna 31; al-Abrāshī et al. 24; Arayathinal §4; Brockelmann §7;

Costaz §12–14; Cowper §11; David §15; Dulabani 2; Duval §70; Elia of Ṣoba 27–28; Gabriel of St. Joseph §15; al-Kfarnissy §3; Healey 141; A. Hoffmann §11; Kiraz, Primer 211 §16; Makdasi

; Manna 8; C. B.

Michaelis §13ff; Mingana 14–23; Muraoka, CS4H §4; Muraoka, CS §4; Nestle §3; Nöldeke §8; Palacios §16; Risius §173; Thackston xx–xxi; Tullberg §4; Uhlemann §3; Ungnad §3; Zschokke §3.3.

72

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§155.

§155. There were various traditions of writing the points. A summary of one particular system is given by Bar ʿEbroyo. His description can be formalized with the following matrix: A. Number of points in a vowel graph. The values are either 1 or 2. B. Position of the vowel graph with respect to the base consonant. Here, Bar ʿEbroyo’s point of reference is the sheet of paper at the time of writing, where the paper is turned 90 degrees counter clockwise (q.v. §449). Hence, a point above a letter such

ܿ ◌

‫) ݂ ܳ ܡ‬, not ܰ ܳ݁ above the letter; similarly, ◌ܼ is behind (Syr. ‫)ܒ ݂ ܪ‬, not below the

as

is described by Bar ʿEbroyo as in front of (Syr.

letter. Elia of Ṣoba (d. ca. 1049) and Bar Šakko (d. 1241),56 how-

ever, give the positions with respect to reading orientation: above and below. C. Obliqueness of two-point graphs. The points may be written slanted (Syr.

ܽ ܺ ‫ )݁ܰܒ‬or straight (Syr. ‫)݁ܰܒ ݂ ܺܪ ܽ ܘ‬.

D. Direction (with a page turned 90 degrees). The values are either upwards (Syr.

݁ ݂ܰ

ܶ

̈ ܰ ݁ ܰ)

or downwards (Syr.

̈ ܰ݁ܰ

).

§156. Unlike the previous pointing system, here the vowel graphemes

ܿ ܵ ܵ ◌ܼ , ◌ (or ◌), ◌ܸ, and ◌ܹ, while still bound (requiring a

base grapheme), have an unambiguous segmental value; i.e. the grapheme

ܿ ◌ܼ represents /a/ even if its base grapheme is missing,

ܵ ◌ represents /ā/, etc. ܿ §157. The vowels ‫ܼܝ‬, ‫ܼܘ‬, and ‫ ܘ‬form polygraphs. In each case, the

first grapheme is a base character and the second is a diacritic.

56

ch. 3

Jacob bar Šakko (in Merx) ‫ܘ‬.

Vowel Graphemes

§161. 3.2.4.

73

Syāme as an /e/ Vowel

§158. A. Butts points out that in a few cases syāme represents a final /e/ vowel by analogy with the pronunciation of the masculine plural ending;57 e.g. ‫ܐ‬

̈ ‫‘ ܕ‬covenant’ in ‫ܐ‬

‫ܐ ܕܕ ̈ ܐ‬

‘stranger to the heavenly covenant’58 where the singular is assured by the following adjective that does not have syāme as well as by the witness of other MSS that have

‫ ܕ ܐ‬without syāme.59 An̈ other example is ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬for Greek Σκήτη,60 where a plural is ruled

out due to the fact that it is a place name.

§159. The use of syāme as an /e/ vowel, rather than a plural marker, also occurs in Syro-Sogdian (q.v. §621). §160. More recently, Nuro’s reform (q.v. §186) implicitly assumes an association between the vowel /e/ and syāme. Nuro instructs that there is no need to mark a masculine plural that ends

ܶ

in /e/ with ◌, as the syāme is sufficient to indicate the vowel.

3.3.

Alphabetical Linear Vocalization

§161. There were two known attempts to introduce linear vocalization; i.e. a method to specify vowels by symbols on the baseline on equal footing with consonants. The first was by Jacob 57

The discussion and example in §158 are courtesy of Aaron M.

Butts (Yale University). For further discussion with additional examples, see his Language Change in the Wake of Empire: Syriac in its Greco-Roman Context (in progress). 58

Syriac History of St. Cyriacus and his Mother Julitta according to

the Syriac MS at the Library of the Royal Asiatic Society, f. 182a, ln. 10, dated 1569. 59

MS Yale Syriac 5, dated 1888, and MS Sachau 222, dated 1881;

Bedjan, Acta Martyrum III, 272, ln. 21. 60

MS Yale Syriac 5.

74

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§161.

of Edessa (d. 708) whose objective was to provide a more accurate way to describe the phonology of the language, but only in pedagogical settings. The second was by the 18th-century Maronite scholar Gabriel Ḥawwā, whose motivation was to simplify the printing of Syriac texts. 3.3.1.

Jacob of Edessa

§162. Jacob of Edessa (d. 708), realizing the need for systematic vocalization, put in place an ‘alphabetical’ system of vocalization; i.e. ‘alphabetical’ in the sense that each vowel has its symbol on an equal footing with consonants. In essence, the use of linear graphemes on equal footing with consonantal graphemes, as in proper alphabets like the Greek alphabet, was a radical departure from the one-point and two-point diacritical systems with which Jacob was familiar (the fully developed pointing system had not yet emerged). Jacob may have modeled his system on Greek or Coptic (per Duval)61 or Mandaic (per Wright).62 He explicitly did not intend his system to become universal, fearing that existing texts would become unreadable:

I have decided that the (vowel) letters are to be added

only to (illustrate) the sense and the arrangement of (these morphological) rules, so that they will demonstrate the variation and the pronunciation of the sounds.

They are not (added) in order to perfect or improve the script.63

In fact, he himself did not use this system in his own grammar, a fragment of which survives.64

ch. 3

61

Duval §72.

62

Nestle §6.b.n.1.

63

Segal 41.

64

Duval §72.

Vowel Graphemes

§166.

75

§163. Jacob enumerated seven vowels, introducing six new symbols, and reusing the letter

‫ ܐ‬for Zqāp̱ā. Had this system be-

come standard, it would have converted Syriac from a consonantary to an alphabet proper. Jacob’s vowels are:65 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. §164.

 for Pṯāḥā; e.g. ‫ ܐ‬‫ ܕ‬for ‫‘ ݁ܰܕ ݂ ܳ ܐ‬pure’. ‫( ܐ‬a regular Ālap̱) for Zqāp̱ā; e.g. ‫ ܐ‬‫ ܕ‬for ‫‘ ݁ܰܕ ݂ ܳ ܐ‬pure’. ܳ  for long Rḇāṣā; e.g. ‫ ܐ‬‫ ܒ‬for ‫‘ ݂ ܶܒ ݁ ܐ‬dill’.  for short Rḇāṣā; e.g.   for ‫‘ ݁ ܰ ݁ ܶ ܐ‬idol shrines’. ܳ  for Ḥḇāṣā; e.g. ‫ ܐ‬ ‫ ܕ‬for ‫‘ ܳ ݁ܕ ݂ ܺ ݂ ܐ‬pure’.  for long ʿṢāṣā; e.g. ‫ ܐ‬ ‫ ܕ‬for ‫‘ ݁ܕ ܽ ݂ܬܐ‬shape’.  for short ʿṢāṣā; e.g. ‫ܓܐ‬ for ‫‘ ݂ ܽ ݂ܳܓܐ‬sponge’. An eighth grapheme, , is found in words like ‫ ܐ‬ ‫ ܨ‬for

ܳ ‫‘ ܨ ܽ ݂ܬܐ‬prayer’, but the quality of the vowel is not clear and may

have been, according to Segal, between o-u and i. By the time of Bar ʿEbroyo, the system had become confused and the vowel

qualities may have changed.66 §165. Hardly anyone made use of Jacob’s vowels. According to tradition, Theophilus of Edessa (d. 785) was the first to use them in his translation of Homer’s Iliad,67 and they re-appear in Bar ʿEbroyo’s Ṣemḥe68 in a discussion on the topic. It is doubtful if anyone else ever used them. §166. These vowels first appeared in print type in the 19th century to print the texts of Jacob of Edessa and Bar ʿEbroyo. They first appeared in digital fonts in 1987 in a bitmap font,69 and 65

Segal 42–43.

66

See Segal 43 n. 1 for a comparison.

67

J. S. Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis I, 64, 521; III 2, 378; Duval

68

Bar ʿEbroyo, Ṣemḥe iv.1.§2, p. 193.

69

Kiraz, Alaph Beth 12–15.

§73.

76

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§166.

again as an outline font by Diane Collier in 2012 for the purposes of this book. 3.3.2.

Gabriel Ḥawwā

§167. Soon after 1701, the Maronite scholar Gabriel Ḥawwā (in Latin Eva or Heva) designed a linear system for vocalization.70 His primary motivation was to simplify printing. Ḥawwā used this system in a 1737 edition of the Psalms printed in Rome (see Pl. 11). Due to the rarity of Heva’s edition, I shall quote his reasoning behind his system from the Garšūnī introduction:71

‫ܨܦ ܨ‬

‫ܢ‬

‫ܐܬܒ‬

‫ܙܡ‬ ‫ܐܪ‬

‫ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܬ‬ ‫ܕܦ‬

‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܪܟ‬

‫ܗܕܗ‬ .‫ܐܬ‬ ّ ‫ܐܬܒ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܘ‬

̈‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐܬܗܐ‬ ُ ‫ܐ ܘܐ ܐ ܘ‬ (‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ ܘ‬. ‫ܓ ܘ‬ ‫ܐܪܝ ܘ‬ .

̈

‫ܐ‬

‫ܬ ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬

.‫ܐܬ‬ ‫ܡ ܘܐ‬ . ‫ܐܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܙܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬:‫ܐܬ‬ ‫ܙܡ‬ ‫ ܘܐ ܐܪ‬:‫ܐ‬ ̇ ̈‫ܒ‬ ‫ܗܕܗ‬ ‫ܪܒܐ‬ ‫̈ܗ‬ .‫ܗ‬ ‫ܐܒ ܗ‬ ‫ܨ‬ ‫ܝ ܐ‬ ‫ܡ‬ ‫ܐܪܝ‬ ‫ܒ ܟ )ܘ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܐܥ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܒ ܗ ܐ ܐܥ‬ ‫ܗܕܗ ܘܓ ܗܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܓ‬ ‫ܐ ܓ‬ ‫ܝ‬ ‫ ܓܐܗܕܬ‬. ̈‫ܒ‬ ‫ܗܕܗ‬

‫ُܒܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬

‫ܘ‬

I have seen that the printing of Syriac is difficult and re-

quires the setting of two lines, one for words (i.e. con-

sonants) and another for vowels, and the scribe is in need of two pens, one for writing (consonants) and a thinner pen for the vowels, and extra care (is necessary)

to place the vowel on its consonant. And many times, he

ch. 3

70

Duval §74; A. Hoffmann §88; J. D. Michaelis 29; Uhlemann §2.R.

71

Heva, Liber Psalmorum Davidis Idiomate Syro 5r ff.

Vowel Graphemes

§168.

77

is required to write (the vowel) upside-down (under the consonant) for lack of space. In order to escape this difficulty, he then omits the vowels and his writing becomes dead, difficult to read. Then the reader encoun-

ters the words whose letters are something, but the pronunciation is multiple as in

‫( ܒ ܟ‬and many like it): it is

pronounced in six ways with different meaning and

vowels. In this and in others, the reader stumbles and wonders how to read: he errs and becomes embarrassed

and upsets the faithful with him. I have labored so that the reader and the writer and the learned one will be rid of this grave difficulty.

§168. Ḥawwā goes on to describe his system. He employs the matres lectionis, for all five vowels. He achieves this by defining three shapes of not as allographs, but each shape a grapheme in its own right:

ܰ

‫ ܪܐܒ‬for ‫‘ ܰ݁ܪܒ‬big’. ܳ ܳܳ The existing straight, Ālap̱, ‫ܙܐ‬, for ◌; e.g. ‫ ܪܐ ܐ‬for ‫‘ ܪ ܐ‬high’. ܶ A new Ālap̱ with a hook on the top, , for ◌; e.g. ‫ ܪܐܒ‬for ܶ ݁ ܰ ‘big (pl.)’. ‫̈ܪܒܐ‬ ܽ ܺ The mater lectionis ‫ ܘ‬stands for ◌ and ‫ ܝ‬for ◌. In this

1. The existing curvy Ālap̱, ‫ܐ‬, for ◌; e.g. 2.

3.

.

system vowels are no longer optional. Ḥawwā describes his system as follows:

‫ܐܬ‬

‫ܙܡ‬ ‫ܗ‬

‫ܐܬܒ‬ ‫ܦ ܘ‬ ܳ ‫ ܓ‬. ‫ܬ‬ .‫ܙܐ‬. ‫ܘ‬ .‫ ܘ ܐܘ‬.‫ ܢ‬ ‫ܢ‬ .

‫ܝ‬ ‫ܘ‬ .‫ܐܒܐ‬ ‫ًܐ‬ .‫̇ ܐ‬

‫ܬ ܒ ܪܗ ܬ ܐ ܐܢ ܬܨ‬ ‫ ܐ ܦ‬.‫ ܝ‬.‫ ܘ‬.‫ ܐ‬.‫ܬܗ‬ ‫ܗܕܗ‬ ‫ܘܒ ܘ‬ ‫ܒ ܒܐ ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܰܠ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ً‫ܐ‬ .‫ ܐ‬.‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ً . . ‫ ܘ‬.‫̈ܪܐܙ‬ ‫ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ ̇ܨ ܐ‬.‫ܽܘ‬ ݂ .‫ ܺܝ‬.‫ ܘ ܐ‬. .

I saw fit, with the light of the Almighty, that the five vowels came from the three letters . The

writer is required to write in sequential order, and with

78

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§169.

ease, the letter and its vowel in one pen as in Greek and

ܰ ‫ܐ‬ as in ‫ܐܒܐ‬, and the straight ܳ ܽ (one) ‫ ܙܐ‬as in ‫̈ܪܐ ܙ‬, and the hooked  as in ‫ ܢ‬. And ‫ ܘ‬as in and ‫ ܺܝ‬as in .

Latin. I have made the bent .

§169. Ḥawwā’s proposal has allographic and phonological consequences. The allographs of , ‫ ܐ‬and ‫ܙܐ‬, are now graphemes in

their own right. Additionally, loses its phonetic value as a glottal stop /ʔ/ (cf. with English /a/ which is simply a vowel even word initially). §170. According to the introduction, in addition to the 1737 Psalter, Ḥawwā produced a manuscript of the holy liturgy using this system as well as a booklet (perhaps to illustrate the system) in 1711 which Ḥawwā sent to his patriarch with the Apostolic Legate. Ḥawwā claims that he received the endorsements of J. Assemani, as well as the endorsement of his patriarch and bishops when the 1711 booklet was presented to them by the Apostolic Legate. §171. Ḥawwā extended his system further and proposed that it could also be used in the Arabic script to write Arabic, (Ottoman)

Turkish, and Persian. In this system, Arabic ‫( ا‬but with a tooth on

the top right) can be used for /a/, ‫( ا‬without a tooth) for /u/, and

the above for /i/.

§172. Ḥawwā incorporates the grapheme in the ligature

. He

preserves syāme, and uses as a hyphen at the end of a line. The following sample, taken from the headings of Psalm 1, illustrates Ḥawwā’s invention:

‫ܐܒܐ ܕ ܐܙ ̈ܪ‬ .

. ‫ܡ ܐܒܐ ܘܐܒ ܐ ܘܪܘ ܐ ܕ ܕ ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ .‫ ܐܙ ܪܐ ܐܕ ܐ ܐ‬.‫ܕܕܐܘ ܐ ܐ ܘܐ ܒ ܐ‬

A fuller example can be seen on Pl. 11.

ch. 3

Vowel Graphemes

§175.

79

§173. The new glyph, , appears in print type only in the 1737

edition of the Psalms mentioned above. It was designed in a digital OpenType font by Diane Collier for the purposes of this book.

3.4.

‘Greek’ Nonlinear Vocalization

§174. Long after Jacob’s time, probably around the 10th century as proposed most recently by Coakley,72 a nonlinear system of vocalization using symbols derived from Greek was introduced to W. Syr. These symbols came to be called

‫‘ ܰ ̈ܙܘ ܶܐ‬movements’. Early

traces of the use of Greek vowels to indicate the pronunciation of Greek proper nouns is first attested in MS BL Add. 14,429, dated 719, where Greek vowels appear on top of the Syriac writing, and the entire proper noun is reproduced entirely in Greek in the margin; e.g.

‫ܬ‬

with ε above ‫ܐ‬, ι above ‫ܝ‬, ω above ‫ܘ‬, and

‫ܐ‬

ΣΕΦΙΜΩΘ in the margin.73 Coakley notes ‘here the vowels are

limited to names and are not yet part of any system to represent vowels in ordinary Syriac words’. Coakley goes on to demonstrate that the earliest set of MSS to contain the ‘Greek’ vowels we know today date to the 10th century, originating from the area of Melitene, reconquered by Byzantines in 934. In early MSS, signs resemble their Greek original form in shape and orientation, but later took the form we are familiar with today. The orientation of the vowels also varied in early MSS, and even in some of the early print types; e.g.





and .74

§175. The vowels in this system are:75

72

Coakley, ‘When were’.

73

Coakley, ‘When were’ 310.

74

Coakley, Typography 12.

75

Abouna 31; al-Abrāshī et al. 24; Acurensis

‫ܓ‬, ‫ ;ܝ‬Ambrosio 81–

82v; Amira 32 ff.; Arayathinal §5; Brockelmann §8; Coakley-Robinson

80

I. The Graphemic Inventory 1. /a/, based on Greek Α, is marked by ‘who?’. 2. /ā/, based on Greek Ο, is marked by ‘father’.

§176.

◌ܰ

as in

ܰ

/man/

◌ܳ

as in

ܰ ‫ܳܐܒܐ‬

/ʔaḇā/

◌ܶ, based ca. ܶ on Greek ܳ ε turned ܳ ܶ as in ‫ ܐ ܐ‬/ʔēmā/, ‫ ܨܒ ܐ‬/ṣeḇṯā/

3. /e/ and /ē/ are marked by 110 degrees clockwise, ‘decoration’. 4. /ī/ is marked by ‘written’.

◌ܺ, based on Greek Η, as in

ܺ

/kṯīḇ/

ܽ ◌, based on Greek ΟΥ (where Ο is the ܽ ܳ ܽ /mūmā/ ‘blemish’. small circle in ◌) as in ‫ܐ‬ ܽ For ◌, the position of O with respect to Y varies in early

5. /ū/ is marked by §176.

MSS, and even in print types; e.g.



where the O is outside the

Y. Even when O is inside Y, its orientation may vary; e.g. 76

ܽ opp. ◌.77



and



§177. In cases of diphthongs, Greek Υ sometimes combined with symbols other than Ο in mašlmānūṯā (‘Masoretic’) texts;78 e.g. with

◌ܰ to form

 ; with ◌ܶ to form  , and with ◌ܺ to form  .

§178. The vowel graphemes are usually supralinear but may also be sublinear, often depending on the glyph descenders of the pre-

12–13; Costaz §12–14; Cowper §11–12; Dulabani §2; Duval §75; Elia of Ṣoba 27–28; Gabriel of St. Joseph §15; Healey 8–9; A. Hoffmann §11; alKfarnissy §3; Kiraz, Primer 46–47, 196, 210 §12; Makdasi

; Manna 8;

J. D. Michaelis §8; Mingana 24 ff.; Muraoka, CS4H §4; Muraoka, CS §4; Nestle §3; Nöldeke §9; Palacios §18 ff.; Risius §173; Sciadrensis Thackston xxi; Tullberg §4; Uhlemann §3; Ungnad §3; Zschokke §3.3.

ch. 3

76

Coakley, Typography 65.

77

Coakley, Typography 34.

78

Loopstra, Patristic Selections 152; Wiseman 192–93.

ff.;

Vowel Graphemes

§181.

81

vious line, or the ascenders or vowel marks of the following line; e.g.

B

A ܳ ܽ ܳ ܽ ‫ܨܒ ܬܐ‬ ‫ܨܒ ܬܐ‬ ܳ ܺ ܳ ܺ ܰ ‫ܬܘܕ ܰ ܐ‬ ‫ܬܘܕ ܐ‬ ܱ ܳ ܺ݁ ݁ ܰ In column A, the ◌ on ‫ ܬ‬of ‫ܘܕ ݂ ܐ‬ ‫ ܬ‬hits the ‫ ܨ‬of the previous line. This is resolved in Column B by placing ◌ ܱ instead on ‫ܬ‬. In the 1555 NT edition and the accompanying Prima Elementa, the vow-



els and

◌ܻ are invariably sublinear (note the orientation of 

◌ܷ, which occurs is some late MSS).

79

, not

This may have been an at-

tempt to mimic the sublinear Arabic kasra. The same system reappears in a few subsequent printed texts from the 17th century onward.80

◌ܺ rarely occurs without as in ‫‘ ݁ܺܒܳܐܪܐ‬a well’, in which case it usually corresponds to E. Syr. ◌ܹ. Otherwise, ܺ it is usually bound to as in ‫‘ ݁ܒ ܳ ܐ‬evil one’. ܽ ܳ ܽ݁ §180. The grapheme ◌ is always bound to ; e.g. ‫ܐ‬ ܽ ݁ ‘every’ and ܽ ܶ ‘mouth’. The only two exceptions are ܽ ‘because’, for which there are earlier forms with as in ‫݁ ܠ‬ ܽ ܶ and ‫ܠ‬ (c.f. §59, §110, §186). §179. The grapheme

§181. The ‘Greek’ vocalization system has coexisted in W. Syr. with the full pointing system, as well as the one-point system unܳ til the present day;81 e.g.

̈ܶ

ܰ ܼ ܿ ‫‘ ܽ ܼܕܘ ܳ ܳ ̇ ܳܒܐ ̣ ܶ ܶܘܐ‬let there be ‫ܒܐܪܒ‬

79

MS Teaneck, Qyāmtā Phanqithā 77 and elsewhere.

80

Crininesius, Gymnasium Syriacum (1611), illus. in Coakley, Typog-

raphy 48; Rudimentum Syriacum (1618), illus. in Coakley, Typography 57; Jahn, Elemnta Aramaicae seu Chaldaeo-Syriacae linguae (1820), illus. in Coakely, Typography 109. The 1824–27 Paris NT seems to have a supralinear 53. 81

◌ܶ

but a sublinear

◌ܻ

uniformly; see illus. in Coakley, Typography

Costaz §15; Nöldeke §10, §13.A; Uhlemann §3.

82

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§181.

a commemoration in the four quarters [of the earth]’:82 the supralinear point on and the sublinear point on belong to the one-point vocalization period; the

ܿ ◌ܼ and ◌ܼ vowels belong to

the fully developed pointing period, and the remaining ‘Greek’ vowels belong to the later period. Print types as early as 1554 (e.g. W2)83 facilitated this by casting the point vowels and the ‘Greek’ vowels on the base characters; e.g. ‫ܢ‬

ܵ ‫ܳ ܢ‬

‘Lord, Lord’.

§182. In early MSS, the vowels were sometimes placed on, not before, matres lectionis; e.g.

‫ܶ ܳ̈ܪ ܶܐ‬

‘Egyptians’.

85

§183. The position of

ܳ ܰܳ ܶ ܳ ܰܳ ‫ ܐ ̈ ܳ ܬܐ‬for ‫‘ ܐ ̈ ܳ ݂ܬܐ‬physicians’,84 ‫ܶ ܳ̈ܪ ܐ‬

for

ܽ ◌ܺ and ◌ varies until the modern day: some

place it on the preceding consonant, and others on the mater lectionis; e.g.

‫ ܺܒ ܳ ܐ‬opp ‫‘ ܒ ܺ ܳ ܐ‬evil’ and ‫ܽ ܳ ܐ‬

opp.

‫ܽ ܳܐ‬

‘mouth’. Most

grammarians in their vocalization implicitly prefer placing these vowels on the consonant. David explicitly states so.86 Smith’s Thesaurus Syriacus places tionis.87

ܽ ◌ between the consonant and the mater lec-

§184. The ‘Greek’ vocalization is completely segmental in that each grapheme possesses a unique segmental value; e.g.

◌ܰ always

represents /a/ regardless of the segmental value of the base

ܳ

grapheme with which it occurs, ◌ always represents /ā/, etc. §185. The vowel graphemes are bound in that a vowel cannot appear by itself in texts (apart from scientific or pedagogical texts

ch. 3

82

Çiçek, Šḥīmā 64, ln 16.

83

Coakley, Typography 33.

84

MS Vat. Sir 152, ln 1 from Coakley, ‘When were’ 321.

85

MS Vat. Sir 152, ln 4 from Coakley, ‘When were’ 321.

86

David §30.

87

Coakley, Typography 134.

Vowel Graphemes

§187.

83

of course). One exception I recently encountered is the telephone

ܺ ܺ ܺ ܺ in a Ṭuroyo children’s book.88 ‫ܪܪܪܪ◌◌◌ ܓܓ‬

sound

§186. One modern reform proposal has had some affect, albeit minor, on contemporary vocalization. Nuro89 argued that since and

‫ܘ‬

‫ ܝ‬play the role of the /ū/ and /ī/ vowels, respectively, the

vowels can be eliminated. He also argued that there is no need to write

◌ܳ

at the end of nouns, or

◌ܶ

at the end of plural nouns

marked with syāme. Hence, one writes

ܺ not ‫݂ ܳ ܐ‬ and ‫ܠ‬

‘key’ (

ܶ

ܽ

and

ܽ ܶ

‫ܪܐ‬

not

‫ܽ ܳܪܐ‬

‘cold’,

‫݂ܐ‬ , he argues, must be written ‫ܠ‬

). Nuro claims that if one adopts these rules in ‘vocal-

ized’ texts, then one can be relieved of 70–75% of vowel signs. The proposal did not gain much traction, but was adopted in Aydin’s Children’s Bible,90 and in a new edition of Qarabashi’s primers by Eli Shabo.91

3.5.

Summary of Phonemic to Graphemic Relationships

§187. The following table is a summary of the representation of the various vowel phonemes with their time period, bearing in mind that each historical period incorporates all of the preceding systems, apart from Jacob’s defunct system which is not shown here. In the table, the boundary symbol # indicates that the mater lectionis usually occurs at the end of the word. Parentheses indicate that the mater lectionis was sometimes omitted.

88

Löfgren, Ludde vo telefon 5.

89

Nuro, Suloko 11–12.

90

R. Aydin, Kṯāḇā qādīšā meṭūl ṭlāyē.

91

Shabo, Syriac Reading Lessons.

84

I. The Graphemic Inventory /a/

100

/ā/

/e/

ʔ#

§188.

/ē/

/ī/

/ū/

/o/

ʔ#

(y)

(w)

(w)

y

w

w

‫̣ܝ‬

‫̣ܘ‬

‫̇ܘ‬

200 300

ܿ ◌ܼ ◌ ܿ ◌ܼ

400 500 600

ܿ ◌ ܵ ◌

700 800

◌ܰ

900

◌ܼ

◌ܼ

◌ܸ

◌ܸ ◌ܹ

◌ܳ

◌ܶ

◌ܺ

ܽ ◌

§188. Unlike Arabic sukūn, no symbol is used in Syriac to mark the want of a vowel.92 Cardahi, however, uses the Arabic sukūn in his lexicon and grammar; e.g.

3.6.

ܳ ْܰ ‫‘ ܗ‬temple’.93

Vowel Names

§189. Vowel names are known to us from grammatical traditions, which are by no means uniform. Bar ʿEbroyo (d. 1286)94 informs us of seven different traditions. He himself enumerates eight vowels, giving not only their glyph shapes, which he calls

ܶ ‫ܰ ݂ ̈ܐ‬

‘marks, signs’, but also the manner of writing them (for

which see §155). Bar ʿEbroyo’s vowels are:

ܳ ݁ ܿ ݂ ) ◌ܼ for /a/. ܳ ܳ ܵ Zqāp̱ā (‫ ◌ )ܙ ݂ ܐ‬for /ā/. ܳ ܺܰ ܳ Long Rḇāṣā (‫ ܸ◌ ) ݂ܪܒ ܳ ܐ ܐܪ ݂ ܐ‬for /e/. ܰ ܳ Short Rḇāṣā (‫ ) ݂ܪܒ ܳ ܐ ݂ ܳ ܐ‬ for /e:/. ܳ ܺܰ ܳ Long Ḥḇāṣā (‫ ܼܝ ) ݂ܒ ܳ ܐ ܐܪ ݂ ܐ‬for /ī/.

1. Pṯāḥā (‫ܳ ܐ‬

2. 3.

