Studies in the Historical Syntax of Aramaic 9781463216580

Citation preview

Studies in the Historical Syntax of Aramaic

Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages

1 Series Editor Terry Falla

Editorial Board Aaron Michael Butts J. K. Aitken Terry Falla Wido van Peursen Daniel King

The series Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages (PLAL) focuses on the theory and practice of ancient-language lexicography and subjects relating to it. Contemporary approaches to ancient-language lexicography in an age of digital technologies are linked to the study of modern linguistics and to virtually every aspect of ancient-language endeavour, including socio-cultural inquiry. Accordingly, the series contains collections of peer-reviewed essays, monographs, and reference works that have relevance to the ever-increasing reaches of ancient-language lexicography and that allow a better view of the linguistic universe in which every particle and galaxy are interrelated. PLAL supersedes the series Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics (PoSL), expanding the scope of the latter to include other ancient languages.

Studies in the Historical Syntax of Aramaic

Na'ama Pat-El

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

ISBN 978-1-59333-645-5

9 ISSN 2165-2600

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication Record is Available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................... ix List of Tables ................................................................................................................... xi Abbreviations and Sigla ................................................................................................ xiii Languages ............................................................................................................. xiii Texts and Authors ................................................................................................. xiv Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Methodology..................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Historical Syntax in Semitic ............................................................................. 4 1.3. Why Aramaic? .................................................................................................. 7 1.4. Aramaic Dialectology ....................................................................................... 9 1.5. The Structure of the Work .............................................................................. 16 1.6. A Note on Bilingual Texts ............................................................................... 17

Chapter 2: Adverbial Subordination ............................................................................. 21 2.1. Methodological Introduction .......................................................................... 21 2.1.1. Adverbial Subordination in Semitic ............................................................ 23 2.2. Adverbial Subordination in Aramaic .............................................................. 27 2.2.1. Inherited Subordinators............................................................................... 28 2.2.2. Result Clauses and Negative Result Clauses ................................................ 34 2.2.2.1. : Etymology and Origin ............................................................ 35 2.2.2.2. Distribution and Syntax ............................................................................ 39 2.2.3. The Conditional Clause ............................................................................... 46 2.2.3.1. Waw-Apodosis .......................................................................................... 47 2.2.3.2. Subordinated Conditional ........................................................................ 54 2.2.3.3. Borrowing and Innovation ....................................................................... 61 2.2.3.4. Discussion ................................................................................................. 65 2.2.4. Causal Clauses ............................................................................................. 66 2.2.4.1. b-dyl d- ‘because, in order that’ ................................................................ 67 2.2.4.2. meṭṭul d- ‘because’ ..................................................................................... 73 2.2.4.3. Conclusion ................................................................................................ 76 2.2.5. Sources for Adverbial Subordination .......................................................... 77 2.2.5.1. Prepositional Phrases ............................................................................... 78 2.2.5.2. Presentatives ............................................................................................ 80 2.2.5.3. Interrogatives ........................................................................................... 80 2.2.5.4. Adverbs .................................................................................................... 81 2.2.5.5. Nouns ....................................................................................................... 81 2.2.5.7. Discussion ................................................................................................. 82 2.3. Conclusions .................................................................................................... 86 Appendix 1: Table 10: Heads and Dependents in Semitic .................................... 88

v

vi

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC

Chapter 3: Nominal Modifiers ...................................................................................... 89 3.1. Order of Constituents in the Nominal Phrase ................................................. 89 3.1.1. Introduction................................................................................................. 89 3.1.1.1. Demonstratives ......................................................................................... 89 3.1.1.1. Order of Constituents in Linguistic Theory .............................................. 90 3.1.1.1. The Status of Adnominal Demonstratives in Semitic ............................... 91 3.1.1.4. Order of Attributes in Semitic .................................................................. 92 3.1.2. Order of Attributive Demonstrative in Aramaic .......................................... 95 3.1.2.1. Notes ........................................................................................................ 97 3.1.3. Discussion .................................................................................................. 104 3.1.3.1. Order of Nominal Constituents in Aramaic ............................................ 104 3.1.3.2. Prolepsis in Aramaic ............................................................................... 105 3.1.3.2.1. Prolepsis in Neo-Aramaic .................................................................... 115 3.1.3.4. The Origin of Prolepsis ........................................................................... 121 3.1.4. Conclusions ............................................................................................... 132 3.2. Exception: N-DEM-Attribute ........................................................................ 133 3.2.1. Analysis ..................................................................................................... 134 3.2.2. Evidence from eastern Neo-Aramaic ......................................................... 138 3.3. Free Indefinite Relatives .............................................................................. 141 3.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................. 145 Chapter 4: Direct Speech Representations .................................................................. 147 4.1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 147 4.1.1. Speech in the Semitic Languages .............................................................. 149 4.2. Speech in Aramaic ........................................................................................ 152 4.2.1. Asyndetic Direct Speech ............................................................................ 152 4.2.1.1. The Development of lʾmr as a Quotative ................................................ 154 4.2.1.2. Discussion ............................................................................................... 157 4.2.2. Syndetic ..................................................................................................... 163 4.2.2.1. Discussion ............................................................................................... 169 4.2.3. Quotative Particle ...................................................................................... 173 4.2.3.1. LM .......................................................................................................... 173 4.2.3.1.1. Textual Evidence ................................................................................. 173 4.2.3.1.2. Function and Etymology: Previous Studies ......................................... 174 4.2.3.1.3. The Relationship between lʾmr and lm: A Re-evaluation .................... 176 4.2.3.1.4. Adverb: la+m > lam .......................................................................... 185 4.3.3.2. JBA nammē ............................................................................................. 188 4.2.3.3. Conclusion .............................................................................................. 190 4.3. Summary and Conclusion ............................................................................. 190 Chapter 5: Summary and Conclusion ......................................................................... 193 5.1. General Results ............................................................................................. 193 5.1.1. Subordination ............................................................................................ 194 5.1.1.1. Deviation from Semitic........................................................................... 195 5.1.1.2. Dialectal Differences............................................................................... 196 5.1.2. Nominal Modification ............................................................................... 196 5.1.2.1. Deviation from Semitic........................................................................... 197

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

5.1.2.2. Dialectal Differences............................................................................... 197 5.1.3. Speech Representation .............................................................................. 197 5.1.3.1. Deviation from Semitic........................................................................... 198 5.1.3.2. Dialectal Differences............................................................................... 198 5.2. East-West Dialectal Variations (Late Aramaic) ............................................. 198 5.3. East-West Dialectal Variations (Neo-Aramaic) ............................................. 200 5.4. Languages in Contact ................................................................................... 200 5.4.1. The Classical Dialects ................................................................................ 200 5.4.2. The Modern Dialects ................................................................................. 201 Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 205 Index ............................................................................................................................ 225

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This book is based on my dissertation, submitted to the department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University in 2008. I have shortened and edited it to allow more readability. Many of the conclusions therein were presented in professional meetings for the past three years, and I have benefited from the comments of the attendees. I owe a special gratitude to several scholars. First among them is my advisor, John Huehnergard, who was always very generous with his time and knowledge. I would also like to thank the members of my dissertation committee, Wolfhart Heinrichs, Gideon Goldenberg and James F. Coakley. Each one of them inspired me through their classes, personal discussions, and work. Most of all, they have taught me the most important trait of a scholar: humility. I am forever in their debt. Many scholars discussed different aspects of this book with me, directed me to more references, and answered my queries about their own work: Steven Fassberg, Orin Gensler, Holger Gzella, Charles Häberl, Rebecca Hasselbach, Robert Hoberman, Jan Joosten, Geoffrey Khan, Uri Mor, Aaron D. Rubin, and P. Oktor Skjærvø. My student, Aren Wilson-Wright, provided some useful comments and indexed the book. I also thank my publisher, George Kiraz, and the editors of my book, Wido van Peursen and Terry Falla, for their hard work on the book. Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Jon Erling, my sisters, Moran and Ofri, my mother, Ruth, and above all, my father, Shlomo, the most curious person I know. I dedicate this work to him. Na’ama Pat-El, Austin, Texas

ix

LIST OF TABLES Table 1:

The development of adverbial subordination in Semitic

45

Table 3:

Distribution of dlmʾ in Aramaic

76

Table 2: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9:

Table 10: Table 11:

Table 12: Table 13: Table 14: Table 15:

Summary of the syntax of dlmʾ

The distribution of waw-apodosis in Aramaic

Conditional particles in Western Neo-Aramaic

75 86 99

Conditional particles in Levantine Arabic

101

Distribution of causal subordinators in Aramaic

118

The distribution and function of b-dyl (d-)

Summary of sources for adverbial subordinators Heads and dependents in Semitic

The spread of prolepsis in Aramaic

The distribution of lm in Egyptian Aramaic Summary of dialectal differences

Summary of dialectal differences (Neo-Aramaic) A summary table

xi

105 126 134 173

263 290 292 296

ABBREVIATIONS AND SIGLA Acc. Adj. Adv. App. At. Aux. c. C Clit. Cop. Comp. Conj. Cst. D Def. Dem. DO Dur. f G Gen. Indef. Inf.

accusative adjective adverb apposition attribute auxiliary circa causative, aphel clitic copula complementizer conjunction construct state paʿʿel definite demonstrative direct object durative feminine Grundform, peʿal genitive construction indefinite infinitive

Int. m N Neg. NP O/Obj. pl. PN Prec. Pred. Prep. Pron. Quot. Refl. Rel. s S SP Temp. Top. V Vnt.

interrogative pronoun masculine noun negation adverb noun phrase object plural personal name precative marker of predication preposition pronoun quotative particle reflexive relative pronoun singular sentence speech temporal topic verb ventive

Ḥat. J-Azar

Haṭran Jewish Azarbaijani (Neo-Aramaic) Jewish Babylonian Aramaic Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Khorramshahr (NeoMandaic) Koy Sanjaq Kurdish

LANGUAGES Ahw Akk. Arb. Bax. BH CA CPA EgA G. Ǧub.

Ahwāz (Neo-Mandaic) Akkadian Arabic Baxʿa Biblical Hebrew Classical Arabic Christian Palestinian Aramaic Egyptian Aramaic Gəʿəz Ǧubbʿadīn

JBA JPA Khor. Koy Kurd.

xiii

xiv LateA LBH Maʿ. Mand. MidA MPer. MH Mlaḥ. MSA Nab. NENA Neof. OA OfA

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC Late Aramaic Late Biblical Hebrew Maʿlūla Mandaic Middle Aramaic Middle Persian Mishnaic Hebrew Mlaḥsô Modern South Arabian Nabatean North-East Neo-Aramaic Neofiti Old Aramaic Official Aramaic

OSA OSyr. Palm. Ph. PsJ QA Sam. SLA Syr. TJ TO Ṭūr. Ug. WNA

Old South Arabian Old Syriac Palmyrene Phoenician Pseudo-Jonathan Qumran Aramaic Samaritan Aramaic Standard Literary Aramaic Syriac Targum Jonathan Targum Onkelos Ṭūrūyo Ugaritic Western Neo-Aramaic

Gen. Gen. R. Giṭ. Gy. Hag. Hos. Hul. Is. Jer. Jg. Josh. K KAI

Genesis Genesis Rabba Giṭṭin tractate Gynza Ḥagiga tractate Hosea Hullin tractate Isaiah Jeremiah Judges Joshua Kraeling Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften (Donner & Röllig 1962) Keritut tractate Ketubot tractate Kings Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit Leviticus Luke Malachi Meʿila tractate Matthew Nazir tractate Nedarim tractate Numbers New Testament

TEXTS AND AUTHORS AA Aḥ. Aph. AZ BB BD BR Ber. BHeb Bis. BM BQ C CAD CAL CIS Col. D Dan. Deut. Eccl. Eph. Er. Ex. Ez. Ezek.

Acts of the Apostles (Wright 1990) Aḥiqar Aphrahat Avoda Zara tractate Baba Batra tractate Bar-Daisan Bar-Rākib Berachot tractate Bar-Hebreus The Bisitun Inscription Baba Meṣia tractate Baba Qama tractate Cowley The Assyrian Dictionary The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Corpus inscriptionum Semiticarum Colossians Driver Daniel Deuteronomy Ecclesiastes Ephrem Erubin tractate Exodus Ezra Ezekiel

Ker. Ket. Kg. KTU Lev. Lk. Mal. Meʿ Mt. Naz. Ned. Num. NT

xv

ABBREVIATIONS AND SIGLA OT Pes. Prov. Psa. Qid. Qur. Sam. San. Sef. Shab.

Old Testament Pesahim tractate Proverbs Psalms Qidushin tractate Qurʾan Samuel Sanhedrin tractate Sefire Shabbat tractate

Song SP Suk. Taan. TF Thess. TM Yeb. Zeb. Zkr.

Song of Songs The Samaria Papyri Sukka tractate Taanit tractate Tell Fekherye Thessalonians Tibat Marqa Yebamot tractate Zebahim tractate Zakkur

X>Y X SVO—and hence irrelevant for genetic subgrouping. However, typology, in its current stage, is an inaccurate tool, far less accurate than the comparative-historical method (Dunkel 1981). While historical linguists ideally use all attested linguistic examples in order to arrive at a reconstruction, typologists use a selection of languages, on the basis of which a universal is generalized. In addition, typology is not concerned with mechanisms of change, but rather with a language’s synchronic state. As such, it is ineffective in explaining change. In short, typology may be a helpful tool in determining the range of possibilities in human language, but it cannot override a reconstruction that was arrived at through rigorous comparative methods, simply because it has not been documented in languages which happen to be attested. Following Watkins (1994 [1976]), I will insist on the application of strict comparative linguistic principles in syntax in this work as has been done in morphology and phonology. Both form and meaning should correspond and any deviation should be clearly explained. For any type of thorough syntactic study, long texts are needed in order to collect at least several examples of each pattern type. This makes it harder to analyze the syntax of a partially documented language. Unfortunately, from most Aramaic dialects we either have very short texts (such as Palmyrene) or too few texts to have a full view of the dialect’s syntax (Old Aramaic). Therefore, the current study may be biased toward phenomena found in better documented dialects (Syriac); however, choosing Aramaic for a historical syntactic study has other advantages, as will be discussed below (p. 21).

1.2. HISTORICAL SYNTAX IN SEMITIC Even though attempts at comparative historical syntax of Proto-Indo-European were already available at the end of the 19th century,10 Semitists were always somewhat The idea was originally suggested by Jakobson in a paper he gave in Oslo in 1958. The text was published in 1971 in his collected papers. Jakobson discussed sound changes in this context, and even for phonology there is disagreement whether typology trumps historical linguistics. 10 Delbrück’s work was originally published in 1893. Later works on different aspects of Proto-Indo-European syntax are: Lehmann (1974); Friedrich (1975); Watkins (1976, 1995), and Bauer (2000), to name a few. 9

INTRODUCTION

5

skeptical and occasionally dismissive of the methodology. The chapters treating syntax in Brockelmann (1908–13), which are still important and accurate, are a collection of comparable patterns in various Semitic languages, with no attempt at reconstruction. This type of treatment is evident in several other works of early Semitists (Blake 1912; Eitan 1928–29). These works list patterns, but avoid statements regarding their origin, despite readily reconstructing morphological features. Later, Semitists found syntactic reconstruction impossible for a number of reasons. Hetzron (1974) claimed that the syntax of Akkadian and Ethiopic underwent a total revision under the influence of non-Semitic languages. This led him to comment that the sentential syntax of these languages is a warning sign against using syntax in historical reconstruction. That is, since external pressure can cause such drastic changes in the syntax of Akkadian and Ethiopic, sorting original patterns from borrowed ones is impossible. Similarly, Khan (1988) claims that syntax, unlike morphology, can undergo radical change internally or through contact. Thus, given two related languages, it would not be feasible to determine which language is more conservative syntactically, unless we have documentation of the stage prior to their divergence. He claims that such documentation is not extant in the Semitic languages, and therefore comparative diachronic Semitic syntax is impossible. Khan’s own 1988 work on syntax is similar to earlier work by Brockelmann in that it is comparative, but synchronic, and is not aimed at reconstructing proto-patterns. Like Brocklemann’s, Khan’s seminal study is an important and thorough work, and a cornerstone in the study of Semitic syntax. Another skeptic is Garr (1985) who claims that syntax is unreliable, while morphological and phonological features are easier to evaluate. This claim is also propagated by Owens (2004), who emphasizes that similar syntactical structures can arise in different languages with no contact or genetic relation between them. The insistence of some Semitists on the significance of language contact in evaluating syntax and the obstacles it poses for reconstruction is surprising compared to the common approach in Indo-European historical linguistics, where borrowing syntactic patterns was considered unlikely or very rare. 11 The former view led to the rejection of syntax as a factor in subgrouping in Semitic and to a resistance to reconstruct syntax. Yet borrowing and contact are known to substantially affect various aspects of language, most notably the lexicon and phonology. For example, the consonantal system of Akkadian has gone through extreme revision, possibly under the influence of Sumerian. Akkadian has lost most of its guttural consonants and several others have merged; yet, despite having only 19 consonants out of the original 29 Proto-Semitic ones, we can show quite accurately what happened to the ten “missing” consonants. In Arabic, several important roots, such as √ktb ‘write’ and Note also that in some recent studies about language contact among speakers of NeoSemitic languages, their syntax did not seem to be significantly altered due to contact, unlike their phonology. See Arnold and Behnstedt (1993:64). 11

6

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC

√ṣly ‘pray,’ are borrowed from Aramaic; despite being extremely common, the fact that they are borrowed is well established. No Semitist claims that these examples are “a warning sign” against reconstructing the phonology or lexicon of Akkadian and Arabic. The effects of borrowing can be neutralized with the help of the comparative method and an understanding of the mechanisms of change due to contact. Borrowing is by no means an impediment for historical linguistics. There are, however, some Semitic scholars who consider historical syntax a worthwhile endeavor. Kutscher (1951) showed that Biblical Aramaic is an eastern dialect on the basis of its syntax. He published a short article containing a summary of his claims; however, he never finished his full-scale research, nor did he present a detailed, reasoned list of syntactical features that can be said to be clearly western or eastern. Nevertheless, Kutscher’s short paper is the first attempt to use syntax for subgrouping.12 Cook (1992) argues in his discussion of Aramaic Dialectology that syntactical features are less usable diagnostic criteria, not because they are without value, but rather because comparative Aramaic syntax is a non-existent discipline.13 Recently, Huehnergard (1996:262) pointed to a deficiency in a comparativehistorical grammar of Aramaic and a lack of syntactic treatises in Semitic in general (ibid., 267).14 There have been sporadic serious attempts to describe Semitic syntax and its development from a historical linguistic point of view. In Arabic, Bloch (1986) has tracked the development of several Arabic patterns with some comparative Semitic discussion (comparison was made mostly to Biblical Hebrew). Bloch’s attempt is especially commendable, given the relatively meager attestations of syntactic relics in Classical Arabic. Yet, based on relics, internal reconstruction and comparative linguistics, Bloch was able to trace the origins of several patterns. A more comparative work is D. Cohen (2003 [1984]), which explains the development of the verbal system in Semitic as the result of syntactic change. 15 Old Aramaic texts are few and relatively short, and hence it is difficult to fully and accurately describe their syntax. The wealth of texts in Official Aramaic has Note that Kutscher worked extensively on sentential word order, which is a problematic choice, especially considering the size of the corpus he worked with. Syntax is used also in Morgenstern (1999:139*), who discusses the object marker yāt in Nabatean Aramaic as a unique features compared to other contemporaneous Aramaic dialects. Note, however, that yāt is a retention, not an innovation. 13 Another subsidiary problem related to the lack of good comparative dialectal studies is the issue of Aramaic influence on other languages, primarily on Hebrew, and how to date and categorize them. Hurvitz (1968) already pointed to the need to identify Aramaic features by their dialect, rather than in the general term ‘Aramaisms’. See Wagner (1966) for an attempt to catalogue Aramaic features in Hebrew without categorizing their dialect of origin. 14 Calls for such a treatise, however rare, go back to Blake (1912:135), but are mainly concerned with the need for comparative Semitic syntax. 15 A similar process of change in the Semitic verbal system is described in Rundgren (1963) and Hodge (1975); both appealed to the process of renewal as a motivation for syntactic change. 12

INTRODUCTION

7

rendered them a wonderful source of information for Aramaic syntax. Folmer’s thorough work in 1995 on the Aramaic of the Achaemenid Empire is a great and much needed addition to the field, as she focuses on the syntax of a major dialect at a time when Aramaic is extensively attested, thus allowing a fruitful syntactic investigation. Folmer covers several important syntactic patterns, like the periphrastic genitive, order of modifier and noun, the use of the nota objectivi l-, conditional clauses, the use of the passive participle, and more. The work, however, is not comparative, and while it outlines the background for the development of the Middle Aramaic dialects and makes occasional comparisons to Old Aramaic, it does not discuss these changes as part of wider processes in Aramaic, and only rarely discusses the origin of or reason for these changes. Nevertheless, Folmer’s work is a cornerstone in the field, and the current study would have been less representative without her linguistic insights. The only work done so far on comparative Aramaic syntax is Vivian (1981), who compares Biblical Aramaic syntax to Syriac syntax. The Syriac text he chose is the Peshitta OT translation of the Biblical Aramaic portions of the Hebrew Bible. The source language from which the Peshitta was translated is discussed at length in Vivian (1981), but the problems a translated text poses for comparative study are not equally considered. Vivian chose a translated text in order to compare two identical texts, although the patterns presented in his study can be found in any Syriac text, not only in the Peshitta OT. Vivian deals with well-known and widely discussed syntactic features, such as the state of nouns, the genitive relation, and patterns with kl ‘all, every.’ His 59-page paper consists of many examples and some analysis but very little on the side of reconstruction. The work is mostly descriptive and offers little new information or explanation.

