Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures

Studies in the Grammar and

Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic
EditEd by GEoffrEy Khan and Paul M. noorlandEr
 STUDIES IN
THE GRAMMAR AND
LEXICON OF NEO-ARAMAIC
Studies in the Grammar and
Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Edited by Geoffrey Khan and

Paul M. Noorlander
 https://www.openbookpublishers.com

© 2021 Geoffrey Khan and Paul M. Noorlander. Copyright of individual chapters

is maintained by the chapters’ authors.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license
(CC BY 4.0). This license allows you to share, copy, distribute and transmit the text; to
adapt the text and to make commercial use of the text providing attribution is made to the
authors (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
Attribution should include the following information:

Geoffrey Khan and Paul M. Noorlander (eds.), Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-
Aramaic. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers, 2021, https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0209

In order to access detailed and updated information on the license, please visit, https://
doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0209#copyright

Further details about CC BY licenses are available at, https://creativecommons.org/

licenses/by/4.0/

All external links were active at the time of publication unless otherwise stated and have
been archived via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine at https://archive.org/web

Updated digital material and resources associated with this volume are available at
https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0209#resources

Every effort has been made to identify and contact copyright holders and any omission or
error will be corrected if notification is made to the publisher.

ISBN Paperback: 978-1-78374-947-8

ISBN Hardback: 978-1-78374-948-5
Semitic Languages and Cultures 5. ISBN Digital (PDF): 978-1-78374-949-2
ISSN (print): 2632-6906 ISBN Digital ebook (epub): 978-1-78374-950-8
ISSN (digital): 2632-6914 ISBN Digital ebook (mobi): 978-1-78374-951-5
ISBN Digital (XML): 978-1-78374-952-2
DOI: 10.11647/OBP.0209

Cover image: Women in the village of Harbole, south-eastern Turkey (photograph taken
by Brunot Poizat in 1978 before the village’s destruction).
Cover design: Anna Gatti
 CONTENTS

GLOSSING ABBREVIATIONS��������������������������������������������� ix
CONTRIBUTORS���������������������������������������������������������������� xi
PREFACE��������������������������������������������������������������������������� xvii
ABSTRACTS����������������������������������������������������������������������� xxi

Eugene Barsky and Sergey Loesov

A History of the Intransitive Preterite of Ṭuroyo:
from a Property Adjective to a Finite Tense����������������� 1

Paul M. Noorlander
Towards a Typology of Possessors and Experiencers in
Neo-Aramaic: Non-Canonical Subjects as Relics of a
Former Dative Case������������������������������������������������������ 29

Dorota Molin
The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok: Two
Folktales and Selected Features of Verbal Semantics��� 95

Geoffrey Khan
Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in
North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic������������������������������������������ 143

Eran Cohen
Conditional Patterns in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic
Dialect of Zakho����������������������������������������������������������� 195
vi Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Michael Waltisberg
Language Contact and Ṭuroyo: The Case of the
Circumstantial Clause��������������������������������������������������� 221

Ivri Bunis
The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-
Aramaic despite Contact with Syrian Arabic���������������� 235

Steven E. Fassberg
On the Afel Stem in Western Neo-Aramaic������������������� 287

Ariel Gutman
The Re-Emergence of the Genitive in North-Eastern
Neo-Aramaic����������������������������������������������������������������� 301

Lidia Napiorkowska
Modelling Variation in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect of
Azran with Articulatory Phonology������������������������������ 319

Aziz Tezel
On the Origin of Some Plant Names in Ṣūrayt/
Ṭūrōyo in Ṭūr ʿAbdīn���������������������������������������������������� 335

Eugene Barsky and Yulia Furman

Remarks on Selected Exponents of the 208-Swadesh
List in Ṭuroyo��������������������������������������������������������������� 353

Hezy Mutzafi
Neo-Aramaic Animal Names����������������������������������������� 389

Alexey Lyavdansky
A Corpus-Based Swadesh Word List for Literary
Christian Urmi (New Alphabet Texts)�������������������������� 415
 Contents  vii

Aziz Emmanuel Eliya Al-Zebari

(in collaboration with Anjuman M. Sabir)
Lexical Items Relating to Material Culture in the
NENA Dialects of the Aqra Region������������������������������� 443

Salam Neamah Hirmiz Hakeem

Arabic Loanwords in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect
of Ankawa��������������������������������������������������������������������� 469

Sina Tezel
Language Loss in the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo-speaking
Communities of the Diaspora in Sweden���������������������� 487

INDEX 505
 GLOSSING ABBREVIATIONS

a Arabic dist distal demonstrative

acc accusative dm discourse marker
act active dom differential object
alv alveolar marking

alvpal alveopalatal erg ergative

aor aorist exist existential

art article ez ezafe

artp Articulatory f feminine

Phonology foc focus
attr attribute fpl feminine plural
caus causative fs feminine singular
clf classifier fut future
clo closure gen genitive
comp complementiser glo glottis
conj conjunction gn geographic name
conn connective h Hebrew
cop copula hab habitual
crit critical imp imperative
cst construct state impf imperfect
(head of attributive ind indicative
annexation)
indef indefinite
dat dative
indet indetermined state
def definite (article)
ipfv imperfective
deix.cop deictic copula
irr irrealis
dem demonstrative
k Kurdish
dep dependent (marker of
dependent clause or lab labial
noun phrase) lnk linker
det determined state m masculine
x Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

medp mediopassive qam qam pre-verbal prefix

mod modal qātl Arabic qātel paradigm
mpl masculine plural (historical active
participle)
ms masculine singular
qattīl qaṭṭīl adjective
n neuter
qōtl Western Neo-Aramaic
neg negative qōṭel paradigm
nmls nominalisation (historical active
participle)
nom nominative
qtīl qṭīl adjective and
npl neuter plural
resultative participle
npsfx nominal suffix
qtl qatal and qṭal suffix
npst non-past conjugations in
ns neuter singular Arabic and Western
Neo-Aramaic
pal palatal
respectively
pass passive
refl reflexive
pc prefix conjugation
rel relative
pers personal
res resultative
pfv perfective
s singular
phar pharyngeal
sbjv subjunctive
pl plural
sc suffixing conjugation
pn personal name
tb tongue body
pn proper noun
tt tongue tip
poss possessive
uvu-phar uvular-pharyngeal
pret preterite
vel velum
prog progressive
voc vocative
pron pronoun
yqtl yiqtol prefix
prs present conjugation in
pst past Arabic and Western
Neo-Aramaic
ptcp participle
pvb preverbal modifier
 CONTRIBUTORS

Eugene Barsky (PhD, St Tikhon’s Orthodox University of

Humanities, Moscow, 2010) researched the Book of Ezra in his
PhD thesis. His current work focuses on the grammar of Aramaic
and the history of the Bible. His previous publications on Neo-
Aramaic relate to the lexicon of Ṭuroyo and Mlaḥso.

Sergey Loesov (PhD, Russian State University for the Humanities,

Moscow, 1994) is a professor at the National Research University
‘Higher School of Economics’ (Moscow). His research publications
concern the following main fields: history of Aramaic, Neo-
Aramaic dialectology, history of Akkadian and morphosyntax of
Akkadian.

Paul M. Noorlander (PhD, Leiden University, 2018) is a

Rubicon Fellow at Leiden University seconded to the University
of Cambridge. His current work focuses on the documentation
of endangered Neo-Aramaic dialects originally spoken in Turkey
and coordinating the development of the online NENA database
and NENA digital corpus. His PhD thesis was on the typology of
alignment in Neo-Aramaic. He has worked on Semitic languages
from a comparative-historical perspective and on diachronic
developments in Aramaic in particular, including detailed
syntactic studies of Late Antique Aramaic varieties. His research
interests and published work also involve tense-aspect-mood,
word order and contact between Neo-Aramaic and neighbouring
languages such as Iranian and Armenian.

Dorota Molin is a PhD student (2018–2021) in Middle

Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge, working on
North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic. She obtained her MPhil degree at
Cambridge for a dissertation on Biblical Hebrew quotations in
the Aramaic incantation bowls in the context of Biblical Hebrew
pronunciation traditions. She is interested in comparative
dialectology and its contribution to understanding diachrony
xii Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(e.g., grammaticalisation). She has also published on contact

between Modern Hebrew and Negev Arabic and worked as a
research assistant on a forthcoming Diplomatic Edition of Mishna-
Codex Kaufmann (A50). She holds a BA degree in Hebrew and
Arabic (Cambridge).

Geoffrey Khan (PhD, School of Oriental and African Studies,

London, 1984) is Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University
of Cambridge. His research publications focus on three main
fields: Biblical Hebrew language (especially medieval traditions),
Neo-Aramaic dialectology and medieval Arabic documents. He
is the general editor of The Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and
Linguistics and is the senior editor of Journal of Semitic Studies. His
most recent book is The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical
Hebrew, 2 vols, Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures 1
(University of Cambridge & Open Book Publishers, 2020).

Eran Cohen (PhD, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2002) is a

professor of linguistics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
His work is mainly descriptive and comparative, covering various
phases and registers of several languages—Akkadian, Neo-
Aramaic, Biblical and Modern Hebrew, as well as various aspects
of comparative linguistics of Semitic. The domains covered in
his work are syntax and macro-syntax, including such topics as
information structure, the functional analysis of verbal systems
(tense, aspect and modality, as well as its functions in narrative),
the structure of narrative, conditional structures and relative
clauses. Recent research topics include interrogative markers in
Semitic, the diachrony of epistemic particles from a comparative
perspective, genitive constructions in Semitic, conditional
constructions in Semitic and manner demonstratives.

Michael Waltisberg (PhD, Marburg, 2008; Habilitation,

Marburg, 2014) is currently Privatdozent at the Philipps-
University of Marburg, and is employed at the University of
Heidelberg as interim Professor for Semitic Linguistics. He
has worked on the Semitic language family as a whole in a
comparative and typological perspective, with a particular focus
 Contributors  xiii

on issues of syntax and semantics. His main contributions are in

the fields of Classical Arabic and several pre-modern and modern
Aramaic varieties. He is currently participating in a project on
the information structure of Syriac (Middle Aramaic).

Ivri Bunis (PhD, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2018) is a

post-doctoral Research Associate in the Department of Middle
Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge. He wrote his
PhD thesis on the morphosyntax of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic
of the Byzantine period. His research interests include Aramaic
historical linguistics, Late Western Aramaic, Rabbinic Hebrew in
contact with Aramaic and Western Neo-Aramaic in contact with
Syrian Arabic.

Steven E. Fassberg (PhD, Harvard University, 1984) is Caspar

Levias Professor of Ancient Semitic Languages at the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem. His research has focused on Northwest
Semitic, Aramaic dialectology and the Hebrew of the First and
Second Temple periods. His publications in the field of Neo-
Aramaic include The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Challa (Brill,
2010). His latest book is An Introduction to the Syntax of Biblical
Hebrew (Bialik Institute, 2019).

Ariel Gutman (PhD, University of Konstanz, 2016), researched

Neo-Aramaic dialects for his PhD thesis in Konstanz, where he
was an Associate Fellow of the Zukunftskolleg Interdisciplinary
Institute. He is also an alumnus of the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, the Sorbonne Nouvelle University and the École
Normale Supérieure of Paris. He has conducted linguistic
fieldwork in France, in Israel and in West Papua, Indonesia. His
research interests and publications are in the fields of Syriac
Philology, Neo-Aramaic dialectology, Child Language Acquisition
and Natural Language Processing. He is currently working as a
software engineer specialising in computational linguistics at
Google in Zurich.

Lidia Napiorkowska (PhD, University of Cambridge, 2013)

researched the Diyana-Zariwaw dialect of Neo-Aramaic for
xiv Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

her PhD thesis. Her postdoctoral project involved further

documentation of rare Neo-Aramaic dialects in Iraqi Kurdistan,
Sweden and Great Britain. She is now a lecturer at the
Department of Hebrew Studies, Warsaw University, where she
combines teaching Modern Hebrew with her research interests
in phonology, language contact and comparative Semitic studies.

Aziz Tezel is a Researcher Emeritus in Semitic Languages.

His research focuses on etymological problems, borrowings,
quadriradical verbal formations, flora and the bgdkft-consonants.
His book publications include Comparative Etymological Studies
in the Western Neo-Syriac (Ṭūrōyo) Lexicon (Uppsala University,
2003).

Yulia Furman (PhD, Russian State University for the Humanities,

Moscow, 2017) is an Alexander von Humboldt fellow at the Freie
Universität Berlin. Her PhD thesis was on a 7th-century Syriac
universal history by John bar Penkaye. Her research interests
include Neo-Aramaic languages, the grammar of Classical Syriac
and the history of Syriac literature. Her current project deals with
the lexical and grammatical aspect of the Ṭuroyo verb.

Hezy Mutzafi (PhD, Tel Aviv University, 2001) is Professor

of Semitic Linguistics in the Department of Hebrew Language
and Semitic Linguistics, Tel Aviv University. His research and
publications focus on Neo-Aramaic dialectology, in particular
North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic regional varieties and Neo-Mandaic.
His latest book is Comparative Lexical Studies in Neo-Mandaic
(Brill 2014).

Alexey Lyavdansky is a lecturer of Classical Hebrew and Aramaic

at the Institute for Oriental and Classical Studies, National
Research University Higher School of Economics (Moscow). His
research and publications focus on Neo-Aramaic, Babylonian
Aramaic and Classical Hebrew. Currently, he is leading a project
to create an electronic corpus of literary Christian Urmi Neo-
Aramaic. He is also undertaking documentation of the Neo-
Aramaic dialects in Russia.
 Contributors  xv

Aziz Emmanuel Eliya Al-Zebari (PhD, Salahaddin University,

Erbil, 2018) is a lecturer in the English Department of the Catholic
University of Erbil, Iraq. He was born in the village of Upper
Gerbish in the area of Nekhla, North of Aqra. For his PhD thesis
he documented the Neo-Aramaic dialect of the Aqra region.

Salam Neamah Hirmiz Hakeem (PhD, Salahaddin University,

Erbil, 2010) focuses on three main fields of research:
sociolinguistics, text analysis and pedagogy. He teaches Syriac in
the Department of Syriac of Salahaddin University. He is a native
speaker of the Ankawa dialect of Neo-Aramaic and has researched
the impact of Arabic on this dialect and its sociolinguistics
motivations.

Sina Tezel (PhD, Uppsala University, 2011) is Senior Lecturer in

Semitic Languages at the University of Uppsala. Her PhD thesis
was on Arabic loanwords in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo. Her current research
focuses on comparative Semitics, loanwords, language contact,
the bgdkpt-consonants and neologisms.
 PREFACE

The Neo-Aramaic dialects are modern vernacular forms of

Aramaic, which has a documented history in the Middle East
of over 3,000 years, the earliest inscriptions being datable to
approximately 1,000 BCE. The Neo-Aramaic dialects that have
survived down to modern times are generally classified into four
subgroups:
1. Western Neo-Aramaic (south-western Syria)
2. Central Neo-Aramaic (south-eastern Turkey West of the
Tigris), represented by varieties of Ṭuroyo (also known
as Ṣurayt) in Ṭur ʿAbdin and the dialect of Mlaḥso
3. North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (northern Iraq, south-
eastern Turkey and western Iran), generally known as
NENA
4. Neo-Mandaic (south-western Iran)
The Neo-Aramaic dialects are clearly closely related to the
written forms of Aramaic of earlier periods. The Neo-Aramaic
subgroups can be correlated broadly with dialectal divisions that
are reflected in pre-modern written Aramaic sources from the
first millennium CE onwards particularly during Late Antiquity,
which are sometimes referred to collectively as ‘Middle Aramaic’
or ‘Late (Antique) Aramaic’. Central Neo-Aramaic, North-Eastern
Neo-Aramaic and Neo-Mandaic are related to the eastern branch
of pre-modern Aramaic, e.g. Classical Syriac, Classical Mandaic
and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, whereas Western Neo-Aramaic
is related to the western branch, e.g. Jewish and Christian
Palestinian Aramaic and Samaritan Aramaic. No Neo-Aramaic
subgroup, however, could be considered a direct descendent of
the attested forms of the literary pre-modern Aramaic varieties.
Nine of the papers in this volume focus on NENA dialects, five
concern Ṭuroyo varieties, two focus on Western Neo-Aramaic
and one compares all three subgroups.

© Book Editors, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0209.18

xviii Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Due to upheavals in the Middle East over the last one hundred
years, thousands of speakers of Neo-Aramaic dialects have been
forced to migrate from their homes or have perished in massacres.
As a result, the dialects are now highly endangered. The study
and documentation of these dialects is thus of prime concern
not only for the preservation of the speakers’ oral heritage but
also for their identity. A number of contributors to this volume
are native speakers of Neo-Aramaic (Aziz Tezel, Sina Tezel, Aziz
Al-Zebari, Salam Hakeem). We hope this Open Access volume
will be a source of inspiration for speakers to take pride in their
linguistic heritage and seek ways to contribute to its preservation.
In recent years research on the Neo-Aramaic dialects has
been flourishing. This has resulted in the documentation of
many endangered dialects and the discovery of many fascinating
aspects of linguistic variation and change. The dialects exhibit
a remarkable diversity in all aspects of grammar. Moreover, the
considerable depth of attestation of Aramaic from earlier periods
provides evidence for pathways of change. For these reasons the
research of Neo-Aramaic is of importance for more general fields
of linguistics, in particular language typology and historical
linguistics.
The papers in this volume represent the full range of research
that is currently being carried out on Neo-Aramaic dialects and
advance the field in numerous ways. Many of them originated
as papers presented at the last two international conferences of
Neo-Aramaic (Warsaw 2016, organised by Lidia Napiorkowska,
and Uppsala 2018, organised by Eleanor Coghill and Sina Tezel).
The contributions to the volume cover a wide range of topics,
including studies of phonology, morphology, syntax and lexicon.
A large proportion of them, however, focus on syntax or lexicon.
In order to allow linguists who are not specialists in Neo-Aramaic
to benefit from the papers, the examples are fully glossed.
Abbreviations for the glosses can be found at the beginning of
the volume.
Several of the papers investigate the historical development of
verbal syntax (Eugene Barsky and Sergey Loesov, Dorota Molin,
Geoffrey Khan, Ivri Bunis), dative subjects (Paul Noorlander),
 Preface  xix

verbal stem morphology (Steven Fassberg) and nominal case

morphology (Ariel Gutman). These papers demonstrate that
Neo-Aramaic varieties are indispensable for the study of the
historical development of Aramaic. Its long history is not only
remarkable but also is instructive for understanding language
change in general. The volume contains detailed case studies of,
for instance, the shift from adjectives into verbs (Eugene Barsky
and Sergey Loesov), from dependent into main clauses (Geoffrey
Khan), dative into nominative subjects (Paul Noorlander),
reanalysis of causatives as intransitives (Steven Fassberg) and the
cyclic reinvention of case marking (Ariel Gutman).
Since the Neo-Aramaic dialects are so diverse, each variety
requires a detailed description in its own right. Narrative texts like
folktales are invaluable for preserving an endangered language
without a written culture of its own. Moreover, they facilitate the
study of language use in context. Detailed synchronic descriptions
of language use in this volume include studies on non-canonical
subject marking across Neo-Aramaic varieties (Paul Noorlander)
and Tense-Aspect-Mood in NENA, particularly the negation of
the future and continuous aspect (Dorota Molin), modality
and discourse dependency (Geoffrey Khan) and conditional
constructions (Eran Cohen). Dialectal variation is a challenge
for linguistic analysis. One paper (Lidia Napiorkowska) applies
an articulatory phonological model to describe the phonological
variation in a highly endangered NENA dialect. Such synchronic
variation points to diachronic processes in progress and holds
important clues for the limitations of grammaticalisation (Dorota
Molin), the reanalysis of modal verbal forms (Geoffrey Khan)
and internal motivations besides language interference (Lidia
Napiorkowska).
Neo-Aramaic variation has often arisen due to dialect mixing
or contact. Syntax is particularly prone to change due to language
contact. Since they belong to linguistic-religious minorities, Neo-
Aramaic speakers are necessarily bi- or multilingual. Arabic-
Aramaic contact is the particular focus of two papers pertaining
to Ṭuroyo (Michael Waltisberg) and to Western Neo-Aramaic (Ivri
Bunis), both of which show the complexities of such language
xx Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

contact situations. While pattern replication may seem evident,

it cannot be easily identified using current frameworks of contact
(Michael Waltisberg). Prolonged bilingualism among linguistic
minorities can even show unexpected resilience against contact-
induced change (Ivri Bunis). Two papers address central issues of
morphological structures concerning verbal derivation in Western
Neo-Aramaic (Steven Fassberg) and the genitive in NENA (Ariel
Gutman). While the reanalysis of causative stem formations in
Western Neo-Aramaic cannot be attributed to language contact
with Arabic (Steven Fassberg), the re-emergence of the genitive
in NENA is partially due to convergence with Kurdish (Ariel
Gutman).
The papers on lexicon make important contributions to
documenting particular semantic fields in various dialects, e.g.
plant names (Aziz Tezel), animal names (Hezy Mutzafi) and
material culture (Aziz al-Zebari). The papers of Aziz Tezel and
Hezy Mutzafi also discuss the etymology of the items in the
semantic fields they are concerned with. Two papers (Eugene
Barsky and Yulia Furman, Alexey Lyavdansky) examine the
profile of the core lexicon with a view to establishing historical
relationships by applying the Swadesh list.
The final two papers in the volume focus on features of Neo-
Aramaic dialects that reflect their attrition and incipient loss, in
one case (Salam Hakeem) in northern Iraq, which is the historical
heartland of Aramaic, and in the other (Sina Tezel) among the
younger generations of Neo-Aramaic speakers in the diaspora
communities of Europe.
We are very grateful to Open Book Publishers for all their
efficient help. Their open-access initiative will allow this
publication to be widely read not only by scholars but also by
members of the Neo-Aramaic-speaking communities in the
Middle East and in the diaspora throughout the world.

The Editors, Cambridge, June 2020

 ABSTRACTS

Eugene Barsky and Sergey Loesov examine the history of

the Semitic nominal pattern *qaṭṭīl (*C1aC2C2īC3) in terms of its
evolving grammatical semantics. The *qaṭṭīl form is a Central
Semitic innovation, which became fully productive in old Aramaic
as a adjective denoting properties (e.g. ʿammīq ‘deep’, ḥakkīm
‘wise’), marginalising the inherited property adjective patterns
*qaṭil (*C1aC2iC3) and to some extent also *qaṭīl (*C1aC2īC3). It
eventually became the past tense stem of intransitive verbs in
Ṭuroyo. The paper traces in detail the history of the verbalisation
of *qaṭṭīl, drawing on a corpus-based study of Classical Syriac.

Paul M. Noorlander presents a study of subject-like possessors

and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic. These are expressed through
person affixes on verbs and verboids that historically go back to
a dative preposition—the marker of recipients. Based on a cross-
dialectal study of their clause structure, the paper argues that
these arguments are non-canonical subjects whose morphosyntax
is still reminiscent of their original recipient-like function. The
identical marking of the agent of past perfective verbs and these
non-canonical subjects are likely to be ultimately historically
related and part of the overall typology of the language area,
since some of these constructions have close parallels in Iranian
languages.

Dorota Molin presents two folktales from the hitherto unstudied

NENA dialect of the Jews of Dohok (north-western Iraq)
accompanied by linguistic glosses, translation and comments on
a few grammatical features. There is a link to an audio recording
of the texts. These folktales are followed by a survey of selected
TAM features in this dialect. The asymmetric distribution of the
realis habitual preverb (k-) between past and non-past is likely
to be due to an incomplete grammaticalisation of this preverb.
The resultative construction is lexically restricted, indicating that
xxii Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

it is not a full perfect in this dialect. The use of the progressive/

continuous is also very restricted compared to other dialects.

Geoffrey Khan examines various verbal forms in NENA dialects

that are used to express discourse dependency. The common
feature of all these forms is that they express some kind of
cognitive continuity from what precedes without there being
syntactic subordination. There is a discussion of the various
contexts in which the forms are used and of the possible pathways
of their historical development. The forms expressing discourse
dependency include bət-qaṭəl, qam-qaṭəl and narrative subjunctive
qaṭəl. It is argued that bət-qaṭəl with this function developed
from a future form in apodoses to conditional constructions.
Evidence is presented from dialects in the Cudi region to support
the hypothesis that the qam-qaṭəl form originally expressed an
immediate future. The origin of the narrative subjunctive is
identified in the subjunctive of dependent purpose clauses.

Eran Cohen presents a description and discussion of the various

conditional phenomena in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of
Zakho. He explains and exemplifies the different conditional
types—ordinary, speech-act, inferential, and concessive-
conditionals. The paper identifies two patterns expressing
ordinary conditionals, with and without a conditional particle,
and examines the strutures of counterfactual conditionals.
Narrative conditionals are compared with counterfactuals and
their function is explained vis à vis other clause types. Finally, the
co-occurrence of conditionals with other epistemic expressions is
analysed.

Michael Waltisberg develops an earlier paper (Waltisberg 2013)

on the circumstantial clause of Ṭuroyo, where it was argued that
the circumstantial clause both formally and semantically is a
direct replication of the corresponding Arabic construction. The
present article resumes this discussion by adducing more data
from neighbouring Arabic dialects as well as from other Middle
Aramaic and Neo-Aramaic varieties. This results in a slightly
different and less clearcut conclusion concerning the impact of
 Abstracts  xxiii

language contact. The paper demonstrates the methodological

issues that must be taken into account when attempts are made
to identify syntactic replication across closely related languages.

Ivri Bunis examines aspects of language contact between Western

Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic. The genetic relationship between
Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic and the retention of the
older Aramaic suffix and prefix conjugations in Western Neo-
Aramaic have left the latter with a verbal morphology very similar
to Syrian Arabic. Both languages, however, diverge in how their
cognate verbal forms express TAM. The divergences between
the languages were originally due to independent development,
most likely before the intensive contact between them. The paper
argues that given the close and prolonged contact of Western Neo-
Aramaic with Arabic, the divergences between the two languages
also reflect significant conservatism in Western Neo-Aramaic.

Steven E. Fassberg draws attention to a noteworthy feature of

the morphology of Maʿlula Western Neo-Aramaic whereby some
Afel verbs correspond to Peal intransitive verbs in older Aramaic.
1st form intransitive Arabic loans also show up in Maʿlula in Afel.
The shift may have begun in Late Western Aramaic, when there
was a retraction of stress followed by the creation of prosthetic
vowels resolving word-initial consonantal clusters. Speakers
possibly reinterpreted Peal Vqtel (< *qatila) forms as Afel verbs.
Such a reanalysis would have been reinforced by the overlap
between the two stems in expressing state and condition.

Ariel Gutman draws attention to a case of cyclic morphological

change in Neo-Aramaic. In its earliest attested stages, Aramaic
had already lost the Proto-Semitic case system, as only vestiges of
an oblique case are found in an ancient inscription. Yet starting
in the 17th century CE, one can observe a process which leads to
the re-emergence of genitive and oblique case markers in certain
Neo-Aramaic dialects, facilitated by Kurmanji language contact.
This cycle is accompanied by another cyclic change, namely the
decline and re-creation of an apocopate construct state marking
of nouns.
xxiv Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Lidia Napiorkowska uses Articulatory Phonology (ArtP) to

model phonological variation in the NENA dialect of Azran. ArtP
construes speech production as composed of gestures that may
shift in time and magnitude. This approach explains palatalisation
and fronting of pronunciation encountered in Azran as a result
of gestural overlap, thus identifying an internal motivation for
variation in addition to possible language contact influence.
Moreover, employing a dynamic model provides insights into
the phonology–phonetics interface and has implications for
establishing conventions of transcription

Aziz Tezel presents material from his ongoing research of plant

names in Ṭuroyo (Ṣurayt) and their background. The discussion
here focuses on some plants whose names are either of obscure
origin or have undergone changes. Taking the corresponding
names in Syriac and other earlier languages of the region into
consideration, proposals are made for the origin of the names
of the plants concerned, with a brief description of their uses in
the local culture. Comparisons to corresponding names in NENA
are made. An account of dialectal differences is given. Some
borrowings from neighbouring languages are identified.

Eugene Barsky and Yulia Furman study selected concepts from

the 208-Swadesh list in Ṭuroyo: bird, head, husband, man
(male), man (human being), sun, wife and woman. This
is based on fieldwork conducted in Germany in 2016 among
the Ṭuroyo-speaking community and a published field corpus
gathered in the 1960s. Each concept and its possible exponents
are presented together with a discussion of their distribution in
the corpus and in the modern language. The results of the study
reveal diachronic change and dialectal diversity in the usage of
the exponents in question.

Hezy Mutzafi examines animal names in various Neo-Aramaic

dialects, from Western Neo-Aramaic in south-eastern Syria to
Neo-Mandaic in south-western Iran. A large number of modern
Aramaic animal names—mostly of inherited Aramaic origin and
hitherto unattested—are discussed. Among these are lexical
 Abstracts  xxv

innovations that were moulded by processes of word-formation.

Some other animal names, supposed to be related to the Christian
Urmi dialect, are shown to have nothing to do with genuine Neo-
Aramaic speech, but are rather Syriac classicisms interpolated
into Bible translations and dictionaries.

Alexey Lyavdansky presents a basic word list for literary Christian

Urmi Neo-Aramaic together with etymologies and a discussion
of problematic issues. This study, which uses a variant of the
Swadesh list of 110 basic words, is the first research outcome of a
project that has created an electronic corpus of literary Christian
Urmi based on the texts published in the Soviet Union between
1929 and 1938 (Novij Alfavit). With some exponents being
uncertain (having two possible variants), the statistical results
demonstrate that more than 90 percent of the exponents have
reliable Aramaic etymologies. Four meanings have exponents
that originate from Persian. The exponents of two meanings have
Kurdish etymologies. Six exponents have no clear etymology.

Aziz Emmanuel Eliya Al-Zebari presents lexical material

relating to material culture from the NENA dialects of the Aqra
region. These dialects can be classified broadly into those of the
villages lying to the North of the Aqra mountain and those of the
inhabitants of the region to the South of the mountain. Those
lying to the North are situated in an area known as Nexla and
include the villages of Dinarta, Upper Gerbish and Sanaye. The
dialect area lying to the South of the Aqra mountain includes
the town of Aqra and the villages of Kherpa, Kharjawa, Nuhawa,
Barrake, Sharmen and Malaberwan. The lexical items that are
presented are classified into the follow semantic fields: (§1.)
Buildings and Structures, (§2.) Containers, (§3.) Instruments and
Tools, (§4.) Agriculture, (§5.) Sewing, Weaving and Spinning,
(§6.) Hunting, (§7.) Fires, (§8.) Clothes and Fabrics.

Salam Hakeem identifies and classifies the types of Arabic

loanwords that currently occur in the spoken Neo-Aramaic
dialect of Ankawa. He examines the reasons for the extensive use
of such loanwords by the younger generation. It is shown that
xxvi Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

although the main contact language in Ankawa is now Kurdish,

Arabic continues to have a greater impact on the Neo-Aramaic
dialect than Kurdish. The reasons for this are identified as the
influence of education, which was entirely in Arabic until the
last decade, social media, in which Arabic is still the dominant
means of communication, and the recent displacement of many
Arabic-speaking Christians from Mosul to Ankawa.

Sina Tezel discusses language loss in communities speaking

Ṭuroyo (Ṣurayt) in the diaspora in Sweden. She examines the
challenges of new social and cultural terminology. There is a
loss of the regional dialectal diversity of Ṭuroyo with consequent
dialect mixing. Many lexemes are falling from use and the
semantic range of lexemes is contracting. Also under threat is
culturally-specific idiomatic phraseology. Such incipient loss
of the language is, moreover, reflected by codeswitching in the
speech of the younger generations.
 A HISTORY OF THE INTRANSITIVE
PRETERITE OF ṬUROYO:
FROM A PROPERTY ADJECTIVE TO A
FINITE TENSE1

Eugene Barsky and Sergey Loesov

1. Research Question
The ultimate source of inspiration for the present study is our
ambition to offer a detailed description of the history of the
Aramaic verbal system. A key event in this history is what
Goldenberg used to call ‘the morphological revolution’, i.e.
the shift, within Eastern Aramaic, from the Middle Aramaic2
verbal systems to those of Modern Aramaic. In the course of this
shift, Eastern Aramaic gave up the inherited suffix conjugation3
(*qatala) and the prefix conjugation (*yaqtulu) and developed a
new repertoire of verbal forms, all of whose bases were deverbal
adjectives in earlier stages of Aramaic’s history.
We start our historical investigation with Ṭuroyo, since the
verbal system of this language, with its two Preterites, qaṭəl-
Preterite for most intransitive verbs of the G-stem vs. L-Preterite
qṭəlle for transitive ones, seems to be more conservative than
that of North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA). It may represent

1 The research was supported by RFBR grant 19-012-00475.

2 The term ‘Middle Aramaic’ is used in this paper to refer both to unwritten
varieties of Aramaic spoken throughout the 1st millennium AD and the
literary registers of those that were committed to writing during the same
period (Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Syriac, Mandaic, etc.).
3 With the exception of Neo-Mandaic, which retained the suffix conjugation.

© Eugene Barsky and Sergey Loesov, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0209.01

2 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

a stage that used to exist in some of the ancestor languages of

NENA as well.4
Various studies have attempted to establish how the Eastern
Aramaic L-Preterite qṭəlle developed historically.5 As far as we
know, however, there have been no corpus-based studies of the
diachronic pathway that led to the qaṭəl-Preterite of Ṭuroyo, i.e.
how the Central Semitic adjective *qaṭṭīl became verbalised.
In Aramaic, *qaṭṭīl started as an adjective expressing
permanent properties and ended up being the base of various
verbal forms in the past tense domain. The functional range of
*qaṭṭīl in the modern Aramaic verbal system is not restricted to
the G-stem intransitive Preterite of Ṭuroyo. *Qaṭṭīl is the Perfect
of both transitive and intransitive verbs in Mlaḥsó (Jastrow
1994, 45, 52f.). Moreover, in certain village varieties of Ṭuroyo
(in particular, Midən and Kfarze), *qaṭṭīl is the base for the
Passive Preterite of III-y verbs. Thus, in these villages, the Passive
Preterite of the verb ḥzy is ḥazi (‘he was seen’) rather than ḥze.6
The latter form exists in Midyat and some village dialects. This
has been inherited directly from the Middle Aramaic ancestor
of Ṭuroyo, while the former (ḥazi) developed within Ṭuroyo by
analogy with the 1 f.s. and 3 f.s. intransitive Preterite forms of
IIIy verbs: baxyono ‘I (f.) wept’ : ḥazyono ‘I (f.) was seen’, baxyo
‘she wept’ : ḥazyo ‘she was seen’, baxi ‘he wept’: x; x = ḥazi ‘he
was seen’.7 In Maʿlula, a Western Neo-Aramaic variety, *qaṭṭīl
of intransitive G-stem verbs functions both as a dynamic past

4 If we adhere (as we do) to the Stammbaum model in historical linguistics,

we cannot accept a hypothesis according to which all NENA known to us
had one and the same ancestor in the Middle Aramaic period. Positing
a shared ancestor for all NENA is tantamount to claiming that out of all
Eastern Middle Aramaic varieties only three had produced progeny that
survived into modern times: the ancestor of NENA, the ancestor of Ṭuroyo
and Mlaḥsó and the ancestor of Neo-Mandaic.
5 See Coghill (2016), with exhaustive references to earlier studies.
6 See comparative paradigms in Ritter (1990, 378).
7 We owe the suggestion of this analogical development to a personal
communication of Paul Noorlander.
 
The Preterite of Ṭuroyo: from a Property Adjective to a Finite Tense 3

verbal form8 and a stative (or continuous) present tense form,

depending on the lexical semantics of the root and even on the
utterance context.9
By contrast, in both NENA10 and Neo-Mandaic,11 reflexes of
*qaṭṭīl have not produced new finite verb forms but rather are
extant only in nominal forms (i.e., adjectives and substantives).
In this paper, we restrict the scope of the study to a comparison
of the data collected from Classical Syriac and Ṭuroyo. For the
Ṭuroyo data, we have drawn upon our Verb Glossary of Ṭuroyo
(in progress).12 According to our glossary of verbs, Ṭuroyo has
over 200 verbal roots with a qaṭəl-Preterite. Around 100 of them
are of Aramaic origin, the majority of the remainder are of Arabic
origin.

2. Prehistory of the Qaṭəl-Preterite: *Qaṭṭīl Outside

Aramaic and in Early Aramaic
The Ṭuroyo qaṭəl-Preterite is the end product of the complete
verbalisation of *qaṭṭīl, originally a deverbal adjective pattern.
This pattern (in the guise of qaṭilo) still continues in Ṭuroyo for
adjectives, including deverbal ones, i.e. as the ‘participle’ of
certain intransitive verbs.13

8 “Das Perfekt,” according to Werner Arnold, see, e.g., Arnold (2006, 22)
and Arnold (1999).
9 Compare tarbil ḳamuʿō ti šawwīlle ‘the way of stone piles, the one he had
made’ (Arnold 2006, 68, l. 26) with nḏōb nḥōmyin … šunyōṯun šawwīyan
xanni ‘if we see … [that] their wives do so (= are also disloyal to their
husbands)’ (Bergsträsser 1915, 27: 16f.). See Correll (1978, 63–68) for
numerous examples of this verbal form. Correll’s interpretation of its
grammatical meaning is unfortunately dogmatic. For him, it is “das
Resultativpartizip” in virtually all contexts.
10 Nöldeke (1868, 99); Khan (2008, 411).
11 Macuch (1965, 185ff.). See also Macuch (1993, 383) (hamīm ‘heiß’),
Macuch (1993, 116: 193) (zalīl ‘eng’).
12 On the project of the Verb Glossary of Ṭuroyo, see Furman and Loesov
(2015).
13 See Jastrow (1967, 117ff., 229ff.)
4 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

2.1. The Etymology of *Qaṭṭīl

Diachronically, the verbal adjective *qaṭṭīl developed as follows:
qaṭil → qaṭīl → qaṭṭīl.14 All three patterns have in common that
they denoted property adjectives, and as a matter of fact this use
is preserved for all the three patterns in various Central Semitic
languages, e.g. Biblical Hebrew, Syriac, and Classical Arabic.
This use as a property adjective must have been the original one
for each of the three derivations in question.
In written Central Semitic languages apart from Aramaic,
*qaṭṭīl is well-documented in Biblical Hebrew and Arabic. In both
languages, it mostly expresses enduring properties of human
beings. The respective nominals may be syntactically both
substantives and adjectives, as the following lists illustrate.
Biblical Hebrew (complete list):
ʿallīz ‘exultant’, ʿārīṣ ‘violent, powerful’, ʿattīq ‘old; removed,
set apart’ (<Aram., Wagner 1966, no. 229), ʾabbīr ‘strong,
powerful’, ʾaddīr ‘mighty’, ʾammīṣ ‘strong’, bārīaḥ ‘fugitive’, kabbīr
‘strong, mighty’, pārīṣ ‘burglar’, ṣaddīq ‘innocent, just’, šallīṭ
‘having power’ (<Aram., Wagner 1966, no. 309), taqqīp̄ ‘mighty’
(<Aram., Wagner 1966, no. 330), yaqqīr ‘precious, dear’ (hapax
in Jr 31:20; < Aram.?).
Arabic (selected examples):15
ʿirrīḍ ‘mean, malevolent’, ʿiššīq ‘lover’, ḏikkīr ‘having a retentive
memory’, ḍillīl ‘steeped in deviation’, ḏ̣illīm ‘very unfair’, fiḫḫīr
‘self-important’, ḫibbīṯ ‘very bad’, ḫirrīq ‘very generous’, ḫittīr ‘one
who frequently acts with treachery’, mirrīḥ ‘joyful’.
Our perusal of dictionaries shows that the lexicon of written
Arabic has hardly more than some fifty tokens of the *qaṭṭīl
pattern.

14 See Barth (1894, 51), Brockelmann (1908, 354), Bauer and Leander
(1927, 192), Kuryłowicz (1973, §46), Fox (2003, 267 f.).
15 Note the “attenuation” a > i in the first syllable of the base. In Classical
Arabic, this is a regular shift a > i/_ CCī.
 
The Preterite of Ṭuroyo: from a Property Adjective to a Finite Tense 5

2.2. *Qaṭṭīl in Biblical Aramaic

It is in Aramaic, unlike Arabic and Biblical Hebrew, that *qaṭṭīl
first becomes a productive noun pattern that is regularly derived
from verbal roots. Biblical Aramaic (BA) has twelve *qaṭṭīl
derivations, as many as Biblical Hebrew, though the Aramaic
Biblical corpus is circa fifty times smaller than that of Hebrew.
*qaṭṭīl also started its life in Aramaic as an adjective expressing
permanent properties. Thus, in Biblical Aramaic, *qaṭṭīl expresses
properties, including the basic lexical items: ʿammīq ‘deep’, ʿattīq
‘old, aged’, ḥakkīm ‘wise’, ḥassīr ‘wanting, deficient’, qaddīš ‘holy’,
raḥḥīq ‘far’, saggī ‘great, much, many’, šallīṭ ‘powerful, mighty’,
šappīr ‘beautiful’, taqqīp̄ ‘strong, mighty’, yaqqīr ‘difficult,
honourable’, yaṣṣīḇ ‘well established’, yattīr ‘extraordinary,
exceeding’.
The innovative and productive nature of *qaṭṭīl in Aramaic of
the 1st millennium BC stands in sharp relief when we compare
the Biblical Aramaic adjectives from the list above with their
Biblical Hebrew cognates, most of which display the patterns
*qaṭil, *qaṭal, and *qaṭul, which are retentions from the proto-
Semitic stage and no longer productive in Central Semitic: ʿāmōq
‘deep’, ḥāḵām ‘clever, skillful’, ḥāsēr ‘one in want’, qāḏōš ‘holy’,
rāḥōq ‘far’, yāqār ‘scarce, precious, valuable’, yōṯēr ‘excessive’.
Thus Biblical Hebrew adjectives derived from the same roots
as BA qaṭṭīl adjectives were mostly formed using archaic patterns,
while Biblical Hebrew qaṭṭīl tokens are scarce and partly borrowed
from Aramaic.
Syntactically, these Biblical Aramaic nominals are used as
verbal arguments, attributive adjectives and nominal predicates.
The qaṭṭīl of Biblical Aramaic still behaves syntactically as a
nominal. We find, however, one instance where a qaṭṭīl adjective
derived from a dynamic verb inherits the argument structure of
the source verb (2):
6 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(1) malḵū … dī ṯi-šlaṭ b-ḵol

kingdom.indet.s dep 3fs-rule.pc in-all

ʾarʿ-ā
land-det.s

‘A kingdom … that will rule in the whole earth.’

(Dan 2: 39)

(2) w-malḵ-īn taqqīp̄ -īn hăw-ō ʿal

and-king-indet.pl mighty-indet.pl be.sc-3mpl over

yərušläm w-šallīṭ-īn b-ḵōl ʿăḇār

gn and-rule.qattīl-mpl in-all crossing.cst.s

nahăr-ā w-midd-ā ḇlō wa-hălāḵ

river-det.s and-tribute-det.s tribute and-tribute.indet.s

miṯyəheḇ l-hon
to.be.given.ptcp.ms to-3mpl

‘And mighty kings were over Jerusalem, and ruling in

all Beyond-the-River, and tribute, custom and toll were
paid to them.’ (Ezra 4: 20)

The syntagm malḵīn … šallīṭīn b-ḵōl ʿăḇār nahărā ‘kings ruling

in all Beyond-the-River’ in (2) replicates the argument structure
of the finite verb šlṭ ‘have power, rule’. Both the derivation of
a qaṭṭīl form (here šallīṭīn) from a fairly dynamic verb and its
syntactic usage are atypical for Biblical Aramaic and foreshadow
the career of qaṭṭīl in Middle Aramaic, which is represented in
this paper by Classical Syriac.
 