4. 5.

92

Nestle §6.e; Nöldeke §12.

93

Cardahi, al-Lubāb 304.

94

Bar ʿEbroyo, Ṣemḥe, intro §3, p. 4–5; Merx 50; Voigt, ‘Das

Vokalsystem des Syrischen nach Barhebraeus’. ch. 3

Vowel Graphemes

§189.

6. Short Ḥḇāṣā (‫ܳ ܐ‬

݂ܳ Short ʿṢāṣā (‫ܳ ܐ‬

7. Long ʿṢāṣā (‫ܐ‬ 8.

85

ܰ ܳܳ ܰܺ ݂ ‫ ܹ◌ ) ݂ ܳܒ ܳܐ‬as in ܹ ‫ ܐ‬for /ī/. ‫ ܼܘ ) ܨܐ ܐܪ‬for /ū/. ܰ ݂ ‫ ܿܘ ) ܳ ܳܨܐ‬for /o/.

Using his own vowels as a baseline, Bar ʿEbroyo identified the following variant traditions: A. Jacob of Edessa (d. 708) also enumerates eight vowels,

but he omits Short Rḇāṣā and adds a Middle ʿṢāṣā (‫ܳ ܐ‬

whose sign we are not told.

ܳ ܶ ‫ܳ ܳܨܐ‬

)

B. The Qarqp̱āyē collapse the long and short vowels into one, resulting in five vowels: Pṯāḥā, Zqāp̱ā, Rḇāṣā, Ḥḇāṣā, and

ʿṢāṣā (i.e. the W. Syr. system).

C. Various E. Syr. traditions maintain Pṯāḥā and Zqāp̱ā, but disagree on the remaining vowels: 1. Tradition 1 also maintains eight vowels but uses different names: a. Rḇāṣā is replaced by Zlāmā: Rḇāṣā ʾarīḵā becomes

ܺ ݂ ‫)ܙ ܳ ܳ ܐ ݂ ܰܕ‬, and ܳ ܳ ‫)ܙ‬. becomes Zlāmā da-qšē (‫ܐ ݂ ܰܕ ܶܐ‬ Zlāmā da-pšīq (

Rḇāṣā karyā

b. Ḥḇāṣā is replaced by Yūḏ: Ḥḇāṣā ʾarīḵā becomes

ܳ ܺ ‫) ܽ ݂ܕ ݂ܒ‬, and Ḥḇāṣā karyāܰ becomes ܳ݁ ܰ ܰ ܽ Yūḏ masaqtā (‫ܐ‬ ‫ ) ݂ܕ‬or ʾAsāqā (‫)ܐ ܳ ܳ ܐ‬.

Yūḏ ḥḇīṣtā (‫݁ܬܐ‬

c. ʿṢāṣā is replaced by Waw: ʿṢāṣā ʾarīḵā becomes

ܳ ܺܰ ܰ ‫)ܘܘ‬, and ܳ݁ ܺ ܰ Waw Rwīḥṯā (‫ܐ‬ ‫)ܘܘ ܪܘ‬. Waw ʾalīṣtā (‫݁ܬܐ‬

ʿṢāṣā karyā becomes

2. Tradition 2 is based on Tradition 1. It enumerates only seven vowels by collapsing Zlāmā da-qšē and Yūḏ masaqtā of Tradition 1 into a single vowel called ʾAsāqā (‫ܐ‬

ܳ ܳ ‫) ܰܐ‬.

It maintains the naming convention of Tradi-

tion 1 for the rest of the vowels.

3. Tradition 3 is also based on Tradition 1, and it too enumerates only seven vowels, but collapses both Zlāmā vowels into one and calls it Rḇāṣā.

86

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§190.

4. Tradition 4 also has seven vowels, but collapses the two ʿṢāṣā vowels and calls them Ḥḇāṣā. 5. Tradition 5 maintains only six vowels. It collapses the two Zlāmā vowels into one as well as the two Ḥḇāṣā vowels, and maintains their names. However, ʿṢāṣā ʾarīḵā becomes ʿMāqā (‫ܐ‬

ܳ ܳ

) and ʿṢāṣā karyā becomes

ʾAsāqā.

§190. In addition, Severus of Bar Šakko (d. 1241), calls pṯāḥā by

ܳ݁ the name puggāḏā (‫ܓ ݂ ܳ ܐ‬

ܽ ݁)

‘bridle’.95 Paul the grammarian and

Jacob of Takrit reserve the term puggāḏā for the /ū/ vowel.96 It is customary in some grammars to call the slanted two-point graph-

ܳ ܶ ܳ ܰ ܳ ◌ܹ is ‫ܶ ݂ܬ ݁ ܳ ܐ‬

eme šešlā (

‘chain’).97 Hence, ‘lower šešlā’.

ܳ ܶ ܵ ◌ is ‫ܶ ܳ ـ ܳ ܐ‬

‘upper šešlā’ and

§191. As can be seen from the above confusion, determining the actual meanings of vowel names is difficult. Duval claims that ‘these names are formed according to the position that the affected organs take when pronouncing the vowels’.98 This might be true of Pṯāḥā ‘opening [of the mouth]’, but the others are difficult to ascertain in this manner. Some vowel names describe either the shape of the vowel or the manner of its writing; e.g. ‘oblique’ (Bar ʿEbroyo99 says that the points are written ‘in an oblique manner’, q.v. §153), and

ܳ ܶ

‫ܙ ܳ ܳܐ‬ ܽ ܺ ‫݁ܰܒ‬

‘chain’ for the same

vowel describes how it looks. §192. Despite their classification as ‘long’ and ‘short’ by the ancient grammarians, Syriac vowels tend to mark vowel quality, not

ch. 3

95

David p. 244 n. 1; CSD 435b.

96

Duval §77.

97

Mingana 19–20.

98

Duval §75.

99

Bar ʿEbroyo, Ṣemḥe, intro §3.

Vowel Graphemes

§194.

87

quantity;100 e.g. is short in closed syllables but long in open syllables as in second is long.

‫ܳ ܳܐ‬

[māryā:] where the first [ā] is short and the

§193. Later Eastern grammarians provide the following classifi-

ܰ ܳ ‫‘ ܺܐܪ ݂ ܳ ܐ‬long’ (rather, an open-syllable vowel) as in ܳ [ḥāܰ ܰ lā] ‘uncle’, ‫‘ ܺ ܳ ܐ‬tight’ (rather, a closed syllable vowel) as in ݁ ܺ ܳ [mal-kān] ‘our king’, and ‫݂ ܐ‬ ‘sudden’ (rather, a historical ܰ 101 cation:

schwa) as in

3.7.

[qᵊṭal] ‘to kill’.

Orthographic Variants

§194. A number of orthographic variants take place at the vocalization level, but these are by no means extensive: in most cases, these occur with nominal forms. Some are variants between E. and W. Syr.102 A. Orthographic vowel shift: word-medially, a vocalized

‫ܐ‬

was always pronounced [ʔ] in earlier Syriac and until now in E. Syr.; e.g.

ܶ ‫ܐܠ‬

/šʔel/ ‘he asked’,

ܰ ‫ܶ ܐܠ‬

/nešʔal/ ‘he shall ask’. In

W. Syr., however, the vowel is moved to the preceding consonant orthographically with the effect that /šel/,

‫ܶ ܰ ܐܠ‬

‫ܐ‬

becomes silent; e.g.

‫ܶܐܠ‬

/nešal/.103 Also with a medial ‫ܐ‬, when the preceding

vowel is /ī/, the following vowel shifts orthographically from the to the

‫ܰ ݁ ܺܓ ܳ ܐܐ‬

‫;ܝ‬

e.g.

‫ܰܗ ܺ ܳ ܐܐ‬

/hanīyyā/ (E. Syr.

ǨǦܵȂܼȎ‫ܼܿܗ‬

‫ܐ‬

/hanīʔā/) ‘sweet’,

ܵ ܿ /sagīyyā/ (E. Syr. ǨǦȂܼǮȑܼ /sagīʔā/) ‘much’. (Note the added

effect of doubling the /y/ in W. Syr.) This shift in W. Syr. may have taken place around the 7th century as by then the

‫ܐ‬

was

100

Nestle §6.c; Nöldeke §11.

101

Mingana 31–36.

102

Unless stated otherwise, all examples are from CSD.

103

However, in the received tradition to which I am accustomed,

one writes

ܳ ܺ ‫ܐ‬

but reads /šʔīlā/, not /šīlā/.

88

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§194.

marked with a diacritical point to indicate its phonetic value (q.v. §202). This shift has syllabification consequences: E. Syr. CVCCVC /nešʔal/ vs. W. Syr. CV-CVC /nešal/. The same rule applies stem-initially.104 In the presence of a

‫ ݁ܒ ݂ ܽ ܘܠ‬prefix, the vocalized ‫ܐ‬

in W. Syr. becomes silent and its vowel is orthographically moved to the last consonant of the preceding prefix; e.g. (E. Syr.

ܵ ܼ ǦȈ ǧȂȈ ܹ

/lʔelīyyā/) ‘to Elijah’,

ܶ ‫ܘ ܺ ܳܐ‬

ܶ ‫ܺ ܳܐ‬

/lelīyyā/

/wlelīyyā/ (E. Syr.

ܵ ܼ ǦȈ ǧȂȈ ܹ ‫ ܼܿܘ‬/walʔelīyyā/) ‘and to Elijah’. Note that in the case of two or more ‫ ݁ܒ ݂ ܽ ܘܠ‬prefixes, the shift affects not only syllabification, but also increases the number of syllables in the resulting word (three syllables in W. Syr.

ܶ ‫ܰܘ ܺ ܳ ܐ‬

ܶ ‫ ܘ ܺ ܳ ܐ‬/wle-lī-yyā/, but four in E. Syr.

/wal-ʔe-lī-yyā/). This shift has metrical consequences

which may help us determine a date for the shift in W. Syr.105 One finds in the W. Syr. corpus of Jacob of Sarug (d. 521)106

ܶ ‫ܳ ܳ ܐ ܳ ܶ ܆ ܰܘ ܶ ܺ ܳ ܐ܆ ݂ ܺܒ ܳ ܐ ܰ ݁ܒ‬

and107

ܺ ܰ ܰ ܳ ܽ ‫݂ ܘܡ ݁ܬܐ ܰ ܰ܆ ݁ ܰܕ ܽ ܢ ܘܐ ݁ ܰ ܆ ܰ ݂ܘܕܐ ݁ ܰ ܳ ܐ‬ ܺ ܶ ‫ ܰܘ‬and ‫ ܰܘܕܐ ݁ ܰ ܳ ܐ‬with four syllables each prior to the shift (‫ܳ ܐ‬ ݂ ܶ ܺ ܰ ܳ ܳ ܰ ݁ against ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬and ‫ ݂ܘܕܐ ܐ‬with only three). I have not examined post-6th century texts to further narrow this date.

ܳ ܰ ܳ ܳ ‫ ܐ݁ܰܕ ݂ ܐ‬opp. ‫‘ ܐ݂ܰܕ ݂ ܐ‬earth’,ܰ E. Syr. ܵ ܼܿ opp. W. Syr. ‫‘ ݁ܳܕ ܳ ܐ‬gift’; E. Syr. ȐȂȋ‫ ܵܐ‬opp. W. Syr. ܺ ‫‘ ܐ‬Amen’. ǧȏȥ‫ܕ‬ B. vs. ; e.g.

This variation is uniform between E. and W. Syr. in all initial CVw nominals; e.g. E. Syr.

ǧȋǶȁ ܼܿ ܵ

opp. W. Syr.

‫ܰ ܳܐ‬

104

David §42; Kiraz, Primer 30.

105

Sebastian Brock, personal communication (a conversation on the

road to Pittsburg, PA, 2007).

ch. 3

‘day’.108 In

106

Kaufman, Jacob of Sarug’s Homilies on Elijah 305.

107

Bedjan, Homiliae Selectae II, 650 (no. 57, ln 30).

108

David §20.

Vowel Graphemes

§195.

Greek loan words, Greek α tends to be

89

◌ܰ in W. Syr. but ◌ܵ in E.

ܺ ܺ ݂ ܰ ‫ ݁ܕ‬opp. ȃȡȨȁ‫ܕ‬ ܹ ܹ ܵ ‘testament’. ܰ ݁ opp. ‫‘ ݁ܶܓ ݂ܒ ܳ ܐ‬chosen one’, ‫ ܰ ݁ ܳ ܐ‬vs. C. vs. , ‫ܓ ݂ܒ ܳ ܐ‬ ܶ ܳܶ ܵ ܼܿ ‫‘ ݁ ܳ ܐ‬order’,110ܶ E. Syr. ȷȈܵ‫ ܼܿܐ‬vs. W. Syr. ‫‘ ܐ‬mourned’, E. Syr. ǩ‫ܬܗܪ‬ ܳ vs. W. Syr. ‫‘ ݁ܬܗܪܐ‬wonder’.111 In some verbs, the vowel of Pʿal forms ܰ ܶ ܰ can be either or ; e.g. ‫ ݁ܓ ܢ‬opp. ‫‘ ݁ܓ ܢ‬to incline’, ‫ܪܟ‬ ݂ ‫݁ܕ‬ ܶ opp. ‫ܪܟ‬ ݂ ‫‘ ݁ܕ‬to tread upon’, ܰ opp. ܶ ‘to chew’. ܰ opp. ‫ܺ ܳ ܐ‬ D. vs. (in /ay/ vs. /ī/); e.g. ‫ܳ ܐ‬

Syr.;109 e.g.

‘dough’.

E. vs. (in /aw/ vs. /ū/)

ܳ݁ ܰ ‫ܐܘܓܐ‬

opp.

ܳ݁ ܽ ‫ܐܘܓܐ‬

݂ܳ ܽ ?), ‫ ܰܐܘ ܳ ܐ‬opp. ‫‘ ܽܐܘ ܳ ܐ‬sour buttermilk’. In loan ‫ܐܘܓܐ‬ ܳ ܳ ܰ݁ ܿ ܿ ܵ words, E. Syr. has ‫ ܘ‬in place of W. Syr. ‫ ;◌ܘ‬e.g. ‫ܣ‬ǶȈǶȚ vs. ‫ܣ‬ ܿ ܼ vs. ‫‘ ܽ ܳܪܘܢ‬chrism’.112 ‘Paul’, ‫ܪܘܢ‬Ƕȋ ܳ ܳ F. vs. ‫‘ ܷ݁ܒ‬abstinence’. ܳ ܳ ܳ ܽ ܶ ܳ ̈ ‫݁ܶܒ‬ G. vs. , e.g. ‫ ݁ܒ ܺ ܐ‬opp. ‫‘ ݁ܒ ܺܙ ܐ‬falcon’, ‫ܐ‬ ܶ ܽ ̈ ‫‘ ݁ܶܒ‬incense’. opp. ܵ ܵ Ǹܵ opp. W. Syr. ‫ܽ ܳ ܳ ܐ‬ H. vs E. Syr. ǧȏȑǶ ‘sumac’ (or is it

‘mercy’.

I. vs. , e.g.

ܳ ܳ ‫ ݁ܶܒ ݁ ܐ‬opp. ‫݁ ܐ‬

‫‘ ݁ܺܒ‬bottle’.

§195. Vocalic variations may also affect rūkkāḵā and qūššāyā pointing and in turn doubling in E. Syr.; e.g. (with doubled /d/) opp.

ܳ ܳ ‫ ݂ܰܐܕ ݂ ܐ‬/ʔāḏamṯā/ (with soft /ḏ/) ‘earth’.

109

David §37.

110

In the late 1980s, I began to use

ܶ reserving ‫݁ ܳ ܐ‬

ܳ ܰ ‫ ݁ ܰܐܕ ݂ ܐ‬/ʔaddamṯā/

ܰ ‫݁ ܳܐ‬

for ‘(computer) system’

for liturgical use (motivated by British program vs. pro-

gramme). 111

David §37.

112

David §32.

90

I. The Graphemic Inventory

3.8.

§196.

Frequency of Occurrence

§196. It is not possible to study the frequency of vocalization as one can for the consonantal system (q.v. §117) because most writing is not vocalized. Early MSS tended to vocalize in cases of ambiguity alone, and even then finding a word with more than one point is the exception rather than the norm.113 Biblical and mašlmānūṯā (‘Masoretic’) texts tend to overvocalize. In more recent MSS, E. Syr. MSS tend to be more vocalized than W. Syr. ones. §197. It is only with printed texts that vocalization becomes more normative. Western editions of texts tend not to vocalize, except in cases of ambiguity. Biblical texts are the exception where one finds fully vocalized editions. In modern printing, one still finds that E. Syr. tends to vocalize more than W. Syr. §198. If one is to assume full vocalization, it may be possible to find a ratio between vowels and consonants. Synchronically speaking, syllables in Syriac are of three types: CV, CCV, and CVC. An equal distribution of syllables, if that is indeed the case, would yield a 5-to-3 consonant-to-vowel ratio.

‫ܐ ܗܐ‬

113

ch. 3

Segal 6.

̈ ̈ ‫ܙܘ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܙܘ ܐ ܢ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ ܒ ܒ ܬܟ܀‬

‫ܕ‬

‫ܗ‬

4. Grammatical Graphemes Every point … which is small is for the vowels or syāme;

it is either grammatical, or indicates rūkkāḵā and

qūššāyā; it is either to mark the feminine or gender; or it denotes silence.

Bar Malkūn (fl. 13th century), The Net of Points

§199. Grammatical graphemes are markers to various grammatical levels such as phonology and morphology. Some act as lexical markers. In physical appearance these markers consist either of a single point, two points, or a serṭūnā called

ܳ ܽ ܽ ܶ

ܳ ܽ ܳ ܶ or ‫ܐ ܙ ܪܐ‬

ܳ ܽ ܶ

‘little line’ (sometimes

‘a little serṭūnā’),1 known in western

grammars as linea occultans ‘hiding line’. They are all nonlinear. The serṭūnā-like marks seem to be late as no mention of them is made by Bar ʿEbroyo in the 13th century (Bar Zoʿbī who flourished in the 13th century mentions the nāg̱ūḏā, §207). The serṭūnā takes various shapes: a horizontal line above a letter, ◌̄, a horizontal line below the letter, ◌̱, an oblique line above the letter, oblique line below a letter, ◌݈.2

݇ ◌, or an

§200. The scope of a grammatical grapheme can range from the base grapheme with which it is associated to the entire word. For instance, the scope of the one-point feminine marker in her’ is local to the letter

‫ܗ‬

̇ ܳ

‘to

(i.e. the suffix morpheme), but the

scope of the plural marker syāme is wider and covers the entire word on which it is placed.

1

al-Kfarnissy §5.

2

David §61.

91

92

I. The Graphemic Inventory

4.1.

Phonological Graphemes

4.1.1.

/d/ vs. /r/ Marker

§201. The most ancient point is the one that distinguishes from

§201.

‫ܪ‬

‫ ܕ‬/d/

/r/. While absent in all Old Syriac texts, it is mostly

developed in the 411 codex (q.v. §30).3 In Old Syriac, one finds:

‫ܐ ܗܐ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ܐ ܐ ܖܒ ܒ ܒ ܐ ܖܗ ܐ ܒ ܬ‬ ‫ܘ ܒ ܘ ܬܝ ܘ ܓ ܐ ܒ ܝ‬

‫ܐ ܗܐ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ܐ ܐ ܪܒ ܒ ܒ ܐ ܪܗ ܐ ܒ ܬ‬ ‫ܘ ܒ ܘ ܬܝ ܘ ܓ ܐ ܒ ܝ‬

for

‘I, Rabbay, son of ʿAbšalmā, the courier, made for myself this house of eternity, for myself and for my children and for my heirs, and for Gannāyā my son’.4 A few print types have a dotless sort, ‫ܖ‬, with separate sorts

for the points.5 4.1.2.

Sound Deletion Markers

§202. A one-point grapheme was introduced prior to the 7th century to mark

‫ ܐ‬as either a glottal stop /ʔ/ or a mater lectionis (in

which case it is rendered silent or phonologically deleted).6 A single supralinear point marked ning of the word as in ‘said’, after a prefix as in

ch. 4

‫ ܐ‬as a glottal stop; e.g. at the beginܰ ‫ ̇ ܷܐ‬/ʔēsaq/ ‘I shall ascend’, ܰ ‫ ̇ ܷܐ‬/ʔemar/7 ̱ ‫ ̇ ܴܕܐ‬/dʔāḥ/8 ‘of my brother’, and closing

3

Nestle §6.a; Nöldeke §14.

4

Drijvers and Healey, As7 (D52).

5

Coakley, Typography 61, 68 illus.

6

Segal 10–13.

7

MS BL Add. 12,150, f. 47a from Segal 13.

8

MS BL Add. 14,425, f. 3b from Segal 13.

Grammatical Graphemes

§203. a syllable as in point marked

‫ܐ‬

93

ܰ ‫ܶ ̇ܐ‬

/lmeʔlap̱/9 ‘to teach’. A single sublinear ܳ as mater lectionis (i.e. silent); e.g. ‫ ̣ܐܐ‬/mā/10 ‘one

hundred’, and in the enclitic

ܳ ‫ ̣ܐ‬/nā/ as in ܳ ‫ܘܐ ܳ ܒ ܽ ܢ ̣ܐ‬ ܷ ̇ /wʔēnā

ḇḵūn nā/ ‘and I am in you’ (Jn. 14:20). The increase in usage of this point after the 7th century to reaffirm the consonantal quality

of /ʔ/ may indicate that it began to lose its consonantal value, primarily in W. Syr. shortly after the 7th century.11 In later Syriac,

ܳ ܶ‫‘ ܐ‬I’ where the position ܳ ̣ ‫ܘܐ ̇ ܐ ܒ ܽ ܢ ܐ‬ ܷ .12

this system survives only in the pronoun of the point shifts to the ; e.g.

Also prior to the 7th century, a single supralinear point

§203. marked

‫ ܗ‬as /h/, while a single sublinear point rendered it silent; ܳ e.g. ‫ ̇ܗܘܐ‬/hwā/ (not to be confused with the supralinear point for ܶ ܳ the vowel /ā/ in ‫ ̇ ܴܗܘܐ‬/hāwe/, for which see §141) vs. enclitic ‫̣ܗܘܐ‬

/wā/. In Greek loan words, a single sublinear point was used to

indicate that the letter represents Greek spiritus asper, an initial /h/ that was dropped in pronunciation in Hellenistic Greek; e.g.

ܳ ܽ ‫ ̣ ܶܗܓ‬/eg̱mūnā/ ἡγεμών ‘prefect’13 (in the received pronunciaܽ ‫ ܶܗܓ‬is pronounced). In later Syriac, indication, the /h/ of ܳ tions of pronounced vs. silent ‫ ܗ‬developed in different directions. In E. Syr., a pronounced ‫ ܗ‬is marked with two sublinear points as in Ǩ‫ ̤ܗܘ‬/hwā/, ‫ ̤ܗܘ‬/hū/ ‘he’, and ‫ ̤ܗܝ‬/hī/ ‘she’, while a silent ‫ܗ‬ takes one sublinear point in enclitic Ǩ‫ ̣ܗܘ‬/wā/, ‫ ̣ܗܘ‬/ū/, and ‫ ̣ܗܝ‬/ī/ (the points are sometimes placed under the consonant that fol-

9

MS BL Add. 14,425, f. 3b from Segal 13.

10

MS BL Add. 14,425, f. 5a from Segal 13.

11

Segal 12, 25.

12

David §68.

13

Segal 13, 26.

94

I. The Graphemic Inventory

lows the

‫ܗ‬

§203.

or between them).14 In W. Syr., a pronounced

‫ܗ‬

is

either left unmarked or marked by a single sublinear point;15 e.g.

ܶ ܴ ̇ /hāwē/ for which see §141), ‫ܗܘ‬ ܳ ̣ /hwā/ (but ‫ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ‬ ̣ /hī/; ̣ /hū/, ‫ܗܝ‬ ܳ a silent ‫ ܗ‬takes a small line called mbaṭṭlānā as in ‫ ̱ܗܘܐ‬/wā/, ‫̱ܗܘ‬ /ū/, ‫ ̱ܗܝ‬/ī/ (q.v. §204). ܳ ܳ ܰ §204. The mḇaṭṭlānā ‫‘ ݂ܒ ـ ܐ‬that which makes to cease’ is a

serṭūnā used to mark a silent consonant.16 It is not mentioned in

either of Bar ʿEbroyo’s grammars,17 a testimony to its late appearance. In Western grammars it appears early on with Masius (1573) where it is called, in Latin, virgula ‘virgule’.18 In E. Syr. it takes the form of an oblique line above the silent consonant; e.g.

ܵ ݇ ܼ ȮȏȁȽȋ

/mḏītā/ ‘city’ (there are cases where it takes a similar

ȃ Ȃǫǭܼܿ).19 In W. Syr. it is ܳ݁ a straight line under the silent consonant; e.g. ‫ ݂ ܺ ̱ ܐ‬.20 Historically, the mḇaṭṭlānā was not used with the silent verb suffixes ‫ ܘ‬or shape,  , in words ending in as in

14

Segal (p. 23) notes that the two sublinear points here act as a ma-

ter lectionis marker for

‫ ܘ‬in which case they are placed under or near the

‫ܘ‬. 15

David §§68, 69.1; Nöldeke §17.

16

Abouna 33; al-Abrāshī et al. 24; Amira 40 ff.; Arayathinal §11;

Coakley-Robinson 3; Costaz §20–21; Cowper §21.c; David §§61, 65; Duval §151; Healey 11; A. Hoffmann §20; al-Kfarnissy §5; Kiraz, Primer 70, 211 §19; Makdasi

̣

(pointing mine!); C. B. Michaelis 25; J. D. Micha-

elis §16; Mingana 91–93; Muraoka, CS4H §5; Niʿmatallah ‫ ;ܘ‬Nöldeke §17; Palacios §32; Sciadrensis §9; Zschokke §4.4.d.

ch. 4

17

David §61.

18

Masius 10.

19

Mosul Bible, Isa. 45:4.

20

David §65.

‫ܐ‬

; Thackston xxii; Uhlemann §8; Yeates

Grammatical Graphemes

§204.

‫;ܝ‬21

ܰ ‫݁ ݂ ݂ܒ‬

e.g.

95

/kṯaḇ/ ‘they wrote’. However, more recent

(probably 20th century printed texts) usage in W. Syr. applies the mḇaṭṭlānā in these contexts yielding

ܰ ܰ ̱ ‫ ݁ ݂ ݂ܒ‬, ̱ ‫ ݁ ݂ ݂ ̈ܒ‬.22 The use of the

mḇaṭṭlānā increased further in the 20th century and one can see the following process:

ܳ ‫݁ ݂ ݂ܰܒ ̈ ܗܝ‬

̈ ‫ܗܝ ݁ ݂ ܳ ݂ܰܒ‬ ̈ ‫ ݁ ݂ ܳ ݂ܰܒ‬. ‫ܗܝ‬ ̱ ̱ ̱ ܰ ݂ ‫‘ ܐ ̱ـ‬as’, though this does

‘his books’

In modern texts, one sometimes finds

not seem to be popular. In general, the mḇaṭṭlānā is used in the following contexts:23

‫ ܐ‬as in ܳ ̱‫‘ ܐ‬person’, ‫‘ ܐ̱ ܳ ܳ ܐ‬the last’. In poetry, a consonantal initial ‫ ܐ‬may become silent to accommodate ܳ ܰ ܳ ‫ܐܬܐ‬ the meter, in which case it takes a mḇaṭṭlānā; e.g. ‫ܢ ܘ ܰ ̱ ݂ܒ‬ ݂̱ ܺܳ ܳܶ ܶ ܰ instead of ‫ ݂ܐܬܐ‬in a 7-syllable phrase (for ‫ ̱ ݂ܒ‬see below).24 ‫ܐ ݂ܐ‬ A. With initial silent

ܰ

‫ܽ ̱ܗܘ‬

B. With the enclitics of the demonstrative pronouns; e.g. and

‫ܺ ̱ܗܝ‬

ܰ

‘he is not’. When the preceding word ends

ܳ with an ◌, an orthographic (and phonological) change takes place ܳ ◌ܰ; e.g. ‫‘ ܐܶ ܰ ܗܘ ܐܶ ܳ ܽܗܘ‬I am’. Similarly, ◌ܶ ݂ܶܳ where ◌ ◌ܳ; ‫ܗܕܐ‬ ̱ ܳ ݂ ܳ ‘this (f.) is’. ‫ܗܕܐ ̱ܗܝ ܺܗܝ‬ ܳ C. With the enclitic of the auxiliary verb ‫‘ ܗܘܐ‬to be’; e.g. ܰ ܳ W. Syr. ‫‘ ݁ ݂ ݂ܒ ̱ܗܘܐ‬he had written’ (= E. Syr. Ǩ‫)̣ܗܘ‬. ܰ ; e.g. D. With the masc. object pronominal suffix ‫◌ܘܗܝ‬ ̱ ܳ ‫‘ ݁ ݂ ݂ ܰܒ ̱ܗܝ‬his books’. 21

Duval §151.