1.3. WHY ARAMAIC? The current work has two main goals, one focusing on Aramaic and the other on Semitic in general. The first goal is to give a historical comparative account of several syntactic patterns in the Aramaic dialects in order to locate syntactic differences between these dialects and to explain them, if possible. The second goal is primarily methodological: to prove the advantage and validity of syntax to historical Semitic linguistics and dialectology. In order to show the merits of historical syntax for comparative Semitic linguistics, I have chosen Aramaic as the main source of data. This choice is not random. The task of fully reconstructing Proto-Semitic syntax is not within reach at the moment, since we do not have thorough syntactic descriptions of all languages or of all branches. In order to have any chance of reconstructing Proto-Semitic syntax, we need first to reconstruct the syntax of each branch, which has not been done thus far, even for well-studied languages like Arabic and Hebrew, not to mention Akkadian. Huehnergard (1996:160) has pointed to a methodological flaw where Semitists tend to compare the “big five” languages (Akkadian, Arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopic, and Hebrew) to each other, instead of working upward, comparing closely related languages within a single branch:

8

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC For the purpose of reconstruction, therefore, one should first compare not all attested languages, but rather only those that share an immediate common ancestor; then that intermediate ancestral language may be compared with a language or branching with which it shares an immediate ancestor still farther back. (Ibid.)

Huehnergard further notes that the starting point for comparative historical research should be the individual language and its different manifestations (dialects, geographical variants, and the like). In order to compare branches, we need to start with single nodes. The first step is to reconstruct a common language (ibid., 161–2). To that end, it is beneficial to have a language with a significant amount of variants and with a continuous and relatively long attestation. Languages with long attested history can give us a good idea of how syntax evolves. 16 Aramaic has a large number of attested dialects spread over a vast geographical area. Unlike some other languages (Classical Arabic and Biblical Hebrew), texts in Aramaic were not harmonized to a point where their original features were blurred. Thus, this language is suitable for syntax reconstruction. It has a long documented history (circa 3,000 years), during which several splits have occurred; we have knowledge from early on of its material and geographical history; numerous texts are available in that language, and a large number of grammars can facilitate research. In addition, unlike other languages with similarly long history, such as Akkadian, we are in possession of a large amount of oral sources in most modern dialects of Aramaic. Another advantage for the use of Aramaic is the large number of languages it has been, and still is, in contact with. Studying both internal and external motivation for change may teach us much about the mechanisms of these processes and the way they operate together and independently. This study may be able to connect features in the modern dialects to processes which had begun in previous stages, to find some line of development that will point to a possible, if not actual, origin of some of the patterns common in the modern dialects. Because there is a gap of around 500 years between the last native attested records of Late Aramaic and the first attested records of Neo-Aramaic,17 a See Depuydt (1997:21–2) about Egyptian: “It seems that a history of Egyptian would be a useful thing, partly though surely not solely, because of the length of time over which the language is attested in writing. . . . [T]he written sources of ancient Egyptian, which capture the Egyptian language at certain moments in its long history, freezing it in time, as it were, should allow students of language to postulate certain fluid paths.” Egyptian is indeed a magnificent example of a long linguistic history; Aramaic has a shorter history, but among the Semitic languages it is the longest attested language. In addition, unlike Egyptian, for Aramaic we have attestations of spoken varieties. 17 The last native texts in Syriac were written by Bar-Hebreus, a bilingual scholar, at the beginning of the 12th century A.D., though Arabic replaced Syriac as the regional language, probably by the 8th century (Beyer 1986:44–45; Sabar 2002:1). The earliest attestations of Modern Aramaic are dated to the early 17th century (Sabar 1970: xxii; Goldenberg 2000:70). 16

INTRODUCTION

9

comprehensive investigation into the early dialects should show nascent or wellestablished patterns which may offer an explanation for some of the features found in the modern dialects. Historical syntax should be especially relevant for the NeoAramaic dialects, since so much of their structure and verbal morphology is a result of earlier syntax. Thus, a comparative-historical study can contribute to our understanding of the development of Aramaic and its dialects, and the relationship between its different variants and diachronic phases. Research in syntax is essential, as scholars to date have used mainly phonology and morphology to characterize dialectal differences and to determine sub-grouping (Huehnergard, 1995). The following chapters are concentrated on the investigation of syntactic features that have not received enough attention thus far. This is not to say that much-discussed features were always properly analyzed or that there is nothing more to be said about them, but rather that the study of other features of Aramaic is long overdue. I have, however, avoided dealing with features that require large chunks of texts to illustrate, in order to include as many dialects as possible. Thus, such features as sentential word order and verbal aspect will not be addressed in this work.18 The features discussed in this work are represented in almost all the dialects and thus may be considered representative of Aramaic syntax. If this research could yield a list of unique Aramaic syntactical features, it would complete Huehnergard’s 1995 seminal paper “What Is Aramaic?”, which included only phonological and morphological features. This book aims to be a first, albeit modest, step toward a full comparative-historical syntax of Aramaic, and a starting point for a historical syntactic study of other Semitic languages. I hope that my findings will prove the value of syntax for aramaic dialectology, the subgrouping of the Semitic languages, and the reconstructing of Proto-Semitic syntax.

1.4. ARAMAIC DIALECTOLOGY The exact dialectal subgrouping of Aramaic is still a matter of controversy and has been a perennial problem in the field. There is no consensus regarding the number of dialectal groups into which Aramaic should be divided, and even within each approach, opinions vary as to where dialectal lines run. Some of the extant Aramaic data are problematic. Not infrequently the dialects provide conflicting information, not only because the data are lacking and their analysis is sometimes open to interpretation, but also because some dialects are influenced by other adjacent dialects or languages (JPA and CPA), and some texts were written or used by speakers of a different dialect or a different language altogether (Nabatean). Moreover, the amount of texts in different dialects is uneven, and thus some dialects have rich attestations (Syriac) while others offer only clues (Biblical Aramaic).

Most of the work on these two issues has not been comparative, but some work is available (Buth 1987; Cook 1986; Hayes 1990; Li 2009; Muraoka 1984 to mention a few) 18

10

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC

Several attempts have been made to divide Aramaic into well-defined dialectal groups; none of the divisions suggested has met with overall approval.19 Currently, two main divisions are accepted by most scholars. These divisions represent different approaches to Aramaic Dialectology : one is concerned with the function and style of the texts (Greenfield 1974, 1978), and the other is concerned with chronological and geographical divisions (Fitzmyer 1979b). In addition, Beyer’s (1986) approach, which is not generally accepted, represents a political division. The first main problem in the dialectology of Aramaic is the status of the texts from the Achaemenid Empire, namely, whether they belong with the earliest inscriptions from Syria or whether they stand as a separate dialect. The other problem is the chronological limits of Middle Aramaic, mainly whether Biblical Aramaic, Nabatean and Palmyrene belong with Middle Aramaic, or whether they belong with the texts from the Achaemenid Empire. Greenfield (1978) separates the dialects of Aramaic into four groups: • • • •

Early Aramaic (the earliest texts and the Aramaic documents from the Achaemenid Empire) Middle Aramaic Late Aramaic Neo-Aramaic

Greenfield claims that the dialectal split between East and West Aramaic is already discernible in Early Aramaic. For him, Official Aramaic and Old Aramaic have a close linguistic affinity and he treats them as one group: Official Aramaic was spoken in Persia and is therefore an eastern dialect, while the Old Aramaic texts are western. Greenfield mentions the following distinctive Official Aramaic features which mark it as an eastern dialect: The sentential word order is OV (see also Kutscher 1951); the emphatic state is often used without its determinative force (in other words, it does not mark definiteness); only G-infinitives have m- performative; two emphatic consonants in the same word do not dissimilate; nun is used for dissimilation; there are Akkadian and Persian loanwords, and some lexical items are unique to this dialect and are not used in West Aramaic. The grouping of Old Aramaic with texts from the Achaemenid Empire as one phase is also adopted in Segert (1975) and Hug (1993), who treat the Egyptian Aramaic documents of the Hermapolis correspondence under Altaramäisch. The problem of Official Aramaic, a term coined by Ginsberg (1933) which is used alongside Reichsaramäisch, is quite complex. The extant texts in this phase originate from very different locales, like Persia, Egypt, and Palestine. Moreover, some texts, like the Assur letters, are dated to a time earlier than the Persian Empire and may need to be dealt with separately. Greenfield (1978) divided this dialect into west (Egyptian) and east (outside Egypt); however, this division is also problematic,

The earliest suggested divisions are reviewed at length in Fitzmyer (1979b) and will not be reviewed here. 19

INTRODUCTION

11

since it is not quite clear where the Aramaic speakers in Egypt came from. Thus, although the dialect is in the west it may have its roots in the east. In addition, according to Greenfield, during the time of Official Aramaic, a literary dialect arose (Standard Literary Aramaic, or SLA), which is used in Aḥiqar and other literary texts, and later in the books of Ezra, Daniel and Megilat Ta’anit. This dialect became a harmonized Standard Aramaic dialect. It was used in the west, and there is no documentation of it in the east. Greenfield further claims that the language found in the texts from the Achaemenid Empire arose from the Old Aramaic inscriptions found in Syria (Sefire, Zakkur and Hadad), which he calls “Early Standard Aramaic,” with additional eastern features of morphology, syntax and vocabulary.20 Texts written in this standardized dialect will necessarily bear witness to the Aramaic spoken by the authors, which explains some inconsistencies and differences between the documents. Thus Greenfield accounts for the similarities and differences between dialects, such as Qumran Aramaic and Biblical Aramaic, without branding them different dialects. Greenfield’s assumptions regarding Early Standard Aramaic, a western-like dialect which became the basis for all subsequent dialects, contradicts the idea of Official Aramaic (which, at least in part, is probably an eastern dialect) as a unified homogenous language that was spoken everywhere. He objects to any dialectal division at this stage, arguing that even though minor local differences are evident, generally Official Aramaic shows no signs of a linguistic division which will substantiate such a separation. Noting the methodological problems in earlier subdivisions of Aramaic, Fitzmyer (1979b) suggested a five-fold division: • • • • •

Old Aramaic Official Aramaic Middle Aramaic Late Aramaic Modern Aramaic

Fitzmyer’s approach is purely chronological and hence the different parts of his division are called phases rather than dialects.21 Within each phase is further division according to geographically defined dialects. The difference between Fitzmyer’s approach and those of his predecessors is mostly in treating Old Aramaic in the stricter sense, referring to the inscriptions from Syria from the time of the NeoAssyrian Empire as a different phase from the textual material which dates to the He includes in this dialect also texts as late as the Old Syriac Gospels (Greenfield 1978:289). 21 Fitzmyer maintained the traditional labels for the phases, even though some of them, like Official Aramaic, are not indicative of a time frame. Folmer (1995) suggested calling this phase “the Aramaic language of the Achaemenid Empire,” in order to reflect chronology rather than style. In this book, Fitzmyer’s label Official Aramaic will be used, as it is the most common term. 20

12

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC

Persian Empire. In addition to his insistence on being “purely chronological” (ibid.), Fitzmyer gives a detailed linguistic argument for his phases. The features associated with each phase are primarily morphological and phonological. In this work, Fitzmyer’s divisions will be used as a useful but non-binding working hypothesis. Each phase still has some inconsistencies, primarily when a certain feature is prominent in some dialects but missing in others. Note that the mere existence of such inconsistencies is indicative of the inadequacy of the Standard Aramaic theory. Several scholars argue that since Aramaic was spread over such an enormous geographical area, some type of dialectal continuum must be assumed, instead of inclusive, well-defined centers. Boyarin (1981) and Garr (1985) discuss the possibility of a language continuum in light of languages in contact with each other. Boyarin (1981) argues that the Stammbaum method does not explain the Aramaic situation, but that the wave theory, or what he calls the “diffusion-convergence theory,” does. Thus, he attempts to find isoglosses, which are better explained as areal features, rather than shared innovations.22 Cook (1992) also uses the wave theory to argue that Middle Aramaic is a dialect continuum. Cook prefers to use the terms center of innovation, where some innovations take place and from which they spread; transition areas, through which innovations spread; and islands, for dialects, which do not attest an innovation.23 Using this methodology, Cook observes, for example, that Qumran Aramaic is an island regarding some features (maintaining the use of the jussive), while regarding others it is a transition area (using the accusative marker yat, whose center of innovation is Nabatean), but it is never the center of innovation. This brings Cook to the conclusion that it is preferable not to attempt to find a source for each Middle Aramaic dialect. Assuming a dialect continuum allows him to explain the features that different dialects share and also avoids the assumption that a standardized Official Aramaic leveled all pre-Middle Aramaic dialects. Cook accepts Greenfield’s Standard Literary Aramaic to a certain degree, but maintains it should apply only to dialects spoken in Palestine, where there might have been some form of diglossia. He argues that it is hard to conceive of such a divergence if the standard language was not actually used. The changes in the spoken language seem to affect the written language quite directly, and Cook shows that the written language during Official and Middle Aramaic was not static. The conclusion is that dialectal geography seems to contradict Greenfield’s theory of a The G infinitive prefix m- spread to the derived stems in most Middle and Late Aramaic dialects, but it is not found in the infinitive form of the derived stems in JBA (east) and CPA (west). See Boyarin (1981:619–22). 23 The innovation from Old Aramaic /di/ to an unstressed /də/ is evident in Old Syriac, Hatran, Palmyrene, and Qumran, but not in Nabatean. Cook (1992:9) argues that the process started in North Syria and later spread to Hatran and southward. It then diffused in the East, where only də is used. The process was never completed fully in Palestine and never took place in Nabatean, which constitutes a dialectal island. This explains why certain innovations are extant in some dialects but not in others in the same period. 22

INTRODUCTION

13

Standard Literary Aramaic. Boyarin (1981) also rejects the idea of a koine. He argues that the the diffusion model can explain why not all of the innovations we find in Middle Aramaic are shared by all Middle Aramaic dialects. He opposes the idea of a koine, because JBA does not share some of the features that the other Middle Aramaic dialects do. Therefore, he suggests that dialectal differences have been consistent in the Old Aramaic period through Official Aramaic. The features that are not inherited may have spread by diffusion, causing some dialects to converge. Another argument against Greenfield is found in Folmer (1995), who observes that almost nothing in the texts from the Achaemenid Empire is uniform. This observation contradicts the idea of a standard language, which was not spoken in any specific area, but was understood by all speakers of Aramaic, regardless of dialect, as Greenfield proposed. The dialectal subgrouping of the Modern Aramaic dialects seems less complex. Most scholars follow Hoberman’s (1989) slight adjustment of Nöldeke’s tree, arguing for two main branches: West (Ma’lūlā, Bax’a, Jubb’abdīn) and East. The eastern branch splits further into three dialect groups: NENA, Central Neo-Aramaic (essentially, Ṭūrūyo and Mlaḥsô), and Neo-Mandaic. NENA and Central Neo-Aramaic are closer to each other. Despite the fact that new dialects are still being discovered and described,24 this division has not changed significantly for the past 30 years. Generally, it is understood that the modern dialects are related to older Aramaic varieties, albeit not necessarily to any known dialect. Recently, however, Kim 2008 has suggested that Neo-Aramaic is a dialect continuum, rather than separate branches. Kim has argued that the Central Neo-Aramaic dialects share significant innovation with both the western dialects and the eastern ones. In addition, some innovations are shared by Ṭūrūyo and NENA, but absent from Mlaḥsô (Kim 2008:522–3).25 On the other hand, several innovations connect the Central NeoAramaic dialects to the Western Neo-Aramaic ones. Kim, therefore, suggests treating Neo-Aramaic as a dialect continuum, where Ṭūrūyo and Mlaḥsô are linguistically set between the east and the west.26 Because NENA and Central Neo-Aramaic have multiple ancestors, Kim claims that “the Stammbaum model does not adequately represent the linguistic history of Modern Aramaic” (ibid., 526). Nevertheless, Kim supports the use of terms such as NENA as convenient labels for geographical entities, without implying a historically cogent linguistic entity. Grammatical descriptions of the Central Neo-Aramaic dialects were only published in the eighties (Jastrow 1985a, 1985b, 1988). Grammars of newly discovered NENA dialects are still being published: The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar, by Geoffrey Khan in 2008. 25 These features—short vowels in closed syllables and some borrowed lexical items—are not as significant as Kim suggests. Short vowels in closed syllables are a common feature known in many unrelated languages; see Myers (1987) regarding vowel shortening in non-final closed syllables in English. Borrowed words cannot be a factor in subgrouping; while they show contact, they cannot be a proof of a shared ancestor. 26 Kim (2008:525) notes that there are more isoglosses between Central and East NeoAramaic. However, not all of these isoglosses carry the same weight. 24

14

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC

Kutscher (1951) and Greenfield (1978) make use of syntax to decide if a certain dialect is western or eastern; however, there are almost no studies on the syntax of any of the individual dialects, much less of a group of dialects. 27 In order to evaluate innovations correctly one needs to know what is an original Aramaic feature.28 In this, aramaic dialectologyis still lacking. I have chosen to adopt Fitzmyer’s division with some caution, due to its emphasis on historical as well as geographical distinctions between the dialects. The benefits of Fitzmyer’s division will be evaluated in the conclusions to this book. The choice of names given to the different dialects and divisions is an attempt to be as neutral as possible, while using common and well-accepted terminology. The following is a list of the dialectal division I will be using in this work, with a list of sources used to collect data. Whenever possible the entire corpus was used. Old Aramaic (925–700 B.C.E.) Since the corpus of Old Aramaic is restricted, it allows for an exhaustive survey. Due to its humble size, many grammatical features have only one attestation, if any at all. This work is cautious regarding the dialectal division of this phase. Zakkur (KAI 202) Bar-Hadad (KAI 201) Zincirli (KAI 214–15) Nerab (KAI 225–26) Tell Fekherye (Kaufman 1982; Muraoka 1983–84). Sefire (KAI 222–24; Fitzmyer 1995) Bar-Rākib (KAI 216) Other works, which I have consulted, are Hug (1993) and Gibson (1971–82, vol. 2). Official Aramaic (700–200 B.C.E.) All available Official Aramaic texts were used. Of course, some require careful analysis due to their background. Bisitun has a complex textual relationship with several versions of the inscription. Bae’s unpublished Harvard dissertation has been useful in simplifying both textual and meta-textual problems.29 The issue of dialectology has also been investigated to the extent it was relevant. Here too great caution was taken. See also Mor (2009a), who accepts Kutscher’s assertion and further suggests that the word order of post-Biblical Hebrew may have been influenced by the word order of East Aramaic. 28 Several scholars believe early Aramaic was under Canaanite influence (Brockelmann, Albright, Cross, Garbini, and Fitzmyer, who later changed his mind), without their ever establishing the original features of Aramaic and of each individual dialect. 29 The Aramaic portion of Ezra is problematic, primarily in terms of its phonology, which is based on Tiberian Biblical Hebrew, but syntactically it stands on its own. 27

INTRODUCTION

15

Elephantine documents (Cowley 1923, Driver 1965, Kraeling 1953, Segal 1983, Porten & Yardeni, 1986–1999) Ezra (the Masoretic Text from Biblia Hebraica) Assur Ostracon (KAI 233) Bisitun (Bae 2001) The Samaria Papyri (Gropp 1986, Dušek 2007) Middle Aramaic (200 B.C.E.–200 A.D.) Qumran (Accordance, Sokoloff 1974, Fitzmyer 2004) Taʿanit (Noam 2003) Daniel (the Masoretic Text from Biblia Hebraica) Nabatean (Cantineau 1978 [1930], Healey 1993, Starcky 1954, Yardeni 2000) Ḥatran (Vattioni 1981) Palmyrene (Rosenthal 1936, Hillers & Cussini 1996, Ingholt 1962) Old Syriac (Drijvers & Healey 1999) TO (Sperber 2004) Late Aramaic (200–700 C.E.) JPA30 (Odeberg 1939, Fitzmyer & Harrington 1978, as well as printed editions of the Palestinian Talmud) Samaritan Aramaic (Ben Hayyim 1988) PsJ (Accordance) CPA31 (Müller-Kessler & Sokoloff 1998, Schulthess 1924, 1971). Syriac (Brockelmann 1938, J. Hoffmann 1880, Parisot 1894, Cureton 1864, Drijvers 1965, Brock 1976, Wright 1990 [1871], Budge 2 3 189 , ost & van den Eynde 1950, Brooks 1907, Mingana 1907, Braun 1914–15, and Frothingham 1886) Mandaic (Macuch apud Rosenthal 1967; Drower 1950, 1960. Some short examples were drawn from Macuch 1965 and Nöldeke 1875) JBA (printed editions of the Babylonian Talmud) Modern Aramaic (attested since the 17th century) Western: Maʿlūlā, Baxʿa, Jubbʿabdīn. (Arnold 1989–1991, 1990; Bergsträsser 1919, and Spitaler 1957) Central: Ṭūrōyo (Midyat, village dialects; Ritter 1967–1990, and Jastrow 1992); JPA presents a textual problem as many of the available texts are corrupt. All grammars are based on unreliable texts, as was shown by Kutscher (1976) and stressed by Sokoloff (1978). 31 In this dialect, only fragments of texts are attested, all of which are translations of the New and Old Testaments as well as hagiography, homilies, and other liturgical material (Metzger 1977:76). For a list of manuscripts, I refer the reader to Metzger (1977). 30

16

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC

Mlaḥsô (ibid., 1994). NENA: Arbel (Khan 1999), Qaraqosh (ibid., 2002), Suleimaniyya (ibid., 2004a), Koy Sanjaq (Mutzafi 2004), Jilu (Fox 1997), Aradhin (Krotkoff 1982), Zakho (Maclean 1895, Avinery 1988), Urmi (Stoddard 1855, Nöldeke 1868). A reference to other dialects will be given occasionally. Neo-Mandaic: Khorramshahr (Häberl 2006), Ahwaz (Macuch 1989). For shorter examples, I have relied also on Macuch 1965. The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (CAL) was often used, both for lemma searches and for its bibliography. Where possible I avoided using translated texts because of the unique problems they present; such texts follow the source language to varying degrees, which obscures the original syntax. Any information gathered from translated texts will be difficult to use in a comparative study such as this. Obviously, some dialects, like CPA and TO, cover only translated texts, but in others, like Syriac and Qumran, native texts are readily available, and in these dialects nonnative texts were avoided, despite their importance.

