Page 1

THE VERBAL SYSTEM OF NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC

BY

ELEANOR COGHILL

Dissertation for the M.Phil. Degree, 1999 Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Cambridge


CONTENTS PREFACE.............................................................................................................................i ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS ............................................................................ ii MAP .................................................................................................................................. iii 1.

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................1 1.1. The Place of North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic in Neo-Aramaic....................................1 1.2. Relationship of NENA to old Eastern Aramaic dialects .........................................3 1.3. Internal Classification of North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic Dialects.............................3 1.3.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................3 1.3.2. Christian Dialects ............................................................................................5 1.3.2.1. History and Classification .........................................................................5 1.3.2.2. Plain of Urmi .............................................................................................6 1.3.2.3. Northern Group..........................................................................................7 1.3.2.4. Ashiret Group ............................................................................................7 1.3.2.5. Southern Group..........................................................................................8 1.3.2.6. The Dialects of the Mosul Plain ................................................................9 1.3.3. Jewish Dialects ..............................................................................................10 1.3.3.1. History and Classification .......................................................................10 1.3.3.2. North-western Group...............................................................................11 1.3.3.3. South-western ..........................................................................................11 1.3.3.4. South-eastern Group ................................................................................12 1.3.3.5. Azerbaijan (and adjoining areas of Turkish Kurdistan) ..........................12 1.4. Contact with other languages ................................................................................13 1.5. The NENA Verbal System ....................................................................................13 1.5.1. Verbal Bases ..................................................................................................14 1.5.2. Historical Origin of the bases ........................................................................14 1.5.3. Morphology of QaÓil and QÓil........................................................................16 1.5.3.1. Subject and Object Affixes......................................................................16 1.5.3.2. -wa-..........................................................................................................16 1.5.4. The verb ‘to be’ .............................................................................................17 1.5.5. Verbal Classes ...............................................................................................18 1.6. Structure of the Dissertation ..................................................................................19

2.

QATIL FORMS.........................................................................................................20 2.1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................20 2.2. MORPHOLOGY ...................................................................................................20 2.2.1. QaÓlin .............................................................................................................20 2.2.2. Ki-qaÓlin.........................................................................................................21 2.2.2.1. ki- and ke .................................................................................................21 2.2.2.2. k-..............................................................................................................21 2.2.2.3. Ø- ~ k- .....................................................................................................22 2.2.2.4. ui- .............................................................................................................23 2.2.2.5. Ø- .............................................................................................................23


2.2.3. Bit-qaÓlin........................................................................................................23 2.2.3.1. bit-/ bid ....................................................................................................24 2.2.3.2. bit- ø b- ...................................................................................................24 2.2.3.3. bit ~ b- .....................................................................................................24 2.2.3.4. b- only......................................................................................................25 2.2.3.5. b-øgbe-....................................................................................................25 2.2.3.6. d-..............................................................................................................25 2.2.3.7. No future-prefix.......................................................................................26 2.2.4. Qam-qaÓil-......................................................................................................26 2.2.5. Other particles used with QaÓlin ....................................................................27 2.2.6. QÓil with auxiliary verbs ..............................................................................28 2.2.6.1. (k-)QaÓil with copula................................................................................28 2.2.6.2. Future tense auxiliaries............................................................................28 2.2.7. Forms with -wa..............................................................................................28 2.2.8. Negation.........................................................................................................29 2.3. FUNCTION ...........................................................................................................31 2.3.1. QaÓlin and Ki-qaÓlin .......................................................................................33 2.3.2. QaÓlin .............................................................................................................33 2.3.3. QaÓlinwa.........................................................................................................36 2.3.4. Ki-qaÓlin.........................................................................................................37 2.3.4.1. Present .....................................................................................................37 2.3.4.2. Past ..........................................................................................................38 2.3.4.3. Future.......................................................................................................39 2.3.5. Ki-qaÓlinwa ....................................................................................................39 2.3.6. Bit-qaÓlin........................................................................................................39 2.3.7. Bit-qaÓlinwa ...................................................................................................40 2.3.8. Qam-qaÓlin-....................................................................................................40 2.3.9. Qam-qaÓlinwa- ...............................................................................................40 2.3.10. Ki-, Bit and Qam- ..........................................................................................41 2.3.11. l (k-)QaÓlin ...................................................................................................41 2.3.11.1. Present ...................................................................................................41 2.3.11.2. Past ........................................................................................................41 2.3.11.3. Future.....................................................................................................41 2.3.11.4. Discourse ...............................................................................................42 2.3.12. (Ki-)QaÓlin with copula .................................................................................42 2.3.13. Summary........................................................................................................42 2.4. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT.........................................................................43 2.4.1. The Development of QaÓlin ...........................................................................43 2.4.1.1. Development of Function ........................................................................43 2.4.1.2. Development of Form..............................................................................44


2.4.2. 2.4.3. 2.4.4. 2.4.5. 2.4.6. 2.4.7. 2.4.8. 2.4.9. 3.

The Development of ki-/k-.............................................................................44 The Development of ui- .................................................................................47 No General Present prefix .............................................................................48 The development of bit-/b- ............................................................................49 The development of Qam-.............................................................................49 The Development of l-.................................................................................50 Iranian Influence............................................................................................50 Implications for classification .......................................................................51

QVIL FORMS ...........................................................................................................53 3.1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................53 3.2. MORPHOLOGY ...................................................................................................53 3.2.1. QÓilli and QÓilin................................................................................................53 3.2.2. Forms extended by -wa- ................................................................................54 3.2.3. Prefixed particles ...........................................................................................54 3.2.4. QÓil with A- and L-suffixes (QÓil-A-L)..........................................................54 3.2.5. QÓil with auxiliary verbs ................................................................................55 3.3. FUNCTION ...........................................................................................................55 3.3.1. QÓilli...............................................................................................................55 3.3.1.1. Perfective Past .........................................................................................55 3.3.1.2. Present Perfect ........................................................................................56 3.3.1.3. Pluperfect (Past Perfect) .........................................................................57 3.3.1.4. Present and Future ...................................................................................57 3.3.2. Function of QÓilli with a prefix......................................................................58 3.3.3. Lexical limitations on the distribution of QÓilli forms...................................59 3.3.4. Functions of QÓilin.........................................................................................59 3.3.5. Function of the extended forms .....................................................................62 3.4. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT.........................................................................62 3.4.1 The Origin of the Form..................................................................................62 3.4.2. The grammaticalization of QÓilli ...................................................................69 3.4.2.1. Loss of grammatical agreement...............................................................69 3.4.2.2. Boundedness............................................................................................70 3.4.2.3. Extension by analogy...............................................................................71 3.4.3 Fossilized Auxiliaries ....................................................................................75 3.4.3.1. -wa-..........................................................................................................75 3.4.3.2. Verbal Prefixes ........................................................................................75 3.4.4. Evidence for the influence of Iranian on the emergence of QÓ¯l l¯ ................75

4.

CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................78

APPENDIX .......................................................................................................................79 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................83


PREFACE This dissertation is a survey of the dialects of North Eastern Neo-Aramaic that have so far been described, with respect to certain aspects of the verbal system. The aim is to bring together the disparate sources on these dialects to give an overall picture, while indicating the differences between the dialects, and to discuss how the dialects may have reached their present form. Because of the breadth of dialects covered, it has been necessary to restrict my sources to grammars or grammatical descriptions rather than original linguistic analysis or new fieldwork. The facts presented, therefore, are as gleaned from these published sources. The analysis of historical development in Chapters 2 and 3 is a summary of previous work plus my own arguments for and against the various theories and occasionally my own suggestions. References are given for any material or ideas that are not my own. Where a statement and an example have the same reference, the reference is only given for the statement.

i


ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS Abbreviations Abs. Azer. B.A. Ch. Coll. Emph. f. Fut. Gen. Pres. Impfve. Ind. IPA J. Lit. m. NENA N-S. N.T. p. Pres. s. Subj. T.A. Vb.

Absolute State Azerbaijani Biblical Aramaic Christian Colloquial Emphatic State feminine Future General Present Imperfective Indicative International Phonetic Alphabet Jewish Literary masculine North-eastern Neo-Aramaic Neo-Syriac Nerwa Texts plural Present singular Subjunctive Talmudic Aramaic, Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud Verb

Symbols ~

conditioned variant

ø A

free variant is equivalent to

<

indicates flatting (see Appendix) is derived from

ii


iii


CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION 1.1.

The Place of North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic in Neo-Aramaic

1.1.1. Aramaic has survived to modern times in dialects native to Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran. The vast majority of speakers are Jews and Christians and due to persecution and the turmoil of this century, a great many are in exile, including virtually all of the Jews. It was estimated in 1989 that there were probably between two and three hundred thousand Aramaic speakers left in the world, but this is decreasing rapidly.1 There are dialects belonging to both of the two ancient branches of Aramaic: Western and Eastern Aramaic2. Modern Western Aramaic is now only spoken in three villages in the AntiLebanon mountains in Syria, Ma‘lÔla, Bakh‘a and Jubb ‘Ad¯n3. These closely-related dialects are together known as Western Neo-Aramaic or Ma‘lÔla Aramaic.4 The remaining Neo-Aramaic dialects, all thought to derive from the Eastern branch of earlier Aramaic, comprise the following three groups: 1. The †uroyo Group: †uroyo, 1994];

5 [JASTROW 1993]

and Mla­s¿q

[JASTROW 1986 (article);

2. Neo-Mandaic [MACUCH 1965; 1989]; 3. North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) dialects. †uroyo and Mla­so are both native to south-eastern Turkey, found only a little further west than the westernmost NENA dialects such as Hertevin and Jezira. †uroyo is spoken in the †Ôr ‘Abd¯n in the province of Mardin. Its speakers live both in the main town Midyat and in neighbouring villages such as M¯din, though the majority now live abroad.6 The majority belong to the Jacobite Church (Syrian Orthodox Church) and call themselves Suryna or ‘Syrians’. Mla­so was only discovered in 1968 by Jastrow and is now thought to be extinct.7 It was spoken further to the north in the village of the same name near Lice in the Diyarbak²r province. Geographically it is on the Northern fringe of the Neo-Aramaic dialects.

1

Hoberman (1989:4, n.3). See Tsereteli (1977:245) and Heinrichs (1990:xi). 3 See Cohen (1979), Correll (1978), Spitaler (1938) and Arnold (1990). 4 Heinrichs (1990:xi). 5 The references given in small capitals are to grammars or other published material on the grammar of the dialect. They do not usually include texts published in the dialects. 6 The number of the villages was about 40 in 1950, according to Jastrow (1986:270). 7 Heinrichs (1990:xii). 2

1


Neo-Mandaic, a relation of Classical Mandaic, was spoken by the Mandaeans in Southern Iraq and Iran but is now on the brink of extinction. The third group, which encompasses far more variety than all the other NeoAramaic families, is North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (henceforth NENA), the subject of this dissertation. 1.1.2. The classification and labelling of the Neo-Aramaic dialects has evolved over time.8 Rosenthal (1964:160-169; 255-262)9 distinguished two groups: ‘Das NeuJungaramische’ (Ma‘lÔla, Bakh‘a and Jubb ‘Ad¯n) and ‘Das Neu-Ostaramische’ encompassing the remaining dialects. Tsereteli (1977:248), however, distinguished three groups: Western (the Ma‘lÔla Group), Central (†uroyo) and Eastern (NENA). There are, however, reasons to link †uroyo more closely with NENA than with Western Neo-Aramaic. Blau (1968:605, n.1), following N»ldeke and Socin, noted: ‘Vuroyo is closely connected with the other Modern Syriac dialects, rather than with the Ma‘lula group, as exhibited e.g. by parallel features in the formation of the verb, the morphologically most important innovation as against older Aramaic.’10

Hoberman (1989:4) supported Blau’s conclusions and pointed out that the connection of the †uroyo group to the Ma‘lÔla group was very weak: ‘The suggested affinity between Vuroyo and Ma‘lÔla is based mainly on a few shared sound changes (> ¾, p>f) and on certain morphological archaisms.’

Jastrow (1990a:90) used the same terms as Tsereteli but in a different way, arguing that NENA (which he termed Eastern Neo-Aramaic or ENA) and †uroyo should be bracketed together under the name of Central Aramaic: ‘Although Vuroyo is separated from ENA by a number of important differences on all levels of language structure and therefore cannot be considered as a subdialect of ENA, it nevertheless shares with ENA a number of common innovations which make it its closest congener. This is corroborated by its geographical proximity to the ENA area, whereas the remaining two Neo-Aramaic languages, Ma‘lÔla and Neo-Mandaic, are both structurally and geographically at a much greater distance from ENA.’

The term North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic was suggested by Hoberman (1988:557, n.2) to distinguish those dialects from Neo-Mandaic which was situated even further east and was only distantly related.

8

A summary may be found in Tsereteli (1977). Cited in Tsereteli ib. 10 Cited in Hoberman (1989:6). 9

2


1.1.3. The considerable difference between the Eastern and Western dialects is especially marked in the verbal system. Western dialects have preserved the older Aramaic verbal forms: the prefix conjugation, YiqÓul, and suffix conjugation, QÓal, while NENA and the †uroyo Group have lost both forms and replaced them with new ones. Neo-Mandaic, however, retained QÓal while losing YiqÓul. The closer relationship of NENA and the †uroyo group is reflected in the innovatory form QÓil-li, based on the old passive participle, that both possess.

1.2.

Relationship of NENA to old Eastern Aramaic dialects

It is in the Late Aramaic Period (c. 200 to c. 1200 AD), that the Western-Eastern dialectal division becomes clearly discernible. For Eastern Aramaic, three dialects are known: Syriac, the language of the Babylonian Talmud (Babylonian Talmudic), and Classical Mandaic. The modern dialects are not direct descendants of these literary forms. This is evident in the cases where NENA retains archaic Aramaic features that had already been lost to the classical languages.11 Rather they derive from ancient vernacular dialects which were never recorded in writing. Nevertheless, the old literary forms are an extremely useful source for reconstructing the development of Neo-Aramaic dialects, and sometimes the modern features can be seen in their incipient stage in the old dialects. Because of the close connection many Christian NENA speakers have to Syriac, as their liturgical language, the modern dialects have often been called Modern Syriac, giving the impression that Syriac is the ancient dialect that is genetically closest to NENA. However, this is not necessarily the case. Hoberman (1989:6), notes that ‘there are archaic elements retained in the modern speech which were absent in Classical Syriac, as well as innovations shared by the modern dialects and Babylonian Talmudic or Mandaic, but lacking in Syriac’. Polotsky (1964:105), following N»ldeke, argued that a closer relative to Classical Syriac was to be found in †uroyo.

1.3.

Internal Classification of North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic Dialects

1.3.1. Introduction The NENA dialects, in all their variety, cannot be discussed without some understanding of how they relate to each other. Their classification is still in its early stages. We are still dependent to a large degree on Maclean’s classification of the Christian dialects.12 Since he wrote, at the end of the 19th Century, the region has undergone great upheavals. Most 11 12

See Maclean (1895:x). Maclean (1895:xii-xv).

3


of the speakers have migrated to other places where they have mixed with speakers of other dialects and languages. This has inevitably resulted in the ‘contamination’ of the dialects. Researchers try to use informants who are from the older generation and who are thought to preserve the old dialect in their speech, but their decisions must be based to some degree on subjective judgement. It is therefore difficult to assess the accuracy of Maclean’s classification, or build on it. Another problem faced is the lack of data at present. Only a minority of the dialects have yet been described at all and so the picture is still very incomplete. Later in this dissertation, we will consider how far the evidence from the verbal system supports the current classification, but any conclusions must remain tentative, due to these limitations. One variable which is prominent in any classification of the NENA dialects is religion.13 Dialects of both Christians and Jews are native to Turkish Kurdistan, Iraqi Kurdistan, Iranian Azerbaijan and Iranian Kurdistan.The religious divide is at times very stark. In Urmi, Salamas and Sanandaj, the Christian and Jewish dialects varied to the extent that they are mutually unintelligible.14 However the dialects are not always so distinct. In Amadiya and the surrounding area, the Christians and Jews seem to have been able to communicate quite easily with a few adjustments of their speech.15 Nevertheless, for convenience, the dialects will be divided into Christian and Jewish. In the following classification, the principal published sources for information on the grammar of the dialects are cited. These vary greatly, however, in scope and usefulness. For some dialects we must rely on scraps of information in Maclean’s survey of the Christian dialects (1895) or passing references in other works. For others our information is restricted to an article. In the best cases, there is a whole grammar devoted to the dialect, but these vary considerably in their approach and what they include or omit. Few cover the functions of the various verbal forms in much detail. The information in this dissertation is gleaned from grammars and rarely from texts, so the texts will generally not be cited in this section. Most NENA dialects can be grouped into a number of sub-families. There are, however, two dialects on the peripheries which are so distinct that they cannot be assigned to any groups yet identified. On the westernmost extent of NENA is the dialect of Hertevin16 (EkindÕzÕ). It is spoken by Christians of the Chaldean Church, none of whom now remain in the village. Jastrow (1971:216,1990:91), Tsereteli (1977:251) and Hoberman (1990:86) all classify Hertevin with the NENA dialects rather than with the neighbouring †uroyo. However it shows some affinities to †uroyo, for instance in the 13

The same is true for Arabic dialects. See, for instance Blanc (1964) on the dialects of Baghdad. Khan (1999:3). 15 Hoberman (1989:8). 16 In this work, I will refer to places by the names used in the principal sources. Often this is the native Neo-Aramaic name. 14

4


retention of the original */­/ (other NENA dialects have /x/) and in the structure of some of its words.17 According to Hoberman: ‘it is the NENA dialect most linguistically divergent and geographically distant, and therefore is of great importance for reconstruction.’18 For the Hertevin dialect a grammar has been published [JASTROW 1988] as well as some articles [JASTROW 1971; GOLDENBERG 1993; PENNACCHIETTI 1991]. The other dialect, also Chaldean, is Senaya spoken in Senna (Sanandaj) in Iranian Kurdistan, on the southeastern periphery of the NENA dialects. Forty years ago, the remaining speakers moved to Tehran. Many have since emigrated abroad. So far only a grammatical sketch of this dialect has been published [PANOUSSI 1990]. Another dialect which has yet to be assigned to a family is the dialect of Hassane (official name K»sreli) [JASTROW 1997], a village in Turkey not far from the Iraqi and Syrian borders. The dialect is spoken by Christians who have now all left the village.

1.3.2. CHRISTIAN DIALECTS 1.3.2.1. History and Classification The NENA-speaking Christians belong to a number of churches, principally the Nestorian and Chaldean Churches. The Nestorian Church is named after the fifth century bishop of Constantinople, Nestorius, who was condemned by a council at Ephesus for his views on the nature of Christ. The Persian Church adopted his doctrine and Nestorianism spread as far as India and China. The Chaldean Church was a branch of the Nestorian Church that united with Rome intermittently from 1551 and permanently from 1830. The followers of the Nestorian Church are now often known as Assyrians, a term which is now sometimes used to cover other Aramaic-speaking Christians. I will use it for the Nestorian Christians only. Maclean divided the Christian dialects into four: 1.

The Plain of Urmi dialects

2.

The Northern Dialects

3.

The Ashiret Dialects

4.

The Southern Dialects

Of these, the first three are spoken mainly by Assyrians, while the last is spoken mostly by the Chaldeans.19 The Assyrian dialects are mostly native to Turkish Kurdistan and Persian Azerbaijan. However, their speakers were forced to abandon their homelands en

17

Jastrow (1990:91). Hoberman (1990:82). 19 Odisho (1990:191). 18

5


masse during the first world war. Having supported the allies against the Ottomans, the Assyrians of Turkey were defeated by the Ottomans and forced to flee to escape the attacks of the Turkish army and local Kurds.20 Refugees made their way to Urmi, tens of thousands dying en route. After trouble there, they fled along with the local Assyrians to Ba‘quba near Baghdad. The majority of the Assyrians were settled in villages in northern Iraq in Kurdish areas. In the early thirties, some crossed over to Syria where they settled along the Khabur river between Hassake and Ras el Ain, their settlements reflecting tribal divisions21. Between around 1935 and 1961, the Assyrians in Iraq prospered and were relatively successful in preserving their language and ensuring that their children were literate in it. However, after the beginning of the Kurdish revolt in 1961, Assyrians again fled or were evicted from their settlements and were resettled in urban areas. Since the early 1970s, large numbers of Assyrians have been emigrating to North America, Europe and Australia. Because the Assyrians are now so scattered and because of Iraqi government policies that have suppressed Assyrian educational and social institutions, the dialects are now in severe decline.22 One result of the exile of the Assyrians has been the mingling of the different groups and the erosion of dialectal distinctions. From the melting pot spoken koines have emerged. Odisho (1990:29, n.1) identified two of these: the koine of the Assyrians originally from Turkey who settled in Iraq (‘Iraqi Koine’) and the koine of the Assyrians from Iran. The older dialects have not been obliterated however. Many speakers are actually ‘bidialectal’, being able to speak both in a dialect and in the Koine23. 1.3.2.2. Plain of Urmi The plain of Urmi lies to the west of the Lake Urmi in Iranian Azerbaijan. This group of dialects includes the dialect of Urmi (official name Rizaiye) itself; the dialects of the north part of the plain, Sipurghan and the plain of Gavílan, both of which are said by Maclean (1895:xiii) to be influenced by the neighbouring dialect of Salamas (see 1.3.2.3.); and the dialect of the plain of Solduz (official name Naghade) to the south of the lake which, according to Maclean (1895:xiii), is very close to theUrmi dialect. In the 1830s, the language was committed to Nestorian script by the American missionary, the Rev. Dr. Perkins, who also founded schools and a printing press in an effort to revive the Christian community in the region. This literary dialect, Literary Neo-Syriac (or Assyrian), became widely accepted as a standard form of the language. It is said to be based on the vernacular of Urmi although it is to some extent a koine and 20

See Odisho (1988:21) for an account of the flight. Jacobi (1973:XVIII). 22 See Odisho (1990:191-9) for a history of the Assyrians in Iraq. 23 Odisho (1988:24). 21

6


differs in some aspects from the present Colloquial Christian dialect of Urmi (Coll. Ch. Urmi). During the 19th Century a large number of speakers of the Urmi dialect migrated to parts of Georgia and Armenia which became incorporated into the Russian empire and later the Soviet Union. Under the Soviets, in the 1920s, the Urmi dialect, along with other minority languages, was given an adapted Latin alphabet of its own, the N¼vyi Alfavít (see Appendix). At the end of the 1st World War, most of the Assyrian population of the Urmi region fled their homeland, emigrating mainly to the Soviet Union and Iraq. contains some information on these dialects, especially Urmi and Sipurghan. Earlier grammars of Literary Neo-Syriac are STODDARD [1856] and N}LDEKE [1868]. More recent ones are the short grammar by TSERETELI [1978] and the Ph.D. dissertation of MURRE-VAN DEN BERG [1995]. There are also numerous articles, including POLOTSKY [1961,1979,1986,1994,1996] and FRIEDRICH [1959]. A sketch of the morphology of the modern colloquial of Urmi is to be found in HETZRON [1969]. MACLEAN [1895]

1.3.2.3. Northern Group Maclean included in this group dialects from Turkey and Iran. One was the dialect of the plain of Salamas (or Dilman, official name Shahpur), to the north of Urmi, in Iranian Azerbaijan. The areas of Turkey where these dialects were spoken were termed ‘Rayat’ or ‘subject’ to the direct government of the Turks. These included the village of Qudshanis and neighbouring district ‘a little south of the Sea of Van’24 and the plain of Gawar (or Dize, official name YÕksekova) in the Hakkri vilayet. Maclean also included the district of Jilu (Cilo) in the Hakkri mountains, on linguistic grounds, although geographically it was part of the Ashiret Group. Fox, however, in his grammar of the Jilu dialect (1997), argues that it is quite different from the dialect of Salamas and that its closest relatives may rather be the Iraqi Christian dialects (Mosul Plain Dialects), especially Mangesh and Aradhin (see 1.3.2.6.). His argument is based on shared morphological innovations which are more reliable than other shared features in deciding common history. However Fox admits that this conclusion is uncertain, especially as little is known of the other Northern dialects. Apart from Fox’s article [1991] and grammar [1997] of Jilu, the only source of grammatical analysis on these dialects at present is MACLEAN [1895], although DUVAL [1883] contains texts from Salamas. 1.3.2.4. Ashiret Group These dialects were spoken in the semi-independent ‘Ashiret’ or tribal districts in the mountains of Turkish Kurdistan which were semi-independent from the Ottoman authorities. Maclean included the district of Upper †iari, the village of Ashitha in 24

Maclean (1895:xiii).