22

The placement of the mḇaṭṭlānā on suffixes in this manner was

adopted in The Antioch Bible (Gorgias Press). 23

tive of

Costaz (§21) and Coakley-Robinson (69) mark

ܶ ‫ܪܗܛ‬

ܰ ‫ܗܪܛ‬ ̱ ,

the impera-

‘to run’, with a mḇaṭṭlānā and read it [haṭ]. The received

pronunciation, however, is [harṭ]. The line is a marhṭānā (q.v. §206). In fact, a number of grammars confuse the two marks. (The BFBS edition also marks

ܰ ‫ܗܪܛ‬ ̱ with a serṭūnā (1 Tim. 6:11 and 2 Tim. 2:22), though the

editors may have intended the mark to be a marhṭānā.) 24

Qarabāši, Zmīrāṯā 51.

96

I. The Graphemic Inventory

ܶ

E. With the verb ‫ ;ܰܐܙܠ‬e.g.

§205.

ܶ ݂ ̱ ‫‘ ܰܐܙ‬she went’.

F. In the contracted form of the pronouns; e.g.

ܶ ܳ

/qārenan/ (note that while the of

is silent, it is not

marked with a mḇaṭṭlānā). G. A number of lexemes with a silent letter; e.g.

ܶ ̈ gave’, ‫ܰ ̱ ܐ‬ wrote’.

‘seas’,

ܳ

‫̱ـ‬

ܰ

‘speech’.

H. Recently, with the masc. pl. suffix ‫ ;̱ܘ‬e.g.

I. Recently, with the fem. suffix

ܰ ܰ ‫‘ ݁ ݂ ݂ܒ ݁ ̱ܝ‬you wrote’, ̱ ‫‘ ݁ ݂ ݂ ̈ܒ‬they wrote’, etc. 4.1.3.

‫;ܝ‬

ܶ ܳ

̱ܰ

e.g.

ܶ ̱ ݂

‫ܰ ̱ ݂ܒ‬

ܰ ̱ ‫݁ ݂ ݂ܒ‬

‘he

‘they

‘for you’,

Schwa Markers

§205. The mhaggyānā

‫ܰ ݁ܓ ܳ ܳ ܐ‬

‘vowel producer, enunciator’ is a

sublinear horizontal (sometimes oblique) serṭūnā that marks a schwa in a three-consonant cluster.25 The mhaggyānā is used more frequently in E. Syr. than W. Syr. A. In W. Syr., its use, while rare, is optional and not governed by any constraints. When used, it is placed below the first consonant of the cluster; e.g.26 1.

ܳ ‫ ܶܕ ̱ ـ ݂ ܐ‬/deḥᵊlṯā/ ‘fear’ from /deḥlṯā/ (consonant clus-

ter shown in bold). 25

Abouna 34; Acurensis

‫;ܐ‬

Amira 40 ff.; Arayathinal §12;

Brockelmann §12; Costaz §23; Cowper §21.b; David §62; Duval §§143– 147; Gabriel of St. Joseph §30; A. Hoffmann §19; al-Kfarnissy §5; Makdasi

̣;

C. B. Michaelis 24; J. D. Michaelis §15; Mingana 89;

Muraoka, CS4H §6; Muraoka, CS §5; Niʿmatallah ‫ ; ܙ‬Nestle §9.a; Nöldeke §17; Palacios §33; Sciadrensis

; Tullberg §8.2; Uhlemann §7; Yeates

§9; Zschokke §4.4.c.β. 26

Historically, the position of the schwa was after the second con-

sonant of the cluster which explains the fricatization of bgā ̱ ḏkp̱ āṯ consonants; e.g. /deḥlᵊṯā/, /maˁrᵊḇā/, /nesbᵊʕūn/. ch. 4

Grammatical Graphemes

§205.

97

ܶ ݁ ܶ‫ ܐ‬/ʔešᵊtqel/ ‘was carried’ from /ʔeštqel/.27 ̱ ܰ ܳ 3. ‫̱ ݂ܒܐ‬ /maʕᵊrḇā/ ‘west’ from /maʕrḇā/. ܽ ܶ ݁ 4. ‫ ̱ ܒ ܢ‬/nesᵊbʕūn/ ‘they shall be full’ from /nesbʕūn/. If the second consonant of the cluster is ‫< ܝ‬y>, an ܺ ܶ ܺ orthographic ◌ is used instead; e.g. ‫݂ ݂ ܰ ܥ‬ /meṯīḏaʕ/ ‘is known’ ܽ from */meṯyḏaʕ/. If it is ‫< ܘ‬w>, an orthographic ◌ is used; e.g. ‫ ܶ ܽ ܽܘܙܘܢ‬/nerūzūn/ ‘they shall rejoice’ from */nerwzūn/.28 2.

B. E. Syr. adds the constraint that the second of the three-

consonant cluster must be one of the consonants in the mnemonic

ܳ ܽ ‫ܗܪܐ‬

ܰ ̈ܰ

for the mhaggyānā to apply.29 The serṭūnā is still

placed on the first consonant of the cluster; e.g. 1. Second consonant is : vineyard’ from */karmhūn/.

ܿ ̱ ܿ ܼ /karᵊmhūn/ ‘their ‫ܘܢ‬ǵȋȤȅ

2. Second consonant is : rendered’ from */ʔašlmeṯ/.

ܿ ȨȌȉȥ‫ܐ‬ ݂ ܹ ̱ܼ

/ʔašᵊlmeṯ/ ‘I sur-

ܵ ̱ ܼܿ ǧǹȎȽȋ

/maḏᵊnḥā/ ‘east’

3. Second consonant is : from */maḏbḥā/. 4. Second consonant is :

ܵ ܵ ̱ ܼܿ /maḥᵊwrānā/ ‘one ǧȎ‫ܪ‬Ƕǹȋ

who makes white’ from */maḥwrānā/. 5. Second consonant is : shine’ from */manhrīn/.

Ȑȁ‫ܪ‬ǵȏȋ ܼ ̱ ܼܿ

6. Second consonant is : afraid’ from */ʔeṯrheḇ /. 7. Second consonant is :

/manᵊhrīn/ ‘they

‫ܐܬܪܗܒ‬ ݂ ܸ ̱ܸ

Ȋȅ‫ܐܬܐ‬ ܸ݂ ̱ ܸ

/ʔeṯᵊrheḇ/ ‘was

/ʔeṯᵊḵel/ (W. Syr.

/ʔeṯeḵel/) ‘was eaten’ from */ʔeṯʔḵel/. 27

The W. Syr. received tradition I am accustomed to does not use

schwa here: /ʔeštqel/. 28

This is according to David (§63). The received tradition that I am

ܽ

accustomed to reads ‫ ܶ ܘܙܘܢ‬/nerᵊwzūn/. 29

David §63; Mingana 89; Uhlemann §7.R.1 gives the mnemonic in addition to ‫ ܚ‬instead.

98

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§206.

The following E. Syr. exceptions are observed. The mhaggyānā is applied on

ܵ ̱ /deḇᵊḥṯā/ ‘sacrifice’ from /deḇḥṯā/ ȮǹǪ‫ܕ‬ ݂ ܸ

despite the fact that the second consonant in the cluster is /ḥ/

ܳ ܽ ‫ܗܪܐ‬

(not in

ܰ ̈ܰ

). The following words whose second conso-

ܳ ܽ

ܰ ̈ܰ

nant in the cluster are in ‫ܗܪܐ‬ 1.

ܵ ܵ ܼܿ ǧȏǻ‫ܗ‬Ȥȋ

do not take the mhaggyānā:

/marhṭānā/ ‘hastener’ (also the name of one

of the serṭūnā marks introduced below).

2. 3. 4. 5.

ܵ ܵ ܼ ܿ /maʕmḏānā/ ‘baptizer’. ǧȎȽȌȘȋ ܿ ܿ /ṣawrhūn/ ‘their neck’. ‫ܨܘܪܗܘܢ‬ ܼ ܿ ‫ܘܢ‬ǵȘǪ݂‫ ܪܼܘ‬/rūḇʕhūn/ ‘their quarter’. ‫ ܼܿܬܘܪܗܿܘܢ‬/tawrhūn/ ‘their ox’.

Yūsuf al-ʿĀqūrī30 equates the mhaggyānā with the Arabic tašdīd ‘doubling’. Duval31 also accepts the argument citing MS examples:

‫ܰ ܰ ̱ܪ‬

/šaddar/ ‘he sent’,

ܰ ܶ ̱ ܰ ‫ ݂ܐܬ‬/ʔeṯkannaš/ ‘was gathered’.

While this may be a historical usage of the mhaggyānā, I have never seen it and am not aware if this ever became the norm in any period of time. §206. The marhṭānā

ܳ ‫ܰ ܗ ܳܐ‬

‘hastener’,32 a supralinear slanted

serṭūnā, is the opposite of the mhaggyānā. It is used in E. Syr. to denote the absence of a schwa in a three consonant cluster when the second consonant of the cluster does not belong to consonants

30

Acurensis ‫ ܐ‬.

31

Duval §145.

32

Abouna 33; Acurensis

‫;ܐ‬

Arayathinal §13; Brockelmann §12;

David §64; Costaz §24; Cowper §21.a; Duval §§148–50; Gabriel of St. Joseph §30; A. Hoffmann §19; al-Kfarnissy §5.‫ ;الثاني‬Makdasi

̣;

C. B.

Michaelis 24; J. D. Michaelis §15; Mingana 90; Muraoka, CS4H §6; Muraoka, CS §5; Nestle §9.b; Niʿmatallah ‫ ; ܙ‬Palacios §33; Sciadrensis Tullberg §8.2; Uhlemann §7; Ungnad §3; Yeates §9; Zschokke §4.4.C. ch. 4

;

Grammatical Graphemes

§207. in the mnemonic

99

ܳ ܽ ‫ܗܪܐ‬

ܰ ̈ܰ

‫ܶ ݁ ݇ܒ ܽ ܢ‬

/nesbʕūn/ ‘they shall be full’,

. The examples given by David33

place it above the second letter of the consonant cluster using an oblique line; e.g.

/neṯpṣaḥ/ ‘he shall rejoice’. The exception

ܳ ܶ݁ ‫ܕܒ ݂ ܐ‬ ̱݂

‫ܶ ݂ ݁ ݇ ܰܚ‬

/deḇᵊḥṯā/

‘sacrifice’ was mentioned in §205. The marhṭānā is used more frequently in E. Syr. than W. Syr. Duval34 states that the marhṭānā is sometimes placed on the first of a two consonantal cluster; e.g.

݇ ݂ ܳ ‫‘ ܬ‬three’, ݁ ݇ ܳ

‘you put’.

ܳ

݂ܽ ‘that which draws’,35 a supralinear §207. The nāg̱ūḏā ‫ܓ ݂ ܳܕ ܐ‬ horizontal (sometimes slanted) serṭūnā exclusive to E. Syr., is used in a three consonant cluster across word boundaries where the first consonant in the cluster ends a word and the two remaining consonants begin a word; i.e. C#CC. Its purpose is to indicate that the two words ought to be read together, with the affect that the consonant preceding the word boundary takes a schwa. It is placed, according to David, above the first consonant of the cluster; e.g.

̱ ݂ܰ

̄ ‫ܶ ݁ ܰܒ‬ ݂

/lmeṯbarᵊlnap̱š/ ‘to break myself’. In ܽ ܶ ܳ MSS, however, the location and shape may vary; e.g. ‫݂ܕ‬

ܰܳ ܽ

ܳ ݁ ݇ ܽ ܳ ܶ ̈ܰ ‫ܐ ܗ ܢ ܕ‬

݇ ܳ

/… ḥāšḥīnᵊlḥayye hānūnᵊḏlā … /

where the line is slanted.

36

The nāg̱ūḏā is most useful in poetry where, according to Yuḥanān Bar Zoʿbī37 (fl. 13th century) ‘the nāgū ̱ ḏā serves to com-

33

In his description, however, David states that it is placed on the

first of the consonant cluster. Duval (§148), who uses a supralinear straight line, says the same; e.g.

ܶ ̄ ܶ ‫‘ ݂ܐܬ‬he was killed’.

34

Duval §148.

35

David §67; Duval §§152–53; Nestle §9.c; Nöldeke §9.c.

36

MS Bibliothèque nationale, Paris, Arabe 6725 fol. 3r.

37

Brock, ‘Yuḥanān bar Zoʿbi’, in GEDSH 440.

100

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§208.

plete the meter’.38 The same functionality of the nāg̱ūḏā can be ܶܺ ܶ‫ܘ‬ expressed by a sublinear point on the first word; e.g. ‫ܳ ܐ ܒ ̈ܐ‬

ܺ ‫ܬܗ‬ ܺ ܰ ܰ ‫ܰ ܗܝ‬

ܶ ܰ ̣

/… malelᵊʕlaw …/,39 where the poetic

meter requires a schwa to count as a full vowel. In a few cases, one encounters a text that is modified to cater for synchronic phonological realities. A notable example is the modification of

‫݁ܒ ܶ ܶܪ‬ ‫ܽ ̱ܗܘ ݂ܒ ܶ ܶܪ‬

the following verse by Ephrem from meṣ-rēn/ (note the schwa) to

ܺ

ܺ

‫ ܳܗܐ‬/hā-qṭī-lᵊb‫ ܳܗܐ‬/hā-qṭī-lūḇ-

meṣ-rēn/ where the schwa disappears and is replaced ortho-

ܽ

graphically by the enclitic ‫̱ܗܘ‬.40 §208. The mṭappyānā

ܰ ‫݁ ܳ ܳܐ‬

‘that which lies near, closes’41 is

also exclusive to E. Syr., but appears seldom. Like the nāgūḏā, it is an across word boundary marker. It is used in a C#CVC context to indicate the lack of a schwa. It takes the shape of a sublinear horizontal serṭūnā towards the end of the first word; e.g. /bheṯ mēn/ ‘he was embarrassed by me’.

ܶ ‫ܒ ܶ ̱ ݂ܬ‬

§209. In philological works, while a historical schwa is indicated in Latin transcriptions, Syriac does not have a mechanism to indicate a schwa. David42 and Mingana43 use a supralinear arch, ◌̑;

ܰ̑

e.g. 4.1.4.

/šᵊmaʕ/ ‘listen’. Fricatization Markers: Qūššāyā and Rūkkāḵā

§210. Two graphemes, each consisting of a single point, are used to distinguish the ‘hard’ (plosive) vs. ‘soft’ (fricative) pronuncia-

ch. 4

38

Duval §152; Merx 19.

39

Bedjan, Homiliae Selectae IV, 261.

40

Brock and Kiraz, Ephrem the Syrian 113.

41

David §67; Duval §§152–53.

42

David §57 ff.

43

Mingana 15 ff.

Grammatical Graphemes

§213.

101

ܽ

ܳܳ and tion of bgā ̱ ḏkp̱ āṯ letters, termed in Syriac qūššāyā ‫ܐ‬ ܽ ܳ ܳ ݁ rūkkāḵā ‫ ܪܘ ݂ ܐ‬, respectively.44 Qūššāyā letters have the phones

[b], [g], [d], [k], [p], and [t], and are marked with a single supralinear point. Rūkkāḵā letters have the phones [ḇ] (IPA [v]), [g̱]

(IPA [ɣ]), [ḏ] (IPA [δ]), [ḵ] (IPA [χ]), [p̱] (IPA [f]), and [ṯ] (IPA [θ]) and are marked with a single sublinear point.

§211. Historically, qūššāyā and rūkkāḵā may have been indicated by a slanted line,

◌݈

or

݇ ◌,

rather than a point, a system which

appears only in a 6th-century MS (BL Add. 17104).45 It is used exclusively on less familiar proper nouns; e.g. unlikely that this system was widely used.

݇ ‫݈ܒ ܐ‬

,

݈ ‫ ݇ܘܕ‬. It is

§212. The first reported occurrence of the usage of the point is the qūššāyā in

‫ܽ ܘ ̇ ܽܗܘܢ‬

/lḏukṯhūn/ ‘to their place’ in MS BL

Add. 17,102, dated 599. Both qūššāyā and rūkkāḵā appear more frequently in MS BL Add. 14471, dated 615; e.g.

ܰ݁ ܶ ‘parable’, ‫ܠ‬

ܳܳ ܰ /lmētal/ ‘to give’, ‫ـ ݂ ܐ‬

ܳ ܰ ݂

/maṯlā/

/malp̱ānā/ ‘teacher’.

§213. As in the case of the vowel points of this period (q.v. § 139), the more dominant sound—‘hard’ in this case—takes the

44

Abouna 30; al-Abrāshī et al. 27; Acurensis

(but includes

‫ܛ‬

ff.; Ambrosio 74–79

as well); Amira 11; Arayathinal §16 ff.; Bar ʿEbroyo,

Ṣemḥe 282 ff.; Brockelmann §10; Coakley-Robinson 3; Costaz §9; Cowper §§19–20; Duval §19 ff.; Elia of Ṣoba 37 ff.; Gabriel of St. Joseph §9;

ٔ .2; Kiraz, Primer 47–48, Healey 10; A. Hoffmann §18; al-Kfarnissy §4.‫الاول‬ 211 §21; Makdasi

; Manna 340–41; Masius 8; C. B. Michaelis 21 ff.; J.

D. Michaelis §§2, 12; Mingana 3–4; Muraoka, CS4H §5; Muraoka, CS 5; Nestle §8; Niʿmatallah

‫;ܗ‬

Nöldeke §15; Palacios §28 ff.; Risius §178;

Thackston xxiii; Tullberg §14; Uhlemann §5; Ungnad §3; Yeates §§7–8; Zschokke §4.4.a. 45

̄ 484. Segal, ‘Quššaya and Rukkaka’

102

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§213.

supralinear point, and the less dominant one—‘soft’—takes the sublinear point. §214. In later W. Syr., the hard letter /p/ in Greek loan words takes a point in the middle; e.g.



as opposed to

‫݁ܦ‬

in

‫ܰ ܳ ܣ‬

‘Paul’. Elia of Ṣoba (975–1046) cites a system by which the qūššāyā of /p/ is marked by two points, but there is no evidence that such a system was ever used. Loopstra46 has recently discovered a medial point inside Gāmal, . §215. In W. Syr. MSS after 1007, the qūššāyā and rūkkāḵā points are indicated with red ink instead of black, which becomes a characteristic of W. Syr. MSS until the present day.47 In printed W. Syr. books (usually grammars or liturgical texts), the red color is sometimes substituted by a small circle, the earliest example of which is the 1876 print type of the Dominican Press at Mosul (W57);48 e.g.

ܳ ܳ ‫ ̊ ̥ ̥ܳܒܐ‬for ‫‘ ݁ ݂ ݂ܳܒܐ‬book’.49 The introduction of the circle

may have been the innovation of J. David. It was later employed in the Zaʿfarān Press, Mardin.50 §216. In later E. Syr. texts, the soft [f], which is rare, is marked

ܵ ̮ ܼ ‘example’,51 while the hard [p] is unmarked. by ◌̮ as in ǧȒȚǶǻ 4.1.5.

Doubling Marker

§217. Doubling in Syriac, unlike Arabic, is not marked, in lieu of which the qūššāyā point is used.52 46

̄ 485–89. Segal, ‘Quššaya and Rukkaka’

48

Coakley, Typography 140–42.

49

David §11.

50

For instance, the title (and content) in Dolabani’s Kitāb al-ʾasās:

ܳ

‫ܶ ̥ܐ ̥ܐ‬ 51

ch. 4

Loopstra, Patristic Selections 293–96, 300.

47

. Mingana 3.

Grammatical Graphemes

§219.

103

§218. Cardahi (1845–1931), in his lexicon and grammar,53 uses the Arabic šadda to indicate doubling, as well as the sukūn to indicate the lack of a vowel; e.g.

‫ܳܐ‬

ّ ܰ ܶ ْܰ ‫ܕ‬ ‫‘ ܗ‬the temple of God’.54

The šadda and sukūn were also used by Risius. It may have been a development introduced at the Maronite College in Rome.

4.2. 4.2.1.

Morphological Graphemes Verbal Markers

§219. The history of marking verbs with diacritical points is very much entwined with the pointing vocalization system (see §128 and §141 ff.). Like the vowel pointing system, its original usage

ܰ

was for homographic disambiguation (q.v. §139); e.g. /qṭal/ ‘he killed’ vs. (m.) killed’ vs.

ܶ

ܷ̇

ܶ ̇ ܴ

/qāṭṭel/ ‘he kills’,

/qeṭleṯ/ ‘I killed’ vs.

ܰ

݀ ܰ ܶ

̣

̣

/qṭalt/ ‘you /qeṭlaṯ/ ‘she

killed’. Later, the points are perceived as pure morphological markers used when the verbs are not homographs; e.g.

ܰ

/ʕal/ ܶ ܳ ‘he entered’ and ‫ ̇ ܴܐܠ‬/ʕāyēl/ ‘he enters’, ̣ /qām/ ‘he rose’ and ܶ ‫ ̇ ܴ ܐܡ‬/qāyēm/ ‘he is rising’, ̇ ܺ /qrīṯ/ ‘I read’ and ݀‫ ܳ ܬ‬/qrāṯ/ ‘she

̣

read’. In fact, medieval grammarians perceived them as morphological markers: Masius (1573) has a section titled de punctis, quae temporum personarumque sunt signa & de aliis universe ‘concerning the points, which are signs of tenses and persons & Concerning all other things’;55 Al-Šadrāwī (Sciadrensis, 1636), discusses these

points in a chapter titled

ܶܰ

ܶ ܶ̈

‫ܽ ̈ ܶܐ ݂ ܰܕ ܰ ݂ ̈ܒ ܶܐ ܰܘ ݁ ܰ ܽܨܘ ݁ ܶ ܐ ݂ܕ‬

‘on the points which indicate the tenses and persons of verbs’.56

52

Cowper §19; Healey 11; Thackston xxiii.

53

Cardahi, al-Lubāb; Cardahi, Al-Manāhegh.

54

Cardahi, al-Lubāb ‫ܒܐ‬

55

Masius 11.

56

Sciadrensis

ّ

.

‫ ܒ‬304.

ܰ

104

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§220.

§220. The basic verbal patterns are marked with a point,57 placed with respect to the first consonant, or between the first

‫݁ܒ ݂ ܽ ܘܠ‬

and second consonants. In the presence of

point remains on the radicals. The patterns are: A. Pʿal takes a sublinear point; e.g.

ܰ ܰ ̣ ‫‘ ܘ‬and he ܺ ܰ ܶ , etc. ̣

ܰ

prefixes, the ‘he killed’,

̣

ܶ

killed’, as do Eṯpʿel forms; e.g.

ܶ ̣ ‫ ܐܬ‬,

B. Paʿʿel takes a supralinear point, usually on the first

radical; e.g.

ܶ ̇ ܱ . impf.

ܶ ̇ ܱ

, impt.

ܶ ̇ ܱ

, act. part.

ܶ ̇ ܱ

,

ܽ ܳ ̇ . By analogy, Eṯpaʿʿal forms take similar points; e.g. inf. ܰ ̇ ܶ ܱ ܺ ̇ ܶ . The Paʿʿel often takes a second sublinear ܱ ‫ ܐܬ‬, ܱ ܶ ̇ 58 point as well; e.g. ̣ ܱ (cf. §148).

C. Ap̱ʿel takes a sublinear point, perhaps due to the absence of a vowel between the first and second radical (analogous to Pʿal forms), though Duval59 speculates that it may be as an an-

tithesis to the Paʿʿel; e.g.

ܶ ܰ ̣ ‫ܐ‬. In later W. Syr., the impf. takes a

supralinear point (usually between the

prefix and the first

ܶ radical);60 e.g. ‫ ̇ ܱ ܐ‬, as do the act. part. and pass. part. forms; e.g. ‫ ܰ ̇ ܰܒ‬and ‫ ܰ ̇ ܶܒ‬, respectively. Hence, the position of the point creates a distinction between Paʿʿel and Ap̱ʿel forms; e.g. ‫= ̇ ܐ‬ Paʿʿel /nšawe/ and ‫ = ̇ ܐ‬Ap̱ʿel /našwe/. §221. Within the Pʿal conjugation:61 A. Perfect forms whose CV pattern begins with CCVC (historically CᵊCVC) take a sublinear point; e.g.

57

ܰ

(sing. 2nd

David §68; Duval §68; Kiraz, Primer 212 §§23–24; A. Hoffmann

§14; Mingana §97 ff.; Nestle §7.b; Nöldeke §6; Segal 15–18.

ch. 4

̣

58

Duval §68.

59

Duval §68.

60

David §68.

61

Segal 15–19; David §68.

Grammatical Graphemes

§221.

105

ܰ ܰ (sing. 2nd fem.), ̱ (pl. 3rd masc.), ̱̈ ‫ـ‬ ̣ ̣ ̣ (pl. ܽ ܰ ܰ ܰ ܶ ̈ 3rd fem.), ‫ـ ܘܢ‬ ̣ (pl. 2nd masc.), ‫( ̣ ـ‬pl. 2nd fem.), ̣ masc.),

‫̱ܝ‬

ܰ

(pl. 1st).62

B. Perfect forms whose CV pattern is CVCVC, viz., sing. 3rd fem. and sing. 1st, follow different pointing patterns: 1. The sing. 3rd fem. initially took a sublinear point, but

ܰ ܶ ̣

closer to the second radical;63 e.g.

ܰ ܶ‫ܘ‬ ̣

‘she killed’,

‘and she fell’.64 As this caused ambiguity with

ܰ

the sing. masc. 2nd

̣

(with a sublinear point

closer to the first radical), a second supralinear point was added on the ‫ܬ‬. In some MSS, this second point appears to the right of

݁ ݂

...‫ܐ ܬܐ‬

‫;ܬ‬

e.g.

݁ ܰ ܶ‫ܐ‬ ̣ ‫ ܘ‬... ܰ ‫ܬܓ ـ‬ ݂

݁

‘it is clear… and full of justice… de-

scended’.65 Later, the second point was placed to the left of the

‫ܬ‬

suffix as in

݀ ܰ ܶ. ̣

David66 cites two

points, one under the ‫ܬ‬, not to be confused with the

rūkkāḵā point, and another to its left; e.g.

̣݀ ܰ ܶ .

In

later W. Syr., the sublinear point under the second

݀ ܰ ܶ

radical became obsolete, resulting in

with only

one supralinear point.67 In E. Syr., an alternative sys62

David §68 claims that formerly in E. Syr., the second person was

ܿ

marked with a two-point sublinear grapheme; e.g. ȨȉǼȡ ܼ ̤ ‘you killed’. 63

According to Segal (p. 16–17), the point under the sing. 2nd masc.

is after the first letter with schwa, and that of the sing. 3rd fem. is after the first syllable. 64

MS BL Add. 14,425, f. 23b from Segal 16–17.

65

Oez, Cyriacus of Tagrit, vol. 2 f. 3ii (from MS St. Mark 129).

66

David §68.

67

David §68; Duval §69; Mingana 98; Nöldeke §6; Kiraz, Primer

160–61; Thackston xxii; Niʿmatallah

‫ܗ‬

puts the points near the line

which may be due to typographical constraints.

106

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§222.

tem developed by which two points were placed under the

‫ ܬ‬suffix as in ȨȉǼȡ ݀ ̣ , or Ȩȉ ݀ Ǽȡ without the sublinear

point.

2. The sing. 1st takes a supralinear point on the first radi-

ܶ

cal; e.g.

ܷ̇

‘I killed’,

ܶ ‫̇ܺ ܗ‬

‘I saw him’.68

Mingana69 puts the point on the second radical; e.g.

ܶ ̇ ܶ . The Mosul edition of the Bible places the point

in various places, sometimes between the second and third radical. C. The impf. forms take a sublinear point; e.g.

ܽ ܶ ‫ܬ ̣ ܠ‬, ‫ܽ ܢ‬

‫ܠ‬

ܽ ܶ ̣

,

exception is the 1st person which takes ̣ ܶ , etc. The ܽ ܶ ̇ ‫ܐ‬, by analogy with the perf. ܶ ܷ ̇ .70 a supralinear point, ‫ܠ‬ ܶ ̇ D. The act. part. takes a supralinear point; e.g. ܴ ‘he ܶ kills’, ‫‘ ܘ ̇ ܴ ܐ‬and he reads’.

E. The pass. part. of the pattern CCīC takes the usual point

under ‫ ;ܝ‬e.g.

.

ܼ

F. The impt. takes a sublinear point; e.g.

‘read’,

‫̣ ܶܒ‬

‘do’,

̣ܰ

‘take’.