1.5. THE STRUCTURE OF THE WORK This study covers three general syntactic topics, within each of which I examine several features, which are of potential interest for historical linguistics and dialectology. As this is a first stage in the description and analysis of Aramaic syntax, not all important issues have been dealt with, and the discussion regarding some dialects, primarily the modern ones, may be wanting. I hope to remedy this deficiency in future studies. Chapter 2 deals with subordination, primarily adverbial subordination. While a full investigation of subordination in Semitic is beyond the scope of this study, a short survey is offered, against the background of which the innovations in Aramaic stand out clearly. Not all adverbial subordinators are dealt with, only those which show significant innovation. Causal and result clauses, as well as conditional clauses, are discussed at length. The last sub-section of the chapter examines possible sources of subordinators and how these sources change over time. This chapter treats both the development of specific subordinators and the development and enrichment of the Aramaic subordination system compared with other Semitic languages. Chapter 3 deals with some nominal modification, primarily demonstratives and related patterns, as they show the greatest divergence from other Semitic languages, as well as early Aramaic. In this chapter, the history of demonstratives in Aramaic is discussed in comparison to other languages. It is argued that cyclic change in nominal order, which came to completion in the modern Aramaic dialects, has occurred. In addition, two types of relative clauses are surveyed: attributive and free indefinite relative clauses. Several related issues, such as definiteness, anticipatory pronouns, and genitive marking are also discussed. Chapter 4 deals with speech representation and the various techniques used in Aramaic to mark it, with a particular emphasis on direct speech. Three patterns are investigated: ø-marking, subordination, and quotatives, each of which is separately discussed and analyzed, and specific Aramaic innovations are demonstrated. As the Semitic languages show great variety in marking speech, this chapter is mostly

INTRODUCTION

17

relevant for dialectology and the history of Aramaic, and far less for comparative Semitic. I have deliberately used transliteration throughout this study, instead of the original scripts, in order to make comparison to other Semitic languages clearer and in order to ensure that the study is useful even to readers who are not Semitists or who are unfamiliar with the various Semitic writing systems. Only where vocalization is unclear was full transliteration avoided. In addition, I have avoided marking bgdkpt in Aramaic and in Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew to prevent unnecessary clutter. Borrowed phrases from other languages are marked with capital letters (H = Hebrew; A = Arabic). Superscripted lowercase letters are represented in the spelling, but are not pronounced. Glossing follows the Leipzig rules, slightly modified.32 I have given only relevant morphological information. As the morphology of Semitic is very rich, some information was excluded, depending on its relevance for the syntactic argument. Most Semitic works are not fully glossed, but as I hope this book will be of interest to non-Semitic linguists as well as to Semitic specialists, I decided to add detailed glossing.

1.6. A NOTE ON BILINGUAL TEXTS A number of bilingual Aramaic-Akkadian texts have been used to prove contact and transference of linguistic features from Akkadian to Aramaic. Two important bilingual texts have been particularly prominent in arguing for a substantial Akkadian influence on Aramaic grammar in some of the most characteristic Aramaic linguistic features: the Tell Fekherye text (Old Aramaic) and the Bisitun Inscription (Official Aramaic). These texts merit some preliminary comment, which will outline the position this book is taking. The Tell Fekherye text was found in 1979 in Syria, near the Turkish border, and is an inscription on a statue.33 This is the earliest text from the time Aramaic was in close contact with Akkadian. It contains a text in Neo-Assyrian and Aramaic, and is dated to the 9th century B.C. The Akkadian text is primary in the first half of the text, as it is written on the front of the skirt, but the Aramaic is probably primary in the second half. Furthermore, there are several strong indications that the Aramaic text is not a slavish translation of the Akkadian and is probably linguistically autonomous. This evaluation is based on the phraseology, which is clearly Aramaic and has no correspondents in the Akkadian part.34 Moreover, there are significant I have used Lehmann (1983) with modifications. The editio princeps is Abou-Assaf, Bordreuil, and Millard (1982). Later, improved readings can be found in Kaufman (1982) and Muraoka (1983–84). 34 The autonomy of the Aramaic text from the Akkadian text was also stressed by Gropp and Lewis (1985). Despite the fact that the text was translated from Akkadian, at least in part, some of the formulae are distinctly Aramaic (ibid., 56b). Greenfield and Shaffer (1986) found several indications that the Aramaic part is not a slavish rendition of the Akkadian: “The text 32 33

18

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC

differences between the texts: the first line is different (the Aramaic version is longer), and the imprecation part (Akkadian lines 19–21, Aramaic lines 28–38) is much longer in the Aramaic part. The Aramaic is also more explicit in the curse section (Greenfield & Shaffer 1986:110).35 Nevertheless, the Aramaic text is repeatedly assumed to contain many Akkadian calques (Kaufman 1982), and thus presumably proves the substantial influence of Akkadian on Aramaic grammar. The most important features are the use of zy for the genitive and the use of kl after the noun (Kaufman 1982:151–3). The first of these features will be re-evaluated in this study (see p.103). A later text is King Darius’ Royal Inscription in Bisitun, Iran, and its corresponding Aramaic version, a papyrus, which was found in Egypt.36 Though the text is not bilingual per se, as Akkadian and Aramaic are not positioned side by side on the same surface, it nevertheless is treated as such. The Aramaic text roughly corresponds to the trilingual monumental inscription in Bisitun, which contains a text in Old Persian, Elamite, and Akkadian; however, the Aramaic text is not an exact translation of any of the versions found in Bisitun. It is shorter than the monumental inscription, yet contains extra material not found in Bisitun, such as a translation of the tomb inscription of Darius I at Naqš-i Rustam, Iran (Sims-Williams 1981). Therefore, the text has been assumed to be a translation of an Akkadian copy of Bisitun, found in Babylon, rather than of the original inscription (Greenfield & Porten 1982:4).37 The exact relationship between the Aramaic papyrus and the Babylonian text is disputed; Greenfield and Porten (1982:16) conclude that there is “a certain interdependence” between them. As a result, in their analysis of the Aramaic text, Greenfield and Porten (ibid., 21) attribute many of the features therein to Akkadian, among which are the use of the periphrastic genitive zyl- for possession, the proleptic suffix, loss of the article’s determinative force, and some features relating to word order, some of which will be discussed in Chapter 3.

... is constructed from two dedicatory inscriptions[,] one following upon the other without any break, the first being in the older Mesopotamian dedicatory style, while the second is closer to Aramaic and West Semitic models. ... There can be little doubt that the text here is based on an Aramaic prototype” (ibid., 1 9). 35 For more on the curse formulae, see Greenfield and Shaffer (1985). Kaufman (1984:5 3b) also notes that the curse section in the Aramaic version “seems to be more West Semitic than cuneiform in origin.” 36 The first publication was Sachau (1911). Subsequent publications are Cowley (1923), Greenfield and Porten (1982), and Porten and Yardeni (1986–99:III, 60–71). A complete and fully reconstructed Aramaic version is Greenfield and Porten (1982), who have combined all the fragments to form what they believe was the original text. The details of the paleography and the dating of the papyri may be found there. Finally, the text was reconsidered in an unpublished Harvard dissertation by Bae (2001). 37 A thorough comparison between the texts may be found in Greenfield and Porten (1982:5–16).

INTRODUCTION

19

However, the assumption of an Akkadian Vorlage has been challenged by several recent studies, starting with Sims-Williams, who was the first to notice that the final part of the Aramaic papyrus corresponds to the last paragraph (lines 50–60) of the tomb inscription of Darius I at Naqš-i Rustam; this part is lacking from the Babylonian translation of Bisitun. In addition, in the Aramaic text are only three Akkadian lexemes, two of which, mt and pḥh, were already naturalized in the Aramaic of the time (Greenfield & Porten 1982:16), so only one can be said to be a new Akkadian loan. That is, in a text that is presumably a translation of a Babylonian text and was allegedly completed in a Babylonian-speaking area, only one lexeme is borrowed. The lack of more substantial influence in the vocabulary is suspicious, especially if Greenfield and Porten are correct that so many syntactic features were borrowed from Akkadian into Aramaic. The lexicon is more prone to influence than syntax, and Aramaic is known to have borrowed extensively from Akkadian (Kaufman 1974). In the most extensive study of the Bisitun inscription to date, Bae (2001:33–4) suggested that there were two Vorlagen, one of which was the source for the translations found in both the Aramaic papyrus and the Babylonian fragment, from which these texts were translated separately. Bae, through meticulous philological work, has shown that despite some similarities between the Aramaic papyrus and the Babylonian fragment, there are several important discrepancies in the details: the textual addition in the Aramaic text, several variations in expressions, casualty figures, and other textual corruptions. Bae, therefore, suggests that the Aramaic papyri and two Babylonian fragments share the same Vorlage, but are not interdependent otherwise. Furthermore, Bae (ibid., 43) concludes that the Vorlage was an Old Persian text in Aramaic script, which was sent by King Darius for diplomatic purposes.38 In short, Bae convincingly argues that the similarities noted by many scholars between the Akkadian text and the Aramaic papyrus are a result of a shared textual ancestor, not of a source language and its rendition. Bae’s conclusions are important for the current study, because many of the features found in the Bisitun inscription and thereafter are claimed to be Akkadian calques on the basis of the assumption that the Aramaic papyrus is a direct translation of an Akkadian original; however, in fact, the Aramaic papyrus stands on its own, and the linguistic features therein should be examined as a natural part of the Aramaic language, with minimum underlying assumptions of language contact. One claim, which will be repeated in this study, is that many of the alleged influences on Aramaic can better be explained as internal innovations. This claim will be substantiated by linguistic facts, rather than by presuppositions.

38

See the stemma in Bae (ibid., 44).

CHAPTER 2: ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION 2.1. METHODOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION As in many aspects of linguistics, a clear and sound definition is an essential start to any discussion; moreover, since the present work is focused on syntax, a syntactic definition of subordination and the strategies used to mark subordinated clauses is in order.1 More specifically, a definition of adverbial subordination is required. There have been many attempts to define subordination as a cross-linguistic, typological phenomenon. The two main components of definition traditionally used are dependency and clausal embedding. In other words, the subordinated clause functions as a constituent of the main clause, or more conventionally, the matrix sentence. Coordinated clauses do not show such syntactical dependency. Palmer (1986:131) suggests a simple distinction between subordination and coordination: coordination connects two independent clauses, while with subordination, one of the clauses (the subordinated) forms a part of the other (the matrix). As a general definition of subordination, in this study the term pertains to syntactic marking of ‘nexal hierarchy.’ Subordination is a syntactic tool that marks a lower nexus relative to the main nexus.2 This definition has nothing to do with function (what syntactic slot the subordinated sentence fills) or morphology (the inflectional form of the subordinator or the clause itself), but rather with the

Works such as Cristofaro (2 3:33) are not useful, since the definition is functional: “a situation whereby a cognitive asymmetry is established between linked States of Affairs, such that the profile of one of the two (the main State of Affairs) overrides the other (the dependent State of Affairs).” 2 Nexus, a term introduced by Otto Jespersen, describes the type of relationship between subject and predicate (he is a teacher), as opposed to the one between an element and a junction (able teacher). This connection is a requirement for finiteness. The term is particularly useful in the Semitic languages, where nexal connection is not always represented by a verb, as is mostly the case in Indo-European languages. Note the definition of subordination given for Indo-European in Fritz (2 3:245): “ t he essential characteristic of hypotaxis is the possibility to include one phrase with a finite verb form in another such phrase; namely, the integration of one verbal clause into another.” (my italics) 1

21

22

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC

relationship between sentences, or nexus. Change of internal syntax is not relevant for Semitic.3 An adverbial clause is one of three types of subordinated clauses discussed by typologists, the other two being relative clauses and complements. Since adverbial clauses relate to the matrix sentence as a whole, they are considered less subordinated than the other two types, which normally relate to a single element in the matrix sentence. Thompson et al. (2007:238) define adverbial clauses as clauses that are dependent on another clause and are modifiers of a verb phrase or an entire clause. While Thompson et al. enumerate three devices to mark subordination (subordinating morpheme, special verb forms, word order), they do not distinguish typologically adverbial clauses from other types of subordinated clauses on the basis of syntax.4 Kortmann (1998a)5 is mostly interested in the function and meaning of adverbial subordinators and thus focuses on the morphosemantics of the subordinators themselves, rather than the clause. Kortmann (ibid., 458–60) lists a number of conditions for adverbial subordinators:6 adverbial subordinators are uninflected free forms; they operate over a finite subordinate clause; they do not fulfill a syntactic function in the clause over which they operate; they are positioned in the margins of the clause over which they operate. On the basis of Kortmann’s work and other factors, I suggest the following definition for adverbial subordination in the Semitic languages. This definition is not meant to be cross-linguistically applicable. I.

II. III.

Adverbial subordination is the syntactic marking of a dependent finite clause, which is a modifier of a verb or an entire clause; Adverbial subordinators are frozen, uninflected forms; They operate over a finite clause;

The use of the subordinating suffix -u on the verb in Akkadian distinguishes main verbs from subordinated verbs, but the syntax of the relative clause is still identical to the syntax of the main sentences. In this, the Semitic languages differ from such families as Indo-European, where “ t he insertion of one clause into another is accompanied by variation in the form of the subordinate clause from the form that it had as a main clause” (Fritz 2003:245). 4 The only parameter mentioned in Thompson et al. (2007) is what element is modified by each type of subordinate clause. This may sometimes be a tough call, without syntactic criteria. See Holmstedt (2001), where a possible confusion between relative and adverbial clauses is discussed. 5 Kortmann’s studies (199 , 1998a, 1998b), part of the EUROTYP project, were conducted on mostly modern European languages, including all non-Indo-European languages, which belong to this geographical-cultural group (Sprachbund). 6 I have edited out some of the conditions, which I find superfluous. The condition that a subordinator can precede the clause over which it operates (C6) is a subset of the condition that subordinators are placed on the margins of the clause over which they operate (C4). Other conditions that I have omitted are not syntactic. 3

ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION IV.

23

They have no synchronic syntactic function in the subordinate clause and are not pronominally represented in it (via a resumptive pronoun).7

The last condition distinguishes the Semitic adverbial clause from the relative clause, although both are the result of a similar process (see below). In addition, the internal syntax of the adverbial clause cannot be said to be typical of subordination in Semitic; the subordinating particles do not condition a change of syntax from the main clause.8 The questions dealt with in this chapter are of a historical nature, not pragmatic (as opposed to Kortmann 1997): how adverbial subordination developed in Aramaic in comparison with its sister languages; how it developed throughout the history of Aramaic, and whether it has any implications for aramaic dialectology. Since many of these issues have not been dealt with in other languages, a comprehensive comparison to other Semitic languages is a difficult endeavor, but whenever possible such a comparison will be attempted. 2.1.1 . Adverbial Subordination in Semitic Adverbial expressions may be constructed in the Semitic languages by various nonfinite constructions, like infinitives (Biblical Hebrew), or by assigning adverbial status through case (Classical Arabic). These non-finite options were always common and were never lost: BH wat-tēlek wat-tēšeb lāh min-neged harḥēq conj.-go.impf.3fs conj.-sit.impf.3fs to-her from-opposite being far ki-mṭaḥǎwê qešet as-distance.cnst bow She went and sat far within a bowshot distance. (Gen. 21:16) CA yaskutu ǧahlan be silent.impf.3ms ignorant-acc.s Ignorant, he remained silent. (Fischer 2001:196, §378)

Adverbial clauses, however, must have been individually innovated in the daughter languages, and cannot be reconstructed to a single morpheme in ProtoSemitic. The proof for this is the different sets of adverbial subordinators found in In Semitic, the relative particle is not itself a participant in the subordinated clause, but as a representative of the head noun it is represented in it through a resumptive pronoun. Such a resumption is obligatory for all functions, except the direct object, which is not obligatory. Thus, lack of participation is not a meaningful distinction between adverbial and relative clauses; lack of representation is. See Pennacchietti (1968) for an overview of the functions of the relative-determinative pronoun in Semitic. 8 In Arabic, some subordinators condition a certain verb form (kay ‘so that,’ which conditions the subjunctive), but this does not seem to be common Semitic. 7

24

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC

the Semitic languages, even very closely related ones. As we shall see below, the only candidate for a common Semitic origin is kī, which is used as a complementizer and a causal subordinating particle in some languages. In fact, adverbial subordination in Semitic was most probably constructed on the model of relative clauses. All ancient Semitic languages show two strategies to mark nominal attribution: nominal dependence, where an adnominal complement (sentence, noun, or preposition) was dependent on a construct noun;9 and relativization, with a relative-determinative pronoun derived from Proto-Semitic *dV/tV (Huehnergard 2006), which was fully inflected for gender, number, and case. The determinative pronoun was in agreement with its head noun and was used to mark an adnominal complement, whether a sentence, preposition, or another noun (Goldenberg 1995, Deutscher 2002, and Pat-El & Treiger 2008). This pronoun is in the construct state, and thus is similar in syntax to dependent nouns, and represents pronominal dependence. Therefore, we may say that Semitic originally used only nominal dependency to mark adnominal attribution.10 The loss of inflection on the determinative-relative pronoun contributed to a reanalysis, where the determinative-relative pronoun was understood as a mere marker of adnominal relation, and thus not a part of the matrix sentence. Frozen and inflectionless, it became a particle. Nevertheless, nominal dependency continued to be a viable method to mark adnominalization.11 We may, therefore, reconstruct the development of adverbial subordination in Semitic like so:

The head noun may be independent, in adverbial case, or dependent on a preposition. See tables in Pat-El and Treiger (2008:277–8) and in appendix 1. 11 I intend to discuss at length the development of subordination in Semitic in a separate study. 9

10

25

ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION Table 1: The development of adverbial subordination in Semitic Nominal/pronominal dependence : N=dVcst-sentence / Ncst-sentence

N=dVcst-sentence loss of pronominal inflection severs apposition with N, no longer understood as construct: N dū-sentence

Ncst-sentence some nouns (especially temporal and spatial) are grammaticalized and become particles: [particle-sentence]adverb

pronoun becomes a relative pronoun.

development of individual adverbial subordinators.

Relative

Adverbial

A few examples of adverbial subordinated clauses in some Semitic languages will suffice to exemplify their origin: CA12 ʾaḫṭaʾa-hū miss.pf.3ms-him

sahm-ī arrow-my

ḥīna ramaytu when shoot-pf.1cs

my arrow missed him when I shot [it]. (Fischer 2002:216 §420) G.13 wa-təwalləd and-bear.impf.2ms

wald-a child-acc

wa-təṣawwəʿ and-call.impf.2ms

ʾəsma wəʾətu yādəḫhən because he deliver.impf.3ms

səm-o name-his

ʾIyasus-hā Jesus-acc

ḥezb-o ʾəm-ḫaṭāwəʾi-homu people-his from-sins-their

The particle ḥīna ‘when’ is a construct noun meaning ‘time, opportunity.’ The origin of the conjunction ʾəsma ‘because’ has been traced to two possibilities: a pronominal base sə-ma and a noun səm ‘name’ (Leslau 2006:43b); however, the prepositional phrase etymology is more likely. Dillmann (1974:415 §169.4) claims that this particle arose from two separate pronominal elements, s and m, though it is not clear how this explains the causal meaning. Praetorius (1890:378) points to the noun səm ‘name.’ Some scholars compare Gəʿəz ʾəsma to Akkadian aššum (< ana šum). The suggestion that ʾəsma is a prepositional phrase was also advocated by Brockelmann (1908:496). While ʾən is not attested as a independent preposition in Ethiopic, relics of it are found in other forms (ʾənbala ‘without, except,’ cf. Akk. ina balu). This combination is also known in Mishnaic Hebrew in prepositions: ləšēm, ʿal šēm, miššum/miššēm (Segal 1927:144–5), all of which mean ‘because.’ 12 13

26

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC You will have a son and you shall call his name Jesus because he will deliver his people from their sins. (Mt. 1:21)

The development of subordinators from prepositional phrases and nouns in construct is a classic case of reanalysis, and further reflects the change of nominal head to adverbial subordinator. The construct noun was originally a constituent of the matrix sentence, of the frame, being the head of a relative clause. The “adverbiality” assigned to it, when it exists, stems both from the semantics of the noun (temporal or spatial) and from the adverbial case some of these nouns carried (Arabic yawm-a, ḥin-a, Ethiopic ʾəsm-a). The noun was then interpreted as marking an embedded clause, and as a result it went through semantic and syntactic reanalysis.14 In most languages, the noun underlying the subordinating particle continues to be used in its original function and meaning as a substantive, alongside its altered innovated function as a subordinator. This is also apparent in the frozen case of the noun in question, in languages where case is an active category. In Northwest Semitic we find a plethora of subordinators, which are internal innovations in these languages and arose from different sources:15 BH:16

ləmaʿan ‘so that’ (Ex. 4:5) ba-ʿabûr17 ‘so that’ (Psa. 105:45) pen ‘lest’ (Jg. 9:54)

This explanation was recently applied (with a different methodology) to account for the development of Biblical Hebrew ʾǎšer ‘relative’ from the noun *ʾatar ‘step, place,’ most recently by Huehnergard (2006), but was opposed by Holmstedt (2007). Holmstedt (ibid.,179–92) questioned the possibility of grammaticalization, because the noun *ʾatar is not attested in Hebrew, but rather only the function word. He further asserts that “ w e simply lack the necessary data to complete the reconstruction, and if we were to have adequate secondmillennium data from Akkadian, Aramaic, and Ugaritic to call the story of Semitic *ʾatar a case of grammaticalization, we would still need to account for the Hebrew situation, that ʾǎšer witnesses only the nominalizer use of *ʾatar” (ibid., 181–2). Therefore, Holmstedt (ibid., 190) concludes that though the etymology of ʾǎšer is clear, the process which produced it from *ʾatar is still obscure. While Holmstedt’s skepticism is warranted, one should note that historical linguistics deals with the reconstruction of forms and patterns where only scant evidence survived. Were there full attestation for the process discussed, there would have been no need for reconstruction; simple description would have sufficed. 15 In Deir Alla, there is one occurrence of the Canaanite relative particle ʾš (I 1). Most other examples of subordination in this short inscription are of nominal dependency: byt l-yʿl hlk (II ) ‘The house where the traveler does not rise.’ 16 The origin of some of the subordinators found in Biblical Hebrew is uncertain. The Hebrew independent subordinators were used through Late Biblical Hebrew as well. Mishnaic Hebrew, however, shows syntax similar to Aramaic. All subordinators in this dialect of Hebrew are dependent on the relative particle še-. Some examples will be given below. 17 Biblical Hebrew is unique in its use of subordinators from verbal origin: the particle yaʿan ‘because’ is a 3ms jussive form of the verb ʿānā ‘reply.’ 14

ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION

27

lə-biltî ‘so that not’ (Ex. 20:20) biltî ‘unless’ (Gen. 43:3) yaʿan ‘because’ (1Sam. 15:23) ṭerem ‘before’ (Josh 3:1), bə-ṭerem ‘before’ (2Kg. 6:32) Ug.

atr ‘where’ aḫr ‘after’ id ‘when’ hlm18 ‘once, when’

Ph.

lmʾ ‘lest’ lmḥt lkn19 ‘so that’

The fact that Northwest Semitic languages, much like other Semitic languages, exhibit such a variety of forms points to the productivity of the nominal-head strategy. Some subordinating particles, such as *yawm ‘day’ > ‘when’ and *ʾatar ‘place’ > ‘where,’ are found in several languages, but there are examples of other nouns in this position which never became full subordinators; since construct state before sentences is a Proto-Semitic pattern, the use of nouns as subordinators is a natural outcome. The Semitic languages differ in the developments that took place in their system of subordination. Akkadian, Ethiopic, Arabic, and Ugaritic generally follow the Northwest Semitic strategy described above; that is, they mostly use nouns and prepositions for adverbial subordination, and the determinative-relative pronoun for adnominal attribution. In Canaanite, the determinative-relative pronoun loses its function as a subordinating particle in favor of an originally adverbial pattern,20 which maintains almost all the syntax of the original pronoun *dV; Canaanite, however, makes use of nominal dependence as well.21 Aramaic, as I will show below, has deviated from the Semitic pattern much more significantly than other languages.