7


Lower †iari, the valley of Tkhuma, east of Tiari, the small Ashiret districts of †al, Baz, Diz and WalÓu, northeast of Tkhuma and Shamsdin and Mar Bishu, both colonies of †iari. Some members, were influenced by other dialectal families which they bordered on. The last two were close to the Persian border and therefore influenced by the Urmi group, while Ashitha was linguistically close to the Southern Group. For the Ashiret dialects we are again mainly reliant on scattered information in MACLEAN [1895]. For Tkhuma there is however another source. The descendants of the inhabitants of Tkhuma were among those who settled on the Khabur in Syria25and the dialect has since been described by JACOBI [1973]. Krotkoff (1990:18) casts doubt on how far this represents the original dialect, considering the mixed population along the Khabur, although according to Jacobi, the settlements were usually inhabited by one tribe only.26 On the relationship of the dialect to others, Jacobi (1973:xvi) remarks: ‘In der Phonologie und auch im Wortschatz scheint er den neuostsyrischen Dialekten der Gegend von Mosul und Alqosch wesentlich nher zu stehen als dem Dialekt des Urmiagebietes.’

In any case, it is safer to distinguish the Khabur dialect (‘Modern Tkhuma’) from the dialect of Maclean’s day. 1.3.2.5. Southern Group Maclean divides this group into three: 1. the dialects of the villages of the Plain of Mosul (and surrounding hills), which he names after the village of Alqosh. These dialects are also known as ‘Felli­¯’ or ‘Chaldean’and as ‘SÔreÓ’ (Syriac) by the speakers. 2. the dialect of the district of Bohtan, in Western Kurdistan, ‘on the eastern branch of the Upper Tigris’; 3. the dialect of the Jews of Zakho which, he writes, ‘greatly resembles that of Alqosh’. The inclusion of a Jewish dialect is interesting, as communal divisions between NeoAramaic dialects are usually quite strong. The close relationship between the Jewish Northwestern Group, which includes Zakho, and the Christian Mosul Plain dialects is also supported by Hoberman (1990:87) on the basis of shared innovations in the morphology of pronouns. It is also reported that Christians and Jews of Amadiya were able to communicate quite easily (see 1.3.1.). The Jewish Northwestern Group is described below (1.3.3.2.).

25 26

See Jacobi (1973:267-281). Jacobi (1973:xviii).

8


1.3.2.6. The Dialects of the Mosul Plain The speakers of the Mosul Plain dialects belong predominantly to the Chaldean Church and call themselves Kaldye or Chaldeans. The patriarchal residence of the Chaldean Church was originally in the monastery Rabban Hurmizd near Alqosh but later moved to Mosul and then Baghdad. This dialect appears to be the first Christian one to be committed to script.27 The earliest literature we have dates back to the beginning of the seventeenth Century, if not earlier. The type of texts composed consisted of translations of the Gospels, catechisms and poetry.28 The centre of this literary activity was at first Alqosh and later Mosul, the main town in the area. The language of the literature was based on the dialects of these towns, which differed little from each other.29 The dialects of this group were said by Maclean to differ little from that of Alqosh, though much research has yet to be done to ascertain how far this is the case. 30 Other places where it was spoken include Tel Kepe (Tel Kef), Tisqoopa (Telesqof), Zakho, Mangesh, Aradhin, Pioz, Aqra, Ba«d¥da-QrqoÎ, KaramleÎ, ‘Anqwa and Shaklawa.31 The boundaries between NENA sub-groups are not always clear-cut. Krotkoff (1982:3) says of Aradhin: ‘as may be expected for purely geographical reasons, it is more closely related to the Fellihi than to other recorded dialects of eastern NA. In particular, a comparison of the vocabulary with Maclean’s dictionary shows that the phonetics, and especially the vocalization, coincide with the variants marked Al. (for Alqosh, the main representative of Fellihi). Occasionally, however, the coincidence may be with K. (Kurdistan) or Ash. (Ashitha) to the exclusion of Alqosh...’

While many of these dialects come from the Mosul Plain, some (such as Aradhin) are native to the hills further North. These hills are also home to some of the Jewish Northwestern dialects, which, as stated, are closely related to the Mosul Plain dialects. In some towns, such as Zakho, a Jewish and a Christian dialect existed side-by-side. There are more published sources on the grammar of the Mosul Plain dialects than for the Assyrian dialects. Two early grammars which treat the dialects as one are SACHAU [1895] and RHnTORn [1912]. There is also grammatical information in GUIDI [1883] and MACLEAN 27

Macuch (1976:67). Macuch (1976:67,90). 29 Macuch (1976:68). 30 ‘The language of the other villages, Telkief, Teleskof, and the rest, differ in small particulars from that of Alqosh itself’ (Maclean 1895:xiv); ‘The linguistic material gathered during my field-work shows that the Aramaic dialect of Alkosh differs little from the dialects of the neighbouring villages...’ (Tsereteli 1972:4). 31 Maclean (1895:xiv), Sachau (1.c.3.f.), Tsereteli (1972:4) and Hoberman (1989:7). 28

9


[1895].

The most thorough grammar of an individual dialect is one of Aradhin [KROTKOFF 1982]. One that concentrates on the phonology is SARA’s description of the dialect of Mangesh [1974]. According to Krotkoff (1990:19), however, this suffers from the author’s use of himself as his own informant, as he left the village at age eight. According to Krotkoff, the dialect described ‘is not distinguishable from normalised Fellihi’. There are also useful articles on individual dialects. One by HOBERMAN [1993] gives a sketch of the grammar of the Christian dialect of Zakho and another by RUBBA [1993] gives the morphology of the verbal system of Tisqoopa (Telesqof).

1.3.3. JEWISH DIALECTS 1.3.3.1. History and Classification There is little historical information on the Jews of Kurdistan and Azerbaijan.32 There are indications of a large Jewish community in a reference to a treaty made by the Arabs with ‘the Magians and the Jews’ on the border of Armenia in the seventh century. In the twelth century, two Jewish travellers, Benjamin of Tudela and Pethahiah of Ratisbon, wrote about the Jewish settlements of Kurdistan. This seems to have been a time of relative prosperity for the Jewish community. However, not long after, around 1230, the Spanish Jewish poet, Judah al-parizi, visited Kurdistan and found the Jewish community to be in a state of spiritual decay. In the following two centuries, during the upheaval caused by the Mongol invasions, there are no more reports on the Kurdistani Jews. However, after the area came under the control of the Ottoman Turks in 1534, there are not only reports from travellers but also literature produced by the Kurdish Jews themselves. Two centres of Jewish learning at this time were Nerwa and Amadiya, where religious literature produced as far back as the seventeenth century. In the 18th and 19th centuries, however, the area was riven by conflict between the Turkish government and the local chiefs, and the population of all communities, Muslim, Christian and Jewish, decreased. Some large Jewish communities, such as the Jews in the towns of Amadiya and Nerwa, were reduced to a few families. As a result of this, the centre of learning, as well as much of the population, shifted to Zakho. According to Sabar (1982:xxi), Zakho ‘was almost the only place in our time in Kurdistan proper with a substantial Jewish population (about 5,000 in 1945).’ Almost all the Jews of Kurdistan have since emigrated to Israel. The written literature of the Kurdistani Jews was predominantly religious. Much of it had oral origins, having been passed from one generation to another before being written down. Only the rabbis (­akamim) were literate and the only way to bring the religion to the public was through translations and expositions in the common language. 32

The following is based on Sabar (1982:xvii-xxi).

10


These would be recited to the men in the synagogue or the women at home. If they were written down, it would be for the rabbi’s own use.33 The Jewish dialects are also divided into several groups. There are three groups native to Kurdistan (North-west, South-west and South-east) and one group from Iranian Azerbaijan.34

1.3.3.2. North-western Group The North-western Dialects were spoken in North-western Iraqi Kurdistan and Jezira further to the West in modern-day Turkey. Among the towns where these dialects were spoken are Zakho, Amadiya (Amedia), Nerwa, Dohuk, Jezira (Cizre) and Barazan.35 Of the first three, Nerwa and Amadiya seem to be more closely related to each other than to Zakho.36 No complete grammar has been published of any of these dialects but a thorough examination of the verbal system in Amadiya is provided by HOBERMAN [1989]. A grammatical sketch of the Zakho dialect is given in AVINERY [1988]. Grammatical features are also referred to in GIVN [1976 ], SABAR [1976] and HOBERMAN [1989]. A sketch of the grammar of some 17th century manuscripts from Nerwa (‘The Nerwa Texts’) is found in SABAR [1976]. There is little grammatical information published on the other dialects, although there is a useful collection of conversational texts in the Jezira dialect in NAKANO [1973]. 1.3.3.3. South-western Scholars had at one time identified the Jewish dialects of Iranian and eastern Iraqi Kurdistan as one group, ‘Southern Kurdistan’ or ‘Persian Kurdistan’. Hopkins (1993:67), however, found differences that justified distinguishing two groups. Khan (1999:3) supports this, calling the two groups Southeastern and Southwestern. Khan (1999:7) included in the category of Southwestern the dialects of the plain of Arbel (Irb¯l), the village of Dobe and the areas around the towns of Ruwandiz (Rawanduz) and Koy Sanjaq. According to Fox (1994:156), Aqra is related to the latter two. Khan further subdivides the Southwestern group into the dialects of the Arbel plain and the dialects of the surrounding mountains, the shibboleth of the Arbel plain being the use of the particle l- (see 2.2.5.4.). The only dialect for which there is a grammar published is Arbel [KHAN 1999], although a PhD. on Koy Sanjaq by MUTZAFI is forthcoming. There is a small amount of information on Koy Sanjaq in Fox (1994) the source of which was Hoberman.

33

Sabar (1982:xxxii-xl). Cf. Khan (1999:3). 35 Hoberman (1989:9). 36 Sabar (1982:xxxiii) distinguishes the Nerwa-Amidya dialect from the Zakho dialect. 34

11


1.3.3.4. South-eastern Group Khan defined this as comprising the dialects of Iranian Kurdistan and areas just over the border in Iraq. Statements about these dialects are somewhat confusing since little data has yet been published on them. Garbell, in her grammar of the Azerbaijani dialects (1965:13), made a brief reference to the dialect of Sablagh (Mahbad), linking it to ‘the dialects of Eastern Iraqi and Persian Kurdistan’. Hopkins (1989) defined the family according to one particular verbal feature (the absence of the intransitive QÓilli form (see 3.3.3.). His list includes: Sainqala, Bokan, Tikab, Saqqiz, Bana, Bijar, Pirtaj, Sanandaj, Kamyaran, Qasr-e Shirin and Kerend.37 According to Fox (1994:157), Halabja also comes into this category. Fox also noted that the dialect of Halabja ‘is very close to the Jewish dialects of the other cities of the region, including Saqqiz, Suleimaniya, Sanadaj, Baneh, and Panjwin.’ Hopkin’s definition may, however, exclude Sablagh and Suleimaniya.38 For the purposes of this work, the Southeastern Group will be defined as Hopkin’s list plus Halabja. No grammars have yet been published on the South-eastern dialects, although a grammar of Kerend [HOPKINS ?] is forthcoming. Some information on Kerend can be found in HOPKINS [1989] and JASTROW [1997]. A few features of the dialect of Halabja are described in FOX [1994]. 1.3.3.5. Azerbaijan (and adjoining areas of Turkish Kurdistan) Garbell, in her grammar of the Azerbaijani dialects (1965:13), divided them into two groups: Northern and Southern. The Northern dialects cover Northern Iranian Azerbaijan and the adjoining areas of Turkish Kurdistan. This includes Urmi (Rizaiye) and Salamas (Shahpur) in Iran, and BaÎqala (BaÍkale, Van Vilayet) and Gawar (YÕksekova, Hakkri Vilayet) in Turkey. The Southern dialects come from southern Iranian Azerbaijan, including Š´no (Ushnuye) and Solduz (Naghade). According to Garbell (1965:14), all these dialects are mutually intelligible. They are known to the speakers by the name liÎÎanit targum or ‘language of the Targum’. There is very little written literature in Jewish Azerbaijani. The population of Aramaic-speaking Jews in Azerbaijan was very small. According to Garbell (1965:14), it cannot have exceeded 5,000. They lived exclusively in towns and practiced commerce and peddling. Urmi was the spiritual and cultural centre of the Jews in Azerbaijan and there was a Yeshiva there. The First World War caused great upheaval for the Jewish communities and most of the speakers from the north emigrated to Iraq and later Israel. The Jews from the south followed suit later on.

37

See the map in Hopkins (1989:432). Hopkin’s map (1989:432) of the distribution of the feature mentioned seems to imply that it is not found in these dialects though it is possible that they had simply not been investigated.

38

12


1.4.

Contact with other languages

The NENA area is home to an array of ethnic groups and so Neo-Aramaic has always come into contact with other languages. The main language of the area is Kurdish, spoken by the majority of the Muslims of the region. The two main dialects found in the NENA area are Kurmanji and Sorani.39 Both the Christian and Jewish communities were frequently able to speak Kurdish. Some even spoke it as their mother tongue.40 All the dialects have therefore been heavily influenced by Kurdish.41 In Azerbaijan, including the Urmi plain, both Christians and Jews came into contact with the Azeri dialect of Turkish.42 Persian was spoken to a lesser extent. Arabic has also left its mark on the language, either directly or through the medium of Kurdish or Turkish. Only in certain areas, such as Arbel, were there significant numbers of native speakers of Arabic. In some of these areas, Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians would be found alongside their Aramaic-speaking co-religionists.43 Cultural and family ties would therefore facilitate language contact. The status of Arabic as the official language in Iraq would have increased its influence on those dialects spoken in Iraq. Liturgical languages have left their imprint on the dialects. The literary language of Urmi has been influenced by Classical Syriac, partly as a result of the efforts of the missionaries who standardized the language. In the case of the Jews, the influence has been from Hebrew. Its influence is reflected mainly in vocabulary, and is mostly, though not exclusively, restricted to religious terms. Since the exile of many communities abroad, the languages have had new influences. Almost all of the Jews are now in Israel and the dialect they now speak is sprinkled with Modern Hebrew words.

1.5.

The NENA Verbal System

The following is a brief summary of the main features of the NENA verbal system. In Chapters 2 and 3, selected forms will be treated in more depth with regard to morphology, function and etymology.

39

Following Pennacchietti (1995). Izady (1992:167), uses these labels differently, however.

40

Sabar (1982:xxxiii).

41

Khan (1999:9). 42 See Garbell (1965) on the impact of Kurdish and Turkish on the Jewish dialects of Iranian Azerbaijan. 43 Khan (1999:11).

13


1.5.1. Verbal Bases One of the most striking developments in NENA from earlier Aramaic took place in the verbal system. The old verbal forms YiqÓul and QÓal fell out of use to be replaced by forms which were nominal in origin. The verbal forms are built on five bases: 1.

QÓul pl. QÓuxun44

e.g. qÓol ‘kill!’

2.

QaÓil

e.g. qqaÓlin (<k-qaÓil) ‘I kill’; pqaÓlin (<b-qaÓlin)‘I (m.) will kill’; qqaÓlinwa ‘he used to kill’

3.

QÓil

e.g. qÓilli ‘I killed’; qÓilwali ‘I (m.) had killed’

4.

QÓila

e.g. win qÓila ‘I have killed’

5.

QÓala

e.g. win biqÓala ‘I am killing’ [examples are paradigm forms in the Amadiya dialect]

1.5.2. Historical Origin of the bases Apart from QÓul, the old imperative form, all these bases are historically derived from verbal nouns or adjectives. QaÓil was originally an active participle; QÓil and QÓila two states of the passive participle and QÓala the infinitive. Bases 2-5 may be divided into two pairs on the basis of their behaviour: QaÓil and QÓil v. QÓila and QÓala. 1. QÓila and QÓala almost always require auxiliary verbs or affixes derived from auxiliary verbs to give them verbal force: u¯le gr¯Îa ‘he has pulled/ he has been pulled’ (lit. ‘he.is pulled’) ¯wn b-grÎa ‘I (f.) am pulling’ (lit. I.am in-pulling) (both Tkhuma, Jacobi 1973:145,142)

QaÓil and QÓil function as verbs without the need for an auxiliary verb: patix ‘may he open’ ptix ‘he was opened’ 2. QÓila and QÓala still occur independently of verbal forms, QÓila as an adjective and QÓala as a noun: QÓila iZDLODDQDmpilta (f.¥QSO ‘There was a fallen tree’.

(Tisqoopa, Rubba 1993:281)

na:še šiwa:ne pri:še

(Aradhin, Krotkoff 1982:96)

‘specialized shepherds’

44

In this discussion, forms will be referred to by their Lit. Neo-Syriac form with a capital letter. Normally the 1.m.s. form will be given (e.g. QaÓl-in, QÓil-li). Because the exact pronunciation of the vowels is uncertain and not relevant to the theme, I will not attempt to reproduce them faithfully but transliterate without diacritical marks. Dialect-specific forms will be given in italics.

14


QÓala xyapa kudyim Taaweeli

‘To bathe every day is good’.

líp-wa-li zqara

‘I had learned weaving.’ (Amadiya, Hoberman (1989:91)

(Tisqoopa, Rubba 1993:277)

QaÓil and QÓil have shed their original nominal functions and are only used in verbal forms. 3. QÓila and QÓala often express the pronominal object with genitive suffixes, as a nominal might: xz¯t-i u¯la ‘she has seen me’ (lit. ‘she.is my-having.been.seen’) b-zrác-y-le45 ‘He is scratching me’ (lit. ‘he.is-in-scratching-of.me’) (Tkhuma, Jacobi 1973:156; Coll.Ch. Urmi, Hetzron 1969:117)

QaÓil and QÓil inherit the Aramaic subject and object markers: patx-it ‘may you open’ (=Syriac pt­at ‘you (m.s.) open’) patxa-le ‘may she open it (m.) (=Syriac pt­ leh ‘she opens it (m.)) The reason for the differences in behaviour lies in the historical functions of the four forms. QaÓil and QÓil were both originally in the ‘Absolute State’ and QÓila and QÓala in the ‘Emphatic State’. In early Aramaic dialects such as Biblical Aramaic, the Absolute State made a nominal indefinite and the Emphatic made it definite. The Absolute State also had predicative force. For this reason, participles in the Absolute could behave as predicates, that is as verbs (e.g. kt¥b ‘he writes’). In the Eastern Late Aramaic, the functions of the states changed further.46 The Emphatic State became extended in its distribution to indefinite nominals, while the Absolute State lost this function, becoming more narrowly a marker of the predicate. The Emphatic State was now the attributive state and the Absolute the predicative state, as in the following Syriac examples: gabr Ӎb [EMPH.]

‘the/a good man’

Ӎb [ABS.] gabr

‘the man is good’

In NENA, even predicates now take the -a suffix of the Absolute State. Confusion is prevented by the use of a copula. In the verbal system, however, the Absolute State is still found and the attributive-predicative distinction remains. Because QaÓil and QÓil are predicative, they do not require an auxiliary to give them verbal force. Because QÓila and QÓala are non-predicative, they do require one.

45 46

The morpheme y is the possessive 1.sg. suffix; -le is the enclitic 3.m.s. copula. N»ldeke (1875:300), (1904:§202-5) and Margolis (1910:62-3).

15


1.5.3. Morphology of QaÓil and QÓil QaÓil and QÓil forms draw on much of the same morphological resources. These include the pronominal affixes and the -wa- morpheme. 1.5.3.1. Subject and Object Affixes Pronominal subjects and objects are expressed through two sets of suffixes, the A-set and the L-set.47 In Amadiya, they take the following forms: A-set masc. 1.sg. 2.sg. 3.sg. 1.pl. 2.pl. 3.pl.

L-set com.

-in -it -Ø

fem. -an -at -a

masc.

com.

fem.

-li -lux -le

-ax -etun -i

-lax -la -lan -loxun -lu

The L-set suffixes commonly assimilate to a previous /n/ or /r/: mirri < *mir-li ‘I said’

(Aradhin, Krotkoff 1982:27)

Óxínnox < *Óxín-lox ‘you (m.s.) ground’

(Garbell 1965:71)

They also tend to assimilate to the /t/ in the 2nd person singular A-set infix: kxazitte < *kxaze-it-le ‘you see him’

(Hoberman 1989:29)

In QaÓil forms, the A-set suffixes represent the subject (e.g. Amadiya patx-a ‘may she open’, patx-in ‘may I (m.) open’) while the L-set suffixes express the object (patx-a-lu ‘may she open them’). In the most common QÓil form, QÓil-li (‘I killed’), the situation is reversed. The subject is represented by an L-set suffix (e.g. ptix-la ‘she opened’) and, if there is an A-set suffix, this represents the object (e.g. ptix-i-li ‘I opened them’). 1.5.3.2. -waVerbal forms built on both bases may be extended by the insertion of the morpheme -wa-. This derives from earlier Aramaic (h)wa ‘he was’ and usually has the effect of putting the action into the relative past. The -wa- infix always occurs between the A and L suffixes (in the order A-wa-L): k-patx-in ‘I open’ :k-patx-in-wa ‘I used to open’ ptix-li ‘I opened’ :ptix-wa-li ‘I had opened’

47

Hoberman’s terminology (1989:28).

16


1.5.4. The verb ‘to be’ Unlike many Semitic languages, the NENA dialects cannot usually omit the verb ‘to be’ in the present tense. There are several forms which fulfil this function in NENA. A detailed discussion of them is not possible due to limitations of space and so only a general picture will be given. 1.5.4.1. All ENA dialects possess an inflected copula. In NENA, there are commonly two. The first (‘the general copula’) typically consists of the prefix i- plus a suffix. In the first and second persons, this usually comprises the morpheme -w- plus A-set suffix. In the third person a morpheme identical to the L-set suffix is suffixed. The Amadiya paradigm given below is typical: masc. com.

fem.

1.sg.

(i)win

(i)wan

2.sg.

(i)wit

(i)wat

3.sg.

(i)le

(i)la

1.pl.

(i)wax

2.pl.

(i)wetun

3.pl.

(i)lu

In most dialects there is also an enclitic form. This is similar in form, but the imorpheme usually merges with the final a- of the predicate to produce an -e- vowel or is lost altogether: k•DZH OH ‘He is a scribe.’

(Hoberman 1989:33)

1.5.4.2. Most NENA dialects also have a ‘deictic copula’. This has a variety of meanings. It may convey that the situation described is true at the moment of speaking or in the view of the speaker.48 The form is often the same as the general copula but with the initial i- replaced by ho-/hu- (Aradhin howin, howan, howit etc.49). In others, all the conjugations end in the L-suffix like the 3rd person (e.g. Alqosh 6=1. ‘I am’ ). In some dialects, initial we or wa is found instead of ho (e.g. Amadiya weli, welux, welax...51). In some dialects both forms exist.52

48

Cf. Jastrow (1988:27) and Hoberman (1989:33). Krotkoff (1982:37). 50 Maclean (1895:78). 51 Hoberman (1989:33). 52 Maclean (1895:78). 49

17


1.5.4.3. A negative copula is generally formed from the coalescence of the negative particle la with the initial i- of the general copula, producing /e/ (Amadiya lewin, lewan, lewit etc.).53 1.5.4.4. In addition to the copula, NENA dialects use the verb √hwy to express ‘to be’. This verb may be conjugated like other weak verbs: hawin (QaÓil form) ‘I may be’ kawin <*k-hawin ‘I am [habitually]’54 pawin <*b-hawin ‘I will be’

(Hoberman 1989:32)

1.5.4.5. For the past tense, the QÓilli form of √hwy may be used. It is conjugated as follows: masc. com. 1.sg. 2.sg. 3.sg. 1.pl. 2.pl. 3.pl.

fem.

weli welax wela

welux wele

welan wéloxun welu

(Hoberman 1989:32)

1.5.5. Verbal Classes NENA verbs themselves are divided into classes which are derived from the old Peal, Pael and Aphel forms. This three-way distinction is still evident in the morphology as can be seen in these Aradhin examples (Krotkoff 1982:24):

Infinitive

Peal

Pael

Aphel

Óra:sa ‘to be full’

mәro:se ‘to make, repair’

m™Óro:se ‘to fill, stuff’

In some dialects, such as Senaya, the initial m- has been partially lost: xallel (<*mxallel √x-l-l)‘he washes’ As in older Aramaic, these forms are transitive and often have a meaning related to that of the ‘Peal’ verb.