‫ܠ‬

G. The infinitive takes a sublinear point; e.g.

ܶ kill’, ‫̣ ܶܐ‬

ܽ

ܰ ̣, ‫̣ ܘ‬ ܰ

‘seeing’.

̣ ܶ

‘to

§222. L-ʔ verbs have their own pointing system: e.g.

ܶ

A. The pass. part. used to take a single sublinear point;

ܰ ̣ , ‫ ̣ ܶܐ‬. In later Syriac, two points called mpaggḏānā ܳ ܳ ݂ ‫݂ ݁ܓ‬

‘bridling’ are used,71 one supralinear towards the first radical, and one sublinear towards the second radical; e.g.

ch. 4

‫̇ ̣ ܶܐ‬

‘equal’,

‫̇ ̣ـ ܶ ܐ‬

68

David §68; Nöldeke §6.

69

Mingana 98.

70

Duval §68.

71

David §68 (without giving the grapheme a name); Duval §67.

‘is

Grammatical Graphemes

§224.

107

able’. These continue to be used to the present day. One even finds it in the plural; e.g. ̣

ܶ ̇

‘full’.72

B. The perf. pl. form is a homograph with the act. part. pl.

masc. form. The former takes a sublinear point, while the latter

̣ܰ

takes the usual supralinear point; e.g. ‘they are worthy MASC.’.73

‘we were even’ vs.

ܶ ܴ̇

§223. The following verbal forms are consonantal homographs, distinguishable by points (examples given with the verb A. CCC

ܶ ̇ ܱ . Note that

perf.

B. CCCt

ܰ

: Pʿal perf.

̇

̣,

act. part.

is still ambiguous.

: Pʿal perf. sing. 3rd fem.

):

ܶ ̇ ܴ;

݀ ܰ ܶ

Paʿʿel

(E. Syr.

ܰ ܿ ܶ ̇ , as well as their Ȩ݀ȉǼȡ ܼ ܸ ), sing. 2nd masc. ܷ ̣ , andܶ sing. 1st ܶ ܰ ܰ ܰ ݀ ̇ ̇ Paʿʿel counterparts , respectively. ܱ and ̣ , and C. The rest of the Pʿal forms and their respective Paʿʿel

forms; e.g. CCCty

‫ܝ‬ 1

st

ܶ ̇ ܱ.

‫ܠ‬

ܽ

D. neCCūC

̇

.

‫̱ܝ‬

: for perf. sing. 2nd fem.

‫ܠ‬

: Pʿal impf. sing. 3rd masc.

‫̱ܝ‬ ‫ܠ‬

As for the homographs resulting from teCCuC

Pʿal impf. sing. 3

rd

fem.

‫ܠ‬

ܽ ܶ

‫ܬ‬

and sing. 2

nd

masc.

ܰ

and

̣ ܽ ̣

, pl.

‫ܬ ܶ ܠ‬, ܽ ‫ܬ ܠ‬,

there do not seem to be points. This may be the reason that in later Syriac the feminine form appears with a ‫ ܝ‬as in

ܽ ܶ

‫ܬ‬.

§224. The Ethpaʿʿal impt. takes a serṭūnā to distinguish it from the perfect; e.g. careful’.

74

ܶ ‫ܕܗܪ‬ ̱ ܰ ‫ܐܙ‬

/ʔezdahᵊr/ opp. perf.

ܰܰܶ ‫ܐܙܕܗܪ‬

/ʔezdahar/ ‘be

The serṭūnā here is a marhṭānā indicating a schwa, not

mḇaṭṭlānā as some grammars mistakenly state.75 This confusion 72

MS Aqtaš, Winter Phanqitho 89, co. 2, ln. 6.

73

Segal 37.

74

Al-Kfarnissy §5; Niʿmatallah ‫ܘ‬.

75

Example: Coakley-Robinson 69 (from Robinson 64); Costaz §21.

108

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§224.

between the marhṭānā and mḇaṭṭlānā in Western grammars may date back to Masius’s grammar in 1573 who discusses both phenomena in one section on the virgula.76 A variant shape, exclusively for this purpose in The Antioch Bible. 4.2.2.

݇ ◌, is used

The Plural Marker Syāme

§225. The plural is marked with a two-point supralinear grapheme called syāme

‫̈ ܳ ܶܐ‬

‘placements’.77 Medieval and later

grammarians called it rībūy

ܽ ܺ ,78 ‫ܪܒ ܝ‬

a term unknown to ancient

Syriac grammarians who, instead, used the terms

ܳ ‫ܳ ̈ ܰ ܝ ܰ ݁ ܺܓ ܳ ܐ ܽ ݂ܬܐ‬

ܶ ̈ܽ ‘plural points’, or ‫݂ ܐ‬

‫ܰ ݁ ܺܓ ܳ ܐܐ‬

‘plural’,

‘drops’.79 The mark is not

given a name by Masius (1573) who simply names his section on the topic de punctis numeri pluralis.80 ʿAmira (1596) attributes the name syāme to a certain John the Syrian.81 The syāme is probably the most ancient diacritical grapheme, predated only by the point that distinguishes

‫ ܕ‬from ‫ ܪ‬. It is absent in early inscriptions and

76

Masius 10–11.

77

Abouna 33; al-Abrāshī et al. 27; Arayathinal §22; Bar ʿEbroyo,

Ṣemḥe 108 ff.; Brockelmann §11; Costaz §17; Cowper §22; David §69; Duval §§66, 136 ff.; Elia of Ṣoba 41 ff.; Gabriel of St. Joseph §35; Healey 10; A. Hoffmann §22; al-Kfarnissy §4.‫ ;الثالث‬Kiraz, Primer 34, 74, 75, 198; Makdasi

; J. D. Michaelis §14; Mingana 94 ff.; Muraoka, CS4H §6;

Muraoka, CS §5; Niʿmatallah

‫;ܗ‬

Nöldeke §16.A; Thackston xxii; Yeates

§10; Uhlemann §6; Ungnad §3; Zschokke §4.4.b. 78

C. B. Michaelis 23 and subsequent grammarians, even Duval

(§136). Nestle (§7.a n. 1) claims that the term was borrowed from Hebrew grammarians by the Maronite grammarians; see also Nöldeke p. 10 n. 2.

ch. 4

79

Duval §136; Sciadrensis

80

Masius 11.

81

Amira 48.

.

Grammatical Graphemes

§228.

109

the parchments from 240–243, where one reads ies’,82

‫ܐܐ‬

‫ܕ ܐ ܒ‬

‘cit-

‫ܐ‬

‘700 dinārs’.83 The syāme appears regu-

larly in the 411 MS. §226. The shape of the syāme is two horizontal supralinear points, ◌̈. In the 411 MS, the two points are mostly at the same height. In other MSS, one may see the right point slightly lower than the left point, which becomes more pronounced with ;

ܶ ܳ ‫ـ‬ ‘languages’.84

e.g. ‫ܐ‬

§227. Syāme can be placed anywhere on the word, though in earlier MSS one finds it more often at the end; e.g.

ܳ ‫̈ ܶܒܐ‬

̈ ‫ܴܳܒܐ‬

ܶ ܳ ‫݁ ݂ ̈ܒܐ‬

‘books’. It is usually avoided on tall letters.85 In Serṭā, it

almost never appears on the final ‫ܐ‬. §228. When placed on ‫ܪ‬, the syāme and the point of the

‫ ܪ‬blend

together giving a total of two points only, ‫̈ܪ‬, regardless of the position of

‫ܪ‬

in the word;86 e.g.

‫ܰ̈ܪ ܶܐ‬

‘insects’,

‘bodies’. When there is more than one

‫ܰܘ̈ܪ ܶ ܐ‬

‘papers’,

‫݁ ܰ ݂ܓ ܶ ܐ‬

‫ ܪ‬in a word, the syāme is ܶ ܺ typically placed on the last one;87 e.g. ‫‘ ܰ ܐ‬true’. Early MSS do

not always conform to this and are not consistent. One finds both

forms in the Old Syriac Gospels (in Classical Syriac) even on the same page; e.g. the 5th-century MS Curetanianus has on f. 4r ‘around Jordan’,88 ‫ܐ‬

‫ܪܕ‬

̈

,89 and ‫ ܐܪܐ‬.90

82

Drijvers and Healey, P2 recto, ln. 5.

83

Drijvers and Healey, P1 recto, ln. 9.

84

Duval §136; Cowper §22 n.

85

Nöldeke §16.D.

86

Costaz §18; David §69; Nöldeke §16.D.

87

Abouna 33.

88

Kiraz, CESG I, 29, Mt. 3:5.

89

Kiraz, CESG I, 29, Mt. 3:7.

90

Kiraz, CESG I, 30, Mt. 3:8.

‫ܕ ̈ ܪܝ‬

110

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§229.

§229. The syāme is placed on the following morphological forms:91 1. All plural nouns, masculine and feminine; e.g. ‘books’ (masc.),

ܳ ‫݂ܰ̈ ܳ ݂ ܐ‬

ܶ ‫ܶ ̈ܐ‬

‘women’ (fem. without

‘souls’ (fem. with

ܳ ‫ ܬܐ‬ending).

2. All plural feminine verbs;92 e.g. perf. syāme) vs.

̱̈ ‫ܰ ـ‬

̱

ܰ

ܳ ‫݁ ̈ ݂ ݂ ܶܒܐ‬

ܳ ‫ ܬܐ‬ending), (without

(with syāme) ‘they killed’ (but

ܽ ܰ ܶ݁ ܰ ܿ ȊǼȡ vs. ̈ ‫ـ‬ ܼ ), ‫ـ ݁ ܘܢ‬ ܽ ܶ vs. ܳ ̈ ܶ ‘they shall kill’, ‘you killed’, impf. ‫ܢ‬ ܶ ܶ ܽ ‫ ݁ܬ ܽ ܢ‬vs. ܳ ̈ ‫‘ ݁ܬ‬you shall kill’, impt. ̱ vs. ̈ ܽ ‘kill’, act. part. ܺ ܳ vs. ܳ ̈ ܳ ‘they kill’, pass. ̱ ܺ ܺ vs. ܳ ̈ ܺ ‘are killed’. In some early MSS, part. without syāme in E. Syr.

one infrequently finds the syāme on pl. masc. verbs.93 3. All plural feminine adjectives; e.g.

‫‘ ܬ ܺ ̈ ܳ ܢ‬strange ones’.

ܳ ܳ ‫݂ ̈ܒ‬

‘good ones’,

4. On substantive plural masculine forms ending in

,

but usually not when they function as adjectives,

94

keeping in mind that MSS do not always agree with this distinction; e.g.

ܺ ܳ ‫ܶ ܳ ܐ ܰ ݁ ܺܙܕ ܺ ̈ ܐ ݂ ݁ ܰܒ ݂ ܺ ̱ ݁ ܐ‬

‘there are

ten righteous ones in the city’ (with syāme), but

ܶ ‫ܐܽ ܢ‬

ܶ ‫ܳܗ‬

ܺ ‫‘ ܰ݁ܺܙܕ‬these are righteous ones’ (without syāme).

5. Collective nouns may or may not take syāme, though

‫ܳ ܳܐ‬ ܳ ܳ ܳ ‫‘ ܰ ܳ ܺ ݂ ܐ‬herd of goats’ (without ܽ syāme), ‫ܳ ̈ܐ ܰ ܳ ܳ ܳ ݂ ܐ‬ ܳܳ ܰ ܶ ‘herd of sheep’ (with syāme), ‫‘ ̈ܪ ݂ ܳ ܐ ܐܘ ̈ ܐ‬stallions’, ‫ܐ ̱ ̈ ܐ‬ in later Syriac they tend to take it invariably;95 e.g.

‘people’. MSS prior to the 7th century rarely have it,

ch. 4

91

Unless otherwise specified, all examples are from David §69.

92

David §69; Kiraz, Primer 262; Nöldeke §16.B.

93

Assad, Mar Ephrem’s Commentary on Genesis 37.

94

Costaz §19; David §§69, 136; Nöldeke §16.B.

95

David §69; Nestle §7.a; Nöldeke §16.B.

Grammatical Graphemes

§231.

111

but syāme is increasingly used, both in E. and W. Syr., from the 7th and 8th centuries.96 6. According to David, nouns whose singular and plural are homographs take the syāme in the plural only; e.g.

ܳ ‫‘ ܐ̱ ܳ ̈ ܐ‬people’, ‫‘ ܰ ܳ ܐ ݂ܕ ܽ ܳ ܐ‬upper part of ܰ the brain’, ‫‘ ̈ ܳ ܐ‬heaven’. Early MSS, however, are not ‫ܐ̱ ܳ ܳ ܐ‬

‘human’,

consistent.

7. Feminine numbers tend to take syāme especially in later Syriac though one sometimes finds them without;97 e.g. it on tens

ܶ݁ ܰ݁ ܶ ܶ ܰ ݁ ‫ ܬ̈ܪܬ‬, ‫ܐ‬ ‫‘ ܬ‬nineteen’.ܳ One may also find ܳ ܺ ̈ ݁ and hundreds; e.g. ݂ ‫‘ ܬ‬thirty’, ‫‘ ̈ ܐܐ‬one

hundred’. MSS, however, are not consistent in this regard. 8. Numbers (masculine and feminine) that take the object pronominal suffixes;98 e.g.

ܰ ‫‘ ݁ܬ ܳ ݂ ̈ ݁ ܽ ܢ‬you three’.

‫݁ܬ ܰ̈ܪ ܽ ܘܢ‬

‘both of them’,

9. The following prepositions with suffixes: out’ as in of’ as in

݂ ܳ ‫‘ ݁ܶܒ ـ‬with-

ܺ ‘in the sight ̈ ܳ ‫ܘܗܝ‬ ̱ ܰ ݂ ‫‘ ݁ܶܒ ـ‬without him’, ̈ ܰ ܺ ‘in my sight’, ‫‘ ݂ ܳ ܪ‬around’ as in ݁ ‫݂ ܳ ܰ̈ܪ‬

‘around you’.

ܺ‫ܳ ـ‬ ܺ ‫‘ ܰ ܽ ݂ܘܬ‬re-

§230. The syāme is not placed on the following plurals: ‘forever’,

ܺ݁

cently’.99

ܽ ‫݁ܰܕ‬

‘true’,

ܺ ‫ܽ ݂ܕ‬

‘formerly’,

§231. In compounds, the syāme tends to be placed on the first word; e.g.

ܶ ܳ ̈ܳ ݁ ܰ ݂ ‫‘ ܒ‬words’, ‫‘ ݁ܳܒ ݁ ̈ܝ ܶ ݂ ܳ ܐ‬schools’.

96

Brock, ‘Some Diachronic’ 101.

97

David §69; Nöldeke §16.B.

98

David §69; Nöldeke §16.B.

99

David §69.

112

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§232.

§232. Contradictory examples, however, do occur in early texts; e.g. on a masc. verb wall’,100

‫ܽ ܳܪܐ‬

ܳ ܰ ‫‘ ݁ܰܬ̈ܪ ܽ ̱ܗܝ‬the water broke the ‫ܗܘܘ ܰ ̈ܐ‬

ܶ ̱ ̈ ܰ ݁ ‫‘ ܐ‬they (m.) found’.101

§233. In printed texts, the use of syāme remains uniform even in fully vocalized texts. Only one E. Syr. print type by Shmuel David is known to have omitted the points for purposes of simplification.102 §234. The following algorithm was used for the placement of syāme in my Concordance: if the word contains ‫ܪ‬, it was placed upon it. Otherwise, the algorithm looped from the penultimate letter (preferably, the last letter should not take syāme) back to the first. If a consonant was found that did not already have a vowel mark upon it, it takes syāme. If this loop does not succeed in finding a consonant that is free from vowels, then the algorithm loops again from the penultimate letter to the first searching for the shortest consonant, and places syāme on that consonant. 4.2.3.

Gender Marking of the Object Pronominal Suffix

§235. The object pronominal suffix in the sing. fem. form, marked with a supralinear point; e.g. to

ܳ ‫ܶܒ‬

̇ ‫ܳ ܳܒ‬

‘his book’ (without a point).

biguation as

‫ܒ‬

103

‫ܗ‬, is

‘her book’ as opposed

The function is disam-

can go both ways. Historically, the supralinear

point may have indicated that the

‫ܗ‬

in the feminine form was

fully pronounced, while that of the masculine form was not (cf. §

100

Guidi, Chronica Minora 1.

101

Nöldeke §16.C.

102

Coakley, Typography 238–40.

103

David §68; Cowper §17; C. B. Michaelis 22; J. D. Michaelis §13;

Nöldeke §6. ch. 4

Grammatical Graphemes

§237.

113

203), though this cannot be acertained. Even if this was the case, later markup seems to be purely morphological even when there is no ambiguity; e.g. when the stem is plural as in

̈ܰ ܳ books’ (sing. ‫ܒ ̱ܗܝ‬

).104

̇ ‫̈ ܳ ܶܒ‬

‘her

§236. This point is absent in early inscriptions and the parchments dated 240–243; e.g.

‫ܒ ܒ‬

‫‘ ܘ‬to do with her’,105

‫ܕ‬

‫‘ ܕ‬in the year’.106 It was fully developed by 411.

‫ܐ‬ 4.3.

Lexical Markers

§237. The original use of the diacritical point was to disambiguate between lexemes (q.v. §113 ff.).107 Common pairs are:

ܺ ܰ ‫‘ ܐ ̣ ܳ ܐ‬hand’ opp. ‫‘ ܐ ̇ ܳ ܐ‬which’. ̣ܳ ܺ ‘wolf’ (with rūkkāḵā ‫ܕܐܒܐ‬ ̣ܳ ݂ ܺ ) opp. ‫ܕܐܒܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܒܐ‬ ܴ̇ ܰ ‫‘ ܺܕ ̣ ܳ ܐ‬judgment’ opp. ‫‘ ܰܕ ̇ ܴ ܳ ܐ‬judge’. ‫‘ ̣ ܶܗ ܶ ܽ ܢ‬these’ opp. ‫‘ ̇ ܴܗ ܽ ܢ‬those’. ‫‘ ̣ ܳܒܐ‬news’ opp. ‫‘ ̇ ܴ ܳܒܐ‬good’. ‫‘ ̣ ܶ ـ ܳ ܐ‬counsel’ opp. ‫‘ ̇ ܱ ـ ܳ ܐ‬king’. ݂ ܽ ܱ ̇ ‘who is’ opp. ܰ ܴ ̇ ‘what is’ ‫‘ ̣ܶ ܳ ܐ‬book’ opp. ‫‘ ̇ ܴ ܳ ܐ‬scribe’. ܳ ‫‘ ܰ ̣ܒ ܳ ܐ‬slave’ opp. ‫‘ ̇ܒ ܳ ܐ‬deed’. ܳ ܳ ‫‘ ̣ ܶ ـ ܐ‬cause’ opp. ‫‘ ܴ̇ ܐ‬offering’. ‫‘ ܶܨ ̣ ܳ ܐ‬bird’ opp. ‫‘ ̇ܰܨ ܳ ܐ‬morning’.

104

Segal 13.

105

Drijvers and Healey, P1 R12

106

Drijvers and Healey, P2, R14

107

‘of the father’.

Arayathinal §23; Brockelmann §6; Coakley-Robinson 2; David

§68; Gabriel of St. Joseph §37; Healey 10; Kiraz, Primer 181, 211 §22; C. B. Michaelis 22; Mingana 100–01; Muraoka, CS4H §6; Niʿmatallah Nöldeke §7; Sciadrensis Ungnad §3.

‫;ܠ‬

‫;ܗ‬

Thackston xxii; Tullberg §8.1; Yeates §8;

114

I. The Graphemic Inventory

‫̣ܰـ ܳܐ‬

‘completed’ opp. ‫ܐ‬

ܳ ܰ ̣

ܳ ‫ܴ̇ ـ‬

§238.

‘peace’.

ܳ ܰ ܴ̇

‘unjust’ opp. ܳ ܽ ̇ ܴ ܳ ‘sign’ opp. common 4-way homographs are: ‫ܐܬܐ‬ ̣ܳ ܶ ‘infant’.108 Two ܶ ܺ ‫‘ ̣ܐܬܐ‬came’ opp. ‫‘ ̇ ܴܐܬܐ‬comes’109 opp. ‫‘ ݂ ܷ ̇ܐܬܐ‬I shall come’ (late E. Syriac marks Ǩ‫ܐܬ‬ ̤ ‘sign’110 with two sublinear points), and ܱ ̇ ‘who?’ opp. ܶ ̣ ‘from’ opp. ̣̇ ‘Greek μέν’,111 and ܳ ‘what’.

§238. A common triplet is:

‘iniquity’ opp.

§239. In derivative nominals, the diacritical point sometimes remains even when no homograph exists; e.g.

ܳ ‫̇ ܱ ـ ܽ ܬܐ‬

‘king-

ܳ ܳ ܶ dom’ from ‫‘ ̇ ܱ ـ ܐ‬king’ opp. ‫‘ ̣ ـ ܐ‬counsel’ where there is no ܳ ܽ ܶ such word as *‫ ـ ܬܐ‬. ݀ and ̇ take a point between §240. The words 112

and , respectively, at least in late W. Syr. MSS. The point may be a residue from the full spelling

‫̇ܠ‬

and

‫̇ܠ‬

. In other

words, the was dropped, but its point was retained.

ܳ ◌ܰ ّ , from Greek ω, is used only in ‫‘ ّܐܘ‬O’, to disambiguate it from ‫‘ ܐܘ‬or’.113 The diacritic sometimes appears as §241. The grapheme ◌̃, ◌̆, or ◌̂.114

‫ܘܐܕ ܐ‬

‫ܐ ܕܥ ܐܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܗ ܐ܀‬

‫̈ـܐ ܓ‬ ‫ܓ ܒ‬

‫ܕ‬

‫ܗ‬

108

David §68.

109

MS BL Add. 17,176, f. 49a from Segal 22.

110

Mosul Bible, Isa. 66:19 vs. 66:15.

111

MS BL Add. 12,166, f. 159a from Segal 22.

112

MS BL Add. 12,150, f. 210a from Segal 21.

113

Amira 40; David §69; Brockelmann §8; Costaz §25; Duval §155;

al-Kfarnissy §5.‫ ;الثالث‬C. B. Michaelis 24; J. D. Michaelis §13; Mingana 102; Nöldeke §9; Uhlemann §7.R.2.c; Ungnad §3. 114

ch. 4

Wright III, xxviii.

5. Editorial, Liturgical and Musical Graphemes

Since the chanters stood in a circle around the lectern [gūḏā], the writing for some of them was completely upside down. Hence, we had to be able to read upside down … and being probably the youngest member of

the choir, I was often pushed around by the others to

take my place in the circle where I had to read upside down!

5.1.

Jabra Ibrahim Jabra (1991–1994), The First Well

Punctuation Graphemes

§242. A few of the historical prosodic marks (which are discussed in Chapter 6), survive and are used almost exclusively for purposes of punctuation. These are linear point-based graphemes which consist of one to four points each:1 A. A period-like one-point grapheme is the most common and describes a pause usually at the end of a phrase or sentence. B. Minor phrases and pauses are marked with two-point graphemes in various shapes: vertical : , and slanted three-point grapheme,

‫ ܆‬and ‫ ܇‬.

A

 , appears in MSS and a number of print

types (e.g. W36 dated 1814 and W45 dated 1836).2

1

Arayathinal §24; Bar ʿEbroyo, Ṣemḥe 308 ff.; Brockelmann §18;

Coakley-Robinson 2; Costaz §26; Cowper §23; Gabriel of St. Joseph §39; Healey 12; al-Kfarnissy §4.‫ ;الخامس‬Kiraz, Primer 67, 128, 212 §§25–28; J. D. Michaelis §17; Muraoka, CS4H §6; Nöldeke §18; Tullberg §9; Yeates §11; Uhlemann §10; Ungnad §3; Zschokke §7. 2

Coakley, Typography 104 illus., 120 illus.

115

116

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§243.

C. The end of a paragraph or chapter is marked with a four-point grapheme

‫܀‬,

though paragraphing within chapters is

quite rare in MSS and is introduced later in critical editions and modern texts. Various allographs of the four-point grapheme are known, including 

 .3

§243. Linearity vs. nonlinearity is not always consistent in MSS and printed books. The two-point grapheme in appear as .‫ܺ ̣ܐ‬

‫ܺ ܳ ܐ܆‬

can also

, where one point is below the last letter of the 4

word, and the other is next to it. §244. Recent printed texts incorporate the western comma, semicolon, exclamation mark, and question mark taken from Arabic: the comma is ، , the semicolon is ‫ ؛‬, the exclamation mark is !,5 and the question mark is

‫( ؟‬an early instance of which, from

1890, is used by Bedjan).6 In recent texts published in Europe, one sometimes finds the western question mark, ?. All these punctuation marks are used in an ad hoc manner as no systematic system is in place (cf. with English punctuation). §245. In the introduction to my Concordance,7 I tried to use a minor pause, colon,

‫܆‬

for a major pause equivalent to comma,

‫ ܇‬for : for

. (point on the line) for period, and ‫( ܁‬a supralinear point)

in a conjunctive series (q.v. §289).

3

Costaz §26; Palacios §35; for variant symbols introduced in

printed books, see Kṯāḇā ḏ-qūrāḇā ʾa(y)ḵ ʿyāḏā ḏ-mārūnāye (1592–94), 149 from Coakley, Typography 44.

ch. 5

4

BFBS, Mt. 1:1.

5

Arayathinal §24.

6

Bedjan, Acta Martyrum I, vii.

7

Kiraz, Concordance I, xxv-xxxiii.

§249.

Editorial, Liturgical and Musical Graphemes

117

§246. In some printed books, an inverted semicolon, ؛‬,

marks the end of an interrogative sentence.8

5.2.

Marking Corrections

§247. In MSS, a three-point nonlinear grapheme marks scribal errors such as a change in the order of letters or words;9 e.g.

݆ܺ ‫ ܶ ܰ ݆ـ‬for ܺ ܰ ܶ ‘they acted cunningly’, ‫ ܰ ܳ ܳ ݆ ܐ ܺ ݆ ܳ ܐ‬for ܳܰ ܳ ܺ ‫ܳܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‘Christ, God’. The three-point grapheme may also ݅݅ ̈ ̈ appear above the letters; e.g. ‫ ܐܓ ܘܝ‬for ‫‘ ܐ ݁ܓ ܗܝ‬his trials’. In

more recent MSS, one may encounter an arrow in a second hand

to denote the correction, an indication that modern readers may ܰ ®‫ܶ ܰ ݆ܒ ܳ ܐ‬ not be familiar with the three-point grapheme; e.g. ݆ ‫ܓ‬ for

‫ܶ ݁ ܰܓ ܰ ݂ܒ ܳ ܐ‬

‘from within the tomb’.10 Letters are sometimes

used instead to mark the order of words; e.g.

ܳ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ ܳܒܐ‬ ‫ܳ ܬ‬

ܳ ̱‫( ܕ ܰ ܶܙ ܐ‬with a small on top of and a small ܶ ܰ ܳ ܳ ܳ . on top of ) for ܳ ̱ ‫݂ܬ ܗ ܳ ܰ ݁ܒܐ ݂ܕ ݂ ܙ ܐ‬

§248. Similarly, a point is placed in some MSS above each letter that should be deleted.11 §249. A vertical line, |, an asterisk, or a cross, marks the omission of a word or phrase which is then inserted in the margin par-

ܳ ܰ ܳܳ ܳ ܰ ‫|ܕ‬ where the missing word ‫ܓܒ ܐ‬ ܳ ܳ ‫ ܳ ܳ ܰܓ݂ܒ ܳ ܐ ݂ ܰܕ‬. In most cases the margin for ‫ܐ‬ ݂

allel to the edge; e.g. appears in the

‫ܳܐ‬

errors are caused by homoeoarcton or homoeoteleuton, scribal

8

David §§137–61; Nestle §12.

9

Nestle §10; Wright III, 28.

10

‫ܐ‬ 11

MS Teaneck, Qyomto Phanqitho, New Sunday, Saphro, Qolo , stanza 3. Nestle §10.

‫ܐ‬

118

I. The Graphemic Inventory

§249.

omission caused when two words in close proximity have the same letters at the beginning or end, respectively.12

5.3.

Quotation Marks

§250. An ancient mark called mḇaṭṭlānā (not to be confused with the silent marker mḇaṭṭlānā for which see §204) or mzahhrānā may have been used to introduce quotations. See §309 for details. §251. A diple is used to mark a noteworthy citation or quotation.13 It takes various forms: . Hook, the right portion of the Serṭā ‫ܗ‬.

Leg refers to the two vertical lines upon which Estrangelā

‫ ܐ‬sits.

232

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§493.

Neck, the vertical short shaft in Esṭrangelā and Serṭā

‫ܫ‬

‫ ܦ‬which rests on the base, and upon

which the body of the graph rests.