The Preterite of Ṭuroyo: from a Property Adjective to a Finite Tense 7

3. *Qaṭṭīl in Syriac
We have searched for qaṭṭīl tokens in the Compendious Syriac
Dictionary (CSD, J. Payne Smith 1903) and Peshitta New
Testament (PNT). In CSD, we have found some 180 qaṭṭīl lexemes
whose existence seems reliable. Of these, we have found some 64
in the PNT. We have found 207 vocalised words following the
qaṭṭīl pattern in R. Payne Smith’s (1879–1901) Thesaurus Syriacus
(TS), Sokoloff’s (2009) Syriac Lexicon (SL) and CAL (the online
Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon) alongside CSD. Our principal
source is CSD, where the tokens are either independent lemmata,
such as šappīr ‘fair, good, lovely’ (CSD, 590), or nominal forms
in verb entries, usually labelled ‘part. adj.’, e.g. sallīq (CSD, 379).
Unfortunately, these data cannot be accepted uncritically.
The identification, in CSD or TS, of a form as qaṭṭīl rather than
qṭīl is not always reliable. Note that J. Payne Smith employs the
term ‘part. adj.’ in verb entries, both for qaṭṭīl and qṭīl tokens,16
while most qṭīl tokens she labels as ‘pass. part’. In verb entries of
CSD, the meanings of nominal forms are not uniformly provided.
Furthermore, we have been unable to find textual evidence for
several qaṭṭīl tokens that appear in the dictionaries.

3.1. From Property Adjective to Verbal Adjective

A major difference between Biblical Aramaic and the Syriac
NT regarding qaṭṭīl is that in PNT qaṭṭīl is formed not only from
unambiguous property roots, but also from stative and dynamic
verbal roots. Some of the examples are ʾabbīḏ ‘lost, gone astray’,
ʾazzīl ‘(is) gone’, ʾattī ‘having come’, ʿallīl ‘having entered’, dabbīq
‘close to, cleaving’, daḥḥīl ‘fearing’, dammīḵ ‘asleep’, naḥḥīṯ ‘having
gone down’, tammīh ‘amazed’. It stands to reason that these are
used almost exclusively as predicates rather than independent
nominals or attributive adjectives. Due to their semantics, they
cannot be easily employed independently in specifically nominal

16 I.e. for qṭīl tokens with non-trivial meanings, in particular those derived
from intransitive verbs.
8 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

syntactic functions. This means they were formed in order to serve

as predicates in the first place, by analogy with the predicative
use of the property adjective qaṭṭīl. Further research is required
to establish the relative chronology of qaṭṭīl derivations, i.e. to
answer the question which verbs (in terms of the four Vendlerian
classes)17 were the first to form purely predicative qaṭṭīl forms.
We speculate, however, that it was stative verbs that were the
first to produce them, by analogy with property adjectives:
ḥakkīm ʾat ‘You are wise’ > tammīh ʾat ‘You are amazed’
The shared feature of the two kinds of clauses is as follows.
Both were thought of as stative, while tammīh ʾat was also
resultative, i.e., it encoded a stative situation that was thought
of as ‘having come about’ rather than a property that ‘always’
existed of itself.

(3)

a. w-ṯammīh-īn-hwaw kul-hon
and-be.amazed.qattīl-mpl-pst.3mpl all-3mpl

ʾaylēn d-šāmʿ-īn-hwaw l-ęh

dist.pl dep-listen.ptcp-mpl-pst.3mpl to-3ms

Greek original (Act 9:21 BNT):

eksista-nto de pant-es
be.amazed.impf.refl-3pl top every-mpl

hoi akou-ont-es
art.mpl listen.ptcp.prs.act-nom.mpl

‘All those who were listening to him were amazed.’

17 I.e., stative verbs, atelic verbs, telic events (accomplishments), and

punctual situations (achievements).
 
The Preterite of Ṭuroyo: from a Property Adjective to a Finite Tense 9

b. ʾāmr-ā l-ęh ʾantṯā hāy mār-y lā

say.sc-3fs to-3ms woman voc lord-1s neg

dawlā l-āḵ w-ḇęrā ʿammīqā

bucket to-2ms and-well deep

Greek original:

leg-ei aut-o e gyn-e

say-prs.act.3s pron.pers-dat.ms art.nom.fs woman-nom.s

Kyri-e, oute antlem-a ech-eis

lord-voc.ms and.not bucket-acc.ns have-prs.act.2s

kai to phrear est-in bathy

and art.ns well.nom.s be-prs.act.3s deep.nom.ns

(Jn 4:11 BYZ)

‘The woman told him, My lord, you do not even have a
bucket, and the well is deep.’

c. yawsep̄ dēn baʿl-āh kēʾnā-hwā

pn top husband-3fs honest-pst.3ms

Greek original (Mt 1:19 BNT):

Ioseph de ho aner aut-es,

pn.nom top art.def.ms husband-nom.s pron.pers-gen.fs

dikai-os on
righteous-nom.ms be.ptcp.prs.act.nom.ms

‘Joseph, her husband, was a decent man.’

10 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

d. lḇūš-ęh ḥewwār-hwā
clothes-3ms white-pst.3ms

Greek original (Mt 28:3 BNT):

en de to endym-a
be.impf.act.3s top art.nom.ns garment-nom.ns

aut-ou leuk-on
pron.pers-gen.ms white-nom.ns

‘His clothes were white.’

The predicate of (3a) has the same morphological shape

qaṭṭīl as the predicate of (3b) and the same surface syntax as
those of (3c) and (3d), while the predicative adjectives in (3c)
and (3d) have morphological patterns other than qaṭṭīl. In (3a),
w-ṯammīhīn-hwaw (semantically, a stative-resultative predicate)
translates the Greek finite (Imperfect) form eksistanto, while the
qaṭṭīl-predicate of (3b), w-ḇęrā ʿammīqā (semantically, a property
adjective), translates the Greek predicative adjective (with the
present-tense verbal copula) estin bathy ‘is deep’. In (3c) and (3d),
Syriac predicative property adjectives translate Greek predicative
property adjectives (note that in 1d the Syriac adjective is in the
determined state).

3.2. From Stative-Resultative to Dynamic Perfect

What one observes in Syriac is a verbalisation stage of qaṭṭīl
even more advanced than that of a stative-resultative predicate:
qaṭṭīl lexemes formed from dynamic roots can take the kinds
of verbal arguments and adjuncts that exclude a stative-
resultative interpretation. This means these forms are no
longer stative-resultative nominal predicates but rather dynamic
verbal forms. The contexts show that these verbal forms encode
 
The Preterite of Ṭuroyo: from a Property Adjective to a Finite Tense 11

past events and can express a perfect or anterior. They could

be used as translations of past tense forms of the Greek NT texts.
Consider the following examples, which come both from
translations and original texts:

(4) w-ʾen-hū d-šārē-ʾnā l-hon kaḏ

and-even.if dep-dismiss.ptcp.ms-1s to-3mpl while

ṣāym-īn l-ḇāttay-hon ʿāyp-īn b-ʾurḥā

fast.ptcp-mpl to-house.pl-3mpl be.tired.ptcp-mpl on-way

gēr ʾnāšā men-hon men ruḥqā ʾattīʾ-īn

for some from-3mpl from distance come.qattīl-mpl

Greek original (Mk 8:3 BYZ):

kai ean apoly-s-o aut-ous

and if release-aor-sbjv.act.1s pron.pers-acc.mpl

nest-eis eis oik-on aut-on

hungry-acc.mpl (in)to house-acc.ms pron.pers-gen.mpl

ekly-the-sontai en te hod-o,
become.weary-pass-fut.3pl in art.dat.fs way-dat.fs

tin-es gar auton apo

pron.indf-nom.mpl because pron.pers-gen.mpl from

makrothen hek-asin
far.away come.perf-act.3pl

‘And if I let them go home while they are fasting, they

will faint on the way, for some of them have come
from far away.’
12 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(5) w-ʾezzl-aṯ l-ḇayt-āh w-ʾeškḥ-aṯ

and-go.sc-3fs to-house-3fs and-find.sc-3fs

barṯ-āh kaḏ ramy-ā b-ʿarsā

daughter-3fs while lie.ptcp.pass-3fs on-bed

w-nappīq menn-āh šęʾḏ-āh

and-go.out.qattīl.ms from-3fs demon-3fs

Greek original (Mk 7:30 BNT):

kai apelth-ousa eis ton

and go.away.aor-ptcp-act.nom.fs (in)to art.acc.ms

oik-on aut-es heur-en to

house-acc.ms pron.gen.fs find.aor-act.3s art.acc.ns

paidi-on beble-men-on epi ten

child-acc.ns throw.prf-ptcp.pass-acc.ns on art.acc.fs

klin-en kai to daimoni-on

bed-acc.fs and art.acc.ns demon-nom.ns

ekselelyth-os
get.out.prf.ptcp.act-acc.ns

‘She went to her house and found that her daughter was
lying upon the bed and that her demon had gone out
of her.’
 
The Preterite of Ṭuroyo: from a Property Adjective to a Finite Tense 13

(6) w-īṯeḇ-w ba-sp̄ īnttā w-ʾāṯ-ēn-hwaw

and-sit.sc-3mpl on-boat and-go.ptcp-3mpl-pst.3mpl

l-ʿeḇrā la-ḵp̄ arnaḥum w-ḥešk-aṯ-hwāṯ

to-crossing to-gn and-be.dark.sc-3fs-pst.3fs

l-āh w-lā ʾattī-hwā lwāṯ-hon

to-3fs and-neg come.qattīl.ms-pst.3ms towards-3mpl

Yešūʿ
pn

Greek original (Jn 6:17 BNT):

kai emba-nt-es eis ploi-on

and get.into.aor-ptcp.act-nom.mpl into ship-acc.ns

erch-onto peran tes thalass-es

come-impf.med.3pl on.the.other.side art.gen.fs sea-gen.fs

eis Kapharnaoum. kai skoti-a ede

into gn and darkness-nom.fs already

egegon-ei kai oupo elelyth-ei

take.place.pluprf-act.3s and not.yet come.pluperf-act.3s

pros aut-ous ho Iesous

to pron-acc.mpl art.nom.ms PN

‘And they sat in a boat and were going to Capernaum.

And it became dark, and Jesus had not (yet) come to
them.’
14 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(7) lā ṣḇā d-ne-rʿī-why

neg want.sc.3ms dep-3ms-meet.pc-acc.3ms

meṭṭol d-lā ne-ṯʾešeḏ dmā da-ṯray-hon

in.order.that dep-neg 3ms-shed.pc blood dep-2-3mpl

gabb-ē ʾellā šaddar l-ęh b-yaḏ Rup̄ inā

side-pl but send.sc.3ms to-3ms by-hand pn

w-p̄ aqd-ęh d-ʾen-hū d-ʿal

and-command.sc.3ms-acc.3ms dep-now.if dep-on

tḥomā ʾīṯ-awhy Qawwaḏ wa-ʿḏakkēl lā

border cop-3ms pn and-until.now neg

ʿabbīr l-ḇēṯ rhomāy-ē ne-ttel

cross.qattīl.ms to-territory Greek-pl 3ms-give.pc

l-ęh dahḇā ne-šrī-why

to-3ms gold 3ms-send.away.pc-acc.3ms

‘(Anastasius) was unwilling to meet him (Qawad) in

battle, that blood might not be shed on both sides; but
he sent him money by the hand of Rufinus, to whom he
gave orders that, if Qawad was on the frontier and had
not yet crossed over into the Greek territory, he should
give him the money and send him away.’ (JS 46)

(8) šūrā dēn d-Baṭnan Qasṭrā d-ḇa-Srug

wall top dep-gn dep-in-gn

d-nappīl-hwā wa-mtarraʿ
dep-collapse.qattīl.ms-pst.3ms and-break.down.ptcp.pass.ms
 
The Preterite of Ṭuroyo: from a Property Adjective to a Finite Tense 15

kull-ęh ʾeṯbannī w-eṯḥaddaṯ ba-šqāl

all-3ms rebuild.sc.3ms and-restore.sc.3ms by-care

ṭaʿnā d-Ewlogis hegmōnā d-Urhāy

decision dep-pn governor dep-gn

‘And the wall of Batnan-Qastra in Serug, which had

collapsed into ruin, was completely rebuilt and restored
by the decision of Eulogius, the governor of Edessa.’ (JS
83)

(9) ʾap̄ en lā ʾamīṯ-ęh b-mawtā

though neg kill.sc.3ms-acc.3ms with-death

kyānāyā ʾellā b-haw da-ḥṭīṯā

natural but with-dist.ms dep-sin

mayyīṯ-hwā
die.qattīl.ms-pst.3ms

Though he (God) did not kill him (Adam) with natural

death, he had still died a death of sin (IshGn 064).18

In (4) men ruḥqā ʾattīʾīn, the adjunct men ruḥqā ‘from afar’
corroborates a dynamic past interpretation of ʾattīʾīn. The same
applies to (5) w-nappīq mennāh šęʾḏāh. In (6), the two Greek
pluperfects (skotia ede egegonei and oupo eleluthei... ho Iesous)
were rendered differently in Syriac. The first one was translated
with Preterite+hwā (ḥeškaṯ-hwāṯ lāh), the second by qaṭṭīl+hwā
(lā ʾattī-hwā). This is because Syriac ḥaššīḵ denoted a property
with the senses ‘obscure, under a cloud, in darkness, ignorant’

18 I.e., Mar Ishodad of Merv believes that Adam had died a spiritual death of
sin even before he left the Garden of Eden.
16 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(CSD, 162), and, therefore, would be inappropriate in this

text as a rendering of a dynamic event. In (7), wa-ʿḏakkēl lā
ʿabbīr l-ḇēṯ rhomāyē, besides the endpoint of crossing, there is a
phasal particle ʿḏakkēl ‘not yet’, well known for its propensity
to combine with a perfect. In (8), šūrā … d-nappīl-hwā ... kullęh
ʾeṯbannī, the form nappīl-hwā clearly has an eventive pluperfect
force. In (9), b-haw da-ḥṭīṯā mayyīṯ-hwā, the predicate is clearly
dynamic.
Thus, qaṭṭīl predicates in (4)–(9) are not stative but rather past
dynamic (eventive, fientive). Semantically, they are perfects,
not resultatives, as we consider (with mainstream functional
typology) the resultative to be a sub-class of stative situations
but the perfect to encode dynamic situations.19
So, the Syriac evidence for dynamic qaṭṭīl points to a ‘mature’
Perfect, which is employed as both an absolute and a relative
tense: i.e., in narrative, a qaṭṭīl-Perfect has a reference point
different from speech time. In other words, our Syriac qaṭṭīl-
Perfect can function as both a shifter (or ‘deictic’) perfect and
as a pluperfect.20 In the latter case, it may have an appropriate
marker -(h)wā,21 which, as we have seen, may be used with all
kinds of nominal predicates in Syriac.
Symmetrically, another innovative construction, qṭīl lęh,
provides both active perfect and analytical pluperfect for
Syriac transitive verbs:22

19 We use small caps for linguistic universals, such as perfect or passive.
20 Or as a verb form employed to introduce ‘nachgeholte Information’
[recovered information], to use an elegant term of Harald Weinrich
(1985).
21 It anticipates relative tense markers in Modern Aramaic, which are
etymologically related to this -hwā.
22 See also numerous examples in Bar-Asher Siegal (2014) and Coghill
(2016, 306–27).
 
The Preterite of Ṭuroyo: from a Property Adjective to a Finite Tense 17

(10) hānnā dēn meddem da-snē lā

prox.ms top something dep-wicked neg

ʿḇīḏ l-ęh
do.qtīl.ms to-3ms

Greek original (Lk 23:41 BNT):

hout-os de oud-en atop-on

pron.dem-nom.ms top pron.indef-acc.ns wrong-acc.ns

epraks-en
do.aor-act.3s

‘But this one has done nothing bad’

(11) šḇāḇ-awhy dēn w-ʾaylēn da-ḥzē-hwā

neighbour.pl-3ms top and-dist.pl dep-see.qtīl.ms-pst.3ms

l-hon men qḏīm d-ḥāḏar-hwā

to-3mpl from former dep-beg.ptcp.ms-pst.3ms

ʾāmr-īn-hwaw lā-hwā hānnaw haw

say.ptcp-mpl-pst.3mpl neg-be.sc.3ms prox.ms dist.ms

d-yāṯeḇ-hwā w-ḥāḏar
dep-sit.ptcp.ms-pst.3ms and-beg.ptcp.ms

Greek original (Jn 9:8 BNT):

hoi oun geiton-es kai hoi

art.nom.pl top neighbour-nom.mpl and art.nom.pl

theor-ount-es aut-on to
see-ptcp.pres.act-nom.mpl pron-acc.ms art.acc.ns
18 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

proteron hoti prosait-es en

earlier that beggar-nom.ms be.impf.3s

e-leg-on: ouch hout-os est-in

impf-say-3pl not pron.dem-nom.ms be-prs.3s

ho kathe-men-os kai prosait-on

art.nom.ms sit-ptcp.prs-nom.ms and beg-ptcp.prs.nom.ms

‘His neighbours and those who had formerly seen him

begging said, “Isn’t this the [same man] who used to
sit and beg?”’

These sentences should not be interpreted as passive, since

the agents are given prominence by special particles (in both
the originals and translations) and by the context.23 The fact
that corresponding verbal forms in the Greek original are active
transitive further supports this.
Thus, one could surmise that Classical Syriac might have had
a Perfect tense roughly comparable with German or Italian. This
Perfect would have had two shapes depending on the respective
verb’s value of transitivity. In the individual Syriac corpora we
have perused, the dynamic qaṭṭīl is predominantly derived from
intransitive telic verbs of motion, though even in such verbs it is
rare. The data of our sample are as follows:
• Aphrahat, Demonstrations (written in 337–345 C.E.),
77,505 words. 2 verbs with dynamic qaṭṭīl: ʾbd ‘perish’
(2 tokens), npl ‘fall’ (1 token). Total: 3 tokens.24
• Peshitta New Testament (PNT) (composed perhaps
in the 5th century C.E.), 101,479 words. 4 verbs with
dynamic qaṭṭīl: ʾty ‘come’ (3 tokens), ʿll ‘enter’ (1 token),

23 In terms of pragmatics, passive is demotion (most often, deletion) of

agent.
24 Aphrahat 10:194, 14:270, 19:360.
 
The Preterite of Ṭuroyo: from a Property Adjective to a Finite Tense 19

ʾbd ‘perish’ (4 tokens), npq ‘go out’ (1 token). Total: 9

tokens.25
• Eusebius, Church History (translated into Syriac no later
than 462 C.E.), 63,194 words. 4 verbs with dynamic
qaṭṭīl: ʾbd ‘perish’ (1 token), ʿrq ‘flee’ (1 token), mrd
‘escape’ (1 token), nḥt ‘go down, land’ (3 tokens). Total:
6 tokens.26
• Chronicle of Joshua Stylite (written in 507 C.E.), 15,434
words. 2 verbs with dynamic qaṭṭīl: ʿbr ‘cross’ (1 token),
npl (1 token). Total: 2 tokens.27
• Ishodad, Commentary on the Pentateuch (written around
850 C.E.), 77,252 words. 10 roots with dynamic qaṭṭīl:
ʾty ‘come’ (1 token), ʾzl ‘go’ (2 tokens), ʿrq ‘flee’ (1 token),
ʾbd ‘perish’ (1 token), myt ‘die’ (1 token), npl ‘fall’ (1
token), npq ‘go out’ (1 token), sgd ‘bow’ (1 token), škn
‘settle or rest upon’ (1 token), yqd ‘burn (intr.)’ (1 token).
Total: 11 tokens.28
• Bar Ebroyo, Ecclesiastical History (written in the 13th
century C.E.), 82,373 words. 5 verbs with dynamic
qaṭṭīl: ʾty ‘come’ (1 token), ʾzl (1 token), ʿll ‘enter’ (1
token), ʿrq ‘flee’ (4 tokens), ḥrb ‘get ruined’ (1 token).
Total: 8 tokens.29
The number of dynamic qaṭṭīl tokens in each of the individual
corpora is small, but, throughout the nine centuries of Syriac
literature examined for this study, the qaṭṭīl pattern tends to
express the perfect consistently in the context of essentially the
same tightly-knit group of telic/punctual verbs. In more detailed
terms of lexical semantics, these are, for the most part, either
verbs of motion or patientive intransitives, such as ʾbd ‘perish’,
myt ‘die’, and ḥrb ‘get ruined’. This fact remains to be explained.

25 Mt 18:11; Mk 7:30, 8:3, 11:20; Lk 8:30, 15:6, 15:9, 19:10; Jn 6:17, 11:19.
26 Eusebius 52, 56, 148, 149, 210, 317.
27 JS 46, 83.
28 IshGn 64, 123, 127, 188; IshEx-Dt 8, 25, 67, 109, 117, 137.
29 BH 1:331, 1:411, 2:783, 3:23, 3:71, 3:311, 3:317, 4:429.
20 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Moreover, throughout our corpus, the grammatical reading

of individual deverbal tokens of qaṭṭīl still depends on the lexical
semantics of the respective verb.30 For example, in Syriac, dammīḵ
invariably denotes ‘he is asleep’ (not ‘he fell/has fallen asleep’).
It expresses a state contemporaneous with a reference point, as
observed in (12):

(12) w-hā zawʿā rabbā-hwā b-yammā ʾaykannā

and-top moving great-pst.3ms in-sea so that

d-ʾelp̄ ā te-ṯkassē men gall-ē, hū dēn

dep-boat 3fs-be.covered.pc by wave-pl 3s top

Yešūʿ dammīḵ-hwā
pn sleep.qattīl.ms-pst.3ms

Greek original (Mt 8:24 BYZ):

kai idou, seism-os megas

and top shaking-nom.ms large.nom.ms

e-gen-eto en te thalass-e,
aor-occur-med.3s in art.dat.fs sea-dat.fs

hoste to ploi-on kalypt-esthai

so.that art.acc.ns ship-acc.s hide-inf.prs.pass

hupo ton kymat-wn; aut-os

under art.gen.npl wave-gen.npl himself-pron.nom.ms

de e-katheud-en
top impf-sleep-3s

30 As against Ṭuroyo, where all finite qatəl forms have the perfective
aspectual reading. Thus, daməx is ‘he slept’, ‘he fell asleep’, see below.
 
The Preterite of Ṭuroyo: from a Property Adjective to a Finite Tense 21

‘And look, a great commotion arose in the sea, so that

the boat was being covered by waves. But he, Jesus,
was asleep.’

The predicate dammīḵ-hwā is a translation of the Greek

Imperfect e-katheud-en ‘was sleeping/asleep.’
Most importantly, this is the only token of dammīḵ in the
standard text of the Peshitta for both OT and NT.31 Otherwise,
in this corpus, the situation ‘be asleep’ is rendered by the
adjective dmeḵ for the Present (e.g., Mark 5:39 PNT) and dmeḵ-
h
wā for the Past (e.g., Acts 12:6 PNT). It stands to reason that
the morphological form of the Syriac adjective dmeḵ is a reflex
of the archaic pattern *qaṭil, no longer productive in Central
Semitic (see Sections 1.1. and 1.2 above). Thus, dammīḵ is an
inner-Syriac innovation that had not existed in earlier Aramaic.
The same applies to nappīq and ʾattī. By contrast, ṭuroyo daməx
corresponding to Syriac dammīḵ expresses ‘he fell asleep’, while
damixo, the erstwhile determined form, means ‘asleep’, e.g. ono
damíxo-no ‘I am asleep’.

3.3. Summary
In sum, throughout our Syriac sample, qaṭṭīl derivations of
intransitive telic verbs have the force of the perfect (or a
pluperfect when used as relative tense with a reference point in
the past in narrative). Yet, their use to express these grammatical
meanings is not obligatory, because qṭal also appears with the
same functions in texts. Consider three Syriac renderings of the
same Greek verse, Jn 6:17:32

31 The manuscript tradition has preserved a few more occurrences of dammīḵ

where the standard text has dmeḵ or dāmeḵ (e.g., Act 12:6).
32 See Kiraz (1996, 100f.)
22 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(13) w-iṯeḇw ba-sp̄ īnttā w-ʾāṯēn-hwaw l-ʿeḇrā la-Ḵp̄ arnaḥum

w-ḥeškaṯ-hwāṯ lāh w-lā ʾattī-hwā lwāṯhon Yešūʿ (PNT).

(PNT) w-lā ʾattī-hwā

and-neg come.qattīl.ms-pst.3ms

w-iṯeḇw ba-sp̄ īnttā w-ʾāṯēn-hwaw l-ʿeḇrā la-Ḵp̄ arnaḥum

mettol d-ḥeškaṯ-hwāṯ lāh w-lā ʾeṯā-hwā lwāṯhon Yešūʿ (S).

(S) w-lā ʾeṯā-hwā

and-neg come.pst.3ms-pst.3ms

w-iṯeḇw ba-sp̄ īnttā w-ʾāṯēn-hwaw l-ʿeḇrā d-yamṯā

la-Ḵp̄ arnaḥum w-ḥeškaṯ-hwāṯ lāh w-lā ʾeṯā lwāṯhon Yešūʿ
(C).

(C) w-lā ʾeṯā

and-neg come.pst.3ms

‘And they sat in a boat and were going to Capernaum.

And it became dark, and Jesus had not (yet) come to
them.’

In PNT, the ‘pluperfect’ sense is rendered by the qaṭṭīl form,

while S uses the qṭal, and C uses the qṭal-wā form.
In the Classical Syriac corpus, qaṭṭīl need not be restricted to
derivations of telic verbs to express the perfect. Thus, tammīh
sometimes has the meaning ‘he became amazed’, and even yabbīš
in certain contexts seems to express ‘it has dried up’ (cf. Mk 11:
20 PNT). These facts will hopefully be dealt with in the course of
our further research.
 
The Preterite of Ṭuroyo: from a Property Adjective to a Finite Tense 23

4. The Development from an Assumed Middle

Aramaic Ancestor of Ṭuroyo to the Ṭuroyo
of Today
The transition from the Middle Aramaic past-tense repertoire
to the Neo-Aramaic repertoire of Ṭuroyo seems broadly
straightforward. The new Perfect (qaṭṭīl) takes root and its use
increases exponentially, and finally ousts the old Preterite (qṭal)
to become the basic Past tense. This follows the well-known
typological pathway, which is found, for example, in Western
European languages like French, certain dialects of Italian and
most of contemporary German.
Our aim is to trace the development of the Ṭuroyo verbal
system in as much detail as possible. This study is still in
progress. For the moment, we have undertaken a comparison of
qaṭṭīl formations found in CSD with approximately one hundred
Ṭuroyo verbs of Aramaic origin that have qaṭəl-Preterites. It
stands to reason that Proto-Ṭuroyo was not identical to Edessan
Syriac, yet we have no better starting point for a diachronic
study of Ṭuroyo than Syriac.
We have found around 50 overlaps between the two groups
of verbs. Some 50 intransitive Syriac verbs with qaṭṭīl attested
in CSD have direct correspondences in Ṭuroyo and have a
qaṭəl-Preterite, while the rest of them (i.e., approximately 130
verbs with qaṭṭīl-derivations) are not in our Verb Glossary of
Ṭuroyo and, therefore, most probably have not survived into
this language.
The surviving verbs can be neatly divided into two semantic
groups: motion and state-and-property (including body posture).
In the table below, we present 14 Ṭuroyo motion verbs with
Aramaic etymology out of 50 in total. The leftmost column of the
table provides glosses of Syriac verbs whose qaṭṭīl forms stand
in the next column. In the Ṭuroyo column, we adduce special
glosses for Ṭuroyo when the meanings do not match the Syriac
ones and we give the Preterite forms of the etymologically related
Ṭuroyo verbs.
24 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Table 1: Syriac and Ṭuroyo Correspondences of *Qaṭṭīl

Gloss Syriac Ṭuroyo

go ʾazzīl azzé
come ʾattī aṯi
go down naḥḥīṯ naḥət
fall nappīl nafəl
go out nappīq nafəq
go up sallīq saləq
flee, escape ʿarrīq ʿarəq
escape pallīṭ falət
stand up qayyīm qayəm
run rahhīṭ rahəṭ
quiver raʿʿīl raʿǝl

be in motion, zayyīʿ zayǝʿ ‘fear’

tremble
sink ṭabbīʿ ṭawǝʿ also ‘fall
asleep’; ‘set’ (sun)
cross ʿabbīr ʿabǝr ‘enter’

Also worth mentioning is the Syriac verb rkb ‘mount, bestride,

ride (a horse)’. CSD (541) only mentions rḵīḇ and not the expected
*rakkīḇ. Cognate verbs in Ṭuroyo include raku/roku ‘to get on,
to mount (vehicle, horse ʿal)’; raxu/roxu ‘ride, mount (horse)’.
Note also lawišo ‘wearing, clothed’, while CSD (235) records lḇīš
rather than *labbīš.
Thus, as far as the correspondences of geminated R2-stops in
Ṭuroyo go, we have ʾattī vs. aṯi, ṭabbīʿ vs. ṭawəʿ, ʿabbīr vs. ʿabər.
Additional relevant examples from our comparative list include
yattīḇ ‘sitting, seated’ (CSD, 198f.) vs. yatu ‘he sat down’, sabbīʿ
‘full, satisfied’ (CSD, 358) vs. sawǝʿ ‘he became full/satiated’, and
rabbīʿ (CSD, 526: “pass. part.” of rḇaʿ ‘lie down, couch; recline’)
vs. rawǝʿ ‘it lied down, rested (animals)’, rakkīḵ ‘soft, gentle’ (CSD
 
The Preterite of Ṭuroyo: from a Property Adjective to a Finite Tense 25

540) vs. rakəx ‘it became soft’,33 rattīḵ ‘fervent, enthusiastic’ (CSD
552) vs. raṯəx ‘to seethe’. The behaviour of second radical stops
vs. spirants appears to be unpredictable.34 This means that, e.g.,
aṯi is not an immediate reflex (or a direct descendent) of ʾattī. The
implication is that the qaṭəl-Preterite was derived directly from
the ‘new’ (Neo-Aramaic) root at a certain stage of development,
and in no instance is it a continuation of the corresponding Syriac
qaṭṭīl form.
Our preliminary conclusions are as follows.
We do not know whether qaṭṭīl became an inflectional form
that was available for every intransitive verb in the ancestor of
Ṭuroyo. (This is a possibility we have been entertaining for a long
time in the course of our research.) Due to a lack of adequate
Syriac textual corpora at our disposal, it is difficult to identify
textual examples even for the 180 qaṭṭīl lexemes recorded in CSD.
Since, phonologically, numerous tokens of the Ṭuroyo Preterite
qaṭəl and the deverbal adjective qaṭilo do not go back directly to
the corresponding forms attested in Syriac, we believe that all
the inflectional forms of Ṭuroyo verbs were derived at a certain
period synchronically from the new roots, whether of Aramaic or
Arabic origin. This means that we can neither prove nor refute
the existence of a Middle Aramaic stage at which a productive
finite form of qaṭṭīl of intransitive verbs existed. Finally, the
diachronic background for plosive or spirant realisation of
etymological stops in Ṭuroyo has to be studied in its own right,
as a step forward in the reconstruction of Proto-Ṭuroyo.

Abbreviations
Bibliographical Abbreviations

Aphrahat The Homilies of Aphraates, The Persian Sage. Edited by W.

Wright. Vol. 1. The Syriac Text. 1869. London: Williams and
Norgate.

33 On this verb, see Furman and Loesov (2016, 41).

34 See also Jastrow (2015, 240).
26 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

BH Gregorii Barhebræi Chronicon Ecclesiasticum. Ediderunt Joannes

Baptista Abbeloos et Thomas Josephus Lamy. 1872. T. 1.
Lovanii: Peeters; 1874. T. 2. Parisiis: Maisonneuve, Lovanii:
Peeters; 1877. T. 3. Parisiis: Maisonneuve, Lovanii: Peeters.
BNT Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. 1994. Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
BYZ The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform.
Compiled and Arranged by Maurice A. Robinson and William
G. Pierpont. Southborough: Chilton Book Publishing. 2005.
C Curetonian Gospels
CAL Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, http://cal.huc.
edu/
CSD Payne Smith, Jessie. 1957. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary.
Founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith, D. D.
Edited by J. Payne Smith (Mrs. Margoliouth).
Eusebius The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius in Syriac. Edited from the
Manuscripts by William Wright and Norman McLean. 1898.
Cambridge: The University Press.
IshGn Commentaire d’Išoʿdad de Merv sur l’Ancient Testament. I.
Genèse. Édité par J.-M. Voste et Ceslas van den Eynde. 1950.
Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO.
IshEx-Dt Commentaire d’Išoʿdad de Merv sur l’Ancient Testament. II.
Exode-Deutéronome. Édité par Ceslas van den Eynde. 1958.
Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO.
JS The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite, composed in Syriac A.D. 507.
Translated by W. Wright. 1882. Cambridge: The University
Press.
PNT Peshitta New Testament. 1979. ‫ ܟܬܒܐ ܕܕܝܬܩܐ ܚܕܬܐ‬in ‫ܟܬܒܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ‬
̄ Damascus: Syrian Patriarchate of
̇ ‫ܗ ܟܬܒܐ ܕܕܝܬܩܐ ܥܬܝܩܬܐ‬.
‫ܘܚܕܬܐ‬
Antioch and all the East.
S Syriac Sinaiticus Gospels
SL A Syriac Lexicon. A Translation from the Latin, Correction,
Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum:
Michael Sokoloff. 2009. Indiana: Eisenbrauns, Piscataway:
Gorgias Press.
TS Payne Smith, Robert. 1879–1901. Thesaurus Syriacus. T. I–II.
Oxonii: E Typographeo Clarendoniano.
 
The Preterite of Ṭuroyo: from a Property Adjective to a Finite Tense 27

Glossing Abbreviations not in the Leipzig Glossing List

cst construct state

dep dependent, i.e. the marker of an embedded clause or the
dependent within a noun phrase
det determined state
gn geographic name
indet indetermined state
pc prefix conjugation
pn proper noun
sc suffix conjugation

References

Arnold, Werner. 1999. ‘Das Verbum in den neuwestaramäischen Dialekten’.

In Tempus und Aspekt in den Semitischen Sprachen: Jenaer Kolloquium zur
semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, edited by Norbart Nebes, 1–8. Wiesbaden:
Harrasowitz Verlag.

———. 2006. Lehrbuch des Neuwestaramäischen. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz

Verlag.

Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A. 2014. ‘From a Non-Argument-Dative to an

Argument-Dative: The Character and Origin of the Qṭīl Lī Construction in
Syriac and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic’. Folia Orientalia 51: 59–101.

Barth Jacob. 1927. Die Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen. Leipzig: J. C.

Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung.

Bauer, Hans and Leander, Pontus. 1927. Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen.

Halle.

Bergsträsser, Gotthelf. 1915. Neuaramäische Märchen und andere Texte aus

Maʿlūla. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus.

Brockelmann, Carl. 1908. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen

Sprachen. Berlin: Verlag von Reuther & Reichard.

Coghill, Eleanor. 2016. The Rise and Fall of Ergativity in Aramaic: Cycles of
Alignment Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Corell, Christoph. 1978. Untersuchungen zur Syntax der neuwestaramäischen

Dialekte des Antilibanon (Maʿlūla, Baḫʿa, Ǧubbʿadīn).

Fox, Joshua. 2003. Semitic Noun Patterns. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Furman, Yulia and Sergey Loesov. 2015. ‘Studies in the Ṭuroyo Verb’. In
Neo-Aramaic and its Linguistic Context, edited by Geoffrey Khan and Lidia
Napiorkowska, 1–28. Piscataway.

———. 2016. ‘Notes on Historical Morphology of Turoyo’. Babel und Bibel

9:37–53.

Jastrow, Otto. 1967. ‘Laut- und Formenlehre des neuaramäischen Dialekts von
Miḏin im Ṭur ‘Abdin’. Inaugural-Dissertation. Bamberg, 1967.

———. 2015. ‘Language Contact as Reflected in the Consonant System of

Ṭuroyo’ in Semitic Languages in Contact, edited by Aaron Michael Butts,
234–50. Leiden.

Khan, Geoffrey. 2008. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar. Vol. 1–3. Leiden,
Boston: Brill.

Kiraz, George Anton. 1996. Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels: Aligning the
Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshîṭtâ and Ḥarklean Versions. Vol IV. Leiden, New
York, Köln: Brill.

Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1973. Studies in Semitic Grammar and Metrics. London:

Curzon Press.

Loesov, Sergey. 2013. ‘A New Attempt at Reconstructing Proto-Aramaic (Part

II)’. In Proceedings of the 14th Italian Meeting of Afroasiatic Linguistics, edited
by Alessandro Mengozzi and Mawro Tosco, 91–106.

Macuch, Rudolf. 1965. Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic. Berlin:

Walter de Gruyter.

———. 1993. Neumandäische Texte Im Dialekt von Ahwāz. Wiesbaden:

Harrassowitz.

Nöldeke, Theodor. 1868. Grammatik der neusyrischen Sprache: am Urmia-See und

in Kurdistan. Leipzig: T. O. Weigel.

Ritter, Hellmut. 1990. Ṭūrōyo: Die Volkssprache der syrischen Christen des Ṭūr
‫ع‬Abdîn. C: Grammatik. Pronomen, „sein, vorhanden sein’, Zahlwort, Verbum.
Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Wagner, Max. 1966. Die lexikasischen und grammatikalischen Aramaismen im

alttestamentlichen Hebräisch. Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpelmann.Weinrich,
Harald. 1985. Tempus: Besprochene und erzählte Welt. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
TOWARDS A TYPOLOGY OF POSSESSORS
AND EXPERIENCERS IN NEO-ARAMAIC:
NON-CANONICAL SUBJECTS AS RELICS
OF A FORMER DATIVE CASE

Paul M. Noorlander

Introduction1
Predicative possessors and impersonal experiencer constructions
are encoded by the dative preposition l- across Semitic languages,
in addition to Aramaic, Hebrew (e.g. Berman 1982) and Syrian
Arabic (e.g. Cowell 1964; Al-Zahre and Boneh 2010, 250). Like
most non-European languages, Semitic languages do not have a
designated possession verb. Predicative possessors equivalent to
English have are based on locational expressions of prepositional
possessor (Stassen 2009), as illustrated for Hebrew in (1a-b)
below.

(1) Israeli Hebrew

predicative possessor

a. yeš le-Dan sefer

there.is to-Dan book.ms

‘Dan has a book.’

1 Preparation of this article was made possible by funding from the Dutch
Research Council (NWO).

© Paul M. Noorlander, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0209.02

30 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

b. yeš l-i sefer

there.is to-me book

‘I have a book.’

Predicative possessors are originally intransitive constructions

where the existential element agrees or used to agree with the
possessee. It is a common phenomenon, sometimes termed ‘have-
drift’ (Stassen 2009), that predicative possession undergoes
transitivisation by assimilation of its morphosyntax to that of more
typical and frequent agent-patient verb constructions because of
their matching semantic-pragmatic properties (Stassen 2009,
208–43). While the agent-like possessor is still prepositional,
the possessee has grammaticalised to a full-fledged object in
colloquial Israeli Hebrew. It can be marked differentially by the
object marker et, for example:

c. yeš le-Dan et ha-sefer

there.is to-Dan dom the-book.ms

‘Dan has the book.’

d. yeš l-i ot-o

there.is to-him dom-him

‘I have got him.’

Similarly, the preposition l- expresses the experiencer in

impersonal experiencer verb constructions, as illustrated for
Israeli Hebrew in (1e-f). The adjective or verb denoting the mental
state is non-referential ms., while the subject-like experiencer is
introduced by l-.
 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 31

impersonal experiencers

e. kar le-Dan
cold.ms to-Dan

‘Dan is cold.’

f. kar l-i
cold.ms to-me

‘I am cold.’

The same preposition can also mark so-called external

possessors. The possessor is not dependent on the nominal
possessee itself but is expressed as an affectee part of the verbal
predicate, for example:

external possessor

g. avad le-Dan ha-tik.

lost.3ms to-Dan the-file.ms

‘The file got lost on Dan.’ (Berman 1982, 41)

h. ima raxaṣa le-Dan et ha-panim.

mom washed.3fs to-Dan dom the-face

‘Mom washed Dan’s face (for him).’ (ibid. 47)

Such prepositional arguments can also be optionally added to

co-refer to the subject with various semantic nuances such as (1i)
below. Such subject-coreferential datives are also known as ethic
or ethical datives (dativus ethicus) in Semitic linguistics2.

2 See Fassberg (2018) for a recent survey of its use in Hebrew, Arabic and
Aramaic with ample references.
32 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

subject co-referential dative

i. ha-yeladim histalku la-hem

the-children ran.away.3pl to-them

‘The kids (upped and) ran away.’ (ibid. 51)

All of these constructions are, of course, semantically and

formally related to the expression of the recipient of ditransitive
constructions in denoting often highly animate, typically human
affectees (e.g. Berman 1989, 49; Næss 2007, 185–208).
Such subject-like prepositional affectees have been argued to
be a common trait of Northwest Semitic (e.g. Pat-El 2018). Both
full nominals and pronouns are marked prepositionally in all of
the constructions illustrated above. Most Semitic languages lost
case inflection presumably through phonetic erosion and other
forces of change such as increasing fixation of word order. Thus
instead of case declensions Neo-Semitic languages use zero-
marked nouns and independent pronouns as the default citation
form. They developed differential marking strategies of definite
nominals, including cross-referencing through pronominal
affixes.3
Typically, the predicative possessor and the experiencer of
impersonal experiencer verb constructions are marked by the
same preposition l- and its allomorphs in Late Antique Aramaic
languages such as Syriac. A key difference in Syriac is the optional
use of additional ‘pronominal copies’. That is, prepositional
person markers that cross-reference a co-nominal. In (2a) below,
for example, the prepositional possessor (l-ḡaḇrå ḥaḏ) is referred
back to by a prepositional person marker (l-eh). The same holds
for the experiencer in (2b).

3 See Khan (1988); Kapeliuk (1989); Rendsburg (1991); Goldenberg (1997);

Rubin (2005).
 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 33

(2) Classical Syriac

a. l-ḡaḇrå ḥaḏ ʾiṯ-wa-w l-eh

to-man.ms one.ms exst-was-3mpl to-him

tren bnin
two.m son.mpl

‘A certain man had two sons (lit. Him were two

sons).’ (Luke 15:11, Curetonian)

b. kery-aṯ l-hun l-ḡaḇre

grieved-3fs to-them.m to-man.mp

w-eṯ-beš-∅ l-hun ṭåḇ

and-medp-be.bad-s.3ms to-them.m well

‘The men were grieved and very angry (Them

grieved itF and angered itM).’ (Genesis 34:7, Pšiṭta)

The possessor is stripped of its prepositional marking and

becomes a zero-marked noun or pronoun, when it undergoes
topicalisation. Its grammatical function as possessor or experiencer
has to be resumed by the prepositional person marker such as
l-eh in the following examples.

c. gaḇrå ḥaḏ ʾiṯ-wa-w l-eh

man.ms one.ms exst-was-3mpl to-him

tren bnin
two.m son.mpl

‘A certain man had (lit. Him were) two sons.’