2.2. ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION IN ARAMAIC Aramaic, unlike other Semitic languages, especially the Northwest Semitic languages, abandoned the possibility of nominal dependence (Ncst-sentence) and did not develop any original subordinators before its modern stages, after it split from Northwest Semitic, as its sister languages did (see above). Moreover, Aramaic abandoned all of the inherited Northwest Semitic independent subordinators (see

It is not clear if this –m is a mā clitic. See Huehnergard and Pat-El (2007). However, cf. OSA lhm ‘when’ (Beeston 1962:65, §55:9). In any case, hl(m) probably originated from a noun. 19 l-kn is perhaps similar to the Biblical Hebrew coordinator lākēn ‘therefore,’ but it may function as a subordinator in Phoenician. 20 Biblical Hebrew ʾǎšer, Phoenician ʾš, both probably < *atar (Huehnergard 2006). 21 In fact, the relative particle ʾǎšer is an example of nominal dependence. See footnote 14 above. 18

28

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC

Section 2.2.1) very early in the course of its documented history. As a result, Aramaic subordination is done exclusively via the determinative-relative pronoun. 2.2.1. Inherited Subordinators Except for the conditional particle, which will be discussed below, there are two more common Semitic particles, which are used in Old Aramaic as independent subordinators, not based on the relative particle, and which merit attention: kī and ʿad.22 KĪ As a subordinator kī is found in Akkadian from the earliest dialects (also as kīma), Canaanite (BH kī, Ph. k), Aramaic (ky), Ugaritic (k ~ ky), Arabic (kay), Ethiopic (kama), and OSA (k). It is also probably found as an adverb in Ethiopic (enclitic -ke, which has causal and temporal adverbial meaning, but is not a subordinator).23 It has a wide range of meanings, but most languages attest systematically to temporal/causal and substantival (usually a complement of a verb) functions.24 Kī is used in Old Aramaic ( Sef. III:22) alongside the relativedeterminative pronoun zy (Degen 1969:135, §95), as well as in Aḥiqar (Official Aramaic), but is not found in any later dialect, except JBA (see below). The use of kī was probably supplanted by dy and kd, already in Official Aramaic, which will serve as our terminus ante quem for this loss, although the beginnings of this process must have happened still earlier. JBA is the only dialect later than Official Aramaic, which uses kī as a temporal subordinator. It has been suggested that JBA replaced ka-d ‘when’ with kī in its later phases based on the distribution of kī and ka-d in the Babylonian Talmud and related texts (Margolis 1910:95, §71, Schlesinger 1928:242, 245, §153).25 Since no dialect at that time uses kī,26 its appearance in JBA may be due to language contact. Hebrew cannot be the source of borrowing, since kī is not used in Mishnaic Hebrew beyond biblical quotations. Kutscher (1952:36, n. 47) suggests that it was borrowed from Akkadian where kī and kīma are common; this suggestion accounts for the Note that while kī is found as an independent subordinator in all the Semitic languages, ʿad mostly occurs as a preposition. One more isolated example of an independent subordinator in Aramaic is lmʿn in Tell Fekherye, which does not appear in any other Aramaic dialect, but is known from Canaanite: w-lmʿn ʾmrt pmh ʾl ʾlhn w-ʾl ʾnšn tyṭb dmwtʾ zʾt ʿbd (TF 14–15) ‘In order that his saying be received favorably by gods and men, he made this statue.’ 23 Tigre kəm ‘when’ may also be related. 24 Arabic and Ethiopic attest primarily to a result meaning. 25 Margolis’ assumption (191 :123*) that kad originates from kī is unfounded, because there are no instances of kī in earlier dialects to facilitate such a change. Examples of ki-d- in JBA are an extension of the preposition kə/kī ‘like, according to,’ while kī and kad are temporal subordinators. 26 In the Geonic literature we find mikī ‘when’ and mikdī, but never the bare kī (Morgenstern 2002:131). 22

ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION

29

polyfunctionality of kī in JBA, which is similar to its distribution in Akkadian.27 The preposition k- ‘as, like’ is also attested in all Semitic languages, and some of them use it in combination with the relative pronoun. The meaning varies from temporal to comparative, the latter an extension of the prepositional meaning of k-. In most languages the subordinator kī and the preposition k- are differentiated, except in Akkadian (kīma) and Ethiopic (kama), where the same element is attested as both a preposition and a subordinator.28 Since Akkadian attests to both kī and kī ša, with similar polyfunctionality, Kaufman (1974:135) suggested that while Neo-Babylonian kī ša is probably an Aramaism, the use of kd for both a subordinator and a preposition in JBA mirrors the same polyfunctionality in Akkadian, and is therefore an Akkadian calque. Another possibility is internal change, again under external pressure: Kaufman (1974:135–6) argues for a phonological development k-dy > kī, with elision of intervocalic d-, perhaps under Persian influence (ibid., 135, n. 108). As JBA uses kad frequently with similar syntax to this particle in other Aramaic dialects, and no other dialect at that time and geographical area used kī, it seems most probable that this particle in JBA is a borrowing, as Kaufman has suggested, not a retention; therefore, JBA is not a counter-example to the disappearance of kī in Aramaic.29 ʿAD This particle is a preposition and a subordinator, found in Northwest Semitic (Biblical Hebrew30, Ugaritic, Aramaic), Akkadian (adi ‘until, as long as’) and OSA (Beeston 1962:65, Sima 1999–2000).31 During the Official Aramaic period, ʿad started to lose its independent status, and the use of ʿad with the relative particle zy became exceedingly common. Folmer (1995:404, n. 558) suggests that ʿad zy first The use of the base kī for both preposition and subordinator are similar to Akkadian, where kī functions as both a subordinator (‘when’) and a preposition (‘as’). Such a unique distribution lends more credence to a contact-based explanation rather than to an internal development one.* 28 Gai (1985) argues that *kī is not an original preposition, but rather a noun in an adverbial position, since Akkadian kī has other nominal inflections (kīʾam with what looks like an accusative ending). Such a position is known to produce both prepositions and subordinators in Semitic; therefore, the similarity between Akkadian and Ethiopic is not an isogloss. Kī is not an original preposition, but the arguments in favor of its being a noun are not convincing, especially since Gai cannot point to any nominal root √ky. 29 Schlesinger’s assertion is thus still valid: “Eine unmittelbare lebendige Erhaltung seines Gebrauchs bis in die Sprachperiode des T. B. ist aber unwahrscheinlich, da wir das Wort in dieser Bedeutung weder im Mišnisch-Hebräischen . . . noch in Jüdisch-aramäischen Schriften finden” (Schlesinger 1928:248). 30 Mishnaic Hebrew added a relative particle after ʿad, probably due to contact with Aramaic (Gluska 1999:296). 31 Ethiopic has a similar lexeme, which is used only as an adverb: ʿādi ‘still, again, furthermore,’ which originated from a different root, √ʿwd, while ʿad is probably from √ʿdw. Cf. Biblical Hebrew ʿōd (√ʿwd) ‘still, again’ and ʿad (√ʿdw) ‘until, up to.’ In Ethiopic, the subordinator ‘until’ is a separate lexeme: ʾəska (cf. Eblaite iš-ki). 27

30

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC

appeared in texts that show a word order which deviates from the Old Aramaic one, which means that the appearance of this subordinator should be regarded as one of a set of innovations common to Official Aramaic. ʿAd was probably lost before the 3rd century B.C.32 In Qumran Aramaic there are examples of ʿd, with no following relative particle, though these examples are scarce. Since the orthography of Qumran Aramaic often imitates actual pronunciation, it is quite probable that attestations of ʿd without the relative pronoun represent ʿd d, perhaps pronounced /ʿadd/. Note the following examples of the same combination of words, found in three consecutive lines; in these examples the following verb begins with the consonant d- and the combination of three ds may be represented in full, lacking one d-, or with an extra mater lectionis, to mark the relative pronoun as an independent word:

‫< עד דדבק לי‬ʿD D-DBQ LY> (1Q20 17:7) ‫< עד דבק לחדקל‬ʿD DBQ L-ḤDQL> (1Q20 17:8) [‫< עד די דבק לראיש ט]ור אשור‬ʿD DY DBQ L-RʾYŠ ṬWR ʾŠWR> (1Q2 17:9) A similar situation is found in TO: ʿad is always followed by d-, but its negative counterpart is found five times as ʿad lā, and ten times as ʿad d-lā.33 It seems that here, too, we may assume that ʿad d- and ʿad d-lā are the normal subordinators, while ʿad lā is a variant spelling of ʿad d-lā. Nabatean has one possible example of ʿd before a participle. Nab. . . . wt w-ʿd and-until

ḥyyn b-šlm . . . alive.ptcl.mpl in-peace

. . . et quamdiu viveret. In pace!34 (CIS 163:4)

Cantineau (19 8 193 :1 4) regards the possibility of its being a conjunction “tr s douteux.”35 The text in question is corrupt, thus a clear reading is difficult to ascertain. Note that ʿad precedes a participle, not a finite verb, which lends more credence to the assumption that ʿad in Nabatean is a preposition, not a subordinator. All Aramaic dialects developed adverbial subordinators. However, all adverbial subordinators in Aramaic are based on the relative particle with some additional elements. The earliest subordinators found in Aramaic that are all based on prepositions are not Aramaic innovations and were inherited from earlier stages. 32

B.C.).

The latest Official Aramaic text with ʿad as an independent subordinator is C 2 (484

ʿad lā: 1Sam. 3:3, 3:7X2, 9:13; Hos. 7:8. ʿad d-lā: Num. 21:35; Deut. 3:3; Josh. 8:22, 10:32, 11:8; 1Sam. 30:4; 2Sam. 17:13; 1Kg. 17:17; 2Kg. 3:25, 10:11. 34 I have left the CIS Latin translation, though it is inaccurate. As the text is so corrupt, a coherent translation is unfeasible. 35 In the inscriptions from Madaʿin Salih, ʿd occurs only in the phrase ʿd ʿlm ‘forever,’ where it functions as a preposition (Healey 1993, H19:2, 5; H23:2; H26:2; H36:3; H38:4). 33

31

ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION

K-ZY ‘when, because’36 This subordinator appears already in Old Aramaic (Sef. III:24) and in all later classical dialects with a causal or temporal meaning. It is generally assumed to be a complex particle, comprised of the preposition k- and the relative particle, and not of the Semitic subordinator kī (for which, see above p. 2729). Phonologically, this is a sound assumption, since where vocalization is known, the vowel following k- before the relative particle differs from the subordinator kī (cf. Biblical Hebrew kî and ka-ʾašer, and Old Aramaic and ); however, it is important to note that the preposition k- never carries a temporal or causal meaning independent of the noun it governs. Thus, semantically, the connection with kī seems more plausible. The subordinator *ka + relative pronoun appears in Northwest Semitic quite regularly:37 BH (ka-ʾǎšer)38 way-yēlek conj.-go.impf.3ms

YHWH PN

ka-ʾǎšer as-rel

killā finish.pf.3ms

lə-dabber ʾel to-talk.inf. to

ʾAbrāhām PN

YHWH left when he finished talking to Abraham. (Gen. 18:33) Ph. (km ʾš) km ʾš qrʾt ʾt rbt-y as rel call.pf.1cs acc mistress-my

bʿlt lady

gbl Byblos

w-šmʿ and-hear.pf.3fs

ql voice

When I called my lady Baʿlat of Byblos, she heard my voice. (KAI 10:7–8) Ug. (k-d) k-d ʿl kšt-h as-rel on bow-his

ymḫṣ-h strike.impf.1cs.-him

Because I struck him upon his arch. (KTU 1.19:I:14)

In OSA kd serves as a result subordinator or a complementizer (Beeston 1962:62–4, §54, 1–9). The use of k- without a following relative pronoun, as a result subordinator, is attested in Arabic, (li-)kay, negative (li-)kay-lā. That is, k- itself is a sufficient expression of result in some languages, yet it is found in combination with a relative pronoun in others. Therefore, we must conclude that the combination of k-

Many languages do not distinguish between causal and temporal clauses, and indeed in Aramaic most dialects use kdy for both functions. 37 The particle k- is attested in several Semitic dialects as a complementizer and a causal or temporal subordinator. It is used as a complementizer in Akkadian (kīma), Ethiopic (kama), Biblical Hebrew (kī), and OSA (k); as a causal subordinator in Biblical Hebrew and Old Aramaic, and as a temporal subordinator in OSA, Gəʿəz and Akkadian (as kī in Sargonic Akkadian; Hasselbach 2006:173). With these functions, the particle is not normally followed by the relative pronoun. In Akkadian, kīma ša is a prepositional subordinator ‘as,’ an extension of its prepositional meaning. 38 This pattern never occurs with the older relative pronoun ze/zū in Canaanite; however, the syntax of ka-ʾǎšer is identical to similar subordinators in other West Semitic languages. 36

32

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC

with the relative pronoun is not an Aramaic innovation. The use of k- to express a temporal/causal adverbial subordination is probably common Central Semitic. MN ZY ‘when, while, as long as, since.’ This subordinator is found already in Old Aramaic (Sef. I A:25). The use of the preposition mn with the relative pronoun is known from other Semitic languages, but not always with the same meaning. It is usually used as an extension of the comparative with adjectives, or as a partitive. BH39 way-yāmūtû conj.-die.impf.3mp hab-bārād def-hail

rabbîm many

mē-ʾǎšer from-rel

ʾǎšer rel

hārəgû kill.pf.3mp

mētû die.pf.3mp bənê sons.cnst

bə-ʾabnê in-stone.pl.cnst. i rāʾēl Israel

be-ḥāreb in-sword

Many more died by the hail than those the Israelites killed by the sword. (Josh. 10:11) wə-šātît mē-ʾǎšer and-drink.pf.3fs from-rel

yišʾabûn draw.impf.3mp

han-nəʿārîm def-boys

You will drink from that which the boys will draw. (Ruth 2:9)

Other languages show mostly temporal meaning. In Arabic mundu or mud is a preposition and conjunction, both in all likelihood originating from min dū (with assimilation i>u) with the meaning ‘since’ (conj./prep.), X ‘ago’ (prep.).40 CA mundu since

ḫuliqnā is created.pf.1cp

The only example of a causal subordinator in Hebrew is found in a post-exilic book: mē-ʾǎšer yāqartā bə-ʿēn-ay nikbadtā from-rel dear.pf.2ms in-eyes-my be respected.pf.2ms Since I cherish you, you are respected (Is. 43:4). Biblical Hebrew does not normally use this subordinator for such adverbial uses, so this may be an example of Aramaic influence. In Mishnaic Hebrew min+še expresses temporal adverbial subordination, like other Semitic languages, but unlike Biblical Hebrew: mē-ʾêmātay qôrîn ʾet šəmaʿ bə-šaḥarît? miš-šey-yakkîr from-when read.ptcl.mp acc Šəmaʿ in-sunrise from-rel-know.impf.3ms bên təkēlet lə-lābān between light blue to-white When can one pray Šəmaʿ at sunrise? When one can differentiate between white and light blue. (Ber. 1:2) 40 In Ethiopic, the temporal subordinatorʾənza ( lamā—this reconstruction needs to account for the negation function in d-mā, where l- is missing, and the function of mā in both of these particles: d-lmā and d-mā. Since d-lā as a negative result subordinator is well attested (see discussion below), it is not quite clear how *lā-mā developed and what exactly may be the difference between them. Recently, Al-Jallad (2008) has argued that the function of mā as the negation particle of the perfect in Arabic is an internal innovation in Central Semitic from an interrogative particle and is not related to the Afro-Asiatic form. He has shown that a negating function in Semitic is attested only in Central Semitic, not earlier as Faber (1991) has argued. Therefore, it is highly probable that the function of lmā as a negative result subordinator is not an internal development in Aramaic itself from a question formula, but rather an inherited function from Central Semitic. In light of this, the Aramaic subordinator dalmā is a doubly marked subordinator (lmā > d-lmā) and has nothing to do with speech representation, direct or indirect. Taking mā to be a negation particle also adequately explains the structure of the subordinator šemmā in Mishnaic Hebrew; assuming mā is an interrogative particle in d-mā does not account for the negation component of the subordinator.56 At any rate, lmā should minimally be considered a Northwest Semitic particle. Its absence from Old Aramaic may be attributed to poor attestation.

Faber (1991:413–6) notes other interrogative / negative candidates, like *k(V), *ayy, and *ha. 55 The m- here is probably not the preposition mn, because this preposition is not normally assimilated to a following noun in Samaritan Aramaic. 56 Note also that subordinated speech is not common enough in Mishnaic Hebrew to induce grammaticalization. Thus, if Mishnaic Hebrew is the source of this particle, it could not have originated from an interrogative. 54

39

ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION 2.2.2.2. Distribution and Syntax

The particle dilmā is found amply in Middle Aramaic and even more so in Late Aramaic dialects; however, its origin is probably discernible already in Official Aramaic. The first occurrence of this pattern is in Ezra. Note that in the following examples, the verb in the subordinated clause is a prefix conjugation, similar to the syntax of lmā in other Semitic languages and in Late Aramaic dialects: 57 Ez. û-zəhîrîn and-careful.ptcl.mp dənā ləmā dem.ms lest

hěwô šālû lə-meʿbad be.impv.2mp slowly to-work.inf

yi gēʾ grow.impf.3ms

ḥǎbālā lə-hanzāqat hurt to-damage.cnst

ʿal about malkîn kings

Moreover, take care not to act slackly in this matter lest damage grow to the hurt of kings. (Ez. 4:22) kol all

dî min rel from

ʾadrazdā diligently

ṭaʿam commandment.cnst

ʾělāh god.cnst

šəmayyā heaven

yitʿǎbēd do.pass.impf.3ms

lə-bêt ʾělāh to-house.cnst god.cnst

šəmayyā heaven

dî–ləmā rel-lest

le-hěwē to-be.inf

qəṣap be.angry.pf.3ms

ʿal malkût malkā û-bən-ôhî about kingdom.cnst king and-sons-his

Whatever is commanded by the God of Heaven will be done diligently for the house of the God of Heaven, lest he be angry at the realm of the king and his offspring. (Ez. 7:23)

Despite the fact that both verses use a similar form, the first verse is usually translated as a rhetorical question and the second as a warning, seemingly regarding the fate of the royal house. These interpretations are hard to accept, mainly for contextual reasons. The first verse is found in a letter from the king of Persia to Rehum (Ez. 4:17), in which he gives instructions regarding the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The second verse is found in another letter from the same king given to Ezra (Ez. 7:11), in which the king commands the treasurers beyond the river to lend material help to Ezra. In both cases, it is clear that the king is not asking, but rather, as kings often do, ordering his subjects to do something for his benefit. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the king is predicting the demise of his house in Ezra 7:23, but rather that he is seeking to prevent it. Thus, the pattern should rather be understood as a negative result clause (‘so that not’). Beyond the contextual problem, a translation of the word ləmā in Ezra 7:23 as an interrogative ignores the presence of the relative particle dī preceding it, which is not accounted for in most translations. Considering the widespread use of the particle dilmā ‘lest, so that not’ in Middle Aramaic and later dialects, it is much more Both of these sentences are usually translated as questions (Rosenthal 1961:38, §85). It is much more reasonable, however, to read these sentences as result clauses. For a fuller discussion of this particle in Late Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, see Pat-El (2008b). 57

40

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC

reasonable to read these sentences as negative result clauses. If this is correct, the use of (di)lmā as a negative result subordinator is attested as early as Official Aramaic, and not in Middle Aramaic only, as was previously assumed. The particle dilmā is also used as an adverb with the meaning ‘perhaps.’ This function is attested no earlier than Middle Aramaic.58 Note, for example, the following: JPA dilmā trēn perhaps two

ʿubdīn instances

ʾinnōn dem.mp

Perhaps there are two cases. (Ber. 5b) CPA ʾagībw btulātā answer.pf.3cp maiden.pl l-an wa-l-kōn to-1cp and-to-2mp

w-ʾāmrān and-say.ptcl.fp

dmā perhaps

lā neg

nespōq be.enough.impf.3ms

The young women answered: perhaps it will not be enough for us and for you. (Mt. 25:9) Samaritan ʾtw come.impv.2mp

b-nn in-1cp

nzdyʾn l-bʿwt-h be prepared.impf.1cp to-seek.inf-3ms

w-nsgd qdm-yw b-ʾnṣyrw and-prostrate.impf.1cp before-3ms in-zeal dmh nhy perhaps be.impf.1cp

kwt like

ʾdm kd dḥl . . . Adam when afraid.pf.3ms

thbym repentant

Let us ready to seek him and prostrate in front of him with zeal, like Adam, when he was afraid. . . . Perhaps we will repent. (TM 119b) TJ59 dilmā ben-anā perhaps among-1cp qyām treaty