53 54

Hoberman (1989:32). Cf. Hoberman (1989:130) for a discussion of the difference in aspect between kawe and ile.

18


1.6.

Structure of the Dissertation

It is beyond the scope of this dissertation to examine all the verbal forms found in NENA. The focus will therefore be on forms built on the QaĂ&#x201C;il and QĂ&#x201C;il bases. Another unavoidable omission is detailed treatment of the expression of the object in NENA. This topic is of great interest but is also quite large and so could not be incorporated into the present work. In Chapters 2 and 3, the first section examines the structures found and the distribution of each across the dialect spectrum. The second section considers the main functions of each form. This section is limited by the varying scope of the grammars available with regard to function. An attempt is made to give a balanced picture of the dialects, but the result is inevitably biased to some degree towards those dialects for which there is most information. The third sections trace the historical processes by which present-day forms developed and adopted their current meanings. The process of grammaticalization, by which lexical words or constructions develop into grammatical forms is particularly prominent in this. Parallels in other languages will be examined, as will the role of contact with neighbouring languages. The classification of the dialects will also be discussed in the light of this survey.

19


CHAPTER TWO

QATIL FORMS 2.1.

INTRODUCTION

QaÓil is derived from the old Aramaic active participle in its ‘Absolute’ state: qÓil/ qÓ¥l. It forms the base of a variety of forms in NENA dialects, with prefixes and suffixes. These forms together cover a large number of functions, including indicative, subjunctive, past, present, future, perfective and imperfective.

2.2.

MORPHOLOGY

2.2.1. QaÓlin The morphologically simplest form is the QaÓlin unprefixed base with pronominal A-set suffixes expressing the subject. In Amadiya, the paradigm for √ptx ‘to open’ is as follows: masc.

comm.

fem.

1.sg.

patx-in

patx-an

2.sg.

patx-it

patx-at

3.sg.

patix

patx-a

1.pl.

patx-ax

2.pl.

patx-etun

3.pl.

patx-i

(based on Hoberman 1989:35)

Generally the unprefixed form expresses the subjunctive (e.g. patix ‘let him open’).There are three main prefixes which may be added to the base to produce indicative forms of varying tenses and aspects. These prefixes take different forms in the dialects therefore they are most usefully grouped according to their main function: general present ki-/ke; k-; uifuture

bit-; b-; d-; gbe-

preterite

qam-; kim-, tem-

These will be referred to in the following discussion by their Literary Neo-Syriac form (Ki, Bit and Qam), but with a capital letter to distinguish them from individual dialectal

20


forms. Frequently a dialect has only one variant of each prefix. They may, however, coexist within one dialect as free or conditioned variants of each other. In addition to the A-set suffixes, QaÓil-based forms may also take L-set suffixes. These express the object, direct or indirect. The following are some examples from Amadiya: k-patix-lu ‘he opens them’ qam-patxi-le ‘they opened it’ b-dawiq-li ‘he will hire (lit. take) for me’

(Hoberman 1989:35,53,86)

2.2.2. Ki-qaÓlin 2.2.2.1. ki- and ke Ki- and ke- seem essentially to be slight dialectal variants of the same prefix. This prefix is not attested in Jewish dialects but is found in Christian dialects over a large area (the Urmi Plain dialects of Sipurghan and literary Neo-Syriac, the Ashiret dialects of Mar Bishu and Modern Tkhuma, Hassane and, rarely, the Northern dialect of Salamas55): ki path†a ‘she opens’ ke-hwe ‘he is (habitually)’, ‘there is’

(Literary N-S., Tsereteli 1978:58) (Tkhuma, Jacobi 1971:135)

2.2.2.2. kThe k-prefix occurs across both Christian and Jewish dialects. In many dialects it assimilates in voice to the following consonant: g-zawni ‘they buy’ g-baxax ‘we cry’

(Christian Zakho, Hoberman 1993:118) (Amadiya, Hoberman 1993:42,43)

This prefix appears to be the dominant form in the Christian dialects of the Mosul Plain, being attested in Alqosh, Tisqoopa, Mangesh, Chr. Zakho and 18th Century Pioz. It is also found in Hassane as an alternative to ki-:56 k-œaqlin ‘I(m.) take’ ki:zil ‘he goes’ gmayit ‘he dies’

(Tisqoopa, Rubba 1993:279) (Ch. Zakho, Hoberman 1993:118) (Hassane, Jastrow 1997b:278)

Cf. Maclean (1895:82), Jacobi (1973:96), Jastrow (1997b:278). In Salamas, Maclean found i-, $X9 and, with initial-weak verbs, k-. 56 Cf. respectively Maclean (1895:82), Rubba (1993:279), Sara (1974:69), Hoberman (1993:118), Poizat (1990:171) and Jastrow (1997b:278). 55

21


The k-prefix is also the dominant form in the neighbouring Jewish ‘Northwestern Group’ (Amadiya, Zakho, Dohuk, Jezira and the Nerwa Texts). ksabil ‘he suffers’

(Amadiya, Hoberman 1993:42)

k-Îam© ‘he hears’

(Zakho, Sabar 1976:49, n.114)

la=gj¿DODQ ‘I don’t work’

(Dohuk, Hoberman 1989:43)

gmá­ibi ‘they like’

(Jezira, Nakano 1973:4, l.67)

gnp²l ‘he falls’

(Nerwa Texts, Sabar 1976:XXXIX)

In the modern dialect of Nerwa, the prefix is apparently now the affricate >W6@ œ¥m²r ‘he says’57

(Sabar 1976:49, n.114)

The œ-prefix is also found in Christian Colloquial of Urmi. Hetzron (1969: 113) calls it palatal, but gives its phonetic value as varying between ‘ty-œ-ky’: ºœÎadrqytun ‘you (pl.) (usually) send’

(Hetzron 1969:121)

It is worth noting that the /k/ in the Novyi Alfavit represents the palatal plosive >F@, therefore the ki-prefix of Literary Neo-Syriac would have been pronounced as >FL@ 2.2.2.3. Ø- ~ kIn many dialects, the k-prefix exists but is restricted to initial-weak verbs. This more restricted use is found across a great swathe of the east. To the north, it is found among the Jewish Azerbaijani dialects.58 To the south, it is found in the Jewish dialects of Arbel and Iranian Kurdistan, as well as in the Christian Iranian dialect of Senaya.59 In such dialects the QÓil form of other verbs serves for both subjunctive and indicative general present: Subjunctive

Indicative

Îate

‘he may drink’

Îate

amrat

‘you (f.s.) may say’

kimrat ‘you (f.s) say’

‘he drinks’

(J. Azer., Garbell 1965:66-7)

It is interesting to note that the same system is found in far-away Mla­s¾, where the equivalent prefix is x-: Subjunctive

Indicative

57

Sabar gives only this example from the modern dialect. He uses the symbol /œ/ to transcribe the sound /ch/ in church (cf. pXXXII). It is not clear whether there are other variants used. 58 According to Maclean (1895:82), it is also one of the variants found in Christian Salamas. 59 Garbell (1965:67), Maclean (1895:82), Khan (1999:96), Fox (1994:160), Jastrow (1997a:365) and Panoussi (1990:107).

22


goréÎ

‘he may pull’

goréÎ ‘he pulls’

omér

‘he may say’

xomér ‘he says’

(Jastrow 1997a:365)

2.2.2.4. uiIn some dialects, the place of ki/ k- is taken by another prefix, i-. This prefix is found in a smaller area. It is a variant used in the Northern dialects of Salamas and Qudshanis, in the Ashiret dialect of Tkhuma60, in the Mosul Plain dialect of Aradhin (in free variation with yi-) and in the uncertainly-classified dialect of Jilu61and sporadically in the Jewish dialect of Dobe.62 Aradhin

ipalxin ‘I work’

Jilu

i-napli baro ‘they chase her’

(Krotkoff 1982:32) (Fox 1991:43)

Although these dialects cross the sub-group boundaries, they are all situated at the northern end of the NENA range. This form does not seem to appear in Jewish dialects. 2.2.2.5. ØIn some dialects, there is no General Present prefix at all, as in Hertevin: me •miton ‘what are you (pl.) saying?’ •men-no­ ‘let me tell you’

(both Jastrow 1988:54)

This is also the case, according to Maclean (1895:82), in the Ashiret dialects of Upper †iari and Ashitha and, according to Rhétoré (1912:78, n.1), in the dialect of Bohtan. These are all Christian dialects in the north-west of the NENA area.

2.2.3. Bit-qaÓlin The most common future prefixes are bit-/bid or b-. Neither of these is found outside the NENA dialects. Like the k-prefix, in many dialects it assimilates in voicing to the following sound. In some dialects it also assimilates in other ways, for instance bassimilates to m- or n-: Aradhin

bedgarÎin ‘I shall pull’ betxa:zin‘I shall see’

Amadiya

pÎaqil ‘he will take’

(Krotkoff 1982:33) (Hoberman 1989:56)

60

In both Maclean’s and Jacobi’s dialects. Cf. respectively Maclean (1895:82), Jacobi (1973:96), Krotkoff (1982:32) and Fox (1997:22). 62 Khan (1999:113). 61

23


2.2.3.1. bit-/ bid This prefix is the only form found in Lit. N-S., Aradhin and the N.T. dialect63: Lit. N-S.

bit qaria ‘she will read’

Aradhin

ptD\D ‘she will come’

Nerwa Texts

b²d ‘d²m-lu‘he will destroy them’

2.2.3.2. bit- ø bIn some dialects bit- and b- stand in free variation, as is the case in Hertevin (Jastrow 1988:54-5): betpayeÎ ‘he will become’ ppayeÎ ‘he will stay’ According to Rhétoré (1912:78) and Maclean (1895:82) the prefixes are also free variants in the dialects of the Mosul Plain, although dialectal variety within the area may be partly responsible.

GYQPV),Y' ‘I will pull’ GYQPV)' ‘I will pull’

(Rhétoré 1912:78)

Both prefixes were found in 18th Century Pioz (Poizat 1990:173), apparently as free variants. bed qàÎè’ ‘it will be hard’ bmapreΗlay xaT—y B£ ‘elle fera fondre les pécheurs’

(Poizat 1990:173-4)

2.2.3.3. bit ~ bIn Coll. Ch. Urmi, however, bit- and b- are phonetically conditioned variants. In these dialects, bit- is usually reserved for initial-weak verbs: bÎádr ‘he will send’ btáve ‘he will be’

(Coll. Ch. Urmi, Hetzron 1969:115)

In modern Tkhuma (Jacobi 1973:96), and Jilu (Fox 1997:32) the choice between the two forms is not conditioned before strong verbs, where both are possible, but is conditioned before a vowel, where the form is always bt- (pt- in Tkhuma). bd-grÎ ‘he will pull’ pt-xl ‘he will eat’

63

(Jacobi 1973:99,72)

Cf. respectively (Tsereteli 1978:58), Krotkoff (1982:33) and Sabar (1976:XXXIX).

24


Both prefixes are also found in the Ashiret dialects (bit- more commonly) but it is not clear whether their use is at all conditioned.64 2.2.3.4. b- only In the Northwestern Jewish dialects of Zakho and Amadiya, only the b-prefix is used.65 This may also be the case in the related Jezira dialect66. Amadiya

EDH ‘he will come’

Jezira

blepín-na ‘I will learn it’ xaráje báxlax ‘let’s eat (it) later’

(Hoberman 1989:56)

(Nakano 1973:50,4)

The b-prefix is also the only variant used in some Christian Mosul Plain dialects, namely Christian Zakho, Tisqoopa and Mangesh as well as the dialect of Salamas:67 Ch. Zakho bamrin ‘I will say’ Mangesh

p-qaÒOÕn ‘I will kill’

2.2.3.5. b-øgbeIn the Jewish Azerbaijani dialects, gbe- is used in free variation with b-, while in the Southern dialects of this group there is the additional variant of be-:68 gbe amra ø b-amra (Southern ø be-amra) ‘she is going to say’

(Garbell 1965:68)

2.2.3.6. dIn Ashitha (Maclean 1895:82), the future prefix is d-, but it only occurs before initial weak verbs: $XS&V, d’thi According to Maclean (1895:82), this prefix is often found in this function also in †iari, Jewish Zakho and the Jewish Azerbaijani dialects, though it does not appear in Garbell’s grammar of J. Azerbaijani. In some Mosul Plain dialects, however, the prefix is found with subjunctive force.69 A d-prefix also makes an appearance in Mla­so:70 d-maÎí«-no ‘I will wash’ In †uroyo it is a free variant of the future prefix gd- before initial-aleph verbs:71 64

Maclean (1895:82). Cf. respectively Maclean (1895:82) and Hoberman (1989:55-57). 66 Judging by a few examples gleaned from the texts. 67 Cf. respectively Hoberman (1993:119), Rubba (1993:279), Sara (1974:70) and Maclean (1895:82). 68 Garbell (1965:67). 69 Rhétor£ (1912:79). 70 Jastrow (1994:52). 65

25


gd¼Óe ø d¼Óe ‘he will come’ 2.2.3.7. No future-prefix In a few dialects, there is no separate future-prefix. This is the case in the Jewish dialects of Iranian Kurdistan and Halabja as well as in the Arbel Plain and possibly Koy Sanjaq.72 This covers much of the area of both the South-eastern and South-western groups, though it is not yet known if it is the case in all the dialects of these groups. It is also lacking in the Christian dialect of Senaya in the same area.73

2.2.4. Qam-qaÓil2.2.4.1. The main variants of the qam-prefix are qam, kim- and tem-. The function of Qam-qaÓil- is usually considered to be identical to QÓilli in terms of tense, mood and aspect, but in most dialects it must take an L-set suffix marking the pronominal object. Where Qam-qaÓil- does not exist, QÓille tends to cover its functions. 2.2.4.2. This prefix takes the form qam- in the Northwestern Jewish dialects of Amadiya, Zakho and Jezira74, though it is absent in the related dialect of the Nerwa Texts75 and apparently in Hassane (Jastrow 1997): Amadiya

qamxazele ‘he saw him’

Qam- is also found in some of the Christian dialects in the north, including Aradhin, Tkhuma, Literary Neo-Syriac and rarely Salamas.76 Aradhin

qamqarya:le ‘she called him’

Lit. N-S.

qam dbeq=l¾kun ‘he took you’

(Krotkoff 1982:34) (Murre-van den Berg 1995:191)

According to Maclean (1895:82), the normal variant used in Christian Salamas is qum-, also found in Alqosh. 2.2.4.3. In the Mosul Plain dialects, however, the predominant form seems to be Kem- or kim-, as found in Mangesh, Ch. Zakho, Tisqoopa and 18th Century Pioz.77 Ch. Zakho

kimqa:re:la ‘he called her’

Pioz

kem Ηbeq lan ‘he has abandoned us’

(Hoberman1993:119) (Poizat 1990:173)

71

Jastrow (1993:148-9). Cf. respectively Jastrow (1998:366), Khan (1999:250), Fox (1994:158). 73 Fox (1994:158). 74 Hoberman (1989:30), Sabar (1976:XXXIX) and the example in Nakano (1973:56): qam talyí-le ‘they hung him’. 75 Sabar (1976:XL). 76 Krotkoff (1982:27), Krotkoff (1990:18), Tsereteli (1978:57) and Maclean (1895:82). 77 Sara (1974:71), Hoberman (1993:118), Rubba (1993:279). 72

26


For Jilu, Fox (1997:32) gives the prefix as qem-. This is actually pronounced as kem because the phoneme /q/ is realised as [k] before /e/. It is not, however, the phonemic equivalent of the Mosul Plain prefix.78 2.2.4.4. Much further to the south and east, in Christian Senaya, there is yet another variant, tem- (~tm-~ tm-): tmxallele ‘he washed him’

(Panoussi 1990:122)

2.2.4.5. The Qam-prefix is absent from a great many dialects. The Jewish dialects of Azerbaijan and the Arbel Plain are without it. There is no published information on this for the Southeastern Jewish dialects. To the north, it is also absent in the Christian dialects of Hertevin, Coll. Ch. Urmi, Upper †iari and Ashitha.79 It is not found outside the NENA dialects.

2.2.5. Other particles used with QaÓlin 2.2.5.1. The above forms are the most common in the attested dialects. There are however other particles found with QaÓlin: In Hertevin, the prefix ked-~ket expresses capability: ana ketazen ‘I can go’

(Jastrow 1988:55)

2.2.5.2. In the same dialect, the particle hole is used: hole ­at­a ÎaÎa ‘she is shivering so’

(Jastrow 1988:54)

2.2.5.3. A jussive particle, Îud-, is found in the Mosul Plain dialects, Amadiya and the Nerwa Texts:80 Îud marele ‘Let it hurt him’ 4YEV2,1Q ‘Let him rot!’ In the Nerwa Texts, it may be replaced by, or combined with d², also used before the imperative:81 d² dz-ax ‘Let us go!’ In Arbel, various particles derived from Kurdish are found with the subjunctive, for instance ba-:82 ba-Îatè-le ‘Let him drink it’ 78

Fox (1991:36). Jastrow (1988), Hetzron (1969:115, n.11), Maclean (1895:82). 80 Rhétoré (1912:87), Hoberman (1989:60) and Sabar (1976:XL). 81 Sabar (1976:XL). 82 Khan (1999:252). 79

27


2.2.5.4. In the Arbel Plain, the form (k)qaÓil can be extended by the use of the particle l83 (not to be confused with the negative particle la) which may have an effect on the tense, aspect, mood or discourse function of the form, according to the context: táma l-baxét?§ ‘Why are you crying?’ This particle is not found in the other South-western dialects of Koy Sanjaq and Ruwandiz nor probably in the Jewish dialect of Betwta. However, the dialect of Dobe also uses such a particle, in its case n-.84 Some of these particles- ked-, hole and l -also occur with QÓilli.

2.2.6. QÓil with auxiliary verbs 2.2.6.1. (k-)QaÓil with copula In Senaya, the enclitic copula (–yen; -yan; -yet etc.) can be added to QaÓlin:85 qaÓlenyen ‘I(m.) am killing’ qaÓlanyan ‘I(f.) am killing’ The Hertevin particle hole is identical to the 3.m.s. deictic copula of that dialect.86 The conjugated copula is indeed also used. In Amadiya its own deictic copula, wele, may be combined with k-QaÓlin.87 2.2.6.2. Future tense auxiliaries In †al, a future tense is produced on the pattern of b‘e d-QaÓil88. The auxiliary verb is b-t-y ‘to wish’. Both verbs are conjugated normally: FYPEV2,GYKV' ‘I (m.) will sing’ In †iari and Ashitha, the auxiliary verbs used to form this future tense are эle (lit.‘he descends’) and quim (lit. ‘he arises’).89

2.2.7. Forms with -wa Forms based on QaÓil can often be extended by the addition of the element -wa-. Forms extended in this way are attested for all the main prefixed QaÓil forms, but not in every dialect. Some examples are: 83

Khan (1999:111). Khan (1999:7). 85 Panoussi (1990:118). 86 Jastrow (1988:54). 87 Hoberman (1989:45). See 2.3.12. for examples. 88 Stoddard (1955:109). 89 Maclean (1895:82). 84

28


QaÓlinwa:

amírwa ‘he might have said’

k-qaÓlinwa

kimránwa ‘I (f.) used to say’ (both J. Azer., Garbell 1965:66,7)

Bit-qaÓlinwa

bd-grÎ-wa ‘he would pull’

(Tkhuma, Jacobi 1973:99)

QamqaÓlinwa: qam-mesiqnwa-loxun ‘I had brought you (pl.)’ (Zakho, Hoberman 1989:55)

Arbel l qaÓlinwa is attested only marginally: l-goliqwa ‘they used to work’

(Khan 1999:272)

2.2.8. Negation 2.2.8.1. QaÓlin, Qam-qaÓlin and their extended forms are negated by the particle la-: la QaÓlin

l•=Îoqitu-le ‘Don’t let him’ (lit. ‘not-may you (pl.) let him’) (Amadiya, Hoberman 1989:59)

la QaÓlinwa

la olizxwa§ ‘(if) we had not done’

la Qam-qaÓlin

la qemgarIÎ ‘he didn’t pull’ (Jilu-paradigm form)

(Arbel, Khan 1999:261)

(Jilu, Fox 1991:44)

La- may also be used with the Arbel particle l, coming between it and the verb: lq la-Îoqiznne.§ ‘I will not let him go’ 2.2.8.2. The negation of other forms is more complex. In most of the dialects which have k-QaÓlin(wa), this form can be negated by la. This is the case in the Mosul Plain dialects and the Jewish North-western dialects as well as the Jewish dialects of Iranian Azerbaijan and the Arbel Plain:90 Zakho

lak pyÎ ‘he does not remain’

Jezira

lá-kÎati ‘they do not drink’

Ch. Zakho la=kyadin

(Polotsky 1967:76) (Nakano 1973:4) (Hoberman 1993:122)

In the Mosul Plain dialect of Aradhin which has the i-prefix instead, the i-prefix merges with la to form O0: O0#xa:zi ‘they do not see’

(Krotkoff 1982:40)

In Jilu, which also has the i-prefix, the form is le-: 90

For other examples see Hoberman (1989:51), Sabar (1976:XL), Rubba (1993:280), Garbell (1965:316) and Khan (1999:356).

29


le gárÎna ‘I don’t pull’

(Fox 1997:33)

What is more surprising is that le is used in many Christian dialects which have ki or k- as their General Present prefix. It is attested in Literary N-S., Ch.Coll. Urmi, Hertevin and Senaya, none of which have the i-prefix: l¥gxek ‘he does not laugh’

(Senaya, Panoussi 1990:120)

In Senaya, because the k-prefix is only found with initial-weak verbs, for most verbs the subjunctive/ indicative distinction is made only in the negative. Maclean (1895:88) implied that l¥ is far more common than la k-, citing only Alqosh (i.e. the Mosul Plain) as having the latter. He, of course, did not have much information on the Jewish dialects or the south-eastern Christian dialects. It does suggest, however, that l¥- may have been the predominant form in the Christian dialects of Turkey and Iranian Azerbaijan. The implications of this will be discussed below (2.4.3.2.). 2.2.8.3. In many dialects la- cannot be used with Bit-qaÓlin. Instead the negated KiqaqÓlin form (l¥-qaÓlin or la k-qaÓlin) is used. Thus in Amadiya, the negative of bawid ‘he will do’ is l•=ggewid ‘he will not do’.91 Likewise, the negated future is la k-qaÓlinwa. There is therefore no distinction in the negative between the General Present and the Future or the Past Habitual and the Conditional. Of the dialects which have la k-qaÓlin, I have only found this system recorded for Amadiya, but it is probably more widespread. It seems to be common in the dialects which have l¥-qaÓlin. According to Maclean (1895: ), la Bit-qaÓlin only occurred in the dialect of Upper †iari and, rarely, Urmi. More recently this system has been found in Coll.Ch. Urmi, Jilu and Hertevin.92 The system in Lit. N-S. (Tsereteli 1967) is as follows:

Positive Subj.

ptix

Negative ‘let him open’

l ptix

‘let him not open’

Gen. Pres. ki ptix

‘he opens’

l¥ ptix

‘he does not open’

Fut.

‘he will open’

l¥ ptix

‘he will not open’

bit ptix

In Hertevin, the system is slightly different due to the absence of the K¯-prefix:

91 92

Hoberman (1989:48-9). Fox (1991:43-44), Hetzron (1969:116) and Jastrow (1988:55-6). Hetzron calls l qaÓlin ‘Negative

Jussive’ and l¥ qaÓlin ‘Negative Future’, but presumably l¥ qaÓlin also fulfils the function of the General Present.