Shaft is the main vertical, or near vertical, stroke of letters such as ‫ ܐ‬and

.

Spine is a curving stroke that appears in Esṭrangelā

‫ ܨ‬and Serṭā ‫ܛ‬.

Stem is the main stroke in a graph.

Tail is the denticle at the end of final or standalone letters. It is found in most graphs.

Terminal is the end of a vertical line without a foot as in Serṭā ‫ ܐ‬as opposed to

.

10.4. Cursivity and Pen Lifting §493. Although the three scripts are all cursive, the term ‘cursive’ requires some qualification. In Latin cursive calligraphy, the scribe lifts the pen from the surface of writing at the end of a word, and revisits the same word only to dot the i and cross the t. In Syriac, the scribe lifts the pen not only after each right-joining ch. 10

Ductus

§496.

233

grapheme, but also within some graphs; e.g. Serṭā

(q.v. §539).

In reality, then, the script is quasi-cursive. §494. I shall call graphemes whose medial or final form requires the lifting of the pen to initiate the graph pen-lifting. For instance, in writing

‫ܺ ݂ ܳܒܐ‬

‘thin’, one writes

stroke, then the pen is lifted to write but

‫ܝ‬

cursively in one

‫ܒܐ‬. Here, ‫ ܒ‬is pen-lifting,

non pen-lifting. The pen-lifting property is mostly gra-

phemic within the same script. There are, however, a few graphemes whose allographs have different pen-lifting properties. Serṭā is such a grapheme. Its initial and medial forms are penlifting, but the final and isolated forms are non pen-lifting (q.v. § 539). Pen-lifting does not hold across scripts; e.g. the grapheme is pen-lifting in Esṭrangelā, but non pen-lifting in Serṭā.

10.5. Ductus Characteristics §495. The ductus presented here is an approximation, taking into consideration the received tradition. While emphasis is on the book hand, characteristics of the documentary hand are pointed out when they differ from the book hand. §496. The Esṭrangelā ductus is based on my own hand. It has the following characteristics. A. Ductus with respect to allographs. Out of the eight rightjoining graphemes (viz., and

‫ܙ‬

‫ܐ‬, ‫ܕ‬, ‫ܗ‬, ‫ܘ‬, ‫ܙ‬, ‫ܨ‬, ‫ܪ‬, and ‫)ܬ‬, only ‫ܗ‬

have a ductus for the stand-alone graph that differs

slightly from that of the final graph, due to the connectivity with the preceding graph; otherwise, the ductus of the two graphs is identical. As for the dual-joining graphemes,

‫ܝ‬

and

have a

separate ductus for each of their respective allographs. The graphemes

‫ܓ‬, ‫ܚ‬, ‫ܣ‬, and ‫ ܩ‬have a separate ductus for

the isolated and initial graphs on the one hand, and the

234

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§497.

medial and final graphs on the other. The graphemes and

‫ܡ‬

‫ܟ‬

have a separate ductus for the initial and medial

graphs on the one hand, and the isolated and final graphs on the other. Finally, the graphemes B.

‫ܒ‬, ‫ܛ‬, ‫ܠ‬, ‫ܥ‬, ‫ܦ‬, and

‫ ܫ‬have one ductus across all of their respective allographs. Pen-lifting property. The graphemes ‫ܐ‬, ‫ܒ‬, ‫ܕ‬/‫ܪ‬, ‫ܛ‬, ‫ܟ‬, ‫ܦ‬ and ‫ ܫ‬are pen-lifting, while the remaining graphemes are not.

C. Number of strokes. The grapheme

‫ܫ‬

drawn in three strokes. The graphemes

is the only one

‫ܐ‬, ‫ܗ‬, ‫ܠ‬, ‫ܡ‬, and ‫ܥ‬

are drawn in two strokes. The rest of the graphemes are drawn in a single stroke. D. Equivalence with Serṭā. The following graphemes share the same basic ductus with their respective Serṭā graphemes, bearing in mind that the final shape in both scripts differs: ‫ܒ‬, ‫ܛ‬, ‫ܠ‬, ‫ܓ‬, ‫ܙ‬,

, ‫ܣ‬, and

‫ܦ‬.

E. Equivalence with E. Syr. The following graphemes share the same basic ductus with their respective E. Syr. graphemes, bearing in mind that the final shape in both scripts differs:

‫ܘ‬, ‫ܚ‬, ‫ܠ‬,

, and ‫ܥ‬.

§497. The Serṭā ductus is also based on my own hand. It has the following characteristics. A. Ductus with respect to allographs. Out of the eight rightjoining graphemes (viz. ‫ܐ‬, ‫ܕ‬,

and

‫ܗ‬, ‫ܘ‬, ‫ܙ‬, ‫ܨ‬, ‫ܪ‬, and ‫)ܬ‬, ‫ܐ‬, ‫ܕ‬, ‫ܘ‬, ‫ܙ‬, ‫ܪ‬,

‫ ܬ‬have a ductus for the stand-alone graph that differs

slightly from that of the final graph, due to the connectivity with the preceding graph; in the two graphs is identical.

‫ ܗ‬and ‫ ܨ‬the ductus of

As for the dual-joining graphemes, ductus for each of its respective allographs.

ch. 10

has a separate

Ductus

§499.

The graphemes ‫ܓ‬, ‫ܛ‬, ‫ܣ‬, and

235

‫ ܩ‬have a separate ductus

for the isolated and initial graphs on the one hand, and the medial and final graphs on the other. The graphemes

‫ܟ‬, ‫ܠ‬, ‫ܡ‬, and ‫ ܥ‬have a separate ductus for the initial and

medial graphs on the one hand, and the isolated and final graphs on the other. Finally, the graphemes

and

‫ܫ‬

‫ܒ‬, ‫ܚ‬, ‫ܛ‬, ‫ܝ‬, ‫ܦ‬,

have one ductus across all of their respective al-

lographs. B. Pen-lifting property. The graphemes

‫ܐ‬, ‫ܗ‬,

,

‫ܡ‬,

and

and

‫ܥ‬

‫ܦ‬

are pen-lifting, while all of the remaining graphemes are not. C. Number of strokes. The graphemes

‫ܗ‬, ‫ܠ‬, ‫ܡ‬,

are

drawn in two strokes. The rest of the graphemes are drawn in a single stroke. §498. The E. Syr. ductus is based on the hand of Mar Emanuel Yosip of Toronto. It has the following characteristics. A. The ductus does not seem to have any allographic variations. B. Pen-lifting property. The graphemes

‫ܗ‬, ‫ܘ‬,

and

‫ܙ‬

are pen-

lifting, while all of the remaining graphemes are non penlifting. C. Number of strokes. The grapheme strokes. The graphemes

‫ܓ‬

is drawn in four

‫ ܣ‬and ‫ ܩ‬are drawn in three strokes. The graphemes ‫ܐ‬, ‫ܒ‬, ‫ܕ‬/‫ܪ‬, ‫ܗ‬, ‫ܛ‬, ‫ܠ‬, ‫ܡ‬, ȐȎ, ‫ܥ‬, ‫ܦ‬, ‫ܫ‬, and ‫ ܬ‬are drawn in two strokes. The rest of the graphemes

are drawn in a single stroke.

§499. When describing the ductus, I shall proceed as follows: First, each type style or script is presented in a numbered section (e.g. §502 for Esṭrangelā Ālap̱, §503 for Serṭā Ālap̱, etc.). The description of each script begins by stating its joining (viz. rightjoining or dual-joining) and pen-lifting properties. If the al-

236

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§499.

lographs differ in ductus, each ductus is itemized, in bold, as A, B, etc. When a graph is drawn by more than one stroke, the strokes are numbered, in bold, as 1, 2, etc. Minor allographic variations that do not affect ductus, if any, are itemized under i for isolated, ii for initial, iii for medial, and iv for final. Illustrations are given from the following Meltho fonts:6 Estrangelo Edessa,7 Serto Jerusalem,8 and East Syriac Adiabene.9 6

Kiraz, MELTHO.

7

It is based on types from an Ohioan press, probably designed after

a 1954 Esṭrangelā Monotype font. The Monotype font was designed with the assistance of R. Draguet (1896–1980), and in turn is based on an 1851 type used in Esṭrangelo Talada of the Meltho font set. An electronic version was designed by George A. Kiraz in 1986 for MultiLingual Scholar™ from which the Meltho OpenType font is derived (Coakley, personal communication). 8

This is the oldest type in existence that is still used most popularly

in fonts. The original design dates back to a type associated with the diplomat and printer of Arabic, Savary de Bréves (1560–1628), sometime before 1614 (W11.C in Coakley). The type was acquired by the Imprimerie Catholique in Beirut from the Imprimerie Nationale in Paris in the second half of the 19th century. It was also acquired by the press of St. Mark’s Syriac Orthodox monastery in Jerusalem, from which the font was designed. It was designed as a computer font first in 1996 for MultiLingual Scholar™, and then redesigned for an OpenType font for Meltho (Coakley, personal communication). 9

This type was used in the Assyrian press in Mosul, and its design

is derived from a type that goes back to designer Drugulin ca. 1880. Most computer fonts are derived from this type. This particular font is derived from a bitmap font designed in 1996 for Multi-Lingual Scholar™ with the help of Mar Emanuel Yosip of the Assyrian Church of the East. For the history of this E. Syr. type, see Coakley, ‘Edward Breath’. ch. 10

Ductus

§501.

237

§500. In addition, images from MSS are given for each script to illustrate historical developments (but this is by no means an exhaustive diachronic treatment). In the case of Esṭrangelā, the following MSS were chosen, all from the British Library: 1. Add. 12,150 (Edessa, dated 411). It is the first dated Syriac manuscript and illustrates the earliest forms of Esṭrangelā. 2. Add. 12,153 (Zeugma, dated 844/5). It was written by two scribes at the time of the emergence of the Serṭā script. The first scribe, who wrote ff. 1–42, used Serṭā, while the second scribe began in Serṭā but soon after, on f. 43v, changed to Estrangelā, only to revert to Serṭā on f. 152. 3. Add. 8,729 (Edessa, dated 1230). It represents the renaissance of Estrangelā, initiated in the 10th century by John, bishop of Qarṭmīn. For Serṭā, the following MSS were chosen, also from the British Library: 1. Add. 12,153 mentioned above, dated 844/5. 2. Add. 17,231 (Deir al-Suryān, dated 1483/4). For E. Syr., the following MSS were chosen: 1. Vatican Syr. 186 (near Mosul, dated 1477). While traces of E. Syr. can be seen in earlier MSS in Hatch’s Album, this is the earliest exemplar that can demonstrate clearly the E. Syr. ductus for most of the graphs. 2. Cambridge Add. MS. 1975 (dated 1586) is the latest MS in Hatch’s Album that demonstrates clear E. Syr. ductus. References to MSS are by year; e.g. ‘see 844/5’ is a reference to MS BL Add. 12,153. §501. While the direction of Syriac writing is top-to-bottom (q.v. §449), the ductus below expresses stroke direction in the term of

238

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§501.

the horizontal left-to-right text as it is read. Hence, it is said that Serṭā ‫ ܐ‬is written top-to-bottom, not left-to-right.

10.6. Ālap̱ §502. Esṭrangelā Ālap̱ is a right-joining, pen-lifting grapheme. The same ductus applies to both allographs. It consists of a horizontal shaft and two legs. It is drawn in two strokes. 1. Stroke 1-2-3 draws the horizontal shaft and the first leg of the graph. It begins half-way between the mean and ascender lines at pt 1, moves downward and to the left to pt 2, then makes a sharp turn and continues downward to pt 3, ending either on, or slightly below, the baseline. In some hands, the stroke is clubbed at pt 1 (see 411, 844/5, and 1230 below). The portion between points 1 and 2 forms the horizontal shaft, and that between points 2 and 3 the first leg. 2. Stroke 4-5 draws the second leg. It starts slightly below the mean line at pt 4 where it joins the first stroke, moving downward at an angle to pt 5 (which may be clubbed as in 844/5 below), ending either on, or slightly above, the baseline. In most hands, the first portion of the stroke near pt 4 is thinner than the rest of the stroke. The distance between points 2 and 4 varies, sometimes within the same word. The order of the two strokes is attested in a very late manuscript where the second stroke is missing.10 The allographic variations are: i.

Isolated graph. As above.

iv. Final graph. It meets the joiner line at the baseline. It is not unusual for the slope of the second leg to vary depend-

10

ch. 10

Çiçek, Šḥīmā 79, ln 8.

Ductus

§503.

239

ing on the preceding graph and the space necessary for justification.

An additional third horizontal stroke starting from pt 5 and moving to the right is present in some hands (e.g. 1230). Point 2 may have a serif (e.g. 1230). §503. Serṭā Ālap̱ is non pen-lifting when connected to the preceding graph. The two allographs differ in ductus. A. Isolated graph. It consists of a vertical curved shaft. It is drawn in one stroke. The stroke begins at pt 1 around the ascender line, and moves downward in a curved manner passing by points 2 and 3, and finally terminates at pt 4 (the terminal) just below the base line. The stroke is at its thinnest between points 2 and 3. B. Final graph. It is drawn in one broken stroke. It consists of a vertical straight shaft and a foot. The stroke begins at pt 1 at the baseline as a continuation of the preceding graph, and moves vertically upward to pt 3, passing by pt 2. It then traces itself downward passing by pt 2 for the second time. At pt 4, it diverges slightly to the left and moves to pt 5 below the base line. The portion between points 1 and 4 forms the foot. The portion between points 3 and 4 forms the shaft. Serṭā Ālap̱ in its final graph has a variant that creates a counter on the shaft portion, . In this case, after reaching pt 3,

240

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§504.

the stroke, rather than tracing itself back, moves down and towards the right creating a second shaft in the form of a loop. In this case, both shafts are more or less in the shape of an arc. This variant is first attested in a print type in 1647.11 This variation also occurs in the ligature  for .

§504. East Syriac Ālap̱ is also non pen-lifting as in Serṭā. Both allographs have the same ductus. Like Serṭā Ālap̱, it consists of a

vertical curved shaft (but with distinct curvature) and a foot. It is drawn in two strokes. 1. Stroke 1-2 draws the foot. It begins at the baseline and moves horizontally to the left to pt 2.

2. Stroke 3-4-5 draws the shaft. It begins between the mean and ascender lines, but closer to the former, at pt 3, moves downwards and to the right to pt 4, then down to pt 5 where it terminates just below the baseline. There are no allographic variations.

11

ch. 10

Acurensis

.

Ductus

§505.

241

10.7. Bēṯ §505. Esṭrangelā Bēṯ is a dual-joining, pen-lifting grapheme. The same ductus applies to all four allographs. It is drawn in one broken stroke. The stroke begins at pt 1 just around the mean line. It moves a short distance to the left to pt 2, then traces itself back to pt 1 and continues to pt 3. At pt 2, the pen moves down slightly, down creating a clubbed end. At pt 3, the stroke curves and changes direction downward to the baseline at pt 4. Then, it changes direction again and moves horizontally to the left. The distance between points 2 and 3 and between points 4 and 5 vary depending on justification needs, but the vertical distance between points 3 and 4 is usually stable and varies little within one hand. Allographic variations are: i.

Isolated graph. It terminates with a tail at pt 6.

ii. Initial graph. It terminates at pt 5. iii. Medial graph. Pt 4 meets the joining line from the preceding graph. iv. Final graph. Pt 4 meets the joining line from the preceding graph, and terminates with a tail at pt 6.

The crotch at points 3 and 4 is more angular in later Esṭrangelā (e.g. 844/5 and 1230 as opposed to 411). Pt 4 may have a serif (e.g. 1230).

242

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§506.

§506. Serṭā Bēṯ is drawn with a similar ductus but is rather curvier.

§507. E. Syr. Bēṯ is non pen-lifting. It is drawn with a distinct ductus in two strokes. 1. Stroke 1-2-3 begins at the baseline, moves vertically upwards to pt 2, then changes direction and moves horizontally to pt 3. 2. Stroke 1-4-5 begins at the baseline and moves horizontally to the left to pt 4 terminating with the tail at pt 5. The tail is obviously missing in initial and medial graphs.

ch. 10

Ductus

§508.

243

10.8. Gāmal §508. Esṭrangelā Gāmal is a dual-joining, non pen-lifting grapheme. The ductus of the isolated and initial graphs on the one hand, and the medial and final graphs on the other differ. A. Isolated and initial graphs. They are drawn in one broken stroke. The stroke begins at pt 1 above the mean line. It moves in a slope downward to pt 2 on or around the baseline, where the angle of the slope decreases. The stroke continues to pt 3 where the direction is reversed, moving upward. First the stroke traces itself back to pt 4, then departs and moves to the left towards pt 5. The stroke at pt 1 is usually thicker than pt 2 or is clubbed. The area of the crotch at points 2 and 4 varies from hand to hand. The descent at pt 3 varies in length and can exceed the descender line, sometimes touching graphs on the following line (the short descender above was dictated by digital typographical constraints). The allographic variations are: i.

Isolated graph. Terminates at point 6 either with a tail or a clubbed ending.

ii. Initial graph. Terminates at pt 5. The slope from pt 3 to pt 5 may differ depending on the position of the following graph. B. Medial and final graphs. They are drawn in one broken stroke. It starts at the baseline as a continuation of the preceding graph. It moves upward to pt 2 (= pt 1 in A), then traces itself back to pt 1 (= pt 2 in A), then to pt 3, etc. The allographic variations are: iii. Medial graph. As ii above. iv. Final graph. As i above.

244

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§509.

The images above are initial graphs followed by Yuḏ. Pt 3 has a circle in late Esṭrangelā (e.g. 1230). §509. Serṭā Gāmal is drawn with a similar ductus. Pt 1 is usually below the mean line. Points 2 and 4 do not meet; hence, the stroke is not broken. The crotch at pt 3 is open. The tail at pt 6 is well above the baseline, just under the mean line.

§510. E. Syr. Gāmal is drawn with a different ductus in four strokes. 1. Stroke 1-2 begins at the baseline and moves upwards terminating at pt 2 halfway between the mean line and the ascender line. 2. Stroke 3-4 also begins at the baseline (where pt 3 = pt 1) and moves horizontally to the left terminating at pt 4. 3. Stroke 5-1 begins at the bottom part of the graph at pt 5 and moves upwards terminating at pt 1. 4. Stroke 5-5 creates the clubbed end at pt 5.

ch. 10

Ductus

§511.

245

10.9. Dālaṯ and Rīš §511. Esṭrangelā Dālaṯ and Rīš are both right-joining, pen-lifting graphemes. They are distinguished by a sublinear point for the Dālaṯ and a supralinear point for the Rīš; otherwise, they are identical in ductus. Both allographs have the same ductus. In a documentary hand, it is drawn in one stroke beginning at pt 1 around the mean line, moving to the right to pt 2, then changing direction downward to pt 3. In book hand, and especially if the tip at pt 2 is desired, it is drawn in two stokes: 1-2, then 2-3. The point is not always exactly circular. The allographic variations are: i.

Isolated graph. As above.

iv. Final graph. It meets the joiner line at the baseline.

In earlier hands, one finds two distinct forms of the graph: an Esṭrangelā-like ‫ ܖ‬, and a Serṭā-like ‫ܖ‬. In the 411 manuscript, the

former appears mostly word-initially, whether acting as a prefix or part of the morphological stem, while the latter appears within the word. The graphs are more angular at pt 2 in later hands.

246

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§512.

§512. Serṭā Dālaṯ and Rīš are non pen-lifting. Their ductus differs substantially from Esṭrangelā. Additionally, the Serṭā isolated graphs differ from their final counterparts in ductus and shape. A. Isolated graph. It is drawn in one circular stroke. The stroke begins at pt 1 at the baseline, then moves in a clockwise circular motion through points 2, 3, and 4. At pt 4, the stroke moves back to pt 1. Then, another circle begins inside the first one in an inner spiral manner. This is repeated ca. five to eight times (in documentary hand) until the upper part of the graph is filled. After the penultimate circle (which ends at pt 4), a final circle is drawn but at the outer edge, and then moves from pt 4 down to pt 5. Finally, the point is drawn below the body of the graph for Dālāṯ and above for Rīš. B. Final graph. It is drawn in one broken stroke. It begins at the baseline as a continuation of the joiner line and moves up to pt 2. It then makes a sharp turn and moves downward and terminates at pt 3. The point is then drawn.

§513. E. Syr. Dālaṯ and Rīš are also non pen-lifting. They are drawn with two strokes in addition to the point. 1. Stroke 1-2 begins at the baseline at pt 1 and moves horizontally to the left terminating at pt 2. 2. Stroke 1-3-4 begins at the same point as the

ch. 10

Ductus

§514.

247

first stroke, moves upwards, passes by pt 3 and terminates at pt 4 at or near the mean line. This point is then drawn.

10.10.Hē §514. Esṭrangelā Hē is a right-joining, non pen-lifting grapheme. The ductus of the isolated graph differs from that of the final graph. A. Isolated graph. It is drawn in two strokes. 1. Stroke 1-2-3-4-5-6 begins at pt 1 on the baseline. It moves to the right to pt 2 where it curves and begins to move upward to pt 3 near the mean line. There it curves again and moves to the left to pt 5, passing by pt 4 where it is slightly lower creating a concave effect. At pt 5, it curves yet again and begins moving in a circular counterclockwise motion ending at pt 6 on the baseline. While the outside of the portion between points 2 and 4 is curved, it is more circular on the inside. Points 3 and 5 are relatively, though not always, at the same height. 2. Stroke 4-7 is a vertical shaft that drops from pt 4 to pt 7, and sometimes extends below the baseline. B. Final graph. It is also drawn in two strokes, but the first is broken. It starts at pt 1 as a continuation of the preceding graph moving to the left to pt 2 (= pt 1 in A), then traces itself back to pt 1 (=pt 2 in A), then to pt 3, etc. The second stroke is as in A.

248

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§515.

The counter between points 5 and 6 is sometimes filled in 411. Points 2 and 3 tend to be more angular in later hands, while points 5 and 6 remain curved. §515. Serṭā Hē is pen-lifting. Both allographs share the same ductus. It consists of a hook and a bowl, drawn in two strokes. 1. Stroke 1-2-3 creates the hook. It begins at pt 1 about half way between the baseline and the mean line. It moves up to pt 2, then makes a sharp turn moving downward and terminating at pt 2 slightly under the baseline. 2. Stroke 1-4-5-6-1 draws the bowl. It begins at pt 1, moves in a counterclockwise motion, passing by points 4, 5 and 6. It terminates at pt 1.

§516. E. Syr. Hē is also pen-lifting. It consists of a hook and a bowl, and is drawn in two strokes. 1. Stroke 1-2 creates the hook. It begins at pt 1 and moves vertically downward terminating at pt 2 just below the baseline. 2. Stroke 1-3-4-5 begins at the same point as the ch. 10

Ductus

§517.

249

first stroke, moves horizontally to the left to pt 3, then continues in a counter-clockwise manner and terminates at pt 5. In the case of a ligature, an additional stroke draws the beginning at pt 6 and terminating at pt 8 passing by pt 7.

10.11.Waw §517. Esṭrangelā Waw is a right-joining, non pen-lifting grapheme. The ductus is identical in both allographs. It consists of a bowl. It is drawn in one stroke. The stroke begins at the baseline at pt 1 and moves upward in a counterclockwise circular motion passing by pt 2 at or above the mean line, and ending up at pt 3 at the baseline. In some hands, there is a tip at the end of the stroke right above the baseline. The area of the counter inside the graph varies even within the same hand. In many hands, the identical to the bowl of ‫ܗ‬. The allographic variations are: i.

Isolated graph. As above.

iv. Final graph. It meets the joiner line at the baseline.

‫ܘ‬

is

250

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§518.

Quite often, pt 1 is below the mean line in the isolated graph. §518. Serṭā Waw is non pen-lifting. The ductus of the isolated graph differs from that of the final graph. A. Isolated graph. It is similar to Serṭā Hē but without the hook. It is drawn in one stroke beginning at pt 1, then moving counterclockwise to form a circle, passing by pt 2 at the mean line, then points 3 and 4. It terminates at pt 1. The graph can also be written in a clockwise manner. B. Final graph. It is also drawn in one stroke, but in a clockwise manner. The stroke begins at pt 1 as a continuation of the preceding graph. It moves to the left to pt 2 and then begins drawing the bowl, passing by points 3 and 4. It terminates at pt 2.

§519. E. Syr. Waw is drawn in a similar manner to the Serṭā isolated graph in a counterclockwise movement.

ch. 10

Ductus

§521.

251

10.12.Zayn §520. Esṭrangelā Zayn is a right-joining, non pen-lifting grapheme. The ductus of the isolated graph differs from that of the final graph in documentary hand, but not in book hand. It is drawn in one stroke. A. Isolated graph. The stroke begins on or around the mean line at pt 1, and moves downward to slightly below the baseline at pt 2. The stroke is usually clubbed at pt 1, and the portion in the middle is thinner than the edges. The slope of the stroke varies from one hand to another, and sometimes within the same hand. B. Final graph. The stroke becomes broken in documentary hand. It begins at the joiner line at pt 1, moves up to pt 2 (= pt 1 A), then traces itself back to pt 1, ending at pt 3 (=pt 2 in A). In book hand, the stroke is equivalent to the standalone graph meeting the joiner line at pt 1.

§521. Serṭā Zayn. The ductus is similar to that of Esṭrangelā.

252

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§522.

§522. E. Syr. Zayn is pen-lifting. It is drawn in one stroke in addition to filling the counter created by the stroke. It begins at pt 1 at or just above the baseline, then moves up to pt 2, then down through pt 3, terminating at pt 4. This stroke creates a counter between points 1, 2, and 3 which is then filled.

10.13.Ḥēṯ §523. Esṭrangelā Ḥēṯ is a dual-joining, non pen-lifting grapheme. The ductus of the isolated and initial graphs on the one hand, and the medial and final graphs on the other differ. It consists of two joined denticles.

ch. 10

§524.

Ductus

253

A. Isolated and initial graphs. They are drawn in one broken stroke. The stroke begins at or slightly under the mean line at pt 1, moving downward towards the baseline where it curves at pt 2 and changes direction to the left. At pt 3, the stroke moves upward to pt 4, and then traces itself back to pt 3, finishing the stroke at pt 5 with a tail. The height of points 1 and 4 is usually the same. The portion between points 1 and 2 form the first denticle, while that between 3 and 4 the second. The allographic variations are: i.

Isolated graph. As above.

ii. Initial graph. Terminates without a tail at pt 5. B. Initial and final graphs. They are also drawn in one broken stroke, but here the stroke begins at the joiner line at pt 1. It then moves up to pt 2 (= pt 1 in A), then traces itself back and moves to pt 3, etc. Here, the movements 1-2-3 and 3-43-5 are identical. The allographic variations are: iii. Medial graph. As ii above. iv. Final graph. As i above.

§524. Serṭā Ḥēṯ is non pen-lifting. All allographs share the same ductus. It is drawn in one broken stroke. The stroke begins at pt 1, moves up slightly to pt 2, then back to pt 1 passing by pt 3. Then it traces itself to pt 3. The same movements are repeated starting from pt 3. In other words, the

254

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§525.

movements 1-2-3-1-3 and 3-4-5-3-5 are identical. Finally, the tail is drawn passing by pt 6 and terminating at pt 7.

§525. E. Syr. Ḥēṯ is drawn in a similar manner.

10.14.Ṭēṯ §526. Esṭrangelā Ṭēṯ is a dual-joining, pen-lifting grapheme. The same ductus applies to all four allographs. It consists of a shaft above the baseline, and a bowl below the baseline. It is drawn in one stroke. The stroke begins at or above the ascender line and moves downward to pt 2 just above the descender line. Then it takes a sharp turn towards pt 3 on the baseline, followed by another sharp turn left to create a line on the baseline ending

ch. 10

Ductus

§527.

255

with the tail at pt 4. The top part of the stroke at pt 1 is usually clubbed. The allographic variations are: i.

Isolated graph. As above.

ii. Initial graph. As above but does not have a tail at pt 4. iii. Medial graph. As ii but the scribe needs to start pt 1 at a good distance to ensure that pt 3 meets the joiner line from the preceding graph. iv. Final graph. As i with the caveat in iii.

§527. Serṭā Ṭēṯ is non pen-lifting. The ductus of the isolated and initial graphs on the one hand, and the medial and final graphs on the other differ. It consists of a spine above the baseline and a bowl below the baseline. A. Isolated and initial graphs. They are drawn in one stroke. The stroke begins at pt 1 around the ascender line, then moves slightly to the right and downward to pt 2, and continues to pt 3 around the baseline. It continues to draw a bowl below the base line passing by points 4, 5, and 6, then terminates with the tail at pt 7. The allographic variations are: i.