ʾattun yātbin 2mp sit.ptcl.mp

wə-ʾekden nigzar and-how cut.impf.1cp

l-kon to-2mp

Perhaps you sit among us, so how can we uphold a treaty with you? (Josh. 9:7)

Note, however, Pat-El (2008b) where Late Biblical Hebrew šallāmā ‘perhaps’ is argued to be an Aramaic calque, thus dating this adverbial function a bit earlier than Middle Aramaic. 59 The Hebrew verse has ʾûlay ‘perhaps.’ However, TO and TJ usually translate Biblical Hebrew ʾûlay with mā-ʾim ‘what if, suppose that . . .’ (Gen. 32:20). Dilmā is mainly used to translate Biblical Hebrew pen ‘lest’ or other negative result clauses (Gen. 31:29). 58

41

ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION Syr. wa-rdaynan and-think.pf.1cs

d-dalmā rel-perhaps

gedšā-hw chance-he

We thought that perhaps it was chance. (Penkaya, 154: 21) JBA dilmā perhaps

hāšattā māyet this.year die.ptcl.ms

Perhaps he will die this year. (Ned. 3b)

The distribution of these two functions, adverb (‘perhaps’) and subordinator (‘lest’), is dialectal. In the east both functions are in use; in the west only the adverbial one, while d-lā or d-mā are used as the negative result subordinator:60 As an adverb (‘perhaps’): CPA ʾmr say.pf.3ms

l-h dmʾ to-him perhaps

ʾnʾ I

hw dem.ms

rb-y master-my

He said: perhaps it is I, Rabbi? (Mt. 26:25) JPA ʾətūn ləgabb-ēh ʾāmrīn come.pf.3mp to-3ms say.ptcl.mp l-an ʾəmar l-ōn dilmā to-1cp say.pf.3ms to-3mp perhaps

l-ēh lēt to-3ms neg lēt ʾətūn neg come.pf.3mp

mabbūʿān məsappaq fountain enough.ptcl.ms mtaqqənīn give.donation.ptcl.mp

They came to him saying: Our fountain is not enough for us. He said to them: Perhaps you don’t give a tithe? (Peah 64 1.3:22a)

As a subordinator (negative result clause): CPA w-thʾ d-lʾ and-be.impf.3fs rel-neg

mʿmrʾ inhabit.pass.ptcl.fs

l-ʿlm for-ever

lʾ neg

ʾwn indeed

ttbnʾ built.impf.3fs It will be [thus] so that it will never be inhabited. It will not be rebuilt. (Deut. 13:16)61

The subordinator d-lā must be considered a more archaic negative result subordinator than (di)lmā, since d- is the default subordinator in all dialects and may serve as a result subordinator. In Syriac, for example: h nāšā saggīʾe dā-ʾtēn waw men rūḥqā d-neḥzūn la-mšīḥā people many rel-come.ptcl.mp be.clit.3mp from afar rel-see.impf.3mp acc-Christ. Many people were coming from afar in order to see Christ (lit. so that they will see Christ) (The Teaching of Addai *13:1–2). 61 Cf. the Hebrew, which does not exhibit a similar clause: 60

42

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC JPA kad d-anā when rel-1cs d-lā rel-neg

hāwē bə-ṭūrā be.ptcl.ms on-mountain

hī she

lābšā wear.ptcl.fs

mānīn clothes

ṣāʾīn dirty

yittēn barnāš ʿēn-āwy ʿəl-āh give.impf.3ms someone eyes-3ms to-3fs

When I was on the mountain, she wore dirty clothes lest someone look at her. (Taan. 1.4:64c)

Dilmā occurs 35 times in Neofiti; not one of these examples corresponds to dilmā in TO; like other western dialects, Neofiti uses d-lā for that function: TO qum rise.impv.2ms

dəbar take.impv.2ms

yāt acc

bənāt-āk . . . daughters-2ms

dilmā tilqe lest suffer.impf.2ms

ʾittət-āk wife-2ms bə-ḥobe in-sins.cnst

wə-yāt and-acc

tarten two

qartā city

Get up and take your wife and two daughters lest you be punished for the sins of the city. (Gen. 19:15) Neof. qwm rise.impv.2ms

dbr take.impv.2ms

bnt-k . . . daughters-2ms

d-lʾ lest

yt acc

tštyṣʾ suffer.impf.2ms

ʾtt-k wife-2ms b-ḥwby in-sins.cnst

w-yt and-acc

trtyn two

d-qrtʾ rel-city

Get up and take your wife and two daughters lest you be destroyed for the sins of the city. (Gen. 19:15)

There is only one example of dilmā as a subordinator in Qumran Aramaic. However, it seems that the mem was written above the word after the regular negative result subordinator d-lʾ has already been written. QA ʾn mn ḥwṭ ʿd if from string until

ʾrqʾ lace

l-k dlmʾ thwh to-you lest be.impf.2ms

d-msʾn of-sandal

ʾn ʾsb mn if take.impf.1cs from

kwl dy ʾyty all rel there.is

ʾmr d-mn nks-y ʿtr-h say.ptcl.ms rel-from possession-1cs wealth-3ms

dy ʾbrhm rel Abraham

wə-hāytā tēl ʿôlām lōʾ tibbāne ʿōd conj.-be.pf.3fs mount ever neg be built.impf.3fs more [The city] shall be a heap forever. It will not be rebuilt again. (Deut. 13:17)

43

ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION

I will not take a string or a shoe lace from your possessions, lest you say: all the wealth of Abraham is from my possessions. (1Q20 22:21–3)62

It is most likely that the native negative result subordinator d-lā was originally written down and the scribe later changed it by adding an additional mem above it (Fitzmyer 2004:252). The reasons for this addition are unclear; it is possible that dilmā was an innovation that was only starting to infiltrate the language. The particle dmā is found only in the western dialects, CPA and Samaritan Aramaic, and in Syriac. CPA, Samaritan Aramaic, and Mishnaic Hebrew are contemporaneous neighboring languages, so borrowing is a viable possibility. Since dmā is found only in dialects bordering with Hebrew, a borrowing from Mishnaic Hebrew into CPA is far more likely than vice versa; however, since only Syriac shows the same distribution as Mishnaic Hebrew, perhaps an areal phenomenon is a more likely scenario. Thus, it seems that except for TO, no other Palestinian dialect uses dilmā systematically as a subordinator.63 Almost all dialects use it as an adverb, with or without an additional d-, but only the eastern dialects use it as a negative result subordinator ‘lest.’ The connection between the adverb ‘perhaps’ and the subordinator ‘so that not’ is not entirely clear, especially since the subordinator is attested in other languages, while the adverb is not (excluding Mishnaic Hebrew, where it is possibly an Aramaism). It is conceivable that these particles originated from different sources and do not have a shared ancestor. This seems reasonable in light of the implied negation in the subordination ‘lest,’ which is lacking in the adverb ‘perhaps.’ In addition, the existence of both the subordinator and adverb in the same dialect group (east) may indicate different origins for each of them. 64 In a later development, the eastern dialects expanded the conjunction, and a biform with an extra relative particle is attested alongside dilmā. Except in Mandaic, the relative particle stands before the subordinator dilmā. JBA bāqī expert

ʾnā 1cs

w-yāteb and-sit.ptcl.ms

ʾellā but

ʾəpīllū even

l-mēḥaš to-fear.inf

ʾa-tāg-eh dālēt on-letter-3ms D

li-zbūb acc-fly

d-dilmā rel-lest

ʾātē come.ptcl.ms

w-māḥeq l-eh w-mšawwē and-erase.ptcl.ms to-3ms and-equal.ptcl.ms

This is a rendering of Gen. 14:23, where the negative result opens with wə-lā tōmar ‘lest you say.’ Similarly in TO of this verse. 63 To be exact, PsJ, which is a Palestinian text, occasionally uses dilmā as a subordinator; however, this translation contains a very late dialect, perhaps later than the 8th century. From that time we mostly have eastern dialects and the situation in Palestine is largely unknown. There are also about four examples of dlmʾ in Samaritan Aramaic, which Tal (2000:183) maintains are a borrowing from, or under the influence of, TO. Considering the situation in the West, these few examples seem to reflect a contamination from another dialect. 64 Since we know that the subordinator is a Northwest feature, it seems more likely that the subordinator was earlier than the adverb. 62

44

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC l-eh to-3ms

rēš R

I am an expert but [one needs] to even fear a fly lest it come and sit on the letter ‫ ד‬and erase some of it to make it look like [the letter] ‫ר‬. (Sota 10:1) Syr.65 dāḥel menn-eh afraid.ptcl.ms from-3ms w-netbrūn-eh and-break.impf.3ms-3ms

d-dalmā nesgūn rel-lest grow big.impf.3ms

mayyā water

He was afraid on account of it, lest the water rise and break through it. (Aph. de Paen. 340:27) Mand.66 hzun ʿdilma d-tigirun see.impv.2mp lest rel-seduce.impf.2mp d-gunba tiginbun rel-theft steal.impf.2mp

gaura man

hzun ʿdilma see.impv.2mp lest

Watch out lest you commit adultery, watch out lest you steal. (Macuch 1965:458, §320)

The initial /ʿ/ in Mandaic indicates doubling: the form is pronounced /eddilma/, which suggests that the original form was identical to Syriac and JBA. The attested form, ed-dilma d, contains three historic relative particles and bears witness to the recurrent process of marking the form as a subordinator: Northwest Semitic *lmā ‘lest’ > Aramaic *di-lmā > Late East Aramaic *d-dilmā > Mandaic ed-dilmā d. Mandaic stands out in Late East Aramaic as an innovative dialect.67 The position of the relative particle d- in relation to the subordinator is less important than the fact that these dialects treat the complex dilmā as one indivisible form,68 and do not perceive the d- in dilmā as a relative particle anymore. Nevertheless, the position of the relative particle before the subordinator is peculiar. Normally, Syriac and JBA add the relative particle d- to adverbial subordinators after the subordinator, not before it. The expanded form dilmā d- is found in the western dialects as well, but it carries an adverbial function ‘perhaps.’ Note also that unlike the eastern dialects, the relative particle is systematically positioned after the adverb.

In both editions, Parisot (1894, quoted above) and Wright (1869:145, l. 5), the reading dalmā was preferred over d-dalmā, even though d-dalmā occurs in other texts as well. See also Duval (1881:373, §384c). The particle d-dam is also found. See more below. 66 See also Nöldeke (2005 [1875]:471, §312). 67 Stacking relative particles is found elsewhere in Mandaic (and to a far lesser degree in Syriac). The temporal subordinator kd is also found as kd d-: kd d-amar ‘when he said’ (Nöldeke 1875:462–3). 68 In Mandaic, it is phonologically different than the relative particle d-. 65

45

ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION Neof.69 hʾ yhbyt here give.pf.1cs dilmʾ perhaps

dy rel

l-kwn to-2mp yʿbdwn do.impf.3mp

ʾrkʾ mʾh length 100

w-ʿšryn and-20

šnyn years

ttwbh repentance

w-lʾ and-neg

ʿbdw do.pf.3mp

I gave you respite of 120 years. Perhaps they would repent, but they did not. (Gen. 6:3) JPA dylmʾ perhaps

d-ṭʿyn-n rel-err.ptcl.mp-1cp

b-ḥwšbnʾ in-calculation

Perhaps we have erred in the calculation. (Qid. 61b:12) Sam. ṭwb good

l-nn hn nʾbd to-1cp if do.impf.1cp

dmh d-nhy perhaps rel-be.impf.1cp

zkym clean

l-qnwm-n to-self-1cp mn from

zbd l-ʿlmh provision to-world

mgbyh punishment

b-ywm on-day

ʿwrnh other

nqm revenge

It is good for us if we make ourselves provision for the other world; perhaps we will be free of punishment in the day of judgment. (TM 199a) yyty come.impf.3ms qšṭh b-ʿlmh truth on-world

b-šlm in-peace

ywmh d-b-h rwḥh dmʿ-d ytgly day rel-in-3ms comfort perhaps-rel be revealed.impf.3ms

Let the day come in which there will be abundance; perhaps the truth will be found on earth. (TM 41b)

It is unlikely that the adverb was perceived as a subordinator in the West, because it introduces matrix sentences. Note also that the verb following the adverb can be in the suffix conjugation or the prefix conjugation, while the verb following the subordinator (di)lmā is only in the prefix conjugation. Another difference between the two functions is that the particle dilmā in the west is followed by the relative particle d-, but is not a part of the clause, while in the east, the relative particle precedes dilmā and thus is part of the clause itself.70

This verse is part of a Midrashic addition, and therefore an accurate reflection of the dialect. 70 See also Pat-El (2008b), where it is argued that Late Biblical Hebrew mirrors this dialectal difference in Aramaic. Azar (1995:46) specifically determines that MH šemmā is never followed by an additional relative particle; in some manuscripts, however, šemmā še and šeš-šemmā še occur, both with a meaning ‘perhaps’ (Epstein 1929:70, l. 19 šeš-šemmā še; l. 20 šemmā še). The spelling of šemmā is as is customary in Mishnaic manuscripts, while is normal in the printed editions. Segal (1927:147) attributes the spelling with ʾ to Aramaic influence. 69

46

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC Table 2: Summary of the syntax of dlmʾ relative particle

verb

subordinator

Precedes

prefix conjugation

adverb

Follows

any

Table 3: Distribution of dlmʾ in Aramaic

OfA MidA

adverb

subordinator

dilmā

d-lā

OA

----

Ez.

----

dilmā ---√

TO Neof.

double subord.

----

√ √

Q

√ √

OSyr. LateA

CPA

√

√

JPA

√

√

Sam.

√

√

PsJ.

√

√

Syr.

√

√

√

Mand.

√

√

JBA

√

√

2.2.3. The Conditional Clause Semantically, conditional sentences convey potential or hypothetical implication. It is common to divide conditional clauses into several sub-categories, depending on the degree of reality they convey.71 Syntactically, conditional sentences contain two clauses, one of which specifies the condition (the if clause, protasis), and the other, the result (the then clause, apodosis). Most languages mark the protasis with a special morpheme, though other forms of marking, such as word order or special verbal forms, are also used for some types of conditionals. In Semitic, there is only one original conditional marker that introduces the protasis: *s1Vm-. This particle is used in all branches.72 Thus, originally in Semitic,

See a list of ten possible conditional sentences in Indo-European languages in Kortmann (1998:465). Note that in the Indo-European languages, there are different particles to introduce different types of conditions. 72 Akkadian šumma, Ethiopic ʾəmma, OSA hm/n, Arabic ʾin, Ugaritic hm, Canaanite ʾim. See Voigt (1995) for a full discussion and reconstruction of this particle. 71

47

ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION

different types of conditions (realis, irrealis) were distinguished, if at all, solely by their internal structure (tense-mood), not by the conditional particle. In Aramaic, conditional sentences may be marked by mere juxtaposition, or may be introduced by a reflex of the Proto-Semitic conditional particle *s1Vm- (> Aramaic hin and later ʾin). Up to and including Late Aramaic, this particle was in regular use in all dialects:73 OA w-hn and-if

yšqr lie.impf.3ms

mlkt-h kingdom-3ms

mtʿ[ʾl PN

w-l-]br-h w-l-ʿqr-h thwy and-to-son-3ms and-to-offspring-3ms be.impf.3fs

k-mlkt as-kingdom.cnst

ḥl sand

If Matiel lies to his son and his offspring, may his kingdom become a kingdom of sand. (Sef. I A 24–5) Daniel hēn lā if neg

təhōdəʿūn-nanī make known.impf.2mp-1cs

titʿabdūn be made.impf.3mp

u-bāttē-kōn and-houses-2mp

ḥelmā u-pišr-eh dream and-meaning-3ms

nəwālī garbage

haddāmīn limbs

yittə āmūn be put.impf.3mp

If you will not explain the dream and its interpretation to me, you will be cut to pieces and your home will be made heaps of dung. (Dan. 2:5) CPA w-ʾn and-if

dy l-ʾnš kwl-m indeed to-man all-3mp

ṭlmt wrong.pf.1cs

ʾnʾ gzʾ 1cs pay.ptcl.ms

ʾrbʿʾ four

kyplyn double

If I wronged anyone of anything, I will pay eight times. (Lk. 19:8)

Thus, is seems that Aramaic followed regular Semitic syntax and consistently used the Proto-Semitic conditional particle for most of its history. 2.2.3.1. Waw-Apodosis Waw-apodosis is a term used for one of the functions of the Semitic coordinators *wa or *pa when it introduces the apodosis of a conditional clause or when it introduces

It is unclear whether the conditional particle lū found in Zincirli and later dialects is a conditional particle or whether it is an optative particle (cf. Akkadian lū). In arguments against an original conditional particle, the irrealis conditional particle ʾillū < *ʾin-lū is often quoted, where a presumably asseverative lū is attached to the conditional particle ʾin. Huehnergard (1983:574) suggests that the basic function of lū was to mark a proposition as hypothetical; the conditional function of the particle, found in Arabic, OSA, Hebrew, and Aramaic, is a secondary function that was generalized in these languages on the basis of the hypothetical function. 73

48

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC

a matrix sentence after a subordinated clause, mostly a temporal clause. 74 Wawapodosis is attested in several West Semitic languages. It is frequent in Biblical Hebrew (Waltke & O’Connor 1990:526, §32.2.1; Müller 1994:161–3)75 and in Phoenician (Friedrich-Röllig 1999:227, §319d). In Ethiopic wa- may introduce the apodosis, though it is less frequent than ø (Lambdin 1978:231). The coordinator fais found in Classical Arabic after a protosis opening with ʾ in or ø (Khan 1988:57; Fischer 2001:228, §447a).76 Nevertheless, it is not an obligatory marker in any Semitic language. BH77 ʾim if

ḥāpēṣ want.pf.3ms

haz-zōʾt def-dem.fs

bā-nû YHWH in-1cp YHWH

û-nətān-āh and-give.pf.3ms-3fs

wə-hēbîʾ ʾōt-ānû and-bring.pf.3ms acc-1cp l-ānû ʾereṣ to-1cp land

ʾǎšer rel

hîʾ 3fs

ʾel to

hā-ʾāreṣ def-land

zābat flowing.cnst

ḥālāb milk

û-dəbāš and-honey If God is pleased with us he will bring us to this land and give it to us, a land which is overflowing with milk and honey. (Num. 14:8) Some scholars use the term to apply to any instance of waw in Northwest Semitic that is not purely a coordinating particle, such as sentences after casus pendens. Hoftijzer (1959:316) uses the term ‘apodosis waw’ in a broad sense, which applies to any waw which opens a sentence after a casus pendens; for example: kʿt ʾnt w-grdʾ zy-ly ʿbydʾ lʾ ʾyty l-k now 2ms and-staff rel-1cs business neg there is to-2ms Now, as for you–you have no business with my domestic staff. (D 12:9/A6.15:9). In this discussion, waw-apodosis will refer only to instances of the coordinating particle introducing the apodosis of a conditional clause, or the matrix sentence after a subordinated clause. 75 Beyer (1961:67–72) even suggests that the use of waw-apodosis in Biblical Hebrew is the background for a similar use of the Greek coordinator καί in the New Testament. 76 Khan (1988:57) notes that fa in Classical Arabic occurs also between an extraposed element and the sentence in order “to give additional prominence to the extraposed nominal,” a pattern which should be compared with ʾamma . . . fa . . . constructions. Syriac shows a very similar pattern, where the extraposed element is separated from the rest of the sentence by wa-. Nöldeke (2001:250 §316) discusses only cases where the the subject is extraposed, but it is true for any extraposition. See for example: l-hāy men ʾlāhā ṭābā wa-mqabbəlin-nan ʾak-ḥdā wa-mqalləsin-nan acc-dem from god good and-accept.ptcl.mp-1cp wholly and-laud.ptcl.mp-1cp That which comes from the good God—we accept and laud. (Penkaya, 47:18–9) 77 Note also Althann (1997:82–4) where he repeats the suggestion of several earlier scholars that there was a pa-apodosis in Hebrew; for example, in Job 9:20; 16:14, but it was misunderstood and reanalyzed as either an independent word (e.g., pî ‘my mouth’) or as part of the preceding word. 74

49

ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION Ph.78 w-ʾm mlk b-mlkm w-rzn b-rznm . . . ʾš ymḥ and-if king in-kings and-prince in-princes rel erase.impf.3mp b-šʿr in-gate

z dem.ms

qn ʾrṣ creator.cnst earth h-mlk def-king

šm ʾztwd name PN

w-št šm . . . w-mḥ bʿlšmm and-put.pf.ms name and-erase.pf.3mp PN w-šmš and-sun.cnst

ʿlm eternity

ʾyt h-mmlkt acc def-kingdom

hʾ dem.fs

w-ʾl and-PN w-ʾyt and-acc

hʾ dem.ms

If a king among kings or a prince among princes will efface the name of Azitiwada on this gate and put (instead) (his own) name, may Baalshamem and El, creator of the world, and the eternal Sun, wipe out that kingdom and that king. (KAI 26, Aiii:12–Aiv:1) Ug. im if

ht now

l b mṣqt neg in distress

ytbt sit.pf.3fs

qrt city

p and

mn from

likt ank lḥt letter 1cs send.pf.1cs

If the city is not in plight now, I will send a short letter (KTU 2.72:22f) CA ʾin tasḫarū min-nā if mock.juss.2mp from-1cp tasḫarūna mock.impf.2mp

fa-ʾinnā nasḫarū min-kum kamā and-1cp mock.juss.1cp from-2mp as

If you mock us, we will mock you the same way as you mock [others]. (Qur. 11:38)

In East Semitic, such a function of the coordinating particle is less common than in West Semitic. In Akkadian, šumma may open the protasis, or the coordinator -ma may connect the two sentences, but šumma and -ma are mutually exclusive. Akkadian does not normally use a coordinator to introduce the apodosis. In Old Akkadian, however, there are rare examples of waw-apodosis. Eblaite also has examples with waw-apodosis: Akk. [šum]-ma if-part