(Luke 15:11, Sinaiticus)
34 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

d. malka… kery-aṯ l-eh saggi

king.ms grieved-3fs to-him much

‘The king (who judged Daniel) felt very sorry

(lit. Him grieved itF).’ (Aphrahat XXI: 411.20)

Such agreement markers emerge out of topicalisation

constructions through increasing obligatorisation (e.g. Givón
1976; Lehmann 1988, 62; cf. Diem 2012; Mor and Pat-El 2016) and
accordingly transitivisation (see above). That is, the clause-initial
position without prepositional marking is favoured for discourse
topics. This position grammaticalises for ‘non-canonical’ subjects
on the model of the ‘canonical’ subject in other clauses (i.e.
transitivitisation) where sentence-initial position of the subject
has become the default position. The remaining cross-referencing
prepositional pronoun becomes effectively an inflectional cross-
index like verbal affixes.
Neo-Aramaic languages have a set of person markers generally
known as the L-suffixes that historically go back to such dative
person markers based on the preposition l-. In a similar fashion as
(2c-d) above, these L-suffixes are used to express the predicative
possessor and impersonal experiencer, for example in the dialects
of Ṭur ʿAbdin, i.e. Ṭuroyo (3a-b), and Christian dialect of Urmia,
i.e. C. Urmi, (4a-b):

(3) Ṭuroyo (Kfaerze, SE Turkey; Ritter 1967–1971)

a. ú-həmmāl-ano kət-way-le əštó-abne.

the-carrier.ms-dem.ms exst-pst-him six-sons.mpl

‘This carrier had six sons.’ (63/2)

b. ú-bab-ayðe ʿayəq-∅-le.
the-father.ms-his become.upset-it.m-him

‘His father got angry.’ (60/34)

 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 35

(4) C. Urmi (NW Iran; Khan 2016, transcription modified)

a. ʾaha malka ʾət-va-lə

dem.ms king.ms exst-pst-him

+
ṱla bnunə
three sons.mpl

‘This king had three sons.’ (A39:1)

b. ʾalaha la basm-a-lə.
God.ms neg pleaseIPFV-it.f-him

‘ItF does not please God.’ (A3:68)

This article is a comparative survey of the morphological

properties of such possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic,
concentrating on North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) and Central
Neo-Aramaic (i.e. Ṭuroyo and Mlaḥsó). Some comparative
remarks concerning Western Neo-Aramaic will also be made.
The data are mostly from NENA and Ṭuroyo grammatical
descriptions4 and fieldwork I conducted personally in the diaspora

4 For ease of comparison and accessibility, the various styles of transcription

have been made uniform as follows. The reduced centralised vowel ([ɪ] ~
[ə] (~ [ɯ])) sometimes represented as <i>, <ı>, <ɨ>, <ĭ>, or <ə>
is represented by the single grapheme <ə>.The voiceless and voiced
interdental fricatives are marked by <θ> and <ð>, respectively, (as
against <ṯ>, respectively, <ḏ> in some sources), and the pharyngeal
and glottal stop by <ʕ> and <ʾ> (against half rings <ʿ> and <ʾ> in
some sources). Post-velar unaspirated /k̭/, in for example C. Urmi (Khan
2016), corresponding with /q/ in other dialects, is represented by <q>
for simplicity’s sake. Moreover, I have taken the liberty to adapt Prym and
Socin (1881) and Ritter’s (1967–1971) detailed transcription of Ṭuroyo
to a phonological transcription that matches NENA more closely like that
of Jastrow (1992). Emphasis and glossing are mine in examples, unless
stated otherwise.
36 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

or in collaboration with G. Khan and/or D. Molin in Iraq5 and

with D. Molin in Jerusalem. There are notable differences and
resemblances across Neo-Aramaic dialects, some of which go
back to pre-modern Aramaic.
As the term used for these person markers already suggests, the
L-suffixes are no longer prepositional in nature but have become
inflectional suffixes. While their use in these constructions is still
reminiscent of a formerly dative case, synchronically, they are
no longer prepositional but serve to cross-index arguments in the
clause. Obligatorisation of such cross-indexing is a well-known
feature of the ‘canonical’ subject relation (e.g. Keenan 1976;
Onishi 2001) contrary to objects, the marking of which remains
conditioned by discourse-referential properties (e.g. Haig 2018a).
Do these L-suffixes express a ‘non-canonical’ subject? To what
extent have these L-suffixes become obligatory? And to what
extent do they still interact with prepositional arguments? As we
shall see, dialects have different strategies and not all of them
operate on the same level as (2c-d) above.
First, we shall briefly review verbal inflection and how
the recipient is expressed in ditransitive constructions. These
findings are compared with the morphosyntax of predicative
possessors and (impersonal) experiencer verb constructions in
both subgroups of Neo-Aramaic.

1. A Synopsis of Argument Marking in NENA and

Ṭuroyo

1.1. Role Reference Inversion

Verbal person marking in NENA and Ṭuroyo is considerably
complex and cannot be treated in full detail here.6 Historically,
verbal inflection goes back to participial constructions that

5 Data collection in Iraq was made possible by GCRF funding.

6 Overviews of the morphosyntax in NENA and Ṭuroyo can be found in
Khan (2010), Coghill (2016, 55–101), Waltisberg (2016) and Noorlander
(2018b, forthcoming).
 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 37

combined with clitic person markers. Two sets of person markers

are used. They will be referred to as the E-suffixes and L-suffixes,
which are respectively diachronically enclitic pronouns and
participial agreement (E-suffixes) and prepositional pronouns
based on l (L-suffixes). These are attached to the following
inflectional bases. The imperfective base is derived from the
active participle and the perfective base is derived from a verbal
adjective that expressed result states. I will refer to themas qaṭəl-
(< *qāṭel-) and qṭil- respectively after the inflection of stem I
strong verbs. The NENA qaṭəl-base corresponds to Ṭuroyo qoṭəl-,
where *ā has shifted to /o/ in open syllables. A so-called neuter
class of mainly intransitive verbs in Ṭuroyo follows the pattern
C1aC2iC3 in the perfective, such as damixo ‘she slept’ for dmx.
Historically, this goes back to a verbal adjective with a geminate
second consonant, e.g. *dammīḵ ‘asleep’, which should not be
confused with NENA qaṭəl-.
Transitive clauses show a type of role reference inversion7
conditioned by these inflectional bases (Noorlander forthcoming).
The roles that the E-suffixes and L-suffixes refer to are different
depending whether they attach to the imperfective or perfective
base. This can be seen, for instance, in the following examples
from Amidya (NW Iraq). While the L-suffixes mark the object in
the qaṭəl-base for the verb šmʾ ‘hear’, they mark the agent in the
qṭil-base, and vice versa for the E-series.

(5) Imperfective (J. Amidya, NW Iraq; Hoberman 1989,

102–04)

a. k-šamʾ-i baxta
ind-hearIPFV-they woman

‘They hear a woman.’

7 Or “agreement inversion” (Doron and Khan 2012). See also Polotsky
(1979, 209; 1991, 266; 1994, 95), Hoberman (1989:96, 113), Mengozzi
(2002b, 44–5), Noorlander (2018b, 119–23, 129, 408–10).
38 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

b. k-šamʾ-i-la.
ind-hearIPFV-they-her

‘They hear her.’

(6) Perfective (J. Amidya, NW Iraq; Hoberman ibid.)

a. šmeʾ-lu baxta.
hearPFV-they woman

‘They heard a woman.’

b. šmiʾ-a-lu.
hearPFV-her-they

‘They heard her.’

Prominent objects are marked differentially via cross-indexing

and/or prepositional marking. The definite object in (7) below,
for instance, is marked consistently by the preposition (ʾəl)l- and
triggers agreement throughout the constructional qaṭəl-/qṭil-split.
In (7a), however, the L-suffix attached to qaṭəl- cross-indexes the
object, whereas the E-suffix attached to qṭil- does so in in (7b).

(7) J. Arbel (NE Iraq; Khan 1999, 288–90)

a. ʾəl- ləxmá mapé -ni -wā -le

dom bread.ms bakeIPFV -they -pst -it.m

‘They baked (lit. it) the bread.’

b. kābrá lə- ʾanne beʾé zəbn -i -le

man.ms dom- dem.pl egg.pl soldPFV -them -he

‘The man sold (lit. them) those eggs.’

 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 39

In addition, agent focus can be expressed optionally by means

of the preposition (e)l- combined with the agreement through
L-suffixes in Ṭuroyo. The prepositional marking of the object
and the agent are both optional. Additional cross-indexing of
a prominent object is also optional in Ṭuroyo.8 Contrast (8a)
with (8b) below. Type (8b) is peculiar to the dialect of Raite
(Waltisberg 2016, 186f.). Both can also be lacking altogether,
as illustrated in (8c). The L-suffix that expresses the agent,
however, is obligatory, cf. (8d) and (8e) below. Hence optional
ergative prepositional marking is always accompanied by an
agent L-suffix as illustrated in (8c).

(8) Ṭuroyo (SE Turkey)

  [V -A -O] [l→O]
a. k-ŭðʿ -i -le l-u-zlām
ind-knowIPFV -they -him dom-the-man.m

‘They know the man.’ (Miden, Ritter 1967–1971,

81/49)

  [V-A] [l→O]
b. g-ḥoze-∅ l-i-dăvăre
fut-seeIPFV-he dom-the-breach.m

‘He will find the breach (in the wall).’ (Raite, ibid.
107/90)

  [V-A] [O]
c. lo k-ḥoze-∅ ú-aḥuno
neg pvb-seeIPFV-he the-brother.m

‘He does not find his brother’ (Raite, ibid. 97/113)

8 See Waltisberg (2016, 189–90) for more examples.

40 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

  [V-A] [l→A] [O]

d. ḥze-le l-u-Ṭayawo u-med-ano
sawPFV-he erg-the-Muslim.ms the-thing.ms-dem.ms

‘The Muslim saw this thing.’ (ʿIwardo; ibid. 33/37)

  [A] [V-A] [O]

e. hano ḥze-le u-Jorj
dem.ms sawPFV-he the-George

‘He saw George.’ (ʿIwardo; ibid. 56/106)

Thus both the nominal and verbal marking of objects is

conditioned by the discourse salience of the argument. The verbal
agreement with the agent, however, is obligatory. The prepositional
marking of the agent is optional only in the preterite in Ṭuroyo.

1.3. Semi-Clitic L-Suffixes and Ditransitive Verbs

The L-suffixes show lingering features of their enclitic origin
(Doron and Khan 2012, 231). First of all, they allow tense
morphemes like -wa- to intervene, e.g.

(9) C. Marga (SE Turkey)

a. garš-át-wa-li
pullIPFV-you.ms-pst-me

‘YouFS used to pull me.’

b. griš-át-wa-li
pulledPFV-you.ms-pst-I

‘I had pulled youFS.’

 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 41

Secondly, verbs generally only take one object affix. There

are a number of dialects, however, that allow a verb to take
more than one L-suffix, i.e. to stack L-suffixes. This occurs
across the constructional split illustrated above. Thus, the first
L-suffix always marks the (T)heme, i.e. the entity transferred
to somebody, and the second marks the (R)recipient role in the
qaṭəl-base inflection. Example (10) illustrates this where the first
L-suffix -nay (i.e. maxzən-+ -lay → maxzən-nay) expresses the
T and the second L-suffix -lux expresses the R. This is generally
only allowed when the T is third person.9

(10) C. Marga (SE Turkey)

[V- -A -T -R]
maxz -ə́n -nay -lux
showIPFV -I.m -them -you.ms

‘I will show youMS them.’

In a number of dialects, a second L-suffix is added to the

perfective to express the R. Thus we find perfective forms in
dialects like C. Marga such as (11) below where the first L-suffix
-li (i.e. mər- + -li → mər-ri) marks the A, but the second one, -lux,
marks the R.

(11) C. Marga (SE Turkey)

[V -A -R]
mə́r -ri -lux
saidPFV -I -you.ms

‘I told youMS.’

9 This third person restriction is documented for at least the lišana deni
dialects J. Dohok (Molin and Noorlander field notes) and J. Zaxo (Cohen
2012, 163–65), as well as C. Artun (Hertevin, Jastrow 1988, 63).
42 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Moreover, stacking of L-suffixes may occur even when the T is

marked by the E-suffixes such as -a in (12) below.

(12) C. Marga (SE Turkey)

[V -T -A -R]
ṭlib -á -lay -le
betrothedPFV -her -they -him

‘They betrothed her to him.’

This is also attested for rural dialects in Ṭuroyo (cf. Ritter

1990, 75), for example:

(13) Ṭuroyo

  [V -T -A -R]
a. húw -i -le -lalle
gavePFV -them -he -them

‘He gave them to them.’ (Miden, Ritter 1967–

1971: 73/371)

Ṭuroyo, however, prefers an unmarked set of bound person

markers10 to express third person Ts11 when both the T and R are
bound pronouns, as exemplified in (13b) below.

10 These are identical to the third person forms of the copula that historically
goes back to bound person markers, e.g. e.g. ú-dawšo basímo-yo ‘The honey
is nice’.
11 See Jastrow (1985, 137–38), Waltisberg (2016, 296), Noorlander (2018b,
341–45).
 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 43

  [V -A -R -T: 3]
b. hú -li -lalle -yo
gavePFV -I -them -it.ms

‘I gave them itM (the milk).’ (ibd., 75/375)

In addition, a prepositional indirect object construction is

available to all persons as well as all types of full nominals.
Various dialect-dependent prepositions are used to mark the R
independently of the verb. The respective preposition will vary
significantly across as well as within dialects. Variants of the
preposition (ʾəl)l- still occur, such as:

(14) Ṭuroyo (Miden, SE Turkey)

a. ʾát-tarʿone mər-re l-ú-malko

the-doorkeeper.mpl saidPFV-they to-the-king.ms

‘The doorkeepers said to the king.

(Ritter 1967–1971, 81/16)

The prepositional recipient NP can trigger additional

agreement by L-suffixes on the verb, to illustrate:

b. Gorgis k-omar-∅-re l-áb-baqore

Gorgis prs-sayIPFV-he-them to-the-cowherder.mpl

‘Gorgis says to the cowherders.’ (ibid. 115/164)

Several NENA dialects, however, make use of other (novel)

prepositions such as ṭ(l)a-, ta-, ba(q)-, qa- etc., for example:
44 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(15) C. Marga (SE Turkey)

xa mər-re ta-d-ay-xena
one saidPFV-he to-lnk-dem-other

‘One said to the other.’

Prepositional marking of the R is preferred when the T is a

first or second person pronominal affix attached to the verb and
when the R is a full nominal.12
Thus, full nominal recipients are generally prepositional. An
extra L-suffix can express pronominal recipients in both NENA and
Ṭuroyo for both the qaṭəl- and qṭil-based person marking. When
the verb selects an additional L-suffix, it is confined to recipients
found throughout the verbal system in Ṭuroyo and several NENA
dialects. Third person themes can be marked through a different,
unmarked set of bound person markers.
When such additional L-suffixes of the first and second person
are added to qṭil- in Ṭuroyo, they also express the object of
monotransitive verbs, e.g. grə́š-le-li ‘He pulled me’. One cannot
say **grə́š-li-le for ‘I pulled him’ (e.g. Noorlander 2018b, 340).
Generally, NENA dialects do not add such object L-suffixes to qṭil-
forms. Jewish dialects in Iranian Azerbaijan, however, such as
Urmi and Salamas and several Christian dialects in SE Turkey such
as Bohtan (Ruma; Fox 2009), Haṣṣan (Jastrow 1997; Damsma
forthcoming), Umṛa and Jənnet (Noorlander field notes) use the
L-suffixes for objects throughout the qaṭəl-/qṭil-split, i.e. grə́š-li-le
‘I pulled him’, cf. garš-ax-le ‘We pull him’.13

12 See, among others, Hoberman (1989:106–10), Coghill (2010) and

Noorlander (2018b, 129, 144–53, 172–74, 186–87, 395–402) for further
studies of ditransitives in NENA and Waltisberg (2016) and Noorlander
(2018b, 340–45) for Ṭuroyo.
13 See Noorlander (2018b, 220–30, 381, 429–30; 2019a-b; forthcoming) for
a discussion.
 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 45

The preterite illustrated in (6) above is known as the šmīʿ l- or

qṭīl l-construction in Aramaic studies. Historically, it goes back
to the resultative participle and an agent-like argument marked
by l- . It developed from a stative-resultative to a preterite via a
perfect. Views diverge as to its exact interpretation. It has been
connected with possessors, experiencers and subject co-referential
datives.14 It lies beyond the scope of this article to address this
issue here. It should be noted, however, that, while a connection
between these ‘non-canonical’ subject construction types and the
šmiʿ l-constructions developing into the preterite seems plausible
to me in itself, we shall see that there are important distinctions.
Forms like grəš-li ‘I pulled’ consist of L-suffixes that are marked
for tense-aspect. They serve as inflectional agent suffixes of the
preterite based on qṭil-. This is a notable distinction from the use of
L-suffixes to express affectees, since they are found across different
inflections and not just the qṭil-based forms. This difference is
observed above for the recipient role but also extensions thereof
that are the relics of a formerly dative argument.

2. Beneficiaries and Subject Co-referential

L-suffixes

2.1. Beneficiaries
Apart from recipients of ditransitive verbs, L-suffixes can be
added to any monotransitive verb to express an additional R-like
affectee, as if it were an additional argument of the verb. The
Ṭuroyo L-suffix -lən in (16), for example, expresses a beneficiary
in a construction that is clearly derived from ditransitive
constructions. The same holds for -li in (17) below to illustrate
this for lišana deni dialects of NENA like J. Dohok:

14 See, among others, Noorlander (2012, 2018b, 2019a-b, forthcoming) and

Coghill (2016).
46 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(16) Ṭuroyo (Midyat, SE Turkey)

[V -A -R] [T]
ftíḥ -le -lən ú-tarʿo
openedPFV -he -them the-door.ms

‘He opened the door for them.’ (Ritter 1967–1971,

26/237)

(17) J. Dohok (NW Iraq)

[V -A -R] [T]
ptə́x -le -li tăra
openedPFV -he -me door.ms

‘He opened the door for me.’

The T-like argument can be pronominalised through the same

unmarked set as in ditransitive constructions added to the L-suffix
expressing the beneficiary in Ṭuroyo, e.g.

(18) Ṭuroyo (Midən, SE Turkey)

[V -A -R -T] [T]
sə́m -la -li -yo zawgo d-gŭrwe
madePFV -he -them -it pair of-stockings

‘(From a ball of threads) she made me a pair of

stockings.’ (Jastrow 1992, 138.12)

Indeed, both the A and the R-like affectee can be l-marked

and cross-referenced by L-suffixes.15 The l-marking of the A is
pragmatically conditioned (agent/narrow focus), for example:

15 See also Waltsiberg (2016, 195) and Noorlander (2018b, 345–53;

forthcoming).
 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 47

(19) Ṭuroyo (ʿIwardo, SE Turkey)

[V -A -R] [A]
mən sə́m -le -le l-u-šulṭono
what didPFV -he -him to-the-sultan.ms

[R]
l-u-ʿmiro
to-the-emir.ms

‘… what the sultan has done to the emir.’

(Ritter 1967–1971, 36/87)

2.2. Subject Co-referential L-suffixes

An additional R-like argument expressed by the L-suffix can also
denote an interested party, indirect affectee or benefactor that
is co-referential with the subject. This is found across the verbal
system for many telic dynamic verbs, including

(20) Ṭuroyo (SE Turkey)

a. imperfective:

∅-šot-ína -lan qahwa k̭elik̭e

sbjv-drinkPFV-we -us coffee an.instant

∅-məjġil-ína -lan
sbjv-medp.speakIPFV-we -us

‘Let us drink some coffee and have ourselves a chat for

a moment.’ (Midyat, ibid. 65/77)
48 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

b. imperative:

xu16 -lux fak̭o

eat.imp -you.ms bite

‘Have yourselfM a bite to eat!’ (Midən, ibid. 75/85)

c. perfective:

damix -ən -ne b-dŭkθo

sleptPFV -they -them in-place.fs

‘They slept (lit. them) somewhere.’ (Midən, 115/97)

xí -le -le fak̭o

atePFV -he -him bite

‘He had himself a bite to eat.’ (Miden, 73/367)

Subject co-referential L-suffixes are not uncommon for verbs

of position and motion in Ṭuroyo, e.g.

(21) Ṭuroyo (SE Turkey)

a. yatu -∅ -le əšmo

satPFV -he -him a.little

‘He sat down a little.’ (Miden, ibid. 77/238)

b. qayəm -∅ -le Kandar

rosePFV -he -him Kandar

‘Kandar stood up.’ (Midyat, Prym and Socin 1881,

23.29)

16 
xu-lux < xŭl- ‘eat!’ + -lux.
 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 49

c. saləq -∅ -le
ascendedPFV -he -him

‘He went up.’ (Midyat, Prym and Socin 1881,

117.3)

Indeed, co-referential L-suffixes have become special (stressed)

inflectional endings in the high frequency motion verb ʾzl ‘go’ as
well as the imperative forms of ʾθy ‘come’ in Ṭuroyo, replacing
the original subject encoding. Because of this, the verb ʾzl has an
irregular and unique inflection that is identical to the L-suffixes
except for the 2pl. and 3pl., which take special endings, as shown
in (22) below.

(22) Ṭuroyo inflection of ʾzl ‘go’

imperfective perfective imperative
1s əzz-í(-no) < *ʾozəl-li azz-í(-no)
1pl əzz-án(o) < *ʾozəl-lan azz-án(o)
2ms ́
əzz-ŭx < *ʾozəl-lux ́
azz-ŭx ́ !
(i)z-ŭx
2fs əzz-áx < *ʾozəl-lax azz-áx (i)z-áx !
2pl əzz-oxu < *ʾozəl-loxun azz-oxu (i)z-oxu !
3ms əzz-é(yo) < *ʾozəl-leh azz-é(yo)
3fs əzz-á(yo) < *ʾozəl-lah azz-á(yo)
3pl əzz-ehən < *ʾozəl-lehen azz-ehən

Presumably the final /l/ of the original root ʾzl played a role,
yielding special endings because of the complete assimilation
with the preceding /z/. The 3s forms can be enhanced with -yo,
which mimics its use in ditransitive constructions and creates a
penultimate stress as in the first person -no in forms like k-əzz-i-no
‘I’m going’ and k-əzz-an-o ‘We’re going’. Subject co-referential
L-suffixes can even be added instead, e.g.
50 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(23) Ṭuroyo

a. azz -e -le (*< az- + -le + -le)

wentPFV -he -him

‘He went.’ (Raite, Ritter 1967–1971, 95/4)

b. azz -a -la (*< az- + -le + -le)

wentPFV -she -her

‘ItF reached.’ (Raite,ibid. 95/27)

Importantly, no such conjugations are attested for ʾzl in

the closely related Central Neo-Aramaic dialect Mlaḥsó. The
imperfective and imperative do not take L-suffixes, e.g. ∅-oz-ina
‘Let’s go’ and iz-ewun ‘GoPL!’. The L-suffixes function as subject
markers for the preterite, e.g. preterite azi-le ‘He went’, against
the perfect azi-∅ ‘He has gone’ (Jastrow 1994, 156). Only the
pl. imperative of ʾsy ‘come’ in Mlaḥsó, e.g. toxun ‘ComePL!’ does
seem to parallel Ṭuroyo toxu.
Subject co-referential datives also occur in NENA dialects.
This is, for instance, common in the imperative of motion verbs17,
e.g. C. Urmi ta-lux ‘ComeMS!, si-lux ‘GoMS!’ (Khan 2016II:151–52).
It can also combine with other verbs and verbal forms expressing
a beneficiary, e.g. šqul-lux xa-dana ʾərba ‘Take a sheep for
yourself’ (ibid. 152), zon-i-lay mexulta ‘They buy themselves
food’, zvun-nux xaql-i ‘BuyMS (yourselfMS) my field!’ (Polotsky
1996, 37, transcription modified).
The verb ʾzl is also highly irregular in Christian NENA dialects
in SE Turkay and northern Iraq, especially on the Mosul plain.
Both the qaṭəl-base and qṭil-base take L-suffixes as subject coding,
as shown in (25) below, including after the ‘past convertor’ -wa,
e.g. k-zá-wa-la ‘She used to go’. Khan (2002, 120) assumes the
base za- is a reduced form of the infinitive ʾəzála. Note also that

17 See Fassberg (2018: 113, incl. fn. 61) for more examples across NENA
dialects.
 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 51

the imperative of ʾθy ‘come’ has similarly irregular forms inflected

with L-suffixes. (The imperative of ʾzl does not take L-suffixes in
this dialect.)

(24) C. Qaraqosh (NW Iraq; Khan 2002, 120, 153, 155, 122)
imperfective ‘go’ perfective ‘go’ cp. imperative
1s za-li zəl-li ‘come’
1pl za-lan zəl-lan
2ms za-lux zəl-lux ha-lux!
2fs za-lax zəl-lax ha-lux!
2pl za-lxun zəl-xun ha-lxu(n)!
3ms za-lə zəl-lə
3fs za-la zəl-la
3pl za-lhən zəl-hən

In Western Neo-Aramaic, subject co-referential L-suffixes

are readily found in the imperative, e.g. zubnu-llxun ‘BuyMPL
yourselves (sth.)!’, and are common with the verbs of motion
ʾty ‘come’ and zyl ‘go’, and with the change-of-state verbs qʿy ‘sit’
and ðmx ‘sleep, fall asleep’ (Arnold 1990b, 238, cf. Spitaler 1938,
222, §196o-p):

(25) Western Neo-Aramaic (Maʿlula, SW Syria; Arnold

1990b:239, 174)

a. ni- ðmox -laḥ šaʿθa

we- sleep -us hour

‘Let us sleep for an hour.’

b. θe -∅ -le
coming -he -him

‘He is coming.’
52 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

c. zli -n -naḥ
went -we -us

‘We went.’

The imperative forms of ʾθy ‘come’ is thus regularly fused with

L-suffixes in Western Neo-Aramaic (Arnold 1990b, 173) similarly
to Ṭuroyo and NENA dialects on the Mosul Plain:

(26) Imperative of ‘come’ across Neo-Aramaic

Western (Maʿlula) Central (Ṭuroyo) NENA(C.
Qaraqosh)
ms θā-x ́ !
(i)t-ŭx ha-lux !
fs θā-š (i)t-áx ! ha-lux !
pl θa-llxun (m), -llxen (f) (i)t-oxu ! ha-lxu(n) !

Subject co-referential datives (or ethical datives) were already

common with such intransitive verbs in pre-Modern Aramaic and
can be considered an archaic feature in Neo-Aramaic, e.g. qum leḵ!
‘AriseFS!’ qåm-∅ l-eh ‘He has risen’ (see Fassberg 2018; cf. Joosten
1989). Fassberg (2018), following Ullendorff, argues the so-called
ethical dative reflects the colloquial language. Several scholars
claim the ethical dative influenced the emergence of intransitive
verbal forms inflected with L-suffixes like qəm-li ‘I rose’ in NENA
and Mlaḥsó (Mengozzi 2002b, 44; Halevy 2008; Fassberg 2018,
115). While this is conceivable, one should note that this dative
endured as additional L-suffixes in the spoken varieties and did
not disappear as a result (pace Fassberg 2018, 116). Moreover,
where the original dative pronominal is conventionalized as
inflectional morphemes of the verb, it is attested across the
inflectional system, and thus not an inflectional property of qṭil-
as verbal form per se.
 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 53

2.3. Trans-Zab Jewish Dialects: əll-series

A different strategy comparable with subject co-referential
L-suffixes exists in the so-called Trans-Zab Jewish dialects of
NENA (Mutzafi 2008b). Certain intransitive verbs can take
bound person markers derived from the independent set based
on the preposition ʾəll-, constituting a secondary LL-series. They
are impersonal, dummy pronouns belonging to the 3ms. or 3fs.
in intransitive predicates functioning like a middle voice marker
(Mengozzi 2006). They are not co-referential with the subject but
seem to express the telic endpoint, for example:

(27) J. Koy Sanjaq (NE Iraq; Mutzafi 2004, 104, 229)

a. nə́x-li-llaw
restedPFV-I-it.f

‘I rested (lit. itF)’

b. ytíw-li-llaw
satPFV-I-it.f

‘I sat (lit. itF)’

(28) J. Saqqiz (W Iran; Israeli 1998, 49)

dmíx-i-lev
sleptPFV-they-it.m

‘They slept (lit. itM)’

54 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

3. Morphosyntax of Possessors in Neo-Aramaic

Possession can be expressed in various ways in Neo-Aramaic
languages (Noorlander 2018b, 154–58).18 The focus here will
be on the possessor marking strategies that are related to the
original dative preposition l-. I should note briefly, however, that
possession can be expressed adnominally by means of nominal
suffixes, e.g. bab-i ‘my father’, bab-ax ‘yourFS father’. There also
reflexes of a historical adnominal linker *ḏ that are used to denote
possession through nominal annexation,19 e.g.

(29) Ṭuroyo (SE Turkey)

a. í-barθo d-ú- malko

the-daughter.fs of-the king.ms

‘the king’s daughter’

Nouns that are marked by such a linker can also occur

independently, for example as the nominal element of the
predicate:

b. í-baxč-aṯe-ste d-ú- malko -wa

the-garden.fs-dem.fs-foc of-the king.ms -was

‘This garden belonged to the king’, lit. ‘was the king’s’

(Midyat, Ritter 1967–1971, 24/164).

There are independent possessive/genitive pronouns derived

from this particle with augmentation, for example:

18 See Stilo and Noorlander (2015, 473–76) for an areal perspective.

19 See Gutman (this volume, cf. 2016) for an overview of such constructions.
 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 55

c. í-gweto díð- i -yo

the-chees.fs of my -it.is

‘The cheese is mine!’ (Midyat, ibid. 22/2).

3.1. Possessor Marked by L-suffixes Only

Predicative possession is based in existential clauses introduced
by the dialectal reflexes of the existential marker *ʾiθ- ‘there
is/are’. This uninflectable particle is negated by the negator la
(in NENA and Ṭuroyo) in a form going back to *la-yθ- ‘there
is/are not’, and for past tense by the suffix -wa, e.g. *ʾiθ-wa
‘there was/were’ (in NENA and Ṭuroyo), similarly to verbs. The
preverbal TAM-marker k- typical for the indicative-durative
present is always combined with it in Ṭuroyo, e.g. k-ito ‘There
is’. Together with L-suffixes they express predicative possession,
e.g. kət-li ‘I have’. In Western Neo-Aramaic, the existential
particle is reduced to ī- or ū- before L-suffixes, e.g. ī-le ‘He has’
(Arnold 1990a, 185). The negator is čū and the past particle is
wa preceding the predicate, e.g. čū-le ‘He has not’, wa ī-le ‘He
had’. The L-suffix in Neo-Aramaic marks the possessor which
is reminiscent of their use as markers of the recipient (i.e. ‘T
belongs to R’).
The co-referential nominal, however, is usually not
prepositional. Thus, (30a) below presents a simple existential
predicate in Ṭuroyo. (30b) illustrates the additional L-suffix
expressing the R-like possessor without a co-nominal referent. In
(30b), the possessor NP ú-malk-ano ‘this king’ is zero-marked but
the L-suffix cross-references it, indexing its role as the possessor.
The unmarked set of independent pronouns is similarly used to
express the possessor, as illustrated in (30c).
56 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(30) Ṭuroyo

a. kit -wo malko

exst -pst king.ms

‘There once was a king.’ (Midyat, Ritter 1967–1971,

99/2)

b. ú-malk-ano kit -way -le greʿo

the-king:ms-dem.ms exst -pst -him servant.ms

‘This king had a servant’ (Midyat, ibid. 99/3)

c. ono kit -way -li ʿezo

I exst -pst -him goat.fs

‘I had a goat.’ (ʿIwardo, ibid. 57/151)

The same holds for NENA, as illustrated below for the Christian
dialect of Urmi.

(31) C. Urmi (NW Iran)

a. ʾət -va xa-dana -málca

exst -pst a-clf -king.ms

‘There once was a king.’ (Khan 2016IV: A 2:1)

b. ʾaha malca ʾə́t -va -lə +

ṱla bnunə
dem.ms king.ms exst -pst -him three sons.pl

‘This king had three sons.’ (ibid. A 39:1)

c. ana ʾə́t -li +

xabra
I exst -me news

‘I have news.’ (ibid. A 1:37)

 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 57

Possessors are generally also expressed by an L-suffix in Western

Neo-Aramaic such as ī-le ‘He has’ and ī-l ‘I have’ in the following
examples. The possessor co-nominal itself is zero-marked.

(32) Western Neo-Aramaic

a. wōθ b-zamōne malka

pst.exst in-time king.ms

‘Once upon a time there was a king.’ (Arnold

1991b, 20.1)

b. hanna malka ī-le ebra

dem.ms king.ms exst-him son.ms

‘This king had a son.’ (ibid.)

c. ana ī-l ḥammeš emʿa ðahb

I exst-me five hundred gold

‘I have five hundred gold pieces.’

(ibid. 294/296.29)

3.2. (External) Possessors Marked on Verbs

3.2.1. The Verb hwy ‘be’, ‘become’, ‘beget’

The predicative possessor constructions are marked for particular
tense, aspect and mood (TAM) values like verbs. The verb hwy
stands in a suppletive relation to the existential markers to express
other TAM categories such as the future tense and subjunctive.
The verb remains impersonal like the existential marker. Its
inflection is identical with the 3ms. -∅ E-suffix. The L-suffix is
added to the verb, for example
58 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(33) Ṭuroyo (Miden, SE Turkey)

Baṣuṣ gt-owe-le abro

Baṣuṣ fut-beIPFV-him son

‘Baṣuṣ will have a son.’ (Ritter 1967–1971, 115/309)

(34) C. Urmi (NW Iran)

ʾana ṱ-avi-li ʾarxe

I fut-beIPFV-me guests

‘I will have guests.’ (Khan 2016IV, A11:1)

When L-suffixes are attached to the verb hwy, the construction

can semantically entail a process, i.e. ‘become’, rather than a
state, i.e. ‘be’. The verb can be used to convey ‘be born’. The
L-suffix denotes an R-like affectee, i.e. the one who begot the
child, for example:

(35) Ṭuroyo (Midyat, SE Turkey)

ú-tajər hawi-le barθo

the-merchant.ms be.born-him daughter.fs

‘The merchant begot a daughter’ (Ritter 1967–1971,

23/4)

(36) C. Urmi (Literary, NW Iran; Polotsky 1979, 211–12)

a. vazir bət- havi -lə brata

vizier fut- be.born -him daughter.fs

‘The vizier will have/beget a daughter.’

 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 59

In C. Urmi, the verb takes a 3fs. L-suffix in the qṭil-based

preterite (Khan 2016II, 396) such as vi-la-lə bruna ‘He begot a
son’, lit. ‘ItF (impersonal) was born to him a son’, below:

b. vazir ví -la -lə bruna

vizier be.born -it.F -him son

‘The vizier had/begot a son.’

Pronominal objects are otherwise not marked through

L-suffixes on the qṭil-based preterite verb in such dialects. Forms
like **grəš-la-li for intended ‘She pulled me’ do not occur. The
secondary L-suffix is clearly reminiscent of the stacking of
L-suffixes in ditransitive constructions in dialects like C. Marga
and lišana deni Jewish dialects, cf. (37) below. This indicates how
the L-suffix is considered an R-like argument in the system and
expressed by an L-suffix regardless of the inflectional base, cf.
(37a) below taken from the Jewish dialect of Dohok.

(37) J. Dohok (Molin and Noorlander field notes)

a. hú -le li pare
gavePFV -he me money.pl

‘He gave me money.’

Apart from (37), examples (33)–(36) above are impersonal like

the predicative possessor constructions. The verb hwy can also
agree with the possessee in an external possessor construction.
The possessor is expressed as an affectee part of the verbal
predicate independently of the nominal possesee. For instance,
the verb agrees with the possessee yalunke ‘children’ in (37b)
below but takes an additional L-suffix to denote the possessor.
The possessor is expressed as an argument of the verb.
60 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

b. hwé -lu li yalunk-e

be.bornPFV -they me child-mpl

‘I begot children.’
(lit. Children were born unto me)

The verb hwy can also be inflected for person and combine
with the L-suffix not to convey a strict sense of belonging but
a broader sense of relation, i.e. ‘X is/becomes Y with respect to
somebody’. The construction parallels ditransitive verbs. Only in
this sense can the pronominal possessee be expressed in the same
way as the theme in ditransitives such as -yo , for example in
(36b):

(38) Ṭuroyo (ʿIwardo, SE Turkey)

a. hat ∅-how -at -lan qašo

you.s sbjv-becomeIPFV -you.s -us priest.ms

‘(We want) that you become our priest.’ (Ritter

1967–1971, 33/83)

b. ∅-howe -lan -yo qašo

sbjv-becomeIPFV -us -it priest.ms

‘(We want) you to be our priest.’ (lit. to become it

for us,―a priest) (ibid. 33/84)

The same combination can also be modal. This is recorded in

Ritter’s corpus of Ṭuroyo. It is accompanied by negation denoting
inability, for example:

c. ló k-owe -li -yo d-əzz-i-no

neg ind-beIPFV -me -it sbjv-goIPFV-me-I

‘I cannot go.’ (ibid. 63/378)

 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 61

The expression of ability through predicative possessors is

also recorded in Trans-Zab Jewish varieties (e.g. Khan 2004, 311,
364), ma ʾit-wa-lu hol-i-wa ‘What could they do?’, ʾana kwe-li ‘I
will be able’.

3.2.2. External Possessors

Sporadically, L-suffixes can express a possessor-like affectee of
verbal predicates akin to example (1g) from Hebrew. At least
one such instance where the secondary L-suffix marks an external
possessor is attested in Mlaḥsó:

(39) Mlaḥsó (Lice, SE Turkey)

ṭafloki mís -le -li

a.child diedPFV -he -me

‘One child of mine died (on me).’ (Jastrow 1994,

124.121)

Such external possessors are also attested in NENA dialects

where the second L-suffix marks the R in qṭil-. The possessor
is added as an R-like affectee in both the qaṭəl- and qṭil-based
inflection such as the construction in J. Dohok given in (40). Its
usage in J. Dohok does not seem to have a clear distribution.
Coghill (2019, 368) notes that apart from pyš ‘remain’, it is
confined to telic intransitives in C. Telkepe (NW Iraq), such as
myθ ‘die’, ʔθy ‘come’ and bry ‘happen’.

(40) J. Dohok (Molin and Noorlander field notes)

mə́t -lu -li yalunke

diedPFV -they -me children

‘My children died (on me).’

62 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

An L-suffix denoting an R-like argument can be added to

intransitive verbs in Ṭuroyo. It can be combined with the verbs
fyš ‘remain’, qyθ ‘hit, touch, meet’, ʾθy ‘come’ and mṭy ‘arrive’.
Since these motion verbs denote movement towards an endpoint,
these constructions typically convey a sense of reception, e.g.

(41) Ṭuroyo (Midyat, SE Turkey)

qayəṯ- -le rŭmḥo bə-droʿ-e

stuckPFV -him spear.fs in-arm-his

‘A spear hit his arm.’ (lit. hit him in his arm’) (Prym
and Socin 1881, 141.11)

The additional L-suffix and -yo on the intransitive verb parallels

ditransitive constructions. Compare aθí-∅-li-yo ‘I received it’
and mšadál-le-li-yo ‘He sent me it’ in (42) below.

(42) Ṭuroyo (Midən, SE Turkey)

k- aθi -∅ -li səsyo m-ú-ʿmiro

perf- camePFV -it.m -me horse.ms from-the-emir.ms

‘I received a horse from the emir’

aθí -∅ -li -yo, mšadál -le -li -yo

camePFV -it.m -me -it sentPFV -he -me -it

‘I received it, he sent me it.’ (Ritter 1967–1971, 81/55)

3.2.3. Trans-Zab Jewish Dialects: əll- and -la-l-series

Occasionally, one also finds prepositional external possessors in
NENA attached to the verbal base. An LL-series of person markers
based on the preposition (ʾəl)l- is used to express the external
possessor as illustrated for J. Arbel below.
 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 63

(43) J. Arbel (NE Iraq; Khan 1999, 292)

yāle rāba míl-lu-llaw

children very.much diedPFV-they-her

‘Many of her children died.’

Western Iranian dialects such as J. Saqqiz and J. Sanandaj

use the morpheme -la-20 as base for the L-suffixes to express
predicative possession together with the verb ‘become’ (Khan
2009, 88–90, 301–02). This la- is possibly a relic of a former
impersonal L-suffix -la ‘itF’, i.e. xír-la-li ‘ItF became to me’ → ‘I
have’. Full possessor NPs are zero-marked and can occupy pre-
verbal position as illustrated in (44) below. The verbal base xir
is invariable like the existential marker and does not agree with,
for instance, indefinite plural nouns such as puḷe ‘money’ in J.
Sanandaj ʾaná hămešá puḷé xír-la-li ‘I have always had money’
(Khan 2009, 302). This lal-series, therefore, serves as a special
set of person markers, identifying their role as the most salient
affectee.

(44) J. Sanandaj (W Iran; Khan 2009, A:108)

Nadər Šāh ʾAfšāŕ raba qudr-éf

Nadir Shah Afshar very.much power.ms-his

xír-la- -le
becamePFV-it.f -him

‘Nadir Shah Afshar had a lot of power.’

20 Khan (2009, 89) notes “the element la- is likely to be a fossilised form of
a 3fs. copula form *ila”. It also possible it is an L-suffix used impersonally.
64 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

3.3. Prepositional Marking of Possessors

3.3.1. Possessor Marked by l- Only

The independent possessor argument is generally zero-marked
in NENA. Alternative expressions do exist where the possessor is
prepositional in some varieties of NENA such as J. Sulemaniyya
combined with a 3ms. copula in (33b) below.

(45) J. Sulemaniyya (NE Iraq)

belá ʾəll-ew -ye

house.ms to-him -it.is.m

‘The house belongs to him.’ (Khan 2004a, 336, 362)

Similarly, sporadically, a predicative possessor can be

expressed independently by means of the preposition (e)l- in
Ṭuroyo, e.g.

(46) Ṭuroyo (SE Trukey)

i-dŭkθo kul-a el-ŭx -yo

the-place.fs all-her to-you.ms -it.is

‘The whole place belongs to youFS (Midən, Ritter

1967–1971, 115/240)

Unlike the rest of Neo-Aramaic, however, the predicative

possessor is always independent in Mlaḥsó. The possessor is
expressed as an independent dative (pro)noun such as eli ‘to me’
in (47). The possessee controls the agreement of the verb hwy
‘be’. Jastrow (1994) does not appear to provide examples of full
nominal possessors in Mlaḥsó.
 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 65

(47) Mlaḥsó (SE Turkey; Jastrow 1994, 76.19)

a. hito el-i ḥosoki

there.is to-me a.sister

‘I have a sister.’

b. zʿure el-i lo-ve -len

children to-me not-were/becamePFV -they

‘I did not have children / No children were born

to me.’

Sporadically, a full nominal possessor can also be prepositional

in Western Neo-Aramaic, for example:

(48) Western Neo-Aramaic

wōθ l-aḥḥað ġabrōna eččθa

there.was to-one man.ms woman.fs

‘A certain man had a wife.’ (Arnold 1991b, 8.1)

Note that, in these cases, the possessor is marked only by a

preposition just like the examples from Hebrew in (1).