30


Positive

Negative

Subj.

qaÓel

la qaÓel

Gen. Pres.

qaÓel

le qaÓel

Fut.

bet-qaÓel

le qaÓel

2.2.8.4. In Jewish Azerbaijani, the situation is different. The negative particle may be combined with b-qaÓlin. As with Arbel l qaÓil, the negative particle comes directly before the verb:93 b-la patix ‘he is not going to open’ As already noted (2.2.8.3.), la could be combined with bit- in Upper †iari, but there bitcomes directly before the verb. According to Stoddard, la Bit-qaÓlin was an ‘emphatic alternative’ for le QaÓlin. In the dialect of Modern Tkhuma (Jacobi 1973:162-7), we find an even odder system. Not only may the negative particle combine with bd-, but l¥ alternates freely with l for all verbal forms. Thus we find forms such as l¥q-bd-gzrÎ ‘he will not pull’ and even l¥q-ui-gzrÎ ‘he does not pull’. L¥- is however less common with QÓil forms. The explanation may be that l¥ has simply spread by analogy.

2.3.

FUNCTION

Before examining the various forms, it is necessary to define our terms. The terms which require most explanation are perhaps ‘perfective’, ‘imperfective’, ‘habitual’, ‘continous’ and ‘progressive’, all of which are types of aspect. According to Comrie (Aspect, 1976:16), ‘perfectivity indicates the view of a situation as a single whole, without distinction of the various separate phases that make up that situation; while the imperfective pays essential attention to the internal structure of the situation.’ The English sentences below illustrate this: ‘John was reading when I entered’.

IMPERFECTIVE

‘John read that book yesterday’.

PERFECTIVE

(Comrie 1976:3-4)

In the first sentence, reference is made to a point within the period of reading (the entry of the speaker). Therefore we are made aware of the internal structure of the situation. In the second sentence, the action is viewed as a whole, or a point in time. English does not have a specific imperfective form, and so it uses the progressive which is a type of imperfective aspect. Another type of imperfective aspect is the habitual. English has a habitual form in the past tense: used to. The habitual is often thought to be the same as 93

Garbell (1965:68).

31


iterativity. According to Comrie (1976:27), however, for an event which is repeated a limited number of times, the perfective could be used. For instance, ‘he coughed five times’ would generally require a perfective verb in languages that have the perfectiveimperfective opposition, such as French and Russian. According to Comrie (1976:27-8): ‘The feature that is common to all habituals, whether or not they are also iterative, is that they describe a situation which is characteristic of an extended period of time, so extended in fact that the situation referred to is viewed not as an incidental property of the moment but, precisely, as a characteristic feature of a whole period’. Continous aspect, according to Comrie (1976:34), is ‘imperfectivity not determined by habituality’. Progressive aspect is a subdivision of this: it ‘combines nonstativity with continous meaning’.94 In English the progressive is expressed by the construction ‘is VERB-ing’, e.g. ‘he is singing’. What defines this as progressive is that it cannot normally be used with stative verbs.95 Different scholars sometimes use different definitions of continous and progressive or confuse the two. In this discussion, if there is any doubt, the narrower term ‘progressive’ will be used.

These aspects can be represented in the following diagram:

Perfective

Imperfective

Habitual

Continuous

Non-progressive

Progressive (from Comrie,1976:25)

It is worth noting that there is a particular relationship between the imperfective and the present tense. As Comrie (1976:66) writes, ‘Since the present tense is essentially used to describe, rather than to narrate, it is essentially imperfective, either continuous or habitual, and not perfective’. However, in certain circumstances, such as the historic present when a normally present form is used for the past, perfective meaning is also possible.

94

Comrie (1976:51). When it is, the meaning of the verb is usually slightly different, c.f. Comrie (1976:36). Languages also differ to some degree in what they include in the class of stative verbs.

95

32


2.3.1. QaÓlin and Ki-qaÓlin 2.3.1.1. In dialects where a K¯-qaÓlin form exists, QaÓlin tends to express the subjunctive while the main function of K¯-qaÓlin is the indicative present. The difference is illustrated by the following examples from Amadiya: azin ta gyani gu x•=midbar ‘I should go off by myself in some desert.’ atta gezin yaÎár, u gloÎin qundire. ‘Now I walk straight, and I wear shoes.’ (Hoberman 1989:58,42)

2.3.1.2. Where no K¯-qaÓlin form exists, such as in Hertevin, QaÓlin covers both subjunctive and indicative: me oden babo? ‘what should I do, father?’ aya •mi-la kerpa. ‘This kind is called (lit. they say it) kerpa.’ (Jastrow 1988:54,134) 2.3.1.3. In those dialects where K¯-qaÓlin only exists for initial-weak verbs, for instance in Senaya, Jewish Azerbaijani and the Arbel Plain, the subjunctive/ indicative distinction is only made with those verbs: Initial-weak verbs: Subjunctive: amriznnox§ ‘Let me tell you’ Indicative:

kimríla b-Kurdiz ‘They call it in Kurdish’

Other verbs: Subjunctive: na § qablen§ Îateni§ ‘I (hereby) permit them to drink (lit. that they drink)’ Indicative:

qemí bqatta,§... ‘They (mullahs) rise in the morning’ (Khan 1999:251,250,248)

2.3.1.4. In some other dialects, such as Jilu96 and that of the Nerwa Texts97, the prefix (iand k-/g- respectively) is usual but not obligatory for the indicative.

2.3.2. QaÓlin98 2.3.2.1. As already stated, QaÓlin in some dialects may cover the same functions as KiqaÓlin. Here only the subjunctive functions, being more typical, will be treated. QaÓlin tends to be used for non-assertive propositions, such as wishes, possibilities and

96

Fox (1991:44). Sabar (1976:59, n.209). 98 The information here on QaÓlin and QaÓlinwa is mainly taken from Khan (1999:250-262), Hoberman (1989:58-69), Garbell (1965:), Maclean (1895:141-3), Rhétoré (1912:85-8) and Fox (1997:85). 97

33


intentions, in both main clauses and subordinate clauses. Its most commonly attested functions are as follows: 2.3.2.2. In a main clause 2.3.2.2.1. In a main clause, QaĂ&#x201C;lin typically covers certain kinds of deontic modality (i.e. those involving the speakerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s opinion).99 Hobermanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s list of functions-â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;a command, a suggestion, a request, or a wishâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;- seem to be typical: 1st Person amriznnox... â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;let me tell you/ I wish to tell youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;.

(Arbel, Khan 1999:251)

azin ta gyani gu xÂ&#x2022;=midbar. â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;I should go off by myself in some desert.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; qemax mzabnaxle karma u hiQQDEHD â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;letâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s up and sell the orchard and the, uh, house...â&#x20AC;&#x2122; (both Amadiya, Hoberman 1989:58) 2nd Person peĂ&#x17D;it xÂ&#x2022; tĂĄlmid ÂŤi[DPuĂ&#x2018;wÂ&#x2039;a gÂ&#x2022;bara â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;May you become a great, heroic scholarâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ayya daĂ&#x17D;ta D]Â&#x;Ă­tula. â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Harvest this field.â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

(both Hoberman 1989:186,58)

amrÂ?t â&#x20AC;&#x153;ana mÂ?Ă&#x17D;Â?lmane-na, ina Ă&#x17D;itaâ&#x20AC;? â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;You should say, â&#x20AC;&#x153;I am a Muslim. I am a Shiite.â&#x20AC;?â&#x20AC;&#x2122; (Jilu, Fox 1997:85) 3rd Person inkan gibe azil, azil b anna. â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;If he wants to walk, let him walk with these [crutches].â&#x20AC;&#x2122; (Amadiya, Hoberman 1989:59) In this sense, QaĂ&#x201C;lin may, in some dialects, be preceded by one of various particles, e.g. Ă&#x17D;ud, (see 2.2.5.3.). idyo Ă&#x17D;ud Ă&#x17D;aqille â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Today let him take itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

(Hoberman 1989:60)

2.3.2.2.2. As shown, QaĂ&#x201C;lin can be used in the 2nd Person to express a command. The QĂ&#x201C;ul form also has this function, but there seems to be a distinction between the two. According to Maclean (1895:143), the QaĂ&#x201C;lit form denoted â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;a positive command weakly or politely expressedâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;: .X=SoYHVSâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;pray tell itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Sabar (1976:XLI) found the same distinction in the dialect of the Nerwa Texts: â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;The active participle may also be used to express a mild polite commandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. For the negative imperative (prohibitive), Maclean (1895:147) puts forward an aspectual distinction between the two:

99

Both QaĂ&#x201C;lin and QaĂ&#x201C;linwa seem to have epistemic functions as well, but these are much less well attested.

34


‘[la QÓul] denotes the prohibition of a single action, while the [la QaÓlit] denotes that of a continued action. Thus a man seeing a boy running would shout to him 5=9 $V= do not stop; but sending a boy on a message in haste he would say SoY=V9 $V=. But this is not a hard and fast rule.’

In modern terms, one would say that la QÓul was perfective and la QaÓlit imperfective. According to Hoberman (1989:71), Polotsky (in class) said that the same opposition was found in Zakho. Khan (1999:282) found for Arbel that la QÓul could be used for the imperfective or perfective, while la QaÓlit was specifically imperfective. Thus la QÓul was the neutral form and la QaÓlit the marked form. This may in fact have been the case for the other dialects. In other dialects, however, la QaÓlit is the negative counterpart to QÓul, la QÓul being rare or absent altogether. This is the case in Aradhin (Krotkoff 1982:30) and Tkhuma (Jacobi 1973:165). In such dialects, the perfective-imperfective distinction cannot be made in the verb form. 2.3.2.2.3. In a main clause question, QÓl-in may have deontic modal meanings of ‘ought’ or ‘can’: amre#n ma?§ ‘What should I say?’

(Khan 1999:253)

ana m‹aÓo azin kiz babi, timmal kisli wewa, qamkardatte ‘How can I go to my father? Yesterday he was at my home and you threw him out.’

(Hoberman 1989:60)

2.3.2.3. In a subordinate clause 2.3.2.3.1. QaÓlin may function as a sentential complement, often following modal verbs or pseudo-verb: ibux mbaqrit you.can that.you.ask ‘You can ask.’

(Hoberman 1989:62)

gban xal´s dehwa hawja ‘I (f.) want it to be of pure gold <I-want pure gold itshould be>’. (Jewish Azerbaijani, Garbell 1965:97) 2.3.2.3.2. QaÓlin is used in purpose clauses, with or without a conjunction: ana bazin zoninni tre mas«DIH ‘I will go to buy for myself two books.’ (Amadiya, Hoberman 1989:65)

mtíwle TDEDQDÎe, ki axli ‘he put (it) before the people [that] they should eat’ (Northern Jewish Azerbaijani, Garbell 1965:98)

2.3.2.3.3. QaÓlin occurs after certain conjunctions, including ‘until’, ‘when’ and ‘lest’: hal d-m™:Óe ‘until it ripens’

35


kud ka:mil (√k-m-l) t100-xa:ze:le ‘when he finally sees it’ (both Aradhin, Krotkoff 1982:32)

ana gzadin r‹aba laykun l•=maÓinOEHDEid waµda. ‘I am very much afraid that (lit. ‘lest’) I may not get home in time.’ (Amadiya, Hoberman 1989:64)

2.3.2.3.4. QaÓlin may be used in conditional sentences. In the protasis, it alternates with QÓilli in expressing a possible condition in the future.101 in Îamin ‘if I hear’

(Aradhin, Krotkoff 1982:32)

ag•r odétunu, goran ‘if you(pl.) fulfil <do> them, I (f.) shall marry’ (Jewish Azerbaijani, Garbell 1965:99)

b•le inkan Îoqiqtule, awa l•=ggewid. ‘But if you leave him alone, he will not do it’.

(Amadiya, Hoberman 1989:61)

In Amadiya, it is said to express a contrary-to-fact condition when it refers to the present:102 inkan bnoni hawe m•re xela... ‘If my sons were powerful, strong...’ It may also be used in the apodosis for a possible condition. Hoberman (1989:61) cites an example when it appears to express a consequence that is less certain than one expressed by Bit-qaÓlin: inkan o b©nadam piÎle µaÎir, d•x mirrux, xu, yain kud xabrux=ile, illa la, reÎux pqaÓinne. ‘If that person has become wealthy [ten years from today] as you have said, why then I would know that it is according to your word. But if not, I will cut off your head.’ According to Hoberman, QaÓlin indicates that the king is sceptical.

2.3.3. QaÓlinwa 2.3.3.1. QaÓlinwa is commonly used as a sentential complement in a past time context:103 la-qabliqwa damxiqxwa ‘They did not allow us to sleep’.

(Arbel, Khan 1999:262)

100

t- is an allomorph of the conjunction/ preposition d-, used before voiceless consonants. Cf. Maclean (1895:148), Hoberman (1989:61) and Khan (1999:410-1). 102 Hoberman (1989:61). 103 Khan (1999:261). 101

36


QaĂ&#x201C;lin is also generally acceptable in this role as well. In Amadiya there is a distinction between the two forms with QaĂ&#x201C;lin being used when the intention was not successfully carried out, and therefore is still potential:104 ana mjÂżoribli mÂ&#x2039;arÂ&#x2039;minne, lÂ&#x2022;=mÂ&#x2039;Ă&#x2018;eli â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;I tried to lift it, but I couldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;tâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. 2.3.3.2. QaĂ&#x201C;linwa may also be used in purpose clauses and after certain conjunctions in a past time context,105 as in the following examples from J. Azerbaijani. Again QaĂ&#x201C;lin is also possible. plĂ­tle g-Ă&#x17D;XTDPLQGLDQHĂ&#x17D;aqĂ­lwa â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;he went out to the market to buy thingsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. haz´r wĂ­dwalella hal adĂ­nwa â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;he had prepared it by the time I (m.) cameâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 2.3.3.3. QaĂ&#x201C;linwa is used in conditional sentences in the protasis. According to both Khan (1999:413) and Hoberman (1989:68), it is used for conditions that are counterfactual: aga#r ... la# oliwa atxa#,§ qaĂ&#x201C;lizwa anne# biĂ&#x17D;ilmÂ?ne#.§ â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;If they had not done that, the Muslims would have killed (them). (Arbel, Khan 1999:413) According to Khan (1999:261), it is also used for conditions relating to the past. There is of course a likelihood that such conditions would be counterfactual, but in some of his examples this is not the case. naxoĂ&#x17D; hawe#wa§ tarizĂ&#x2018;wa.§ â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;If (anyone) was ill, he was curedâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;.

2.3.4. Ki-qaĂ&#x201C;lin 2.3.4.1. Present 2.3.4.1.1. The default tense of Ki-qaĂ&#x201C;lin is present. Generally its aspect is said to be habitual. In most dialects, there seems to be another form to express the progressive present (e.g. Bi-qĂ&#x201C;alewin). However, there may not necessarily be a clear-cut distinction between the two. Hoberman found for the Amadiya dialect that Ki-qaĂ&#x201C;lin is unmarked for aspect106 while Bi-qĂ&#x201C;alewin is restricted (i.e. marked), mainly to the progressive.107 According to Jastrow (1988:54), the QaĂ&#x201C;il form in Hertevin (where there is no Ki-prefix), does not distinguish between the general and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;actualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; present (i.e the time of speaking). However, in Arbel (Khan 1999:271), progressive aspect (of dynamic verbs) is rarely expressed by (k)-QaĂ&#x201C;lin, being restricted â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;by and largeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; to lÂ? QaĂ&#x201C;lin.

104

Hoberman (1989:68). Maclean (1895:141-2) and Garbell (1965:98). 106 Hoberman (1989:135). 107 Hoberman calls this form â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Progressiveâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, but since it may be used with stative verbs, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Continousâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; might be more appropriate. 105

37


2.3.4.1.2. Ki-qaÓlin is used to express habitual activities and universal or generic facts108: Amadiya

atta gezin yaÎár, u gloÎin qundire ‘Now I walk straight, and I wear shoes’.

Arbel

kimriqla b-kurdiz ‘They call it in Kurdish...’

2.3.4.1.3. In Amadiya, as stated, it may express progressive aspect as an alternative to BiqÓalewin:109 gemir ӕmá gbaxit? ‘Why are you crying?’ 2.3.4.1.4. With stative verbs, in Amadiya and Arbel, it may express a present state:110 he, kiin ‘Yes, I know.’

(Amadiya, Hoberman 1989:46)

2.3.4.2. Past 2.3.4.2.1. In a past context, K¯-qaÓlin may take on past meaning. In Amadiya and Arbel, it may take on the tense of a preceding past tense verb, acting as the equivalent of KiqaÓlinwa or Bi-qÓalewinwa:111 ¼ b-lelè§ xmizlle bqéu,§ dukkiqd geziz§ ilú xallizlu§ µaqlú xallizlu.§ ‘He waited for him, in the place where people used to go and wash their hands and feet.’

(Arbel, Khan 1999:249)

2.3.4.2.2. Another past tense function that is frequently encountered is that of narration or ‘Historic Present’, where Ki-qaÓlin functions in a similar way to QÓill¯.112 According to Sabar (1976:83), this makes the narration ‘more vivid’. The following is an Amadiya example from a past tense narrative: gmareli raba, u gbaxin u kÑarxin ‘It hurts me a lot, and I cry and scream’ (Hoberman 1989:47)

The historic present use of a QaÓil form is not an innovation of NENA. QaÓil was also used in this way in Talmudic Aramaic and Mandaic.113 In Talmudic Aramaic, qa-QaÓil is also found used in this way.114 In Amadiya (Hoberman 1989:47) and the Nerwa Texts (Sabar 1976:83), the Historic Present is more common with the verb imra ‘to say’. In Jilu (Fox 1997:88), it 108

Hoberman (1989:42) and Khan (1999:248). Hoberman 1989:44). 110 Hoberman (1989:45-6) and Khan (1999:249). 111 Hoberman (1989:47) and Khan (1999:249). 112 Stoddard (1856:41), N»ldeke (1868:295), Maclean (1895:140), Hoberman (1989:47) and Khan (1999:249). 113 Margolis (1910:80) and N»ldeke (1875:375). 114 Margolis (1910:81). 109

38


is restricted to this verb. There is an interesting comparative-linguistic perspective to this. Kiparsky (1968:32, n.3) has remarked: ‘A curiously pervasive fact is that verbs of saying are especially frequently put into the historical present in virtually all Indo-European languages. These verbs are so used even in languages in which the historical present otherwise is rare.’

This feature is to be found in Syriac as well, where QaÓil is rarely used for the historic present other than with this verb.115 2.3.4.3. Future It is attested for many dialects that the negative of this form covers future meaning as well as present (see 2.2.8.3.). In Arbel (Khan 1999:250), where there is no separate form for the future, Ki-qaÓlin also expresses the positive future: tiq gorét ga-flzn dukká.§ ‘You will get married in such-and-such a place.’ It also occasionally had this meaning in the Nerwa Texts (Sabar 1976:59), despite the existence of BitqaÓlin in this dialect.

2.3.5. Ki-qaÓlinwa 2.3.5.1. This form expresses habitual activities and states in the past.116 g-zaqrin-wa barguze ‘I wove cloth for clothing’ kiewa r‹aba ÑanDD ‘He knew many trades.’

(Amadiya, Hoberman 1989:49-50)

2.3.5.2. Just as la Ki-qaÓlin is the negative equivalent of Bit-qaÓl-in, la K-qaÓlinwa is the negative equivalent of Bit-qaÓlin-wa and is therefore used to express the negative conditional: u k•n hoyawa ibbu, l•=kÎoqiwa oziwa illa œu muz‹irra ‘And if they had been able, they would not have allowed them to do her any harm....’ (Zakho, Hoberman 1989:51)

2.3.6. Bit-qaÓlin 2.3.6.1. Across the dialects, the principle meaning of this form is a future tense, often translatable by ‘will’. According to Hoberman (1989:55), it may have either punctual or durative sense. 115

N»ldeke (1904:§274). In Mandaic, the Prefix Conjugation expresses the historic present most commonly

with this verb or CC D8 (N»ldeke 1875:371). Maclean (1895:140), Hoberman (1989:49) and Khan (1999:259).

116

39


up ana +bt-arÂ?qna â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll run too.â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

(Jilu, Fox 1997:85)

HááXahet beraqdÂ?r bethawet â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;today you will be the standard-bearerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (Hertevin, Jastrow 1988:55)

2.3.6.2. Bit-qaĂ&#x201C;lin is also used in the apodosis of possible conditions.117 Â?n dÂ?rri, bt-azna bare â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;If I come back, I will go after them.â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

(Jilu, Fox 1997:89)

2.3.7. Bit-qaĂ&#x201C;linwa This form is frequently used in the apodosis of conditions, usually contrary-to-fact ones:118 ja jĂ­len ~jilĂ­nwa, b-la odĂ­nwa â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;had I (m.) known this, I should not have done it.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; (J. Azer., Garbell 1965:99)

2.3.8. Qam-qaĂ&#x201C;linQam-qaĂ&#x201C;lin- has the same semantic range as QĂ&#x201C;illi in terms of tense, aspect, mood etc. Thus it is principally used to express the perfective past. baÂľdĂŠn HOD KD\\D qamĂ&#x17D;aqlali, qammadirali â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Afterwards she came, quickly, took me, and brought me back.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; (Amadiya, Hoberman 1989:52) However there are distinctions in use between the two forms with respect to the treatment of the object. Qam-qaĂ&#x201C;lin almost invariably takes L-set suffixes marking the direct object, whereas for QĂ&#x201C;illi and other QaĂ&#x201C;lin forms, such suffixes are optional.119

2.3.9. Qam-qaĂ&#x201C;linwaAs one would expect, QamqaĂ&#x201C;linwa- appears to be the functional equivalent of QĂ&#x201C;ille except for its treatment of the object. qamxa:zĂ­nwa:le â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;I had seen himâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

(Aradhin, Krotkoff 1982:34)

117

Hoberman (1989:56) and Fox (1997:89). Hoberman (1989:57) and Jastrow (1988:56) and Maclean (1895:148). 119 See Hoberman (1989:52,105), Krotkoff (1982:27), Fox (1997:32-3), Rubba (1993:279) and Mangesh (Sara 1974:71). An unusual exception to this is found in Jilu: qem awÂ?d libe+lli â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;He did a trick to me.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; (Fox 1997:86). According to Polotsky (1961:21, n.1) and Murre-van den Berg (1995), Qam-qaĂ&#x201C;linoccasionally occurs in Literary N-S. without a suffix. 118

40


2.3.10. Ki-, Bit and QamAccording to Stoddard (1856:167), N»ldeke (1868:297) and Maclean (1895:141), the prefixes Ki-, Bit- and Qam- do not need to be repeated when they apply to several verbs in succession: 6=2V&/5XSV&SoY' ‘they will come and go’

(Maclean, 1895:141)

Krotkoff (1982:28) reports the same for Qam-qaÓlin in Aradhin.

2.3.11. l (k-)QaÓlin120 This form, found in the dialects of the Arbel plain, has a wide range of functions in terms of tense, aspect and discourse, with its context determining which is being expressed in any particular case. It is however almost always indicative. 2.3.11.1. Present The default tense of l QaÓlin is present. In the present it covers the same range of meaning as (k-)QaÓlin – habitual, generic, actual present (with stative verbs)- but also expresses the progressive (with dynamic verbs): lèka l-gezétun § ‘Where are you going?’

(Khan 1999:265)

2.3.11.2. Past Like (k-)QaÓlin, l QaÓlin may take on the past tense of its context. When it is dependent on a past tense clause, it expresses ‘a progressive action or continuing state that is circumstantial to the action expressed by the past tense verb’. bbiq l-géz Ñlolà,§dwiqqle-lleu ‘While my father was going to the synagogue, he seized him’.

(Khan 1999:266)

In a non-dependent past context, it may express a historic present: ilyèle,§l-œér bár baxtèu.§ ‘He came and looked (lit. looks) for his wife.’ (Khan 1999:267)

2.3.11.3. Future L QaÓlin is occasionally used to refer to the future, usually with perfective aspect: qna l-kèn§ ‘I shall come’

120

(Khan 1999:267)

Khan (1999:265-8,271-4).

41


2.3.11.4. Discourse When there is no distinction in tense or aspect from QaÓlin, l QaÓlin often has a discourse function of marking prominence. For instance, it may be used at the end of a sequence of verbs to mark the climax: yo#mit Îabbat,§ hulae# qemiq palÓiq [QaÓlin= Historic Present] tara,§ qna l-be#la dmixawen.§ ... dmixa-wen,§ xa-wa#xit rizÎli,§ pliqÓli tara.§ miqri eze#n œeren xanœiq.§ lz geze#n,§ mqla œo#l w½-holizla.§ ‘On the Sabbath, the Jews went outside, while I was sleeping in the house. ... I was sleeping. Then I woke up and I went outside. I thought I would go for a little walk. I go out – the town is deserted!’ (Khan 1999:272) When referring to the future, it expresses a more forceful assertion than QaÓlin: iqdlel l×-hulaè l-qaÓliqlu.§ ‘Tonight they will kill the Jews!’