AŠ.A Š -m livestock

gu-[ti]PN-nom

it-[ru]take.pret.3ms and

a-na-ku 1cs

m -ma nothing

In Phoenician, waw occurs after temporal clauses as well (Friedrich-Röllig 1999:227, §319d): km-ʾš qrʾt ʾt rbtbʾlt Gbl w-šmʿ when-rel call.pf.1cs acc lady-1cs mistress Byblos and-hear.pf.3fs ql w-pʿl l-y nʿm voice and-do.pf.3fs to-1cs pleasant When I called upon my lady, mistress of Byblos, she heard my voice and did kindness to me. (KAI 10:7–8) 78

50

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC -la a-q -bi neg say.pret.1cs If (you say), “The Guti took away the livestock,” I will say nothing. (Michalowski 1993:28 #22:22–5) Eblaite su-ma if

INIM word

ḪUL evil

al PN PN2 to PN PN2

DUG4 speak

wa and

NAM.KU5 swear

If PN2 utters an evil word against PN, then he will swear. (Huehnergard & Woods 2004:271)

It, therefore, seems that waw-apodosis is a Proto-Semitic phenomenon that by and large disappeared from Akkadian.79 In West Semitic, it is much more common in Central Semitic than South Semitic.80 As was mentioned above, marking the apodosis was never obligatory in Semitic, and this strategy has completely disappeared in modern Semitic languages. In Old Aramaic, the apodosis is occasionally marked with a coordinator, p- or w-; in later dialects only w- is found (Grelot 1970).81 In Official Aramaic, the adverb ʾ ḥr ‘then’ may also be used to introduce the apodosis (Folmer 1995:415).82 Note, however, that marking the apodosis is not very common in any Aramaic dialect, and is not attested in many dialects. Such a limited distribution is not much different from the distribution in other Central Semitic languages. OA83 [w-]hn and-if

tʾmr b-nbš-k say.impf.2ms in-soul.2ms

gbr ʿdn ʾnʾ . . . ] surpass.ptcl.ms treaty 1cs

w-tʿšt and-think.impf.2ms

b-lbb[-k in-heart-2ms

p-l-ʾkhl l-ʾšlh and-neg-able.impf.1cs to-send.inf

y[d hand

b-k . . . ] in-2ms

In the Akkadian of Ugarit, the apodosis is introduced by u- ‘and’ in about one-third of the conditional clauses. Huehnergard (1989:244) suggests that these examples are a result of Northwest Semitic influence. 80 Eksell Harning (1999:97) suggests that w- was originally deictic and that the plenitude of functions found in the Semitic languages must be derived from a deictic function. 81 See especially Degen (1969:131, §92a) and Fitzmyer (1995:152). 82 Note, however, that cross-linguistically, adverbs denoting sequential time are common as introductory particles of the apodosis (French alors, English then, Modern Hebrew ʾaz), while a coordinating particle is far less common. 83 For examples with waw, see Sef. III:9–11. Hoftijzer (1959:316, n. 2) suggested that the waw in Sef. III:10 (w-ybʿh rʾšy) is also an apodosis-waw, but this is unlikely, because it is still a part of the protosis. 79

51

ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION If you will say in your soul and think in your heart: “I am an ally,” I will not be able to harm you. (Sef. II B:5–6) OfA hn if

kn thus

w-ṣdqh and-merit

ʿbdw ʿd do.pf.3mp until yhwh be.impf.3ms

zy ʾgwrʾ rel temple

lk to-2ms

zk this

qdm before

ytbnh is build.impf.3ms Yhw PN

If they will do so until this temple is rebuilt, it would be a merit for you before Yehu. (C 30:27/A4.7:27)

The use of ʾḥr is found in late 5th-century documents that were written by scribes with eastern names (Folmer 1995:422).84 It is clear that some of them were composed in the east (ibid., 417). Folmer emphasizes that in eastern texts there is a preference for ʾḥr over w- and since this function is not found in Middle Aramaic, it is probably unique to Official Aramaic (ibid., 422–3): OfA w-hn and-if

yhwh be.impf.3ms

ywmyʾ days

ʾlk dem.mp

b-ʾtr in-place

ytyr more

ḥd one

ptp ʾl supply neg

ytyr more

mn from

tntnw give.impf.2mp

ywm day

ḥd one

ʾḥr then

zy rel

l-hm to-3mp

If he will be for more than one day in a certain place, do not give them more provisions for these days. (D 6:6/A6.9:6)

Kutscher (1954:241) suggests that the function of ʾḥr in conditional clauses is a calque of Old Persian pasāva ‘then.’ This is a very attractive possibility; the only objection to it is the fact that ʾḥr occurs with the same syntax in Aḥiqar, which otherwise does not show any Old Persian influence (Lindenberger 1983:175), while no examples of this function are found in the Bisitun inscription, which is expected to show some Persian influence.85 This objection, however, does not preclude borrowing.

The coordinator w- is not used in texts, which use ʾḥr. See the comparative table in Folmer (1995:420–1), which covers the Egyptian Aramaic texts. In this dialect, both w- and the adverb ʾḥr may introduce the apodosis; both are rare. 85 ʾḥr also occurs in the Bisitun Inscription, but not in the context of conditional clauses (contra Kutscher 1954:241). The adverb ʾḥr is paralleled by Old Persian pasāva and Akkadian arki ‘then’ in the Bisitun Inscription, as Kutscher has noted, but this seems to be a natural correspondence. This adverb is also common in Biblical Hebrew (one example is Gen. 10:18; 38:3). The importance of ʾḥr in conditional clauses is that its function there differs from its common adverbial function. The Bisitun Inscription does not attest this special function, and evidence from this text cannot be used to prove contact. 84

52

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC

Waw-apodosis is not found in the Middle Aramaic dialects, although in Qumran Hebrew the pattern is attested, following the same syntactic rules as Biblical Hebrew (Qimron 1978:171; van Peursen 2000; 2008:181, 2009b:264).86 Waw-apodosis is occasionally found in Syriac, though not ʾḥr. The relative rarity of the pattern has caused several scholars of Syriac to doubt its existence. Nöldeke (2001:277, §339) claims that waw-apodosis does not occur in Syriac; according to him, where it does occur, it is either an immitation of Biblical Hebrew waw-apodosis or a corruption of the text.87 Nevertheless, the structure is found in native, non-translated texts in conditional and temporal sentences:88 Syr. w-ʾāp-en zabnā zʿūrā and-even-if time little ʾayk ṭlālā like shadow

mkattrān last.ptcl.fp

mašqlān move.ptcl.fp

w-ʾayk and-like

wa-b-ḥad and-on-one

men from

qīrsīn occasion

ḥelmā pārḥān dream vanish.ptcl.fp

And although they may last for a little while, at a certain point, they move away like shadow and disappear like a dream. (John of Tella, 40:39–41) ʾəmar say.pf.3ms

d-hānā rel-dem.ms

šūbharā ʾīt acclaim there is

lam adv

gensā race

ʾen if

l-an w-ʾen zkā-ny to-1cp and-if win.pf.3ms-1cs

zkayn-āyhy win.pf.1cp-it

w-lā and-neg

ḥad one

behttā rabbtā shame great

He said: This race! If we overcome them there’s no boasting for us, and if they overcome me–great shame [upon us]. (BHeb, Stories 58)

It is true that waw-apodosis rarely appears in printed texts. This may be attributed to the assumption mentioned above that it is not a grammatical pattern in Syriac. Where an apparatus criticus is supplied, it is evident that occurrences of wawapodosis existed in some manuscripts but the editor chose not to include them, thus perpetuating Nöldeke’s assumption. If I am correct, a more careful reading of According to Qimron (19 8:1 1), “If an apodosis opens with the verb, its form is wqṭl.” See, for example: w-ʾm mth w-n ʾ l-w ʾḥrt and-if die.pf.3fs and-marry to-him another.fs If she dies, he can marry another (The Temple Scroll 57:18) As the Aramaic examples provided here show, this is not the case in Aramaic, where such conditioning does not apply. 87 Nöldeke, however, notes in the same paragraph, that waw may stand “at the very beginning of the apodosis” when it carries some adverbial sense, like ‘even, also.’ Similarly, see Costaz (1955:195 §747), who notes that w- may open a matrix sentence after a temporal, but following Nöldeke, he denies the same possibility with conditional clauses. 88 The connection between temporal and conditional clauses is found in many languages. In some languages, such as Indonesian, there is no difference between them (Thompson et al. 2007:257–8). 86

53

ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION

manuscripts will yield far more examples of this pattern in native Syriac than has been acknowledged thus far. Note the following example, where waw-apodosis occurs in manuscript A, but not in the main text: w-kad qāmw b-ṣaprā w-ḥāzīn hwaw da-qṭīr and-when rise.pf.3mp in-morning and-see.ptcl.mp be.pf.3mp rel-hardened.ptcl.ms glīd ice

b-sepwātā in-lips

l-eh to-3ms

men from

wa-b-daqn-eh and-in-bear-his

w-meddem and-thing

kad labkū-hy when take.pf.3mp-3ms

b-eh napšā . . . w-dḥelw in-3ms soul and-fear.pf.3mp ʾennōn acc.3mp

lā neg

ṭʿīm hwā tasted.ptcl.ms be.pf.3ms

w-ʾayk da-l-mīmar qallīl qāymā hwā and-as rel-to-say.inf a bit exist be.pf.3fs

menn-eh d-gabrā from-3ms rel-man

d-lā nelūṭ rel-neg curse.impf.3ms

And when they got up in the morning and saw that ice had congealed on John’s lips and beard and he had not eaten a thing since they had arrested him and he was barely alive, so to speak . . . they feared the man lest he curse them. (John of Tella, 70:3–9)

The occurrence of waw-apodosis in Syriac is different from the use of this particle with conditional clauses in earlier dialects of Aramaic, because it is used with temporal as well as conditional clauses, while previous Aramaic dialects attest to its use only with conditional clauses. Furthermore, these types of patterns are not attested in Middle Aramaic, nor in other Late Eastern dialects. One possible explanation for the occurrence of this pattern in Syriac may be a result of a Persian influence, as was suggested in the case of Official Aramaic. In Middle Persian and Parthian, several particles are used to introduce the main clause after a subordinate clause or a topic: ud ‘and, but,’ ā-, and the adverb ēg ‘then,’89 as well as pās ‘then, afterward.’ The absence of waw-apodosis from Middle Aramaic and the resemblance of the Syriac pattern to Persian usage make Persian influence quite likely; however, the lack of waw-apodosis in Mandaic and JBA, two dialects that were subject to more extensive Persian influence than Syriac, weakens the likelihood of language contact. It is also unclear whether Syriac and Official Aramaic show the same syntax: Syriac uses only waw, not an adverb, unlike Official Aramaic, Middle Persian, and Parthian; on the other hand, Syriac uses waw-apodosis with temporal clauses as well as with conditional clauses, like Middle Persian and Parthian but unlike Official Aramaic:

Note that in Daniel and Ezra, the particle ʾědayin regularly introduces main sentences, but is never found in the context of conditional or temporal clauses. It may be used in Middle Persian and Parthian as a logogram for Persian ēg, but it does not have the same syntax as Persian ēg. 89

54

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC Table 4: The distribution of waw-apodosis in Aramaic waw-apodosis

OfA MidA Syr. East Aramaic MPer.

adverbial apodosis

conditional

temporal

√

----

√

----

----

----

√

√

----

----

----

----

√

√

√

Of course, this does not substantiate a syntactic connection between Syriac and Official Aramaic. Since marking the apodosis seems to have disappeared from Aramaic, at the latest after Official Aramaic, it is less likely that it is a retention, though such a possibility cannot be ruled out. In addition, since Persian influence on Syriac is not known to have been substantial enough for such a grammatical borrowing (especially compared to Mandaic and JBA), it is possible that this pattern developed independently in Syriac.90 None of the Modern Aramaic dialects uses waw or other adverbs to introduce the apodosis. 2.2.3.2. Subordinated Conditional Apart from the use of the conditional particle, no Semitic language formally marks the protasis as subordinated by means of *dV- or any other subordinating particle, although semantically, the protasis of a conditional clause is dependent on the apodosis.91 A clause beginning with *s1Vm must be followed or preceded by a main clause. A similar situation is found in the earliest dialects of Aramaic; until Late Aramaic, the conditional clause has a regular Semitic syntax. Late Aramaic, however, developed a conditional pattern where the protasis is formally marked as subordinated via the relative particle, although the conditional particle is still The different functions of waw in Syriac deserve a study of their own. They are used in contexts where other Semitic languages and Aramaic dialects do not normally use waw, so its function is not merely a coordinating particle. 91 While relative clauses in West Semitic have the syntax of main sentences, conditional clauses show a different type of syntax and quite a number of peculiarities. In Arabic and Hebrew, the perfect is used for general conditionals in the present, though in main sentences the perfect is a past-tense verb (Fischer 2001:227, §445; Waltke & O’Connor 1990:636, §38.2). Akkadian, the only Semitic language, which has a morphological marker for subordinated verbs (-u/-ni), does not use it in conditionals; however, lā, the regular negation for subordinated verbs, is used in protases, instead of the expected ul (Hasselbach 2006:175). It seems that there is some ambiguity in Semitic as to the syntactic status of protases, although, as was noted above, conditionals are not treated syntactically as subordinated clauses in Semitic. 90

55

ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION

present.92 Two patterns are attested: one, where the basic conditional particle is followed by a relativized sentence;93 and the other, found only in Syriac and Mandaic, where a personal pronoun is clitic to the conditional particle, which is then followed by a relativized sentence.94 Pattern II is preferred in Syriac and Mandaic over Pattern I by far. Mandaic has two conditional particles, ʾu (< Semitic *ʾaw ‘or’)95 and hin (Common Aramaic). The latter pattern is attested only with the conditional particle ʾu, not with hin:96 Pattern I: Syr. w-ʾaykanā and-how ʿal on

hwāt be.pf.3fs

l-rīš-eh d-benyānā ʾellā ʾen d-selqat to-head-3ms rel-building only if rel-go up.pf.3fs

benyān-hon d-ʿammē wa-ʿl-eh building-3mp rel-people and-on-3ms

sāleq kull-eh go up.ptcl.ms all-3ms

l-āh to-3fs

benyān-hon building-3mp

Some non-Semitic languages mark conditional clauses as relative clauses, though it seems that in these cases there is a nominal antecedent present, at least historically (Thompson et al. 2007:257). Bar (2003) discusses conditional clauses in Modern Hebrew, where the protasis is marked as subordinated with the Hebrew relative particle še-. Most of these patterns developed from a relative clause with a nominal antecedent (bi-tnay še ‘on the condition that,’ be-midda še ‘with the stipulation that,’ be-miqre še ‘in the case that’). The only example of a non-substantive origin is u-bi-lbad še ‘provided that’ lit. only that , which is an adverb and is not a head of a relative clause; this pattern is also a retention from post-Biblical Hebrew and not a Modern Hebrew innovation. At least according to Bar’s example (ibid., 1 4), the syntax of this pattern is different from the other conditional subordinators she provides. In any case, none of these subordinators is based on the Proto-Semitic conditional particle (> Hebrew ʾim); thus all are post-Biblical or Modern Hebrew innovations. 93 Syriac ʾen d-; JBA ʾi d-. 94 Syriac ʾenhū d-, Mandaic ʾu hu d-. 95 The use of this particle as a conditional is probably a result of analogy. The conditional particle is used as a coordinator in the pattern ‘either . . . or . . . ’ (hin . . . hin . . . ); the same pattern can occur with ʾaw . . . ʾaw . . .. Thus, if double ʾaw has the same function as double hin, a single ʾaw may have the same function as a single hin. 96 See Nöldeke (2005 [1875]:478, §314) for more examples of the combined negative conditionals in Mandaic, ʿala d (ʿu lā d-) and ʿalaw d (ʿu law d-). See also Macuch (1965:459, §322). Note that ʾaw d- is common in other eastern dialects as well in the sense of ‘either . . . or . . . ’: h ʾaw d-ʾatt ū ʾalāhā da-nḥīt men šmayyā wa-ʿābed ʾatt or rel-2ms pred god rel-descend.pf.3ms from heaven and-do.ptcl.ms 2ms hāllēn ʾaw da-br-eh ʾatt d-ʾallāhā w-hāllēn ʿābed ʾatt dem.fp or rel-son-3ms 2ms rel-god and-dem.fp do.ptcl.ms 2ms Either you are God who came down from heaven and does these things, or you are the son of God and do these things. (Cureton 1964 *2:18–9) 92

56

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC How did [the stone, meaning Christ] become the head of the building? Only if it went up onto the building of the gentiles and their whole building should go up on it. (Aph. de Fide, 16:14–7) Or another option: w-ʾāp-en d-saggīʾān and-even-if rel-great.fp

men from

hāllēn dem.fp

b-šegšā ʾaw in-chaos or

lā neg

hwā ʾenā be.pf.3ms 1cs

ba-gzāmā in-threat

tēmrūn l-ī ʾaw tell.impf.2mp to-1cs or ʾayk like

pālipus chameleon

Even if you tell me many of these things, either through chaos or by threat, I am not like the chameleon. (John of Tella, 76:19–23) JBA ʾi d-lēt b-hū if rel-there.is.no on-3ms hāwey be.ptcl.ms

H sīmān kī bāʿāt-ān mark comp satisfy.pf.3fs-3fp

hā-ʿayinH def-eye

maʾi what

If there’s no identifying mark on the vessel , what difference does it make that the eye [of the owner] is accustomed to it? (BM 23b) Mand. ʿu if

d-law rel-neg

ana 1cs

la-banint-eh neg-instruct.pf.1cs-3ms

l-yanuqa acc-child

If I do not [exist], I cannot instruct a child. (Nöldeke 1875:478, §313)

Pattern II: Syr. ʾen-hu if-3ms

da-mhaymen-atty rel-believe.ptcl.ms-2fs

nqūm rise.impf.3ms

ʾaḥū-ky brother-2fs

If you believe, your brother will rise. (Aph. de Fide 40:24–25) Mand. ʿu if

hu 3ms

d-šybqun rel-allow.pf.3mp

rabia reatness

rbit be great.pf.1cs

If they let [me], I will become great. (Nöldeke 1875:476, §313)

The combination of the conditional particle with the relative particle was motivated by an analogy to other particles with similar function which take d-, the most common of which is ka-d and other temporal subordinators (see more below). Another incentive for the development of ʾen d- is the indefinite relative mā d-, which can function as the head of a conditional clause.97 The similarity in function Note Brockelmann: “Aus Fragesätzen erwachsene Relativesätze berühren sich in allen Sprachen sehr nahe mit den Bedingungssätzen. . . . Man und mā können . . . noch als Glieder des Hauptsatzes erscheinen, doch sind sie oft schon ganz aus dem Zusammenhang mit dem 97

ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION

57

led to the addition of d- to ʾen. Ultimately, since the protasis was understood as dependent on the apodosis, it was marked as a dependent clause. Pattern II is a bit harder to explain. The clitic pronoun –u is also used with the indefinite relative in Mandaic mu-d (< mā-u d). In Syriac, though the clitic pronoun –hu is used for predication (Goldenberg 1977, 1983), the full pronoun hū is always a substantive. It is never clitic and functions as an independent personal pronoun, as opposed to the clitic –hu (Nöldeke 2000:180, §227). Nöldeke’s translation of the pattern (2 :3 8, §3 4b) assumes a nominal sentence: ‘if it (is) that,’ although ʾenhu is not a normal predication in Syriac. There is no nexus. 98 The origin of this pattern is probably not a nexus. Just as Pattern I was traced to conditionals with mā d- or ka-d, so the origin of Pattern II may be traced to extensions of these subordinators. While subordinators of prepositional origin, such as ʾayk and bātar, mostly take attributive demonstratives as their extensions, other particles, like mā, ʾry (in JPA), and ʿad, which are not used as prepositions, mostly take independent pronouns, such as hū and mā (ʾr-w, ʿad-mā, for example). This seems to apply to ʾen as well. Thus, in Mandaic we may postulate an analogy as follows: mā d- : ʾen d- :: mā hū d- : ? = ʾen hū d-. The situation in Syriac is a bit more complicated; man hū (contracted to manū) is very common, but is not used as a subordinator. A more plausible source of analogy in Syriac is the subordinator ʾayk d- ‘as,’ which may appear with either a demonstrative (ʾayk haw d- ‘as if’) or, more to the point, with an independent pronoun: tesgē deḥlt-āk men māryā ʾayk d-lā sāk plaḥt zadīqūtā grow.impf.3fs fear-2ms from god as rel-neg ever work.pf.2ms righteousnesswnesgē l-āk b-eh sabrā ʾayk hū d-lā sāk ʿbadt ḥṭīt and-grow.impf.3ms to-2ms in-3ms hope as 3ms rel-neg ever do.pf.2ms sin Your fear of the Lord will increase as if you didn’t do righteousness and your hope in him as if you didn’t commit any sin. (BHeb, Stories 308)

Many grammars describe this pattern as a counterfactual conditional, 99 but if we look at the examples we can see that this is not necessarily the case. 100

Hauptsatz gelöst und ersetzen so einem Bedingungssatz mit einem indefiniten Pronomen” (1908–13:660, §450). 98 See also Duval (1881:391, §414). Costaz (1955:148 §497) translated ʾenhū d- as ‘si.’ A pattern with a finite verb (3ms impf), ʾellū nehwē d-, is found only in Julianus Roman (Hoffmann 1897:84:7; 214, 21). Since it is found in one work, it should probably not be considered an original pattern, but rather a reanalysis of the original pattern as a nominal sentence, which can then be used with finite verbs to reflect tense. Note that **ʾen hwā d- does not exist in Syriac. 99 Duval claims that these forms “ajoutent a l’incertitude de la condition et r pondent au grec εαν” (1881:391, §414). Nöldeke (2001: 308, §374b), however, does not suggest that this pattern is used for irreal conditionals.