Isolated graph. As above.

ii. Initial graph. After pt 6, it begins drawing the joiner line as in . When followed by

‫ ܠ‬or ‫ܥ‬, the direction of the

stroke at pt 6 becomes a slanted line as if to begin writing the following graph; e.g.

as opposed to ‫ ܐ‬.

256

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§528.

B. Medial and final graphs. These are also drawn in one stroke. It begins at the baseline as a continuation of the preceding graph at pt 1, then moves upward and to the left to pt 2 (= pt 1 in A), then continues as in A. In many hands, the height of pt 2 here is less than pt 1 in A. The allographic variations are: iii. Medial graph. As ii above. iv. Final graph. As ii above with the caveat in iii.

§528. E. Syr. Ṭēṯ is non pen-lifting. While its shape is similar to that of Esṭrangelā, it is drawn with a different ductus consisting of two strokes. 1. Stroke 1-2 draws the base stroke of the graph from pt 1 to pt 2. 2. Stroke 1-3-4 also begins at pt 1, moves down to pt 3, then changes direction and moves up to pt 4.

ch. 10

§529.

Ductus

257

10.15.Yūḏ §529. Esṭrangelā Yūḏ is a dual-joining, non pen-lifting grapheme. The initial and medial graphs share the same ductus, but the other allographs have their own ductus. It consists of one denticle. A. Isolated graph. It is drawn in one stroke. The stroke is curved in the shape of an arc. It begins between the baseline and mean line at pt 1, and ends below the baseline at pt 3, passing by pt 2. B. Initial graph. It is drawn in one stroke. The ductus is similar to the first part of . The stroke begins at pt 1, moves down to pt 2 at the baseline, then to the left terminating at pt 3. C. Medial graph. It is drawn in one broken stroke. It begins at the joiner line at pt 1, moves up to pt 2, traces itself back down to the baseline, then moves left terminating at pt 3. D. Final graph. It begins at the joiner line at pt 1, moves up to pt 2 (= pt 1 in A), then traces itself back down terminating at pt 3.

258

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§530.

In early MSS, the upper portion at pt 1 is circular giving the graph the shape of a Sertā-like Dālaṯ or Rīš,

‫( ܖ‬e.g. 411 and

844/5). In later Esṭrangelā, the standalone shape is similar to Sertā

‫( ܝ‬see below). In some cases at the end of a line, ‫ ܝ‬creates a

ligature when preceded by a standalone poses, in which case the

‫ܗ‬

for justification pur-

‫ ܝ‬is realized as a final graph rather than

a standalone graph (q.v. E. Syr. ligature under §392). An example is shown below from the 411 MS (c. 3, ln 24).

§530. Serṭā Yūḏ is also a right-joining, non pen-lifting grapheme that is drawn like Serṭā Ḥēṯ (q.v. §524), but consists of only one denticle instead of two. All four allographs share the same ductus. The stroke begins at pt 1, moves up slightly to pt 2, then back to pt 1 passing by pt 3. Then it traces itself to pt 3. Finally, the tail is drawn passing by pt 4 and terminating at pt 5.

§531. E. Syr. Yūḏ is drawn in a similar manner.

ch. 10

Ductus

§532.

259

10.16.Kāp̱ §532. Esṭrangelā Kāp̱ is a dual-joining, pen-lifting grapheme. The ductus of the initial and medial graphs on the one hand, and the initial and final graphs on the other, differ. A. Initial and medial graphs. These are drawn in one stroke. The stroke begins at pt 1 below the mean line, then moves upward to pt 2 slightly above the mean line where it takes a sharp turn and moves downward to pt 3 at the baseline. There, it moves to the left and ends at pt 4. The allographic variations are: ii. Initial graph. As above. iii. Medial graph. As ii but pt 1 must start at a distance to permit pt 3 to meet the joiner line from the preceding graph. B. Isolated and final graphs. These are also drawn in one stroke. The stroke begins at the far left of the graph at pt 1 around the mean line. It moves down in a counterclockwise manner to pt 2 where is begins to move up again towards pt 3. At pt 4, the stroke moves direction again and moves downward and ends on or below the descender line at pt 4. Usually points 1 and 3 are of the same height. Pt 4 in most MSS extends well below the descender line. The stroke is usually clubbed at pt 1 and is quite thin at pt 4. The allographic variations are:

260 i.

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§533.

Isolated graph. As above.

iv. Final graph. As i with the caveat in iii above.

The crotch at pt 2 is more filled in the 411 hand, and less angular in the 844/5 hand.

§533. Serṭā Kāp̱ is also a dual-joining, pen-lifting grapheme.

A. Initial and medial graphs. These are drawn as in Esṭrangelā.

B. Isolated and final graphs. It consists of a

‫ܝ‬

shape on the baseline and a shaft below the base-

line. It is drawn in two strokes. 1. Stroke 1-5 draws the main body of the graph that looks like Serṭā

‫( ܝ‬q.v. §530). 2. Stroke 4-6 draws a shaft

below the baseline from pt 4 at the baseline to pt 6 around the descender line.

ch. 10

Ductus

§535.

261

§534. E. Syr. Kāp̱. In the initial and medial graphs, it is drawn as above. The ductus differs in the isolated and final graphs. A. Isolated graph. It is drawn in two strokes. 1. Stroke 1-2-3-4-5-6 begins at the baseline and moves up to pt 2. It traverses points 3-4-5 and terminates at pt 6. 2. Stroke 1-7 begins at pt 1 and moves down and terminates at pt 7. B. Final Graph. The final graph, ȇ, is drawn in

one stroke. It begins at pt 1 at the baseline, moves up to pt 2. Then it changes directions and moves to the left to pt 3, and then down to pt 4, terminating at pt 5.

10.17.Lāmaḏ §535. Esṭrangelā Lāmaḏ is a dual-joining, non pen-lifting grapheme. All four allographs share the same ductus. It consists of a shaft and a base. It is drawn in two strokes.

262

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§536.

1. Stroke 1-2 begins at the baseline at pt 1, and moves upward to pt 2, just above the ascender line. The stroke is usually clubbed at pt 2. This portion constitutes the shaft. 2. Stroke 1-3 begins at pt 1 as well and moves left terminating with a tail at pt 3. This portion, excluding the tail, constitutes the base. The allographic variations are: i.

Isolated graph. As above.

ii. Initial graph. As i but without the tail. The length of the second stroke depends on the height of the following graph. iii. Medial graph. As ii noting that pt 1 meets the joiner line of the preceding graph. iv. Final graph. As iii with a tail.

The length of the first stroke varies substantially from one hand to another (e.g. quite tall in 411, but short in 844/5). In the case of a short first stroke, a long second stroke causes confusion with ‫< ܥ‬ʕ> as in 1230.

One sometimes finds additional otiose associated with

Lāmaḏ, extending from the top tip of the first stroke. An elaborate example appears in Pl. 8. §536. Serṭā Lāmaḏ is also a dual-joining, non pen-lifting grapheme. Unlike Esṭrangelā, the ductus of the Serṭā initial and medial graphs on the one hand, and the isolated and final graphs on the other differ.

ch. 10

Ductus

§537.

263

A. Initial and medial graphs. These are drawn in two strokes. 1. Stroke 1-2 draws a shaft beginning at pt 1 at the baseline, then moves upward terminating at pt 2 just below the ascender line. 2. Stroke 3-4-5, in book hand, begins at pt 3 touching the first stroke just above the baseline. It then moves down to the baseline to pt 4, then to the left terminating at pt 5. The length of the second stroke between points 4 and 5 depends on the height of the following graph, especially in MSS; e.g. short in

, but longer in

. In documentary hand, the second stroke

simply goes from pt 1 to pt 5. B. Isolated and final graphs. These are also drawn in two strokes. The ductus is similar up to pt 4. The second stroke then turns upwards and terminates at pt 5 to create a second shaft parallel to the first.

§537. E. Syr. Lāmaḏ is written as in Esṭrangelā.

264

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§538.

10.18.Mīm §538. Esṭrangelā Mīm is a dual-joining, non pen-lifting grapheme. The ductus of the initial and medial graphs on the one hand, and the isolated and final graphs on the other differ. A. Initial and medial graphs. These are drawn in two strokes. 1. Stroke 1-2-3-4-5 begins on or slightly above the baseline at pt 1, moves to the right to pt 2, then up to pt 3 near the mean line where it turns to the left. It then continues to pt 4 and moves slightly upward to pt 5. It is usually clubbed at pt 5. 2. Stroke 6-7-8 starts at pt 6 and moves down to the baseline. In the initial and medial forms, it turns left at the baseline at pt 7 to start the joiner line, and ends at point 8. The length between points 7 and 8 depends on the height of the next graph and justification requirements. The allographic variations are: ii. Initial graph. As above. iii. Medial graph. As i, but pt 2 meets the joiner line from the preceding graph. B. Isolated and final graphs. These are also drawn in two strokes. 1. Stroke 1-2-3-4-5-6 begins around the mean line and moves in circular counterclockwise motion through points 2, 3, and 4. At pt 5 it moves slightly up and ends at pt 6. 2. Stroke 7-8 is a straight line. The allograph variations are: i. ch. 10

Isolated graph. As above.

Ductus

§539.

265

iv. Final graph. As i noting that pt 3 meets the joiner line from the preceding graph.

The length of the strokes varies extensively from one hand to another. In many hands (though not the one illustrated here), all four allographs share the same ductus for the first stroke. §539. Serṭā Mīm is also a dual-joining, but pen-lifting grapheme. The ductus of the initial and medial graphs on the one hand, and the isolated and final graphs on the other differ. A. Initial and medial graphs. These are drawn in two strokes. 1. It begins at pt 1 half way between the baseline and the mean line. It first creates a circle moving clockwise through points 2, 3 and 4. At pt 4, it moves in the form of a shaft to pt 5. 2. It begins at pt 4 at the baseline, then moves to the left and terminates at pt 6.

266

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§540.

B. Isolated and final graphs. They are drawn in one stroke. It begins with the same ductus as A (from pt 1 until 5). At pt 5, it changes direction sharply and moves down to pt 6 just above the descender line. A variant form of ,

‫ܐ‬

‫ܓ‬

for

‫ܓܽ ܰ ܳܐ‬

and

ܰ ‫ܐ‬̈

,

for

appears in MSS;12 e.g.

ܰ ‫̈ ܶܐ‬

in the MS of the

Chronicle of Michael Rabo (a regular mīm appears throughout in Chabot’s edition).13

§540. E. Syr. Mīm is non pen-lifting. The ductus of the initial and medial graphs on the one hand, and the isolated and final graphs on the other differ. A. Initial and medial graphs. These are drawn in two strokes. 1. Stroke 1-2-3-4 begins at pt 1 at the baseline, moves up to pt 2 and curves to pt 3, at which point it moves up and terminates at pt 4 just above the mean line. 2. Stroke 1-5-6 starts at pt 1, moves to the left to pt 5 at which point it makes a denticle, then it continues to the left terminating at pt 6.

12

Wright III, xxx.

13

Examples are found in Ibrahim, The Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex of

the Chronicle of Michael the Great: 35);

‫̈ ܐ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܓ‬

‘coffin’ (p. 149, co. 3, ln.

‘nations’ (p. 150, co. 1, ln. 38). I am grateful to Mor

Polycarpus E. Aydin for pointing out these instances. ch. 10

§541.

Ductus

267

B. Isolated and final graphs. These are drawn in three strokes. 1. Stroke 1-2-3 begins at pt 1 just above the mean line, moves upwards to pt 2, then to the left terminating at pt 3 just above the mean line. 2. Stroke 1-4 begins at pt 1 and moves to the left on the baseline terminating at pt 4. 3. Stroke 54-6 begins at pt 5 and moves down to pt 6, passing by pt 4.

10.19.Nūn §541. Esṭrangelā Nūn is a dual-joining, non pen-lifting grapheme. Each of the four allographs has its own ductus. A. Initial graph. The stroke begins above the mean line at pt 1, moves downward, slightly to the right to the baseline at pt 2 where it makes a sharp turn to the left to create the joiner line ending at pt 3. B. Medial graph. The medial graph is drawn differently in the documentary hand than the book hand. In the former, it begins at the joining line at pt 2, moves up to pt 1, then traces itself back to pt 2, then to pt 3. In the book hand, the joiner line already extends to pt 3 or beyond (depending on the following graphs) and the stroke simply starts at pt 1 and ends at pt 2. C. Final graph. The stroke begins at the joiner line at pt 1. In a documentary hand, it simply moves to pt 2, then down to pt 4 around the descender line. In a book hand, it is drawn in two

268

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§542.

strokes: 1. Stroke 1-2-4 as in the documentary hand. 2. Stroke 13-2 starts at 1, moves up slightly to 3, then down to 2 in a fashion similar to the Serṭā . D.

Isolated

graph.

The

stand-alone

graph begins at the baseline at pt 1. In a documentary hand, it moves in a slope and ends at pt 3 above the descender line. In a formal hand, it is clubbed at pt 1 through one or two strokes from pt 1 to pt 2. Then a final hairstroke is used between points 2 and 3.

The standalone stroke is sometimes otiose and can underline the entire word as in ‫ܘܢ‬

‫( ܒ‬411 MS, column 3, ln 28).

§542. Serṭā Nūn is a dual-joining, non pen-lifting grapheme. Each of the four allographs has its own ductus similar to the respective one in Esṭrangelā.

ch. 10

§544.

Ductus

269

§543. E. Syr. Nūn is non pen-lifting. The ductus of the initial and medial graphs differs from Serṭā, but the remaining graphs have a similar ductus as Esṭrangelā and Serṭā. A. Initial and medial graphs. These are drawn in three strokes. 1. Stroke 1-2 begins at pt 1 and moves up to terminate at pt 2 at the mean line. 2. Stroke 3-1 begins at pt 3 (just to the left of pt 2) and moves down and terminates at pt 1. 3. Stroke 1-4 begins at pt 1 and draws a line at the baseline terminating at pt 4.

10.20.Simkaṯ §544. Esṭrangelā Simkaṯ is a dual-joining (post-7th century, q.v. § 378), non pen-lifting grapheme. The ductus of the isolated and initial graphs on the one hand, and the medial and final graphs on the other differ. It consists of two bowls. A. Isolated and initial graphs. These are drawn in one stroke. The stroke begins in the middle of the graph at pt 1 right on the baseline. It moves in a clockwise circular motion to pt 2, slightly

270

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§545.

under the mean line, then back to pt 1 passing through pt 3. From pt 1, it moves again in a clockwise circular motion passing through pt 4 and ending up at pt 1. Note that in some hands pt 4 is higher than pt 2, sometimes reaching above the mean line. The allographic variations are: i.

Isolated graph. As above.

ii. Initial graph. As i when right-joining. When dual-joining, after terminating at pt 1, the stroke continues to the left on the baseline to form a joiner line to the next graph. B. Medial and final forms. They are also drawn in one stroke. The stroke begins at the joiner line at pt 1, moves to the left to pt 2 (= pt 1 in A), then to pt 3 (= pt 2 in A), etc. The allographic variations are: iii. Medial graph. As above, with the caveat in ii. iv. Final graph. As above.

While

‫ ܣ‬is right-joining in 411, the next graph sometimes

attaches to it, although not through a joiner line; e.g.

‫ܒ‬

(411,

col. 2, ln 29). §545. Serṭā Simkaṯ is a dual-joining, non pen-lifting grapheme. The ductus is similar to that of Esṭrangelā with the exception of a tail. After the stroke ends at pt 1 (for which see above under Esṭrangelā), it moves to the left to pt 6, then draws the tail terminating at pt 7. There is a swash version with a tail extended under the

ch. 10

Ductus

§547. baseline at pt 1; e.g.

271

.14 This form appears in MSS, a few print

types as early as 1627 (W13),15 as well as some digital type.16

§546. E. Syr. Simkaṯ is non pen-lifting. It is drawn in three strokes. 1. Stroke 1-2-3-4 begins at pt 1, moves upwards to pt 2, passes by pt 3, and terminates at pt 4 at the baseline. 2. Stroke 1-4-5-6-3-4 begins at pt 1, moves to the left to pt 4, at which point it begins to move in a clockwise motion passing by points 5, 6, and 3, and finally terminates at pt 4. 3. Stroke 7-8 begins at pt 7 and moves to the left and terminates at pt 8.

10.21.ʿē §547. Esṭrangelā ʿē is a dual-joining, non pen-lifting grapheme. All four allographs share the same ductus which is similar to that of

‫ܠ‬. It consists of a short shaft and a base. It is drawn in two

strokes.

14

Coakley, Typography 12.

15

Coakley, Typography 64–66; illus. 65.

16

Kiraz, Alaph Beth 12–14.

272

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§548.

1. Stroke 1-2 begins at the baseline at pt 1, and moves upward to pt 2, just above the mean line. The stroke at pt 1 is sometimes clubbed. 2. Stroke 1-3 begins at pt 1 and moves left to pt 3 drawing a tail. The allographic variations are: i.

Isolated graph. As above.

ii. Initial graph. As i but without a tail. The length of the second stroke depends on the height of the following graph. iii. Medial graph. As ii, and pt 1 meets the joiner line of the preceding graph. iv. Final graph. As i, noting that pt 1 meets the joiner line. The distance between points 1 and 3 is dictated by the justification requirements. The crotch is filled in some hands (e.g. 411).

§548. Serṭā ʿē is non pen-lifting. Unlike Esṭrangelā, the ductus of the Serṭā initial and medial graphs on the one hand, and the isolated and final graphs on the other differ. The ductus is exactly like that of Serṭā Lāmaḏ, repeated below for convenience. A. Initial and medial graphs. These are drawn in two strokes. 1. It begins at pt 1 at the baseline and draws a shaft upward terminating at pt 2 around the mean line.

ch. 10

Ductus

§550.

273

2. Stroke 2 begins at pt 3 touching the first stroke just above the baseline. It then moves down to the base line to pt 4, then to the left terminating at pt 5. B. Isolated and final graphs. These are also drawn in two strokes. The ductus is similar up to pt 4. The second stroke then turns upwards and terminates at pt 5 to create a second shaft parallel to the first one.

§549. E. Syr. ʿē is drawn similar to Esṭrangelā in two strokes.

10.22.Pē §550. Esṭrangelā Pē is a dual-joining, pen-lifting grapheme. The ductus of all four allographs is similar. It is drawn in one stroke.

274

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§551.

The stroke begins at pt 1 just under the mean line. It moves in circular form to pt 2, then to pt 3 between the mean line and the ascender line, but closer to the former. From pt 3, it moves in a shaft-like form to pt 4 at the base line. The base stroke is then drawn from pt 4 to pt 5 to form the tail. The allographic variations are: i.

Isolated form. As above.

ii. Initial form, as i but without the tail. iii. Medial graph. The scribe must position pt 1 in such a manner that pt 4 meets the joiner line. iv. Final graph. As iii with the tail.

§551. Serṭā Pē is drawn as in Esṭrangelā.

ch. 10

Ductus

§553.

275

§552. E. Syr. Pē has a different ductus. It is drawn in two strokes. 1. Stroke 1-2-3-4 begins at pt 1, moves upwards to pt 2, and makes a serif then moves in a counterclockwise manner to pt 3 and terminates at pt 4. 2. Stroke 1-5 begins at pt 1 and moves on the baseline to the left terminating at pt 5.

10.23.Ṣāḏē §553. Esṭrangelā Ṣāḏē is a right-joining, non pen-lifting grapheme. Both allographs have the same ductus. It consists of a dentical on the baseline, a spine below the baseline, and a horizontal shaft at the descender line. It is drawn in one stroke. The stroke begins at pt 1 on the baseline, then moves upward to pt 2 then downward to pt 3, then back to pt 1 creating a Sertā initial

-

like dentical. It then moves to the left to pt 3, then slightly upward to pt 4. Then it curves down to pt 5 well below the descender line creating the spine. It then changes direction and draws a horizontal shaft terminating at pt 6. The final part between points 5 and 6 becomes thinner as the stroke approaches its end. The allographic variations are: i.

Isolated graph. As above.

iv. Final graph. Pt 1 meets the joiner line of the preceding graph.

276

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§554.

While right-joining, there are frequent instances in early MSS where the isolated form connects to the next graph, but without a joiner line; e.g. ‫ ܨܒ‬in 411. §554. Serṭā Ṣāḏē is non pen-lifting. Both allographs have the same ductus. It is drawn in one stroke. The stroke begins at the base line at pt 1. Like Serṭā Dālaṯ, the part above the baseline is drawn in circular counterclockwise motion passing by points 2 and 3, and back to pt 1. After two to four circular motions, the stroke, from pt 3, moves down to pt 4 to form the spine of the letter, and then to points 5 and 6 to form the lower body. In MSS, it is not uncommon to find the lower part of Ṣāḏē extends well beyond the descender line.

§555. E. Syr. Ṣāḏē has a ductus similar to Esṭrangelā.

ch. 10

Ductus

§556.

277

10.24.Qāp̱ §556. Esṭrangelā Qāp̱ is a dual-joining, non pen-lifting grapheme. The ductus of the isolated and initial graphs on the one hand, and the medial and final graphs on the other differ. It consists of a bowl. A. Isolated and initial graphs. These are drawn in one stroke. The stroke begins at pt 1 on the baseline, moves in clockwise motion passing by pt 2 then 3, then 4. At pt 4, a tail is drawn ending at pt 5. The allographic variations are: i.

Isolated graph. As above.

ii. Initial graph. As i without the tail. B. Medial and final graphs. The medial form begins at the joiner line at pt 1, then moves to pt 2 (= pt 1 in A), etc. The allographic variations are: iii.

Medial graph. As above without the tail.

iv. Final graph. As above.

278

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§557.

§557. Serṭā Qāp̱ is non pen-lifting.

It is drawn in a ductus similar to Esṭrangelā Qāp̱. In book hand, the main body of the graph is a replica of Serṭā Waw drawn with a stroke on its own. A second stroke draws the line starting at pt 5 and terminates with the tail at pt 5. In

documentary hand, the entire graph is drawn in one stroke.

§558. E. Syr. Qāp̱ has a ductus that differs from the above. It is drawn in three strokes. 1. Stroke 1-2-3 begins at pt 1 moves up to pt 2 and then to the left and terminates at pt 3. 2. Stroke 1-4-3 begins at pt 1, moves to the left to pt 4, and then upwards terminating at pt 3. 3. Stroke 4-5 begins at pt 4 and moves to the left terminating at pt 5.

10.25.Rīš §559. For Rīš, see under Dālaṯ, 10.9.

ch. 10

Ductus

§561.

279

10.26.Šīn §560. Esṭrangelā Šīn is a dual-joining, pen-lifting grapheme. The same ductus applies to all four allographs. It is drawn in three strokes. 1. Stroke 1-2 draws the base upon which the body sits. The stroke is clubbed at pt 1. 2. Stroke 3-4 draws the neck. 3. Stroke 5-3-6 is an arc that forms the upper part of the graph. It begins at pt 5, moves down slightly to pt 3, then up to pt 6 in a symmetrical manner. The allographic variations are: i.

Isolated graphs. As above.

ii. Initial graph. The second stroke terminates at the baseline. iii. Medial graph. As ii; pt 1 is not clubbed and is a continuation of the preceding graph. iv. Final graph. As i with the caveat in iii regarding pt 1.

§561. Serṭā Šīn is also a dual-joining, pen-lifting grapheme. The same ductus applies to all four allographs. It is drawn in one circular stroke. The stroke begins at the baseline at pt 1, then moves up to pt 2 just under the mean line, then back to the baseline at pt 3, and back to pt 1. This counterclockwise motion is repeated five to eight times in a circular, inner spiral until the body of the graph is filled, terminating at pt 1. Then a straight

280

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§562.

line is drawn from pt 1 to pt 3, and finally to pt 4 to create the tail. In book hand, there is a tiny crotch in the middle of the body at the baseline.

§562. E. Syr. Šīn has a ductus of its own consisting of two strokes. 1. Stroke 1-2-3-4 begins at pt 1, moves slightly to the left then up to pt 2 where it makes a denticle, then down to pt 3 and terminates at pt 4. 2. Stroke 5-6 begins at pt 5 and moves to the left terminating at pt 6.

10.27.Taw §563. Esṭrangelā Taw is a right-joining, non pen-lifting grapheme. Both allographs have the same ductus. It is drawn in one stroke. The stroke begins at pt 1 just under the baseline, and moves up to pt 2 at or slightly under the mean line. It then moves to pt 3 at the baseline, then pt 4, then up to pt 5. The stroke is clubbed

ch. 10

Ductus

§564.

281

at pt 5 in some book hands.

The counter is sometimes filled and sometimes empty, as in 411. One also frequently encounters no space between the right-joining Taw and the graph that follows as in

‫ܒـܐ ـ ܘ ܬـܐ‬.

(note the joiner line in ‫)ܐ‬. In print type, and modern calligraphy, a loop was introduced for ornamental purposes, first in the 1886 Dominican Press type (S17),17 and a few subsequent types.18 It appears in Estrangelo Qenneshrin of the Meltho fonts as ‫ܬ‬. §564. Serṭā Taw is also a right-joining, non pen-lifting grapheme, but the two allographs differ in ductus. A. Isolated graph. It is drawn in one stroke. It begins at pt 1 around the ascender line and moves downward to pt 2 at the baseline creating a shaft. Then it moves to the right to create the base terminating at pt 3. B. Final graph. It is also drawn in one stroke. First, a joining stroke is drawn from the baseline at pt 1 to the top of the main body at pt 2 (= pt 1 in A). Then the stroke moves downward to pt 3

17

Coakley, Typography 179.

18

S19 from 1887 (Coakley, Typography 181–82) and S26 from 1948

(Coakley, Typography 189).

282

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§565.

(= pt 2 in A) creating the shaft, then the base terminating at pt 4 (= pt 3 in A). The height of pt 2 here is lower than A. The shaft is arc-shaped.

§565. E. Syr. Taw has a unique ductus consisting of two strokes. 1. Stroke 1-2-3-4 begins at the base line and moves upwards to pt 2 just above the mean line, then down to pt 3, and slightly to the right terminating at pt 4. 2. Stroke 5-6 begins at pt 5, and moves to the right and slightly down terminating at pt 6 just under the baseline.

10.28.Ligatures §566. Serṭā Lāmaḏ-Ālap̱. When followed by ‫ܐ‬, the shape and ductus of Serṭā Lāmaḏ changes considerably. A. Isolated graph. It is drawn in one broken stroke. It begins at pt 1 at the ascender line and moves downward to pt 2 at the baseline forming the first shaft. It then creates the base from pt 2 to pt 3, then moves upwards to create the second

ch. 10

Ductus

§567.

283

shaft all the way to pt 4. The stroke then traces itself back from pt 4 to pt 3, and finally draws a tail below the base line terminating at pt 5. B. Final graph. It is drawn in one broken stroke. It begins at the baseline at pt 1 as a continuation of the preceding graph, then moves to the left to pt 2, then upwards to pt 3 (= pt 1 in A) to form the first shaft. The stroke then traces itself to pt 2, then moves to the left to pt 4 (= pt 3 in A), etc. A variation of

exists when a loop is drawn when going

down from pt 5 back to pt 4; e.g. . §567. E. Syr. Taw-Ālap̱. There are two forms of this ligature, each written with its own ductus. A. Form I (right). It is drawn in three strokes. 1. Stroke 1-2 begins at pt 1 at the baseline and moves upwards and terminates at pt 2 under the mean line. 2. Stroke 3-4-5 begins at pt 3 just above the baseline, moves down to pt 4 below the baseline, then moves upwards and terminates at pt 5. 3. Stroke 6-7 begins at pt 6 above the mean line, makes a clockwise circular motion, and then moves down and terminates at pt 7 under the baseline. B. Form II (left). It is drawn in four strokes. 1. Stroke 1-2-3 begins at pt 1 at the baseline, moves up in a counterclockwise manner, passing by pt 2, and terminating at pt 3. 2. Stroke 4-5 begins at pt 4 (just to the right of pt 3) and draws a horizontal line terminating at pt 5. 3. Stroke 6-7 begins at pt 6 and draws a line terminating at pt 7 above the mean line. 4. Stroke 8-9 begins at pt 8 and moves down to pt 9, making a circular motion at pt 8 giving the effect of a clubbed stroke. Notice that this stroke is the same as stroke 3 in Form I.

284

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§568.

§568. E. Syr. ligatures with final Yūḏ. There are two ligatures with final Yūḏ: He-Yūḏ and Taw-Yūḏ. The Yūḏ in both is drawn in the same manner in one stroke. See §516.