3.3.2. Possessor Marked by l- and L-suffixes

The possessor can be optionally marked through the preposition
l- in addition to the L-suffix in Ṭuroyo.21 This includes predicative
possessors such as (49a) and R-like affectees such as (49b-c).

21 See Waltisberg (2016, 125) for more examples.

66 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(49) Ṭuroyo (SE Turkey)

a. ma kət-le l-ú-malk-ano
q exst-him dat-the-king-dem.ms

‘What does the king have?’

(ʿIwardo, Ritter 1967–1971: 58/3, 57/12)

b. l-ú-ḥakəm hawi -le barθo

dat-the-overlord becamePFV -him daughter.fs

‘The overlord (be)got a daughter.’ (ʿIwardo, Ritter

1967–1971, 59/5)

c. aθi-le l-ú-malko năʿame

camePFV-him to-the-king.ms ostritch.fs

‘The king received an ostrich.’ (Miden, ibid. 58)

The optionality of the prepositional marking of the possessor

alongside the L-suffix is reminiscent of the morphosyntax of
agents in the Ṭuroyo qṭil-based preterite (cf. Diem 2012). This
strategy to combine the preposition l- and L-suffixes does not
occur in NENA.

3.4. Transitivisation of Possessive Constructions

Predicative possessive constructions have undergone
transitivisation in NENA and Ṭuroyo in that the L-suffixes are
obligatory person markers like verbal inflection. Apart from the
L-suffixes, the construction remains impersonal. The possessee
does not control agreement and does not trigger differential
object marking. Generally speaking, even when a possessee could
still be contextualised through anaphora such as where English
would use a pronominal object for ‘to have’, it will tend to remain
implicit in Neo-Aramaic. Forms like ʾət-li or kət-li could also mean
‘I have itF/itM’ or ‘I have them’. This raises the question of how
 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 67

transitivised the predicative possessive construction are in being

compatible with pronominal objects like transitive clauses in
general.
There are indeed cases where the transitivisation seems to be
more advanced and pronominal objects are overtly expressed.
This, for instance, applies when the possessee is first or second
person. First and second person pronominal objects differ across
dialects. The possessee can be expressed as a pronominal object
either through the unmarked set of independent pronouns, e.g.

(50) C. Shaqlawa (NW Iraq)

a. ʾaxni ʾahat ʾət-an22

we you.s exst-us

‘We have YOUS’ (Khan field notes)

This parallels the use of independent personal pronouns in

transitive clauses to express focal objects, for example:

b. ʾaxni ʾahat qam-xaz-əx-lux

we you pfv-see-we-you.ms

‘We saw YOUFS’

If available, the possessee can also be expressed through a

dedicated set of prepositional pronominal objects, e.g.

(51) C. Urmi (NW Iran)

a. ʾaxnan qatux ʾət-lan

we you exst-us

‘We have youMS’ (Noorlander field notes)

22 
ʾət-an > *ʾət-tan < ʾət-lan (through assimilation).
68 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

In the latter, the marking of the possessee clearly patterns

like that of objects of qṭil-based preterite verbal forms where the
agent is expressed by the L-suffixes, e.g.

b. ʾaxnan qatux xze-lan

we you sawPFV-us

‘We saw youMS’

A few NENA dialects in SE Turkey such as Artun (Hertevin),

Umṛa and Jənnet mark the object on the transitive qṭil-based
perfective by means of additional L-suffixes, e.g. grə́š-le-la ‘He
pulled itF’. The marking of the possessee is the same as the
object in the predicative possessor construction, e.g. ʾə́t-le-la
‘He has itF’. It has taken over the full agent and object marking
morphology of the perfective (see the examples below). When
object L-suffixes like -la ‘itF’ are added to grəš-lax ‘YouFS pulled’,
first and second person agents are marked by a special set one
could call the L-E-series yielding grə́š-lət-ta ‘YouFS pulled it’.23 The
same transitive verbal coding occurs in the predicative possessor
construction, e.g. ʾət-lət-ta ‘YouFS have itF’. Moreover, these
transitive constructions are used when full nominal possessees
trigger differential marking. Thus the indefinite possessee in
(52a) functions like an indefinite object in (52c)but the definite
possessee in (52b) triggers cross-indexing like a definite object
in (52d).

(52) C. Artun (Hertevin, SE Turkey; Jastrow 1988, 67,

160.541–542)

a. ana lət -li hay

I exst -me knowledge.fs

‘I don’t have knowledge.’

23 See Noorlander (2018b, 242–49, forthcoming) for a detailed discussion of

the verbal person marking in C. Artun (Hertevin).
 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 69

b.    lə́t -lə́n -na hay

exst -I -it.f knowledge.fs

‘I don’t have the knowledge.’

c.    ḥzé -li    baxta

sawPFV -I woman

‘I saw a woman.’

d.    ḥzé -lə́n -na baxta

sawPFV -I -her woman

‘I saw the woman.’

It should be noted, however, that this is not acceptable in the

majority of dialects. Speakers of J. Dohok, for example, do not
readily accept pronominalisation of the possessee in predicative
possessor constructions. They disfavour expressions like **ʾətli
ʾahat ‘I have youFS’ and circumvent this by choosing constructions
involving independent possessive pronouns akin to English ‘YouFS
are mine’.

3.5. Verboid bas- ‘enough’

A related verboid construction in NENA based on the particle
bas- ‘enough’ is generally inflected with suffixes going back to
possessor-like L-suffixes that have assimilated to the preceding
/s/. The possessee-like complement of the quantifier bas, i.e. that
which is possessed in a satisfactory amount such as xaye ‘life’
below, is prepositional (m-), e.g.

(53) C. Barwar (NW Iraq)

bass-i m-xáye
enough-me from-life.pl

‘I have had enough of my life’ (Khan 2008a, 1241).

70 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

The original L-suffix can still be observed in the past equivalent,

e.g. bas-wa-li ‘I had had enough’. Depending on the dialect, the
copula can also be added to this to express the referent of the
quantifier bass-, e.g.

(54) C. Urmi (NW Iran)

báss -ux -ila

enough -you.ms -it.is.f

‘ThatF is enough for you.’ (Khan 2016I, 585)

The same particle is fully inflectable for L-suffixes in Ṭuroyo,

as illustrated below. Unlike (53) above, the possessee is not
prepositional but zero-marked or expressed by a copula:

(55) Ṭuroyo (SE Turkey)

a. ono bas -li áḥ-ḥay-ayði

I enough -me the-life.pl-my

‘I have had enough with my life.’ (Midən, Talay

2004, 72.144)

b. ʿəmṛ-i bás -li -yo

age.ms-my enough -me -it.is

‘I am old enough (to die).’ (Midən, ibid. 50.42)

The structure is at least superficially similar to ditransitives in

that the T-like person markers are identical with the copula.
 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 71

4. Morphosyntax of Experiencers in Neo-Aramaic

There are numerous ways in which experiencers are encoded in
Neo-Aramaic. One should note that some of the constructions
discussed in what follows also have equivalent expressions
in other dialects involving a different structure. In impersonal
experiencer constructions, for instance, experiencers can also be
expressed adnominally through agreeing possessive suffixes, e.g.

(56) C. Marga (SE Turkey)

a. ʾana xə́mm-i -le

I heat.ms-my -it.is.m

‘I am hot.’ (lit. My heat is).

b. d-mắni -la qarsa

of-whom -it.is.f cold.fs

‘Who is cold?’ (lit. Whose coldness is?)

Adnominal possession is the regular expression of the

experiencer of the physiological sates of ‘heat’ and ‘cold’ in
Western Iranian Jewish varieties of NENA. An adnominal
possessor encodes the agreement with the experiencer on the NP
denoting the sensation:

(57) J. Saqqiz (W Iran)

brat-í qard-ev-ya
daughter-my cold.fs-her-it.is.f

‘My daughter feels cold.’ (lit. Her coldness is)

(Israeli 1998, 170)
72 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

This is an areal phenomenon found across languages in West

Asia, including the Neo-Aramaic speaking area.24 It regularly
features in neighbouring Iranian varieties where the experiencer
is marked in the so-called ‘oblique’ case or through pronominal
clitics that also denote the possessor and the agent in the past
(Haig 2018b, 132–33, 2018c, 286–87), for example:

(58) Northern Kurdish (Behdini, NW Iraq)

min sar e
me.‘obl’ cold is

‘I am cold’ (Haig 2018b, 132)

(59) Persian (Iran)

man sard-am ast

I coldness-my is

‘I am cold’ (lit. my coldness is)

There are cases where the experiencer is expressed as the

object. For example, the verb ʿjb ‘please, like’, borrowed from
Arabic, takes object suffixes in Western Neo-Aramaic just like the
corresponding verb in Arabic, e.g.

(60) Western Neo-Aramaic (Maʿlula, NW Syria)

ana aʿžb-īš-n
I pleased-you.fs-me

‘I like youFS.’ (Arnold 1991, 140.42)

24 See Khan (2016II, 355–59)

 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 73

It will become clear, however, that experiencers are construed

as R-like affectees similarly to possessors in the previous
discussion.

4.1. Experiencer Marked by L-suffixes Only

4.1.1. Transitive Verbs

Apart from beneficiaries and predicative possessors, L-suffixes
can denote experiencers. In several (Christian) NENA dialects
(and Ṭuroyo), verbs like I bsm, II/III ʿjb and I hny (variants include
nny and nhy) are impersonal experiencer predicates conveying
more or less the equivalent to English ‘like’, ‘please’ or ‘enjoy’, as
illustrated for Ṭuroyo and C. Barwar below.

(61) Ṭuroyo (Mzizaḥ, SE Turkey)

aḥun-i bosam-∅-way-le ú-dawšo

brother-my was.pleasantIPFV-it.m-pst-him honey.ms

‘My brother used to like honey.’

(62) C. Barwar (NW Iraq)

xon-i basəm-∅-wa-le duša

brother-my pleaseIPFV-it.m-pst-him honey.ms

‘My brother used to like honey’ (Khan 2008a, B8:12)

There are other verbs across NENA dialects that display the
same pattern, such as wjj ‘care’ (J. Amidya NW Iraq; Hoberman
1989, 226), ṭwy ‘be worth, merit’, ʾby ‘want, need’, mly ‘be enough’
(J. Betanure NW Iraq; Mutzafi 2008a, 88–89), mṭy ‘deserve, lit.
arrive, reach’ (J. Zaxo NW Iraq; Cohen 2012, 144).
When the experiencer verb is impersonal apart from the
L-suffix, it takes non-referential 3ms. or 3fs. morphology. Unlike
74 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

NENA, the verb bsm is stative ‘was pleasant/nice’ or inchoative

‘became pleasant/nice’ in Ṭuroyo.25 It takes the C1aC2iC3-pattern
in the perfective typical for non-referential 3ms. morphology, for
example:

(63) Ṭuroyo (SE Turkey)

a. basəm-∅-le… íy-itawto d-ʿawwəl

was.pleasantPFV-it.m-him the-sitting.fs of-before

‘He (lit. Him) enjoyed (once again) sitting idly like

earlier times.’ (Midən, Ritter 1967–1971, 77/219)

The stimulus can be pronominalised like themes in a

ditransitive construction, such as -yo in the following example:

b. ú-dawšo basəm-∅-li -yo

the-honey.fs was.pleasantPFV-it.m -him it

‘The honey—I (lit. Me) liked it.’(Mzizaḥ)

It would seem that there are also constructions where -yo

is effectively non-referential. This is at least the case in fixed
expressions of the following kind:

c. ġắlabe kary-ó-la -yo ʿal i-səsto

very.much upsetPFV-it.f -her it on the-mare.fs

d-ú-babo
lnk-the-father:ms

‘She (lit. Her it) was very upset about her father’s
mare.’ (Ritter 1967–1971, 107/121)

25 Similarly, the verb ḥly ‘sweet’, e.g. ḥaly-o-li ‘I liked her’.

 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 75

The stimulus, however, can still control agreement and be

referential, as is the case with the stimulus of lzm ‘need’ (56d-e)
below.

d. ono l-mə g- ləzm -i -li

I for-what pvb- needIPFV -they -me

‘What do I need them (i.e. gold pieces) for?’

(Midən; Ritter 1967–1971, 44/146)

e. ú-yawmo d- lŭzm -at ́

-lan itŭx
the-day.ms rel needIPFV -you.s -us come.imp

‘Come the day we need youS!’ (Midyat, letter,

Ritter 1990, 207)

In NENA, the qṭil-based form of the experiencer predicate

inflects for two L-suffixes such as (64b) and (65b) below. The
first represents the impersonal coding, which is expressed by
the E-suffix in the qaṭəl-based forms in (64a) and (65a), and
the second denotes the R-like experiencer in both (64a-b) and
(65a-b).

(64) C. Marga (NW Iraq)

a. ʾana basəm-∅-li ʾixala

I please-it.ms-me food.ms

‘I like the food.’

b. ʾana bsə́m-le-li ʾixala

I pleased-it.ms-me food.ms

‘I liked the food.’

76 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(65) J. Dohok (NW Iraq; Molin and Noorlander fieldnotes)

a. ana g-ʿajəb-∅-li xabuše

I ind-pleasesIPFV-it.m-me apples.pl

‘I like apples.’

b. ana ʿjə́b-le-li xabuše

I ind-pleasesIPFV-it.m-me apples.pl

‘I liked apples.’

The only example known to me where Western Neo-Aramaic

has similarly grammaticalised an experiencer L-suffix is the verb
‘want’ in the dialect of Jubbʿadin. The L-suffix attaches to an
uninflected form be-, e.g. bē-le (< *bʿē l-eh ‘Him wanted’), the
originally 3ms. form of the resultative participle *bʿē of bʿy ‘want’
(Arnold 1990a, 192). bēle (like batte in the other Western dialects)
developed under influence of the corresponding construction
bədd-o ‘He wants’ < ‘In his wish’ in local Arabic varieties. The
experiencer nominal is zero-marked and controls the agreement
expressed by the L-suffix:

(66) Jubbʿadin (SW Syria)

a. wa zalmθa bē-le y-ʿammar ðorča

pst somebody want-him he-build place

‘Somebody wanted to build a house.’

(Arnold 1990b, 16.1)

b. hi bē-la č-ʿōwet
she want-her she-return

‘She wants to return.’ (ibid. 78.45)

 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 77

Similar impersonal ‘want’ constructions occur in Ṭuroyo and

NENA to convey the sense of ‘need’. The L-suffix expresses the
person lacking something:

(67) Ṭuroyo (SE Turkey)

kə- bʿe -lux sayfo kayiso

pvb want -you.ms sword.ms good.ms

‘You need a good sword.’ (Prym and Socin 1881,

141.25)

(68) J. Betanure (NW Iraq)

g- bé wā -leni ṛāba ṣiwe

pvb want pst -us very.much wood.pl

‘We needed a great deal of wood.’ (Mutzafi 2008a,

142.33)

4.1.2. Intransitive Verbs

The L-suffix denoting the experiencer can even be added to an
intransitive predicate such as the verb ʾty ‘come’ and ʾwr ‘pass’ in
C. Urmi and J. Dohok. The mental state is expressed through an
NP somehow reaching the experiencer.

(69) C. Urmi (Literary NW Iran; Polotsky 1979, 212)

+
ʾav ti -la -lə muxabən d-an
he camePFV -itF -him pity.fs of-dem.pl

taxmanyatə
thoughts:pl

‘He was sorry for those thoughts.’

78 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(70) J. Dohok (NW Iraq; Molin and Noorlander fieldnotes)

wə́r -ra -li xšuta b-reš-i

passedPFV -it.f -me thought.fs in-head-my

‘I thought a thought in my mind.’

Verbal experiencer predicates can comprise an NP denoting

the mental state or process somehow reaching the experiencer
expressed through the L-suffix as illustrated in (71). Note that
in (71a) and (71b) the verb does not agree with the NP and is
essentially impersonal. The key person marker being the L-suffix.

(71) Ṭuroyo (SE Turkey)

a. k-oθe-∅-li šanθo
ind-comesIPFV-it.m-me sleep.fs

‘I am sleepy.’

b. aθi-∅-li ḥəmto qwiθo

camePFV-it.m-me fever.fs heavy.fs

‘I caught a heavy fever.’ (ʿIwardo; Ritter 1967–1971,

44/146)

The experiencer can be added to intransitive verbs denoting

physiological states such to ‘be cold’ in various dialects in SE
Turkey. Thus the expression ‘I am cold’ corresponds with:

(72) Ṭuroyo (SE Turkey)

ko- qoraš -li

pvb be.cold- -me
 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 79

(73) C. Artun (Hertevin, SE Turkey)

qarəš -li
be.cold- -me

(74) C. Umṛa (SE Turkey)

qayər -ri
be.cold- -me

There are several more intransitive verbs in Ṭuroyo that can

express an experiencer in this way, notably kyw ‘get ill’, e.g.
kayu-li ‘I got ill’, and nyḥ ‘get well’, nayəḥ-li ‘I got well’. The verbs
ḥrw ‘be concerned’ (lit. ‘get destroyed’) and ʿyq ‘get distressed’
combine with an additional prepositional stimulus. The verbal
form is impersonal, for example:

(75) Ṭuroyo (SE Turkey)

a. mə ḥaru -lax min-i

what be.destroyed -you.fs from-me

‘Why are youFS concerned about me?’ (Kfaerze, Ritter

1967–1971, 61/324)

b. ʿayəq -le me-ruḥ-e

be.distressed him from-self-his

‘He (lit. Him) was distressed about himself.’ (Kfaerze,

ibid. 63/7)

4.1.3. Trans-Zab Jewish Dialects: -la-l-series

Jewish Western Iranian varieties, such as Saqqiz and Sandanaj,
have a special use of the L-suffixes added to an invariant
80 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

-la- which presumably goes back to an impersonal L-suffix (see

§3.2.3). Israel (1998, 170–71) records numerous examples
where verbs in the qaṭəl-based inflection regularly combine with
experiencers expressed in this way including verbs denoting
pleasure such as bsm ‘please’ as illustrated below but also verbs
denoting pain mry ‘hurt’, capability kšy ‘find difficult’ and merit
such as mṭy ‘deserve’ (lit. reach) and špr ‘befit’. The construction
combines with a prepositional stimulus or a clausal complement.
What is striking is that the morpheme -la-, although presumably
originally an impersonal L-suffix (i.e. bsəm-la-li ‘ItF pleased me’),
is also required with L-suffixes denoting experiencers in qaṭəl-
based inflection26:

(76) J. Saqqiz (W Iran)

la basə́m-la -li mənn-év

not pleasesIPFV-it.m me from-him

‘I (lit. Me) do not like (lit. from) him.’ (Israeli 1998,

170–71)

4.2. Prepositional Marking of the Experiencer

4.2.1. Experiencer Marked by a Preposition only

So far we have observed that the experiencer NP is zero-marked
like the ‘canonical’ subject and only expressed through L-suffixes
on the verb. Nevertheless, prepositional marking of experiencer
predicates does occur in several NENA dialects, reflecting an
oblique status.
It is common for physiological states. The independent ʾəll-
series is part of fixed expressions for the sensations of heat and

26 An invariant -le- also occurs with qaṭəl-inflection in C. Telkepe, e.g.

k-ʕājəb-le-li ‘I am willing’ (Coghill 2019, 39).
 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 81

cold which themselves feature as nouns in this construction, for

example in C. Marga:

(77) C. Marga (NW Iraq)

a. xə́mma-yle ʾəlli
heat:ms-it.is.m me

‘I am hot’ (lit. Me is heat)

b. qársa-yla ʾəlli
coldness.ms-it.is.F me

‘I am cold.’ (lit. Me is cold)

Both NENA and Ṭuroyo dialects in SE Turkey confine this

construction to the experiencer of heat, as illustrated below,
while the sensation of cold is expressed through a verb, cf. (72)-
(74) above.

(78) Ṭuroyo (SE Turkey)

ḥémo-yo aʿl-i
heat.ms-it.is upon-me

(79) C. Artun (SE Turkey)

ḥəmme-le lal-i
heat.ms-it.is.m to-me

(80) C. Umṛa (SE Turkey)

ḥəmme-le əll-i
heat.ms-it.is.m to-me

‘I am hot.’
82 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Prepositional marking of experiencers typically occurs at least

in Western Iranian dialects of NENA. The R-like experiencer is
prepositional in the Christian variety of Sanandaj, for instance

(81) C. Sanandaj (W Iran)

maḥkēsa kabər-ta špēr-a27 el-ē

story.fs great-fs was.pleasantPFV-it.f to-him

‘The story pleased him very much.’ (Panoussi 1990,

123.31)

4.2.2. Experiencer Marked by l- and L-suffixes

Like the agent (§1.1.) and possessor (§3.3.2.), optional l-marking
of the experiencer does occur in Ṭuroyo, for example:

(82) Ṭuroyo (SE Turkey)

a. maḥat-le l-ú-rŭʿyo ú-darmono

putPFV-he erg-the-shepherd.ms the-medicine.ms

basəm-∅-le l-ú-rŭʿyo
was.pleasent-it.m-him to-the-shepher.ms

‘The shepherd put the medicine (there) (and) the

shepherd liked it.’ (Midyat, Prym and Socin 1881,
29.10)

b. ġắlabe kary-o-le l-ú-dahba

very.much upset-it.f-him to-the-beast.ms

‘The beast got very upset.’ (Raite, Ritter 1967–

1971, 112/331)

27 
špēra < *sper-ra < *sper-la
 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 83

4.3. Transitivisation of Experiencer Verb

Constructions
The verb ʿjb ‘please, like’, borrowed from Arabic, is a stem III
causative verb in Ṭuroyo and is ambivalent as to its orientation.
The verb of liking can be directed at the R-like affectee expressed
by the L-suffix, for example:

(83) Ṭuroyo (SE Turkey)

a. hăka lo maʿjáb-le-lax
if neg III:pleasedPFV-it.m-you.fs

‘If youFS don’t like him’ (Miden, Ritter 1967–1971,

115/147)

At the same time, the verb can also have undergone complete
transitivization. Its coding is not distinct from primary transitive
verbs. The experiencer is expressed like an agent, for example:

b. ú-greʿuno d-həzy-o-le maʿajb-o-le

the-youngling.ms rel-seeIPFV-she-him III:pleasedPFV-she-him

‘The young man that she sees (and she) likes’

(Miden, ibid. 75/199)

This also occurs in NENA dialects. At least in the preterite, the

verb that is otherwise typically impersonal can also be used with
‘canonical’ transitive verbal coding, for instance in C. Urmi and
C. Artun (Hertevin):
84 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(84) C. Urmi (NW Iran)

ʾina ʾalaha bsəm-lə

if God pleasePFV-he

‘If God likes (it)’ (Khan 2016IV, A3:69)

(85) C. Artun (Hertevin, SE Turkey)

ana gălak ʿjə́b-lən-na28 qaḥwa

I very.much pleasePFV-I-it.f coffee.fs

‘I liked the coffee very much.’

4.4. Verboids
A few experiencer verbs have a distinct verbal base in the
imperfective, comparable to the verb ʾzl in some NENA dialects
(see Subsection 2.2), e.g. zəl-wa-li ‘I had gone’ (perfective) and
k-za-wa-li ‘I used to go’ (imperfective). The verb zdy ~ zdʾ ‘fear,
be afraid’ has a regular qṭil-based preterite construction, e.g. J.
Betanure zdeʾ-li ‘I feared’, but an impersonal qaṭəl-based equivalent
ṣad-, e.g. J. Betanure k-ṣad-li ‘I fear’ (Mutzafi 2008, 88), C. Barwar
ʾi-ṣad-wa-le ‘He was afraid’ (Khan 2008a, 297–98). Both zdeʾ- and
ṣad- inflect the experiencer through L-suffixes, but the preterite
forms like zdeʾ-li ‘I feared’ mark the experiencer completely like
the agent of transitive verbs (xze-li ‘I saw’) and the forms based
on ṣad- mark the experiencer like other impersonal experiencer
verb constructions (basəm-li ‘I like’). One may compare this also
to the experiencer verboid qar- ‘be cold’ in lišana deni dialects
(NW Iraq), e.g. J. Dohok ʾana qar-ri (< *qar-li) ‘I am cold’, qar-
wa-li ‘I was cold’.

28 Compare §3.4. above for the transitivisation of predicative possessors in

C. Artun (Hertevin).
 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 85

Conclusions
Both the possessor and experiencer nominal or independent
pronoun are generally clause-initial, zero-marked and obligatorily
cross-referenced by the L-suffix in both NENA, Ṭuroyo and Western
Neo-Aramaic. They are arguably ‘non-canonical’ subjects. Only
sporadically do we find purely prepositional arguments.
L-suffixes can be added to monotransitive and intransitive
verbs to express an R-like affectee in similar fashion to ditransitive
verbs. While the optional subject co-referential L-suffixes
marking that can mark an affected subject like the middle voice
or express dynamic telicity seem to be generally a common
Aramaic phenomenon, they undoubtedly conventionalized to
verbal inflectional morphemes in certain Neo-Aramaic languages,
particularly the motion verbs *ʾzl ‘go’ and *ʾty ‘come’.
Impersonal experiencer constructions tend to diverge across
dialects. It is common to find that verbs of liking take ‘non-
canonical’ subject marking besides physiological states of ‘cold’
and ‘heat’. Dialects can prefer distinct strategies for these physical
sensations. In SE Turkey, for example, the experiencer of ‘cold’
is expressed by L-suffixes attached to a verbal predicate, while
that of ‘heat’ by a preposition as a complement of a nominal
predicate.
The Neo-Aramaic languages have developed ‘non-canonical’
subject marking that exhibits similar structures as the agent in
the perfective past in NENA and Ṭuroyo (e.g. grəš-li ‘I pulled’).
The ‘non-canonical’ subject, for instance, can be marked by both
the preposition l- and L-suffixes in Ṭuroyo only. This closely
parallels the optional ergative marking in the preterite. An
important difference from agent L-suffixes in the preterite is that
the L-suffixes that mark the ‘non-canonical’ subject are found
across the inflectional system, just like other R-like affectees.
Exceptions where the ‘non-canonical’ subject marking is confined
to the imperfective are the verbs ‘fear’, which has a verboid base
ṣad-, and the verb ‘go’, which has a base za-, in NENA dialects.
These correspond with the ‘canonical’ verbal inflection in the
preterite (e.g. zəl-lan ‘We went’ : za-lan ‘Let’s go!’).
86 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

The scope of this paper notwithstanding,29 the originally

dative possessor (i.e. *ʾīt-wā-∅ l-eh kθāwā lit. ‘Him was a book’)
and experiencer subjects (i.e. *bāsem-∅-wā-∅ l-eh deḇšā, lit.
‘Him was liking honey’) and subject co-referential datives (i.e.
*ʾāzel-∅-wā-∅ l-eh lit. ‘Him was going’) and the historically
dative subject of the preterite (i.e. *qīm-∅-wā-∅ l-eh lit. ‘Him
was stood’ → most of NENA qəm-wa-le ‘He had stood’) are all
connected.
The topical, human and subject-like referent is referred back
to by L-suffixes. The L-suffixes serve as cross-indexes of the
possessor and experiencer similarly as their cross-indexing of
agents in the preterite. The subject co-referential datives can
similarly end up as inflectional affixes (e.g. Ṭuroyo azz-í ‘I went’
< *ʾazīl-∅ l-ī ‘Me went’).
One important difference, however, is that the L-suffixes of
the preterite are dependent on the inflectional base qṭil- and
have an additional TAM function. This does not apply to the
other uses of the L-suffixes that were subsumed under ‘non-
canonical’ subjects in the previous discussion that can still be
more R-like. The ‘non-canonical’ subject marking, therefore, is
role-based. It is the construal as an R-like indirect affectee that
makes it favour coding distinct from the ‘canonical’ subject. By
contrast, the agent marking through L-suffixes in the preterite is
not only role-based but also TAM-based. That is, the originally
dative agent is dependent on the inflectional base (qṭil-) and
hence, generally, perfective past aspect. Occasionally, however,
the ‘non-canonical’ subject undergoes full transitivisation and
takes over ‘canonical’ transitive coding. Sometimes it is only the
transitive morphosyntax peculiar to the qṭil-based preterite that
is taken over, identifying the L-suffixes that mark the possessor
or experiencer with those that mark the agent.

29 Cf. Noorlander (2019a-b). One can compare this to European languages

like French and Dutch where have can be used as a possessive verb (J’ai
du pain ‘I have some bread’), a tense-aspect auxiliary (e.g. have-perfect
J’ai mangé du pain ‘I ate some bread’) and an experiencer verb (lit. J’ai
froid ‘I am cold’, lit. ‘I have cold’).
 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 87

Nevertheless, it is also clear that in many cases where the

L-suffix is used as an extension of an R-like affectee the suffix
can maintain characteristics of a ditransitive construction. These
subject-like affectees are still treated like recipients, presumably
as relics of their formerly dative prepositional marking. This
is evident in the stacking of L-suffixes to the qṭil-base in NENA
where the first L-suffix is impersonal and the second L-suffix
denotes the R-like affectee. Impersonal experiencers thus
resemble the predicative possessor construction based on the
invariable existential marker (cf. Polotsky 1979, 209–10), yet,
since they are verbal, they select the regular verbal affixes, even
L-suffixes expressing the impersonal agent in the qṭil-based forms
(e.g. ʿjəb-le-le ʾalaha ‘ItM pleased God’). Pronominalisation of the
stimulus can be expressed by the unmarked set of bound person
markers (also serving as the copula) like -yo in Ṭuroyo, which are
confined to third person themes in ditransitive clauses.
The topicalisation and hence zero-marking of the NP became
increasingly obligatory and original independent prepositional
pronouns have undergone complete verbalisation in most cases.
L-suffixes, while originally prepositional and independent of the
verb, exhibit a tendency to convert into verbal person markers
and sustain referential continuity with the most topical argument
in sometimes otherwise largely impersonal predicates.
Both more conservative and more innovative patterns are found
in Neo-Aramaic. Dialects also have the option to withstand the
proclivity to convert a topicalised affectee into a ‘non-canonical’
subject. A dialect may still prefer to retain prepositional marking
as a viable alternative besides verbal person marking or it may
prefer an oblique status throughout for such arguments. In the
end, each dialect ‘can do its own thing’ and a uniform category
of ‘subject’ is not always readily identifiable.
88 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

References
Any data not cited are based on the author’s notes from fieldwork
individually or in collaboration with G. Khan and/or D. Molin.

Al-Zahre, Nisrine and Nora Boneh, 2010. “Coreferential Dative Constructions in

Syrian Arabic and Modern Hebrew’. Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages
and Linguistics 2: 248–82.

Bar-Asher, Elitzur A. 2008. ‘The Origin and the Typology of the Pattern “qtil
li” in Syriac and Babylonian Aramaic’. In Sha’arey Lashon: Studies in Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Jewish Languages in Honor of Moshe Bar–Asher II, edited by
Aharon Maman, Steven Fassberg and Yohanan Breuer, 360–92. In Hebrew.
Jerusalem: Bialik Institute.

———. 2011. ‘On the Passiveness of one Pattern in Jewish Babylonian

Aramaic—A Linguistic and Philological Discussion’. Journal of Semitic
Studies 56: 111–43.

———,. 2014. ‘From a Non-Argument-Dative to an Argument Dative: The

Character and Origin of the Qṭil Li Construction in Syriac and Jewish
Babylonian Aramaic’. Folia Orientalia 51: 59–101.

Berman, Ruth A. 1982. ‘Dative Marking of the Affectee Role: Data from Modern
Hebrew’. Hebrew Annual Review 6: 35–59.

Coghill, Eleanor. 2010. ‘Ditransitive Constructions in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect

of Telkepe’. In Studies in Ditransitive Constructions: A Comparative Handbook,
edited by Andreĭ Lʹvovich Malʹchukov, Martin Haspelmath, and Bernard
Comrie, 221–42. De Gruyter.

———. 2014. ‘Differential Object–Marking in Neo–Aramaic’. Linguistics 52:

335–64.

———. 2016. The Rise and Fall of Ergativity in Aramaic: Cycles of Alignment
Change. Oxford (etc.): Oxford University Press.

———. 2019. ‘Grammatical relations in Telkepe Neo-Aramaic’. In Argument

Selectors: A new perspective on grammatical relations, edited by Alena
Witzlack-Makarevich and Balthasar Bickel, 349–98. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Cohen, Eran. 2012. The Syntax of Neo–Aramaic: The Jewish Dialect of Zakho.
Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.
 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 89

Cole, Peter, Wayne Harbert, Gabriella Hermon and Shikaripur N. Sridhar. 1980.
‘The Acquisition of Subjecthood’. Language 56: 719–43.

Comrie, Bernard. 1982. ‘Syntactic—Morphological Discrepancies in Maltese

Sentence Structure’. Communication and Cognition 15 (3/4): 281–306.

Cowell, Mark W. 1964. A Reference Grammar of Syrian Arabic. Washington,

D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Damsma, Alinda. forthcoming. The Neo–Aramaic Dialect of Haṣṣan.

Diem, Werner. 2012. Vom Status pendens zum Satzsubjekt: Studien zur
Topikalisierung in neueren semitischen Sprachen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Doron, Edit and Geoffrey Khan. 2012. ‘The Typology of Morphological Ergativity
in Neo–Aramaic’. Lingua 122: 225–40.

Fassberg, Steven. 2018. ‘The Ethical Dative in Aramaic’. Aramaic Studies 16:
101–16.

Fox, Samuel E. 2009. The Neo–Aramaic Dialect of Bohtan. Gorgias Neo–Aramaic

Studies 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.

Givón, Talmy. 1976. ‘Topic, Pronoun and Grammatical Agreement’. In Subject

and Topic, edited by Charles N. Li, 151−85. New York: Academic Press.

Goldenberg, Gideon. 1997. ‘Conservative and Innovative Features in Semitic

Languages’. In Afroasiatica Neapolitana, edited by Alessandro Bausi and
Mauro Tosco, 3–21. Studi Africanistici. Serie Etiopica 6. Napoli: Istituto
Universitario Orientale.

Greenblatt, Jared. 2011. The Jewish Neo–Aramaic Dialect of Amədya. Leiden:

Brill.

Gutman, Ariel. 2008. ‘Reexamination of the Bare Preterite Base in the Jewish
Neo–Aramaic Dialect of Zakho’. Aramaic Studies 6 (1): 59–84.

Haig, Geoffrey. 2018a. ‘The Grammaticalization of Object Pronouns: Why

Differential Object Indexing is an Attractor State’. Linguistics 56 (4): 781–818.

———. 2018b. ‘Northern Kurdish (Kurmanjî)’. In The Languages and Linguistics

of Western Asia. An Areal Perspective, edited by Geoffrey Haig and Geoffrey
Khan, 106–58. Berlin: De Gruyter.

———. 2018c. ‘The Iranian Languages of Northern Iraq’. In The Languages and
Linguistics of Western Asia. An Areal Perspective, edited by Geoffrey Haig and
Geoffrey Khan, 267–304. Berlin: De Gruyter.
90 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Halevy, Rivka. 2008. ‘Grammaticalization ‘Chains’ of the Subject–Coreferential

Dative in Semitic and Elsewhere’. New Reflections on Grammaticalization,
Leuven 17–19/07/2008. Conference presentation.

Hoberman, Robert. D. 1989. The Syntax and Semantics of Verb Morphology in

Modern Aramaic: A Jewish Dialect of Iraqi Kurdistan. American Oriental Series
69. New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society.

Hopkins, Simon. 1989. ‘A Tale in the Jewish Neo–Aramaic Dialect of Naγada

(Persian Azerbaijan)’. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 12: 243–81.

Israeli, Yafa. 1998. The Jewish Neo–Aramaic Dialect of Saqqiz (Southern Kurdistan).
Ph.D. Thesis. In Hebrew. Jerusalem. Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Jastrow, Otto. 1985. Laut- und Formenlehre des neuaramäischen Dialekts von
Mīdin im Ṭūr ʿAbdīn. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

———. 1988. Der neuaramäische Dialekt von Hertevin (Province Siirt). Semitica
Viva 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

———. 1992. Lehrbuch der Ṭuroyo–Sprache. Semitica Viva Didactica 2.

Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

———. 1994. Der neuaramäische Dialekt von Mlaḥsô. Semitica Viva 14.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Joosten, Jan. 1989. ‘The Function of the So-called Dativus Ethicus in Classical
Syriac’. Orientalia 58: 473–92.

Kapeliuk, Olga. 1989. ‘Some Common Traits in the Evolution of Neo-Syriac and
of Neo-Ethiopian’. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 12: 294–320.

Keenan, Edward L. 1976. ‘Towards a Universal Definition of Subject’. In Subject

and Topic, edited by Charles N. Li, 303–33. New York: Academic Press.

Khan, Geoffrey. 1988. Studies in Semitic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

———. 1999. A Grammar of Neo–Aramaic: The Dialect of the Jews of Arbel.

Leiden: Brill.

———. 2002. The Neo–Aramaic Dialect of Qaraqosh. Leiden: Brill.

———. 2008a. The Neo–Aramaic Dialect of Barwar I–III. Leiden: Brill.

———. 2008b. The Jewish Neo–Aramaic Dialect of Urmi. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias
Press.
 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 91

———. 2009. The Jewish Neo–Aramaic Dialect of Sanandaj. Piscataway, NJ:

Gorgias Press.

———. 2016. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of the Assyrian Christians of Urmi. Studies
in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 86, I: Grammar: Phonology and
morphology, II: Grammar: Syntax, III: Lexical studies and dictionary, IV:
Texts. Leiden: Brill.

Lehmann, Christian. 1988. ‘On the Function of Agreement’. In Agreement in

Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions, edited by Michael
Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson, 55−65. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study
of Language and Information.

Mengozzi, Alessandro. 2002a. Israel of Alqosh and Joseph of Telkepe: A Story

in a Truthful Language Religious Poems in Vernacular Syriac (North Iraq, 17th
Century) I: An Anthology. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium
627. Louvain: Éditions Peeters.

———. 2002b. Israel of Alqosh and Joseph of Telkepe: A Story in a Truthful

Language Religious Poems in Vernacular Syriac (North Iraq, 17th Century) II:
Introduction and Translation. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium
628. Louvain: Éditions Peeters.

———. 2006. ‘Middle Markers: Neo–Aramaic and Italian Verbal Forms with
a 3rd Singular Feminine Pronominal Object’. In XII Incontro Italiano di
Linguistica Camito–Semitica (Afroasiatica): Atti, edited by Marco Moriggi,
105–15. Soviera Mannelli: Rubbettino.

Mor, Uri and Na’ama Pat-El 2016. ‘The Development of Predicates with
Prepositional Subjects in Hebrew’. Journal of Semitic Studies, 61(2): 327−46.

Mutzafi, Hezy. 2004. The Jewish Neo–Aramaic Dialect of Koy Sanjaq (Iraqi
Kurdistan). Semitica Viva 32. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

———. 2008a. The Jewish Neo–Aramaic Dialect of Betanure (Province of Dihok).

Semitica Viva 40. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Mutzafi, Hezy. 2008b. ‘Trans–Zab Jewish Neo–Aramaic’. Bulletin of the School of

Oriental and African Studies 71 (3): 409–31.

Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Noorlander, Paul M. 2012. ‘Neo-Aramaic Alignment in a Historical Perspective:

Some Preliminary Remarks’. Semitics Philology Seminar, Cambridge,
03/12/2012. Invited talk.
92 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

———. 2018a. ‘Me Likes the Subject–Subject-like Properties of Experiencers

and Possessors in Aramaic’. Neo-Aramaic Languages across Space and Time.
Uppsala, 05–07/10/2018. Conference presentation.

———. 2018b. Alignment in Eastern Neo-Aramaic Languages from a Typological

Perspective. Ph.D. Thesis. Leiden: Leiden University.

———. 2019a. ‘Resultatives and Asymmetries in Aramaic Alignment Change’.

International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Canberra, 01–05/07/2019.
Conference presentation.

———. 2019b. ‘One Way of Becoming Perfect? Possessive Resultatives in

Semitic and Aramaic in Particular’. Semitic Philology Seminar. Cambridge,
14/10/2019. Invited talk.

———. Forthcoming. Encounters with Ergativity and other Alignment Types in Neo-
Aramaic: A Study of Dialectal Microvariation. Studies in Semitic Languages
and Linguistics. Leiden: Brill.

Onishi, Masayuki. 2001. ‘Non-canonically Marked Subjects and Objects:

Parameters and Properties’. In Non–Canonical Marking of Subjects and
Objects, edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Robert M. W. Dixon and
Masayuki Onishi, 1–51. Typological Studies in Language 46. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.

Panoussi, Estiphan. 1990. ‘On the Senaya Dialect’. In Studies in Neo-Aramaic,

edited by Wolfhart Heinrichs, 107–29. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Pat-El, Na’ama. 2018. ‘The Diachrony of Non-canonical Subjects in Northwest

Semitic’. In Non–Canonically Case–Marked Subjects: The Reykjavík–
Eyjafjallajökull Papers. Studies in Language Companion Series 200, edited by
Jóhanna Barðdal, Na’ama Pat-El and Stephen M. Carey, 159–84. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.

Pennacchietti, Fabrizio A. 1994. ‘Il Preterito Neoaramaico con Pronome

Oggetto’. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 144: 259–83.

Polotsky, Hans Jakob. 1979. ‘Verbs with two Objects in Modern Syriac (Urmi)’.
Israel Oriental Studies 9: 204–27.

———. 1996. ‘Notes on a Neo–Syriac Grammar’. Israel Oriental Studies 16:

11–48.

Prym, Eugen and Albert Socin 1881. Der neu-aramaeische Dialekt des Ṭûr ‘Abdîn.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht’s Verlag.
 Towards a typology of possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic 93

Rendsburg, Gary A. 1991. ‘Parallel Developments in Mishnaic Hebrew,

Colloquial Arabic, and other Varieties of spoken Semitic’. In Semitic Studies
in Honor of Wolf Leslau, II, edited by Alan S. Kaye, 1265–77. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.

Rhétoré, P. Jacques. 1912. Grammaire de la langue Soureth ou chaldeen vulgaire,

selon le dialecte de la plaine de Mossoul et des pays adjacents. Mossoul:
Imprimerie des Pères Dominicains.

Ritter, Helmut. 1967–1971. Ṭūrōyō: Die Volksprache der syrischen Christen des
Ṭūr ʕAbdîn A. Texte I: 1967, II: 1969, III: 1971. Beirut: Steiner.

Rubin, Aaron D. 2005. Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization. Harvard Semitic

Studies 57. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.

Stassen, Leon. 2009. Predicative Possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stilo, Donald L. and Paul M. Noorlander. 2015. ‘On the Convergence of Verbal
Systems of Aramaic and its Neighbours. Part II: Past Paradigms Derived
from Present Equivalents’. In Neo-Aramaic and its Linguistic Context, edited
by Geoffrey Khan and Lidia Napiorkowska, 453–85. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias
Press.

Talay, Shabo. 2004. Ed. Lebendig begraben: Die Entführung des syrisch–orthodoxen
Priesters Melki Tok von Midən in der Südosttürkei. Einführung, aramäischer
Text (Turoyo), Übersetzung und Glossar. Studien zur Orientalischen
Kirchengeschichte 29. Münster: LIT.