58

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC JBA ʾī if

d-ʾaprq-īnhū rel-abandon.pf.3ms-3mp

haynu cop

bōr pothole

bēn between

l-Rab to-PN1

u-bēn and-between

l-Shmuʾel to-PN2

w-ʾī d-law ʾapqrīn-hū . . . and-if rel-neg abandon.pf.3ms-3ms

If he abandoned [his property]—either [according to] R or S, [the case equals that of] pothole negligence in leaving dangerous obstacles in public places ; and if he didn’t abandon it . . . (BQ 3a–b) Syr. ḥrīnā other

ʾemar say.pf.3ms

ʾenhū d-ṣābē-att d-teddaʿ if rel-want.ptcl.ms-2ms rel-know.impf.2ms

d-qenyānē of-possessions

ʿalmānāyē worldly

kīmat i.e.

sāklē stupid.mp

ṣēd with

ʾetbaqqā ṣēd consider.impv.2ms with

šīṭūtā no value

man metkannšīn who collected.ptcl.mp

Another said: if you want to understand the worthlessness of worldly possessions, consider who collects them: the stupid. (BHeb, Stories 315) Mand. ʿu if

d ʿpaqdin-kun rel commands-2mp

tibdun do.impf.2mp

ʿtil-kun mn give.impf.1cs-2mp from

ziua-i radiance-1cs

If you will follow my commands to you, I will give you some of my radiance. (Gy. 18:14)

In the West there are very rare examples of the conditional particle followed by a relative particle; it is doubtful whether this pattern even exists in the West. The Samaritan Aramaic examples found in Ben Hayyim (1967) are quite late, and in CPA, all the examples are of ʾellā d, not ʾen d- (Schulthess 1924:98).101 Sam.102 ʾn if

d-ʾt rel-2ms

lbyš dress.ptcl.ms

b-h in-3ms

ʾt 2ms

mlk king

Hypothetical conditionals are usually expressed with the particles ʾillū in most Aramaic dialects and ʾilmale in JBA. The particle ʾilmale occurs frequently in the Babylonian Talmud and in the Geonic literature. Duval (1882:272) claims that ʾilmale is comprised of the conditional particle ʾi/ʾin, the interrogative mā, and the negation lā, with the meaning ‘si ce n’est pas / sinon.’ The l- before the interrogative mā is, according to Duval, a marker of hypothetical conditional, like Hebrew lû. 101 Schulthess notes that ʾn d- in CPA occurs rarely, but I have not found a single example, and Schulthess’ example is with ʾellā. 102 This example is attributed to the late–4th century poet Ninna; Ben Hayyim (1967:16) asserts that it is probably a 14th-century hymn. Furthermore, not all manuscripts agree on the reading (ibid., 263). 100

59

ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION If you wear it, you are a king. (Ben Hayyim 1967:263, l. 4)

Therefore, it seems that this pattern is not extant in the West; but while positive subordinated conditionals are common only in eastern dialects, negative conditionals introduced by d- are found in both eastern and western dialects. Negative conditional particles are usually complex particles and are used for counterfactual conditionals. Some of them are not used as conditional particles anymore, but rather as coordinating particles:103 TJ ʾəllāhen d-‘except, but rather’ < *ʾin lā hen d- ‘if indeed not that’;104 Syr., JPA ʾellulā d- < ʾin lū lā d-;105 JPA ʾillumāne d-; JPA, Syriac, JBA, Mand. ʾellā d- < ʾen lā d- ‘but rather.’ TJ wə-ʾillu bə-ʾorḥāt-əhon and-but in-ways-their.m

halekt walk.pf.2fs

ʾəllāhen d-ʾasgit if.neg rel-make grow.pf.2fs

lə-ḥabbālā to-damage

u-k-toʿebātəhon ʿəbadt… and-as-abominations-their.m do.pf.2fs minn-əhon from-3mp

bə-kāl ʾorḥāt-ik in-all ways-2fs

You have walked in their footsteps and done their evils, except that you have been corrupted more than them in your ways. (Ezek. 16:47) Neof. ʾlwly if.neg

d-ʾšthynwn ʾrwm rel-be delayed.pf.1cp indeed

kdwn already

ḥzrnwn be back.pf.1cp

If we had not been delayed, we could have been back by now. (Gen. 43:10) Schlesinger (1928:274–5); Levias (1986:262–3). Qumran Aramaic and TO do not have any of the patterns discussed here. The Palestinian Targum shows similar distribution: ʾellule d‘if not,’ but ʾen ‘if.’ Note, however, that ʾen lā is not followed by d- (Fassberg 1990:198, §157d). 104 The difficulty with analyzing this particle as a subordinated conditional marker is that it is not followed by an apodosis. This conditional particle in TJ is probably related to the Sefire conditional hn l-hn ‘if not so’ (Sef. I B:36, III:4, 9, 14, 20): hn l-hn šqrtm l-kl ʾlhy ʿdyʾ zy b-sprʾ [znh] if neg-so lie.pf.2mp to-all gods.cnst covenant rel in-inscription dem.ms And if not so, you have been untrue to all the Gods of the covenant in this inscription. (Sef. III:4) Other TJ examples are 1Sam. 23:3; 2Sam. 16:18, 18:20; 2Kg. 5:13; Is. 44:8; Ezek. 15:5; Mal. 2:15. 105 See Payne-Smith (1998 [1879]:I198). This particle is not found in Mandaic and JBA. The etymology suggested here relies heavily on other Semitic languages. However, the irreal conditional particle lū, which is found in Biblical Hebrew and Classical Arabic, is not an Aramaic lexeme. Note that there are also no lūlē/lūlā particles in Aramaic, as in Biblical Hebrew and Classical Arabic (lawlā), except once in Samaritan Aramaic (Deut. 32:27); the particle ʾin always introduces the rest. There are other etymologies of ʾillū which connect it to the noun ləway ‘condition’ (Brockelmann 1928:21a; Dalman 1960:238), a noun which may be connected to Biblical Hebrew and Classical Arabic lū (Payne-Smith 1998 [1879]:II 1902). Duval (1882:271) explains ləway as Hebrew lū “allong au moyen de la particule ai.” 103

60

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC JPA106 ʾillule if.neg

d-hwā bar rel-be.pf.3ms son.cnst

rabbī rabbi

ʾEliʿezer PN1

ben son.cnst

nāš man

Yaʿqob PN2

rabbā lā great neg l-raʿ to-below

yāteb l-eh sit.ptcl.ms to-3ms minn-eh from-3ms

If this person were not a great man, rabbi Eliezer Ben Yaʿqov would not have put himself beneath him. (Peah 8:8, 30a) Sam. ʾlwly d-ʾnh if.neg rel-1cs mysrh torment.ptcl.fs

mtpwgg encouraged.ptcl.ms

b-ḥzwt-kwn hwt in-sight-2mp be.pf.3fs

rwḥ-y soul-1cs

mn-y from-1cs

If I were not encouraged by your sight, my soul would have been in pain. (TM 26b) Syr.107 w-mānā and-what

d-yattīr rel-more

men from

hādē ʾīt dem.fs there.is

ʾellā da-nḥallep ʾatrā if.neg rel-change.pf.3ms place

What would have been better than this, if not to change place? (Hoffmann 1880:239) JPA108 ʾillumāne if.neg

d-iqrā rel-call.impf.3ms

tarnəgolā cock

yāt-āk acc-2ms

w-qāṭel and-kill.ptcl.ms

yāt-āk acc-2ms

hāwe-nā māḥe be.ptcl.ms-1cs hit.ptcl.ms

If the cock had not called, I would have smote and killed you. (Gen. R. 36:1) Mand. w-hda minai-hun and-one from-3mp

l-nhura la-nisaq ʾla to-light neg-go up.impf.3mp if.neg

d-saliq rel-go up.ptcl.ms

Hibil Ziua PN No one of them would ascend to the light, if Hibil Ziwa did not ascend. (Nöldeke 1875:478)

106

80–6). 107 108

For more examples with ʾillule in both Aramaic and Hebrew see Lambert (1884:299, exx. For ʾellū lā d-, see Cureton (1864 *4:4–6). For ʾellā d-, see Ḥag. 1, 1 2a.

61

ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION JBA109 mā gabrā wə-mā gabrā what man and-what man

ʾī if

lāw neg

d-Harpanyā mātēh rel-Harpanite come.ptcl.ms

What a man [he could have been], were Harpa not his birthplace. (Yeb. 17a)

These complex particles are not found in NENA, where the Aramaic conditional particle was lost and further innovations were made. 2.2.3.3. Borrowing and Innovation Almost all modern Aramaic dialects have replaced the original Aramaic conditional particle with a borrowed particle or an innovation. Most NENA dialects, as well as Mlaḥsô (Central Neo-Aramaic), swapped the common Semitic particle for an IndoIranian particle, agar, the western Neo-Aramaic dialects Baxʿa borrowed the modern Arabic conditional particle ʾidā, and the other dialects innovated (see p. 62). Those dialects that borrowed a conditional particle ended up having a conditional pattern similar to the original Semitic one, where a single particle marks the protasis and no subordination is involved. The only modern dialect that retained the original Aramaic conditional particle is Aradhin, which uses in ( l which is attested in several NENA dialects (Khan 1999:31–2), did not take place in the western Neo-Aramaic dialects; thus, unlike in Arbel, phonological processes cannot explain the use of l- as a subordinator here. 112

64

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC

mentioned above, in its capacity as a conditional particle, the form does not inflect and is frozen in the form of the 3ms past tense (see Table 4 above). The use of frozen copula forms is not unknown in the region. Syrian Arabic uses a frozen form of the verb ‘to be,’ kān, in conditional clauses. The verb, always in the perfect, normally appears with the particle ʾiza (Brustad 2000:260). Lebanese Arabic occasionally uses the frozen imperfect form of the verb, kūn, with the conditional particle law: law if

kūn be.impf.3ms

šəft-u see.pf.1cs-3ms

kənt be.pf.1cs

hrebt flee.pf.1cs

If I had seen him, I would have fled. (Feghali 1928:258)

See the following table for a summary of some of the relevant combinations in both Syrian and Lebanese Arabic: Table 6: Conditional particles in Levantine Arabic Lebanese113

Syrian114

realis

ʾiza+pf/ b impf / ø verb

ʾiza+pf/ b impf / ø verb

irrealis

ʾiza kān + impf / b impf law kūn + pf / b impf

ʾiza kān + impf / b impf law kān + pf / b impf

There is some correspondence between the use of the frozen verbal copula in the Neo-Aramaic forms and the Arabic forms; however, the Arabic dialects still use a distinctive conditional particle, while the Neo-Aramaic dialects have lost their original conditional particle.115 Although many Semitic languages and Aramaic dialects may express condition without a specific particle marking the protasis, 116 these patterns are in fact quite rare in Aramaic and thus are unlikely to motivate a complete change of the system, as we find it in Maʿlula.117 Based on Feghali (1928:256). Cypriot Arabic, unfortunately, tells us nothing about the situation in early Levantine Arabic, because it has borrowed its conditional particle from Greek: ʾan. 114 Based on Cowell (1964:331–8). 115 Baxʿa borrowed a particle from Arabic, but since it does not use any of the Aramaic conditional particles, loss may have occurred there, too. 116 Note that this is not uncommon among world languages, especially for irreal conditionals. Cf. English with a relic subjunctive: Were I to study at Oxford, I would have a posh accent; German hätte er das getan, wäre ich glücklich gewesen ‘Had he done that, I would have been happy.’ However, these languages usually have a special ‘hypothetical’ verbal form (subjunctive or French le conditionnel). 117 See, for example, Egyptian Aramaic, where occasionally the protasis and apodosis are unmarked. In these unmarked conditional clauses, the word order is identical to the word order of the matrix sentence (V-first, see Muraoka & Porten 1998:296, §78) and the meaning is created by the juxtaposition, not by any special marker or tense: 113

ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION

65

Since the late Aramaic dialects already show a significant reduction of the conditional particle, both phonologically (JBA ʾi) and syntactically (late Samaritan Aramaic is one example), it is possible that this situation was ripe for a borrowing or calque. Compare the situation in NENA, where many dialects use an Iranian conditional particle. It seems more likely that the use of frozen copulas in the local Arabic dialects was calqued in Western Neo-Aramaic. If other Neo-Aramaic dialects are an example, we may suggest that the conditional particle was lost in these dialects as well; the loss of the Aramaic conditional particle may have followed the calquing of the Arabic kān/kūn, as the Arabic conditional particle was not borrowed (except in Baxʿa). We have, however, no historical attestation for this process, and we can only speculate as to the order of the changes.118 2.2.3.4. Discussion The use of the relative particle with conditional particles is syntactically redundant for two reasons: the protasis is clearly marked as such by the conditional particle; the apodosis can be marked as well by waw-apodosis, common in other Semitic languages and several Aramaic dialects. There seems to be no adduced meaning or emphasis added to these patterns in comparison to non-subordinated conditionals. Moreover, this use is unique to Aramaic; the only other Semitic language which uses this pattern, albeit once, is Mishnaic Hebrew.119 Since there is no attestation of the pattern in Biblical Hebrew, an Aramaic calque in Mishnaic Hebrew is highly likely. The development of the pattern is indicative of the spread of the relative particle d- as a marker of non-matrix sentences in Aramaic. The use of d- in conditional clauses was especially triggered by similar conditional patterns that show formal subordination, like mā d- and other temporal subordinators, like k-d. Though mā d- was developed relatively early (see Section 3.3), the complete spread mḥr ʾw ywm tmwt pṭḥyh w-br dkr w-nqbh lʾ ʾyty l-h mn tomorrow or day die.impf.3fs PN1 and-son male and-female neg there is to-3fs ʾsḥwr bʿl-h ʾsḥwr hw yrtn-h b-nksy-h w-qnyn-h by PN2 husband-3fs PN2 3ms inherit.3ms-3fs in-properties-3fs and-assets-3fs If tomorrow or (some other) day, M. shall die not having bore a son or a daughter to her husband A., A. shall inherit her property and her assets (C 15:20–22/B2.6:20-22). In Hebrew and Arabic, these unmarked conditional sentences are allowed when the protasis is very short. 118 The use of a form of a ‘be’ verb as a marker of the protasis is found in other languages as well: Russian esli < est ‘be’+li ‘whether’ is similar to Biblical Hebrew wə-hāyā ʾim. Swahili and Japanese both use a form of the verb ‘be,’ or a reduced predication containing the verb ‘be’ (Traugott 1985:291; Heine & Kuteva 2001:94–5). Heine and Kuteva note that the process COPULA > CONDITIONAL is still not understood and may be related to the process QUESTION > CONDITIONAL (for which, see ibid., 249), where the same word order change marks both a question and a conditional. This cannot be the explanation in Aramaic, as word order change is not consistently used to mark questions and conditionals (see above). 119 See Zevah 2:4 (ʾim šeš-šāḥaṭ . . . ‘if he slaughtered’).

66

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC

of d- in subordinated sentences reached its culmination only in Late Aramaic, when there are no more independent subordinators left in Aramaic. Note also that at least in Syriac, waw-apodosis is used in temporal as well as conditional clauses. Since negated subordinated conditionals are used in both the East and the West, we may assume that the negated conditional was the first innovation and spread first in the East to non-negated conditionals as well. Many of the negative conditional particles are composite particles and contain a negation particle embedded in the conditional (TJ ʾəlāhen d-; Syr., JPA ʾellulā d-; JBA, Mand. ʾellā d-). This negation is not construed as a part of the clause per se. It negates the clause as a whole, not specific parts of it. We may translate such particles as ‘if (it is) not that,’ although the particles rarely originate from a full nexus. The almost complete loss and replacement of the conditional particle in the Modern Aramaic dialects may be traced to a general tendency to borrow subordinators from a neighboring prestigious language, rather than retain the original ones. In Section 2.2.5.7 more examples of this phenomenon are presented. 2.2.4. Causal Clauses The earliest causal subordinator is b-zy, which is a West Semitic feature (see Section 2.2.1). This subordinator is found in Egyptian Aramaic and later in Palmyrene, but is quickly replaced by a set of other subordinators: b-dīl d-, l-qābal d-, and meṭṭul d-.120

Müller-Kessler (2001:190, n. 44) lists a large number of causal conjunctions which she claims to be West Aramaic. In this sub-chapter, only the main causal subordinators will be reviewed. Nevertheless, the conjunctions listed in Müller-Kessler should be evaluated carefully; though they are all West Aramaic, they do not all belong to the same dialectal group. 120

67

ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION 2.2.4.1. b-dyl d- ‘because, in order that’ Table 7: The distribution and function of b-dyl (d-) Middle Aramaic

Late West Aramaic

Preposition

Subordinator

Palm.

meaning uncertain

causal

TO

causal

result

QA

causal

Dan.

----

----

OSyr.

----

----

Neof.

----

----122

Sam.

causal

result/causal

CPA

causal

result/causal

JPA

‘according to’

result/causal

PsJ

causal

result

121

causal

The causal particle b-dyl d- is used in many Middle Aramaic dialects alongside the West Semitic b-dy. It does not occur in any Official Aramaic text, where dyl- is attested as an independent genitive marker. B-dyl d- has two attested functions: a causal (‘because, since’) and a result (‘so that, in order that’) subordinating particle. Several dialects use it as a causal preposition (‘because of, on account of’). Since prepositional phrases are the main source of subordinators in Aramaic (see Section 2.2.5), the existence of the preposition b-dyl is probably the first stage before developing into a subordinator. Sokoloff (1974:145) claims that the attestation of bdyl dy in 11QtgJob 29:7 (b]dyl dy lbwš-k . . . ‘because your garment . . .’) is the only attestation of this particle in Qumran. Since Sokoloff has identified many Official Aramaic features in this text, he suggests that this subordinator is “a modification of a later copyist” and not an original feature.123 There are, however, several other examples of this subordinator in texts from Qumran, some of which are fragmentary. 124 Moreover, the precursor for the subordinator, the preposition b-dyl- ‘because of,’ is also attested in Qumran;125

It is not clear whether the preposition ʿl dyl is related to b-dyl, as ʿl by itself is a causal preposition; it may be an analogical construction. 122 The original causal subordinatorin this dialect is probably ʿl d- as it appears in passages deviating from the Hebrew Vorlage. See Golomb (1985:35). 123 Note that Shepherd (2004:85–6) also assumes b-dyl dy is an addition, but he claims it was already added by the translator to deal with the textual difficulty of the original. 124 See 4Q550c f1iii:2, 4Q555 f1:1, 4Q562 f4:2, 4Q562 f9_10:3, and 11Q10 29:7, besides several other reconstructed examples. 125 See 1Q20 11:14, 20:10, 25, 26, and 11Q10 38:3, among others. 121

68

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC

therefore, the existence of a subordinator bdyl d- should be considered a genuine Qumran Aramaic feature, though perhaps only a newcomer. As mentioned above, the subordinator b-dyl d- is used only in the West: it is used as a causal subordinator in Middle Aramaic, but almost exclusively as a result subordinator in Late Aramaic, where it occurs only with the prefix conjugation, with the exception of Samaritan Aramaic, where both functions are attested: 126 Causal Subordinator (Middle Aramaic): Palm. ṣlmʾ monument

dnh . . . dy dem.ms rel

slq go up.pf.3mp špr be good.pf.3ms

ʿm-h with-3ms l-hwn to-3mp

ʾqym raise.pf.3mp mn from

l-h for-3ms

prt Forat

bny šyrtʾ dy members.cnst caravan rel

w-mn ʾlgšyʾ b-dyl-dy and-from Vologesia because-rel

This is the monument, which the members of the caravan who went with him from Forat and Vologesia erected for him, because he was good to them. (C 3916:1–3) TO127 wa-ʾəmar and-say.pf.3ms qədām-ay before-1cs

YWY god

lə-ʿālam for-ever

lā neg

yitqayyam persist.impf.3ms

bədil because

d-ʾinnun rel-3mp

dārā generation

bisrā flesh

bišā evil

hāden dem.ms

wə-ʿubād-ehon bišin and-work-3mp evil

The Lord said: this evil generation shall not persist before me forever, because they are flesh and their deeds are evil. (Gen. 6:3)

The difference in syntax may explain the presence of both functions in Samaritan Aramaic; since these functions appear in complementary distribution, they are easily distinguished by speakers, and their meaning and use were not conflated. 127 Examples of bədīl as a preposition in TO: wa-ʾəmar lā ʾaʿbed gəmerā bədil ʾarbəʿin and-say.pf.3ms neg do.impf.1cs destruction because 40 He said: I will not cause destruction because of forty men. (Gen. 18:29) liṭā ʾarʿā bədil-āk cursed land because-2ms The land is cursed because of you. (Gen. 3:17) 126

69

ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION QA128 w-ydʿ and-know.ptcl.ms mn-k from-2ms

ʾnh 1cs

bdyl because

dy lʾ rel neg dy rel

ykwl can.pf.3ms

Rʿwʾl PN

l-mkl-yh to-hold.inf-3ms

huʾ ydʾ 3ms know.ptcl.ms

And I know that Reuel cannot hold it back from you, because he knows. (4Q197 f4ii:4) Sam. b-dyl d-ḥlp because rel-change.pf.3ms

ml-y mʾbd ʾnʾ words-1cs do.inf 1cs

ḥyy-w life-3ms

Because he changed my words, I will kill him. (TM 152b) JPA bə-dil d-šāmʿin-nan because rel-hear.ptcl.mp-1cp ʾūsiyyā dil-āk property of-2ms

ʿəl-āk about-2ms

d-ʾatt rel-2ms

bāʿē seek-ptcl.ms

mzabbən-āh sell.inf-3fs

Because he heard about you that you wish to sell your property. (Taan. 69:1)

Result Subordinator (Late Aramaic): CPA w-hww and-be.pf.3mp

bʿyn seek.ptcl.mp

d-yšgr rel-send.impf.3ms

yt-h cc-3ms

mn-h ṭbw from-3ms favor

ʿl-wy on-3ms

l-bdyl so that

l-yrwšlym to-Jerusalem

They asked him as a favor so that he would send him [Paul] to Jerusalem. (AA 25:3) PsJ129 w-kdwn ktwbw and-thus write.impv.2mp

l-kwn to-2mp

yt acc

šrʾl. Israel

bny members.cnst

yt acc

twšbḥtʾ hymn

hdʾ w-ʾlpʾ-h dem.fs and-teach-3ms

šww-yyh b-pwm-hwn place.impv.2mp-3ms in-mouths-3mp

b-dyl so that

Examples of bədīl as a preposition in Qumran Aramaic: bdyl kn ytmswn because thus be molten.impf.3mp Because of this they will melt. (4Q562 f7:2) w-šbq lhwn ḥṭʾy-hwn bdyl-h and-forgive.pf.3ms to-3mp sins-3mp because-3ms He forgave their sins on account of him. (11QtgJob 38:3) 129 The subordinator bdyl d- is not common in PsJ; it appears a mere eight times. A more regular causal preposition and subordinator is b-gyn (d-) (for example, Gen. 3:17; 8:21). 128

70

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC d-tyhy rel-be.impf.3fs

twšbḥtʾ hymn

hdʾ qdm-yy l-shyd b-bny dem.fs before-1cs to-witness in-sons.cnst

šrʾl Israel

You will write down this hymn and teach it to the Israelites; put it in their mouths so that this hymn may be before me as a witness to the Israelites. (Deut. 31:19) Sam.130 yhbt give.pf.1cs

l-h to-3ms

šm-y bdyl name-1cs so that

d-lʾ rel-neg

ydḥl fear.impf.3ms

I gave him my name so that he would not be afraid. (TM 16b) JPA lā ʾemarit ken neg say.pf.1cs thus

ʾellā but

bə-dil so that

d-lā rel-neg

yikpor deny.impf.3ms

bə-qitōnā in-pot

I did not say so, but rather so that he will not deny (the existence of) the water pot. (Qid. 64:1)

When translating the Biblical Hebrew subordinators lə-maʿan (ʾǎšer) and baʿǎbur (ʾǎšer), TO mostly uses the subordinator bə-dil d-.131 There are three examples of bə-dil d- as a causal subordinator in this dialect,132 though bə-dil is found as a causal preposition regularly.