(Khan 1999:267)

The many different functions of l-QaÓlin are not unrelated, as Khan (1999:271) argues: ‘In general the particle l appears to be a marker of prominence and intensity. This can be correlated with the preference for using l-qaÓil to express the progressive aspect, which is by its nature more dynamic than the stative or habitual aspects. It is also consistenct with the avoidance of l-qaÓil with the subjunctive, which is associated with irrealis and subordinate clauses.’

2.3.12. (Ki-)QaÓlin with copula The effect of using a copula with (Ki-)QaÓlin tends to be to mark the form as a progressive or actual present. This is the case with the Senaya form qaÓlenyen ‘I(m.) am killing’.121 It is also the case in Amadiya when k-QaÓlin is preceded by the deictic copula wele: 122 ana Îmeli xa naÎa wele gmaxe l tara ‘I heard a person knocking at the door’ The Hertevin form hole QaÓlin may also have progressive function: honi atele a­awati ‘my brothers are coming!’

(Jastrow 1988:54)

2.3.13. Summary On the whole the unprefixed form expresses the subjunctive and the prefixed forms indicative. Different prefixes express different tenses and aspects and occasionally modal functions. Each form, however may have different functions according to its context. 121 122

Panoussi (1990:118). Panoussi calls this form ‘durative’. Hoberman (1989:45).

42


Little research has been done on the discourse functions of the different forms, apart from l-qaÓil, therefore discourse may play a larger role than is yet known.

2.4.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

2.4.1. The Development of QaÓlin 2.4.1.1. Development of Function QaÓil is a very old form in both Aramaic and Semitic in general. Although primarily a participle in earlier Semitic, it acquired a verbal force alongside the adjectival usage. Both these uses can be seen in early forms of Aramaic: Biblical Aramaic ?5COC8G=?KE 8P;!#?=C= M ‘your God whom you serve’. [VERBAL] (Dan.6:17)123

Syriac r­may kesp ‘lovers of money’ [NOMINAL] uary geyr besr kel men kyneh ‘for the lion by its nature eats flesh’ [VERBAL] (N»ldeke 1904:§282, §269)

In NENA, QaÓil has almost entirely lost its participial function. Its verbal function has moreover changed. In earlier Aramaic, YiqÓul served for both indicative and subjunctive, while QaÓil tended to be restricted to the indicative.124 In NENA, YiqÓul was lost and QaÓil took over its subjunctive function. To specify the indicative, a prefix (Ki-) was used. Eventually the indicative function of the unprefixed form was lost altogether. There were no doubt intervening stages in this cycle of loss and renewal, but these are harder to differentiate precisely. The process can be represented in this simplified form in the following table: Subj. alone Earlier Aramaic Intermediate stage

YiqÓul

NENA

QaÓil

Unmarked Indic./Subj.

Indic.

YiqÓul125

QaÓil

QaÓil

(K¯-qaÓil)

alone

K¯-qaÓil

123

Cited in Johns (1972:25). In Biblical Aramaic, it may be used for the jussive, but it is not a common function. Cf. Bauer and Leander (1927:296). 125 In Biblical Aramaic, a few verbs may show a morphological distinction between indicative and subjunctive. 124

43


Syriac and Talmudic Aramaic belong approximately to the intermediate stage. In both, YiqÓul is primarily restricted to the subjunctive126 while QaÓil is commonly used for both moods.127 Mandaic seems to be at a stage slightly prior to this. While QaÓil has become unmarked as in the other dialects,128 YiqÓul has not yet given up its indicative present function. 129 2.4.1.2. Development of Form The subject-markers of the QaÓlin form originated as enclitic pronouns which merged with the gender and number inflection of the participle: patx-an ‘I (f.) open’ < *ptxa–(a)n(a) In 3rd Person forms, no enclitic pronoun was used- the inflection sufficed: patix < *ptix patxa < *ptxa patxi < *ptx¯n QaÓil took enclitic pronouns in earlier forms of Aramaic such as Syriac. In Syriac, however, the pronoun was not bound. On occasion the pronoun may be expressed by an independent pronoun alone. If, moreover, the pronoun, whether enclitic or independent, applied to more than one participle, it need only be expressed once:130 ua(n)t geyr msak¥ wa-msabar ‘for thou art waiting and hoping’ In NENA, the enclitic pronouns have become bound subject-markers. They cannot be separated from the verbal base and must be repeated for every verb.

2.4.2. The Development of ki-/k2.4.2.1. It is probable that k- is an eroded form of k¯-/k¥-. Traces of k-us origin remain in many dialects in cases where it precedes initial-weak verbs:

126

amrat :kimrat ‘you (f.s.) say’

(J. Azerbaijani, Garbell 1965:67)

azin :gezin

(Amadiya, Hoberman 1989:214)

‘I (m.) go’ (p60, 98; p42, 4)

Cf. N»ldeke (1904:§265-7) and Margolis (1910:77-8). It is however still used for the indicative future,

though only rarely in T.A., cf. N»ldeke (1904:§264) and Margolis (1910:77). In both it is used for modals, complements and subordinate (including purpose) clauses, cf. N»ldeke (1904:§269-277) and Margolis (1910:79-80). 128 For its functions see N»ldeke (1875:373-9). N»ldeke is doubtful about instances of apparent modal use, but it is certainly used for complements and subordinate (including purpose) clauses. 129 N»ldeke (1875:370). 127

130

N»ldeke (1904:§312).

44


2.4.2.2. K¯- is not a prefix known in Old Syriac, but scholars from N»ldeke and Maclean131 onwards have argued that it is related to the qa- prefix found in Babylonian Talmudic and Mandaic: KPB9H ‘you are weeping’

PK H ‘he is coming’

(T.A., Margolis 1910:81) (Mandaic, N»ldeke 1875:379)

The phonetic shifts involved are all possible. Old Syriac /q/ is often realised as /k/ in many NENA dialects and even among the NENA dialects themselves, interchange of /q/ and /k/ (or /œ/) is common.132 Moreover, Old Syriac Pthakha (=/•/) is often replaced by NENA Zlama (=/e/, /i/ or /²/).133 Such a shift seems to have occurred to some degree even within Classical Mandaic, as shown by the variant writing PH. Therefore the shift from qa > ke/ki is entirely plausible. Fox (1994:158) also argues that the †uroyo koprefix is related. As an /a/>/o/ shift is very common in †uroyo, this is also likely. 2.4.2.3. The qa-/qi- prefix is derived from the participle form of the verb √qwm ‘to rise’. In Babylonian Talmudic, it is often found in this uncontracted form: $

H (or P

H).134 In Classical Mandaic, this prefix was used to mark continuous aspect.135 Jastrow (1997:365) argues that this is the original function of the prefix: ‘This prefix originally served to specify a continuous present (“he is seeing” as distinguished from “he sees”)...’

The meanings of √q’m in Aramaic include ‘stand’, ‘remain’ and ‘be’. Verbs with these meanings are extremely common as auxiliaries for progressive or continuous aspect across world languages.136 In Spanish the verb used is estar, meaning ‘to be (somewhere, or temporarily)’. The other element in the construction is a participle:137 estoy cantando ‘I am singing’ Etymologically stare had the meaning ‘to stand’, ‘remain’. In Irish Gaelic, a verb with similar synchronic and etymological meanings is used as an auxiliary in a progressive construction.138 In other languages verbs meaning ‘sit’ are also used. What these verbs seem to have in common is that they may be used to describe location. Another common type of construction used to express progressive aspect is one that is locative-adverbial in N»ldeke (1875:379) and Maclean (1895:333). See Maclean (1895:333). 133 Maclean (1895:286-290). 134 See N»ldeke (1875:379), Maclean (1895:333) and Fox (1994:158). 131 132

According to N»ldeke (1875:379), it is used ‘zur deutlicheren Bezeichnung des Zustandes oder der Gegenwart’. 136 Comrie (1976:98-105) and Heine (1993:32-39). 137 Comrie (1976:102). Similar constructions are found in Portugese and Italian. 138 Comrie (1976:99-100, 103-104). 135

45


origin, e.g. ‘be in (an activity)’ or ‘be at (an activity)’. The English present progressive BE + VERB-ing derives from such an expression: 139 He’s singing < He’s a’singing < He’s at singing. Comrie (1976:103) discusses the reason for this relationship of locative to progressive: ‘The clue to the relation is perhaps in English expressions like to be in the process of doing something or to be in progress, in which we see that we can refer to some instance of a process by viewing the whole of the situation as if it were spatial, when it is quite natural to refer to some specific point of the situation a being ‘in’ that situation....’

2.4.2.4. In Arabic dialects spoken in the NENA area (the Qltu dialects), there are interesting parallels to the Aramaic qa-qÓ¥l construction. The particle kÔ- is prefixed to the prefix conjugation (e.g. yfta­) to mark continous aspect.140 The unprefixed form expresses the general present: kÔt#Îr‹ab ‘you (m.) drink’ kÔt#Îr‹ab ‘you (m.) are drinking’ As yqÓal appears to have roughly the same function as qÓ¥l in earlier forms of Aramaic (i.e. imperfective, covering both continous and habitual aspect), the particle seems to have a very similar role in both languages, i.e. it converts a form with imperfective aspect to one with specifically continuous aspect. 2.4.2.5. So far the discussion has centred on the shift from locative to progressive. However, the NENA form K¯-qÓil, though it may be used with progressive meaning, also covers the habitual, i.e. it expresses the imperfective present.141 In Modern Mandaic, the same shift has taken place for qa-gÓeln.142 Again there are plenty of parallels for this progressive → imperfective shift. In Scots Gaelic, for instance, the construction used for the imperfective was originally progressive and remains so in Irish Gaelic.143 Heine (1993:67) includes the Progressive→ Imperfective shift in a list of the typical routes of grammaticalization: ‘A progressive tends to develop into a continuous, an imperfective, and a present tense marker’.

This is a development from a narrower function to a broader function, as the continuous covers the progressive and the imperfective covers the continuous. In Aramaic this is part

139

Comrie (1976:98-103). Jastrow (1990b:63). The use of a prefix to mark continous aspect is found in other Arabic dialects e.g. Christian Baghdadi (Abu-Haidar 1991:88). 141 As stated in 2.3.1. , the present is almost always imperfective. 142 Macuch (1989:84). 143 Comrie (1976:100). 140

46


of a wider shift from progressive to indicative present to a present unmarked as to mood, to a subjunctive: Subj. alone Earlier Aramaic Intermediate stage

YiqÓul

NENA

QaÓil

Unmarked

YiqÓul QaÓil

Ind. Pres. (Impfve.) alone QaÓil

Progressive alone

qa-QaÓil Ki-qaÓil

bi-QÓala+BE144

If we extend the table further back in time, we may find that QaÓil was originally progressive, as was its function in Egyptian Aramaic.145

2.4.3. The Development of ui2.4.3.1. The origin of this particle, according to N»ldeke146, lay in the Syriac word u¯Ó. In addition to expressing existence - ‘there is’, ‘it exists’ this pseudo-verb also served as a copula. Its use as an auxiliary would therefore parallel the use of q’¥m. Like q’¥m it would have undergone the two processes that are so common in grammaticalization: 1. Loss of inflection, i.e. the 3.m.s.u¯Ó would come to be used for all persons and number. 2. Phonetic erosion, u¯Ó >u¯. The u¯Ó >u¯ shift may in fact be attested elsewhere, namely in the development of the NENA copula which, according to N»ldeke (1868:200-206) and Fox (1990:74-5) developed from forms involving u¯Ó: iwn ‘I(m.) am’ < *¯t - hw¥ -en iwt ‘you(m.) are’ < *¯t - hw¥ -at

The negative equivalent l¥ as in the Literary Neo-Syriac l¥ ptix ‘he does not open’ would be derived from the negative equivalent of u¯Ó, layt < la+¯Ó (see above). However, the u¯<u¯ theory remains unconfirmed. Khan (1999:113) suggests tht it may have been ‘an original demonstrative element with presentative function’. 2.4.3.2. Fox (1994:158) views u¯- as a more recent development than k¯: Or another progressive form such as Arbel l QaÓlin. Muraoka and Porten (1998:203). 146 N»ldeke (1868:294). 144 145

47


‘In some eastern dialects the distribution of k- has become restricted to a small class of verbs (Garbell 1965,65). In others, it has disappeared and been replaced by a new prefix i-, which probably originated as a reduced form of ¯ ‘there is’.

However in those dialects where l¥ qÓil is the negative counterpart of k(¯) qÓil (e.g. Literary Neo-Syriac and Christian Urmi), it seems improbable that the negative form (l k¯ qÓil) would be replaced but not the positive form, especially when k¯- in some of these dialects is very much alive and active. Even in dialects where k(¯) is on the wane, such as Senaya, it is not being replaced by u¯, despite the presence of its negative counterpart l¥. In fact l¥- has much wider distribution than u¯-, being found at the extremes of the NENA area (e.g. Hertevin, Christian Urmi and Senaya), while u¯- is restricted to northern areas. What seems more likely is that l¥- is the fossil, left over from a time when u¯- was much more widespread. In this scenario, u¯- became eroded away, leaving no trace but its (more substantial) negative form. Its place was then taken over by k(¯)-, perhaps under the influence of neighbouring dialects in which this was the equivalent form.

2.4.4. No General Present prefix Where there is no General Present prefix, such as in Hertevin there are at least three possible explanations:

1.

There was originally a k¯ or k- prefix, but it was lost;

2.

There was originally an ui- prefix, but it was lost;

3.

There never was a General Present prefix. Jastrow (1997:365) postulates this for Hertevin: ‘In some archaic dialects such as Hertevin [QÓil] can express actions performed generally or habitually (general present) as well as actions in progress (continuous present.Vuroyo and most of the NENA languages, however, developed a prefixed present marker, e.g. Vuroyo ko-­oze, Hassana k-xaze, Christian Aradhin i-xaze ‘he sees’.’

However, in Hertevin there appears to be evidence of an original ui- in the negator le which is used for the indicative just as in other NENA dialects.147 As Jastrow suggests, there is also a possible trace of k- (or ko?) in the paradigm of the verb √by ‘to want’: kepe ‘he will’

147

(Jastrow 1988:39)

Jastrow (1988:55).

48


2.4.5. The development of bit-/b2.4.5.1. These suffixes will be dealt with together, as b- is clearly a contraction of b²d/b²t-. According to Maclean (1895:121-2), b²d- derives either from earlier , $XKV' ‘he wishes to’ or,$XK' ‘it is desired that’, both from the verb$XKV' ‘to wish’. In the dialect of †al, in fact, the inflected verb itself is still used as an auxiliary marking the future: PYEV2,$XKV' ‘he will sing’, lit. ‘he wishes that he sing’ FYPEV2,GYKV' ‘I(m.) will sing’, lit. ‘I wish that I sing’ 2.4.5.2. Verbs such as ‘wish’ or ‘want’, ‘verbs of volition’ are very common sources of auxiliary verbs expressing future tense, across world languages.148 2.4.5.3. If we accept this theory, we find that the development of this prefix shows several features typical of grammaticalization. It takes a common route of development: Lexical verb > Auxiliary verb > uninflected particle > affix149 Its development may have been as follows: 1.

bµ¥ d-dm²r ‘he wishes to sing’ becomes reinterpreted as ‘he will sing’;

2.

One inflection (in this case 3.m.s) spreads by analogy to the whole paradigm;

3.

bµ¥ d- becomes phonetically eroded to bid-.

2.4.6. The development of QamN»ldeke (1868:§146) believed that the Qam-prefix was derived from the adverb $;H ‘previously’. However, Maclean (1895:82) suggested that its origin lay rather in the verb qaddem ‘he was before’ which could be used adverbially. According to Tsereteli150a parallel for this could be found in the Arabic particle qad which is thought to be derived from the cognate verb qaddama/qadama ‘to precede’. Pennacchietti (1997) disputes both these theories. He argues that qŸm was not an adverb but a preposition and that he knows of no natural language where a past tense is formed from a present tense with a preposition or adverb. He also points out that qaddem, although used as an auxiliary verb, was not used before the present tense. Pennacchietti’s own suggestion is that qam- derives from the verb qm ‘to rise, to stand’, in its participial form q’im. He notes that Rhétoré found this very form in the Mosul Plain dialects being used, with inflection, before the present as an alternative to qam: 148

E.g. English will. See Givon (1979:222) and Heine (1993:47). See Hopper and Traugott (1993:108) for a discussion of this process. 150 Tsereteli (1957:0178), cited in Pennacchietti (1997:477). 149

49


.X=$V=4VO$VE5VO ‘She killed him’, lit ‘She rises to kill him’

(Rhétoré 1912:225-6)

In Upper Tiari and Ashitha (see 2.2.6.1.), the same construction is used for an imminent future. According to Pennacchietti, this construction is used ‘to enliven the narrative’. He compares it to the Catalan construction vaig cantar ‘I go to sing’ meaning ‘I sang’. Q’im, of course, is also thought to be the origin of the ki-prefix and q’im was certainly used in Talmudic Aramaic for the present progressive. However ki- is thought to have been derived from q’im in its capacity as a stative verb (‘to stand’) while in Pennaccietti’s scenario, qa’im- would have had its dynamic sense (‘to rise’). If this theory is correct, perhaps q’im underwent grammaticalization twice in its history.

2.4.7. The Development of lKhan (1999:112-113) suggests that l- is related to the present copula (uila/ hola/ wela) 3.f.s.). In Arbel, the feminine is often used as a neutral gender. Analysed thus, l- would mirror forms in other dialects such as hole QaÓlin and wele QaÓlin, which may also be used to express the progressive. A variant form of the particle is wall which is no doubt cognate with the Alqosh presentative walle (m.s.) and wall (f.s.).

2.4.8. Iranian Influence 2.4.8.1. Several of the forms discussed here have parallels in Iranian languages.151 Most noticeable is the use of prefixes to modify aspect and mood, e.g. the present indicative prefixes: a-/da- (Sorani), a-/t- (Kurmanji) and m¯q (Persian) and the future prefix: d¥ (Kurmanji). As in NENA, these prefixes are used on both the present tense forms and their past tense counterparts. The correspondences are, however, not exact. In Persian and many Kurdish dialects, there is also a subjunctive prefix (be bí-, respectively), which NENA lacks. Moreover, the past imperfective and past subjunctive (or more precisely conditional) is not formed from the present base, but rather from the past base (PAST): Pres. Ind. a-káw-im

a-PRES-SUBJ

Past Imp.. a-káwt-im a-PAST-SUBJ

(Sorani, Mackenzie 1961:190)

One might conclude that the past base is the equivalent of QaÓil--wa yet it is also the base used in the perfective past form (A4Óil). As just shown, subject agreement is expressed with a suffix (SUBJ), roughly equivalent to the NENA A-set suffix.

151

See Pennacchietti (1995) for a discussion of the parallels.

50


2.4.8.2. The expression of future tense provides an interesting parallel. In the Sorani dialects there is no separate future marker. The ‘present indicative’ serves for this function as well. This is also the case in the co-territorial NENA dialects of the Arbel Plain, Senna and no doubt others. The Kurmanji dialects show more affinity to their NENA neighbours, namely the Mosul Plain dialects, the Jewish North-Western Group, the dialects of Azerbaijan, both Christian and Jewish and the dialects of Turkey, in having a separate future-prefix. 2.4.8.3. There are also parallels in the syntax of negation. In both Kurmanji and Sorani, the negative particles replace the other prefix. As in NENA, there is one for indicative (nq-) and one for subjunctive (ná-). The nq-prefix also covers the future so that in Kurmanji, the present-future distinction which is present in the positive is absent in the negative:152

NENA

Kurmanji (vb.‘to fall’)

Pos.

Neg.

Pos.

Neg.

Subj.

QaÓlin

la QaÓlin

bí-kav-im

ná-kav-im

Ind.Pres.

ki-QaÓlin

le QaÓlin

t-káv-im

nq-kav-im

Future

bit-QaÓlin

le QaÓlin

d¥ káv-im

nq-kav-im

2.4.8.4. Conclusion While the correspondances between NENA and its Iranian neighbours are not exact, the features mentioned above provide reasonably good evidence for some degree of parallel development.

2.4.9. Implications for classification The evidence of the verbal morphology also has implications for the internal classification of the NENA dialects. In general the communal division appears to be the most significant, with the exception of the Jewish North-western dialects which seem to be closer to the Christian dialects, especially those of the co-territorial Mosul Plain. The ki- and i- prefixes have not so far been found in any Jewish dialects, except marginally. The k- prefix for initial-strong verbs has only been found in the Mosul Plain dialects and J. North-western. In the other Jewish dialects for which I have information, covering a large area of the east (Azerbaijan, the Arbel Plain and the S.E.), k- only 152

MacKenzie (1961:181).

51


appears before initial-weak verbs. K~Ø is only found in one known Christian dialect (Senaya) but further research, especially in the east, could reveal more. The occurrences of Bit- and b- also seem to reflect the communal divide. Widespread in the Christian dialects, they are rare in the published Jewish dialects,153 with the exception of the Northwestern Group. The Qam-prefix is so far attested only in the Christian dialects and J. Northwestern Group. The Mosul Plain- J.N.W. relationship is also evident in the verbal morphology. The Ind. Pres prefix k- (for all verbs) is only found here. These are also the only dialects described where Qam- seems still to be in common use.154 The slight difference in form is perhaps due to the fact that the J. N.W. dialects are situated a little further North than the Mosul Plain and in the Christian dialects of the north, qam-, though rare, is the prevalent form. In fact, the ‘Mosul Plain’ dialect of Aradhin which is further North than its relations and geographically close to Amadiya, has the qam- variant. Jilu, which is closely related to the Mosul Plain dialects, has qem.155 These impressions may be somewhat distorted by the fact that few Christian dialects have been described in the south-east and few Jewish dialects in the far north-west. Christian Senna, situated in the south-east, shares some characteristics of the Jewish dialects, although it is said to be mutually incomprehensible with the Jewish dialect of that town. There is also a significant divide within the Christian dialects. Upper

Viari

and Ashitha both lack all three prefixes just discussed, expressing the

functions in other ways. Further research may illuminate how great this divide is.

153

They are absent in J. Arbel and Halabja. A b-prefix is, however, found in J. Azerbajani though it may be derived from gbe rather than bit. 154 In the Nerwa Texts, however, it isabsent. 155 Though see 2.2.4.3.

52


CHAPTER 3

QVIL FORMS 3.1.

INTRODUCTION

QÓil forms the base of several NENA forms, most commonly the form QÓilli. As noted in Chapter 1, QÓil has verbal force due to its origin as a predicative adjective. For this reason, it does not need to combine with auxiliary verbs. However, some of the affixes and particles with which it combines were originally auxiliaries.

3.2.

MORPHOLOGY

3.2.1. QÓilli and QÓilin There are two basic forms, QÓilli (QÓil-L) and QÓilin (QÓil-A). The first form is active while the second is in many dialects passive. In some, however, QÓilin is active and is used to express the perfect. In both forms, the suffix expresses the subject: qÓil-li

‘I killed’

qÓil-lux ‘you killed’

qÓil-in ‘I was killed’ qÓil-it ‘you (m.s.) were killed’156

QÓilli exists in all known NENA dialects. QÓilin, however, is not attested in many dialects. Both forms are found outside NENA in the related Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialect of †uroyo.157 The paradigms of the Amadiya dialect are given below for the verb ptaxa ‘to open’158. They are fairly typical of the forms found across the dialects. Sing. 3.m 3.f 2.m. 2.f. 1.

QÓilli ptix-le ptix -la ptix -lux ptix -lax ptix -li

Plural 1. 2.

ptix-lu ptiºx-loxun

1m. 1f.