Waltisberg, Michael. 2016. Syntax des Ṭuroyo. Semitica Viva 55. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowiz.
 THE JEWISH NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT
OF DOHOK:
TWO FOLKTALES AND SELECTED
FEATURES OF VERBAL SEMANTICS

Dorota Molin

1. Introduction
This paper presents a selection of primary data from the hitherto
unstudied NENA dialect of the Jews of the town of Dohok,
located in north-western Iraq (this dialect is henceforth referred
to as ‘Jewish Dohok’). Glossing is provided for a part of the texts
to ensure accessibility for readers who are not NENA specialists
and notes on noteworthy linguistic features are supplied. These
texts are complemented by a brief grammatical study, which is
based on the texts. This study surveys selected features of verbal
semantics1 of Jewish Dohok. In particular, the study focuses on
verbal forms with a grammatical function that is distinct from
the function of the corresponding forms in many other NENA
dialects. This demonstrates the importance of studying each
dialect in its own right. The paper aims to situate the Jewish
Dohok dialect typologically within the broader NENA family. In
addition, it draws attention to certain less prototypical functions
of the verbal forms in question. Such functions apparently reflect
the subjective creative use of the tense-aspect-mood system in
order to achieve a particular discourse effect.

1 The terms ‘verbal semantics’, ‘grammatical semantics’ and ‘grammatical

functions’ are used here synonymously. These refer to the tense-aspect-
mood system in its various grammatical and pragmatic applications.

© Dorota Molin, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0209.03

96 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

The Jewish Dohok dialect is most closely affiliated with

a group of Jewish dialects that were historically spoken West
of the Great Zab River, and are known by their speakers and
scholars as Lišana Deni (‘our language’). Dialects belonging to
this group were spoken also in Zakho, Amedia, Betanure, Nerwa
(north-western Iraq) and Challa (south-eastern Turkey). Today,
the Jewish Dohok dialect is on the verge of extinction, having
only about twenty remaining active speakers. These speakers
were born in the 1930s or 1940s in Dohok, or in the 1950s in
Israel. As far as I know, all of them live today in Israel, mostly in
the Jerusalem area.
In the following section, two folk tales are presented. I recorded
these in 2018 in Castel (near Jerusalem). They were narrated by
Mr Tzvi Avraham (aged 79).
The stories presented here give a taste of the rich oral
literature of the NENA-speaking Jews.2 Though stories such as
the ones presented here were narrated in the Jewish community
in Aramaic, many of them are likely to have been Kurdish (or
Arabic) in origin (Sabar 1982, xxxii). The folktales are indeed
sometimes situated in the realia of the Kurdish world—a fact
illustrated in the following stories by the direct speech in lines 19
and 20 of the first story. A part of this speech is given in Bahdini
Kurdish.3 Other stories, however, appear to be distinctly Jewish,
as shown by their ideological character. This was the view of
the narrator himself. I have collected several stories that feature
the figure of a poor, yet wise Jew, who—contrary to everyone’s
expectation—emerges as the hero of the story. Such folktales are
apparently aimed at raising the morale of the Jews by presenting
them in a very positive light (e.g. showing their resourcefulness).

2 See Aloni (2018) for the folk literature of the Lišana Deni Aramaic speakers.
All of the other communities of the area—NENA-speaking Christians, as
well as Kurdish- and Arabic-speaking communities—also possess a wealth
of oral literature. These different story-telling traditions have historically
undoubtedly been in contact with one another (e.g., Coghill 2009).
3 For background on the folk literature of the Aramaic-speaking Jews, see
Sabar (1982) and other publications by this author.
 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok  97

2. The Verbal System of Jewish Dohok

In addition to their cultural value, the following folktales also
attest to the complexity of the verbal system. The verbal system of
Jewish Dohok, as is the case with that of other NENA dialects, can
convey nuanced meanings of tense, aspect and mood, and enliven
and structure the narrative, e.g., draw attention to noteworthy
situations, divide story units (cf. Coghill 2009; Khan 2009). Some
noteworthy forms found in the stories are used as the starting
point of the grammatical survey. Reference will also be made to
‘the corpus’. This is a body of Jewish Dohok texts consisting of
orally-delivered personal narratives, folktales and descriptions of
customs that I have collected from five different speakers.
Methodologically, this study draws from the notions of
Function Grammar (Dik 1997), which maintains that the meaning
of a given verbal form is context-dependent, in that it emerges
from the interaction of the form with the other arguments in the
context. The relevant context may be the clause or the broader
discourse. In some cases a form conveys a general meaning, but
the specific meaning arises from the contextual usage of the verbal
form. In such cases, the verbal form is said to be ‘unmarked’
for the specific contextual meaning (Comrie 1976, 111–12).
For example, while the future is most often ‘perfective’ (that is,
the clause does not focus on the internal temporal composition
of the situation such as its iteration or temporal duration), in
Jewish Dohok, there is only one form for the expression of
futurity. This means that the prototypically-future verbal form
itself is aspectually unmarked and the specific aspect of the verb
depends on contextual usage. A similar question of interaction
between different factors contributing to ‘meaning’ applies to
lexical semantics: sometimes—though not always—grammatical
meaning interacts with lexical meaning (Comrie 1976, 41–51),
suggesting that lexical meaning may also be a relevant factor in
the semantics of verbs.4

4 For the application of an approach which is more structuralist in nature,

see Hoberman (1989, 123–24; Lišana Deni dialects), and for a functional
98 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

The following overview of the verbal system will aid the

reader in following the stories and the grammatical survey.
Jewish Dohok has four inflectional bases: šaqəl, šqəl, šqul and
šqil.5 The šaqəl form is semantically the most versatile one. Its
grammatical meaning is determined by a verbal prefix or its
absence. In addition to these bases, the infinitive form šqala is
also used in some constructions.
The table below presents the inventory of verbal forms, their
prototypical grammatical functions and the glosses used to
mark them in this paper. A category is left blank if the form is
considered unmarked for that feature (i.e. it may express different
values of this feature). In light of the aforementioned versatility
of šaqəl, I have adopted a glossing system in which only the
meaning-specifying verbal affixes—and not the inflectional base
itself—are tagged.6 The base itself is glossed only with the lexical
meaning of the verb.

Table 1: Forms based on šaqəl

Form Gloss Tense Aspect Mood

Ø-šaqəl irr- present, irrealis
future

fut/irr-* future
la šaqəl neg irr- irrealis
(including
negative
imperative)
k-šaqəl hab- present realis

study which pays special attention to discourse parameters and discourse

functions of verbal forms, see Cohen (2012; Jewish Zakho dialect).
5 The default way of referring to inflectional categories of the verb in this
article is by their morphological pattern—by using an exemplary verbal
form from the root š-q-l ‘to take’—rather than by their TAM functions.
6 This idea has been suggested to me by Paul Noorlander, to whom I express
my gratitude for consultation in devising the glossing system.
 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok  99

Form Gloss Tense Aspect Mood

wəl k-šaqəl prog present progressive realis
(non-stative?)
la k-šaqəl neg hab- present realis
future predictive
p-šaqəl fut- future predictive
la p-šaqəl (no negation of p-šaqəl)
qam-šaqəl-le** pfv- past perfective realis
Ø-šaqəl-wa irr- -pst past irrealis
past habitual realis
k-šaqəl-wa hab- -pst past habitual realis
p-šaqəl-wa fut- -pst future in
the past,
habitual realis
past

*This applies to Patterns II, III and IV (whose traditional names

in Semitic philology are, respectively, ‘stems II and III’ and ‘the
quadriliteral stem’). In these forms, whic realis h always begin with
m, the future prefix b-/p- has been lost after being assimilated to the
following m, e.g.: *b-mašxən-Ø (fut-warm_up-he) ‘he will warm up’
> *m-mašxən > mašxən. This has led to their merger with the šaqəl
forms, i.e.: Ømašxən-Ø (irr-warm_up-he) ‘he may warm up’. In order
to indicate this morphological ambiguity, all Pattern II, III and IV
šaqəl forms and those that may have been underlyingly p-šaqəl are
glossed as irr/fut.

**The alternative to šqəlle, used with object suffixes.

100 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Table 2: Forms based on šqəlle

Form Gloss Tense Aspect Mood

šqəl-le pfv. past perfective realis

šqəl-wa-le pfv. -pst anterior perfective realis
past

Table 3: Forms based on the infinitive (šqala)

Form Gloss Tense Aspect Mood Resultativity

copula in-(taking) present continuous (in realis resultative

bə-šqala stative verbs)
continuous
(non-dynamic)

Table 4: Forms based on the imperative (šqul)

Form Gloss Mood

šqul imp. irrealis: imperative
la šqul (no negation
of šqul)

Table 5: Forms based on the resultative participle (šqila)

Form Gloss Resultativity

copula + šqila res. resultative, experiential perfect

 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok  101

3. Texts with Comments on Selected

Grammatical Features
3.1. Transcription and Translation Conventions
As the overview of the verbal system will have made apparent,
the complexity of the meanings of verbal forms cannot be fully
captured by a glossing system. The glosses that are used here,
therefore, are conventional. The table above may be consulted
for a more nuanced characterisation of the forms.
As for the transcription, a minimalist system is used. This
assumes a phonetically predictable opposition of long vowels
(open, unaccented syllables) and of short ones (elsewhere).
Consequently, vowel length or shortness is only indicated
when not predictable from this rule. One of the exceptions to
this are monosyllabic words with a with an open syllable (the
most common of which are xa ‘one, a certain’, la ‘no’ and verbal
negator, ma ‘what’ ta ‘for (+noun)’), which are always short.
Being lexically predictable, shortness in these words is not
marked. Monosyllabic prepositions and conjunctions (that is,
with the exception of monophonemic ones) are transcribed as
separate words. In the vast majority of cases, however, they do
not carry nucleus stress, and lexical stress in them is inaudible.
Typically, only nucleus stress is marked ( ), ̀ and the end of an
intonation unit is indicated by the symbol ‘ˈ’. Sometimes, however,
a single intonation unit apparently has two nucleus stresses, both
of which are indicated. Lexical stress is only indicated when it
is not penultimate (in morphologically complex verbal forms,
this typically has implications for vowel length, which is also
marked).
The symbols ‘-’ and ‘=’ are employed in the transcription.
‘=’ is used for enclitics. In Jewish Dohok, the only certain (i.e.
phonetically verifiable) type of clitic is the present copula, so this
sign is used only in those cases. The symbol ‘-’ is used for certain
units that are morphologically complex, but prosodically are one
word. This is done to make the reading more transparent.
102 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Foreign words and phrases which reflect spontaneous code-

switching, rather than being loans, are marked with superscript
‘H’, ‘A’ and ‘K’. These indicate, respectively, Modern Hebrew,
Arabic or Bahdini Kurdish as the source. In these words,
phonological detail, i.e. vowel length and lexical stress, is not
indicated. Morphologically unintegrated loanwords are not
parsed.
The recordings of the two stories are available online at
https://nena.ames.cam.ac.uk/.

Text 1: A Man is a Wolf to a Wolf

1. ʾǝθ-wa xa-beθa d-Ø-ʿāyə̀š-Ø-wa…ˈ

exist-pst a-house rel-irr-live-he-pst

There was a household who used to live on…

2. bab-ət beθa d-Ø-ʿāyǝš-Ø-wa mǝn ṣìw-e.ˈ

father-gen house rel-irr-live-he-pst from wood-pl

…a father of a household who used to make his living by

woodcutting.7

3. g-ezǝl-Ø-wa go ṭùra,ˈ q-qāṭe-Ø-wa ṣìw-e.ˈ

hab-go-he-pst in mountain, hab-cut-he-pst wood-pl

He used to go to the mountain and cut wood.

4. g-meθè-Ø-wa-lu,ˈ Ø-dāré-Ø-wa-lu rəš xmara dìde,ˈ

hab-bring-he-pst-them, irr-place-he-pst-them on donkey his

He would bring them, place them on his donkey

7 Sentence 2. is not its own clause, but rather a correction to sentence 1.,
itself unfinished. This is reflected in the translation.
 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok  103

5. g-ewə́ð-Ø-wā-lu kàr-ta,ˈ
hab-make-he-pst-them bundle-fs

and bind them in a bundle.

6. g-dāré-Ø-wa-lu kàr-taˈ rəš xmara dìde.ˈ

hab-place-he-pst-them bundle-fs on donkey his

He would put them [as] a bundle on his donkey’s back.

7. ʾu-g-nābə́l-Ø-wa-lu šùqa,ˈ gǝ-mzābǝ̀n-Ø-wa-lu.ˈ

and-hab-take-he-pst-them market, hab-sell-he-pst-them

He would take them to the market and sell them.

8. g-meθe-Ø-wa ʾĭxala ta yalunk-e dìde.ˈ

hab-bring-he-pst food. to child-pl his.

Then, he would bring food for his children.

9. ʾu-k-eθe-Ø-wa k-əxl-i-wa
and-hab-come-he-pst. hab-eat-they-pst

10. g-ʿeš-i-wa b-ǝt-ʾànna,ˈ mǝn mzabon-ǝt ṣìw-e.ˈ

hab-live-they-pst in-gen-these, from selling-gen wood-pl.

When he came, they would eat and live on this, from the
selling of the wood.

11. xa yoma zǝl-le l-ṭùra,ˈ b-qaṭe-Ø ṣìw-e,ˈ

One day pfv.go-he to-mountain, fut-cut-he wood-pl,

One day he went to the mountain—he would cut trees,

12. xze-le xa-gùrga.ˈ

pfv.see-he a-wolf.

and he saw a wolf.

104 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

13. ʾaw gurga g-emǝr-Ø ṭa-le

thatM wolf hab-say-he to-him

mà wǝt ʾǝθya?ˈ
what cop.prs.youMS res.come.ms?

This wolf said to him ‘Why have you come?’

14. g-emǝr-Ø ʾana g-ǝb-ǝn8...ˈ

hab-say-he I hab-want-IM

g-ʿeš-ǝn b-ǝt qaṭʾ-ǝn9 ṣìw-e.ˈ

hab-live-IM in-gen irr-cut-IM wood-pl.

He said ‘I want to… I make my living by woodcutting.

15. gǝ-mzabn-ǝn-nu go šuqa

hab-sell-IM-them in market

ʾu-Ø-máʿăyǝš-ǝn yalunk-e dìdi.ˈ

and-irr/fut-sustain-I child-pl my

I sell it in the market and provide for my children.

16. bǝ-d-è ʾana g-ʿeš-ǝn.ˈ

In-gen-thisF I hab-live-IM

In this way I make my living.’

8 Note that the modal word is gǝbǝn is followed by a realis form, though
irrealis forms are standard in such contexts. These two verbs are therefore
not a single construction but are separated by a hesitation. This is indicated
in the translation. Indeed, it is the only attestation of such a sequence of
verbs (modal verb + realis verb) in my corpus. The informant himself
rejected other such constructions during an interview.
9 The activity ‘woodcutting’ in the construction gʿešǝn bǝt qaṭʾǝn ṣìwe in the
sentence above is expressed by a finite form (literally ‘I live by that I
cut wood’), rather than by the infinitive qṭaʾa ‘cutting’. The infinitive is
expected here, and is in fact attested after the verb ʿ-y-š ‘to make a living’
in sentences 9–10 above: gʿešiwa (…) mǝn mzabonǝt ṣìwe.
 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok  105

17. g-emər-Ø ʾana b-yāw-ǝn-nox kud-yom

hab-say-he I fut-give-I-you every-day

xa lira kurkamàna.ˈ
one coin golden

He replied ‘Every day, I will give you one golden coin.

18. s-i maṣrəf-Ø ta yalunk-e didox.ˈ

imp.go-youMS imp.spend-youCS to child-pl yourMS

Go, spend it on your children.’

19. g-emər-Ø, K
xera xudèK=la,ˈ
hab-say-he K
God’s favourK=cop.prs.she

He said ‘it is KGod’s favourK,

20. K
xera xudeK b-ǝt kǝrmànji g-ǝmr-i.ˈ
K
God’s favour
K
in-gen Kurmanji hab-say-they

K
God’s favourK!’ They said it in Kurmanji.

21. šqǝl-le10 lira kurkamana dide mǝn gùrgaˈ

pfv.take-he coin golden his from wolf

He took his golden coin from the wolf

22. ʾu-θe-le l-šùqa.ˈ

and-pfv.come-he to-market.

and came to the market

10 The definite direct object lira kurkamana dide is not referenced with an
object suffix on the verb. In the past tense in Jewish Dohok, we would
expect here the following construction: qam-šāqəl-Ø-le (pfv-take-he-him)
lira kurkamana dide. In NENA, definite objects are generally referenced
with an object suffix on the verb itself. For a recent study on object
marking in NENA, see, for instance, Coghill (2014).
106 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

23. ʾu-zun-ne ta gyane ʾĭxala

and-pfv.buy-he to himself food

ʾu-jull-e ta yalunk-e dìde,ˈ

and-cloth-pl to child-pl his.

and bought food for himself, and clothes for his children,

24. ʾu-AmabsuṭA mǝr-re ta bàx-t-eˈ

and-ApleasedA pfv.say-he to wife-fs-his

and pleased, he told his wife

25. waḷḷa ʾana xze-li xa-xùraˈ

indeed I pfv.meet-I a-friend

go ṭuraˈ bale gùrgā=le.

in-mountain but wolf=cop.prs.he.

‘Indeed, I met a friend on the mountain, but he is a wolf.

26. kud-yom g-emǝr-Ø

every-day hab-say-he

ʾana b-yāwǝn-nox xa kurkamàna.ˈ

I fut-give-I-youM one golden

“Every day”—he said—“I will give you one golden coin.”

27. ʾùd-le-li ʾədyo kurkamàna.ˈ

pfv.make-he-me today golden.

He has given me today a golden coin.’

28. kud-yom g-ezǝl-Ø l-ṭura

every-day hab-go-he to-mountain
 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok  107

ʾu-g-ewəð-Ø ṣìw-eˈ
and-hab-make-he wood-pl

So every day, he goes to the mountain, cuts wood

29. ʾu-k-eθe-Ø gurga g-yāwǝl-Ø-le kurkamàna.ˈ

and-hab-come-he wolf hab-give-he-him golden

and the wolf comes and gives him a coin.

30. pǝš-le xằ yarxa,ˈ trè,ˈ ṭḷàha,ˈ xa šà-ta.ˈ

pfv.stay-he one month two, three, one year-fs

One month went by, then two, three, one year.

31. bax-t-e g-ǝmra

wife-fs-his hab-say-she

waḷḷa hatxa xṑš naša,ˈ ḅāš̀ =ile.ˈ

indeed, such good man good-cop.prs.he

His wife said ‘Indeed, what a kind man! He is good.

32. ʾana g-ǝban Ø-ʾoð-an-ne qàðr-e,ˈ

I hab-want-IF irr-make-IF-him dish-pl

I want to make some dishes for him,

33. Ø-qaðr-an-ne ʾu-Ø-ʿazm-ax-le kəs-lan l-bèθa.ˈ

irr-treat-IF-him and-irr-invite-we-him by-us to-house

Let’s host him, invite him for a feast at our house.

34. Ø-ʾoð-ax-le xa-ʾĭxala basìmaˈ

irr-make-we-him some-food good

We shall prepare some good food for him,

108 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

35. ʾu-AØ-mstaʿən-ØA go beθa kəs-lan

and-irr/fut-help_oneself-he in house-ms by-us

ʾu-Ø-doq-ax qàðr-e.ˈ
and-irr-hold-we banquet-pl

he will enjoy himself at our house, and we will feast

together.’

36. g-emər-Ø ṭa-la šùq-Ø-le.ˈ

prs-say-he to-her imp.leave-youCS-him.

gùrg-ā=le.ˈ ḥèwan=ile.ˈ
wolf-cop.prs.he animal-cop.prs.he

He says to her ‘Leave him alone. He’s a wolf. He’s an animal.

37. mà b-aθe-Ø go naš-e?ˈ11 naš-e b-zàdʾ-i.ˈ

what fut-come-he in man-pl? man-pl fut-fear-they

What does it mean “He will come among people”? People

will be afraid.

38. Ø-mbàrbəʿă-Ø-lu gurga Ø-yaʾəl-Ø go ma-θa.ˈ

irr/fut-alarm-he-them wolf irr-enter-he in city-fs.

A wolf that enters the city will alarm them.’

11 This construction is likely to be a calque from Modern Israeli Hebrew.

There, the interrogative ‘what’ can be used before future forms to express
the speaker’s disapproval of the predicated eventuality, for instance, ‘what
[do you mean] that he should come?!’ Incidentally, constructions such as
this one are likely to be the ‘missing link’ in the grammaticalisation of
interrogatives (‘what’) into negators. This development has been posited
for, inter alia, mā in Modern Standard and some dialectal varieties of
Arabic. In the present example, the meaning ‘what’ is possible, assuming
an ellipsis (see translation). The implicature of this clause, however, may
be understood as ‘[Surely] he won’t come!’
 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok  109

39. g-əmr-a là,ˈ là,ˈ mar-Ø-re. Ø-ʾàθe-Ø.ˈ

prs-say-she no, no, imp.say-youCS-him irr-come-he

She said ‘No, no, tell him to come.’

40. zəl-le g-emər-Ø ṭà-le,ˈ

pfv.go-he prs-say-he to-him

g-emər-Ø ʾana l-èb-i Ø-ʾaθ-ən.ˈ

prs-say-he I neg-can-I irr-come-IM

So he went and told the wolf, but he said ‘I can’t come.

41. gùrgā=wən, k-əxl-ən nàš-e.ˈ

wolf=cop.prs.I prs-eat-I man-pl

I am a wolf. I eat people.

42. b-aθ-ən go ma-θa kull-u Ø-mbàrbəʿ-i.ˈ

fut-come-IM in city-fs all-they irr/fut-alarm-they

If I come to town, everyone will be alarmed.’

43. zəl-le mər-re ta-bax-ta hàtxa g-emər-Ø

pfv.go-he pfv-say-he to-wife-fs such prs-say-he

gurga.ˈ
wolf

So the man went and told his wife, this is what the wolf
said.

44. ʾaz g-əmr-a šud Ø-ʾaθe-Ø b-lèle, xə̀ška.ˈ

so prs-say-she let irr-come-he in night.ms darkness

So she said ‘Let him come at night, when there is darkness.’

110 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

45. bə-d-aw wàxtˈ l-əθ-wa beher-ùθaˈ.

in-gen-thatM time.ms neg-exist.pst light-fs.

At that time, there were no lights.

46. l-əθ-wa A
ʿan-ṭariqA H
menoròt.H
neg-exist-pst by way of H
lampsH

A
kahrabaA l-ə̀θ-wa.ˈ
A
electricityA neg-exist-pst

There was nothing like lamps. There was no electricity.

47. xə̀ška wewa.ˈ

darkness cop.pst.he

It was dark.

48. ʾu-pāyəš-Ø-wa xə̀ška,ˈ

and-irr-stay-he darkness

kull-a ma-θa xə̀ška wawa.ˈ

all-she city-fs darkness cop.pst.she.

When it got dark, the whole city would be dark.

49. g-əmr-a dammət Ø-payəš-Ø xə̀ška,ˈ

prs-say-she when irr-stay-he darkness

šud Ø-ʾaθe-Ø,ˈ
let irr-come-he

She said ‘Let him come after it gets dark.

50. beθ-Ø-an wele bə-dumằhik dət ma-θa.ˈ

house-our deix.cop.prs.he in-outskirts gen city-fs

Our house is on the outskirts of town.

 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok  111

51. b-aθe-Ø kəs-lan beθa ʾu-b-àzəl-Ø.ˈ

fut-come-he by-us house and-fut-go-he

čŭxa la k-xāzè-Ø-le.ˈ
nobody neg hab-see-he-him

He will come straight to our house and go back. No one

will see him.’

52. g-emər-Ø bax-t-i b-oð-a-lox-Ø

prs-say-he wife-fs-my fut-make-she-youMS

xa-ʿazime bāš̀ .
some-banquet good.

So he told the wolf ‘My wife will make for you a great
banquet.’

53. mər-re ṭa-le b-àθ-ən,ˈ g-emər-Ø b-àθ-ən.ˈ

pfv.say-he to-him fut-come-IM prs-say-he fut-come-IM

He replied to him ‘I will come,’ he said ‘I will come’.

54. g-emər-Ø, H
tovH, b-àθ-ən.ˈ
prs-say-he H
good ,
H
fut-come-IM

The wolf said ‘Well then, I will come.’

55. θèle,ˈ baxte qam-qaðràle ʾu-ʾudla ʾĭxala basìma ṭale,ˈ

He came, his wife showed him hospitality for him and
made good food for him,

56. ʾu-pəšle ʾāṣərta kə̀slu,ˈ xəlle, štele ʾu-muḥkèlu.ˈ

And he stayed the evening at theirs, he ate, drank and they
spoke.
112 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

57. pəšla12 dràngi, ˈ g-emǝr ʾana b-azən l-ṭùra.ˈ

It got late, [so] he says ‘I will go [back] to [the] mountain.’

58. qəmle … măre beθa ži zəlle qam-maxzele ʾurxa ʾu-mpə̀qle.ˈ

He got up … the house owner also went and showed him
the way, and he went out.

59. ʾu-ʾawa yĭʾəlle l-ʾòya,ˈ gurga ḥməlle go tằra.ˈ

[As] that one entered, the wolf waited at the door.

60. gurga ḥməlle go tằra,ˈ šame ma bàmri băθər zəlle.ˈ

The wolf waited at the door to hear what they will say
after he has left.

61. baxte ži g-əmra waḷḷa xṑš,ˈ xōš xùra ʾətlox.ˈ

His wife says ‘Indeed, a good, good friend you have.

62. xṑš xúrā=le ʾo gurga.ˈ

[A] good friend he is, that wolf.

63. băle xa-məndi qŭṣ̀ ur ʾibe.ˈ

But there is a flaw in him.’

64. g-emər ṭala mà ʾibe qŭṣur?ˈ

He says to her ‘What flaw is there in him?’

12 Note that it is the feminine singular subject suffix that is used non-
referentially for the impersonal construction pəšla drangi (pfv.stay-she
late ‘it got late’). Indeed, the non-referential use of a feminine singular
subject affix is common in NENA. Moreover, a feminine non-referential
object morpheme is also attested in many NENA dialects, for instance:
ʾărəq-a-le (pfv.run-her-he ‘he fled’). For non-referential object affixes and
likely contact dimension with Kurdish, see Mengozzi (2007).
 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok  113

65. g-əmra ṭale rìxa…ˈ raba rixa là basima k-eθe mən pəmme.ˈ
She says to him ‘A smell, a lot of bad smell comes out of
his mouth.

66. rixa là basima k-eθe mən pəmme.ˈ

A bad smell comes out from his mouth.’

67. H
ʾazH g-emər gùrgā=le ʾóhā=le.ˈ mà ʾoðən?ˈ
So he says ‘He is a wolf, this he is. What should I do?’

68. šmèʾle gurga muḥkela hatxa ʾəlle,ˈ xrìwa.ˈ

The wolf heard [how] she spoke in this way about him,
maliciously.

69. qam-dārele go nàθeˈ ʾu-qḥə̀rre,ˈ krə̀ble.ˈ

He kept it to himself (lit. he put it in his ear), and he was
upset he became angry.

70. g-emǝr ʾana g-oðənnu hawùθa,ˈ ʾani k-parʾila ṭali bət xriwùθa.ˈ
He says ‘I do them a favour and they pay me back with
evil.

71. g-əmri rixa raba pīs g-napəq mən pə̀mme.ˈ

They say “A very dirty smell comes out from his mouth.”’

72. zəlle l-ṭùra.ˈ durdət yom q-qayəm măre bèθa,ˈ g-ezəl ta ṣìwe.ˈ
He went to the mountain. The next day the house owner
gets up and goes for wood.

73. gurga žiθèle,ˈ g-emər, šqullox ʾədyo ži xa lira kurkamàna,ˈ băle

mən ʾədyo,ˈ là -k-eθət,ˈ ḥəl ʾarbi yome xèta.ˈ
The wolf came and says ‘Take for yourself also today one
golden coin, but from today [onwards], don’t come, until
forty more days.
114 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

74. băle šqulle năra dìdox.

But take your axe.

75. năra didox šqùlle,ˈ g-emər, mxile go rèši,ˈ kmà ʾibox!ˈ

Take your axe,’ he says ‘[and] hit my head (lit. hit it on my
head)13 as [hard as] you can.

76. ʾu-tùrre reši bət năra.ˈ

And break my head with [the] axe.’

77. g-emər màṭo māxənne go rešox?ˈ b-qaṭlə̀nnox?ˈ

He says ‘How [is it that] I should hit your head? Will I kill
you?’

78. g-emǝr là-q-qaṭlətti.ˈ

He says ‘You won’t kill me.’

79. g-emǝr ʾatta ʾan māxətte năra go rèši,ˈ ʾàn b-axlənnox.ˈ

He says ‘Now either you hit me [with the] axe on my head
or I will eat you.

80. xzi, mà gəbət?ˈ

Look, what do you want?

81. ʾēn là-māxətte năra go reši,ˈ ʾan b-axlə̀nnox.ˈ

If you don’t hit me on my head, I will eat you.’

13 The verb m-x-y ‘to hit’ takes as its direct object argument the noun năra
‘axe’, referred to here by the object suffix on the verb: mx-i-le go reš-Ø-i
(imp.hit-youMS-it on head-my) lit. ‘hit it on my head’, while go reši ‘on
head’ is an adjunct. The same argument structure is attested with this verb
in sentences 79 and 81 below.
 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok  115

82. ʾaw naša ži faqìra,ˈ kma də-mṣèle, qam-māxele go rèše,ˈ Hqam-

sālə̀ḥleH gurga.ˈ
This poor man, he hit him14 on his head as [hard as] he
could [and] the wolf forgave him.

83. ʾu-zə̀lle,ˈ gurga ži qam-yāsərre reš gyàne,ˈ brìndar=ile.ˈ

And he went, the wolf bandaged his head—he was
wounded.

84. g-emər ṭale bas ʾarbi yoma xeta b-àθət.ˈ

He says to him ‘Only after another forty days will you
come again.

85. bas ʾarbi yoma xeta b-àθət ˈb-axlə̀nnox.ˈ

Only, in another forty days will you come, [otherwise] I
will eat you.’

86. zə̀lle,ˈ muḥkele ta baxta, g-emǝr ḥāl ʾu-mắsale didi,ˈ ʾèhā=la.ˈ

He went and spoke to [his] wife, he says ‘My situation is
this.

87. gurga mərre ṭali là-k-eθət ʾarbi yoma xeta ʾaxxa.ˈ

The wolf told me “You will not be coming here for another
forty days.”’

88. H
tòvH.ˈ pədlu ʾarbi yòme,ˈ qəmle ʾaw naša15 xa-ga-xə̀t,ˈ
Good. Forty days passed by, the man got up once again,

14 In the Aramaic text, the suffix le ‘him/it’ refers to the axe, not the wolf; see
note on line 75 above.
15 The word order in both of these verbal clauses is predicate—subject: pədlu
ʾarbi yòme lit. ‘passed by forty days’, and qəmle ʾaw naša lit. ‘got up that
man’. Such word order occurs occasionally in Jewish Dohok—mostly with
intransitive verbs, as is the case with these two verbs.
116 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

89. zəlle l-ṭùra,ˈ zəlle xzele gùrga,ˈ g-emər ṭale, g-emər θằ ʾaxxa,ˈ
he went to [the] mountain, he went and saw the wolf
[who] says to him, he says ‘Come here’,

90. g-emǝr θèlox,ˈ g-emǝr šqullox xa lira kurkamana xèta.ˈ

he says ‘[since] you have come,’ he says ‘take for yourself
another golden coin.’

91. g-emər šrìlaˈ ʾe kafiya mən reši ʾu-xzì,ˈ duktət mxelox ʾo narà
əlla.ˈ
He says ‘Untie this scarf from my head and see [the] place
[which] you hit [with] that axe (lit. see [the] place you hit
your axe on it).’

92. qam-šārela mən ʿāqə̀le,ˈ wela trə̀ṣta.ˈ

He untied it from his head (lit. mind)—it had healed.

93. g-emər mà k-xazət?ˈ

He says ‘What do you see?’

94. g-emər wele rešox trìṣa.ˈ

He says ‘Your head has healed!’16

95. g-emər k-xàzət?ˈ g-emər šwirət17 năra dìdoxˈ qam-māxətte

baθər ʾarbi yòme,ˈ trə̀ṣle reši.ˈ
He says ‘Do you see?’ He says ‘The wound of your axe
[which] you had hit—after forty days, my head has healed.

16 Note the unusual syntax: deictic copula—subject—predicate. The

canonical order would be subject—copula—predicate (rešox wele triṣa), or
perhaps copula—predicate—subject (wele triṣa rešox).
17 The etymology of this word is unknown to me.
 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok  117

96. băle xabrət bàxtox mərra ṭaliˈ ḥəl mòθaˈ là-g-našən-ne.ˈ

But your wife’s word, which she said to me, till death I will
not forget.’

97. g-emər mà mərra ṭalox?ˈ

He says ‘What did she say to you?’

98. g-emər ʾaxtoxun, baxtox muḥkèloxun,ˈ baxtox mərra ʾo gugra

xoš nàšā=le, ḅāš̀ =ile, balé xa-rixa pīs̀ k-eθe mən pəmme.ˈ
He says ‘You, your wife spoke, your wife said “This wolf
is a good man, but a bad smell comes out of his mouth.”’

99. šwirət xàbraˈ là-k-eθe nšaya.ˈ

[A] wound [caused by a] word is not forgotten.

100. šwirət ḍə̀rbaˈ naša g-našèle.ˈ

A wound [caused by] a blow [a] man forgets.

101. šwirət xàbraˈ ḥə̀l moθaˈ naša là-g-našele.ˈ

[But] a wound [caused by a] word until death does [a]
man not forget.

102. lazəm yàʾe naša maṭo maḥke.ˈ

A man should know how to speak.

103. dər bāl̀ ,ˈ mən ʾədyo pēf18 là-k-eθət l-ṭura.ˈ

Watch out [that] from today onwards, you do not enter
the mountain.

18 A Kurdish loanword, compare Jewish Zakho pēv(a) (Sabar 2002, 254).

118 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Text 2: The True Lie

1. ʾәθwa xa-ḥakòma,ˈ mərre ta dawəlta dìde—ˈ

There was a ruler, he said to his state—

2. ta kùllu naše go dawəlta—ˈ

to all [the] people in [the] state—

3. bə-daw wàxtˈ kud màθaˈ dawə̀lta wawa.ˈ

At that time, every city was [a] state.

4. k-ṣarxíwāla dawə̀lta.ˈ
They used to call it a state.

5. mǝrre ta dawə̀lta dide:ˈ

He said to his state

6. ʾana g-ǝbǝn ta ḥukum dìdi…ˈ ta parlamèn didi—ˈ

‘I want for my government… for my parliament…

7. ʾana g-əbǝn xa…ˈ meθə́tūli xa mdagǝl ṭali xa-dùgle19ˈ

I want [some]one, [I want you] to bring me [some]one
who would tell me a lie

8. la hawe-bi ʾamrǝnne kulle mǝndi mən ʾilàhā=la,ˈ

[so that] I could not say all things are from God,

19 In Jewish Dohok, the originally plural form dugl-e lie-pl has evidently
been generalised to the singular, meaning ‘a lie’. Contrast this with the
form dugla in Jewish Zakho (Sabar 2002, 138).
 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok  119

9. d-ʾamrǝnneˈ ʾo dùglē=la,20ˈ ṭròṣā=wǝt,ˈ ʾo dùglē=la.ˈ

so that I would say “This is [a] lie, you are right, this is
[a] lie.”

10. v -ʾana g-yāwə́nnoxun ṭḷà yome.ˈ

H H

And I give you three days.

11. là-meθə́tūli xa mdāgəlli xa-dugle d-maṭe l-ʿāqəli,ˈ

[If] you do not bring me [some]one [who] will tell me a
lie that would be acceptable to me (lit. would enter my
reason),

12. rešoxun mafərə̀nne.ˈ

I will cut off your heads (lit. make them fly).

13. b-qaṭlə̀nnoxun,ˈ rešoxun b-qeṣə̀nne.ˈ

I will kill you, I will cut off your heads.’

14. kullu zdèʾluˈ ʾu-zə̀lluˈ

All were afraid and went,

15. mǝθelu naše d-ʾamri…ˈ mdagli dùgle.ˈ

brought people who would say… would lie [a] lie.

16. xa θèle,ˈ g-èmərˈ ʾana b-amrən xa-mǝndi xḕt žik.ˈ

One [person] came [and] says ‘I will tell something else
too.’

20 The clause ʾo dùglē=la (thism lie.ms-cop.prs.she), which appears here

twice, exhibits a lack of agreement between the subject and the copula.
The subject (expressed by the demonstrative) is masculine singular,
whereas the copula is feminine singular.
120 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

17. ʾu-ḥakòma žik mərre,ˈ k-xāzə́tula kǝsta dǝt-pàre,ˈ kǝs dət zùze,ˈ
zuzət dèhwa?ˈ
And the ruler also said ‘Do you see [the] bag of money, bag
of coins, golden coins?

18. ʾe kǝsta wela mliθa zùze,ˈ

Look, this bag is full of coins,

19. kud də-mdagəl ṭali dùglaˈ

[and] every[one] who would tell me a lie

20. ʾamrǝn dùglē=la ʿāqǝli q-qate,ˈ dùglē=la,ˈ

[about which] I would say “My mind decides (lit. my mind
cuts) [that] this is a lie,”

21. ʾè b-yāwǝnna ṭale.ˈ

I will give this to him.

22. ʾu-ana ṭḷà yome b-yāwə́nnoxun,ˈ b-qaṭlə̀nnoxun.ˈ

And I will give you three days, [then] I will kill you.’

23. xa g-emǝr ʾana xzeli bət ʾèniˈ

One says ‘I saw with my [own] eyes

24. xa-nàšaˈ tule rəš kanùšta.ˈ

a man [who] sat on top of [a] broom.

25. duqle kanùštaˈ ʾu-fǝrre šə̀mme.ˈ

He seized a broom and flew into the sky.’
 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok  121

26. θele kǝs ḥakòma,ˈ g-emǝr ʾana hàtxa xzeli bət ʾeni.ˈ
He came to [the] ruler [and] says ‘I saw this with my own
eyes.’

27. g-èmǝrˈ kulle mǝndi mən ʾilàhā=le.ˈ

[The ruler] says ‘All of this is from God.

28. ʾilaha ʾìbe ʾaweð hatxa.ˈ

God can do this.’

29. xa dārele rǝš kanùštaˈ ʾu-màfǝrre21 šəmme.ˈ

Someone may put [a man] on top of [a] broom and make
him fly to the sky.

30. ʾeha lèwa dugle.ˈ

This was not [a] lie.

31. xa-xǝt θèle,ˈ g-emǝr ʾana xzeli kàlbaˈ

Another one came and says ‘I saw [a] dog

32. yĭʾə̀lleˈ go nuqbǝt xmàṭa.ˈ

[that] entered into the eye of a needle.

33. xzèliˈ yĭʾə̀lleˈ go nuqbǝt xmàṭa.ˈ

I saw him [when he] entered in the eye of [a] needle.’

34. g-emǝr ʾeha lèwa dugle,ˈ

[The ruler] says ‘This was not a lie.’

21 Note that the accent is pre-penultimate, rather than penultimate. Such

accent retraction occurs sometimes in forms near the end of intonation
units.
122 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

35. g-emǝr ʾilaha ʾìbe ʾawǝð hatxa.ˈ

He says ‘God can do this.’

36. ʾatta ʾo ḥakòma,ˈ ma d-g-ǝmrìleˈ

Now this ruler, what[ever] they tell him,

37. ʾawa duqle b-ʾiða dǝt-ʾilàha.ˈ

he continued to swear by God (lit. he seized the hand of
God)

38. ʾilaha ʾìbe ʾawǝð.

[saying,] ‘God can do [this].’

39. zǝllu…ˈ xa wewa huðaya go šùqa,ˈ

They went … there was a Jew in the market (lit. one he
was a Jew in the market)

40. ṭāləbwa HnedavòtH,ˈ

[who] he used to beg,

41. ʿāyəšwa bət Hnedavòt.Hˈ g-yāwiwa ṭale ʾu-bʿāyìšwa.ˈ

[who] used to live off alms. They used to give him and he
would live off [that].

42. šmeʾle,ˈ g-emǝr mà-loxun ta parlament.ˈ

He heard [and] says ‘What is [up] with you?’ to the
parliament.

43. g-ǝmri ḥāl ʾu-mắsale ʾèha=la.ˈ

They say ‘The situation is this.’
 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok  123

44. g-ə̀mərˈ nàblūliˈ ʾana mdaglǝn ṭale xa-dùgle.ˈ

He says ‘Take me, I will tell him a lie.’

45. ᴴveᴴ-ʾana ži g-ə̀bǝn ʾāmǝrriˈ lèwa dugle.ˈ

And I, in fact, want him to tell me it was not a lie.

46. ʾana g-ə̀bǝn ʾāmǝrri lewa dugle.ˈ

I want him to tell me it was not a lie.

47. zŭń ūli xa-bàdlaˈ dət ḥakòmeˈ ʾu-náblūli l-ḥàmmamˈ ʾu-xèpənˈ

ʾu-mbadlən ʾu-gàrʾənˈ ʾu-kundằreˈ ʾu-kullu xàθeˈ
Buy me a royal suit and take me to [the] bathhouse, and I
shall wash, change and shave, shoes and everything new,

48. ʾu-náblūli kəs ḥakòma,ˈ ʾana mdaglǝn ṭale xa-dugle žiˈ d-ʾawa
ʾàmərˈ ʾe dùglē=la.ˈ
and take me to [the] ruler, I shall tell him such a lie [that]
he will say [that] it is [a] lie.

49. ʾana g-ə̀bən ʾamərˈ ʾeha dùglē=la.ˈ

I want want him to say [that] it is [a] lie.’

50. g-əmri ṭale HtòvH.ˈ

They say to him ‘Fine!’

́ ūli šoʾa lʾìne.ˈ

51. zəlle l-šùqa.ˈ pədlu go šùqa.ˈ g-emǝr zŭn
He went to the market. They passed by the market and he
says ‘Buy me seven big jugs,

52. ʾu-šoʾa ḥammàre žik muθunˈ ʾu-ta … d-nablilu ta ḥakòmaˈ

ʾumaḥməlilu rèza go diwan dide.ˈ
and also bring seven donkey drivers for … so that they
can take them to the ruler and place them [in] a line in his
reception room.’
124 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

53. H
tòvHˈ. gəbe maxəlṣi b-gyànu.ˈ zunnu ṭale šoʾa lʾìneˈ ʾu-šoʾa
ḥammàreˈ ʾu-zəllu kəs ḥakòma.ˈ
Good. They want to save themselves. They bought him
seven big jugs and seven donkey drivers and they went to
the king.

54. θelu kəs dargằvanˈ dət ḥakòma,ˈ ʾanna talme ʾu-kadùne,ˈ talme
ʾu-nàše,ˈ
They came to the ruler’s gate-keeper, [all] these vessels
and jugs, vessels and people.

55. mà ila g-əmri ʾanna ḥarrase,ˈ ḥarras-d go tằra.ˈ

‘What is it?’ say these keepers, the keepers who [are] at
[the] gate.

56. g-əmri mălək mərre ʾaθax mdaglax xa-dùgla ṭale.ˈ

They say ‘[The] king told [us that] we should come [and]
tell a lie for him.’

57. mərru ta mằləkˈ flan welu ʾə̀θye,ˈ mdagəl xa-dùgla.ˈ

They said to the king ‘Some men have come, [one] will tell
you a lie.’

58. mălək mərre ṭàluˈ suwun muθun xàˈ

The king said to them ‘Go, bring me someone,

59. băle là-hawe huðaya.ˈ

but he should not be [a] Jew.