10.29.Ductus of Other Graphs 10.29.1. Points

§569. Single point graphemes. A single point can be drawn in different ways, as a circle, oval, or even a square. Some scribes differentiated the function of the point by size and sometimes color. For

instance,

one-point

vowel

graphs tend to be circular and bold in W. Syr. MSS, while twopoint graphs tend to be hairstrokes19. In the Meltho fonts, for example, a general point is circular (a), a vowel point is oval (b), and a fricatization point is circular and smaller (c). In some formal hands, the vowel point is drawn as a hairstroke, while in others the full width of the nib is used. §570. Syāme. First, the left point is drawn, followed by the right point. In most hands, formal and documentary, the second point is lower than the first one, though in most types the points are at equal height.

19

ch. 10

David §30.

§574.

Ductus

285

§571. Two-point nonlinear vowels. The vowel is drawn by a supralinear point, then a sublinear point. In many hands the sublinear point is to the left of the supralinear point. The vowel is drawn by two supralinear points from right to left, the first higher than the second. The vowel is drawn by two sublinear points from left to right. The vowel is drawn by two sublinear points from right to left, with the first point being higher. In many formal hands, especially in W. Syr. MSS, these points are all done with hairstrokes. §572. Punctuation points. These are drawn in the order shown. Their shape differs from one hand to another, being either circular, triangular, or in the shape of a diamond. In the case of a five-point paragraph marker,

‫܀‬, the fifth point is drawn

at the end, usually in a different color. 10.29.2. Lines

§573. Serṭūnā. The serṭūnā can be straight, ◌̄, or slanted,

݇ ◌ or ◌݈,

and can be supralinear or sublin-

ear. When straight, it is drawn from left to right (a). The slanted supralinear version is drawn topto-bottom, right-to-left (b). The slanted sublinear version is drawn top-to-bottom, left-to-right. The width of the stroke may vary from one hand to another. §574. Liturgical Line Graph. It can be drawn in various ways. One way is to draw the main shaft from pt 1 to pt 2 upward. Then the cross bars

286

II. Graphotactics, Writing, and Ductus

§574.

from top to bottom, where each cross bar is drawn from the upper right point to its lower left point. In most MSS, the cross bars are in color. 10.29.3. ‘Greek’ Vowels

§575.

◌ܰ and ◌ܱ. These are drawn in two strokes.

1. Stroke 1-2 draws a horizontal shaft from topto-bottom, right-to-left. 2. Stroke 3-4-5 meets the first stroke at pt 1, moves up to pt 4 and back to the first stroke meeting it at pt 5. The sublinear version is drawn in a similar manner. §576.

ܳ ◌ and ◌ܴ. These are drawn in one stroke. It begins at pt 1,

moves up to pt 2, curves to pt 3, and then down terminating at pt 4. The counter is sometimes filled in MSS.

§577.

◌ܶ and ◌ܷ. These are drawn in two strokes. 1. Stroke 1-2-3

draws an arc. 2. Stroke 2-4 draws a small shaft from top-to-bottom. The orientation, or angular position, of the graph with respect to pt 2 differs from one hand to another.

§578.

◌ܺ and ◌ܻ. It is drawn in three strokes. 1. Stroke 1-2 draws a

shaft. 2. Stroke 3-4 draws a parallel shaft. Stroke 5-6 draws a cross bar connecting both shafts. The orientation of the graph differs substantially from hand to hand. Sometimes the parallel shafts are horizontal as in

ch. 10

ܺ ◌.

Ductus

§579. §579.

287

ܽ ◌ and ◌ܾ. These are drawn in two strokes and a point. 1.

Stroke 1-2 draws a shaft. 2. Stroke 3-4 draws a perpendicular shaft with respect to the first one joining it at pt 3. A point, shown in some types as a circle, is then drawn inside the graph. In some hands the point is above the second stroke,

while in others, as in here, it is below.

‫ܓ ܐܓ ܣ‬ ‫̈ ܐ܀‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ܘܛ ܝ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܗ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܒ ܟ ܗܘ ܕ ܛ ܘܨ‬ ‫ܐܒ‬

III. Garšūnography, Adaptation, and Alloglottography

Part III is dedicated to garšūnography (or garshunography) and script adaptations. Garšūnography is a system for writing one language in a script that is sociolinguistically associated with another language; i.e. what is traditionally called Garšūnī. Chapter 11 covers cases when Syriac is the target script in which languages other than Syriac are written, while Chapter 12 covers cases where Syriac is the source language and is written in scripts other than the Syriac script. Chapter 13 discusses nongaršūnographic script adaptations when the Syriac script is being used to write other forms of Aramaic; viz. Christian Palestinian Aramaic and Neo-Aramaic. Finally, Chapter 14 presents a related topic, alloglottography, when Syriac texts are read in other languages, usually in liturgical settings. Garšūnography, Adaptation & Alloglottography

289

11. Garšūnography I: Syriac as the Target Script

Scripts, either in our lands or in neighboring lands, are

either complete and perfect, or lacking and imperfect. Complete scripts have a written letter for each sound as

in Greek, Latin, Coptic, and Armenian. Incomplete scripts do not have a written symbol for each sound as in Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic.

Bar ʿEbroyo (d. 1286), Ṣemḥē

11.1. On Garšūnography §580. I have recently proposed elsewhere1 to use the term garšūnography to refer to the writing of one language (called the source language) in the script of another (called the target script) in specific sociolinguistic settings: 1. when the source language is already associated with a script that is perceived to be its own, and 2. there exists a readership which is either unfamiliar with the script of the source language or prefers, for whatever reason, to use the target script over the script of the source language. Traditionally, writing Arabic in the Syriac script is called Garšūni, from which the term garšūnography was coined. The term garšūnography, however, does not imply a specific source language or a specific target script. These are specified by modifiers; e.g. Syro-Arabic garšūnography is Arabic text written in the Syriac script, and Armeno-Syriac garšūnography is Syriac text written in the Armenian script.

1

Kiraz, ‘Garshunography’.

291

292

III. Garšūnography, Adaptation & Alloglottography §581.

§581. Extending this terminology to the graphemic level, I proposed to use the term garšūnographeme to refer to graphemes which have been adapted for purposes of garšūnography; e.g. the adaptation of Syriac

‫ ܓ‬into the garšūnographeme ‫ ܔ‬to indicated

‫ ج‬in Syro-Arabic garšūnography. Its allographic variants, ‫ܔ‬, ‫ܔ‬, ‫ܔ‬, and , are called allogaršūnographs. Arabic

§582. The Syriac writing system was adapted for the writing of other languages, some Semitic, even Aramaic, but others not. The Aramaic languages (viz. Christian Palestinian Aramaic and NeoAramaic) did not have independent writing systems and hence are not strictly-speaking garšūnographic. These are discussed in Chapter 13. The other languages did not lack a script that is considered sociolinguistically its own, but rather, Syriac Christians preferred to use their own script to write other languages for their own use (e.g. Arabic, Ottoman Turkish), and to transmit their literature in missionary settings (e.g. Sogdian, Malayalam). In all cases, the entire writing system was borrowed: the symbol set, phoneme values (augmented to cater for non-Syriac phonemes), writing direction, ligatures, and graphotactics. Known languages covered by Syriac garšūnography include Arabic, Armenian, Greek, Kurdish, Latin, Malayalam, Persian, Sogdian, and Ottoman Turkish. §583. Garšūnography exists in two modes: transliteration and transcription. Transliteration is a direct mapping of one writing system into another at the grapheme (not graph) level; e.g. Arabic

‫كتب‬

=

‫ܒ‬

‘to write’. That the mapping is

graphemic is clear from the preceding example: while Arabic is dual-joining with four allographs, Syriac is rightjoining with only two allographs and the graphotactics of each script works independently. Transcription is the mapping of the sounds of one language into the graphemes of another at the phoneme level; e.g. Greek τῆς σῆς = ch. 11

.

Garšūnography I: Syriac as the Target Script

§585.

293

§584. As the Syriac graphemic repository does not cover all the graphemes (in the case of transliteration) or phonemes (in the case of transcription) of the source languages, Syriac garšūnography remedies this with a number of extensions: A. The bgā ̱ ḏkp̱ āṯ diacritics. These provided for plosivefricative pairs; e.g. ‫ ݁ܕ‬and ‫ ݂ܕ‬for Arabic ‫< د‬d> and ‫< ذ‬δ>,

respectively. As the supra- and sublinear points are optional, the

mapping gives rise to ambiguities: Syriac corresponds to both Arabic and . B. Nonlinear graphemes from the Syriac graphemic inventory. These are graphemes already used in Syriac for other purposes, but are now redefined to express foreign graphemes or phonemes; e.g. the points in

‫̇ܨ‬

and

‫ ܜ‬for Arabic ‫< ض‬ḍ> and ‫ظ‬

, respectively. Additional nonlinear graphemes are also introduced; e.g. the tilde ‫ ݆ܒ‬for Ottoman Turkish ‫پ‬.

C. New linear graphemes—or garšūnographemes as I call

them—were introduced exclusively for purposes of garšūnographic writing; e.g. adding a stroke (sometimes a filling in MSS) in

‫ ܔ‬for Arabic ‫< ج‬j>. This is related to the augmentation of

existing consonantal graphemes to represent sounds with phonological features similar to those of the original grapheme; e.g. extending

‫ ܓ‬to ‫ ܮ‬in Sogdian.

D. Graphemes borrowed from the script of the source language, as in the case of Syro-Malayalam. §585. While there is some degree of uniformity within each garšūnographic system, variations are common, especially in transcription systems and most notably in vowels. This is mostly due to the fact that the written text does not always represent a standard form of the source language. Rather, it is usually a representation of local dialects. This makes it more difficult to read garšūnographic texts, as one needs to be familiar not only with

294

III. Garšūnography, Adaptation & Alloglottography §585.

the basics of a language but also with its various regional dialects. Keeping this in mind, the discussion below aims at giving an approximation of each of the garšūnographic systems.

11.2. Syro-Arabic §586. Syro-Arabic2 is a transliteration scheme. The first occurrence is in a note, written in 1154 in the Rabula Gospels codex (folio 7b). Syro-Arabic texts were popular in medieval times and continue to be used, though in a minimal fashion, until the modern day. (I used to transliterate all of my high school notes, even for physics and biology, in Garšūnī in the early 1980s. Alas, I no longer have these texts) The exact number of Syro-Arabic MSS is not known, but is probably in several thousands. Syro-Arabic appears first in printed text, albeit a few phrases here and there, in Ambrosio’s Introductio in 1539 which includes, in addition to biblical verses, some verses from the Qurʾān when introducing Arabic.3 The first printed text in Syro-Arabic is a catechism from 1580.4 §587. Each Arabic grapheme is represented by its counterpart in Syriac at the graphemic level. As Syriac only has 22 graphemes, as opposed to the Arabic inventory of 29 graphemes, four methods are used to extend the Syriac writing system:5

‫݂ܒ‬

A. By extending the bg̱āḏkp̱ āṯ letters (with the exception of and ‫ ̇ܦ‬which do not have Arabic counterparts): ‫ܓ‬ ݂ maps to ‫غ‬

2

Amira 22 ff.; Assfalg, ‘Arabische Handschriften in Syrischer Schrift

(Karšūnī)’; Mengozzi, ‘The History of Garshuni as a Writing System’. 3

Ambrosio 38v ff., Quran verses 84.

4

Coakley, Typography 38.

5

Coakley, Typography 14.

ch. 11

§590.

Garšūnography I: Syriac as the Target Script

(in some texts, one finds a supralinear point instead,6

to ‫خ‬, and ‫ ݂ܬ‬to ‫ث‬.

295

‫) ݁ܓ‬, ‫ ݂ܕ‬to ‫ذ‬, ‫݂ܟ‬

̈

B. By extending the syāme on ‫ ܗ‬for tā marbūṭa.

C. By adding a point inside ‫ ܜ‬for ‫ظ‬, and on top of ‫ ̇ܨ‬for ‫ض‬. D. By adding a stroke (or a filling) inside

‫ܔ‬

for

‫ج‬.

In

typography, when such a glyph is not available, the Arabic kasra is sometimes substituted; e.g. ‫ܙܝ‬

‫ܓ‬ ِ

‘New Jersey’.7

§588. The optionality of Arabic diacritics is carried over in SyroArabic. Vowel marks are usually not present in most Syro-Arabic texts. When present, it is usually the Arabic vowels that are used, not the Syriac vowels, though rare cases of Syriac vowels (both points and ‘Greek’ symbols) can be found. The Arabic diacritics hamza (the earliest I found in print type is from 18888 though earlier examples must exist), madda, shadda (first attested in print type in the Quzḥayya Psalter of 1610),9 and sukūn can also be found in Syro-Arabic texts. §589. Word spacing generally follows the Arabic writing tradition, but there are some cases of Syriac influence. One, for instance, finds

‫ ܘ‬for ‫ وكل شئ‬and

‫ ܘ‬for ‫( وكل من‬q.v. §425).

§590. The following gives the mapping of Arabic graphemes to their Syriac counterparts:10

‫ ܐ‬represents ‫< ا‬ʔ> ʾalif including its variations: ‫ٔا‬, ٕ‫ا‬, ‫ٓا‬, etc. In some cases the hamza or the madda appears on top of the ‫ܐ‬. ‫ ܒ‬represents ‫< ب‬b> bā. 6

Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions, vol. 1, 43

7

Barsom and Samuel, Ma’de’dono [5].

8

al-Dibs, Kṯāḇā ḏ-qūrāḇā from Coakley, Typography 142.

9

Coakley, Typography 47; Duval §12.

10

Costaz §3 n. 1.

296

III. Garšūnography, Adaptation & Alloglottography §590.

‫ ܓ‬represents both ‫ج‬

jīm and

or a filling, sometimes in red in MSS,

‫< غ‬ʁ> g̱en. A stroke,

‫ܔ‬,11 is used more precisely for ‫< ج‬j> jīm, while a rūkkāḵā point, ‫ܓ‬ ݂ , marks ‫< غ‬ʁ> g̱en. (Abouna gives a variant for ‫ܓ‬ ̰ .)12 ‫ ܕ‬represents both ‫< د‬d> dāl and ‫< ذ‬δ> ḏāl. Wellexecuted texts apply the qūššāyā point for , ‫݁ܕ‬, and a rūkkāḵā point for , ‫݂ܕ‬. ‫ ܗ‬represents both ‫< ه‬h> hā and ‫ ة‬tā marbūṭa (q.v. under ‫ܬ‬

below), a case in point for classifying Syro-Arabic as transliteration rather than transcription. When tā marbūṭa is marked, the

̈

syāme points are sometimes used, ‫ܗ‬.

‫ ܘ‬represents ‫< و‬w> wāw and its variation with hamza, ‫ؤ‬. ‫ ܙ‬represents ‫< ز‬z> zayn. ‫ ܚ‬represents ‫< ح‬ḥ> ḥā. ‫ ܛ‬represents ‫< ط‬ṭ> ṭā and ‫< ظ‬ẓ> ẓā. More precisely, ‫ظ‬ is represented by ‫ܜ‬, but sometimes ‫ ̇ܛ‬13 or ‫̣ܛ‬.14 ‫ ܝ‬represents ‫< ي‬y> yā and its variation with hamza, ‫ئ‬ (see Pl. 1), including its use as ʾalif maksūra. represents both

‫ك‬

kāf and

‫خ‬

χā, the

distinction made in well-executed texts with the use of the rūkkāḵā and qūššāyā points,

‫ܠ‬

represents

frequently used.

‫ل‬

݁ ݁ and ݂ ݂ , respectively.

lām. The Serṭā ligature

‫ ܡ‬represents ‫< م‬m> mīm. ‫ ܢ‬represents ‫< ن‬n> nūn. ‫ ܣ‬represents ‫< س‬s> sīn. ‫ ܥ‬represents ‫< ع‬ʕ> ʿayn.

11

J. D. Michaelis §2.

12

Abouna 30.

13

Abouna 30; A. Hoffmann I.I. §7 (p. 81); Zschokke §4.

14

Costaz §3 n. 1.

ch. 11

for

‫لا‬

is

Garšūnography I: Syriac as the Target Script

§592.

‫ ܦ‬represents ‫< ف‬f> fā. ‫ ܨ‬represents ‫< ص‬ṣ>

ṣād and

‫ض‬

297

ḍād, the

distinction made in well-executed texts with the use of a point above ‫ ̇ܨ‬for the latter.

‫ ܩ‬represents ‫< ق‬q> qāf. ‫ ܪ‬represents ‫< ر‬r> rā. ‫ ܫ‬represents ‫< ش‬š> šīn. ‫ ܬ‬represents ‫< ت‬t> and ‫< ث‬ṯ>, the distinction made in well-executed texts with the use of rūkkāḵā and qūššāyā points, ‫݁ܬ‬ and ‫݂ܬ‬, respectively. It is not uncommon to find ‫ ܬ‬for tā marbūṭa or ‫ ̈ܗ‬for tā. §591. Dialectical variation has its own effect, especially in making emphatic letters and their nonemphatic counterparts somewhat interchangeable; e.g. ‫ ܛ‬for ‫ت‬, and ‫ ܣ‬for ‫ص‬.15

§592. The following text,16 and its decoding into the Arabic script, serves as an illustration:

ً ‫ܨ ̈ܗ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܐ ܕܝ‬ ‫َ ܐܢ‬ ‫ܨ ܗ ܐܪ‬ َ ݁ ‫܆ ܐ‬ ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܐ ܆ ܘܐܔ‬ ‫ܒܓ‬ ݁ ̇ ‫ܐ ܐܘ ܬ ܆ ܘܐ‬ ‫̇ َܒܐ ܐ‬ ‫َ ܐ‬ ݁‫ܒ‬ ݁ ‫݁ ̇ܟ܆ ܘܐ ܡ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐܪܐܕܬ ݁ܟ܆ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܒ ܐ ̇ ܐܪܝ‬ ‫̇ ܘ ܟ ̇ ܐ ݁ َܐ‬ ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܐ‬ .‫ܪ‬ ‫ܪܒ ܪܝ ܘ ݂ ܝ ܘܒ ݁ܪܟ ܐ ܐ‬ ݁ ‫ܘ ܐ ̇ ܒ ܒ‬ ̇ ‫ܐܔ‬ ̇ ‫܆‬ ݁ ‫ܒ ܐ ݁ ݁ܟ ܘܔ ݁ܕܟ܆ ܘܐ‬ ݁ ‫ܐ ݁ ܆ ܘܐܒ ܘ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ̈ ݀‫ܘ ܕܘ ܘ ܔ ܗ ܐܬܝ‬ ݁ ‫ܘ ܬܝ܆ ܘ ܝ ܘ‬ ݁ ‫ܒܐܢ ܐ ܒ ݁ ̇ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫[܆ ܐ‬sic] ‫݂ܬܝ‬ ݁ ݁ ݁ ݁ ݁ ‫ܐܕܬܟ‬ ‫ܐܬܟ ̇ ܐ ܬ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܔ ݁ܟ܆ ܒܐܢ ܐ‬ ‫ܓ‬ ‫ܘ ܐ ݁ܟ܆ ܘܒܐܢ ܐ ܐ ً ܓ ܟ܆ ܘ ܐ‬

15

Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni Inscriptions 43.

16

MS Beth Mardutho, undated (a note in the binding gives 1705).

298

III. Garšūnography, Adaptation & Alloglottography §593.

‫ܔ ܘܐ ݁ ܐܡ ܘܐ ܘ ܐܪ‬

‫݁ܐܕܟ ܘ ݁ܟ܆ ܢ‬ . ‫ܐܒ ܐ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫صلاة بغير‬ ‫ اعطيني )ٔاعطني( يا الله‬.‫سمعان العامودي‬ ً َ ‫صلاه مار‬ َ ‫ انير )ٔانر( عقلي‬،‫اليك‬ َ (‫ واجمع ظميري )ضميري‬،‫طياشة‬ ‫لكي‬ ،‫ واشكر نعمتك‬،(‫اطلب منك بامانة ما اوعدتني )وعدتني‬ ‫ انعم علي بتطهير قلبي واظبط )واضبط( افكاري‬،‫وافهم ارادتك‬ ‫في النظر اليك وحدك لانك انت َيا رب نوري ومخلصي‬ ‫ لانك اله‬،‫ نعم يا الهي اجمعني كلي لك‬،‫وبنورك اعاين النور‬ ،‫ واب ومعلم برافتك وجودك‬،‫وما لك بطبعك واستحقاقك‬ ‫ وكنزي وعريسي وفردوسي وشجرة حياتي‬،‫وانت عوني وقوتي‬ ‫ بان اسير‬،‫ فانعم علي بان احبك كما يستحق مجدك‬،‫وملكوتي‬ ‫ وبان لا‬،‫بمرظاتك )برضاك؟( كما تستحق سيادتك ومواعيدك‬ ‫ لان لك المجد‬،‫ ولا اعمل غير مرادك وحدك‬،‫احب غيرك‬ .‫والاكرام والاوقار )والوقار( الى ابد الابدين امين‬ ݁

‫ ٔاعطيني‬for MSA ‫ٔاعطني‬, and ‫ ٔانير‬for ‫ٔانر‬. Also note the dialectal variant ‫ واظبط‬for MSA ‫واضبط‬. §593. Note the use of colloquial

§594. Related to Syro-Arabic, a number of loan words entered the Syriac language with a similar transliteration mechanism; e.g. for Arabic

ܽ syriacized; e.g. ‫ܳܙܐ‬

‫خليفة‬

‘Caliph’. Some words have simply been

for Arabic

‫‘ موز‬banana’.

11.3. Syro-Armenian By Hidemi Takahashi

§595. Syro-Armenian17 is a transcription scheme. While isolated Armenian words and proper names occur early on in Syriac texts, 17

See also D. S. Margoliouth, ‘The Syro-Armenian Dialect’; Lant-

shoot, ‘Un texte arménien en lettres syriaques’; Brock, ‘Armenian in Syriac Script’; Takahashi and Weitenberg, ‘The Shorter Syriac-Armenian ch. 11

Garšūnography I: Syriac as the Target Script

§596.

299

continuous Armenian texts written in Syriac script are attested only from the 16th century onwards. All the known examples of Armenian Garšūnī are in Serṭā. The earliest is the rather clumsily transcribed text of the Armenian Our Father in MS. Mingana, Syr. 44 (dated 1574–75), fol. 132r (which, incidentally, is followed on the reverse side of the folio by the Our Father in Latin, in Syriac script). A more developed system of transcription is found in three 17th-century MSS of Syriac-Armenian lexica where the Armenian entries too are all written in Syriac script, namely MS. Harvard, Syr. 54 (dated 1658–59, the Syriac-Arabic lexicon of Bar Bahlul with the originally Arabic portions translated into Armenian), MS. Cairo, Franciscan Centre of Christian Oriental Studies, Syr. 11 (dated 1665/6, the Arabic-Syriac lexicon of Elia of Ṣoba, here in the order Syriac-Arabic, with the addition of Armenian equivalents in a third column), and MS. Yale, Syr. 9 (probably 17th-century, contains a Syriac-Armenian lexicon of unknown origin, as well as an excerpt from Elias’ lexicon in Syriac and Armenian, without the Arabic), as well as in Vatican, Syr. 544 (dated 1711–12), which contains a hymn (boʿuto) of Jacob of Sarug, the Creed and the Gloria in Armenian Garšūnī. The Armenian represented in the three lexicographical MSS is not literary Armenian, but a spoken dialect, no doubt that of the region around Amid and Gargar, where the MSS originated. §596. The transcription scheme used in these four MSS (H = Harvard, C = Cairo, Y = Yale, V = Vatican) may be presented as follows:

‫ܐ‬

is used word-initially in words beginning with vowels,

and elsewhere as mater lectionis.

Glossary in Ms. Yale Syriac 9’ and ‘The Shorter […]; Part 2: Glossary in Transcription/Translation’; Takahashi, ‘Armenisch-Garschuni’.

300

III. Garšūnography, Adaptation & Alloglottography §596.

‫ ܒ‬usually represents պ [b]. ‫ ̣ܒ‬is used in C for վ [v] and ւ [v]. ‫ ݆ܒ‬is used in C for բ [pʰ]. ‫ ̇ܓ‬usually represents կ [g]. ‫ܓ‬ ̣ usually represents ղ [ʁ]. ‫ ܔ‬is used to represent ջ [tʃʰ], ճ [dʒ], չ [tʃʰ] and ժ [ʒ]. ‫ܓ‬ ݆ is used to represent ‫[ چ‬tʃ] in loan words from Persian

and Turkish, and in C also for ջ [tʃʰ] and չ [tʃʰ].

‫ ܕ‬usually represents տ [d]. ‫ ܗ‬usually represents հ [h];

and is sometimes also used

word-finally as mater lectionis.

‫ ܘ‬is used for վ [v] and ւ [v]; and as mater lectionis. ‫ ܙ‬and ‫ ̣ܙ‬usually represents զ [z]. ‫ ̇ܙ‬usually represents ծ [dz]. ‫ ݆ܙ‬is used in V for ծ [dz] and ձ [tsʰ]. ‫ ܝ‬is used for յ [j]; and as mater lectionis. ‫ ̇ܟ‬usually represents գ [kʰ] and ք [kʰ]. ‫ ̣ܟ‬usually represents խ [χ]. ‫ ܠ‬usually represents լ [l]. ‫ ܡ‬usually represents մ [m]. ‫ ܢ‬usually represents ն [n]. ‫ ܣ‬usually represents ս [s]; but is used in V for ց [tsʰ]. ‫ ̇ܣ‬usually represents ց [tsʰ] and ձ [tsʰ]; but is used in V

for ս [s].

‫ ݅ܣ‬is used in V for ձ [tsʰ]. ‫ ܦ‬and ‫ ̇ܦ‬usually represent փ [pʰ] and բ [pʰ].  (with a horizontal stroke) is sometimes used for փ [pʰ]

and բ [pʰ].

‫ ̣ܦ‬is used ֆ [f], which is a rare sound in Armenian. ‫ ݆ܦ‬is used in C for ‫[ پ‬p] in loan words from Persian and

Turkish.

‫ ܪ‬usually represents ր [ɾ] and ռ [ɾ]. ch. 11

§598.

Garšūnography I: Syriac as the Target Script

301

‫ ܫ‬usually represents շ [ʃ]. ‫ ݅ܫ‬and ‫ ݆ܫ‬are used for ժ [ʒ], ջ [tʃʰ] and չ [tʃʰ]. ‫ ܬ‬usually represents դ [tʰ] and թ [tʰ]. §597. The Armenian vowels are represented as follows:

ܰ

ܰ

ա [a] is usually represented by ◌ and ‫◌ܐ‬.

ܶ

ܶ

ե [ɛ] is usually represented by ◌ (or ◌ܸ) and ‫( ◌ܐ‬or ‫)ܸ◌ܐ‬. է [ɛ] can be represented by

◌ܶ, ‫ܶ◌ܐ‬,

and

‫ܶ◌ܗ‬.

In verbal

endings it is represented, regularly in H and Y, and often in C, by

‫ܰ◌ܐ‬,

which seems to indicate a dialectal pronunciation of the

ending as [æ]. The unusual combination

‫܏ܷܰ◌ܐ‬

(and

‫)ܱܶ◌ܗ‬

with two

vowel signs attached to a single consonant is also sometimes used in C (again, probably indicating a pronunciation as [æ]) – e.g. C

ܰ (hrǣ), cf. Y 232.1.2, ‫ܗܪܐ‬ ܰ (hrâ): ‘push!’ (Modern Western ‫ܗܪܐ‬ ܷ ܶ Armenian հրէ՛, hɾɛ); C 211.11: ‫( ̇ ̱ ܱܘܗ‬śərwæh), cf. Y 233.12.2: ‫( ̱ ܰܘܐ‬sərwâ): ‘scatter!’ (ցրուէ՛, tsʰǝɾvɛ). 206.3,

ը [ǝ] is usually either not indicated or indicated by a

stroke resembling mhaggyānā. It is sometimes represented, word-

ܶ

‫ܰ◌ܐ‬. ܺ ի [i] is usually represented by ‫( ◌ܝ‬or ‫ܼܝ‬-). ܵ ܳ ո [o] is usually represented by ◌ (or ◌), and occasionally ܳ (especially in C) by ‫( ◌ܘ‬which, however, may also stand for ով

ܺ , and, word-finally, by initially, by ‫ ܐ‬and ‫ܐܝ‬

[ov]).

ܽ

ու [u] is usually represented by ‫( ◌ܘ‬or ‫ܼܘ‬-).

§598. There is no regularity in the use of the matres lectionis (especially the word-internal ‫)ܐ‬, so that the same word can appear, within the same manuscript, with and without it.

‫ܘ‬

and

‫ܝ‬

are

usually written where they are expected, but C frequently dispenses even with these. In the examples below, the presence of the matres lectionis will be indicated through the use of the circumflex accent.