QÓilin ptix ptix-a ptix-it ptix-at ptix-in ptix-an ptix-i ptix-etun

156

Based on Ptix paradigm in Hoberman (1989:36). Jastrow (1993:78). 158 Hoberman (1989:36). 157

53


3. ptix-lan 3.2.2. Forms extended by -wa-

ptix-ax

In addition to the L- and A-suffixes, the affix -wa- may be incorporated to produce extended forms: gríÎ-li

‘I pulled’

gríÎ-wa-li

‘I had pulled’

dír-a

‘she has returned’

zíl-á-wa

‘she had gone’ (J. Azerbaijani, Garbell 1965:70-71)

3.2.3. Prefixed particles QÓilli may, in some dialects, be preceded by a particle or prefix. Such particles include g¯(Senaya), l (Jewish Arbel) and hole (Hertevin). Such a particle is also present in †uroyo (k(o)-). Most of these prefixes are also used with QaÓil. hdax g¯-wdlox ‘you(m.) have done such a thing’ l-qÓille ‘he has killed’

(Senaya, Panoussi 1990:122) (Jewish Arbel, Khan 1999:268)

hole tele Yosep ‘Joseph has come’

(Hertevin, Jastrow 1988:57) (Vuroyo, Jastrow 1993:145-6)

ko-­¼ze ‘he sees’ 3.2.4. QÓil with A- and L-suffixes (QÓil-A-L)

In many dialects, forms occur where both A- and L-suffixes are incorporated into the verb. Such forms have the same function as QÓilli, but in addition express the pronominal object by means of the A-suffix: ptix-i-le

‘he opened them’

(Amadiya, Hoberman 1989:36)

In some of these dialects, only the third person A-set suffixes are permissable: m.s. -Ø; f.s. –a and pl. –i .However in others, such as Amadiya (Hoberman 1989:36), the full set is available: ptix-Ø-li

‘I opened it (m.)’

Îmi-a-lu

‘they heard her’.

(Hoberman 1989:104)

µzim-in-nu

‘they invited me (m.)’.

(Hoberman 1989:215)

mpulÓ-ax-lu

‘they removed us’.

(Amadiya, Hoberman 1989:36)

(Hoberman 1989:95)

The morpheme –wa- can also be added to such forms: mpulÓ-áx-wa-lu

‘they had removed us’

(Hoberman 1989:96)

54


3.2.5. QĂ&#x201C;il with auxiliary verbs Although QĂ&#x201C;il, being predicative, does not require an auxiliary verb, it may occur with one. In Jewish Azerbaijani, the negative equivalent of QĂ&#x201C;ilin is expressed by use of the negative copula (le, la, let, lat ...) with QĂ&#x201C;il.

qĂ­m-at â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;you (f.s.) have risenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

lat qĂ­ma â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;you (f.s.) have not risen.

jtĂ­w-en â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;I(m.) am sitting (have sat down)

len dmix â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;I (m.) am not asleepâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

(Garbell 1965:69-70)

(Garbell 1965:74)

The pluperfect and future perfect are also expressed with forms of the verb â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;to beâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. Garbell gives no examples, but according to the rules given (Garbell 1965:74), the forms would be: zil wĂŠli â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;I had goneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; zil kwen â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;I (m.) shall have goneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; zil hawen â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;I may have goneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Occurrences of QĂ&#x201C;il with an auxiliary verb are rare in the dialects. In this case, it is perhaps the result of analogy with the transitive paradigm where the QĂ&#x201C;ila base combines with auxiliary verbs (e.g. len bĂ&#x17D;ila â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;I (m.) have not cookedâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;). Viewed from a historical angle, however, this type of construction appears less strange. Most of the prefixed particles mentioned above (see 3.2.3.), as well as the past tense infix -wa- are probably none other than fossilized auxiliary verbs (see 3.4.3.1-2).

3.3. FUNCTION 3.3.1. QĂ&#x201C;illi 3.3.1.1. Perfective Past The functions of QĂ&#x201C;illi are quite similar across the NENA dialects. Its default function is to express the perfective past. It is characteristic of the perfective that it is used in narrative159 and this is certainly a common function of QĂ&#x201C;illi: bid dÂ&#x2022;y waÂľda, xÂ&#x2022;=yoma, HOXtre darwiĂ&#x17D;e, . . . HOX, Ă&#x201C;liblu ixala min yimmi . . . suqlu iĂ&#x17D;WXDpiĂ&#x17D;lu bixala . . ani min ilil Ă&#x17D;r(uxlu . . . baÂľdĂŠn HOD . . . â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;At that time, one day two beggars came . . . They came and asked my mother for food . . . They climbed the berry tree, and started eating . . . They called down from above . . . Afterwards she came..â&#x20AC;&#x2122; (Amadiya, Hoberman 1989:72) 159

See Comrie (1976:5) for a discussion of why a sequence of perfective verbs is likely to be taken as a sequence of events.

55


xd´qre baqatjom. qĂ­mle ja gora mar bela, kullu talme midjĂ­le, zinqrĂ­le g-xa satla, kullu dehwe piltĂ­le m-duĂ&#x17D;a. In the morning (lit. it became morning) this man â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the host â&#x20AC;&#x201C; rose, brought all the pitchers, poured them out into a bucket; brought out all the pieces of gold from the honey.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; 160 (Jewish Azerbaijani, Garbell 1965:118) Although the perfective views the situation as a point in time, it is not necessarily used of actions of short duration. It may be used of very long periods, as long as the situation is viewed as a whole.161 Likewise QĂ&#x201C;illi, when used with a non-punctual verb, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;frequently.. refers to a process or state lasting some significant, relevant amount of time, but the use of [QĂ&#x201C;illi] presents it as a single unit, in terms of its pragmatic importâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;:162 pÂ&#x2022;l=Ă&#x17D;ata ytuliSDOJX  Ă&#x17D;ata. â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;For half a year I sat, half a yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. (Amadiya, Hoberman 1989:73)

murwele-llox.§ â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;he brought you upâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;.

(Khan 1999:263)

3.3.1.2. Present Perfect QĂ&#x201C;illi is frequently used to express the present perfect. The perfect indicates the continuing present relevance of a previous situation. mizra,§ izla,§ bro#nax mizlle.§ â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;She said â&#x20AC;&#x153;Come! Your son has died!â&#x20AC;?â&#x20AC;&#x2122;. (Jewish Arbel, Khan 1999:263)

uu uÂ?dju jÂżma gwÂŻri xÂ? gaÂżja. â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;and today I have married a beggarâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. (Tkhuma, Jacobi 1973:258)

hemen la hĂşleli alah saxle. â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;In fact God has not given me childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. (Hertevin, Jastrow 1988:170)

This function can in most dialects be made more explicit by the modification of QĂ&#x201C;illi with a prefix (e.g. Senaya gÂŻ-qĂ&#x201C;illi), or replacement by a form with specifically perfect function, in many cases QĂ&#x201C;ila with the copula. However, these forms remain optional, as QĂ&#x201C;illi itself covers perfect meaning. QĂ&#x201C;illi is the unmarked form in this respect. The following two sentences from Senaya show the perfect expressed by both forms: xar diya mÂĽre Â&#x153;Â?ra lÂĽsÂ?n! kalbÂŻ mÂ?sle!â&#x20AC;&#x2122; After that he said: There is no way out. My dog has died!â&#x20AC;&#x2122; tayhÂŻn gÂŻ-wÂ?dlox gÂ?w barnÂ?Ă&#x17D;a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;You have offended mankind.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; (both Pannoussi 1990:122)

160

Garbell translates â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;all the pieces of gold came out of the honeyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. Comrie (1976:17). 162 Hoberman (1989:73). See also Khan (1999:263). 161

56


The perfect function of QĂ&#x201C;illi should not be thought of as in opposition to the perfective use. Perfect â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;aspectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; may combine with either perfectivity or imperfectivity.163 Compare the following two English sentences: Perfective

He has gone to the park. (He went and is still gone)

Imperfective

He has been going to the park. (He was going and is still going)

The perfective-imperfective aspect refers to the action rather than the resulting situation. When QĂ&#x201C;illi is used as a perfect, it appears to be in addition to its perfective function. Therefore the two functions just mentioned could be described as perfective past non-perfect (as is used for narrative) and perfective present perfect. QĂ&#x201C;illi is perhaps best defined as perfective and unmarked as to perfect aspect.

3.3.1.3. Pluperfect (Past Perfect) In a past tense context, QĂ&#x201C;illi may refer to a time even further in the past.164 This pluperfect sense may be expressed more explicitly using the QĂ&#x201C;ilwali form (see 3.3.5.): bar mqĂŠlu baew, m´qre bau â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;after they had spoken to him, he said to themâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (Jewish Azerbaijani, Garbell 1965:98)

mĂ&#x201C;elan§ ya#Âľni, kixwe# plizĂ&#x201C;lu,§ â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;We arrived. The stars had come out.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; (Jewish Arbel, Khan 1999:263)

3.3.1.4. Present and Future QĂ&#x201C;illi is not only used for past time. Like QaĂ&#x201C;lin, it may be used in the protasis of conditional sentences with present or future meaning: inkan qbille, baĂ&#x17D;=ila. la qbille, bdarin guEHL â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;If he accepts, good. If he doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t accept, Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll return home.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; (Amadiya, Hoberman 1989:74)

in mxe:le pawxa iOO0S[DUZL â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;if the air gets to them they spoilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. (Aradhin, Krotkoff 1982:61)

It also has future meaning with certain adverbs: baxlax miqÎł(da)de u pĂ&#x17D;atax miqÎł GD GHKLOPHD[XEDir mitlan... â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;We will eat together and drink together until we die. And after we die ...â&#x20AC;&#x2122; (Amadiya, Hoberman 1989:74)

3.3.1.5. The last examples show that it is not correct to categorize QĂ&#x201C;illi purely as a past tense. The past tense is its default function only. In certain contexts, its tense value may 163 164

Comrie (1976:62). See Maclean (1895:144).

57


vary. Its aspectual value, however, appears invariantly to be perfective, since QÓilli retains this function even when expressing the present or the future.165

3.3.2. Function of QÓilli with a prefix 3.3.2.1. There is a tendency for a prefix or preceding particle to have the role of specifying the perfect function of QÓilli. In Hertevin the particle used is hole: hole tele Yosep ‘Joseph has come!’

(Hertevin, Jastrow 1988:57)

In Senaya, g¯-QÓilli appears to have the same role:166 xna g¥b¯ tam g¯s¥lox? ‘..why then have you come to me?!’

(Panoussi 1990:121)

yt ta kalba hdax g¯wdlox, ¯y yt tauh¯n g¯wdlox. ‘You have done such a thing for a dog. You have committed an offense.’ (Panoussi 1990:121) In Jewish Arbel, the prefix used is l: na# tza# dukqna l-pilxzli.§ ‘I have just opened the shop.’

(Khan 1999:268)

In †uroyo, ko- is used to mark the perfect. The example here is from the intransitive paradigm (QaӍ#lno), but ko- is used with QÓilli as well.167 hqno, dkÓe d-rá«lo d-gámlo-yo ko-Îapíko hárke-va ‘Those are the footprints of a camel which has come by here’. (Vuroyo Jastrow 1993:153) 3.3.2.2. The perfect is not necessarily the only function of these forms. The Arbel construction l-QÓilli has been found to have discourse functions.168 When QÓilli and lQÓilli occur together with the same tense and aspect, l-QÓilli has the greater discourse prominence. Thus it is often used to express climax at the end of a series of verbs of perfect meaning: gwzre me#li bqo#x,§ o#d mzt miqrox bqiq,§ bazne wiqlli bqo#x,§ hár mqt mirox,§ ku#lla l-wiqlli bqox.§ ‘I have brought you earrings – everything you requested from me, I have made you bracelets, I have made you everything that you requested from me’.

165

Cf. the remarks of Hoberman (1989:71), concerning Amadiya. See Panoussi (1990:122 l.20 & 123 l.40) for more examples. 167 Jastrow (1993:153). 168 Khan (1999:274). 166

58


3.3.3. Lexical limitations on the distribution of QÓilli forms In the dialects of the Jewish Southeastern group as defined by Hopkins (1989), QÓilli cannot be used with all verbs, only with transitive verbs. The perfective past of intransitive verbs is expressed instead by local variant of the form QÓilin:

Kerend Transitive

qÓíl-li ‘I killed’

Intransitive

dm¯#x-na ‘I slept’

This system has not been found in any other NENA dialects. It is, however, present in geographically distant †uroyo. In †uroyo, however, a different base is used for intransitive verbs (see 3.3.4.4.).

Kerend­

†uroyo

Transitive

qÓílli

qÓíli

‘I killed’

Intransitive

dm¯#xna

dam#xno

‘I slept’

3.3.4. Functions of QÓilin 3.3.4.1. QÓilin, unlike QÓilli, is not a form shared by all the NENA dialects. Its function also varies significantly from dialect to dialect unlike the functions of QÓilli, which are strikingly constant. Its most common functions are expressing the passive and the perfect. In Amadiya and the dialect of the Nerwa Texts, it is used with transitive verbs as a passive past perfective, the passive counterpart to QÓilli: Amadiya ptixi ‘they were opened’

(Hoberman 1989:36)

ED[WDD Nullu mupqi l midínat yisraµel. ‘The women were all removed to the State of Israel.’ (Hoberman 1989:75) Nerwa Texts u-­b¯s go b¥Ó²d ­abs ‘and he was imprisoned in dungeon’

59


la dr¥na go ma­àar d¥hun ‘I was not put in their assembly’169 (both cited by Goldenberg (1992:120) from Sabar (1984))

Rhétoré (1912:106) recorded this same function in the Mosul Plain dialects: 6Q6P( ‘they were/ have been pulled’ Maclean (1895:86) found the same use in the Ashiret dialects and Alqosh:170 %VEVS$V=64OVUZ9W']5Ä ‘that woman was killed there’ QÓilin also has a passive past perfective function in Kerend and †uroyo: gríÎ-n• (=QÓilin) ‘I was pulled’

(Jastrow 1997:363)

qӍ#l-no (=QÓilin) ‘I (m.) was killed’

(Jastrow 1996:55)

In Mangesh, however, it apparently expresses the passive present: T Lºin ‘I am killed’

(Sara 1974:72)

3.3.4.2. In Hertevin, QÓilin also expresses the passive, but more narrowly of the perfect. It is thus not a counterpart to QÓilli: qÓil-en ‘I have been killed’ In Hertevin, it is also used with intransitive verbs to express the active perfect. It shares this function with Jewish Azerbaijani: Hertevin

dmi­-a ‘she has fallen asleep’

(Jastrow 1988:49)

J. Azerbaijani

kwíÎ-et ‘you (m.s.) have descended’

(Garbell 1965:70)

3.3.4.3. The Jewish dialects of Iranian Kurdistan (‘South-eastern Group’), such as Kerend, although situated at the other end of the NENA area, have in common with Hertevin that QÓilin is used for passives and intransitives. It is, however, part of perfective past paradigm.

Hertevin

Kerend

Transitive

PASSIVE PERFECT

PASSIVE PAST PERFECTIVE

Verbs

qÓil-en ‘I have been killed’

qӍl-no

Intransitive

ACTIVE PERFECT

ACTIVE PAST PERFECTIVE

Verbs

dmi­-en ‘I have fallen asleep’

dm¯#x-na ‘I fell asleep’

‘I (m.) was killed’

169

According to Goldenberg (1992:123), QÓil is rarely found with enclitic pronouns (i.e. the 1st and 2nd person suffixes). The example given here is the only one he could find. 170 It is not clear whether pronominal suffixes other than those of the 3rd person are used.

60


3.3.4.4. In the †uroyo group, there is another base used with the A-set suffixes. Its form in †uroyo is d#mx, in Mla­s¾ damix171 and it corresponds to the older Aramaic intransitive verbal adjective (Syriac damm¯k). This base is used with intransitives172 in the same way that QÓilin is used in some NENA dialects. It is not, however, used for passives. In Mla­s¾, its use has spread to transitives. If we consider Dam#x-no and QÓil-in as one type: the ‘predicative construction’,173 Mla­s¾ and †uroyo show a considerable resemblance to the NENA dialects, though not the same ones. Mla­s¾ uses QÓilli for the intransitive perfective past like the majority of NENA dialects. Like Jewish Azerbaijani and Hertevin, it uses the predicative construction for perfects, although, uniquely, it even uses it for active verbs. †uroyo, on the other hand, resembles Kerend. It uses the predicative construction for both passive and intransitive perfective past.

Functions of QÓilli, QÓilin and related forms in NENA and the †uroyo group

Pret.

Trans.

Amad.

J. Azer.Ñ

Hert.­

Mla­s¾

Vuroyo

Kerend

Active

qÓilli

qÓílli

qÓelli

qÓíli

qÓíli

qÓílli

Passive

qÓilin

qÓílna

dmíxli

qӍlno  damxno

Intransitive Perf.

Trans.

dmixli

dmíxli

dme­li

qaÓílno

Active qÓilen

Passive Intransitive

dm¯xna

dmíxen

dmi­en

damíxno

3.3.4.5. Summary In the mainstream NENA dialects QÓilin is the passive counterpart of QÓilli. In certain fringe dialects as well as the †uroyo group, it exhibits one or both of two features: 1. It is restricted to the perfect: 2. (In addition to its passive function), it is used actively but only with intransitive verbs. In the †uroyo group, another base is used, which is intransitive in origin. It is still intransitive in †uroyo, but has been extended to transitives in Mla­s¾.

171

Jastrow (1994:45). With a few exceptions (cf. Jastrow 1993:71). 173 =Jastrow’s terminology (1993:128). 172

61


3.3.5. Function of the extended forms The addition of -wa- usually has the effect of expressing relative tense. Thus QÓilwali is used for a situation which took place prior to another past situation: skínwa:lε ‘they had settled’

(Aradhin, Krotkoff 1982:34)

waxtit piqÎwale zyaÑa, kkoÎaxwa riÎ karma [Each year] when Shavuot [a late Spring holiday] had come, we would go down to the orchard.’ (Amadiya, Hoberman 1989:76) It also has this meaning in †uroyo: n΍q¼wayle (A1(1$qÓil-a-wa-le) ‘he had kissed her’

(Jastrow 1993:155)

The meaning of QÓilinwa depends on the meaning of QÓilin in any given dialect. When QÓilin expresses the perfect, QÓilinwa usually represents a situation which took place prior to another situation. This is, of course, the same function as was given for QÓilwali. Jespersen (1924:271, n.1) discussed a semantic distinction between the ‘retrospective past’ (i.e. past perfect) where the effects of the prior situation lasted into the time of the later situation, and the ‘pure before-past’ (i.e. past in the past). There is, however, no information available as to whether this is the distinction expressed by the NENA forms, or whether there is in fact any distinction between their functions.

3.4.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

3.4.1 The Origin of the Form 3.4.1.1. The origin of QÓilli and related forms has been the subject of much discussion. All agree that it derives from two elements, the absolute state of the passive participle and the preposition l- with pronominal suffix. However there is dispute as to why this construction came to take on its current functions. The form is not unique to modern Aramaic. One instance has been found as far back as the Reichsaramisch of the fifth century B.C.E. It became more common in the Eastern branch of Late Aramaic (Syriac, Mandaic and the language of the Babylonian Talmud) although it remained relatively rare and had not yet displaced QÓal. 3.4.1.2 In Late Aramaic, as also in the example from Reichsaramisch, the meaning was generally that of the perfect. QÓal was the form used for narrative (i.e. the perfective past non-perfect):174 Reichsaramisch Îmyµly ‘I have heard’ 174

(Kutscher 1945:66-74 and Driver 1957:29)

Cf. Kutscher (1969:135), for Syriac, N»ldeke (1904:§278), and for Mandaic, N»ldeke (1875:381).

62


Syriac medem da-sne l ‘b¯d leh ‘he has not done anything evil’

(Goldenberg 1992:118)

Mandaic ;Ó# C # CPD ‘have you heard that...?’

PC;P9 C PP9;Ò  E P9:9 ‘I have not behaved according to the will of the Evil One’ (both N»ldeke 1875:382) Talmudic PC PD ‘I have heard’

(Margolis 1910:82)

3.4.1.3. It has been observed that there is a tendency for forms with perfect meaning to become a preterite (the form used for narrative).175 The German construction ‘Ich habe gesehen’ (‘I have seen’) is now used in many dialects for the narrative past as well as the perfect, displacing the old Preterite ‘Ich sah’ in the process. The same process has happened in some French dialects and Modern Persian176. This is a development from a narrower function (perfective perfect) to a broader (perfective± perfect).

3.4.1.4. The Possessive theory 3.4.1.4.1. It was comparison with Old Persian that prompted Kutscher (1969) to suggest a theory for the origin of QÓ¯l l¯. Old Persian is an Iranian dialect known from inscriptions of Achaemenid kings. In the inscriptions, the following phrase occurs: ima tya man krtam ‘this is what I have done’ Man is the genitive-dative case of the first person pronoun, while krtam is the passive participle (nominative, masculine singular) of kar ‘to do, make, build’. Following W. Geiger’s article of 1893177, it was thought that this expression was passive in meaning: ‘what is done by me > ‘what has been done by me’ > ‘what I have done’ However, this required the genitive-dative case to be used as an instrumental case. In his re-examination of the construction, Benveniste (1952) argued that haœ + pronominal suffix was the normal way of expressing the agent of a passive: tya- ΍m

haœPDDDK\D ‘what I commanded them’

what-GEN/DAT.3pl. by-ABL.1.s was.commanded

(Benveniste 1952:54)

175

Jespersen (1924:270-1) and Meillet (1921:143,149-58 & 188-9), cited in Hopkins (1989:421, n.20). Jespersen (1924:271). Fox (1997:88) reports that the QÓila+COPULA form which in many dialects expresses the perfect, in Jilu is being used as a narrative tense. 177 Geiger (1893:1ff.). 176

63


According to Benveniste, the Genitive-dative case was not used with finite verbs to express the agent. On the other hand, this case was used along with a form of the verb ‘to be’ to express possession. For instance, ‘I have a son’ would be expressed thus: man

pusÌsa astiy ‘I have a son’

GEN/DAT.1.s.

son

is

(Benveniste 1952:56)

3.4.1.4.2. On this basis, Benveniste argued that the construction was a variation of the habeo factum type of perfect.178 This construction is found in many Indo-European languges, among them Germanic languages, Romance languages and Hittite: English

I have written a letter

German

Ich habe einen Brief geschrieben

French

J'ai écrit une lettre

Late Latin

eum habeo occisum ‘I have killed him’

What is common to these constructions is the use of the verb ‘have’ as an auxiliary and the presence of a passive participle. The participle was clearly originally an attribute of the object of the verb but at some point it was reanalysed as a component in a compound verb, while the verb HAVE which had indicated possession was reinterpreted as an auxiliary in the same compound. The reanalysis would have taken place in sentences where the meaning could be either. The following Latin sentence is an example: PecÔnis collocts habent ‘they have money invested’.

(Harkness 1898:206)

This sentence could be reanalysed as ‘they have invested money’. 3.4.1.4.3. Benveniste argued that the Old Persian perfect had developed along the same path as the HAVE perfects: man

krtam

I.have done Kutscher (1969) applied Benveniste’s arguments to Aramaic, which also expresses ‘have’ with the dative case (Syr.’¯Ó l¯ = there is to me), and concluded that the two constructions were of the same type: man krtam to.me done

178

=

µb¯Ÿ l¯

=

‘I have done’

done to.me

See Vendryes (1952) for a discussion of the HAVE-perfect in various languages.