60. là-hawe huðaya.ˈ

He should not be [a] Jew.’
 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok  125

61. θèlu,ˈ yĭʾəllu kùlluˈ kəs mằlək.ˈ

They came, they all entered into the ruler’s [presence].

62. ḥməllu go dìwan,ˈ ʾaw huðaya žìk.ˈ

They waited in the reception room, this Jew also.

63. qam-maḥməllu kullu lʾine dide bət rèzaˈ ʾu-mən ḥammare

baθər lʾìneˈ
He put all his big jugs in a line and a few of the donkey
drivers behind the big jugs.

64. ʾu-g-emər ṭale d-mằ,ˈ mdaglət xa-dùgleˈ d-ʾana ʿāqəli qaṭe

dùglē=la?ˈ
And [the ruler] says ‘What? You [want to] tell me a lie
which my mind would consider to be a lie (lit. my mind
would decide it is [a] lie)?

65. ʾamrənnox dùglē=la?ˈ

I should tell you it is [a] lie?’

66. g-èmər,ˈ ḥakoma basìma,ˈ ʾana là-gə-mdaglənnox dugle,ˈ ʾana

g-əmrənnox xa-məndi d-wewa tròṣa.ˈ
[The Jew] says ‘Good ruler, I do not tell you [a] lie, I tell
you something that was true.

67. tròṣa wewa.ˈ

It was true.

68. ʾana là-θeli mdaglənnox dugle.ˈ

I haven’t come to tell [a] lie.’
126 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

69. g-emər mà ʾətlox?ˈ

[The ruler] says ‘What have you got?’

70. g-èmərˈ k-xāzəttu ʾana lʾìne?ˈ

[The Jew] says ‘Do you see those big jugs?’

71. g-èmərˈ sawòyiˈ xa-naša dolamànt wewa.ˈ

He says ‘My grandfather was a rich man.’

72. dolamántˈ yáʿăni măre dawəlta,ˈ dawə̀lta ʾə́θwāle,ˈ ràba

dolamant wewa.ˈ
dolamant means somebody with wealth. He had wealth, he
was very rich.

73. ʾu-sawòyoxˈ ḥakòma wewa.ˈ snə̀qle,ˈ l-sawòyiˈ mdayən-ne

pàre,ˈ zùze,ˈ
‘And your grandfather was a ruler. He needed my
grandfather to lend him money, coins,

74. ʾu-ʾə́θwāle xa-šùla ʾāwəðwa.ˈ

and he had a job to do.

75. ʾu-lə̀θwālu go xazina,ˈ

When they did not have [money] in the treasury,

76. θele mdoyənne mən sawòyi,ˈ bə-dana lʾine qam-ṃāḷèwalu ṭalu

zùze,ˈ pàre.ˈ
he came and borrowed from my grandfather, in these big
jugs, which they filled for him with golden coins, money.

77. sawòyiˈ mdoyənne tà sawoyoxˈ šoʾa lʾine dət zùze.ˈ

My grandfather lent your grandfather seven big jugs of
coins.
 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok  127

78. ʾu-ʾatta ʾana pəšli …ˈ ḥali wele twìraˈ ʾu-θeli šaqlən denət
sawoyi mə̀nnox.ˈ
And now I became … I have gone bankrupt (lit. my situation
is broken) and I have come to take my grandfather’s loan
from you.

79. ʾāt ḥakòma=wətˈ ʾə̀tlox.ˈ

You are the ruler [and] you have [enough].’

80. munə̀xle ḥakoma,ˈ g-emər ta do nàšaˈ măre lʾìne,ˈ

The ruler sighed (lit. sighed the ruler) and says to this man
with [the] big jugs

81. ʾimal sawòyoxˈ xa-kalba hatxa ruwa wèwaˈ dət sawoyi mằlək,ˈ
ḥakòmaˈ mdayən mənne lʾine d-pàre?ˈ
‘When was your grandfather such a filthy bastard (lit.
big dog) that my grandfather, the king, the ruler, would
borrow from him big jugs of money?

82. mən ʾèmal ila?ˈ hatxa wewa rùwa.ˈ

Since when does such a thing happen (lit. since when is
it)? He was such a great (filthy bastard).

83. sawoyox kalba rùwa wewa.ˈ

Your grandfather was a filthy bastard.’

84. g-emər ṭaleˈ ḥakòmaˈ maḥki ta gyànox,ˈ là-mṣaʾărət sawoyi.ˈ

[The Jew] says to him ‘Ruler, speak to yourself [quietly],
[but] do not curse my grandfather.
128 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

85. ʾēn ila tròṣaˈ sawoyox wele šqila mən sawoyi pàreˈ ṃḷìlu ʾanna
lʾine ṭàliˈ dena dìdi.ˈ
If it is true—your grandfather had borrowed from my
grandfather money—fill these big jugs for me [with the
money for] my loan.

86. ʾu-ʾēn ila dùgle,ˈ hàlli kəsta.ˈ

And if it is a lie, give me a bag [of money].’

87. ʾawa ḥakoma krə̀ble,ˈ g-emər šqùl.ˈ qam-māxela ṣàdre,ˈ g-emər

ʾèhaˈ qṭèle ʿāqəli duglē=la.ˈ
That ruler got angry and says ‘Take.’ He threw the bag his
way and says ‘This one I accepted as a lie (lit. this one my
mind has determined to be [a] lie)’.

4. Survey of Selected Functions of Verbal Forms

In this section I present a commentary on the grammatical
meanings of selected verbal forms (mostly of those attested
in the texts above). As remarked, the goal of this section is to
highlight some of the more distinctive features of Jewish Dohok
in the context of NENA, and to draw attention to certain non-
prototypical, creative applications of verbal forms that are
intended to create particular discourse effects.

4.1. Expression of Realis Mood through šaqəl-wa

The šaqəl form typically expresses irrealis present and future,
while its past counterpart šaqəl-wa is prototypically past irrealis.
In addition, however, šaqəl-wa also sometimes occurs in sentences
conveying realis mood. The prototypical realis counterparts of
šaqəl and šaqəl-wa have the habitual indicative prefix k-, thus
k-šaqəl (present) and k-šaqəl-wa (past).22

22 Overview of the use and origin of the habitualindicative prefix across

the NENA dialects can be found in Khan (2007) and in Rubin (2018,
 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok  129

As the previous paragraph implies, there is an asymmetry

between the verbal forms: the k- prefix is omitted in forms
conveying realis mood in the past, but in the present, such
omission of the prefix is virtually unattested in the corpus.23
In the texts presented above, šaqəl-wa occurs in clauses that can
be identified as subordinate relative clauses (though asyndetic),
as well as in main clauses (examples 2/39–40 and 1/4 below
respectively):

2/39–4124
xă wewa huðaya go šùqaˈ
There was a Jew in the market

Ø-ṭāləb-Ø-wa H
nedavòtH,
irr-ask-he-pst H
almsH,

‘[who] used to beg,’

1/4
g-meθè-Ø-wa-lu,ˈ Ø-dāré-Ø-wa-lu rəš
hab-bring-he-pst-them irr-place-he-pst-them on

xmara dìde…ˈ
donkey his…

‘He would bring them [and] place them on his donkey…’

57:130–39), who presents some alternative reconstuctions.

23 For the past tense, a sample of the corpus (about 4000 words) was studied,
and the ratio between k-šaqəl-wa and šaqəl-wa in Pattern I verbs in clauses
interpreted as realis was found to be 11:1, though this ratio could be
slightly different if the whole corpus were taken into account.
24 The first number refers to the text (first or second), the second indicates
the line within that text.
130 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

If the absence of the habitual indicative prefix is a matter of phonetic

elision, this elision is highly irregular (i.e. it is not restricted to a
single phonetic environment). A more likely explanation for its
absence, therefore, is linked to the original semantics of the k-
prefix and to its process of diachronic grammaticalisation. Namely,
the k- prefix (and its dialectal variants) most likely originated as
a progressive or presentative marker (Khan 2007, 94), which was
added to the base šaqəl, the latter subsequently becoming restricted
to irrealis mood. The progressive and presentative functions are
bound especially closely with the (actual) present, since they are
typically used to draw attention to situations overlapping with
speech time. This, in turn, suggests that the habitual indicative
prefix in NENA originated in the present tense (ibid), and only later
began its spread into habituality and the past tense. In light of this,
it is likely that in Jewish Dohok, the k- prefix has not been fully
grammaticalised as a marker of realis and habituality. Specifically,
it does not always occur in contexts that are not directly associated
with the original function of this morpheme, viz. present tense
presentative or progressive. This hypothesis would explain the
lack of obligatoriness of k- in the case of the past.
Partial grammaticalisation can also be postulated for other
dialects. C. Barwar, for instance, has the realis prefix ʾi-. According
to Khan, however, ʾi-qaṭəl and ʾi-qaṭəl-wa—in contrast to qaṭəl and
qaṭəl-wa—are used to indicate ‘discourse prominence’. In other
words, ʾi-qaṭəl and ʾi-qaṭəl-wa forms are apparently restricted
to clauses conveying a high degree of pragmatic assertiveness
(Khan 2008, 590–91). The domain of assertiveness (presenting a
situation as new to the listener; Cristofaro 2003, 29–33) is itself
likely to be related to the actual present, which draws attention
to a situation in the present that is typically assumed by the
speaker to be new or surprising for the hearer. Thus, the original
domain of the realis prefix is not only the actual present, but also
pragmatic assertion. The synchronic distribution of the ʾi- prefix
in Barwar may still reflect this origin.
 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok  131

4.2. E
 xpression of Emphatic Negative Imperative through
la k-šaqəl (prototypically realis)
The negative form la k-šaqəl is used more broadly than its
affirmative kšaqəl counterpart, which conveys realis present. The
form la kšaqəl negates not only the present, but also the future,
which, in the affirmative, is expressed by p-šaqəl. Modally, these
future forms convey the sense of ‘near-realis’. That is, it conveys
the higher-certainty, predictive type of epistemic future.25
This prototypical function notwithstanding, la k-šaqəl can
also sometimes be used for an emphatic negative imperative.
Prototypically, the negative imperative is expressed by the irrealis
la šaqəl, e.g. la Ø-aθ-ət (neg irr-come-youMS) ‘do not come’.26
One such case is attested in the texts (1/87, see below), and a few
parallel examples are found elsewhere in my corpus:

1/87
là-k-eθ-ət (neg hab-come-youMS) ʾarbi yoma xeta ʾaxxa.ˈ
‘You will not be coming here for another forty days.’
H
ʾazH g-əmri là-k-eθ-etu (neg hab-come-youPL) mən
dəšdaša,ˈ lazəm zonetu pantaròne.ˈ
‘So they say you won’t be coming [wearing] a thawb, you
have to buy trousers.’

Given that la k-šaqəl is typically used for predictive, ‘near-realis’

future, its use for a negative command is likely to be intended to
have precisely that effect: it serves to present the event as almost
certain. In other words, the command is so emphatic that it must
certainly be obeyed. Its fulfilment may, therefore, be expressed as

25 See Akatsuka (1985) on epistemic modality as a scale.

26 For a discussion on different morphological expression of the imperative
and for their various pragmatic functions in NENA, see Khan (2010,
65–70) and Hoberman (1989, 136).
132 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

if it is certain by using the predictive form. Such an interpretation

fits the context of sentence 1/18, in which the wolf threatens to
eat the man if he—despite the prohibition—comes again. The
second sentence above is a command of a school official to his
pupils, so it was uttered from a position of authority.
This function of la k-šaqəl also occurs in other NENA dialects.
For example, native speakers of the Christian Shaqlawa dialect
describe the difference between an imperative conveyed by the
predictive form (corresponding to the Jewish Dohok la kšaqəl)
and with the irrealis form (corresponding to la šaqəl) in the
following way: ‘the former means that there can be no discussion
whether the command will or will not be obeyed, so it sounds
much more authoritative.’27

4.3. Expression of the Resultative and of the Continuous

Aspect (in Stative Verbs)
The resultative construction in Jewish Dohok is composed of
the copula (in the 3rd person present, the deictic copula must be
used) with the resultative participle šqila, inflected for gender
and number of the subject. This is illustrated by the following
constructions from the texts:

2/57

flan welu ʾə̀θy-e,ˈ Ø-mdagəl-Ø

some deix.cop.they res.come-pl irr-lie-he

xa-dùgla.
a-lie.

‘Some men have come to tell you a lie.’

2/85

sawoy-ox we-le šqila

grandfather-yourMS pfv.be-he res.take.ms

27 Private communication with Lourd Chechman.

 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok  133

mən sawoy -i pàr-e.

from grandfather-my money-pl

‘Your grandfather had borrowed money from my

grandfather.’

In such constructions, the focus of the predication is on the

persisting state that follows an event, rather than on the event
itself. Such usage is confirmed by other constructions from my
corpus.28
This, in turn, indicates that the copula + šqila construction
in Jewish Dohok is best understood as a resultative rather than a
full perfect.29 In this dialect, it is largely used only with verbs that
have a clear state following the activity—typically, stative verbs
(e.g. the state of sitting following the event of sitting down).
This type of usage is attested in the sentence 2/57 above (flan
welu ʾə̀θye), where the focus is on the result of arriving. We can
paraphrase: ‘Some men are here.’
The only transitive verbs that can occur in the resultative
construction in Jewish Dohok are possessive transitives, such as
in 2/85 (sawoyox wele šqila mən sawoyi pare).30 In transitive verbs
such as šqila, the focus of the predication is on the subsequent
state of having in one’s possession. We can thus paraphrase: ‘my
grandfather had a loan.’

28 I am indebted to Paul Noorlander for drawing my attention to this, and

for helping me test various verbs in the resultative construction during
fieldwork in Jerusalem in September 2019.
29 For the distinction between the two, see (Nedjalkov 2001, 928–30). For
the semantic scope of the copula + šqila construction in other NENA
dialects, see, for instance, Khan (2008, 653–58). For a historical overview
of these constructions, see Noorlander (2018, 328–31).
30 This construction is apparently past. Formally, the word wele can be
parsed either as pfv.be-he (root hwy), which is one of the past copulas, or
deix.cop.he, that is, the present deictic copula. Contextually, the former
interpretation is more likely—if the grandfather was still alive, the king
could easily check the truthfulness of the Jew’s claim.
134 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

In the case of stative verbs, the resultative function overlaps

semantically with the continuous aspect, which also refers to
a state that is ongoing at the time of reference and had begun
at some point in the past.31 When asked to produce a sentence
that includes a stative verb with continuous meaning (though
typically not a verb of cognition, emotion or sensation), speakers
commonly use the copula + šqila construction, for example:

ʾaw naša d-wele (deix.cop.he) ḥmila (res.stand.ms) kəs beθa

ʾaxòni=le. (elicitation)

‘That man who is standing (/has stopped) by the house is my

brother.’
By contrast, in other dialects, the copula + šqila construction
has become a full perfect. This is the case in Christian Barwar,
where copula + šqila can be used with the verb ‘to kill’ (Khan
2008, 735), there being no direct effect or state of agent resulting
from the act of killing. Such perfects express a more abstract
situation resulting from a previous event. The construction still
does not express a specific event bound to a specific point in time,
but rather the event is only an implicature. There is, however,
another use of the copula + šqila construction in C. Barwar
(as well as in the dialects that come originally from the Ṭyare
region), which expresses a specific past event in narrative. This
is a past perfective, though the event is presented as cognitively
distant (typically in fictitious folktales). In this function, the
ordinary (‘enclitic’) copula is used, rather than the deictic one
(Khan 2008, 669).32

31 A similar situation is attested in languages such as Chinese or Japanese

(Shirai 1998).
32 This usage, though genre-restricted, is arguably typologically the most
advanced one, based on the model of diachronic change proposed by
Bybee : stative > resultative > perfect > preterite (Bybee, Perkins
Revere, and Pagliuca 1994, 81–82).
 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok  135

4.4. Expression of the Continuous Aspect

The texts presented above include no cases of verbal forms that are
exclusively dedicated to the marking of continuousness.33 Indeed,
in the corpus as a whole, there are very few such forms, even
though there are multiple cases of k-šaqəl which—contextually—
clearly describe predications of a continuous nature.
In NENA dialects in general, there are two main constructions
for the expression of the continuous aspect. These also commonly
include the progressive function. The first—and more common
one—is formed by a copula and b-Infinitive (in Jewish Dohok,
wele bə-šqala), which in dialects such as Christian Urmi has
been reanalysed as its own inflectional stem (Khan 2016, 185).
In the second construction, a copula or a presentative particle
is combined with the prototypically realis present form (in
Jewish Dohok, wal/hol/hole k-šaqəl). In many NENA dialects,
these constructions are widespread. In the more typologically
advanced dialects such as Christian Urmi, Jewish Arbel and
Christian Qaraqosh, the (originally) continuous construction has
even been extended into non-progressive domains (e.g. habitual
present or even perfective past in the narrative) (e.g., Christian
Urmi—Khan 2016, vol.2, 185–200).34
In Jewish Dohok, however, as mentioned above, the
continuous constructions are extremely rare in the corpus.
This feature, as well as the restricted function and use of the
resultative construction, points to the conservative character of
Jewish Dohok, even in relation to the other Lišana Deni dialects.

33 Following Comrie, ‘continuous’ is used here to describe a state or event

which is ongoing at the point of reference (Comrie 1976, 25). A continuous
construction can, therefore, be used with both stative and dynamic verbs.
By contrast, the term ‘progressive’ implies a progress, which is compatible
only with dynamic verbs. The term ‘continuous’ is preferable here, even
though many NENA grammars use the term ‘progressive’, since the
constructions discussed here can be used in Jewish Dohok—as well as in
other NENA dialects—also with stative verbs .
34 On a general discussion on the continuous (in Khan, ‘progressive’)
constructions in NENA, see Khan (2007, 95–97).
136 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Another noteworthy feature of Jewish Dohok is that it possesses

both of the continuous constructions. These two constructions,
moreover,—judging from the available data—have distinct
functions.

Wele bə-šqala
This construction is only attested twice in the corpus. In both of
those cases, it describes a bodily state that is not of a cognitive,
emotional or sensory nature. Sentence 3f/36 below describes a
state that is ongoing in the time between the Jew’s visits to the
king.

mà d-g-məθele dərmaneˈ ʾu-mà d-g-oðiˈ l-èwe bə-traṣa (neg-cop.

prs.he in-healing).ˈ (3f)

‘Whatever medicine they bring and whatever they do, he is not

getting better.’

zəlle HmiskenH ʾo huðaya l-bèθa,ˈ l-ewe bə-dmàxa (neg-cop.prs.he

in-sleeping)ˈ mən zdòʾŏθe.ˈ (3f)

‘The poor Jew went home, he is not sleeping for his fear.’
With other verbs, wele bə-šqala could not be elicited from
most speakers.35 This suggests that in Jewish Dohok wele bə-šqala
is—in contrast to other dialects—precisely not a progressive
construction. Rather, it conveys the non-dynamic continuous
aspect, but even in this function it is highly restricted, being
attested only with physical states.
In many NENA dialects, by contrast, the parallel construction
with a copula + b-Infinitive expresses the progressive function.
A situation similar to that in Jewish Dohok, however, is attested
in early-NENA sources, suggesting that the situation in Jewish

35 When the speakers were presented with such a construction containing

a stative verb of cognition, sensory perception or emotion, they accepted
it, but said it sounded unnatural or reminiscent of another Lišana Deni
dialect (e.g. Jewish Zakho) and rephrased it with a k-šaqəl form.
 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok  137

Dohok is a conservative one. Such early-NENA evidence is

supplied by the early Christian (apparently archaising) NENA
poetry from north-western Iraq (Telkepe and Alqosh), dating to
the 17th-19th centuries (Mengozzi 2012). In these texts, (copula
+) b-Infinitive is very rare, and functions as a ‘circumstantial
modifier or a complement of the predicate, whereas it rarely
occurs in combination with the copula’ (Mengozzi 2012, 34,
citing Poizat 1999, 173).
Similarly, in Jewish Dohok, wele bə-šqala is only attested
with states. In this dialect, however, those states are predicative
(i.e. they contain a copula). Thus, in contrast to the early-
NENA poetry, they are not necessarily presented as overlapping
temporarily with the predicate of the clause, on which they are
syntactically dependent. Rather, they may simply overlap with a
given period of time specified by the broader context. Moreover,
it remains to be seen how the continuous/progressive in NENA
fits with the typical grammaticalisation paths of the progressive.
Cross-linguistically, progressive constructions typically involve
dynamic verbs, and—according to Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca
(1994, 133)—often develop from (metaphorically) locative
constructions.

Wəl/hol/hole k-šaqəl
In contrast to wele bə-šqala, wəl/hol/hole k-šaqəl is only attested
with dynamic verbs in the corpus (five times in total).36 The first
element of these constructions is a presentative particle wəl or
hol, or hole (i.e. apparently a fossilised 3ms form). Consider the
following examples from the corpus:

θela mən tàma,ˈ ʾay baxta HmiskènaHˈ hole g-baxš-a-lu (prog hab-
stir-she-them) ṭlòxe.ˈ (3h)

36 
The association of the wəl/hol/hole k-šaqəl construction with lexically
dynamic verbs is confirmed from interviews. Speakers showed a tendency
to rephrase constructions offered by the interviewer such as *wele b-iθaya
‘he is coming’ as wəl k-eθe ‘look, he is coming’.
138 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

She came from there, that HpoorH woman, and [now] look, she
is stirring the lentils.

g-yāʾəl-wa go màṭbaxˈ k-xāpəq-wa-la g-nāšə̀q-wa-la.ˈ b-amrá-wā-le

d-prùq-li. ʾana wəl gə-mbàšlan (prog hab-cook-I),ˈ ʾatta gəbe
ʾoðan ʾixàla.ˈ

‘He used to enter the kitchen, hug her, kiss her. [But] she would
tell him ‘Leave me’. Look, I am cooking, I need to make food
now.’
It is the presentative elements—wəl, hole or hol—that convey
the continuous aspect. Presentative particles typically draw
attention to an event that can be witnessed by the hearer. This,
in turn, often has the purpose of highlighting the significance of
the event. In narrative, therefore, presentatives have the effect
of placing the listener in the midst of the unfolding events, as
if he or she were witnessing them personally.37 This, in turn,
means that such presentative forms are likely to be used for
situations that are happening in the here-and-now, and are,
therefore, aspectually continuous. Still, in light of the rarity of
these constructions in Jewish Dohok, it is highly unlikely that
the presentative particles in constructions combined with k-šaqəl
have been fully grammaticalised as continuous markers. Instead,
these particles probably perform a discourse function (drawing
attention to significant events happening in the here-and-now),
which happens to overlap with a grammatical function (marking
continuousness).

5. Conclusions
This paper has presented two folktales from the hitherto unstudied
NENA dialect of the Jews of Dohok accompanied by linguistic
glosses (for a part of text), translation and comments on a few
noteworthy constructions. These stories exemplify the rich and

37 For a discussion on the function of presentative copulas and particles and

their possible historical origin, see Cohen (2017).
 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok  139

long-standing genre of orally transmitted folktales, typical for

many of the NENA-speaking communities.
These stories were followed by a brief grammatical study of
a few aspects of verbal semantics, focusing primarily on features
attested in the texts themselves. I concentrated especially on forms
and functions that are noteworthy either from the point of view
of Jewish Dohok itself, or from the perspective of NENA more
broadly. I showed that the prototypically realis and predictive
la k-šaqəl can be used for deontic modality (imperative),
apparently to create a stronger imperative by presenting it as
predictive (‘near-realis’). I also showed that the prototypically
past irrealis šaqəl-wa can be used for the realis past. I suggested
that this is due to the incomplete grammaticalisation of the k-
indicative habitual prefix, which is likely to have originated as
a presentative-progressive marker in the present and is not yet
obligatory in the past. In addition, I studied the construction
copula+šqila (resultative participle), noting that it tends to be
used only with stative and possessive transitive verbs. In light
of this restriction, it should be analysed as a resultative and not
as a fully-developed perfect, in contrast to many other dialects.
Additionally, I showed that forms dedicated exclusively to the
marking of continuousness are used only marginally. Moreover,
one of them is apparently reserved for stative verbs. This is
apparently a conservative feature in Jewish Dohok; which
distinguishes this dialect even from the closely related dialects,
such as Jewish Amedia or Jewish Zakho.

References

Akatsuka, Noriko. 1985. ‘Conditionals and the Epistemic Scale’. Language 61

(3): 625–39.

Aloni, Oz. 2018. ‘Aspects of the Oral Heritage of the Neo-Aramaic-Speaking

Jewish Community of Zakho’. Ph.D. Thesis. Cambridge: University of
Cambridge.
140 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Bybee, Joan, Perkins Revere, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of
Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago,
London: University of Chicago Press.

Coghill, Eleanor. 2009. ‘Four Versions of a Neo-Aramaic Children’s Story’.

ARAM Periodical 21: 251–80.

———. 2014. ‘Differential Object Marking in Neo-Aramaic’. Linguistics 52 (2):

335–64.

Cohen, Eran. 2012. The Syntax of Neo-Aramaic: The Jewish Dialect of Zakho.
Gorgias Neo-Aramaic Studies. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.

———. 2017. ‘The Functions of Presentative Constructions in Jewish Zakho

Neo-Aramaic’. Journal of Jewish Languages 5 (1): 1–21.

Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. Berlin: De
Gruyter.

Hoberman, Robert D. 1989. The Syntax and Semantics of Verb Morphology in

Modern Aramaic: A Jewish Dialect of Iraqi Kurdistan. New Haven: American
Oriental Society.

Khan, Geoffrey. 2007. ‘Indicative Markers in North Eastern Neo-Aramaic’. In

XII Incontro Italiano di Linguistica Camito-Semitica, edited by Marco Moriggi,
85–98. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino.

———. 2008. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar. Leiden–Boston: Brill.

———. 2009. ‘The Syntax and Discourse Structure of Neo-Aramaic Narrative

Texts’. ARAM Periodical 21: 163–78.

———. 2010. ‘The Expression of Deontic Modality in North-Eastern Neo-

Aramaic Dialects’. In Verbal Festivity in Arabic and Other Semitic Languages.
Proceedings of the Workshop at the Unviersitätsclub Bonn on January 16, 2009,
edited by Lutz Edzard and Stephen Guth, 58–73. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

———. 2016. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of the Assyrian Christians of Urmi. Leiden:
Brill.

Mengozzi, Alessandro. 2007. ‘Middle Markers: Neo-Aramaic and Italian Verbal

Forms with a 3rd Singular Feminine Pronominal Object’. In XII Incontro
Italiano di Linguistica Camito-Semitica, edited by Marco Moriggi, 105–15.
Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino.
 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok  141

———. 2012. ‘The Contribution of Early Christian Vernacular Poetry from

Northern Iraq to Neo-Aramaic Dialectology: Preliminary Remarks on the
Verbal System’. ARAM Periodical 24: 25–40.

Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 2001. ‘Resultative Constructions in Syntactic Typology’.

In Language Typology and Language Universals, edited by Martin Haspelmath,
928–40. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Noorlander, Paul M. 2018. ‘Alignment in Eastern Neo-Aramaic Languages from

a Typological Perspective’. Ph.D. Thesis. Leiden: Leiden University.

Rubin, Aaron D. 2018. Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization (Harvard Semitic

Studies). Vol. 57. Leiden: Brill.

Sabar, Yona. 1982. The Folk Literature of the Kurdistani Jews: An Anthology. Yale
Judaica Series 23. New Haven: Yale University Press.

———. 2002. A Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dictionary. Dialects of Amidya, Dihok, Nerwa

and Zakho, Northwestern Iraq. Semitica Viva 28. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Shirai, Yasuhiro. 1998. ‘Where the Progressive and the Resultative Meet:
Imperfective Aspect in Japanese, Chinese, Korean and English’. Studies in
Language 22 (3): 661–92.
 VERBAL FORMS EXPRESSING
DISCOURSE DEPENDENCY IN
NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC

Geoffrey Khan

1. Introduction
In this paper I shall draw attention to the use of various verbal
forms in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) dialects to express
discourse dependency. By this I mean that certain verbal forms
in certain contexts signal that the predicate of the clause they
occur in continues in some way the preceding discourse. This
continuation is typically either temporal sequence or some kind
of elaboration. I shall propose explanations as to how the function
of the expression of discourse dependency developed historically
in the various verb forms in question. It will be shown that
although the forms are formally different, they exhibit parallels
in the historical processes of their semantic change. The data
are based mainly on my studies of the C. Barwar and C. Urmi
dialects, with occasional references to other dialects.1

2. The bət-qaṭəl Form

Dialects in the northern half of the NENA dialect area and
in the Mosul plain have a future construction that is derived

1 When referring to NENA dialects the abbreviation C. is used to denote a

dialect spoken by a Christian community (e.g. C. Barwar, C. Urmi) and the
abbreviation J. is used to refer to a dialect spoken by a Jewish community
(e.g. J. Dobe).

© Geoffrey Khan, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0209.04

144 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

historically from the deontic verb ‘to want’ and a subordinate

complement:2

(1) *bāʿē d-qāṭel

want.ipfv.3ms comp-kill.sbjv.3ms

‘He wants to kill.’

The deontic verb has undergone morphological reduction and

bonding through grammaticalisation. In the dialect of C. Barwar,
for example, the basic form of the construction in slow careful
speech is as follows:

(2) C. Barwar

bət-qaṭəl
fut-kill.sbjv.3ms

‘He will kill.’

The verb has been phonetically contracted and the

subordinating complementiser has been affixed to the deontic
form and devoiced. In some dialects there is no devoicing, e.g. C.
Qaraqosh bəd-qaṭəl.
The process of grammaticalisation has reduced person
distinctions in the deontic verb and the particle bət is used before
verbs of all persons:3

2 For discussions of the future form in NENA, see Fox (2015) and Noorlander
(2017).
3 This is cross-linguistically a common feature of future forms derived
historically from deontic verbs (Noorlander 2017, 191).
 Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in NENA  145

(3) C. Barwar

3ms. bət-qaṭəl
3fs. bət-qaṭla
3pl. bət-qaṭli
2ms. bət-qaṭlət
2fs bət-qaṭlət
2pl. bət-qaṭlitu
1ms. bət-qaṭlən
1fs. bət-qaṭlən
1pl. bət-qaṭləx

In normal fast speech, moreover, the particle undergoes further

phonetic reduction, resulting in the following allomorphs:

(4) C. Barwar

b-garəš ‘he will pull’

p-šate ‘he will drink’
p̂ ṱ-azəl ‘he will go’
ṱ-azəl ‘he will go’
t-yawənnax ‘I shall give you (fs)’
146 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

The construction can be shifted into the past to express a

future in the past by attaching the past-shifting affix -wa:

(5) C. Barwar

bət-qaṭəl-wa
fut-kill.sbjv.3ms-pst

‘He would kill.’

2.1. Functions of the bət-qaṭəl Form

In the C. Barwar dialect the following functions of the bət-qaṭəl
form can be identified (Khan 2008, 598–608). These functions
are the typical functions of the future construction also in other
NENA dialects. They can be classified broadly into functions that
involve the expression of future tense (§2.1.1.–§2.1.3.) and those
that involve the expression of discourse dependency (§2.1.4.). As
will be argued below, the discourse dependency function, which
is the main focus of this section, has developed from the future
function.

2.1.1. Deontic Future

This function retains the deontic meaning of the source
construction.4 In such cases, it conveys an element of will and
expresses various degrees of intention, obligation, request and
permission regarding a future action.
When the verb has an agentive 1st singular subject the bət-qaṭəl
form generally has a sense expressing deontic intention, e.g.

4 Cf. Noorlander (2017, 191–92).

 Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in NENA  147

(6) b-ṣàlyən| b-tápqən bìye.|

fut-descend.sbjv.1ms fut-meet.sbjv.1ms on.him

‘I shall go down and shall meet him.’ (A4:21)5

When the verb has an agentive 1st plural subject, the form
often has a cohortative sense (‘Let’s …’), e.g.

(7) bas-ṱ-ázexi ṭalbə́x-la m-báb-a dìya.|

but-fut-go.sbjv.1pl ask.sbjv.1pl-3fs from-father-her of.her

‘But let us go and ask her father for her hand.’ (A29:38)

The form may express deontic obligation. In such cases the

verb generally has an agentive 2nd person subject, e.g.

(8) ṱ-azítu qam-do-gə̀ppa| … b-qarìtu:|

fut-go.sbjv.2pl before-that-cave fut-call.sbjv.2pl

ʾó Bə́lbəl Hazàr!|
oh Bəlbəl Hazar

‘You should go to the cave … You should cry “Oh

Bəlbəl Hazar.”’ (A8:28)

5 References are to texts in vol. 3 of Khan (2008). In the cited examples

the sign | marks the end of an intonation group. An acute accent (e.g.
á) indicates non-nuclear word-stress. A grave accent (e.g. à) marks the
nuclear stress of the intonation group.
148 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Occasionally the form expresses deontic obligation also in

other persons, e.g.

(9) ṱ-ázəl ṭalə́b-la m-be-bába dìya.|

fut-go.3ms ask.3ms-3fs from-house-father.her of.her

‘He should go and ask her father’s family for her hand.’
(A29:39)

2.1.2. Predictive Future

In many cases the construction does not have clear deontic
force, but rather expresses a prediction of an eventuality that
will happen in the future. This can be regarded as resulting from
the grammaticalisation of the deontic construction, parallels to
which are found in many languages. The core of this process
involves a semantic extension whereby an implicature of the
original deontic construction, in particular one with a 3rd person
subject, is incorporated into the meaning, e.g. he wants to go to
town implies that it is likely that he will go (Bybee 2010, 55).
The predictive future function of the bət-qaṭəl construction is
generally found where the subject of the verb is 3rd person or
where it is a non-agentive 1st or 2nd person, e.g.

(10) b-nayǝ̀s-li| ṱ-axǝ̀l-li.|

fut-bite.sbjv.3ms-1ms fut-eat.sbjv.3ms-1ms

‘He will bite me. He will eat me.’ (A1:17)

(11) ʾáni b-nɛsí-le b-màyəθ|

they fut-bite.sbjv.3pl-3ms fut-die.sbjv.3ms

‘They will bite him and he will die’ (A10:1)

 Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in NENA  149

2.1.3. Conditional Constructions

The bət-qaṭəl form is used in the apodosis of conditional
sentences. In the majority of cases it expresses an eventuality
that is temporally sequential to a hypothetical situation in the
future, e.g.

(12) ʾən-kpìn-ni,| ṱ-axlə̀n-ne.|

if-hunger.pfv-1s fut-eat.sbjv.1ms-3ms

‘If I am hungry, I shall eat it.’ (A23:5)

(13) ʾən-ʾamrə́n-nux ʾáp-ʾati b-šànət.|

if-say.sbjv.1ms-2ms also-you fut-faint.sbjv.2ms

‘If I tell you, you will faint.’ (A11:2)

In some cases it expresses a future eventuality that follows

logically from a given, real situation in the present denoted by
the protasis clause, e.g.

(14) ʾən-íle xwarzàyi,| ṱ-áθe

if-cop.3ms nephew.my fut-come.sbjv.3ms

t-yăðé-la ʾánna mòdi=la.|

fut-know.sbjv.3ms-3pl these what=cop.3pl

‘If he is my nephew, he will come and he will know

what these are.’ (A25:49)

One of the most common uses of the ‘future in the past’ form
bət-qaṭəlwa is in the apodosis of conditional sentences. Such
sentences may refer to a hypothetical condition in the past that
was not fulfilled, e.g.
150 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(15) ʾən-mbaqrə̀t-wa,| t-yawə́n-wa-lux zùze,|

if-ask.ipfv.2ms.-pst fut-give.sbjv.1ms-pst-2ms money

bás là mbuqə́r-rux.|

but neg ask.pfv-2ms

‘If you had asked, I would have given you money, but
you did not ask.’

In some cases the construction may denote a hypothetical

condition in the present or future that the speaker assesses to be
impossible to fulfil, e.g.

(16) ʾən-maṣə̀n-wa,| ṱ-aθə̀n-wa,|

if-be.able.sbjv.1ms-pst fut-come.sbjv.1ms-pst

bás lè-y-maṣən.|
but neg-hab-be.able.ipfv.1ms

‘If I could, I would come, but I cannot.’

2.1.4. Discourse Dependency

In conditional constructions such as those described in §2.1.3., the
apodoses with the bət-qaṭəl and bət-qaṭəlwa forms are dependent
syntactically on the preceding protasis. The forms are sometimes
used outside of conditional constructions in clauses that are more
loosely dependent on the preceding discourse. Various types
of discourse dependency are attested. In some cases the forms
express events that are temporally sequential to what precedes:

(17) čɛrxì-wa-la máθa| xáṣə dawɛ̀re.|…

take.round.ipfv.3pl-pst-3fs village back.of mules
 Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in NENA  151

ʾay-ṱ-aθyà-wa,| ṱ-orà-wa,|
she-fut-come.sbjv.3fs-pst fut-enter.sbjv.3fs-pst

ʾu-ṱ-oðá-wa ṣlìwa,| mə̀šxa,|

and-fut-make.sbjv.3fs-pst cross oil

gu-tắrət qàṣra.|
in-door.of house

‘They would take her (the bride) round the village on

the back of mules. … (Then) she would come back,
enter (the house) … and make (the sign of) the cross
in oil on the door of the house.’ (B10:34–35)

(18) báθər ʾéða gòṛa| … ʾìθena| ʾéðət sulàqa.|

after festival big there.is festival.of ascension

xàrθa| ṱ-áθe xá-ʾeða xréna zòra,|

afterwards fut-come.sbjv.3ms one-festival other small

y-amrí-le ʾéðət musàrde.|

hab-say.ipfv.3pl-3ms festival.of musarde

‘After the Great Festival … the festival of Ascension

takes place. … Afterwards comes a small festival,
which is called musarde.’ (B6:5–8)

(19) la-θéle rēš-ṣàwma?| b-šaqlə́x-wa kúlla

neg-come.pfv.3ms head.of-fast? fut-take.sbjv.1pl-pst all

ʾamànən,| kùlla b-šaqlə́x-wa-la| dɛ́rəx-wa

vessels.our all fut-take.sbjv.1pl-pst-3pl put.sbjv.1pl-pst

qə́ṭma mxallə̀x-wa-la.|
ash wash.sbjv.1pl-pst-3pl

‘When the beginning of the (Lent) fast came, we would

take all our vessels, we would take them all to put
ash on them to clean them.’ (B16:7)
152 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

In some cases the bət-qaṭəl and bət-qaṭəl forms do not express

temporal sequentiality but only some kind of relevance to a
preceding clause, typically elaboration:

(20) báwθə Ninwàye| ʾáp-ʾay ʾìtwa.|

petition.of Ninevites also-it.3fs there.was

ṣɛmì-la.| ṱ-ámri díge=u kθàye|

fast.ipfv.3pl-3pl fut-say.sbjv.3pl cocks=and chickens

ʾáp ʾan-zóre xtàye.|

also those-small lower

‘The Rogation of the Ninevites was also observed (in our

community). They would fast during it. They would
say “The cocks and the chickens, and also the small
lowly creatures (should observe the fast).”’ (B16:15)

(21) qam-ṣàwma| ʾíθ xošébə bnàθa.|

before-fast there.is Sunday.of girls

bnáθa kúlla p̂ ṱ-azí-wa bɛ̀θa,|

girls all fut-go.sbjv.3pl-pst home

b-šaqlí-wa ʾixála mən-dáwwa dáwwa

fut-take.sbjv.3pl-pst food from-this.obl this.obl

dàwwa,| ṱ-azí-wa gu-xa-ṭùra,|

this.obl fut-go.sbjv.3pl-pst in-a-mountain

ṱ-atwì-wa,| ṱ-axlì-wa,| b-šatì-wa.|

fut-come.sbjv.3pl-pst fut-eat.sbjv.3pl-pst fut-drink.sbjv-pst

‘Before the fast (of Lent) was Girls’ Sunday. All the
girls went home, took food from here and from there,
then went to the mountains, they sat, ate and drank.’
(B16:18)
 Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in NENA  153

In (20) the clause introduced by the bət-qaṭəl form ṱ-ámri

constitutes an elaboration of the preceding statement that people
would hold a fast, which could be paraphrased ‘with regard to
this fasting they say ….’.
In (21) the clause containing the first bət-qaṭəlwa verb,
p̂ t-̭azíwa, opens a section of discourse that elaborates on the
preceding general statement that the festival of Girls’ Sunday took
place. The dependency expressed by the verbal forms bind them
semantically to what precedes signalling that the descriptions of
the specific events in the clauses are intended to be understood
as components of the festival.
When the bət-qaṭəl and bət-qaṭəlwa forms have this discourse
dependency function, they generally express habitual events,
as is the case in the examples above. The construction is
sporadically used in narratives where they refer to specific
events that are dependent on, and typically sequential to, what
precedes, e.g.

(22) ʾə́rbe máxe l-ġðàðe,| ṱ-ázi

sheep strike.sbjv.3ms to-each.other fut-go.sbjv.3pl

xa-fàtra| ʾal-salíqə zòrna.| máxe zórna

a-while on-tune.of pipe strike.sbjv.3ms pipe

xa-salíqa xèna,| ʾə́rbe b-dɛ̀ri,| b-ganèy.|

one-tune other sheep fut-return.sbjv.3pl by-themselves

‘He gathered the sheep together and they went off for
a while according to the tune of the pipe. He played
another tune on the pipe and the sheep returned by
themselves.’ (A25:27)

(23) b-lɛ́le qímla šárya bănúda dìya,|

at-night rise.pfv.3fs untie.sbjv.3fs bands.her of.her
154 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

ṱ-àza,| pθíxla tắra qðìla.|

fut-go.sbjv.3fs open.pfv.3fs door key

‘At night she got up, untied her bands, then went and
opened the door with a key.’ (A18:3)

2.2. Analysis
2.2.1. From Apodosis to Discourse Dependent
When used in the first three functions described above, viz. deontic
future, predictive future and apodosis of conditionals (§2.1.1–
2.1.3.), the bət-qaṭəl(wa) form expresses future tense. There is
a crucial difference, however, between the deontic future and
predictive future, on the one hand, and conditional constructions,
on the other, with regard to the reference point of the future
tense. Following the temporal analysis proposed by Reichenbach
(1947), we should be careful to distinguish event time (E), speech
time (S) and the temporal reference time (R). The original system
of Reichenbach has undergone various modifications in more
recent research, but the ‘neo-Reichenbachian’ approaches still
distinguish these three components of analysis. The reference
time (R), sometimes referred to as the ‘evaluation time’ (Hatav
2012), is the contextual temporal anchor to which the future
verb form relates. One may say that the future form is temporally
‘bound’ to this anchor (Hatav 2012). In the case of the deontic
future and predictive future functions, the reference time
overlaps with speech time, i.e. the contextual temporal anchor is
the speech situation. For the bət-qaṭəl(wa) form in the apodosis
of conditional constructions, however, the reference time is that
of the eventuality expressed in the protasis clause. In such cases
the bət-qaṭəl(wa) form expresses an eventuality that is posterior
to this reference time but this reference time does not necessarily
overlap with speech time.
 Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in NENA  155

According to the original Reichenbachian system of

representation, the analysis of these functions of the bət-qaṭəl(wa)
form would be as follows (where a comma indicates temporal
overlap and a dash — indicates temporal separation):

bət-qaṭəl
Deontic future: R,S—E
The event time is posterior to the reference time and the
reference time overlaps with speech time.