302

III. Garšūnography, Adaptation & Alloglottography §599. The matres lectionis may also appear in the ‘wrong’ places

in the transcription of Armenian loan words from Arabic, e.g. C 49.2, 4:

ܰ

ܼ

,

Arabic sulṭān, wazīr). §599. The letters represent

ܿ ܻ ‫ܼܘܐܙ‬

(sûlṭan, wâzîr, ‘Sultan’, ‘minister’, for

‫ܚ‬, ‫ܛ‬, ‫ܜ‬, ‫ܥ‬, ‫ܩ‬,

Armenian

loan

and

words

‫ܨ‬

are regularly used to from

Arabic

(and

Persian/Turkish). They are also used in certain native Armenian words. The use or non-use of these letters varies between, and sometimes within, MSS. Sometimes, they appear where they do not in the original language. §600. The scheme described above allows each Armenian consonant to be represented by a single Syriac letter with additional signs. This was not the case in the Our Father in MS. Mingana Syr. 44, where letters such as [tsʰ] are represented by two Syriac letters. Such representation of a single Armenian letter using two Syriac letters is still sometimes encountered in the Cairo manuscript; e.g.

‫( ܶܘ‬weṭs) ‘six’ (վեց, vɛtsʰ) ܽ ܿ C 311.9: ‫( ܼ ܘܢ‬maṭzûn) ‘curdled milk’ (մածուն, madzun) ܿ ܿ C 215.6: ‫( ܬ ܼ ܼ ܸܐ‬tsânǣ) ‘sow!’ (ցանէ՛, tsʰanɛ!); cf. Y ܰ 234.12.1: ‫ ̇ ܱ ܐ‬, śânâ) C 197.12:

§601. The following illustrative text is taken from the Armenian colophon of the Harvard manuscript, Syr. 54, fol. 372v, a33–b14:

ܶ ‫̇ ܻ ܰܐܣ ܐ ܼ ܻ ܽ ܢ ܽܐܘܪ ܰ ܐ ܽ ܪܒ ܿ ܼ ܻܒ ܻܒ ܰܗ ܰ ܐܪ‬ ܰ ܳ ܳ ܳ ܶ ܸܳ ܰ ‫̇ ܰܐ‬ ܽ ܳ ̇ ‫ܘܪܐ‬ ܺ‫ܓ‬ ܷ ܻ ‫ܐܓ‬ ܻ ‫ܓ‬ ܱ ̇ ‫ܐܪܬ ܐܪ‬ ܼ ܰ ܼ ܰ ܻ ‫ܓ ܬܐ ܘܐܘ‬ ܼ ‫ܗ ̇ ܱܐ‬ ܽ ܰ‫ܘܐܙ‬ ܰ ܰ ܰ ܰ ̇ ‫̇ܪܦ ܒܐܕܪ ̇ ܻ ܒ ـ ̇ ܸ ܐ‬ ‫ܳ ܳܗ ̇ ܽ ܢ ܻܘܐ ܐ ܻܐ‬ ܰ ‫ܕܐܟ ܳ ܻܐ‬ ̇ ܰ ܼ ‫ ܰܐ ܻܐ ܰ ܻ ܐ‬. ܻ ܸ ܰ ‫ܓܐܘܪ ܐ‬ ܴ ܼ ܰ ܰ ܻ ‫ܐܓ‬ ܼܳ ܰ ܶ ܿ ܽ ܳ ܰ ‫ܐܣ‬ ̇ ‫ܘܓ‬ ܱ ̇ ̇ ܶ ‫ܶܐܕܢ ܗܐ‬ ܼ ܺ ̇ ‫ܬܟ ܐܣ ܬܘ ܼ ܻܳ ܼ ܸ ܼ̇ܪܟ‬ ܶ ܸ ‫ܓ ܿ ܐܪ‬ ܰ ܰ ̇ ܰ ‫ܗܒܐ ̇ ܰ ܐ ̇ ܷ ܽ ܢ‬ ‫ܓ ܼ ܻ ܰ ܘ ܼ ܸ ̇ ܬܐ‬ ‫ܔ‬ ܸ̇ ‫̇ ܰ ܐ‬ ܴ ̇ ‫ܐܕܐܣ‬ ܻ ‫ܰܐ ̇ ܷ ܰ ܳܗ ܴ ܪ ܐ ܽ ܰ ܣ ܳ ܿ ܼ ܐ‬ ‫ܼܳ ܰܐ ̇ ܸ ܰܪܪ ܶ ̇ ܿ ܼ ܻܬ‬ ܽ ‫ܕܓܐ ܐܪ ̇ ̇ ܐܣ‬ ܽ ‫ܬܘ ܼܽܘ‬ ܻ ܼ ܰ ‫ܰܒ ̇ ̇ ܷ ܬ ܰܐ ܽ ܢ ܘ ܳ ܼ ܰܕܐܪܘ‬ ܸ

ch. 11

Garšūnography I: Syriac as the Target Script

§601.

ܰ ܰ ܳ ܽ ܽ ܶ ‫̇ܓ ܺ ܰܐ‬ ‫ܶܐܕܢ‬ ‫ܓ ܬ ̇ ܼ ܽ ܢ ܐܪ ܻܐ‬ ܻ ‫ܐܘ‬ ܱ ̇ ‫̇ܪܦ‬ ܷ ܰ ܳ ܽ ‫̇ܓ ܬܐܢ‬ ܰ ܰ ‫ܐܓ ܻ ̇ ܷ ܶܢ‬ ܳ ‫ܓܐܘܪ ܐ ܰ ܸ ܻ ܳܗ‬ ‫ܘܐܘ‬ ܴ ܻ ܱ ܼ ܼ ܳ ܰ ܳ ܽ ܰ ̇ ‫ܰ ܰܒ ـ ̇ ܸ ܐ‬ ܻ ̇ ܸ ̇ ܳ ‫ܐܓ ܘ‬ ܷ ̇ ܰ ‫ܐܓ ܻ ܻܐ ܻ ܝ‬ ܼ ‫̇ܪܦ‬ ܼ ‫ܘܐܙ‬ ܽ ‫ܐܣ‬ ܼ ‫ܬܘ‬ ̇ ‫ܽ ̇ܪܦ ܰ ܝ ܐܒ ܰ ܐ ܽ ܶ ܰܔܐ ܰ ܰ ܼܘ ܰܘ‬ ܽ ܰ ‫ܗܙܐܪ ܘܐ ܰܐ ܰܗܪ ܘܬ ܰܐ ܽ ܢ‬ ܰܰ ‫ܕܐܪܘܢ ܰ ܶ ܔ ܶ ܳ ܐ ̇ ܱ ܰ ܶܪܢ‬ ܻ ܻ ܰ ܰ ‫ܘܣ‬ ܰ ‫ܘܬ ܰܐ ܽ ܢ‬ ̇ ܶ ‫ܘ ܻ̇ ܻ ܳ ܳ ܰ ܐ‬ ̇ ܰ ‫ܕܐܪܝ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܢ‬ ‫ܐܓ‬ ‫ܗܪ‬ ܼ ܳ ‫ܘܐܙ‬ ܻ ܻ ܳ ܰ ‫̇ ܰܐ‬ ܽ ܿ ܳ ܴ ܰ ܰ ‫ܘܪܐ‬ ܳ ‫ܐܓ‬ ܷ ܻ ‫ܘܐܓ‬ ܱ ̇ ‫ܼ ܬܘܢ ܐܪ‬ ܼ ܺ ̇ ‫ܓܐܘܪ‬ ܼ ܼ ܳ ‫ܓ ܬܐ‬ ‫ܫ‬ ‫ܐ ܐܒ ܢ ܕܒ ܐ‬

ܳ ‫ܐܪ‬ ‫ܽܢ‬

kresî as ʾḵsîqûn ûrpâyû / rbn [syr.: rabban] ḥabîbîn

hamâr, mer hokâḡen / [35] ortîn. or gartâ w-ûsnî oḡrmî

/ perâ wrâ kroḡîn hokûn w-îšâ / îr sûrp bâdaraknîn,

bâlkeh / asdwâż oḡormî maḡâwor aprēmîn. yâ îm ʿazîz

aḵprdâk, înğ / [40] aden hâyek wgartek as tûḵt, / mî maḵtrek kroḡîn, or es / krâked ğîm, hbâ krâkednûn /

odâś goḵnîm, wmasek / tê ḵolâyâ krerr. menż martîm / [45] mnâśer, halwor ašwnûs losâ / bakser. tanâsûn wyoṯ

dârû dḡâyî, / or kreśy as tûḵtû. ûmîš // [1] ğenîm amen

sûrṗ gartaśḡnûn, / or înğ aden or gartân w-ûsnîn / oḡormî peren maḡâwor ʾprēmîn / hokûn, balkeh asdwâż

oḡrmy / [5] îrî śer sûrṗ aḡtow. kreśî / as tûḵt ʿzyz sûrṗ

mry [syr.: mār] / abḥâyû meğâ sandḵtow wank, / hazâr

w-înâ harîr wtanâsûn / dârûn meğnek askandren, / [10]

wkîrîsdosâ [in marg.: yiwer hazâr w-înâ harîr] weś harîr wtanâsûn / dârî. asdwâż oḡormî / an martûn, or gartâ

w-oḡormî perâ / wrâ maḡâwor krôḡîn. ʾmyn. / abwn dbšmyʾ ntqdš [syr.: amīn abūn d-ba-šmayyā netqaddaš]

I wrote this lexicon for the sake of Rabban Ḥabib of Urfa, our spiritual son. May whoever reads [it] and

learns [from it] bring a ‘[Lord] Have Mercy’ upon the

soul of the scribe and remember him [in] the holy liturgy, so that God may have mercy on the sinner

Ephrem. O my dear brethren, whenever you see and

read this book, do not blame the scribe, for I am not [lit. who I am not] a learned man – therefore I bow at the

303

304

III. Garšūnography, Adaptation & Alloglottography §602. feet of the learned – and do not say that the letters are

ugly. I have become [lit. I remained, I am left] an old [lit. big] man; the light of [my] old eyes have failed. I, who wrote this book, was seventy-seven years old [lit.

son of seventy-seven years]. I beg all the holy readers, whenever they read [it] and learn [from it], to bring a

‘Have Mercy’ upon the soul of the sinner Ephrem, so that God may have mercy on him through your holy

prayer. I wrote this book in [the monastery] of the beloved saint Mor Abḥay, the monastery with the ladders,

in the year 1970 [reckoned] from Alexander, and from Christ 670 [sic; in marg.: ‘in addition, 1900’]. May God have mercy on that man who reads and brings a ‘Have Mercy’ on the sinful scribe. Amen. Our Father…

11.4. Syro-Greek §602. Syro-Greek is a transcription scheme. Its usage is quite limited considering that non-Chalcedonian Syriac Christians hardly used Greek as a daily or liturgical language. Having said that, a few examples exist, mostly in Chalcedonian liturgical settings. The earliest example is a palimpsest leaf in the Mingana collection (MS 659),18 which Mingana dates to ca. 1000 (lower writing dated ca. 600). There are also fragments from the Anaphora of St. James that date between the 9th and 11th centuries, preserved in the Damascus Museum. A 16th or 17th century Maronite MS (Vat. Syr. 477)19 is also known.

18

Mingana, Catalogue of the Mingana Collection III, 94.

19

Lantschoot, Inventaire des Manuscrits Syriaques 13–14.

ch. 11

Garšūnography I: Syriac as the Target Script

§604.

305

§603. J. M. Sauget20 provides an analysis of the Damascus fragments, a summary of which follows: The mapping of Greek consonants to their Syriac counterparts is straightforward: β =

‫ ܒ‬, γ = ‫ ܓ‬, δ = ‫ ܕ‬, ζ = ‫ܙ‬, θ = ‫ ܬ‬, κ = ‫ܩ‬, λ = ‫ܠ‬, μ = ‫ܡ‬, ν = , ρ = ‫ܪ‬, σ = ‫ܣ‬, τ = ‫ܛ‬, and χ = . Both π and φ are represented by ‫ܦ‬. The letters ξ and ψ are represented by the monograms

and

, respectively. A

repetition of a Greek consonant is not doubled in Syriac (as is expected in a transcription system); e.g. ἀλλά =

‫ ̇ܐ ̇ܐ‬. This even

holds across word boundaries; e.g. τῆς σῆς =

. Vowels

pose more challenges:

‫ ܐ‬has no phonetic value of its own, but is

used to mark other vowels, especially at the beginning of words, and is used with a diacritic (e.g. α =

‫̇ܐ‬,

ε and αι =

‫ܝ ;)̣ܐ‬

represents ι, η and ει which were all pronounced /i/ in later times;

‫ ܘ‬represents various o/u/ou sounds (see Sauget for details).

It is worth noting that the rubrics are given in Syriac. The following example (taken from Sauget’s edition III, lines 24–30) illustrates this system:

‫ܐ‬ ‫̣ܐ‬

‫ܐ ܨ ܬܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܒ ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܡ‬ ‫ܘ ܢ‬ ‫ ̣ܐ‬: ‫̇ ܗ‬ ‫̣ܐܘܣ‬ ‫̇ܐܓ ̇ܐ‬ ‫̇ܐ‬ ‫̣ܐܘܣ ̣ܐ‬ ‫܀‬ ‫̇ܐܪܐܣ ̣ܐ ̣ܐܘ ܘ‬

‫ܪ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܪ ܐ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܢ ̣ܐ ̣ܐ‬ ‫̣ܐ‬ ‫̇ܐܪܕ ̇ܐܣ‬

‘The priest bows his head in front of the altar, prays the prayer of the bowing of the head, and he says at its con-

clusion: καὶ πλήρωσον τὰ στóμα ἡμων αἰνέσεως καì τà χείλη ἀγαλλιάσεως καὶ τὰς καρδιὰς χαρᾶς καì εὐφροσύνης.

§604. Independent of Syro-Greek, a number of Greek words, especially technical terms, entered the Syriac language as loan

20

Sauget, ‘Vestiges d’une celebration Gréco-Syriaque de l’Anaphore

de Saint Jacques’ 311–12.

306

III. Garšūnography, Adaptation & Alloglottography §604.

words.21 Some assimilate very well into the language to the degree that a Syriac user who is not acquainted with Greek may not realize the foreign origin of such words; e.g. τάξις which has become productive:

ܶ݁ܰ

ܶ ‫݁ ܳܐ‬

‘order’ from

‘he ordered’,

‘was ordered’, and even the late 20th century neologisms ‘[computer] system’, and

ܰ ܳ ‫݁ܰ ݁ ܐ‬

ܰ ݁ ܰ ‫ܶ ݂ܐܬ‬ ܰ ‫݁ ܳܐ‬

‘(a political) organization’.

The mapping from Greek into Syriac is similar to the above garšūnographic mapping. It is common, however, that for certain words of Greek origin, there exist various orthographical varia-

ܳ ܽ ‫ ܰܐ ܰܐ‬, ‫ ܰܐ ܰܐ ܽ ܰܪܐ‬, ‫ ܰܐ ܽ ܳܪܐ‬, ‫ܪܐ‬ ݂ ݂ ܶ ܽ ܰ ܰ ܰ ܽ ܰ ܰ ܰ ܽ ܰ ܰ inter alia, with pl. ‫ܐ ܐ ݂ ̈ܪܐ‬, ‫ܐ ܐ ݂ ̈ܪܐܣ‬, ‫ܐ ܐ ݂ ̈ܪܣ‬, etc.

tions in Syriac; e.g. ἀνάφορά gives rise to

11.5. Syro-Hebrew §605. Writing Hebrew in the Syriac script is very rare and limited to glosses; e.g. in a 14th-century polyglot Psalter, MS Cambridge Or. 929. Examples can be found in Brock’s treatment of this polyglot.22

11.6. Syro-Kurdish §606. Syro-Kurdish23 is a transcription scheme, though transliteration features do occur as Kurdish is typically written in Arabic script (and hence there are influences from Syro-Arabic). The number of Kurdish texts in Syriac script is not known, but the tradition continued well into the 20th century. A notable example

21

Brock, ‘Limitations of Syriac in Representing Greek’ 83–98; Duval

§62; Loopstra, Patristic Selections 297. 22 23

Brock, ‘A Fourteenth-century Polyglot Psalter’. Pennacchietti, ‘Un manoscritto curdo in karshuni da Aradin

(Iraq)’. I thank Gregory Kessel for this reference. ch. 11

§607.

Garšūnography I: Syriac as the Target Script

307

is the 18th-century poem Lawîj,24 attributed to Basilios Shimʿun (1695–1740), Maphrian of Ṭur ʿAbdin, which forms the basis of the following discussion. Lawîj is written in the Serṭo script. §607. Kreyenbroek25 provides approximated equivalences of the Syriac graphemes with the phonemes of Modern Standard Kurmancî as follows: ‘Oh’.

ܳ ‫ ܐ‬is used as mater lectionis; e.g. ܰ ‫ ܰܗ ܰ ܐ‬for haydane,

for Lo

‫ ܒ‬represents [b] or [v], and occasionally [p]. The distinc-

tion between [b] and [v] is made with the use of standard rūkkāḵā and qūššāyā points: ‫ ݁ܒ‬for [b] and ‫ ݂ܒ‬for [v].

‫ ܓ‬represents a number of phonemes: when unmarked, it represents [dzh] or [tsh] (MSK c, ç). With a stroke, ‫ܔ‬, it repre-

sents [dzh] or [tsh] (MSK c, ç). The qūššāyā and rūkkāḵā points

‫[ ݁ܓ‬g] and ‫[ ݂ܓ‬ʁ], respectively. Finally, a three-point sublinear grapheme is used for ‫ܓ‬ ݆ [ġ]. ‫ ܕ‬represents [d] and [δ]. ‫ ܗ‬represents [h], but also may be nil in MSK, in which ܰ ݁ ‫ ܰܕ‬denge case it must have had a sub-dialect /h/ sound; e.g. ‫ܓ‬ ܶ ܽ ݁ guhê ‘ears’. ܰ ݅ܰ ܰ ‘sound’, ‫ ܗܙܗܐܢ‬hejan, ‫ܓ ܗܗ‬ ‫ ܘ‬represents [w] and is used as mater lectionis. ‫ ܙ‬represents [z] and Arabic [ḍ] in loan words. ‫ ݅ܙ‬represents [zh] MSK j. are used for

24

For the Syriac text see Çiçek, Kap̱ ā ḏ-habāḇē. Translations were

made into Syriac by Qurillos Jacob, Arabic (from the Syriac) by Dionisius Behnam Jajawi (1954, published in qaṣīdat al-Lāvij al-latī naẓamahā bil luğa al-fārisiyya [sic] al-muṯallaṯ al-raḥamāt al-mafiryān mār šimʿūn almaniʿmī, [2011/12]), and Ṭuroyo by G. Barsoum (Yārtūṯā sūryāytā 86– 96). 25

Kreyenbroek ‘The Lawîj of Môr Basîliôs Shimʿûn’.

308

III. Garšūnography, Adaptation & Alloglottography §608.

‫ ܚ‬represents [ḥ]. ‫ ܛ‬is used in Arabic loan words, in which case it represents

[ṭ], and [t].

‫ ܝ‬represents [y] and is used as mater lectionis. represents [k] and [χ]; more precisely,

[k], while

݂݂

݁ ݁

represents

represents [χ].

‫ ܠ‬represents [l]. ‫ ܡ‬represents [m]. ‫ ܢ‬represents [n]. ‫ ܣ‬represents [s]. ‫ ܥ‬represents Arabic ‫[ ع‬ʕ] in loan words. ‫ ܦ‬represents [p], [f], and sometimes [v]; more precisely, ‫ ݂ܦ‬for [f] and [v], and ‫ ݆ܦ‬for [v]. ‫ ܨ‬represents Arabic [ṣ] in loan words. ‫ ܩ‬represents [q]. ‫ ܪ‬represents [r]. ‫ ܫ‬represents [ş]. ‫ ܬ‬represents [t].

The use of Syriac vowels is more complex and very incon-

sistent, representing, in most cases, regional dialects rather than MSK; e.g.

◌ܰ

for MSK /a/ (e.g.

ܰ ‫ܰܗ ܰ ܐ‬

haydane), /e/ (e.g.

ܰ ‫݂ܐܦ‬

ev

ܶܶ ܶ ݁ ‫ ܰܕ‬dengê ‘this’); for /a/ ݂ ‫ ܐ‬axir ‘end (of times)’, /e/ (e.g. ‫ܓ‬ ܶ ܰ ‘sound’), /u/ (e.g. ‫ ܶܙܪ‬zurna ‘zurna (musical instrument)’), /i/ ‫ܗܢ‬ ܺ ܺ çi ‘what?’), etc. hin ‘some’; ◌ for /i/ (e.g. ‫ܔ‬ Finally, a sublinear line on ‫ ܘ‬as a prefix indicates the conܰ junction û ‘and’; e.g. ‫ܘܐܦ‬ ݂ ̱ û ev ‘and this’. Its function is closer to ◌ܶ

the marhṭānā (q.v. §206).

§608. The first stanza of Lawîj is given below as an example with its transcription and translation from Kreyenbroek.

ch. 11

Garšūnography I: Syriac as the Target Script

§610.

‫ܺܔ‬ ‫ ܶܗܢ‬،

ܰ ‫ܘܐܦ‬ ݂ ̱ . ܰ ‫ܺܔ ܰܗ ܰ ܐ‬ ܺܰ ܰ ‫ܘܒ ܽ ܺܪ ܰ ܐ‬ ܰ ‫ܘܙܪ‬ ܶ ̱ . ܰ ‫ܰܙ ܰ ܐ‬

ܰ ‫ܘܐܦ‬ ݂̱ ܶ݁ ܰ ‫ܓ‬ ܶܶ ‫ ܶ ݅ܕ‬، ݂ ‫ܕܒ ܢ ܐ‬

Lo, ev çi denge û ev çi haydane

309

ܰ ܳ ‫݂ܐܦ ܺܔ ܰܕ ݁ ܰܓ‬ ܰ ‫ܽܓ ܪܓ ܰ ܗ ܰ ܰ ܐ‬ ܶ ̱ ،‫ܕܒ ݅ܶܢ ܺ ܰ ܐ ܰ ܰ ܗ‬ ܶ ‫ܘܗܢ‬

û ev çi gurgure li ‘ezmana

dengȇ nefîr û zurna û burîzane

hin dibȇjin qiyamete, û hin dibûjin axir zemane. Oh, what sound is this and what warning? And what rumbling is this in the skies?

It is the sound of the flute, the zurna and the burîzan.

Some say it is the resurrection, and some say it is the end of time.

11.7. Syro-Latin §609. Latin written in the Syriac script is a result of the rise of Roman-rite communities from within the Syriac churches. The earliest known examples are from the 16th century and tend to transcribe Latin prayers in Syriac for the benefit of Catholic Syriac Christians, either Maronite or Chaldean. Maronites used Serṭā while Chaldeans used the E. Syr. script. Mingana 110 (f. 106a) contains the Pater Noster, the Ave Maria, and the Gloria Patri in E. Syr. Takahashi26 has found that Mingana 44 (f. 132b) also contains the Pater Noster but in W. Syr., copied by a certain Ephrem in Deir al-Zaʿfarān in 1574–75. Vat. Syr. 491 (ff. 108b-109b) contains the hymn Pange lingua. §610. Following is the Pater Noster from Mingana 44 and Mingana 110:

26

‫ܰܒܐܬܪ ܵ ܪ ܺ ܐ ܔܐ‬ ܽ ܵ ‫ܰ ܐ ܺ ܶܔܐܬܘܪ‬ ܵܰ ‫ܵ ܘ ܿ ܸܐܬ‬ ‫ܼܒ َ ܪ ܶ ܽܘ ܰ ܘ ܼ ܘܣ ܬܘܐ‬

Takahashi, personal communication.

310

III. Garšūnography, Adaptation & Alloglottography §611.

ܰ ܵܵ ‫ܵ ܸ ܺܬܪܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܒ ܐܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܰܪܐ‬ ܵ

‫ܶܔܐ‬ ‫ܺ ̇ ܬܐ‬ ݁ ܵ ݁ [‫̇ ܐ ܶ ܳ ܪ]ܘܡ‬ ܵ ܶ ܺ ‫ܸܐܬ ܺܕ‬ ܺ ‫ܕܒ‬ ܷ ܰܽ‫ܐ ܒ‬ ܳ ‫ܕܘ ܐ‬ ܳ ܰ ܳ ‫ܸܐܬ ܻ ܣ ݁ ܐ‬ ‫ܸ ܹ ܐ ܹ ܒ ܸܐ‬ ‫ܨ ܬܐ ܕܐܒ ܢ ܕܒ ܐ ܒ ܐ ܵ ܐ ܼ ܵ ܵܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ܼ ‫ܐ ܸ ܐ ܿ ܼ ܼ ܼܝ ܹܗ ܼ ܿ ̰ܓ‬ ܵ ‫َ ݁ ݁ ܼ ̃ܓ ܼ ܿ ܿܘܪ‬ ‫ܬܘܡ‬ ܼ ܵ ܼ ‫݁ ܼ ݁ ܘ ܐܣ‬ ‫ܬܘܘܐ‬ ‫ܼ ݁ ܿ ݁ܬ ܼ ܿ ̃ܓ ݂ ܿ ܼܐ ݁ ܼ ܼ ܬܪܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ܿ ‫ܐ ܵܐ ܡ‬ ܸ ‫ܘܬܝ ܕ ܼ ܿ ܐ ܡ ܕ ܐ ܼ ݁ܒ ܼ ܗܘܕ‬ ܼ ݁ ݁ ‫ܹܐ‬ ܿ ݁ ܵ ‫ܕܼ ܼ ܹ ܿܣ‬ ܼ ‫ܕܐܒ ܼ ܵ ܐܪ ܼ ݁ܒ ܣ ܵ ܐ‬ ܿ ݁ ܿ ܵ ‫ܐ ݁ ܐ ܵ ܐܨ ܿ ܘ‬ ܼ ܹ ܼ ܸ ܹ ܹ ܵ ܵ ܿ ܵ ܵ ‫ܐܹ ܀‬ ‫ܼ ܹܒ ܐ ܐܨ ܐ‬ ܹ ‫ܸܐܬ ܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܕ ܰܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܹܽܪܘ‬ ܶ ܶ ܺ

[The Lord’s Parayer in the Latin Language] Pater noster, qui es in cœlis; sanctificatur nomen tuum: Adveniat regnum tuum; fiat voluntas tua,

sicut in cœlo, et in terra.

Panem nostrum cotidianum da nobis hodie: Et dimitte nobis debita nostra,

sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris: et ne nos inducas in tentationem: sed libera nos a malo. Amen.

In the case of Mingana 110, the text in italics represents two omissions in the Syriac transcriptions due to clear cases of homeoteleuton. §611. Independent of garšūnography, a few loan words have entered the Syriac language from European languages. In the classical period, a few Latin words entered Syriac, and in the modern

ch. 11

Garšūnography I: Syriac as the Target Script

§612.

311

period, the first interaction of Syriac and English probably took place in the late 19th century in the form of communications between the Syriac Church in the Middle East and British India. Here, some technical terms may have entered the language. One

‫[‘ ܰ ݂ܒ ܶ ܐ‬letter] covers’; e.g. ‫ܰ ܒ ܶ ܐ‬ ܰ ‫‘ ݂ܰܕ ܰ ܺܪ‬the covers that we send you

known instance is the use of

ܰ ܺ ‫݂ ܽ ܢ ܐ ݂ ܽ ܘܢ ܶ ܳ ܐ ܒ ܶ ܳ ܳ ܐ‬

are ten in number’27 (this may be a figurative borrowing from Syriac

‫ܰ ݂ܒ ܳ ܐ‬

‘tomb’ from

‫݂ ܰܒ‬

‘to gather, fill, insert’?).28 Words that

entered directly from English or other European languages into

ܺ ܳ ‫ܰܐ‬ ‫ ܬ ܳ ܐ‬/tīyyā/, piano ܳ cassette ‫ ܰ ܐ ܶ ܬܐ‬/kasetā/ (‫ܗ‬

Modern Literary Syriac include tea /pyanā/ and

ܳ ‫ܒ ܰܐ‬

/byanā/,

probably silent). Some neologisms entered Syriac via Arabic; e.g. English bus

‫ ܰܒ ܳ ܐ‬.29

‫باص‬

A surprising spelling is

‫ܸܬܠ ݂ ܰ ܐܦ‬

‘telegraph’ where Latin turned into Ottoman Turkish

‫غ‬which in turn turned into Syriac ‫ ݂ܟ‬rather than ‫݂ܓ‬.30

§612. Due to Arabic, through which many modern neologisms entered Syriac, the phoneme /p/ is more likely to appear as rather than

‫ܦ‬

Similarly, the phoneme /v/ appears as

ܳ ݁ ܶ̈ Soviet Union > ‫݁ ܶܐ‬ e.g. film ‫ܺ ـܳܐ‬.

27

‫بوليس‬