64


3.4.1.5. Possessive or Passive? 3.4.1.5.1. The Possessive theory is not the only one that has been proposed. Like man krtam, QÓ¯l l¯ had been analysed as a passive construction179: µab¯Ÿ l¯ (it) is.done by-me’ > ‘(it)has been done by me > ‘I have done (it)’ 3.4.1.5.2. The two theories have been carefully distinguished in discussion of Old Persian. Benveniste argued that man krtam was possessive rather than passive (‘I have done’ rather than ‘is done by me’). Yet in the discussion of the Aramaic form the two theories have frequently been conflated. They are nevertheless quite distinct: In the possessive theory, QÓ¯l is an attribute, while in the passive theory, it is the predicate: µab¯Ÿ

POSSESSIVE

(it.)done

I.have

PASSIVE

(it.)is.done by.me

One feature that both models of perfect formation share in common is the passive participle. This is the key to explaining why both constructions have so often been the source of perfect forms. The perfect indicates the continuing present relevance of a previous situation. The passive participle indicates the result of a previous situation, while the present tense of the auxiliary (HAVE or BE)180 indicates that the result is in the present. Therefore both constructions contain references to both past and present.181 3.4.1.5.3. There are several arguments against the Possessive Theory. One is that it interprets QÓil as an attribute, yet QÓil is in the predicative (‘absolute’) state. There are two possible answers to this. The absolute state originally made a noun or adjective indefinite. Even in Syriac, it still retained this function to some degree. If a predicate is determined, the emphatic participle must be used:182 en-n qaŸmn w-en-n (u)­rn ‘I am the first and I am the last’ (N»ldeke 1904:§204)

It may, moreover, be misleading to see the participle as a pure attribute. It may be more useful to see the original construction as ‘I have the document finished’ (like English ‘I’ll have the document finished by Wednesday’). In this sentence, the participle is functioning as a predicative attribute of a direct object as opposed to the pure attribute in ‘I have the finished document’. If one looks at Latin examples showing ambiguity Cf. N»ldeke (1904:§279). In Aramaic, where BE is not required in the present tense, the default tense is the present. 181 See Comrie (1976:86) for discussion of the connection between perfect and passive. 182 N»ldeke (1904:§204). 179 180

65


between the old and new meanings, the participle is often acting as a predicative attribute: PecĂ&#x201D;niÂ?s collocÂ?tÂ?s habent â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;they have money investedâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;.

(Harkness 1898:206)

In Syriac, predicative attributes sometimes take the absolute state although the emphatic state may be more common183: nfaq melaykÂżn dagÂ?lÂ?n â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;your words proved falseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

(Nldeke 1904:§204)

The argument that one would expect the emphatic form, QĂ&#x201C;ÂŻlÂ?, in a possessive construction, is therefore not very strong. There is, however, fairly strong evidence that QĂ&#x201C;il should be taken as a predicate, namely the fact that it behaves as one when the lagent marker is absent. This form is found in both the Eastern dialects of Late Aramaic and the NENA dialects. In all of them it is used to express the passive: Syriac kĂ&#x201D;bÂĽ ÂľqÂŻrÂŻn wÂ?Â&#x;Ă&#x201D;ÂľtÂ? Ă&#x17D;qÂŻlÂ? wÂ?Ă&#x201C;iĂ&#x201C;Â? lÂŻĂ&#x201C;Â? â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;the thorns have been uprooted, the sweat removed, the fig-tree cursedâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (NÂťldeke 1904:§278)

Mandaic ?uBEN9%DCPGH ?N NIPH P KEP>%D QI  EP G â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;a cedar has been torn out of my garden, a spruce from its placeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (NÂťldeke 1875:§262/379)

Talmudic ?PIGN%CPH â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;its claws have been taken awayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

(Margolis 1910:82)

NENA See 3.3.4.1. What is striking is that the two constructions (QĂ&#x201C;ÂŻl and QĂ&#x201C;ÂŻl lÂŻ) are very similar. One can add or remove the agent marker, and the other components will remain as they are: qrÂĽyn

kĂ&#x201C;Â?bÂĽ

qrÂĽyn lÂ?k kĂ&#x201C;Â?bÂĽ

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Have the books been read?â&#x20AC;&#x2122; â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Have you read the books?â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

In Literary Neo-Syriac, in certain contexts, the two forms are even analysable as the same, the one with subject agreement and the other without it: HOÂ?j ĂşTÂŻl-a ED[WD E[XU Ă&#x201D;D Z]LOOÂ?j â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;they came, took the woman by force and wentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. (Polotsky 1996:17)

183

Ibid.

66


In the above sentence, úT¯l-a is equivalent toúT¯l-a-lj. Subject agreement is perhaps felt to be unnecessary as the subject is indicated in the previous verb.

3.4.1.5.4. All the evidence points to the two constructions being essentially the same in origin. This requires us to take QÓ¯l l¯ as an originally passive construction with the agent marked. However, l- is not the usual way of marking the agent of a passive in Aramaic. In Syriac, the preposition men was used: eÓqÓel mene(h) ‘he was killed by him’

(N»ldeke 1904:§249)

With certain reflexive verbs (e.g. eӍ­z¯ ‘to be seen’), l- does appear to act as an agent marker. However, N»ldeke argued that l- in such cases actually had dative meaning. Thus eӍ­z¯ l- meant not ‘to be seen by’ but ‘to appear to’: aykan meÎtam‘ lk melt ‘How is the word intelligible for thee’ (N»ldeke 1904:§246)

Goldenberg (1992:117) disagreed, arguing that l- did mark the actor: ‘eÓ­z¯, ettÑ¯Ÿ(w) &c. are not participles capable of marking perfect meaning, and they may sometimes be reflexive more than passive (“appear”, “let themselves caught”(sic)), but they are still the formal counterparts of the active, and attached to the l- is the actor. N»ldeke’s examples clearly show that this construction is by no means rare ...’.

There is evidence in other languages for the use of a case which is primarily genitive or dative to express the agent. In Latin, for instance, the dative can be used to express the agent, especially of a passive participle or gerundive but also, in later writers, of passive finite verbs.184 3.4.1.5.5. The Possessive theory requires l- to function as the equivalent of the HAVEauxiliary verbs of Indo-European languages. L- is indeed used in Syriac in the predicate of possession: u¯O¯ ‘I have’. In Syriac, however, the substantive verb is used. L¯ does not function as a predicate alone. One might, therefore, expect a perfect to involve u¯: u¯O¯ X qÓ¯l I.have X killed = ‘I have killed X’ It is possible that we are prejudiced by our reliance on the literary dialects and that in the ancient vernacular dialects u¯ was not necessary. The modern dialects cast some light on this question. Like the classical dialects, NENA dialects require it (itli ‘I have’, itle ‘he has’ etc.). This suggests that their ancestors did likewise. There is moreover a 184

For Latin, cf. Harkness (1898:205-6) and Hale and Buck (1903:198). For other languages cf. Hopkins (1989:418, n.13 & 14) for references.

67


construction in one modern dialect which is strikingly reminiscent of QÓ¯l l¯. In Aradhin, where the most common way of indicating the agent of a passive construction is by the use of min (A 6\ULDF men), l- is nevertheless occasionally used to indicate the agent in certain expressions, particularly after the passive participle (QÓila): u paqδí:wa:le tla ni:sa l-xuwwe ‘They ordered the one bitten by a snake’ xi:la l-kalba ‘it was eaten by a dog’ (but according to Krotkoff it ‘is perceived in its context more as an active statement’: ‘a dog ate it’) (Krotkoff 1982:39) As HAVE requires it, such idioms cannot be interpreted as the HAVE-construction. The only alternative is to analyse l- as a marker of the agent.

3.4.1.5.6 The evidence seems to suggest that the expression was originally passive. But what of the Old Persian analogy? Benveniste’s analysis has since been challenged by Cardona (1970). Benveniste’s theory rested on the assumption that the Genitive-dative case was not used to mark the agent of a passive finite verb. However Cardona found examples where this was so: avaiy Ôvjiy arik ha utÎm

auramazd naiy ayadiya

......................................and-GEN/DAT.3pl. Ahuramazda not was.revered ‘The Elamites were faithless and Ahuramazda was not revered by them.’ (Cardona 1970:2)

3.4.1.5.7 The question remains as to why a perfect construction should be derived from a passive rather than active expression. According to Comrie (1976:84), in some languages, explicit expression of the perfect is only possible in the passive voice. This is the case, for instance, in Irish. To mark an active sentence as explicitly perfect, one must instead use the passive construction with the agent added: tá an dinnéar ite ag Tomás lit. ‘Dinner is having-been-eaten (ite) by Tom’. This has been reanalysed as ‘Tom has eaten dinner’. This may be the way that NENA developed. 3.4.1.5.8. The derivation of a past perfective verb from a verbal adjective finds a parallel in much earlier Semitic. The Qatvl(a) form in West Semitic expresses the active perfective, but its original function seems to have been preserved in Akkadian where it was a predicative verbal adjective:185 rapaÎ ‘it is (was,will be) wide’ paris ‘it is (was,will be) decided’ 185

Huehnergard (1991:283).

68


3.4.2. The grammaticalization of QĂ&#x201C;illi The process by which QĂ&#x201C;ÂŻl lÂŻ turned into an active verb expressing the perfect and later the preterite is one of grammaticalization. There are several developments that QĂ&#x201C;ÂŻl lÂŻ underwent which are typical of grammaticalization. All of them are morphological indications of the mental reinterpretation of the form. 3.4.2.1. Loss of grammatical agreement QĂ&#x201C;ÂŻl was originally a verbal adjective describing the subject of a sentence. As with all adjectives in Aramaic it was required to agree with the noun it described. Gradually, however, this agreement was eroded. We see the first stages of agreement loss in Syriac, Mandaic and Babylonian Talmudic: Syriac

6 F( C &C )%

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;she has seen deacons and inspectorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (NÂťldeke 1875:383, n.1)

Mandaic

KNP9 PC;P9  C â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;I have not committed evilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (f.) KDPPE I> G9 PCIP:D C(pl.) PI ? PC;P9 C I have not performed magic tricks nor have I tortured a soul in the bodyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (NÂťldeke 1875:383)

Talmudic (f.) KCPD ?PC PD;% D â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;anyone who has heard anythingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

KHNIH  P?? PC PQO P;P;C â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;I saw a frogâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

(Margolis 1910:82)

However agreement is still common in these dialects. In early NENA, the language of the Nerwa Texts, we again see examples of non-agreement: udw²q-le uurx²d (f.) YÂ?rĂ&#x201D;Ă&#x17D;Â?layim bâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ÂŻÂ&#x;e â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;He took (lit. held in his hand) the road to Jerusalemâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

(Sabar 1976:46, 5.22)

u-mÂżr²m-le MžĂ&#x17D;e uÂŻÂ&#x;e(f.) u²ll²d yÂ?ma b²u²nhe â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;and Moses lifted up his hand against the sea in the morning at daybreakâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (Sabar 1976:69, 23.3)

69


In the present day NENA dialects, non-agreement is the norm for indefinite objects. Most dialects retain agreement for definite objects.186 The significance of agreement loss is that it indicates that the participle is no longer felt to be an attribute of the patient but has been reanalysized as a component in a compound verb. The same process occurred in late Latin.187 This development had knock-on effects in Aramaic. By breaking the link between the participle and the patient, it allowed the verb to take an object like any transitive verb, even marked with l: kaŸ uas¯r leh lsÓn lÎ¥ÎalӍ ‘when he had bound Satan to the chain’ (Brockelmann 1913:127)

Hopkins (1989:419, n.18) compares this development to the development of the pseudoverb biddi ‘I want’ in Levantine Arabic. The construction was originally bi-wudd¯ (lit. ‘in my desire is’) and thus the thing desired was historically the subject of the sentence. In one dialect, it remains so: bddi h¯ye lit. ‘in my desire is she’ But in most areas, biddi takes an object in the same way as ordinary verbs: biddi yha ‘I want her’. The emergence of non-agreement and the use of an object marker on what had been the subject both indicate the syntactic shift by which Qtilli became a fully active verbal form equivalent to the old QÓal form that it displaced. 3.4.2.2. Boundedness It is another feature of grammaticalization, that morphemes that have a close semantic connection frequently become morphologically ‘bound’, that is, they occur together and in a fixed order. They may also become phonetically influenced by their environment or eroded. When we first meet QÓ¯l l¯, the two components of the construction are not bound. In Syriac, l- may attach itself to a pronominal suffix or a noun. When it is attached to a noun, as in the second example below, it is not morphologically part of the verb: Îm¯tlan ‘we have heard’

(Goldenberg 1992:117)

kol da-bre l-alh ‘All that God has created’

(Goldenberg 1992:118)

186

It is interesting that in the Nerwa examples given above, there is non-agreement even though the objects are definite. 187 Cf. Comrie (1993:57).

70


In the Nerwa Texts, we see an intermediate stage between the independence of l- in Syriac and its absorption into the verbal form in the modern dialects. The l-morpheme may behave as if it is bound, assimilating to the preceding consonant in the case of certain consonants (n,r and t): tw²r-ru ‘He crushes them’ ‘he crushes them’

(Sabar 1976:XXXVII)

However, it may still be morphologically independent from the verbal form and attach itself to nouns:188 yan yx¯l¥t²n l-arye ‘or were you eaten by the lions/ or the lions ate you’ (Sabar 1984:77)

In present day dialects of NENA, l- is always a bound morpheme. It undergoes assimilation to certain consonants (see 1.5.3.1.) and constructions such as bre l-alh ‘God has created’ occur only marginally.189 Where the subject is a noun rather than a pronoun, it a stands outside the verbal form: qre:le xá-yo:ma ba:be pala:xe ‘One day his father called workmen’ (Krotkoff 1982:108)

3.4.2.3. Extension by analogy 3.4.2.3.1 A newly grammaticalized form is often restricted in its distribution. It arises in certain contexts and is initially restricted to them until gradually, by force of analogy, it spreads to other contexts. This process can be seen at work in the English perfect. Originally English required the verb BE for intransitive verbs, but later the HAVEconstruction, being the more common, was extended by analogy to all verbs.190 Transitive:

I have eaten

:

I have eaten

Intransitive:

I am come

:

I have come

Hopkins (1989) argued that a similar process occurred in Aramaic: that intransitives were originally expressed by the predicative construction, QÓilin. He suggests that the original system is preserved in the dialect of Kerend and other Jewish dialects of the Southeastern Group (see 3.3.3.). This is supported by the evidence from earlier Eastern Aramaic dialects. Intransitive predicative constructions can be found in Syriac, Classical Mandaic and the language of the Babylonian Talmud:

188

Goldenberg gives other examples to demostrate this where the morpheme is in fact not l- but ll-. They

cannot therefore be cited as evidence of l-Ks syntactic vitality. Khan (1999:114) suggests Ól l- (‘to’) as an etymology for ll-. Cf. Sachau (1895:40): w-a:ni Ó    ­Ói: ‘and yet, a woman has caused those three to sin’. 190 According to Vendryes (1952:104), this process has also occurred in Rumanian and Albanian. 189

71


uaÓ¥ n (=Dmek-n) ‘I have come’

Syriac

uaÓ¥n ­nan ‘We have come’. Bab. Talmud

Mandaic

(Sabar 1976:43)

HPCJ ‘he moved up’

(Schlesinger 1928:§30)

N?PEPD;O9PB‘one of them died’

(Margolis: 1910:82)

%P9EPB;Ó ‘in which (pl.) he lives’

(N»ldeke 1875:380)

3.4.2.3.2. There are still significant traces of this system in the modern NENA dialects. In addition to Kerend, the intransitive predicative construction is found in the dialects of Hertevin, Jewish Azerbaijani, and †uroyo (see 3.3.4.). It is also found in the early NENA dialect of the Nerwa Texts with a restricted group of verbs: intransitive verbs of the IIIy class (e.g. m-Ó-y ‘to arrive’; u-Ó-y/ y-Ó-y ‘to come’ and m-Ñ-y ‘to be able’): ’²yÓ-²n ‘I have come’

(Sabar 1976:XL)

Maclean and Rhétoré make tantalising references to intransitive QÓilin’s in other dialects. According to Maclean (1895:86), QÓil occurred in the Ashiret group and Alqosh ‘in either an active or a passive sense’ citing the following examples O6Z'Q%VQVH&(nÎa Îw¯q) ‘The man was left’ or (‘more rarely’) ‘The man left’. &VP/VS&XPQ ‘the bull has got loose’. Rhétoré (1912:156), writing of the Mosul Plain dialects, gave the QÓilin paradigm for the intransitive verb (u)zl: GY=62»

‘I (m.) have gone’

GŠ62»

‘I (f.) have gone’ etc.

In Jewish Arbel, where QÓilin is found only marginally in the speech of one informant, the cases recorded are restricted to the intransitive verb p-y-Î (‘to remain, survive’):191 o-la-piΧ ‘He is not alive’

Khan (1999:284)

3.4.2.3.3. It was found above (3.3.4.5.) that the predicative construction has a tendency to express the perfect. This is also reflected to some degree in the marginal cases just mentioned. In the Nerwa Texts, the QÓilin form expresses the perfect:192 iÓ¥-na b-amr²d uilha ‘I have come by the commandment of the Lord’ (Goldenberg 1992:123, citing Sabar 1984)

w¥le mÓe watdox ‘behold your time has arrived’ ( Goldenberg 1992:123, n.36, citing Sabar 1984)

191 192

Khan (1999:284). Cf. Sabar (1976:43, n.56) and Goldenberg (1992:123).

72


As in Hertevin, the past perfective of IIIy and other intransitives may be expressed by QÓilli: u’²yÓ¥-le go ­•km³m ‘and he came among the sages’

(Sabar 1976:5, l.22)

ula-mÑ¥-lu l²Îtya mya m²nn²d MrÓa ‘and they could not drink the water of Maratha’ (Sabar 1976:32, l.14-15) There are indications that QÓilin fulfilled the same function in Rhétoré’s examples from the Mosul Plain. Although he termed the form ‘preterite’, it is perhaps significant that he translated it with the French Perfect: ‘je suis allé’, while he translated the QÓilli form, zill¯ by the French Past Historic. 3.4.2.3.4. Hopkin’s theory is not unanimously accepted. Goldenberg (1992) argued that the predicative paradigm was not the original one used for intransitives. He notes (p130, n.63) that Qimli makes its first appearance very early on in Syriac, Mandaic and Babylonian Talmudic. Moreover the past copula weli which is present in the Jewish dialects of Southern Iran, is in origin the QÓilli form of the intransitive verb hw ‘to be’. Goldenberg (p119) argues further that ‘no active qÓ¯l forms can ever be derived in Syriac from intransitive verbs’. He points out that the intransitive perfect participle is expressed in Syriac by forms such as damm¯k and dmek. However, according to Kutscher (1969), citing Duval (1881:225), intransitive QÓ¯l forms do exist, e.g. dn¯­ ‘has risen’ They also exist in Mandaic and the language of the Babylonian Talmud, (see 3.4.2.3. for examples). It is possible, moreover, that the original form was indeed something like dmekin or damm¯kin, but that for reasons of phonetics or analogy with the passive QÓilin, it changed into dm¯kin. This reanalysis may have been aided by the ambiguity of the forms of III-y verbs, where the distinction between QÓel and QÓ¯l is neutralised (e.g. uaÓ¥ ‘is come’). In the Nerwa Texts, it is not possible to say whether forms such as iÓ¥na are one or the other.193 Goldenberg deals with the apparent problem of forms such as q¯m le, by asserting that they are in fact passive. He regards them as ‘inner passives’ referring to the act itself (‘a passivization turning upon the underlying inner object’, citing the English construction, ‘lives being lived... and loves loved’.194 According to this analysis, q¯m le would have the original sense of ‘A standing is/has been stood by him’.195 However, it is more plausible that we are simply seeing the process of extension by analogy, whereby the form most commonly used (i.e. the one used for intransitives) becomes generalized for all verbs, as happened in English.

193

Goldenberg (1992:123) interprets them as QÓ¯l. Jesperson ( 1909-49 III 301:§15.14). 195 See Goldenberg (1992:117,119). 194

73


3.4.2.3.5. The above evidence suggests the following conclusions: 1.

In Proto-NENA, the perfect of intransitive verbs and passives was expressed by a predicative construction, while the perfect of transitives was expressed by QÓilli. Later, QÓilli spread to intransitives. There is already evidence of this in the Eastern dialects of Late Aramaic: Syriac

q¯m le ‘he stood’ mhallak l¯ ‘I have walked’

Mandaic

PCDPH ‘I have stood up’

(Noldeke 1904:219) (N»ldeke 1875:§263)

2.

Although QÓilli spread to intransitives, the predicative construction was still retained for intransitives for some time, in some cases till the present day (=Kerend, Hertevin, Jewish Azerbaijani, †uroyo, Nerwa Texts, marginally in Ashiret, Mosul Plain and Arbel).

3.

While the value of QÓilli shifted from perfect to past perfective (±perfect), the exclusively perfect value of the predicative construction was more persistently retained. This resulted in a functional distinction between intransitive QÓilli and the predicative construction (=Hertevin, Jewish Azerbaijani, Nerwa Texts, Mosul Plain). The exception is Kerend where the predicative construction shifted to the past perfective along with QÓilli, thus dispensing with the need for the intransitive QÓilli. Of the two types of predicative construction, passives have shown more inclination to become preterite than intransitives. (=Nerwa Texts). Passives also have a past perfective value in Amadiya, †uroyo and Kerend).

4.

The result is an uneven system because only the perfect of intransitives may be expressed by the predicative construction. As regards transitives, they either cannot be explicitly marked as perfect, or another construction (e.g. QÓila + COPULA) must be used. The next step is for the system to be rationalised. Either the intransitive predicative construction was dropped altogether and another perfect form was used for all verbs (=most NENA dialects), or the predicative construction was extended to transitive verbs (=Mla­s¾ alone).

5.

There is a general tendency for the predicative form also to be dropped as a method of expressing the passive, in the face of other methods of expressing the passive. In many dialects the form is no longer found at all.

6.

In proto-NENA, the predicative construction may have used a special base: dmek or damm¯k, just as †uroyo and Syriac do. However, on the evidence of Mandaic and the Babylonian Talmud, the original base could have been Dm¯k.

74


3.4.3 Fossilized Auxiliaries 3.4.3.1. -waLike many verbal affixes -wa- derives from an auxiliary verb (h)w, the past tense of the Aramaic verb ‘to be’. In Syriac, it is not fully grammaticalized, as it may still be conjugated196: ­Î¯l¯n (h)waw ‘they had been got ready’ dbeh Óm¯r (h)wÓ bÔrkÓ ‘in which the blessing had been hidden’ (N»ldeke 1904:§279)

However by the time of the Nerwa Texts, the verb had become a fixed morpheme- it was longer conjugated and had a fixed position in the form: mpulÓ¯-w-le ‘he had taken them out’

(Sabar 1976:XL)

The function of -w- is to express relative tense: to shift the time reference back. This function was developed in parallel with the function of the unsuffixed form. Just as QÓ¯l, expressing a present state, came to be reanalysed as a present perfect (and later preterite), QÓ¯l-(h)w, expressing a past state, was reanalysed as a past perfect: qÓ¯l ‘he is killed’ > ‘he has been killed’ qÓ¯l(h)w ‘he was killed’ > ‘he had been killed 3.4.3.2. Verbal Prefixes The various prefixes that are used with QÓilli are also predominantly derived from auxiliary verbs. Hertevin hole is the 3.m.s. form of the ‘emphatic’ copula, while Arbel l may derive from the 3.f.s. form of the non-emphatic copula (il ‘she is’).197 These reflect a tendency in perfect forms for them to combine present and past in their forms.198 This may also be visible in the Senaya form g¯ qÓelli, if, as seems likely, g¯ is the same prefix as is used in the Ki-QaÓlin form.

3.4.4. Evidence for the influence of Iranian on the emergence of QÓ¯l l¯ It is not necessarily coincidental that Old Persian possessed a form very similar in structure to QÓ¯l l¯, i.e. man krtam. E.Y. Kutscher (1969), who first noted the similarity between the two constructions, suggested that it might be a case of borrowing. Kutscher argued for Persian influence on the basis of the following evidence:

196

In Babylonian Talmudic, it is generally uninflected, except in the plural. Cf. Margolis (1910:81). Khan (1999:112-3). 198 Comrie (1976:53). 197

75


1. QÓ¯l l¯ is restricted to Eastern Aramaic which would have had more contact with Persian, especially at the vernacular level, than Western Aramaic. 2. It has not been found in Aramaic inscriptions dating to before the Persian conquest or in the Behistun inscription which dates to the beginning of the Persian presence- too early for the borrowing to have taken root. 3. Kutscher argued against the hypothesis that the construction was borrowed in the opposite direction, from Aramaic into Persian, on the basis that recorded examples of the construction have been found in Persian earlier than in Aramaic, for instance in the Behistun inscription. This is not absolute proof, however, as we have no evidence of the unwritten dialects of the two languages. 4. He also argues that the presence of a different form performing the same function in Western Aramaic is evidence for our form having a foreign origin.This form, un’ Îmyt (‘I have heard’) in Galilaean Aramaic, is the functional equivalent of Eastern Aramaic Îmy‘ ly. It is conceivable that the two branches of Aramaic in their different areas could have taken different courses of development without the need for outside influence. Nevertheless, as the active qÓ¯l form is also present in Eastern Aramaic,199 he sees it as the original form which qÓ¯l l- intruded upon as a result of the Persian conquest. 5. QÓilli was first found in an Aramaic document where the scribe was probably taking dictation from a Persian official and translating simultaneously into Aramaic. In this situation, syntactical borrowing would be very likely. Friedrich also attributes the adoption of this form to the ‘radebrechenden Gebrauch des Aramischen’ of employees whose native speech was Iranian. However, as Kapeliuk points out, ‘It is, however doubtful whether a linguistic innovation of such importance could be due merely to the incorrect handling of the language by some foreigners who were using it in writing.’