Predictive future: R,S—E

The event time is posterior to the reference time and the
reference time overlaps with speech time.

Apodosis: S—R—E or S,R—E

The reference time is that of the eventuality of the protasis
and this may be posterior to speech time, e.g. (12—13)
above, or overlap with it, e.g. (14) above. The event time
is posterior to the reference time.

bət-qaṭəlwa
Apodosis: R—E—S or R,S—E
These two analyses correspond to (15) and (16)
respectively. In both cases the reference time is that of
the eventuality of the protasis and the event is posterior
to this. The speech time varies according to whether the
construction expresses a hypothetical condition in the
past or in the present.

According to some Neo-Reichenbach approaches (e.g. Johnson

1981; Dinsmore 1982; Verkuyl 2012), rather than consisting of
a single triple system, the analysis should consist of two pairs
of components, namely S and R, on the one hand, and E and
R, on the one hand. The relationship between S and R would
156 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

correspond to tense, whereas the relationship between E and R

would be one of posteriority or anteriority independent of tense.
The analyses, therefore, would be:

Table 1: Analysis of bət-qaṭəl and bət-qaṭəl-wa

bət-qaṭəl bət-qaṭəlwa

Deontic future: R—E R,S

Predictive future: R—E R,S
Apodosis: R—E R—S Apodosis: R—E R—S
R—E R,S R—E R,S

As can be seen, according to this temporal analysis all of these

three future constructions share the common feature of R—E,
i.e. the event time is posterior to the reference time.6 What this
Reichenbachian temporal analysis does not show, however, is
that the reference time in the three constructions has different
locations. In the deontic and predictive future constructions the
reference time is internal, i.e. it coincides with the utterance
of the clause. The reference time of the verb of the apodosis,
however, is external to the clause and is located in the preceding
protasis clause. This distinction is referred to by Hatav (2012) as
local versus long distance semantic binding of tenses.
As for the aspect of the bət-qaṭəl(wa) form, in the examples
cited above for its functions of deontic future, predictive
future and apodosis of a condition the verb denotes a specific
temporally bounded event and so is perfective. The form in these
constructions may also denote iterative events (Khan 2008, 599,
606), e.g.

6 
In some NENA dialects the bət-qaṭəl form is used in performative
expressions, e.g. Qaraqosh (Khan 2002, 315): ʾána bəd-qárən šə́mmux
Tòmaˈ ‘I (hereby) call your name Toma’. This can be analysed as a deontic
expression with reference time overlapping with event time: R,E.
 Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in NENA  157

(24) kút-yom ṱ-áθi làxxa.|

every-day fut-come.sbjv.3pl here

‘They will come here every day.’

(25) ʾən-maṣə́n-wa t-yawə́n-wa-lux zúze

if-be.able.sbjv.1ms-pst comp-give.sbjv.1ms-pst-2ms money

kùt-yum,| t-yawə̀n-wa-lux,| bás

every-day fut-give.sbjv.1ms-pst-2ms but

le-y-maṣə̀n-wa.|
neg-ind-be.able.1ms-pst

‘If I had been able, I would have given you money

every day, but I could not.’

It is important to distinguish iterativity from habituality (Dahl

1985, 97; Bertinetto and Lenci 2012). Verbs expressing iterativity
assert the occurrence of the event on multiple occasions, typically
specified by an adverbial (‘He visited us three times’, ‘He visited
us every day’). Such predicates are perfective and express
repeated temporally bounded events, i.e. events that are viewed
as a whole typically from a reference time that is external to it
(G. Carlson 2012, 835). Verbs expressing habituality present an
event as a characterizing property of an individual, which occurs
on the majority of occasions during a particular time interval (He
usually visits us every week). Unlike iterative predications, habitual
predications are not completely ‘lawlike’ (Dahl 1985, 97) and are
contingent on circumstances (He usually visits us every week, but he
did not come last week because he was ill). A habitual predicate is
imperfective in aspect since it includes the reference time within
it and is viewed from within (G. Carlson 2012, 835).
The bət-qaṭəl and bət-qaṭəlwa forms in deontic future, predictive
future and apodosis constructions may express iterative predicates
but not habitual predicates.
158 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

When expressing the deontic future, predictive future or the

apodosis of a conditional the bət-qaṭəl and bət-qaṭəlwa forms
are modal. Their modality is either root modality or epistemic
modality. Root modality qualifies the subject of the clause
indicating that some factor is inherent in the subject (e.g.
ability, volition) or is operative upon the subject (e.g. obligation,
circumstances) that influences the occurrence of the event.
Epistemic modality involves the speaker’s assessment of the truth
value of the propositional content of the sentence as possible,
probable or certain. The various types of modality inherent in the
three aforementioned functions can be identified follows:

Table 2: Root and Epistemic Modality

Root modality

volition of (deontic future) ṱ-azən ‘I will go’

subject
obligation on (deontic future) ṱ-azət ‘you will go’
subject
circumstantial (conditional ʾən ʾaθət, ṱ-azəl ‘if you come,
circumstances operative he will go’ (conditioned by
upon subject) circumstances)

Epistemic predictive future ṱ-azəl ‘he will go’

modality

Turning now to the discourse dependency function of bət-

qaṭəl(wa), this has a close family relationship to the apodosis
function in conditional constructions. Indeed, I shall argue that
it developed historically by a process of extension of conditional
constructions. The bət-qaṭəl(wa) form in discourse dependency
constructions exhibits long distance semantic binding, as is the
case with the verbs in apodoses. The reference point precedes
the event in the discourse, but, unlike in apodoses, this is not a
temporal relationship. Rather the bət-qaṭəl(wa) verb is bound to
a topical reference point that has been invoked by the preceding
discourse. It depends on this and continues it in some way.
 Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in NENA  159

This phenomenon can be represented in the dependency

framework of mental spaces proposed by Fauconnier (1994)
and Dinsmore (1991). According to this model, knowledge can
be represented in a network of mental spaces. These spaces are
constructed by the listener, interpreting grammatical or lexical
cues. Spaces contain information belonging to distinct times,
locations or realities. ‘Space builders’ are cues that construct
new mental spaces. Dependent verbs such as the bət-qaṭəl(wa)
form express events that belong to a current, already constructed
mental space.
The differences from the conditional construction, therefore,
involve (i) the change of the temporal reference point to a topical
reference point and (ii) the dependency on preceding discourse
rather than on a preceding syntactically subordinate clause. This
can be explained using a model of linguistic change through
schematisation of constructions (e.g. Fillmore, Kay and O’Connor
1988; Goldberg 1995; 2006; Langacker 1987; Bybee 2010). This
involves extensions of components of constructions by a process of
substitutions of items with a family resemblance, thereby making
the slots of the components more schematic, i.e. abstract. Another
feature of the extension of constructions is their incorporation
of pragmatic associations and implicatures into their meaning
(Bybee 2010, 48). An example of this process of extension of
constructions that is often cited (e.g. Bybee 2015, 124; 2010,
55) is the development of future constructions consisting of
movement verbs, e.g. English he is going to eat. This originated
as a construction that expressed real physical movement of an
animate agentive subject, but it became schematised as subject
+ be + going to + verb, whereby any subject or verb could fill
the subject or infinitive slots. Moreover, when used in the third
person, although it originally expressed an intention, it implied
that the predicate would be carried out. This implicature became
conventionalised in the construction and so its meaning was
extended to include prediction, e.g. The branch is going to fall.
The temporal reference point of the bət-qaṭəl(wa) apodosis
that was in the preceding clause was schematised to being a
more abstract cognitive reference point, referring to the general
160 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

situation rather than specifically to a point in time. The bət-

qaṭəl(wa) predication, therefore, is cognitively but not temporally
bound to this preceding point. It is linked to it through discourse
coherence analogous to a topic—comment relationship, or, to use
Fauconnier’s model, it is a continuation of the mental space of the
preceding discourse. This does not mean that the topical situation
itself may not have a reference time, but rather the bət-qaṭəl(wa)
form no longer expresses temporal posteriority to this reference
time but rather communicative posteriority to the more abstract
topical situation, i.e. topical reference point—comment. One of
the consequences of this is that the bət-qaṭəl(wa) may express
discourse dependency on a non-propositional topic constituent
without a temporal reference time, as is the case in (28) below.
The process of extending the location of the reference point
of the bət-qaṭəl(wa) form from specifically the subordinate
protasis clause to a broader component of preceding discourse
that establishes a topic can also be identified as schematisation.
This may have been facilitated by the fact that protasis clauses
can in some contexts be used pragmatically as strategies for
introducing a topical frame for what follows (Khan 2008, 1005).
This pragmatic usage would then have been conventionalised
(see Bybee 2010, 48 and the discussion above), e.g.

(26) fa-ʾən-maṭiní-wa-le ʾíθwa xàwla.|

and-if-load.ipfv.3pl-pst-3ms there.was rope

‘If they loaded it (the mule), there was a rope (= As for

when they loaded it ...).’ (B5:128)

The preceding topic-establishing discourse may be

propositional, as in (17, 19–23), or it may be a non-propositional
constituent such as an adverbial, as in (18) (repeated here as
(27)), or a noun phrase (28—the example is from the C. Mawana
dialect):
 Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in NENA  161

(27) xàrθa| ṱ-áθe xá-ʾeða xréna zòra.|

afterwards fut-come.sbjv.3ms one-festival other small

‘Afterwards, comes a small festival.’ (B6:5–8)

(28) C. Mawana (fieldnotes)

ɟózə barǜzə,ˈ hădə́ ʾāt́ b-+răp̂ ət́ -wa-lə

walnuts dry now you fut-throw.sbjv.2ms-pst-3ms

ɟózux ʾàtxa.ˈ
walnut.your thus

‘As for (the game) dry walnuts, you would throw your
walnut like this.’

Conditional clauses and topics are coded identically in a

number of unrelated languages. This reflects the fact that their
semantic analysis is very similar (Haiman 1978; Ebert, Ebert, and
Hinterwimmer 2014). This would have facilitated the proposed
development of the bət-qaṭəl.

2.2.2. Sequentiality and Habituality

It was noted above that when the bət-qaṭəl(wa) form expresses
discourse dependency, the eventuality it presents is sometimes
temporally sequential to what precedes but other times is
an elaboration without temporal sequentiality. This can be
understood as arising from the fact that its reference point in
the preceding discourse is not temporal but rather topical. The
fact that it is often used to express temporally sequential events
is, therefore, an epiphenomenon arising from the fact that
events expressed in successive clauses are typically temporally
sequential. The construction, however, does not express temporal
sequentiality directly.
162 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

When the bət-qaṭəl(wa) form is used to express discourse

dependency, it most frequently expresses the imperfective aspect
of habituality. It is very commonly used in expository discourse
describing customs. As we have seen, the bət-qaṭəl(wa) form
does not express habituality in its other functions of future and
apodosis constructions. Why does the discourse dependent bət-
qaṭəl(wa) form most commonly have habitual meaning?
Since the discourse dependent bət-qaṭəl(wa) does not have a
future meaning, we must assume that it has acquired a reference
time that coincides with the eventuality that it denotes. The
development can be represented as follows, where T = Topic:

Table 3: Sequentiality and Discourse Dependency of bət-qaṭəl(wa)

Apodosis Discourse Dependency

R—E T—R,E

A chain of bət-qaṭəl(wa) forms that comment on a topical

situation would share the same topical reference point. This can
be represented thus:
T1—R1,E1, + T1—R2,E2 + T1—R3,E3 + T1—R4,E4
This can be regarded as the resumption of the topic by a
form of anaphora, analogously to the way topical referents are
resumed by anaphoric pronouns.
These anaphoric topics are variables that are bound by and
dependent on the antecedent topic, just as anaphoric pronouns
are variables bound by an antecedent topic. This anaphoric
binding of the topic can be regarded as a type of modality, so the
construction is modal, just as a bət-qaṭəl(wa) form in an apodosis
is modal. Indeed according to some approaches, the binding of
anaphoric pronouns to antecedents is also a type of modality
(Roberts 1987; 1989).
It is noteworthy that the bət-qaṭəl form in C. Barwar is not used
in generic predicates such as (29).
 Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in NENA  163

(29) tálga xwàra y-áwe.ˈ

snow white hab.be.3ms

‘Snow is white.’

This is because such generic predicates are typically

independent of discourse context and do not comment on a
preceding topical situation.7
The normal habitual meaning of the discourse dependent bət-
qaṭəl form most likely arises from a retention of the contingent
semantics of a conditional apodosis. As remarked, habitual
predications are not completely ‘lawlike’ (Dahl 1985, 97) and are
contingent on circumstances.
As we have seen, the bət-qaṭəl(wa) form is attested occasionally
in narratives (22–23). Following the analysis that has just been
proposed, we may say that they have the communicative function
of expressing a comment on a previously mentioned situation,
which has been set up as a topic. This analysis is appropriate for
(22) (repeated below as (30)), since it consists of two situations
that are set up in contrastive opposition. Contrastive oppositions
are typically expressed by contrasting topics. The topical
situations can be glossed by ‘when’–clauses:

(30) ʾə́rbe máxe l-ġðàðe,| ṱ-ázi

sheep strike.sbjv.3ms to-each.other fut-go.sbjv.3pl

7 There are interesting parallels here with English habitual constructions

containing the auxiliary would. It has been observed that such habituals
have a similar dependency on situations or ‘mental spaces’ established
in the context, e.g. Carlson and Spejewski (1997) and Boneh and Doron
(2013), who refer to this as ‘modal subordination’. A habitual sentence
used to, on the other hand, has no such dependency, e.g. My grandmother
used to make delicious apple pies. She would go to the orchard to pick the
apples herself (adapted from Carlson and Spejewski 1997, 102). These
authors do not discuss the history of the construction.
164 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

xa-fàtra| ʾal-salíqə zòrna.| máxe zórna

a-while on-tune.of pipe strike.sbjv.3ms pipe

xa-salíqa xèna,| ʾə́rbe b-dɛ̀ri,| b-ganèy.|

one-tune other sheep fut-return.sbjv.3pl by-themselves

‘(When) he had gathered the sheep together, they went

off for a while according to the tune of the pipe. (When,
on the other hand,) he had played another tune on the
pipe, the sheep returned by themselves.’ (A25:27)

Example (23) (repeated below as (31)) can be given a similar

analysis of topical situation—comment, with the topical situation
glossed by a ‘when’–clause:

(31) b-lɛ́le qímla šárya bănúda dìya,|

at-night rise.pfv.3fs untie.sbjv.3fs bands.her of.her

ṱ-àza,| pθíxla tắra qðìla.|

fut-go.sbjv.3fs open.pfv.3fs door key

‘(When) at night she had got up and untied her bands,

she went and opened the door with a key.’ (A18:3)

These constructions in narrative contain what can be termed

an ‘episodic topic’ with the status of an adverbial expression that
sets the spatio-temporal frame for what follows. They appear to
be used to mark boundaries in the discourse. In (30), as remarked,
the two episodic topics set up two episodes in contrastive
opposition. In (31) the episodic topic marks the onset of a new
section of narrative.
In some NENA dialects the discourse dependent form with the
original future particle bət/bəd has developed further and can
be used as an actual present without first presenting a situation
as its topic. This was the case in the now extinct Jewish dialect
 Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in NENA  165

of Dobe (on the north bank of the Zab river). In this dialect, for
example, the form bd-ez (fut-go.sbjv.3ms) can be used as

(i) a deontic or predictive future: ‘he will go’

(ii) a habitual dependent on a specified situation, such as

an adverbial in (32):

(32) kud bqatta bd-ez ʾəl-ʾăra

every morning fut-go.sbjv.3ms to-land

‘Every morning he goes to the (cultivated) land.’

(iii) actual present: bd-ez ‘he is going (now before our

eyes)’.8

This extension of the construction to the actual present can

be explained as having arisen by a process similar to Greenberg’s
(1978) ‘cycle of definiteness’, whereby anaphoric pronouns
develop into non-anaphoric definite articles. The anaphoric
topical component of the dependent bət-qaṭəl construction has
come to be used where the speaker assumes the hearer can
identify the situation that is being referred to without explicitly
presenting an antecedent topical situation in the preceding
discourse. It appears that the speaker assumes that the hearer can
identify the speech situation as the situation that is being talked
about, i.e. it expresses situational immediacy.

8 The data on the Dobe dialect were gathered in field work in 1999 in the
Moshav Menuḥa, Israel. The usage of the bd- particle was identified in
recorded texts and elicited sentences.
166 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

3. Past Forms with the Prefix qam-

3.1. Attested Constructions
In many NENA dialects, a perfective past tense is expressed by
combining the prefixed particle qam-, or variant forms of this,
with the subjunctive verb form qaṭəl. The variant forms of the
prefix attested across the dialects arise from a range of phonetic
reductions, e.g. qəm (C. Barwar, etc.: vowel centralisation),
kəm (C. Qaraqosh, etc.: vowel centralisation and fronting of the
uvular), qa (C. Koy Sanjak: elision), tam, ta (C. Sulemaniyya
and C. Sanandaj: fronting of the uvular and elision). In the
documented dialects this construction is restricted to verbs with
pronominal suffixes expressing the direct or indirect object. It is
used predominantly to express past perfective events in narrative
(33–34) or the occurrence of a punctual event in the recent past
in conversational discourse (35). In the examples the particle is
given the gloss qam:

C. Barwar (Khan 2008, 609–11)

(33) qəm-mparqí-li m-gu-ʾiθàθux.|
qam-save.sbjv.3pl-1s from-in-your.hands

‘They saved me from your hands.’ (B17:15)

(34) qəm-hawí-la xáčča ʾixàla|

qam-give.sbjv.3pl-3pl some food

‘They gave them some food.’ (A8:12)

(35) ʾáti qəm-xalṣàt-li| mən-dáwwa mòθa.|

your qam-save.sbjv.3fs-1s from-this death

‘You have saved me from death.’ (A14:35)

 Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in NENA  167

Various hypotheses have been proposed for the historical

origin of this verbal construction.9 Pennacchietti (1997) argued
that it developed from a construction consisting of the verb qayəm
‘he gets up’ followed by the subjunctive, e.g. qayəm qaṭəl-le. He
found support for this in the grammar of Rhétoré (1912, 225–
26), who states that such a construction could be used in the
sense of ‘aussitôt il le tua’ (‘he immediately killed him’), i.e. the
event happened immediately after the event mentioned before it.
Rhétoré, who unfortunately does not specify in which dialect(s)
he found this construction, states that its original meaning was
‘se levant, il le tue’ (‘getting up, he kills him’), i.e. a sequence of
events in the present.10 Pennacchietti, however, proposes that it
originated as a construction expressing the immediate future ‘he
will immediately kill him’, comparing constructions such as qemən
ʾazən ‘I shall immediately go’, which are found in various NENA
dialects. He draws attention to the fact that several languages use
a construction that originated as the expression of the immediate
future to narrate a sequence of events in the past, e.g. Catalan11
(36) and late medieval French (14th-16th century) (37):

(36) Catalan
vaig cantar
I.go to.sing

‘I sang’

9 See Fassberg (2015) who surveys the various proposals.

10 Eleanor Coghill in an unpublished paper given at the 23rd International
Conference on Historical Linguistics, San Antonio, Texas, 2017, argued in
favour of this view.
11 For further discussion of the Catalan construction see, for example, Jacobs
(2011).
168 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(37) Late medieval French

et comme elle faisoit ce partage,
and when she was.making this division

son mari va revenir à l’ostel

her husband goes to return at the.hostel

‘While she was making this division, her husband

returned home.’

The second verb in the original construction qayəm qaṭəl-le

would, therefore, have been a subjunctive in a purpose clause ‘he
gets up in order to kill him’ rather than an indicative present, as
suggested by Rhétoré’s translation ‘se levant, il le tue’.
Here I would like to present some additional data that
strengthen Pennacchietti’s hypothesis.
In some NENA dialects a subordinating particle regularly
occurs before initial /ʾ/ verbs after the qam in the qam-qaṭəlle
construction, e.g.

(38) C. Meze (field notes):

qam-d-axəl-le
qam-comp-eat.sbjv.3ms-3ms

‘He ate it’

This reflects the fact that the verb after the qam was originally a
subordinate subjunctive. Some isolated cases of the subordinating
particle are found before initial /ʾ/ verbs in C. Barwar, (Khan
2008, 609), e.g.
 Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in NENA  169

(39) C. Barwar
qəm-ṱ-amǝ́r-ra
qam-comp-say.sbjv.3ms-3fs

‘He said to her.’ (A4:4)

The crucial missing link in the evidence, however, is provided

by the dialects from the north-western sector of NENA. In some
dialects in this region, such as the dialects in the area of the Cudi
mountain and Billin, the initial inflected verb in immediate future
constructions such as qemən ʾazən has become grammaticalised
to qam without person inflection. Most of my data come from the
Harbole dialect (Cudi), e.g.
Harbole (field notes)12

(40) qam-ʾàzən.ˈ
qam-go.sbjv.1ms

‘I am about to go/I am going to go right now.’

This immediate future construction can be used with both

intransitive and transitives verbs. An example with a transitive
verb is (41):

(41) qam-ʾaxlə̀n-ne.ˈ
qam-eat.sbjv.1ms-3ms

‘I am about to eat it/I am going to eat it immediately.’

12 Most of the material from the Harbole dialect that I present below was
gathered from consultations with Professor Efrem Yildiz (University of
Salamanca), who is a native speaker of the dialect. I would like to express
here my gratitude to him for his help.
170 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

The future construction may be given a past reference time

(‘was about to’) by adding the past shifting suffix -wa, e.g.

(42) qam-ʾaxlə̀n-wa.ˈ
qam-eat.sbjv.1ms-pst

‘I was about to eat.’

This can be used in initial position in a discourse such as the

following:

(43) qam-ʾaxlə́n-wa ʾixàla,ˈ bás là bréla

qam-eat.sbjv.1ms-pst food but neg be.possible.pfv-3fs

mə́nni.ˈ
from.me

‘I was about to eat food but I have not been able to.’

The construction is also used in narrative discourse in the

Harbole dialect to express an event that occurred immediately
after the event mentioned in the preceding clause. According to
speakers, an event expressed by the construction in this context
is typically unexpected and surprising, i.e. it has a mirative
function. The immediate future form is used with or without the
past shifting -wa suffix, i.e. qam-ʾaxlən or qam-ʾaxlənwa, e.g.

(44) plə̀ṭli,ˈ ʾu-qam-xazə́n-na bàxti.ˈ

go.out.pfv.1s and-qam-see.sbjv.1ms-3fs my.wife

‘I went out and I (suddenly, unexpectedly) saw my wife’

 Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in NENA  171

(45) ʾána bitáya làxxa,ˈ qam-xazə́n-wa

I come.prog. here qam-see.sbjv.1ms-pst

xa ʾárya b-ùrxa.ˈ
one lion on-road

‘When I was coming here, I saw (unexpectedly) a lion

on the road.’

As can seen in (45), the lexical verb of the construction does

not have to have a pronominal object suffix, as is the case in most
other NENA dialects. Indeed the verb can be intransitive, e.g.

(46) ʾána ʾu-xáwri plə̀ṭlanˈ

I and-my.friend go.out.pfv.1pl

ʾu-qam-màyət xáwri.ˈ
and-qam-die.sbjv.3ms my.friend

‘I and a friend went out and (suddenly unexpectedly)

my friend died.’

(47) m-bátər plə́ṭlan ʾána ʾu-xàwri,ˈ

from-after go.out.pfv.1pl I and-my.friend

qam-nápəl go-šaqìta.ˈ
qam-fall.sbjv.3ms in-canal

‘After I and my friend went out, he (suddenly

unexpectedly) fell into the canal.’

A further variant of the construction is the substitution of the

qaṭəl form by the qṭəlle form after the qam in past narratives, e.g.
172 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(48) ʾána ʾu-xáwri plə̀ṭlanˈ ʾu-qam-mə̀tle

I and-my.friend go.out.pfv.1pl and.qam-die.pfv.3ms

xáwri.ˈ
my.friend

‘I and a friend went out and my friend died.’

Speakers judge constructions such as qam-mətle in (48) to

express an unexpected and surprising event, but to be in the less
immediate past than qam-mayət (46).

3.2. Analysis
In this section I should like to propose an explanation as to how
the immediate future constructions with qam came to be used to
express past events in narrative.
An example such as (44) above is likely to have originated
in a juxtaposition of the immediate future construction with the
previously mentioned situation, which meant ‘I went out and I
was about to see my wife’. The reference time of the immediate
future, therefore, coincided with the reference time of the first
event. This can be represented as follows, with the index on R
indicating the coincidence of reference time:

R1,E I went outside

R1–E I was about to see my wife

This was a strategy for expressing the immediate succession

of the events. The preparatory onset phase of the second event
overlaps with the first event. The events are connected together
cognitively in the same mental space. It was also a strategy for
giving prominence to the second event by anticipating it before
it had occurred in the narration of events.
 Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in NENA  173

An immediate future construction such as qam-ʾazən ‘I am

about to go’ would have been a deontic future, but as with other
future constructions, when used with a third person, i.e. qam-
ʾazəl ‘he is about to go’, there is an implicature that the event
will happen, and so the construction comes to function also as
a predictive future, presenting the event as a certainty. When
combined with a past event, as in (44), the certainty of the future
occurrence shifts to the assertion of the occurrence of the event
in close succession to the preceding event. This comes about by
the qam-construction acquiring a reference time that coincides
with its event:

R1,E1 I went out

R1—R2,E2 I saw my wife (R2) after going out (R1)

The original reference time of the qam-construction is retained

(R1) and this expresses a sequential or continuative meaning,
i.e. the event took place at reference time R2 in relation to
reference time R1. The past tense of qam-xazənna is not expressed
morphologically. The form can be assumed to have had a ‘relative
tense’ that was determined by being bound to the R1 of the past
verb pləṭli. This past verb was marked morphologically as past,
i.e. its reference time was before speech time (R1—S).13
When the construction developed the meaning of immediate
sequence, this marked type of sequence was associated with the
implicature of mirativity (surprise), and also with salience and,
in turn, with the recent past. Speakers of the Harbole dialect
report that the construction has these associations.
The qam-constructions in examples such as (45), with a
preceding imperfective circumstantial expression (‘When I was
coming here’) and (47) with a posterior temporal adverbial clause
(‘After I and my friend went out’) cannot be so easily analysed as
having the temporal structure R1—R2,E with two reference times,

13 For the possibility of a verb having two reference points see Comrie (1985,
128).
174 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

one anterior to the other. This is because from a temporal point

of view the eventuality in the qam-clause is overlapping with,
rather than sequential to, what is expressed by the circumstantial
construction and the ‘after’ adverbial clause. It appears that the
first reference point is no longer temporal but rather has become a
cognitive topical anchor, similar to the process described in §2.2.
in the development of the discourse dependency bət-qaṭəl(wa)
form. This can be represented as T—R,E, where T = the episodic
topical situation that acts as the spatio-temporal frame for what
follows:
When I was coming here (topical frame)—I saw a lion.
 fter I and my friend went out (topical frame)—he fell into the
A
canal.
Note that in (45) the past shifting suffix -wa is added to the
qam-construction (qam-xazənwa), indicating that it has its own
tense marking, i.e. its tense is absolute and it is not bound as a
relative tense to the tense of a preceding verb. This is likely to
be because it is preceded by a tenseless expression (ʾana bitaya ‘I
coming’).
The qam-construction is not obligatory in constructions of the
type illustrated in the preceding examples. Contrast the following:

(49) xəzyali vs. qam-xazənna

a. ʾána bitáya làxxa, xəzyá-li bàxti b-úrxa.ˈ

I come.prog here see.pfv.3fs-1s my.wife on.road

‘While I was coming here, I saw my wife on the road.’

b. ʾána bitáya làxxa,ˈ qam-xazə́n-na bàxti

I come.prog here qam-see.sbjv.1ms-3fs my.wife

b-úrxa.ˈ
on.road

‘While I was coming here, I saw my wife on the road.’

 Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in NENA  175

(50) štelan vs. qam-šatuxwa

a. ʾáxni bəplàxa,ˈ štélan čày.ˈ

we work.prog drink.pfv.1pl tea

‘Whilst we were working, we drank tea.’

b. ʾáxni bəplàxa,ˈ qam-šatúx-wa sàḥma.ˈ

we work.prog qam-drink.sbjv.1pl-pst poison

‘Whilst we were working, we drank poison.’

The (a) sentences of (49) and (50) with the past perfective
qṭəlle form are matter-of-fact descriptions of events. The (b)
sentences present the events as surprising and unexpected.
As has been remarked, a hybrid construction exists, in which
the qaṭəl form in the qam-construction is substituted by the qṭəlle
form ((48) repeated below as (51)). This still has a different
pragmatic association from a corresponding construction with
qṭəlle without the preceding qam- (52):

(51) ʾána ʾu-xáwri plə̀ṭlanˈ ʾu-qam-mə̀tle

I and-my.friend go.out.pfv.1pl and.qam-die.pfv.3ms

xáwri.ˈ
my.friend

‘I and a friend went out and my friend died.’

(52) ʾána ʾu-xáwri plə̀ṭlanˈ ʾu-mə̀tle

I and-my.friend go.out.pfv.1pl and-die.pfv.3ms

xáwri.ˈ
my.friend

‘I and a friend went out and my friend died.’

176 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

According to my consultant for the dialect, (51) implies a

causal connection between the going out and the death whereas
there is no such implicature in (52). This could arise from the
fact that the qam-qṭəlle construction, like the qam-construction
with the qaṭəl form, expresses immediate succession and close
cohesion in the same mental space, an implicature of which
could be causal connection.
In Harbole, as we have seen, the qam-construction with
the qaṭəl form can be used in narrative in both transitive and
intransitive clauses. There is no obvious feature of behaviour of
the construction in this dialect that could explain why it became
restricted to transitive verbs with pronominal objects in most of
NENA. This specific distribution in other dialects appears to have
been a strategy to avoid using internal pronominal objects in the
qṭəlle form, especially 1st and 2nd person objects.14 In such dialects
the qam-construction became a general past perfective form
substituting for qṭəlle where the verb would have had pronominal
objects. One can compare this to, for example, to the vaig cantar
construction in Catalan (see (36)), which became a general
past perfective form. This development of the qam-construction
would doubtless have been facilitated by the fact that already in
Harbole the temporal reference point of the construction in the
preceding clause came to be analysed as a topical reference point
in some contexts (i.e. R1—R2,E became T—R,E). As with the bət-
qaṭəl(wa) form, this would have facilitated the use of a series of
qam-constructions with the same spatio-temporal topical frame
in narratives.
The generalised qam-construction did, however, retain some
of the features of its embryonic form seen in the Harbole dialect.
Firstly, when it takes 3rd person pronominal objects in narrative,
these are anaphoric to the preceding discourse so the verb is
sequential to or at least continuative of what precedes, as it is
in Harbole. Secondly, speakers of some dialects report that in
conversational discourse where the expression of a pronominal

14 See the studies of expression of pronominal objects in Pennacchietti

(1994), Coghill (2016), Khan (2017), Noorlander (2018).
 Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in NENA  177

object is possible in both a qṭəlle or qam-construction, the qam-

construction refers specifically to the recent past whereas the qṭəlle
form does not have this restriction, e.g. qam-xazən-a (qam-see.
sbjv.1ms-3fs) ‘I have just seen her’ vs xəzy-a-li (see.pst-3fs-1s)
‘I saw her’ (not necessarily recently) (Shaqlawa dialect, field
notes). This is reflected by the fact that the particle na, which
is used in the Shaqlawa dialect to express immediacy, is more
frequently used with the form qam-xazəna than with xəzyali.15

4. Narrative Subjunctive
4.1. Attested Constructions
In NENA dialects the bare present stem qaṭəl functions as a
subjunctive. This is used in a variety of irrealis contexts, including
jussive main clauses, irrealis subordinate clauses and conditional
clauses. An example of a subjunctive clause in a subordinate
purpose clause from the C. Barwar dialect is given in (53):

(53) ṣǝ̀lyɛ=le| ta-t-ʾázǝl ʾùrxa.|

go.ptcp=cop.3ms to-comp-go.sbjv.3ms road

‘He went down in order to set off on the road.’ (A15:5)

15 The verb q-y-m ‘to rise’ is used in various other types of constructions, the
discussion of which is beyond the scope of this paper. For example, a past
form of the verb q-y-m is used in NENA dialects in a serial construction
with another past verb to express the onset of an activity at a discourse
boundary, e.g. C. Barwar qímla wídla tàgbirˈ (rise.pst.3pl make.pst.3pl
plan) ‘They made a plan.’ (Khan 2008, 937–38). The preverbal particle
qam- is used in the dialect of J. Bəjil to express the progressive, e.g.
qam-patəxle ‘he is opening it’ (Mutzafi 2002) (I thank Paul Noorlander
for drawing my attention to this reference). This is likely to have had a
different semantic development from the construction with qam- that is
discussed in this paper.
178 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

The indicative present, such as the progressive and habitual,

are typically expressed by innovative forms, such as the following
in the C. Barwar dialect:

Indicative habitual

ʾi-qaṭəl:

(54) kút-yum y-áxəl lə̀xma.ˈ

every-day hab-eat.ipfv.3ms bread

‘Every day he eats bread.’

Progressive

hole qṭala (deictic copula + progressive stem) or qṭalɛ=le

(progressive stem + enclitic copula). The progressive stem is
derived historically from the infinitive:

(55)

a. hole zala
deic.cop.3ms go.prog

‘He is going.’

b. zalɛ=le
go.prog=cop.3ms

‘He is going.’

In the C. Barwar dialect the qaṭəl subjunctive form is often

used in narratives as a perfective sequential form. It typically
continues an event or events that are expressed by a narrative
past form (qṭille or qṭilɛle), e.g.
 Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in NENA  179

(56) ʾáp ʾaw-lɛ́le xéna qìmla,| sáʾət ṭḷáθa

also that-night other rise.pfv.3fs hour.of three

b-lɛ̀le,| šárya bănúda dìya,| ʾu-ʾáza

at-night untie.sbjv.3fs bands.her of.her and-go.sbjv.3fs

ʾáxla xá-brona xéna ʾu-dɛ̀ṛa,|

eat.sbjv.3fs one-son other and-return.sbjv.3fs

dàmxa.| páθxa tằra,| dámxa

sleep.sbjv.3fs open.sbjv.3fs door sleep.sbjv.3fs

gu-dudìya.|
in-cradle

‘Also the next night she got up, at three o’clock in the
morning, untied her bands, went and ate another
child, then returned and went to sleep. She opened
the door and went to sleep in the cradle.’ (A18:5–6)

(57) šqílə=l-le xmàra| ʾu-tàwra.|

take.ptcp.=cop.3ms-3ms ass and-ox

ʾu-zìlɛ=le.| šúryɛ=le zràya.|

and-go.ptcp=cop.3ms begin.ptcp=cop.3ms cultivate.prog

šúry=ɛle zráya hàl-ʾaṣərta.| ʾaṣə́rta

begin.ptcp=cop.3ms cultivate.prog until-evening evening

ʾáθe l-bɛ̀θa.| mànyəx,| ʾázəl sàxe|

come.sbjv.3ms to-house rest.sbjv.3ms go.sbjv.3ms swim.sbjv.3ms

ʾu-ʾàwər.|
and-enter.sbjv.3ms

‘He took the ass and the ox and went off. He began
cultivating. He began cultivating (and continued) until
evening. In the evening he came home. He rested,
went and bathed and entered (the house).’ (A21:12)
180 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Sporadically the qaṭəl form is used as a sequential habitual:

(58) ʾu-máxa xa-mə́šxa gu-be-ʾéne dìye|

and-put.sbjv.3pl one-oil in-place.of-eyes.his of.him

ʾoðí-le rúšma ʾax-ṣlìwa.|

do.sbjv.3pl-3ms sing like-cross

‘And they put some oil on his forehead and make the
sign of the cross.’ (B6:36)

The use of the bare qaṭəl form in narratives looks prima facie
like the active participles that are commonly found in narratives
in earlier types of Aramaic, such as Biblical Aramaic, e.g.

(59) ‫ימי ָב ֶ֗בל‬

֣ ֵ ‫ ָענֵ֙ ה ַמ ְל ָּ֜כא וְ ָא ַ ֣מר׀ ְל ַח ִּכ‬... ‫ָק ֵ ֤רא ַמ ְל ָּכ ֙א ְּב ַ֔חיִ ל‬

q̟ɔːʀ̟éː malkɔ́ː ba-ḥáːyil ʿɔːnéː malkɔ́ː

call.ptcp.ms king with-force answer.ptcp.ms king

vɔ-ʾɔːmáːaʀ̟ la-ḥakkiːméː vɔːvɛ́ːɛl

and-say.ptcp.ms to-sages.of Babylon

‘The king cries aloud … The king answers and says to

the wise men of Babylon.’ (Dan. 5:7)

This is, however, a false analogy, since the Barwar qaṭəl form,
although derived historically from the active participle of earlier
Aramaic, now has a subjunctive function. A closer analogy to
the use of active participles in earlier Aramaic narratives is the
occasional use of the progressive form inflected by a copula
(qṭalɛ=le) or sometimes without a copula (qṭala) in C. Barwar
narratives, e.g.
 Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in NENA  181

(60) yómǝ ṭḷàθa| márɛ=le xóne díye

day.of three say.prog=cop.3ms brother.his of.him

mára ṱ-ázǝx ṣɛ̀da.| ʾánna plàṭɛ=la,|

say.prog fut-go.sbjv.1pl hunt they go.out.prog=cop.3pl

kúlla zála ṣɛ̀da.|

all go.prog hunt

‘On the third day his brother says .. he says “Let’s go

hunting.” They go out, they all go hunting.’ (A13:7)

In some NENA dialects the progressive construction is, indeed,

the verb form that is most commonly used in narratives. This is
the case, for example, in the C. Urmi dialect:

(61) C. Urmi (Khan 2016, vol. 2, 186–87)

+
bar-dáha bərrə́xšə=lə cəs-màlca.|
after-obl.this go.prog=cop.3ms at-king

+
bəṱlábə=lə +
paxàlta mə́nnu.|
ask.prog=cop.3ms forgiveness from.him

‘After that he goes to the king. He asks for forgiveness

from him.’ (A 3:54)

4.2. Analysis
I should like to argue here that the narrative qaṭəl form is
indeed a modal subjunctive, which has been extended from its
use in subordinate clauses, in particular purpose clauses. In C.
Barwar, purpose clauses are introduced by a particle, typically a
directional preposition such as ta ‘to’ as in (62), or are asyndetic
182 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

without an introductory particle (63) (Khan 2008, 582–83, 667,

995–95):

(62) ṣǝ̀lyɛ=le| ta-t-ʾázǝl ʾùrxa.|

go.down.ptcp=cop.3ms to-comp-go.sbjv.3ms way

‘He went down to go on the road.’ (A15:5)

(63) ʾána θíθ=ən mpalṭán-nux

I come.ptcp=cop.1fs bring.out.sbjv.1fs-2ms

m-gu-sə̀jən.|
from-in-prison

‘I have come to bring you out of the prison.’ (A26:82)

Purpose clause constructions are also used to express the final

outcome or result of a preceding action, whereby the speaker
presents the chain of events from the viewpoint of this outcome
(Khan 2008, 995), e.g.

(64) ṣlàya,| ṣálya šátya mìya,|

go.down.prog go.down.sbjv.3fs drink.sbjv.3fs water

ta-t-qàlba xá-bena xéna.|

to-comp-return.sbjv.3fs a-time other

‘She went down to drink water and then finally returned

again.’ (A33:8)

Such result clauses appear to have developed from the

common implicature of purpose clauses that the event took place,
especially after verbs of movement, e.g. I went to buy some bread
has the implicature that I did in fact buy bread (Schmidtke-Bode
 Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in NENA  183

2009, 178). This conventionalisation of an implicature as the

expression of a real event that is reflected in result clauses is
likely to have been the pathway of development also of dependent
narrative qaṭəl forms. This may be represented as follows:

(65)

a. Main clause Purpose clause

R1,E R1—E

b. Main clause Result clause

R1,E R1—R2,E

c. Main clause Narrative sequential

R1,E R1—R2,E

This analysis is similar to that of the development of the

qam-construction forms discussed above. In the purpose clause
construction the subjunctive verb is irrealis and takes as its
reference time that of the main clause (represented by the
repeated R1 in (65a)). The event time of the purpose clause,
therefore, is posterior to its reference time and so the predicate is
analogous to a future construction such as the immediate future
qam-construction. In (65b) and (65c) the subjunctive clause
has been reanalysed as a real asserted event. This involves the
acquisition of a reference time coinciding with the event (R2). It
can be assumed that the clause retains the R1 reference time, to
which it is posterior. This reflects its reanalysis as a real asserted
event that is sequential to what precedes.
As remarked, in the C. Urmi dialect the normal narrative verb
form is the progressive. The narrative subjunctive is, however,
sporadically used in this dialect. It is significant that in the
attested examples in my text corpus it occurs predominantly after
verbs of movement:
184 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(66) C. Urmi (Khan 2016, vol. 2, 122)

mə́jjət=da ʾá náša xə̀šlə| ɟášək̭

indeed=also this man go.pfv.3ms see.sbjv.3ms

ʾó bétu súra víyyə=va xá yácca

that his.house small become.ptcp=cop.pst.3ms a big

máx bə́tət màlcə víyyə=va.|

like house.of kings become.ptcp=cop.pst.3ms

‘Indeed the man went off and saw that his small house
had become huge, it had become like the house of
kings.’ (A 54:5)

Cross-linguistically purpose clauses are very commonly

preceded by verbs of movement (Schmidtke-Bode 2009, 98)
and this is also the case in NENA dialects, see (60)–(61) from
C. Barwar. An example from C. Urmi is (67), where the purpose
clause is asyndetic:

(67) C. Urmi (Khan 2016, vol. 2, 122)

xə́šla báxta +
tárra patxà-lə|
go.pfv.3fs woman door open.sbjv.3fs-3ms

‘The woman went to open the door.’ (A 18:2)

This can be taken as evidence, therefore, that the sequential

narrative subjunctive had its origin in subordinate purpose
clauses.
The subjunctive qaṭəl form in purpose clauses is neutral as to
aspect and can be used in habitual contexts, e.g.
 Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in NENA  185

(68) C. Barwar

kut-béna béna ʾáxni y-ázəx ʾaxlə́x

every-time time we hab-go.ipfv.1pl eat.sbjv.1pl

kəs-xòni.ˈ
with-my.brother

‘From time to time we go to eat with my brother.’

This could explain the sporadic use of qaṭəl as a habitual

sequential (see (58)).
According to (65) the narrative subjunctive, which developed
from subordinate clauses, retained the temporal structure of
result clauses, i.e.

Main clause Narrative sequential

R1,E R1—R2,E

The ‘main clause’ in this model of its development would be a

clause in the preceding discourse. As can be seen in the examples
(56) and (57) the narrative subjunctive can be used in chains of
clauses. This could be represented thus:
R1—R2,E2 + R2—R3,E3 + R3—R4,E4 + R4—R5,E5
Each subjunctive form would take as its anterior reference
time the reference time of the previous verb.
Alternatively, it could be proposed that by a further development
the anterior reference time in the structure R1—R2,E has become
schematised to a cognitive topical reference point analogously to
the analysis we have proposed for the development of the bət-qaṭəl
and qam-qaṭəl forms, i.e. T(opic)—R,E. This, therefore, would
not be a temporal point in the preceding discourse but rather
a topical frame, which in narrative would be typically a spatio-
temporal frame. The chain of narrative subjunctives would all
186 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

cohere together in the same ‘mental space’ and be linked to this

spatio-temporal frame. This is clear in (57), in which the chain
of narrative subjunctives begins after the adverbial ʾaṣərta ‘in
the evening’, which sets the spatio-temporal frame. The clauses
would anaphorically resume this topical frame, thus:
T1—R1,E1 + T1—R2,E2 + T1—R3,E3 + T1—R4,E4 + T1—R5,E5
It has been remarked that the progressive form is occasionally
used in C. Barwar as a narrative form and that this is the normal
narrative form in C. Urmi. It is relevant to note that the progressive
form can also express purpose, similarly to a subjunctive clause,
e.g.