The particle l-bdyl also functions as a coordinating particle ‘therefore’: w-ʾdkr yt qʿym-y lbdyl ʾmr and-remember.impf.1cs acc covenant-1cs therefore say.pf.3ms l-bny i rʾl ʾnh YHWH to-sons.cnst Israel 1cs god “And remember my covenant,” therefore, he said to the Israelites: I am the Lord. (TM 86a) 131 BH kî, both as a complementizer (‘that’) and a causal subordinator (‘because’), is consistently translated with ʾəre; this is indicative of a mechanical translation, dictated by the form, rather than its meaning or function. 132 The only exceptions where the subordinator bə-dil d- carries a causal meaning are Gen. 3:11, 6:3, and 39:9. In Gen. 3:11, bə-dil d- is used to translate lə-biltī, since it is its regular translation. This particle functions in BH as a negative result subordinatorbefore finite clauses (see Waltke & O’Connor 1990: 639–40, §38.3c), but in Gen. 3:11 lə-biltī is used to negate an infinitival clause, with no causal or resultative meaning. The use of bə-dil d- here is a mechanical translation, rather than a meditated choice. The Hebrew text in both Gen. 6:3 and 39:9 uses irregular causal subordinators, bə-šaggam and ba-ʾašer respectively, which may have been unclear to the translator of TO. Note also that in these last two examples, the clause contains a verb in the suffix conjugation; normally, in Aramaic result clauses introduced by bədil d-, the verb is in the prefix conjugation. 130

71

ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION BH ʾimrî nāʾ ʾǎḥôt-î ʾātt say.impv.2fs adv sister-1cs 2fs

ləmaʿan so that

yîṭab l-î improve.impf.3ms to-1cs

ba-ʿǎbûr-ēk on account-2fs Say now that you are my sister so that I’ll benefit on account of you. (Gen. 12:13) TO ʾemari say.impv.2fs

kəʿan now

da-ʾəḥāt ʾatt rel-sister 2fs

bə-dil d-yiṭab so that rel-improve.impf.3ms

l-i to-1cs

bə-dil-ik on account-2fs

The mixing of causal and result meaning is not unusual. Many other particles have such a double meaning: bə-gin d- in JPA and PsJ. In JBA ʾammaṭṭūl and in Mandaic aminṭul ‘because’ carry a result meaning ‘so that’ with the imperfect.133 Thus, while there is a rather neat distribution of meaning according to the data presented above, excluding TO, it is not clear that this is useful for dialectal subgrouping within West Aramaic, as the dividing line between result and cause is too vague. In the East, the subordinator bdyl d- does not exist; the common causal conjunction is meṭṭul d- and derivations thereof (see Section 2.2.4.2 below). In Mandaic and Syriac the particle b-dyl does not exist even as a preposition. In JBA, bə-dil- is used as a causal preposition; however, the existence of this preposition could be a loan from a western Jewish dialect.134 A similar phenomenon is attested in OSA with the causal subordinator b-dt or l-qbl d-, which have both a causal and a result meaning (Beeston 1962:64, §55:3). 134 According to CAL, there is one example of bdyl d- in the Geonic literature and one in the Magic Bowl Koine. Sokoloff (2002:186a) has one example in JBA from a manuscript not represented in printed editions: nāšīm bə-mā ʾi zākyān? bə-dil d-ʾāmṭyān bənay-hū women in-what be worthy.ptcl.fp because rel-bring.ptcl.fp sons-3fp lə-bē kništā to-house.cnst congregation On account of what are women deserving? Because they bring their sons to the synagogue. (Ber. 17a) The printed editions have a version which lacks this subordinator: bə-ʾaqruyē bənayhū lə-bē kništā in-brought.ptcl.mp sons-3fp to-house.cnst congregation On account of having brought their sons to the synagogue. These three examples do not merit the inclusion of a subordinator bdyl d- ‘because’ in JBA’s lexicon as native words. Moreover, in JBA, the preposition bədīl or bə-d-īd is related to the possessive function of the particle, not to the causal subordinator; that is, a causal subordinator 133

72

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC

The structure of b-dyl d- is interesting, as dyl- functions as a possessive preposition from the earliest sources of Aramaic (one of which is Sef. III 20). Moreover, prior to Middle Aramaic, it had nothing to do with causality or result (Fitzmyer 1995:117; Degen 1969:59).135 Furthermore, the causal subordinator and preposition are normally introduced with the preposition b-, with or without additional preceding prepositions. It is, therefore, possible that Middle Aramaic bdyldid not develop directly from the Old Aramaic dyl-, but rather from one of the functions of the preposition b-. Hence, the process by which the Middle Aramaic subordinator developed may be explained as an extension of the West Semitic causal particle, bd- (see Section 2.2.1). Since in Aramaic subordinators are normally an extension of prepositions, there is constant pressure to have corresponding preposition-subordinator pairs (qādam– qādam d-, ʾayk–ʾayk d-, and others.). In the case of the subordinator b-d-, the prepositional counterpart of such a pair is blocked: bd- can introduce sentences, but b- already exists in Aramaic and does not bear causal meaning. Thus, a causal b- is not possible. Furthermore, the relative particle d- cannot sustain pronominal suffixes (in a phrase such as because of me), since it is itself a pronoun. Therefore, this subordinator could not have had a corresponding preposition. In order to allow pronominal attachment, the preposition l- was added, thus creating an irregular pair: b-dy- (subordinator) and bdy-l- (preposition). The choice of the preposition l- can be explained in one of two ways. While l- is widely used as a result particle in Arabic, there is only one certain independent attestation of it (with the prefix conjugation) in CPA (Rubin 2007:10). There are, however, relics in Aramaic and in Semitic more generally of l- with a result meaning, most likely as an extension of its meaning as a preposition ‘to, for’. When introducing an infinitive, l- marks result. The negative result subordinator in Northwest Semitic is l-mā, which seems to be the resultative l- with a defunct negation particle mā (see Section 2.2.2.1 above). If indeed l-mā retained a relic of lwith a result function, the use of l- in the non-negative causal / result subordinator, bdyl d-, is natural.136 In addition, the preposition l- is used to mark definite animate could not have developed out of this preposition in JBA. The subordinator bi-d- ‘in a case where’ is also not a retention from an earlier known dialect. It seems to be an innovation based on one of the functions of the preposition b-. In short, there is no good reason to assume the existence of a causal subordinator b-dyl d- in JBA in normal native use. 135 The possessive preposition dyl is comprised of the determinative-relative dy and the preposition l, and developed from an adnominal prepositional phrase (Pat-El & Treiger, 2008). 136 Another possibility is that dyl- represented two separate meanings: benefactive (‘for the favor of’) and possession (‘belonging to’). Pardee (1976:226) suggests that in Ugaritic l- may be used as a benefactive in certain contexts (though he does not use this term): dbḥt byy bn šry l ʾatt d b-qbr sacrifice.cnst PN1 son.cnst PN2 to PN3 rel in-tomb The sacrifice of B, son of Š, for/in favor of A who is in the grave. (24.323) This use of l- can be found also in Biblical Hebrew:

73

ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION

direct objects.137 In other words, the preposition l- is chosen over other prepositions because it is associated with animate nouns, nouns that can denote agents of ‘causing.’ Later, most dialects that used the preposition bdyl- extended it to function as a subordinator with a following relative particle d-: bdyl d-. This is the reason that many western dialects, like Qumran Aramaic and Palmyrene, use both subordinators, bdy- and bdyl d- simultaneously. The process is basically one of analogy: bātar (prep.): bātar d- (conj.) :: bə-dīl (prep.) : X = bə-dīl d- (conj.). The cycle of change started from the West Semitic subordinator bd- and ended up as Aramaic bdyl daround the 1st century B.C. 2.2.4.2. meṭṭul d- ‘because’ This particle is commonly attested in Late Aramaic as both a preposition and a subordinator (followed by d-). Among the eastern Late Aramaic dialects, JBA and Mandaic have a compound preposition *ʿal maṭṭūl > JBA ʾammaṭṭūl,138 Mandaic ʾamintul, while in Syriac, the preposition is simple, meṭṭūl. Syr. w-men and-from

maḥšūlā storm

benyān-eh building-3ms

ʿal on

lā neg

nāpel fall.ptcl.ms

šūʿā rock

d-kīpā rel-stone

meṭṭūl because

da-sleq rel-go up.pf.3ms

l-eh to-3ms

šārīrtā true

He does not fall on account of the tempest, because his building had been built upon the rock of the true Stone [=Christ]. (Aph. .de Fide 8:14–6) Mand. apriš reveal.pf.3ms d rel

u-galil u-amar and-disclose.pf.3ms and-say.pf.3ms

aprišinun reveal.pass.ptcl.mp

aminṭul because

d rel

l-kul-hun to-all-3mp

Yawar-Ziwa PN

ana 1cs

razia secrets

Yawar-Ziwa PN gawaiia internal

aminṭul because

u-braiia and-external

hu mara d rabuta cop lord rel greatness

ʾattem lōʾ ʿammî wə-ʾānōkî lōʾ ʾehye lā-kem 2mp neg people-1cs and-1cs neg be.impf.1cs to-2mp You are not my people and I am not concerned with you. (Hos. 1:9) Thus, possession and concern are marked with similar means, and dy-l could have been interpreted in two ways: concerning X or belonging to X. 137 Except Palmyrene, this direct object marker l- is found in all dialects that attest b-dyl. 138 The shorter forms, ʾammaṭṭu, ʾaṭṭu, are used in JBA only as prepositions or in order to introduce rhetorical questions (Qid. 33a; AZ 28b).

74

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC Yawar-Ziwa revealed, disclosed, and said in order that all the internal and external secrets will be revealed: Because I, Yawar-Ziwa, am the lord of greatness. (1012 Questions, I:6) JBA bablāʾē Babylonians

ṭipšāʾē stupid

ʾammaṭṭūl because

d-yātbī b-ʾarʿā rel-reside.ptcl.mp in-land

ḥəšūkā dark

ʾāmrī šmaʿtā di-mḥaškā say.ptcl.mp discussion rel-darkened Stupid Babylonians, because they reside in a dark land, engage in an unenlightened legal discussion. (Zeb. 60b)

There is evidence for the existence of this subordinator in two Middle Aramaic dialects with ties to the East: Palmyrene and Old Syriac. In Old Syriac, the subordinator shows a simple form, as in Syriac, while Palmyrene uses a complex prepositional phrase.139 OSyr. mṭl d-ʾ[mr] because rel-say.pf.3ms

l-y to-1cs

Šʿydw PN1

d-Bʿyšw . . .qblt mnh rel-PN2 receive.pf.1cs from-3ms

mr-y d-ʾtbʿ mn-h lord-1cs rel-demand.impf.1cs from-3ms d-Wdwd rel-PN3

dynrʾ dinarii

hlyn dem.mp

mʾʾ w-ḥmšyn 100 and-50

Because my lord Šaʿidu told me to demand orders from Baʿišu, I have received from Wdwd these 150 dinarii. (Drijvers & Healey 1999, P2:20–22) Palm.140 kl l-mṭl dy all to-because rel nwyt gmḥ-why next to niches-3ms

plg half tltʾ 3

nsb take.pf.3ms

mnt-h share-3ms

plg-h half-3ms

rwḥʾ convenience

Because he has taken half as his portion, his half is next to his three niches. (Ingholt 1962:106, l. 7–8)

In western Late Aramaic, PsJ uses the particle mṭwl as a preposition and as a subordinator. The preposition has the form ʾmṭwl- with pronominal suffixes (Gen. 12:13; Lev. 9:7, and others), which may connect it to JBA. PsJ mṭwl d-ḥṭt because rel-sin.pf.3fs

b-mylḥʾ b-prswmy ʿnyʾ in-salt in-shame.cnst poor.p

hʾ there

hyʾ ʿbydʾ 3fs make.pass.ptcl.fs

In Palmyrene, the particle occurs also as a preposition, mṭl kwt (Hillers & Cussini 1996:380a), which further shows that mṭl is a part of the Palmyrene lexicon. 140 The exact meaning of this passage is not clear. Ingholt (1962:113) reads kl l-mṭl ‘so that,’ but this is unsubstantiated etymologically and does not make the passage clearer. 139

ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION

75

ʿmwd dy-mlḥ pillar rel-salt Because she sinned in shaming the poor with salt, she was made into a pillar of salt. (Gen. 19:26)

Other western Late Aramaic dialects do not use this particle. Samaritan Aramaic has a preposition b-mṭy ‘because of,’ which originated from a different source: √mṭy ‘come.’ TO and JPA do not use mṭl as a preposition or a subordinator. The origin of this particle is contested. Sokoloff (2002:140a) traces it to the root √ṭll ‘cover.’ This interpretation seems to be substantiated by the Urmi (NENA) preposition ṭlā ‘for,’ whose base before pronominal suffixes shows the root √ṭll: ṭlālok ‘for you’ (Nöldeke 1868:172).141 Note, however, that most early dialects use √ṭll primarily in the D form, not the G, thus all three root consonants (ṭ-l-l) should be present in the orthography, while the particle mṭl shows only one l. In addition, there is no doubling of the final l- with the addition of pronominal suffixes, as would have been expected, were this form to come from √ṭll. Furthermore, it is unclear how a semantic shift from ‘cover’ to ‘because’ occurred. Brockelmann (1928:382a), following Hoffmann (1897:321), suggested a nominal form from √nṭl ‘lift,’ though he marks it with a question mark. Historically, this is more plausible, since a noun maṭṭul (C from √nṭl) ‘burden’ is attested in TO and Neofiti. This etymology also accounts better for the consonantal structure and meaning of the particle. It explains both the doubling of ṭ in Syriac and JBA, and the n- in Mandaic. In addition, we may postulate a semantic shift similar to the following: the burden of > on (the) account of > because (of). The only problem with this etymology is that it is the only attestation of a bare noun used as a subordinator in Aramaic (see more below in Section 2.2.5); however, dialects which attest to a noun maṭṭul ‘burden’ do not attest to a preposition maṭṭul ‘because of,’ so it is possible that the noun had already become grammaticalized as a preposition and disappeared as a noun, before it was used as subordinator, thus attesting to N > Prep. > subordinator, rather than the unattested and unlikely N > subordinator. Many dialects use this subordinator with an additional preposition. JBA and Mandaic expand it with ʿal, and Palmyrene with l-. The preposition *ʿal is known to carry causal meaning in other Semitic languages, such as Hebrew ʿal kēn ‘therefore, because of that’ (Gen. 2:24).142 If indeed ṭlā is derived from meṭṭul, another explanation for the Urmi base form before pronominal suffixes is a reanalysis of the corresponding base form found in Syriac, meṭṭulātwith a following preposition l-. In fact, this is exactly what Nöldeke suggests in his discussion of the form. He further suggests that the forms tātox, etc., are also from meṭṭulāt-, with a ṭ>t assimilation, which, if true, further substantiates the interpretation of the Urmi form (Nöldeke 1868:172). 142 Note also Official Aramaic ʿal zy ‘because’; JPA ʿal šūm, ʿal yad ‘because of’; Syriac and JBA ʿal d- ‘because.’ It is possible that the Aramaic root √ʿll ‘cause’ (cf. Syriac ʿelltā ‘cause’) is a secondary development from the causal meaning of the preposition ʿal (< √ʿly ‘go up’). This 141

76

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC

2.2.4.3. Conclusion Some of the prepositions used for causal clauses are the same as those used for result clauses, but normally the distribution is clear-cut. The original, probably inherited, subordinator, bd-, is found in some dialects until Late Aramaic, but is mostly replaced by other subordinators. The following table summarizes the distribution of the main subordinators discussed in this section:143 Table 8: Distribution of causal subordinators in Aramaic b-db-dīl dmeṭṭul d-

OfA MidA

EgA

√

----

----

Palm.

√

causal

√

Ezra TO

QA

Dan.

OSyr. LateA

West

Neof. PsJ

CPA JPA

East

Sam. Syr.

JBA

Mand.

---√

2:20 ---------√

---------√

145

----146 ----

----

result

causal ----------

result

result / causal result

result / causal ----------

-------

---- (prep)144 ---√

----

√ (+prep.) ---------√ √ √

The main conclusions to be drawn are the following: bd- and bdyl d- are Western Aramaic features, and are not attested in eastern Late Aramaic; the root is not attested in Hebrew, where ʿal also carries a causal meaning. In Arabic, where the root is attested, it carries a different meaning. 143 The subordinator lwqbl d- is not included in this table, as it occurs only in Biblical Aramaic (and in Qumran Aramaic as a preposition). In addition, it is not a specifically Aramaic particle. It occurs in OSA as a causal and result subordinator (Beeston 1962:64, §55:3). 144 Müller-Kessler (2001:190, n. 44). 145 This subordinator occurs in Syriac, but not commonly; see, for example: ḥāyē miskenā ʾīt hū w-hāllēn d-ʿamm-eh bnay lwīt-eh live.ptcl.ms poorly 3ms and-dem.mp rel-with-3ms sons.cnst accompaniment-3ms ba-dšālem hwā ṣebyān-hōn b-hādē l-dīl-eh because-rel complete be.pf.3ms wish-3mp in-dem.fs to-of-3ms He lived poorly, he and those who accompanied him, because their will was in agreement with his in this [matter]. (John of Tella 60:3–4) 146 The conjunctions bəd- and bid-lā occur in JBA, but are not causal.

ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION

77

subordinator bdyl d- is mostly a causal subordinator in Middle Aramaic, but a result subordinator in Late Aramaic. Yet it is not clear how useful this distinction is for dialectology, since these meanings are often interchangeable. The subordinator meṭṭūl d- is not used in Palestine proper, and it is the main causal subordinator in eastern Late Aramaic. It is an innovation of Middle Aramaic, probably from the root √nṭl. 2.2.5. Sources for Adverbial Subordination Meillet (1982:159) asserted that “ l es origines des conjonctions sont d’une diversit infinite. . . . Il n’y a pas d’esp ce de mot qui ne puisse livrer des conjonctions.” However, it is well documented by now that although Meillet’s assertion may point to a general tendency, in specific languages the subordinators originate from a rather restricted set of morphemes. Since embedded clauses are syntactically equivalent to the simple constituents they stand for, one may assume that they may be constructed with similar elements. Indeed, this is the case for many languages. For example, the temporal subordinator ‘while’ in English developed from the dative form of the noun hwile ‘time’ in adverbial position (Hopper & Traugott 2003:90–1). Kortmann (1998:483) notes that languages of the European Sprachbund mostly utilize complementizers, adverbs, adpositions, and relative and interrogative markers to mark adverbial subordination.147 The West Semitic languages exhibit a remarkable array of forms, from various sources. In this respect it is interesting to determine the sources from which Aramaic creates subordinating conjunctions. The sources for adverbial subordinators are important, not only because they help position Aramaic more accurately in the genetic tree, but especially because they tell us a lot about the development of the category adverb in this language. It is beyond the scope of this book to review the situation in all the Semitic languages; thus the following discussion will mostly concentrate on Aramaic and the developments therein. The following lists catalogue the main subordinators, and are intended to be comprehensive, if not exhaustive. The entries are ordered alphabetically. The order of the dialects under each entry is chronological.

However, since Kortmann’s study is synchronic, his evaluation of terms like ‘adverb,’ ‘preposition’ is based on the function of these words in the language phase where the subordinator is documented. Thus, ‘since’ is considered both an adverb and a preposition, without addressing the question of which function is original and which is a later or secondary development (Kortmann 1998:482). 147

78

STUDIES IN THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF ARAMAIC

2.2.5.1. Prepositional Phrases 148 Prepositional phrases are by far the most common source of subordinators in Aramaic. There is a tendency to stack prepositions, mostly with l-, b-, and mn. The latter preposition was so common, especially with temporal subordinators, that in Western and Central Neo-Aramaic it is an almost obligatory fixture, particularly with temporal subordinators: Ṭūrōyo: bări me d- ‘before,’ meqəm me d- ‘before,’ bəttər me d- ‘after’; Western Neo-Aramaic iqdum mi-d ‘before,’ bōtar mi-d ‘after,’ emmat mi-d ‘whenever.’ These Neo-Aramaic subordinators may also be analogous to the basic temporal conjunction in Aramaic is men d- ‘when,’ which still exists in Ṭūrōyo (me d-).149 ʾyk dy ‘as.’ OfA (Bis. Col. V:2), JPA and PsJ (also hykmh d), Neof. hyk mh d-, Syr., which also has derivatives: ʾakmā d ‘as long as’ (< mā d- ‘while’), ʾakznā d ‘as’ (< znā ‘kind’) OSyr. (Drijvers & Healey 1999, P1:23); In Mandaic another form is used: akuat d ‘so that.’ This particle is in suppletion with the prep. k- in East Aramaic.150 In some Semitic languages k- is used as a conjunction ‘so that’ (cf. Classical Arabic kay). The subordinator may also be found as akuat, with an assimilation of the voiced dental d- to the voiceless dental t- (