Old Persian may not be particularly close to the vernacular Iranian dialects of the time- today Kurdish is the predominant Iranian language of the area. However, the construction was once widespread in Iranian200 and is still preserved, along with the transitive-intransitive distinction, in the Sorani dialects of Kurdish.201

It is restricted to certain verbs. According to N»ldeke (1904:§280), this function ‘arises partly from the circumstance that the verbs concerned may be doubly transitive, and partly from the influence of the analogy of forms allied in meaning’: Ӎ‘¯n = ‘laden with’ > ‘bearing’

199

lb¯Î = ‘clothed with’ > ‘wearing’ Cf. also Kutscher (1969:138, n.29). 200 Khan (1999:10). 201 Pennachietti & Orengo (1995:226).

76


None of these arguments prove that the construction was influenced by Iranian, yet the formâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s restriction to the area of intense contact with Iranian and its absence before that contact, make it highly likely that this was the case.

77


CHAPTER FOUR

CONCLUSIONS The main feature of the NENA verbal system that distinguishes it from that of other Semitic languages is perhaps the loss of the ancient forms QÓal and YiqÓul. The use of historically nominal forms as verbs is not in itself a distinguishing feature: participles are used as verbs not only in earlier Aramaic but also in Biblical Hebrew and modern Arabic colloquial, all of which retain QÓal and YiqÓul. Loss of QÓal and YiqÓul also distinguishes NENA from Modern Western Aramaic where these forms are preserved. The †uroyo Group is clearly closest to NENA in this respect, having completely shed QÓal and YiqÓul. Neo-Mandaic, in contrast, retains the QÓal form, though it has replaced YiqÓul with QÓil. This situation supports both the division of Neo-Aramaic into Eastern and Western dialects and the closer relationship of NENA to the †uroyo Group than to Neo-Mandaic. One of the factors that has influenced the development of the Eastern branch of Aramaic is the presence of Iranian languages in the area. There has undoubtedly been a great deal of Iranian influence on NENA. This is especially apparent in cases of lexical borrowing. The extent of Iranian influence on the verbal system, however, is more difficult to ascertain. There are certainly marked syntactic parallels, for instance the neutralization of the present-future distinction in the negative (see 2.4.8.3.) and the formation of the preterite. Nevertheless, some of these also find parallels in very distant languages and so may be due in part to universal linguistic tendencies. Probably both universal tendencies and language contact played a role, each reinforcing the other. As regards the internal classification of the NENA dialects, the evidence from verbal morphology discussed here seems to support the current classification of the NENA dialects. On the whole, the main divide seems to be between the Jewish and Christian dialects. The Jewish North-western dialects, however, show more resemblances to neighbouring Christian dialects than to other Jewish dialects. There are also some Christian dialects that are relatively distinct from the majority of Christian dialects, such as †iari, Ashitha, Hertevin and Senna. Within the Jewish dialects, those of the South-east are divided from the others by the absence of the intransitive QÓilli. The picture may however change as more dialects are documented.

78


APPENDIX 1. TRANSCRIPTION SYSTEMS For detailed information on the pronunciation of the various dialects, the respective grammars must be consulted. The following elucidates only those features of the transcription systems which require particular explanation. a) Emphatic Consonants and Flatting NENA dialects in general continue the Semitic phonemic oppositions of emphatic and non-emphatic. ‘Emphatic’ consonants tend to be velarized but this is not necessarily the only property of emphasis (pharyngealization and absence of aspiration being others) and its exact constituents differ from dialect to dialect.1 There is a tendency in NENA for the characteristics of ‘emphatic’ consonants to spread to neighbouring sounds. In some dialects (e.g. Aradhin2), this may affect no more than the immediate environment, but in Literary Neo-Syriac and Jewish Azerbaijani, it usually affects the whole word. This is called synharmonism or flatting.3 In this dissertation, ‘flat’ words, where marked as such by the source, are indicated by the symbol , e.g. qtílwale ‘he had killed him’.4

b) Nestorian Script The missionaries who adapted the Nestorian script to Neo-Aramaic based their spelling on etymological principles. It is therefore sometimes difficult to deduce the actual pronunciation to any degree of accuracy. The following, based on Maclean (1895:2-13), is no more than a guide:

1

Cf. Krotkoff (1982:10-11) for a discussion of this. Krotkoff (1982:11-12). 3 Cf. Polotsky (1961:8-11), Jastrow (1997:352-3) and Khan (1999:39-40). 4 From Garbell (1965:75). 2

79


Consonants % is used to carry a vowel or is quiescent. In the middle of a word, following a consonant it indicates >@. ' >E@ ( >J@ Z( >¤@ * >G=@ , >G@ or >'@ . >K@, quiescent at the end of a word. / >Z@ 2 >]@ 2Á >=@ 3 >[@ 4 >WÑ@ 5 >M@or >L:@ 9 >N@or >[@

= >O@ E >P@ H >Q@ I >V@ J may modify the vowel. At the beginning of a word, it carries a halfvowel or is quiescent. In the middle of a word, following a consonant it indicates >@. L >S@ N >V@ O >T@ P >U@ Q >6@ R >=@ S >W@ or >7@

A line written above a letter indicates that it is not pronounced, e.g. .X=%V/. O6PL = pr²qwale ‘he had finished’.

Vowels W m >D@ or >(@ V >$@ Y >,@ X >LØ@ or >H@ 6 >LØ@, >,@ in the preterite (qÓ²lle) and S6&. 1 >XØ@, occasionally >8@ 0 >XØ@, ‘slightly inclining to o, especially in Al. Z. [Alqosh and Zakho]’ (Maclean 1895:7)

c)

Novyi Alfavit

The following is based on Polotsky (1961:6-11), Friedrich (1959:52-56) and Pennacchietti and Tosco (1991:18-22). International phonetic equivalents are given when necessary.

80


a  \ c ç d e g h i k O m n o

>$@ >D]

p >S@ or >S+@ q >T@or>N@ r s ú >6@ t >W+@  >W@ u >XB@ or >X@ v >Z@ x >[@ z z >=@ v >ï@(open syllable), >—@ (closed syllable) flatted j >M@

flatted non-flatted

>W6@or >W6+@ >G=+@ >H@ or >(@ >Î@ >,@ non-flatted >F@ or >F+@ >O@or>¨@

>RB@ or >o@

Vowel length is not shown other than with i and L (ij and LM).

2. WEAK VERBS AND DERIVED STEMS (Amadiya, Hoberman 1989) a) QaÓlin

x-z-y

NZ

Singular

‘to see’

‘to write’

1.m. 1.f. 2.m. 2.f. 3.m. 3.f. Plural 1. 2. 3.

xazin xazyan xazit xazyat xaze xazya

NDZin NDZDQ NDZit NDZDW NDX NDZD

xazax xazetun xaze

NDZD[ NDZHWXQ NDZL

Other weak verbs: p-y-Î: l-w-Î:

peÎin ‘I become’, payiÎ ‘he becomes’ loÎin ‘I wear’, lawiÎ ‘he wears’

Derived Stems: mÎ-d-r: m-tx-r:

mÎadrin ‘may I send’ matxirin ‘may I remind’

81


b) QÓilli Weak verbs: -x-l: x-z-y: l-w-Î:

xilli ‘I ate’, mirri ‘I spoke’ xzeli ‘I saw’ lwiÎli ø luÎli ‘I wore’

Derived Stems: mÎ-d-r: m-hr-Î:

mÎodirri ‘I sent’ mohriÎli ‘I began’

82


REFERENCES ABU-HAIDAR, F., 1991, Christian Arabic of Baghdad, Semitica Viva 7. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. ARNOLD, W., 1990, Das NeuwestaramÂ?ische, Semitica Viva 4.5. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. AVINERY, I., 1988, The Aramaic Dialect of the Jews of ZÂ?khÂż [in Hebrew], Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. BAUER, H. and LEANDER, P., 1927, Grammatik des Biblisch-AramÂ?ischen. Halle, Salle: Max Niemeyer. BENVENISTE, E., 1952, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;La construction passive du parfait transitifâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, Bulletin de la SociĂŠtĂŠ de linguistique 48. 52-62. BLANC, H.., 1964, Communal dialects in Baghdad, Harvard Middle Eastern Monographs, 10. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. BROCKELMANN, C., 1913, Grundriss der vergleichende Grammatik der Semitischen Sprachen, vol. 2. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard. --------, 1981, Syrische Grammatiki. Leipzig: VEB Verlag EnzyklopÂ?die. CARDONA, G., 1970, The Indo-Iranian construction manÂ? (mamÂ?  NĂ&#x201E;WDP Language 46,1-12. COHEN , D., 1972, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Neo-Aramaicâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 12, cols. 948-951. --------, 1979, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Sur le système verbal du nĂŠo-aramĂŠen de Maâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;lulaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, in Journal of Semitic Studies 24. 219-239. COMRIE, B.,1976, Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. --------, 1981, Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. --------, 1985, Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CORRELL, C., 1978, Untersuchungen zur Syntax der neuwestaramÂ?ischen Dialekte des Antilibanon (Maâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;lĂ&#x2DC;la, Ba­¾D ĂśXEE Âľ$GÂłn). Abhandlungen fĂ&#x2022;r die Kunde des Morgenlandes, vol 44 no.4. Mainz: Deutsche MorgenlÂ?ndische Gesellshaft and Wiesbaden: Steiner. DANIELS, G.R., 1997, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Scripts of Semitic Languagesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; in R. Hetzron (ed.), The Semitic Languages. London, New York: Routledge.

83


DRIVER, G.R., Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. First edition, Oxford 1954, second (abridged and revised), Oxford 1957. DUVAL, R., 1881, Traité de grammaire Syriaque. Paris. --------, 1883, Les dialectes néo-araméens de Salamas. Textes sur l’état actuel de la Perse et contes populaires, publiés avec une traduction fran›aise. Paris. FOX, S.E., 1990, Cliticization in Neo-Aramaic, in W. Heinrichs (ed.), Studies in NeoAramaic, Harvard Semitic Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 79-88. --------, 1991, The Phonology and Morphology of the Jilu Dialect of Neo-Aramaic’, Journal of Afroasiatic Languages 3, 35-57. --------, 1994, ‘The relationship of the Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 114, 154-162. --------, 1997, The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Jilu, Semitica Viva No.16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. FRIEDRICH, J., 1959, ‘Neusyrisches in Lateinschrift aus der Sowjetunion’, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 109, 50-81. GARBELL, I., 1965, The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Persian Azerbaijan: Linguistic analysis and folkloric texts, Janua Linguarum Series Practica III. The Hague: Mouton. GEIGER, W., 1893, ‘Die Passivconstruktion des Prteritums transitiver Verba im Iranischen’ in Festgruss an Rudolf v. Roth. Stuttgart. GIVÓN, T., 1976, ‘Topic, Pronoun, and Grammatical Agreement’ in Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, 151-188. New York: Academic Press. --------, 1979, On Understanding Grammar. Academic Press: New York. GOLDENBERG, G., 1992, ‘Aramaic Perfects’, Israel Oriental Studies 12, 113-137. GUIDI, I, 1883, ‘Beitrge zur Kenntnis des neuaramischen Fell¯­¯-Dialektes’, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 37, 293-318. HALE, W.G. and BUCK, C.D., 1903, A Latin Grammar. Ginn & Company. HARKNESS, A., 1898, Complete Latin Grammar. London: American Book Company. HETZRON, R.,1969,‘The Morphology of the Verb in Modern Syriac (Christian Colloquial of Urmi)’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 89, 112-127. HEINE, B., 1993, Auxiliaries: cognitive forces and grammaticalization. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. HEINRICHS, W., 1990, ‘Introduction’ in W. Heinrichs (ed.), Studies in Neo-Aramaic. Harvard Semitic Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 89-103. HOBERMAN, R.D., 1985, ‘The Phonology of Pharangeals and Pharangealization in PreModern Aramaic’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 105,221-231.

84


--------, 1988, ‘The history of the Modern Aramaic pronouns and pronominal suffixes’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 108, 557-575. --------, 1989, The Syntax and Semantics of Verb Morphology in Modern Aramaic: A Jewish Dialect of Iraqi Kurdistan, New Haven: American Oriental Society. --------, 1993, ‘Chaldean Aramaic of Zakho’, in R. Contini, F. Pennacchietti and M. Tosco (eds.), Semitica: Serta philologica Constantino Tsereteli dicata, Turin: Silvio Zamorani, 115-126. HOPKINS, S., 1989, ‘Neo-Aramaic dialects and the formation of the preterite’, Journal of Semitic Studies 37, 74-90. --------, 1993, ‘The Jews of Kurdistan in Eretz Israel and their language’ [in Hebrew], P©tamim 56, 50-74. HOPPER, J. and TRAUGOTT, E.C., 1993, Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HUEHNERGARD, J., 1991, ‘Remarks on the Classification of the Northwest Semitic Languages’ in J. Hoftijzer and G. Van Der Kooij, The Balaam Text from Deir ‘Alla Re-evaluated: Proceedings of the International Symposium held in Leiden 21-24 August 1989. Leiden: Brill. IZADI, M.R., 1992, The Kurds: A Concise Handbook. Dept. of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations: Harvard University. JACOBI, H., 1973, ‘Grammatik des thumischen Neuaramisch (Nordostsyrien)’, Abhandlungen fÕr die Kunde des Morgenlandes 40/3. Wiesbaden. JASTROW, O., 1986, ‘Mla­s¿G: An Unknown Neo-Aramaic Language of Turkey’, Journal of Semitic Studies 30 (1985), 265-270. --------, 1988, Der neuaramische Dialekt von Hertevin (Provinz Siirt), Semitica Viva 3. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. --------, 1990a, ‘Personal and Demonstrative Pronouns in Central Neo-Aramaic’ in W. Heinrichs (ed.), Studies in Neo-Aramaic. Harvard Semitic Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 89-103. --------, 1990b, Der arabische Dialekt der Juden von ‘Aqra und Arb¯l, Semitica Viva5. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. --------, 1993, Laut- und Formenlehre des neuaramischen Dialekts von M¯din im VÔr tAbd¯n, first printed 1967, reprinted with new introduction and bibliography 1985, reprinted as part of the Semitica Viva series 1993 (Semitica Viva 9, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). --------, 1994, Der neuaramische Dialekt von Mla­s¾, Semitica Viva 14. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

85


--------, 1996, ‘Passive Formation in Vuroyo and Mla­s¾’, Israel Oriental Studies 16, 1148. --------, 1997a, ‘The Neo-Aramaic Languages’, in R. Hetzron (ed.), The Semitic Languages. London, New York: Routledge. --------, 1997b, ‘Zum neuaramische Dialekt von Hassane’, in A. Afsaruddin & A.H. M. Zahniser (ed.), Humanism, Culture, and Language in the Near East: Studies in Honor of Georg Krotkoff. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns 1997. JESPERSON, O., 1909-49, A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. 7 vols. London-Copenhagen. --------, 1924, The Philosophy of Grammar. London. JOHNS, A.F., 1972, A Short Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, Andrews University Monographs, Volume 1. Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press. KAPELIUK, O., 1989, Some common traits in the evolution of neo-Syriac and of neoEthiopian, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 12, 294-320. --------, 1996, ‘Is Modern Hebrew the only “Indo-Europeanized” Semitic language? And what about Neo-Aramaic?’, Israel Oriental Studies 16, 59-70. KHAN, G., 1999, A Grammar of Neo-Aramaic, Leiden; Boston; K»ln: Brill. KIPARSKY, P., 1968, ‘Tense and Mood in Indo-European Syntax’, Foundations of Language 4. KROTKOFF G., 1982, A Neo-Aramaic dialect of Kurdistan, New Haven: American Oriental Society. --------, 1990, ‘An Annotated Bibliography of Neo-Aramaic’ in W. Heinrichs (ed.), Studies in Neo-Aramaic. Harvard Semitic Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 3-26. KUTSCHER, Y.E. 1945, ‘An Aramaic Scroll from the Fifth Century’ [in Hebrew], Qedem II, 66-74. KUTSCHER, Y.E., 1969, ‘Two “passive” constructions in Aramaic in the light of Persian’, Proceedings of the international conference on Semitic studies, Jerusalem, 132-151. LUZZATTO, S.D., 1876, Grammar of the Biblical Chaldaic language and the Talmud babli idioms (translated from the Italian and largely revised by J.S. Goldammer). Ner York. MACLEAN, A.J., 1895, Grammar of the Dialects of Vernacular Syriac, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. --------, 1901, Dictionary of the Dialects of Vernacular Syriac. Oxford: Clarendon Press (reprint Amsterdam: Philo Press 1972). MACKENZIE, D.N., 1961, Kurdish Studies-I. London: Oxford University Press.

86


MACUCH, R., 1976, Geschichte der spt- und neusyrischen Literature. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. --------, 1989, Neumandische Chrestomathie mit grammatischer Skizze kommentierter Übersetzung und Glossar. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. MARGOLIS, M.L., 1910, A Manual of the Aramaic Language: Grammar, Chrestomathy and Glossaries. MÕnchen. MEILLET, A., 1921-38, Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, 2 vols, Coll. linguistique publiée par la Société de linguistique de Paris. MURAOKA, T., and PORTEN, B., 1998, A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic. Leiden: Brill. MURAOKA, T., 1987, Classical Syriac for Hebraists. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. MURRE-VAN DEN BERG, H.L., 1995, From a Spoken to a Written Language: The Introduction and Development of Literary Urmia Aramaic in the Nineteenth Century (PhD. thesis). NAKANO, A., 1973, Conversational Texts in Eastern Neo-Aramaic (Gzira Dialect) (Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa A4). Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa. NÖLDEKE, T., 1868, Grammatik der neusyrischen Sprache am Urmia-See und in Kurdistan, Leipzig: T.O. Weigel. --------, 1875, Mandische Grammatik, Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses. [820:4.c.85.7/Bensly.5.c.101-rare books] --------, 1904, Compendious Syriac Grammar (translated by James A. Crichton). London: Williams and Norgate. ODISHO, E., 1988, The Sound System of Modern Assyrian (Neo-Aramaic), Semitica Viva 2. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. --------, 1990, ‘Bilingualism and Multilingualism among Assyrians: A case of language erosion and demise’, in R. Contini, F. Pennacchietti and M. Tosco (eds.), Semitica: Serta philologica Constantino Tsereteli dicata, Turin: Silvio Zamorani, 115-126. PANOUSSI, E., 1990, ‘On the Senaya dialect’, in W. Heinrichs (ed.), Studies in NeoAramaic. Harvard Semitic Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 107-129. PENNACCHIETTI, F. and TOSCO, 1991, Testi neo-aramaico dell’Unione Sovietica raccolti da Enrico Cerulli, Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale/ PENNACCHIETTI, F. and ORENGO, A., 1995, ‘Neoaramaico, Curdo e Armeno: Lingue a contatto’, Egitto e Vicino Oriente 18, 221-233. --------, 1997, ‘On the Etymology of the Neo-Aramaic Particle qam/kim-‘ in Moshe BarAsher (ed.), Massorot: Studies in Language Traditions and Jewish Languages IX-X-XI. Jerusalem: 1997.

87


POIZAT, B., 1990, ‘La Complainte sur la Peste de Pioz’, in W. Heinrichs (ed.), Studies in Neo-Aramaic. Harvard Semitic Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 107-129, and 1993, in R. Contini, F. Pennacchietti and M. Tosco (eds.), Semitica: Serta philologica Constantino Tsereteli dicata, Turin: Silvio Zamorani, 115-126. POLOTSKY, H.J., 1961, ‘Studies in Modern Syriac’, Journal of Semitic Studies 6, 1-32. --------, 1964, ‘Semitics’ in The world history of the Jewish people, ed. by B. Netanyahu and E.A. Speiser. vol. 1, 99-111. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. --------, 1967, ‘Zakho’ in Franz Rosenthal (ed.), An Aramaic Handbook, Part II/1. Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz, 13 ff. --------, 1979, ‘Verbs with two objects in Modern Syriac (Urmi)’, Israel Oriental Studies IX, 204-227. --------, 1986, ‘Neusyrische Konjugation’, in On the Dignity of Man. Oriental and Classical Studies in Honour of Frithiof Rundgren, edd. Tryggve Kronholm and Eva Riad (= Orientalia Suecana, vol. 33-35). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 323-332. --------, 1994, ‘Incorporation in Modern Syriac’, in G. Goldenberg and S. Raz (eds.), Semitic and Cushitic Studies, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 90-102. --------, 1996, ‘Notes on a Neo-Syriac grammar’, Israel Oriental Studies 16, 11-48. RHÉTORÉ, J., Grammaire de la langue Soureth ou Chaldéen vulgaire, selon le dialecte de la plaine de Mossoul et des pays adjacents, Mossoul: Imprimerie des P£res Dominicains. ROSENTHAL, F., 1964, ‘Die aramaistiche Forschung seit Theodor N»ldeke’s Ver»ffentlichungen’. Leiden. RUBBA, J., 1993, Forms derived from Verbal Roots in Tisqoopa Modern Aramaic, in R. Contini, F. Pennacchietti and M. Tosco (eds.), Semitica: Serta philologica Constantino Tsereteli dicata, Turin: Silvio Zamorani, 115-126. SABAR, Y., 1976, PÎaÓ Wayh³ BÎalla­. A Neo-Aramaic Midrash on BÎalla­ (Exodus). Introduction, phonetic transcription, translation, notes and glossary, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. --------, 1982, The Folk Literature of the Kurdistani Jews: An Anthology. Translated from the Hebrew and Neo-Aramaic Sources with Introduction and Notes. Yale Judaica Series, vol. 23. New Haven: Yale U.P. --------, 1984, Midrashim ba-Aramit Yehude Kurdista’n la-Parashiyot Va-Ye­i BeShalla­, ve Yitro [Homilies in the Neo-Aramaic of the Kurdistani Jews on the Parashot Way­i, Beshalla­ and Yitro], Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities: Section of the Humanities.

88


SACHAU, E., 1895, Skizze des Fellichi-Dialekts von Mosul. Abhandlungen der K»niglich-Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin von Jahre 1895, Berlin. SCHLESINGER, M., 1928, Satzlehre der Aramischen Sprache des Babylonischen Talmuds. Leipzig: Verlag der Asia Major. SOCIN, A., 1882, Die neuaramischen Dialekte von Urmia bis Mosul, TÕbingen: Laupp. SPITALER, A., 1938, Grammatik des neu-aramischen dialekts von Ma‘lØla (Antilibanon), Abhandlungen fÕr die Kunde des (Reprinted 1966, Nendeln, Lichtenstein: Kraus).

Morgenlandes, 23, 1.

STODDARD, D.T., 1856, ‘Grammar of the Modern Syriac Language, As Spoken in Oroomiah, Persiah and Koordistan’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 5, 1-180a-h. New York-New Haven. TSERETELI, K.G.,1957, Khrestomatiya sovremennovo assiriyskovo jazyka so slovar’om [A reader of the modern Assyrian language with a dictionary]. Tblisis: State University Publishing House. --------, 1972, ‘The Aramaic dialects of Iraq’, in Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli 32. Napoli. --------, 1977, ‘Zur Frage der Klassifikation der neuaramischen Dialekte’, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 127, 244-253. --------, 1978, The Modern Assyrian language (English translation of Tsereteli 1964). Moscow: Nauka publishing house. VENDRYES, J., 1952, ‘Sur l’emploi de l’auxiliaire <<avoir>> pour marquer le passé’ in Choix d’études linguistiques et celtiques, Collection linguistique publiée par la Société de linguistique de Paris, 55. 102-109.

89

Lishana.org - The verbal system of north eastern aramaic  

Academia Lishana.org Material de difusión.

Lishana.org - The verbal system of north eastern aramaic  

Academia Lishana.org Material de difusión.

Advertisement