(69) C. Barwar (Khan 2008, 732)

ṣə̀lyɛ=le| mzabònə=l-le.|
go.down.ptcp=cop.3ms sell.prog=cop.3ms-3ms

‘He went down to sell it.’ (A22:2)

(70) C. Urmi (Khan 2016, vol. 2, 191)

bərrə́xšə=lə máya xá dána bàxta.|

go.prog=cop.3ms bring.prog one unit woman

‘He goes to bring a woman.’ (A 1:37)

This usage possibly originated in the use of the progressive in

circumstantial constructions such as the following

(71) C. Barwar (Khan 2008, 727)

xzɛ́gən xònəx| ʾu-Mắmo ṱ-íla

see.imp.fs your.fs.brother and-Mămo rel-cop.3pl
 Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in NENA  187

tíwe mṭawóle b-šətrənjàne.|

sit.ptcp.pl play.prog at-chess

‘See your brother and Mămo who are sitting playing

chess.’ (A26:64)

(72) C. Urmi (Khan 2016, vol. 2, 190)

ʾana ɟəddàlu| +
házər vid-è=vən,|
I its.threads ready make.ptcp-3pl=cop.1ms

partúlə +
ʾal-+ʾuydàlə.|
twist.prog on-each.other

‘I have prepared its threads, twisting (them) together.’

(A 3:74)

The sequential narrative use of the progressive may, therefore,

have also developed through the pathway of a purpose clause.

5. Conclusions
In this paper I have discussed various verbal forms in NENA
dialects that express dependency on the preceding discourse
beyond the syntactic confines of a sentence. These include the bət-
qaṭəl(wa) form, the qam-qaṭəl form and the narrative subjunctive
form. These can be used to express continuity of the preceding
discourse, which can be interpreted as temporal sequence or
elaboration according to the context. The proposed historical
development of the three verbal forms with these functions
share several common features. In all cases the verbs originally
expressed some kind of future or, to be more precise, an event
time that was posterior to its reference time. From the perspective
of this reference time they expressed contingent events that were
modally dependent on a preceding eventuality.
188 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Parallels to such discourse dependent verbal forms have been

documented in a variety of other languages. Numerous languages
of Africa have special verbal forms for the expression of continuity
in discourse. These are used, for example, for the chaining of
clauses in narratives and descriptions of habitual procedures.16
This continuity may be temporal sequence or elaboration.
Such forms are often identical to forms that express modal
subordination in subordinate clauses and so have been referred
to as narrative subjunctives (R. Carlson 1992; Seidel 2015, 180).
In some African languages the consecutive forms can be used
independently of preceding discourse as a future or modal form
denoting an unrealised action (e.g. Seidel 2015, 186). Historical
reconstructions of Oceanic languages have revealed connections
between narrative continuity devices and future verbal forms
(Lichtenberk 2014).
Within Semitic one can find some parallels to what has been
described in this paper. Owens (2018) argues persuasively that
the preverbal particle b- that is found in a variety of Arabic
dialects originates in the deontic verb baġa ‘to want’ (cognate
with Aramaic baʿe). What is of interest is that although it has
retained its deontic or modal sense in some dialects of the Gulf,
in some dialects it has developed into an indicative (e.g. Levant).
The missing link, Owens claims, is its use in Nigerian Arabic to
express what he calls ‘propositional adjacency’, which corresponds
to what I have been calling here discourse dependency. The
situation in the J. Dobe dialect, where the bət-qaṭəl form can be
used as an indicative, would represent the same advanced stage
of development as indicative b- in Levant Arabic.
The indicative preverbal particle ka- in Moroccan Arabic
appears to have its origin in the modal use of the auxiliary verb
kān in conditional clauses (Corriente 1977, 140–41; Stewart
1998, 111–12; Hanitsch 2019, 256–58). This also, therefore, may

16 Verbal forms of this type in numerous African languages are discussed

in the papers of the volume edited by Payne and Shirtz (2015). See also
Palmer (1986, 204–07), Longacre (1990) and Persohn (2017, §7.1).
 Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in NENA  189

have followed a similar pathway of development as Neo-Aramaic

bət-qaṭəl.
Tsukanova (2008) has identified the use of dependent
subjunctive forms containing the modal auxiliary čān in Gulf
Arabic as a continuative form in narratives.
The Neo-Aramaic discourse dependent bət-qaṭəl and the
narrative subjunctive exhibit close parallels also with continuative
verbal forms in Biblical Hebrew.17
Finally, in addition to cross-linguistic typological parallels one
should also take into account the factor of language contact. It is
noteworthy, for example, that the NENA dialects that exhibit the
bət-qaṭəl future forms are/were mainly in the region of Northern
Kurdish (Kurmanji). The NENA dialects in the region of Central
Kurdish (Sorani) do not generally exhibit a specific future marker.
This distribution corresponds to the presence of a dedicated
future verbal prefix in Northern Kurdish and the absence of such
a prefix in Central Kurdish. What is of particular interest is that
in Northern Kurdish verbs with the future particle are sometimes
used as discourse dependency habitual forms just like the bət-
qaṭəl(wa) form in Neo-Aramaic (Haig 2018, 292).

References

Bertinetto, Pier Marco, and Alessandro Lenci. 2012. ‘Habituality, Pluractionality,

and Imperfectivity’. In The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, edited by
Robert I. Binnick, 852–80. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Boneh, Nora, and Edit Doron. 2013. ‘Hab and Gen in the Expression of
Habituality’. In Genericity, edited by Alda Mari, Claire Beyssade, and Fabio
Del Prete, 176–91. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

———. 2015. Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

17 These parallels with the Biblical Hebrew verbal system are discussed in
Khan (2021 to appear).
190 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Carlson, Gregory. 2012. ‘Habitual and Generic Aspect’. In The Oxford Handbook
of Tense and Aspect, edited by Robert I. Binnick, 828–51. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Carlson, Gregory N., and Beverly Spejewski. 1997. ‘Generic Passages’. Natural
Language Semantics 5: 101–65.

Carlson, Robert. 1992. ‘Narrative, Subjunctive, and Finiteness’. Journal of

African Languages and Linguistics 13: 59–85.

Coghill, Eleanor. 2016. The Rise and Fall of Ergativity in Aramaic: Cycles of
Alignment Change. Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics
21. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge University Press.

Corriente, Federico. 1977. A Grammatical Sketch of the Spanish Arabic Dialect

Bundle. Madrid: Instituto Hispano-Árabe De Cultura.

Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford-New York: Blackwell.

Dinsmore, John. 1982. ‘The Semantic Nature of Reichenbach’s Tense System’.

Glossa 16: 216– 239.

———. 1991. Partitioned Representations. A Study in Mental Representation,

Language Understand and Linguistic Structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Ebert, Christian, Cornelia Ebert, and Stefan Hinterwimmer. 2014. ‘A Unified

Analysis of Conditionals as Topics’. Linguistics and Philosophy 37: 353–408.

Fassberg, Steven. 2015. ‘The Origin of the Periphrastic Preterite Kəm/Qam-

Qāṭəlle in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic’. In Neo-Aramaic and Its Linguistic
Context, edited by Geoffrey Khan and Lidia Napiorkowska, 172–86.
Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.

Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in

Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, and Mary C. O’Connor. 1988. ‘Regularity and
Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions’. Language 64: 501–38.

Fox, Samuel E. 2015. ‘The History of the Future’. In Neo-Aramaic in Its Linguistic
Context, edited by Geoffrey Khan and Lidia Napiorkowska, 162–71.
Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to

Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
 Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in NENA  191

———. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Greenberg, Joseph. 1978. ‘How Does a Language Acquire Gender Markers?’

In Universals of Human Language, edited by Joseph Greenberg, 3:47–82.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Haig, Geoffrey. 2018. ‘The Iranian Languages of Northern Iraq’. In The Languages
and Linguistics of Western Asia: An Areal Perspective, edited by Geoffrey Haig
and Geoffrey Khan, 267–304. The World of Linguistics 6. Berlin: De Gruyter
Mouton.

Haiman, John. 1978. ‘Conditionals Are Topics’. Language 54: 564–89.

Hanitsch, Melanie. 2019. Verbalmodifikatoren in den Arabischen Dialekten:

Untersuchungen zur Evolution von Aspektsystemen. Porta Linguarum
Orientalium. Neue Serie 27. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Hatav, Galia. 2012. ‘Bound Tenses’. In The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect,
edited by Robert I. Binnick, 611–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jacobs, Bart. 2011. ‘Present and Historical Perspectives Onthe Catalan Go-Past’.
Zeitschrift für Katalanistik 24: 227–25.

Johnson, Marion R. 1981. ‘A Unified Temporal Theory of Tense and Aspect’. In

Syntax and Semantics, 14: Tense and Aspect, edited by Philip J. Tedeschi and
Annie Zaenen, 145–75. New York: Academic Press.

Khan, Geoffrey. 2002. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Qaraqosh. Studies in Semitic

Languages and Linguistics 36. Boston, MA: Brill.

———. 2008. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill.

———. 2016. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of the Assyrian Christians of Urmi. 4 vols.
Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 86. Leiden-Boston: Brill.

———. 2017. ‘Ergativity in Neo-Aramaic’. In Oxford Handbook of Ergativity,

edited by Jessica Coon, Diane Massam, and Lisa Travis, 873–99. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

———. 2021 (to appear). ‘The Coding of Discourse Dependency in Biblical

Hebrew Consecutive Weqaṭal and Wayyiqṭol’. In New Perspectives in Biblical
and Rabbinic Hebrew, edited by Aaron D. Hornkohl and Geoffrey Khan.
Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures. Cambridge: University of
Cambridge & Open Book Publishers.
192 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical

Prerequisites. Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 2014. ‘Sequentiality-Futurity Links’. Oceanic Linguistics,

53: 61–91.

Longacre, Robert E. 1990. Storyline Concerns and Word Order Typology in East
and West Africa. Studies in African Linguistics Supplement 10. Los Angeles:
University of California.

Mutzafi, Hezy. 2002. ‘Barzani Jewish Neo-Aramaic and Its Dialects’.

Mediterranean Language Review 14: 41–70.

Noorlander, Paul. 2017. ‘The Proximative and Its Correlatives in North Eastern
Neo-Aramaic’. In Prospective and Proximative in Turkic, Iranian and Beyond,
edited by Agnes Korn and Irina Nevskaya, 188–210. Wiesbaden: Reichert
Verlag.

———. 2018. ‘Alignment in Eastern Neo-Aramaic Languages from a Typological

Perspective’. Ph.D. Thesis, Leiden: University of Leiden.

Owens, Jonathan. 2018. ‘Dialects (Speech Communities), the Apparent Past, and
Grammaticalization: Towards an Understanding of the History of Arabic’. In
Arabic Historical Dialectology, edited by Clive Holes, 206–56. Oxford Studies
in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Palmer, Frank R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Payne, Doris L., and Shahar Shirtz, eds. 2015. Beyond Aspect: The Expression of
Discourse Functions in African Languages. Typological Studies in Language
109. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Pennacchietti, Fabrizio. 1994. ‘Il Preterito Neoaramaico Con Pronome Oggetto’.

Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 144: 259–83.

———. 1997. ‘On the Etymology of the Neo-Aramaic Particle Qam/Kim-’.

Massorot 9–11: 475–82.

Persohn, Bastian. 2017. The Verb in Nyakyusa: A Focus on Tense, Aspect and
Modality. Berlin: Language Science Press.

Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Macmillan.

Rhétoré, P. Jacques. 1912. Grammaire de la Langue Soureth ou Chaldéen Vulgaire.

Mossoul: Imprimerie des Peres Dominicains.
 Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in NENA  193

Roberts, Craige. 1987. ‘Modal Subordination, Anaphora, and Distributivity’.

Ph.D. Thesis, Amherst, N.Y: University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

———. 1989. ‘Modal Subordination and Pronominal Anaphora in Discourse’.

Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 683–721.

Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten. 2009. A Typology of Purpose Clauses. Amsterdam-

Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Seidel, Frank. 2015. ‘Rethinking Narrative Tenses Based on Data from Nalu
(Atlantic) and Yeyi (Bantu)’. In Beyond Aspect: The Expression of Discourse
Functions in African Languages, edited by Doris L. Payne and Shahar Shirtz,
177–217. Typological Studies in Language 109. Amsterdam-Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.

Stewart, Devin J. 1998. ‘Clitic Reduction in the Formation of Modal Prefixes in

the Post-Classical Arabic Dialects and Classical Arabic Sa-/Sawfa’. Arabica
45: 104–28.

Tsukanova, Vera. 2008. ‘Discourse Functions of the Verb in the Dialect of

Sedentary Kuwaitis’. In Between the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Studies on
Contemporary Arabic Dialects. Proceedings of the 7th AIDA Conference, Held in
Vienna from 5–9 September 2006, edited by Stephan Procházka and Veronika
Ritt-Benmimoun, 447–55. Münster-Vienna: LIT-Verlag.

Verkuyl, Henk J. 2012. ‘Compositionality’. In The Oxford Handbook of Tense

and Aspect, edited by Robert I. Binnick, 563–85. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
 CONDITIONAL PATTERNS IN THE
JEWISH NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT
OF ZAKHO

Eran Cohen

A full picture of the conditional subsystem within a grammatical

system is hard to come by and the issue is often given very
limited space in grammatical descriptions. The case of the
Christian dialect of Barwar (Khan 2008) is exceptional, since a
relatively large chapter is devoted to conditional constructions
(ibid., 1004–25). In this paper I intend to study conditionals in
the Jewish dialect of Zakho (henceforth JZ) as well as discuss
some general issues that come up during this investigation.
Although not always clearly stated, conditionals belong
semantically to the domain of modality. This is sometimes
overlooked because conditionals are traditionally classified, in
grammatical descriptions, with other clause types such as different
adverbial or subordinate clauses. This notwithstanding, they are
a syntactic expression of modality, very similar semantically to
other expressions which reflect different degrees of certainty, as
the particle perhaps.
The objectives of this paper are: first, to explain the place of
conditional constructions within epistemic modality; second,
to provide a survey of conditional expressions in JZ; third, to
discuss the relationships of the conditionals with other clause-
types (concessive, temporal, relative); and fourth, to show the
effect of the combination of conditional expressions and other
epistemic expressions.

© Eran Cohen, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0209.05

196 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

1. Modality in General
Although linguistic modality has been defined with respect to
several parameters (e.g., subjectivity, or ‘speaker’s attitude’). The
following definition summarises the conclusion of a paper that
attempts a definition of modality (Narrog 2005), viz. that only
the parameter of factuality is actually useful in distinguishing
between what is modal and what is not:
Modality is a linguistic category referring to the factual status of a
state of affairs. The expression of a state of affairs is modalized if it is
marked for being undetermined with respect to its factual status, i.e.
is neither positively nor negatively factual. (ibid., 184)

Modality is subdivided in different ways, but it is enough, in

this framework, to keep the old division between deontic and
epistemic modality.

1.1. Deontic Modality

Deontic modality is the type of modality covering will and
obligation in non-factual utterances. The imperative form is the
deontic expression par excellence. It always has this function,
expressing different levels of the speaker’s will.

1.2. Epistemic Modality

The definitions for epistemic modality are less complicated and
seem to cover the domain quite well. Nuyts (2006, 6, emphasis
mine), for example, offers the following definition:
The core definition of this category is relatively noncontroversial:
it concerns an indication of the estimation, typically, but not
necessarily, by the speaker, of the chances that the state of affairs
expressed in the clause applies in the world. In other words, it
expresses the degree of probability of the state of affairs.
 Conditional Patterns in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Zakho 197

1.3. The Epistemic Scale

Ordinary conditionals are constructions that denote epistemic
modality. As such, they reflect various points on the epistemic
scale, representing different degrees of reality ascribed to the
situation or event. As Akatsuka (1985, 636–37) points out:
The two conceptual domains, realis and irrealis, do not stand in
clear-cut opposition, but rather are on a continuum, in terms of the
speaker’s subjective evaluation of the ontological reality of a given
situation. In conditionals, the S1 of if S1 can express the speaker’s
attitude at any point within the irrealis division of the scale. In
short, this epistemic scale reflects the speaker’s evaluation of S1’s
realizability, ranging in value from zero (i.e. counterfactuals) to one
(i.e. realis)

The definition is given higher resolution some twenty years

later by Nuyts (2006,6):
As in deontic modality, this dimension can be construed as a scale—
from absolute certainty via probability to fairly neutral possibility
that the state of affairs is real. Moreover, if one assumes that the
category also involves polarity, the scale even continues further
on to the negative side, via improbability of the state of affairs to
absolute certainty that it is not real.

The dimension of polarity (as presented in Taylor 1996)

includes anything on the scale between affirmative and negative,
namely, it is very similar conceptually.
Conditional expressions are semantically analogous to epistemic
particles such as perhaps, or similar epistemic expressions like ‘he
must be home now.’ They are all found on that same scale, which
stretches between real and unreal, or between affirmative and
negative. Dancygier (1998, 72, 82) explains that if marks the
protasis clause as unassertable and consequently the apodosis
is unassertable as well, both may be regarded as assumptions.1

1 For a similar view, see Palmer (1986, 189): ‘Conditional sentences are
unlike all others in that both the subordinate clause (the protasis) and
the main clause (the apodosis) are non-factual. Neither indicates that an
198 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

In other words, neither the protasis nor the apodosis are a

statement of fact. This issue seems important given the generally
held view that a conditional protasis is analogous to various
adverbial clauses and, accordingly, the conditional apodosis
is equivalent to the main clause in these adverbial clauses.
Note, however, that, unlike the latter, the apodosis of ordinary
conditionals cannot exist without its protasis, otherwise it would
not be conditioned.
Illustration 1 of the modal paradigm shows where conditionals
are located with regard to other expressions of modality:

Illustration 1: The modal paradigm (Cohen 2012a, 174)

1 indicative
2 epistemic
conditional (the entire scale)
ordinary conditionals
hypothetical conditionals
counter-factual conditionals
judgements
interrogative
3 deontic

The modality conveyed by ordinary conditionals is in fact one

type of epistemic modality, and, therefore, fully comparable with
other expressions of likelihood—probably, perhaps, surely, etc.
The scale relating to conditional structures, which also has to
do with degrees of likelihood, is also represented in Illustration
2, where it is presented as a round scale in which both extremes

event has occurred (or is occurring or will occur); the sentence merely
indicates the dependence of the truth of one proposition upon the truth
of another.’
 Conditional Patterns in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Zakho 199

virtually meet. This is because an expression of unreal conditional

is very close to a negative factual statement.

Illustration 2: The hypotheticality scale within conditionals (Cohen

2012a, 174)

1.4. Technical Information

The following table serves as a legend for the different verbal
forms in JZ:

Table 1: Legend for verbal forms

Simple verbal forms + Backshift Function

šqəl-le preterite 1 (trans. šqəl-wa-le plupreterite
and intr.)
qam-šāqəl-le preterite 2 (trans. qam-šāqəl-wa-le plupreterite
only)
k-šāqəl general present k-šāqəl-wa past imperfective
p-šāqəl future p-šāqəl-wa counterfactual
šāqəl subjunctive šāqəl-wa ‘past’ subjunctive
200 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

The suffix -wa (glossed b) termed ‘backshift’ moves the

predication back—mostly in time (when suffixed to present and
past-denoting forms), but occasionally in modality, as happens
with future-denoting forms and sometimes with subjunctive
forms. The former denote counter-factuality, the latter has subtle
functions and occasionally is an agreement to a past-denoting
matrix verb.

1.5. Relation between Conditionals and other Epistemic

Particles and Expressions
The particle balki ~ balkin ~ balkət meaning ‘maybe/perhaps’
is one of the carriers of epistemic modality. The link between
a conditional notion and ‘maybe’ may not seem natural at first
glance. Example (1) shows this link:

(1)

a. baxta, hakan hoyā-wa sməxta,

woman if sbjv.be.3fs-b pregnant

g-oz-ī-wā-la treʾ,
prs-do-3pl-b- dat.3fs two

xaʾ ta=brōna xaʾ ta=brāta;

one to=boy one to=girl

b. balkin hāwē-la brōna gəbe

maybe sbjv.be.3ms- 3fs boy need.3ms

hāwe ta=brōna xaʾ.

sbjv.be.3ms to=boy one

c. hakan hāwē-la brāta xaʾ ta=brāta

if sbjv.be.3ms-dat.3fs girl one to=girl
 Conditional Patterns in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Zakho 201

‘If a woman was pregnant, they used to make her two

[chickens for the ritual of kappara], one for a boy, one
for a girl.

If (lit. perhaps) she had a boy,it was necessary to

have one for a boy.

If she had a girl, (then) one for a girl.’ (SAG 3.)2

The initial condition is generic or habitual (see §3). The

specifications (whether it is a boy or a girl) are in privative
relations and hence similar to a real condition. Note that whereas
in the first specification balkin ‘maybe’ is used, in the second the
particle used is hakan ‘if.’ The co-occurrence of conditional and
balki is further discussed under §4.

2. A survey of Conditional Expressions

in Jewish Zakho
2.1. Apodosis
Conditional structures are in general complex modal expressions,
that is, the likelihood of one state of affairs to take place is
contingent upon the realisation chances of the other. They
are an expression of likelihood, a point on the epistemic scale and
this likelihood relates to the entire structure. The semantic
essence of an ordinary condition is illustrated in (2):

(2) xōr-i, ʾāna bə-msafr-ēna əl=xa=bāžer,

friend-1s nom.1s fut-travel-1ms to=indef=city

ū=pāre dīd-i šuttāwe kəs-lox

conn=money poss-1s sbjv.be.3ms with-2ms
202 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

ənkān dʾər-ri bə-yāw-ə́t-tū-li…

if return.pst-1s fut-give-2ms-3pl-dat.1ms

ū=ʾənkan la dʾər-ri pāre šuttāwe

conn=if neg return.pst-1s money sbjv.be.3pl

ṭā-lox
to-2ms

‘My friend, I intend to travel to some city,

so let my money be with you.

If I return, you will give it (back) to me…

but if I do not return, let the money be for you.’ (286)

There are two directive syntagms, i.e., two expressions of will

in the example: ‘let my money be with you’ and ‘let the money
be for you.’ However, it is easy to see that their semantic status
is different. While the former is merely an expression of the
speaker’s will, the latter is more of a permissive nature and, in
addition, it is conditioned by external circumstances. That is,
it depends on whether the speaker returns or not.

2.2. Conditional Forms and Values

There are two types of conditional form: patterns with an
introductory particle and paratactic patterns. It is important
to state that they are only partially related and the paratactic
pattern is probably not derived from the other type.
‘‘Form’ refers to what the pattern consists of, namely, if one
starts with the pattern headed by an introductory particle, one
needs to specify the introductory particle as well as the forms
occurring in the protasis and in the apodosis.
Several introductory particles occur in free variation, all
consisting of the core element kan (< Arab. kān ‘he was’), often
 Conditional Patterns in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Zakho 203

with some addition: ənkan, hakan, (i)zakan, īskan, without any

apparent difference.
The forms commonly occurring in the protasis of ordinary
conditionals are the subjunctive šāqəl and the preterite forms
šqəlle and qam-šāqəlle. There are no temporal differences between
the forms:

(3) ənkān yāqer xōla yāʾ-ən

if sbjv.be.heavy.3ms rope sbjv.know-1ms

baxt-i ṣāx=ī-la…
wife-1s alive=cop-3fs

ū=ʾənkan la yqər-re xola

conn=if neg be.heavy.pst-3ms rope

xō yāʾ-ən ʾənnu mət-la

then sbjv.know-1ms comp die.pst-3fs

‘If the rope grows heavy, then I will know my wife is

alive…

But if the rope does not grow heavy, then I will know
that she died.’ (26)

This is the essential profile of kan protases. The important point

is that the forms šqəlle and qam-šāqəlle, although referring to the
past in other constructions, do not do so here. In fact, they do not
point at any time in particular, because temporal opposition does
not exist in the protasis. The majority of conditional cases are
predictive and consequently refer to the future (see (2)).
The conditional expression may occur in a subordinate
environment, namely, the protasis may be associated with a
subordinate apodosis (e.g. (11)).
The relationship of conditional clauses to modality is apparent
from several angles. One of these is the relationship obtaining
204 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

between a full protasis and a minimal or elliptic negative protasis

following a directive or other expressions of obligation such as:

(4) hakān lá hōya +

ḥāzər b-ās-ət
if neg sbjv.be.3fs ready fut-come-2ms

əḷ=qəṭḷa
to=death

‘If it is not ready, you will be killed.’ (730–31)

(5) ū=g-əbe hōya mulḥam-ta ū= +ḥāzər

conn=prs-need.3ms sbjv.be.3fs soldered-fs conn=ready

hakān lā, b-ās-ən l=qəṭḷa

if neg fut-come-1ms to=death

‘and it (=the king’s ring) must be soldered and ready.

If not, I will be killed.’ (729)

The lexical content of the protasis could either be expressed

explicitly inside it (example[4], ‘if it is not ready…’) or,
alternatively, be expressed outside it, as a command or obligation
followed by an ‘empty’ protasis containing merely an indication
of the possibility that something may not happen (example [5],
the ‘if not’ strategy).
Present forms are rare in the protasis and refer to a persistent
state of affairs. The apodosis is basically made up of either future
pšāqəl or subjunctive (šud) šāqəl ~ imperative šqōl. That is, the
normal opposition between the forms is modal, rather than
aspectual or temporal. Rare present-like forms occur here with
the present copula (e.g. īle ‘He is’), the predicative possessor
(e.g. ətle ‘He has’) and the non-verbal expression of ability (ībe
‘He is able’).
 Conditional Patterns in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Zakho 205

2.3. Conditional Types

The predominant conditional type is the ordinary condition,
which answers to the definition given above in §2.1.
Another type is the speech-act conditional, where the
apodosis is not conditioned, but rather reflects a fact:

(6) yā brōn-i kan g-əb-ət qaṭl-ət-ti čū=sēpa

voc son-1s if prs-wish-2ms sbjv.kill-2ms-1s no=sword

láq-qāṭeʾ qzāl-i ġēr sēpa dīd-i

neg.npst-cut.3ms neck-1s except sword poss-1s

d=məlʾḗl mənn-i
nmls=above from-1s

‘O my son, if you want to kill me, (you should know

that) no sword will cut my neck except my sword
which (is) above me.’ (417)

The factual apodosis substantially weakens the modality of

these examples. The protasis merely serves as the background or
explanation of the utterance in the apodosis. In example (6) it is
an unconditioned fact that the sword of the giant woman (who
is the speaker) is the only sword that would kill her. The protasis
merely specifies in what circumstances it is important.
A concessive conditional is yet another type where the
apodosis is factual:

(7) kan zamr-ət hīl mʾāb-ət

if sbjv.sing-2ms till sbjv.die-2ms

lag-napq-ən xá-gar xet mən dūk-i

neg.npst-exit-1ms one-time another from place-1s
206 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

‘(Even) if you sing until you die, I will not come out of
my place once more.’ 457

The snake (who is the source of the utterance) is more or less

making a vow not to move from his place for the man’s sake. This
vow is unconditioned, not being contingent upon the protasis.
Despite this difference, concessive conditionals still share a
pattern with ordinary conditionals, as is shown below, §2.4.
In inferential conditionals, the protasis is the premise from
which the conclusion in the apodosis is drawn, as illustrated in
example . The particle xō~xū is used here to signal this inferential
relationship.

2.4. Paratactic Conditional or Concessive Conditional

Pattern
This pattern is a sequence whose basic functional value is
conditional or concessive conditional (see Cohen 2007).
Unlike the protasis with kan, this type of protasis only occurs
with the subjunctive form šāqəl:2

(8) āna lá=mēs-ət-ti xā=sūse,

nom.1s neg=sbjv.bring-2ms-dat.1s indef-horse

lák-ēs-ən bəd=ʾaql-i
neg.npst-come-1ms by=foot-1s

2 The subjunctive form in the first part occasionaly denotes temporality.

For instance:

āwa ṭāweʾ b-ẓabḥ-an-ne

nom.3ms sbjv.fall.asleep-3ms fut-slaughter-1fs-3ms

‘(when) he falls asleep, I shall slaughter him’ (MA 12.2)

 Conditional Patterns in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Zakho 207

‘As for me, should you not bring me a horse, I will

not go by foot.’ (218)

(9) b-ya-n-nox3 qōl ṭlahá yōme. hama

fut-give-1s-dat.2ms condition three days ptcl

la=šār-ə́tū-la ʾē=sāfīna mən=go=palgūś

neg=sbjv.release-2pl-3fs def=boat from=in=mid

baḥḥar, ʾāna b-dār-ən sēpa go=huzāye.

sea nom.1s fut-put-1ms sword in=Jews

‘I give you a respite of three days. Should you not

free this ship from mid-sea, I will put the Jews to the
sword.’ (MA 15.5–6)

These examples are representative of the construction in

question in form and in content. Example (8)–(9) contain a
subjunctive form that cannot be interpreted as a negative
imperative (which is a common function of the 2nd person
subjunctive). The only way it could be interpreted is as a
conditional protasis ‘should you not….’ The negative form lak-
šāqəl in the apodosis is the negative of both the forms k-šāqəl and
p-šāqəl (and is thus glossed neg.npst).
The relationship with the pattern marked by kan is exemplified
in the following pair of examples. The character is asked by
strangers whether he is a believer or a heretic:

(10) ʾamr-ən-nu kāfər

sbjv.say-1ms-dat.3pl infidel

3 The full form is b-yāw-ən-nox.

208 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

ṣad-li ʾāni amin hāwe ū=b-qaṭl-ī-li

fear-1s nom.3pl believer sbjv.be.3pl conn=fut-kill-3pl-1s

‘Should I tell them ‘infidel’,

I fear they may be believers and will kill me.’ 381

(11) kan ʾamr-ən-nu ʾamin

if sbjv.say-1ms-dat.3pl infidel

ṣad-li hāwe ʾāni kāfer wu=ham

fear-1s sbjv.be.3pl nom.3pl infidel conn=also

b-qaṭl-ī-li
fut-kill-3pl-1s

‘If I tell them ‘believer’,

I fear they may be infidels and will also kill me.’381–82

Recall that the protasis with kan may consist of a preterite

form as well, while in the paratactic pattern only the subjunctive
form šāqəl is attested. Examples (10) and (11), however, have
the same value here. Note that the conditional state of affairs in
both examples is a expressed by a complement clause of ṣadli ‘I
am afraid.’
Whereas the pattern with kan is essentially conditional, the
paratactic pattern may be either conditional or concessive-
conditional (table 2). The two values are differentiated based
upon a particle, which occasionally precedes them: hama. The
particle hama is otherwise a focus particle meaning ‘just.’ Here
it has an entirely different function—it identifies the pattern
#šāqəl—p-šāqəl# as conditional, that is, when hama precedes the
pattern (i.e., #hama šāqəl—p-šāqəl), it marks it as a conditional.
On the other hand, when the particle šud precedes šāqəl,
the pattern is positively identified as a concessive conditional.
 Conditional Patterns in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Zakho 209

(Otherwise šud identifies the subjunctive form as syntactically

independent.) The details of the pattern of the paratactic
conditional are as follows:

Table 2: Conditional Patterns

Conditional Protasis Apodosis

paratactic (hama) ± subjunctive: šāqəl ±future: (p-šāqəl~lak-šāqəl)
±subjunctive: šāqəl
conditional kan ± subjunctive: šāqəl ±future: (p-šāqəl~lak-šāqəl)
particle
± preterite: qam- ±subjunctive: šāqəl;
šāqəl-le, šqəlle present: k-šāqəl

Note that the order protasis—apodosis is strictly kept with

the paratactic pattern but not with the construction with the
conditional particle. Another point is that in view of the obvious
differences between both patterns, the paratactic pattern does
not seem to have been derived from the pattern with an explicit
conditional marker.

2.5. Counter-factual Conditional Patterns

Counter-factual expressions are located at the far end of the
modal scale, very close in fact to the point of negative factuality
(see Illustration 2). They cover events (or states) that did (or will)
not happen, but which are still not reported as factual but rather
through some modal filter:

(12) bale kan yāʾ-ən-wa ʾāhat g-əb-at-ti

but if sbjv.know-1ms-b nom.2fs prs-want-2fs-1s

lák-ēs-ən-wa gō=bēs-ax d=maxṭ-ən

neg.npst-come-1ms-b in=house-2fs conj=caus.sin-1ms
210 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

gyān-i
refl-1s

‘but if I had known (that) you wanted me,

I would not have come into your house, to lead

myself to sin.’ (783)

A virtually similar clause is ‘I didn’t know and therefore

I came.’ This latter clause is, however, factual and does not
impart the regrets and wishes of the speaker implied in the
counterfactual expression in example (12). The opposite order,
apodosis—protasis, is also attested:

(13) mani k-īʾe mā ́ sē-la l=ʾurx-ət

who prs-know.3ms what come.pst-3fs to=way-cst

dáw=jwanqa dīd-i ū=mā b-asyā-wa

def=youngster poss-1s conn=what fut-come.3fs-b

b=rēš-i kan lá-hōy-an-wa tfəq-ta

in=head-1s if neg-sbjv.be-1fs-b meet.ptcp-fs

bəd=danya=ṭḷāha
in=dem=three

‘Who knows what happened to that youth of mine and

what would have happened to me if I had not met
these three.’ (870)

In (13) two apodoses are conjoined in a complement clause of

not-knowing (which is often very similar to the expression of an
indirect question). One is factual (‘what happened’) and the other
 Conditional Patterns in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Zakho 211

is a counterfactual conditional (‘what would have happened

if…’). The latter conveys an alternative universe.
The pattern of the counterfactual conditional, which is
common in NENA, is presented in Table 3:

Table 3: Counterfactual Conditional Pattern

Protasis Apodosis

kan ±šāqəl-wa ±p-šāqəl-wa~lak-šāqəl-wa

(backshifted subjunctive) (backshifted future)

The form p-šāqəl-wa is used in general to express

counterfactuality, also outside the domain of conditionals—
for instance, in circumstantial expressions (see Cohen 2015,
269–70).
Unlike ordinary condition, the protasis of counterfactual
conditionals may interchange with a simpler expression:

(14) āna lák-īʾē-n ́ la

ʾēkā= gēhənnām.
nom.1s neg.npst- know-1ms where=cop.3fs hell

laxwa b-āz-ən-wa ʾap-āna

otherwise fut-go-1ms-b foc-nom.1s

mēs-ə́n-wā-li mən=tāma pāre

sbjv.bring-1ms-b-dat.1s from=there money

‘I do not know where hell is. Otherwise I too would

have gone there to bring money.’ (529)

(15) p=qəṭl-i lág-b-ə́n-wa bary-ā-wa

in=death-1s neg.npst-wish-1ms-b sbjv.happen-3fs-b
212 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

mā-́ d brē-la
what-cst happen.pst-3fs

‘(even in exchange) for my death, I would not have

wanted what happened to happen.’ (903)

Such ‘adverbial’ substitutes (underlined) are hinted at by the

form of the apodosis. The form p-šāqəl-wa is a rare form outside
the counterfactual apodosis. JZ has the following paradigm for
the counterfactual protasis:

Table 4: The Counterfactual Protasis Paradigm

Protasis Gloss Apodosis

kan šāqəl-wa ‘if he had taken’

p-šāqəl-wa ‘he would have
laxwa ‘otherwise’
taken’
pqəṭli ‘(even) for my death’

The ultimate significance of this interchangeability is that,

unlike the protasis of the ordinary conditional, deemed as sui
generis, the counterfactual protasis is comparable with smaller
entities (as are, for instance, many subordinate clauses).
More common is the asyndetic counterfactual conditional
pattern:

(16) yā ʾīlāha, šxēra uxudēra ū=ʾṓha =nāša

voc God by god’s benevolence conn=def=man

fāhəm-wa šaqəl-wa xá=ṭarpa…

sbjv.understand.3ms-b sbjv.take.3ms-b indef=leaf

ū=māwə́š-wā-le ū=xarāye dāyə́q-wā-le…

conn=sbjv.dry.3ms-b-3ms conn=then sbjv.ground.3ms-b-3ms
 Conditional Patterns in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Zakho 213

ū=bāzə́r-wā-le ʾəl=axon-e
conn=sbjv.sprinkle.3ms-b-3ms to=brother-3ms

u=ʾaxōn-e bə-qāyəm-wa
conn=brother-3ms fut-stand.up.3ms-b

‘Oh God, by God’s benevolence, had this man understood,

taken a leaf … and dried it, and then ground it… and
sprinkled it over his brother, his brother would have
stood up.’ (278–79)

The expression šxēra uxudēra does not seem to be part of

the construction. Note that it is actually connected by ū to the
conditional pattern. The pattern in this case consists of five
clauses in the protasis and one in the apodosis.

3. Relationships of the Conditionals with other

Clause-Types
In §2.3 above, several types of conditionals were explained and
exemplified. In certain cases one finds a structure similar to a
conditional pattern, but the function is different. For instance,
conditional-like dependencies sometimes occur within a
descriptive narrative passage:

(17) baxta, hakan hoyā-wa sməxta,

woman if sbjv.be.3fs-b pregnant

g-oz-ī-wā-la treʾ,
prs-do-3pl-b-dat.3fs two

‘If a woman was pregnant, they used to make her

two [chickens for the ritual of kappara].’SAG 3.2
214 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Example (17) is a conditional-like structure. It is, however,

different. It is clear that the structure shows neither modality, nor
counterfactuality, but only an interdependency between two
states of affairs, which are in fact two factual, regularly recurring
states or events. What makes this clear is the form kšāqəlwa in
the apodosis (whereas in the standard counterfactual conditional
pattern one would expect a šāqəlwa—pšāqəlwa sequence, as in
Table 5, with the backshifted future).
The next example is similar; although it does have the right
apodosis form (pšāqəlwa), the so called protasis is introduced by
dammət ‘when’:

(18) ...ū=dammət sanq-ī-wa l=xá-məndi

conn=when sbjv.need-3pl-b to=some-thing

b-āz-ī-wa xakma mənn-u l=xá=gundəke

fut-go.3pl-b some of-3pl to=indef=village

u=m-mēsē-wa mā-d d-ī-lu lāzəm

conn=fut-bring.3pl-b what-cst attr-cop-3pl4 need.3ms

.’..and whenever they would need something, some of

them would go to a village and bring whatever was
needed.’ (947)

Note that conditionals are not typical of narrative. They are

common in dialogue, and possibly also in narratorial comments,

4 The form dīlu ‘they are’ (as well as any other copulas which are prefixed
by d-, i.e., dīwın vs. wın ‘I am’) are copula forms that occur after any
element in the construct state (glossed cst). It is for this reason that they
are referred to as attributes (which is the basic function of the second part
of a genitive construction) and are glossed accordingly (attr). See Cohen
(2010, 90–93) and (2012b, 119–21).
 Conditional Patterns in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Zakho 215

but not in the stream of events. Another similar example is worth

considering:

(19) ṓha=šēx … k-īʾē-wa bəd=ṣurr-ət nāše.

dem=sheikh prs-know.3ms-b in=secret-cst people

xa hāwē-wa náṣax, k-īʾē-wa

indef.pron sbjv.be.3ms-b sick prs-know.3ms-b

ənkan māyes u=ʾənkan bə-ṭāreṣ

whether sbjv.die.3ms conn=whether fut-recover.3ms

ū=xa=baxta dīd hōyāwa sməxta

conn=indef=woman rel sbjv.be.3fs-b pregnant

k-īʾē-wa ʾənkan brōna=le u=ʾənkan

prs-know.3ms-b whether boy=cop.3ms conn=whether

brāta=la.
girl=cop.3fs

This sheikh …, he used to know the secrets of people.

Someone (who) was sick, he would know whether he
would die or recover. And a woman who was pregnant,
he would know whether it is a boy or a girl.’ (226–27)

All three examples (17)-(19) refer to generic a state of affairs.

Note that in these cases conditional, temporal and relative clauses
converge and are almost interchangeable in this context.
216 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Table 5: The Structure of Narrative Conditionals

Example Protasis Apodosis Formal Type

type

(12), (13) (ha)kan šāqəlwa pšāqəlwa conditional counterfactual

conditional
(16) šāqəlwa pšāqəlwa patterns
hakan šāqəlwa kšāqəlwa conditional
dammət šāqəlwa pšāqəlwa temporal generic
(dīd) šāqəlwa kšāqəlwa relative

Where conditional, temporal and relative forms functionally

converge, the result is a non-modal, generic dependency. This
genericity goes hand in hand with character description—not
an individual occurrence, but rather a permanent feature, as in
example (19), describing the sheikh.

4. The Combination of Conditional Expressions

and Epistemic Expressions
Lastly, in the following example two similar expressions
of possibility—conditional and the expression of epistemic
possibility—co-occur:

(19) +
mōrəm-le ʾṓ=+pālavan ū=məttū-le
lift.pst-3ms def=athlete conn=put.pst-3ms

xa=rašōma əl=dṓ=jwanqa čukun xzē-le

indef=blow on=def=youngster since see.pst-3ms

d=lēba čū=fayda kan ʾāwa

comp=neg.exist no=use if nom.3ms
 Conditional Patterns in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Zakho 217

lá-mamreʾ-le balki ʾō=xət qāṭəl-le

neg-sbjv.hurt.3ms-3ms maybe def=other sbjv.kill.3ms-3ms

‘The athlete lifted (his hand) and delivered a blow on

the youngster because he saw that it was no use: If
he does not hurt him, perhaps the other one may kill
him.’ (768)

The explanation for this is that these expressions do not have

the same function. The particle balki has its own function in the
example. The conditional particle possibly signals two things:
first, that both events or states of affairs are merely possible; and
second, the relationship between them:
The only assertion that is made in a conditional construction is about
the relation between the protasis and the apodosis (Dancygier
1998, 72, emphasis mine)

This assertion is best felt when its existence is shaken by a

modal particle which has the entire construction in its scope or
by a question. The modal particle in our case refers specifically to
the relation between the protasis and the apodosis, namely,
it shakes the dependency between the protasis and the apodosis,
expressing doubt about this relationship.

5. Conclusions
This paper provides a description, classification and discussion of
the various conditional phenomena in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic
dialect of Zakho.
1. The different conditional types are explained and
exemplified:
• Ordinary conditionals, which denote different
degrees of epistemic modality (these constitute the
bulk of the examples);
218 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

• Inferential conditionals, where the conclusion in the

apodosis is drawn from the premise expressed in the
protasis. The inferential relationship is marked by the
particle xō~xū.
• Speech-act conditionals, which rather than expressions
of modality, are in fact a structure where the protasis
serves as the background for the utterance in the
(non-conditioned) apodosis.
• Concessive-conditionals (‘even if...’), where the
protasis expresses epistemic modality, but the
apodosis, on the other hand, is not conditioned.
2. Two patterns expressing ordinary conditionals are
presented; one with a conditional particle at the head of
the protasis, and another where no conditional particle is
involved (which we termed paratactic) are presented. Each
pattern is formulated based on the forms which appear in
the protasis and the apodosis. They are different in their
semantic scope—the paratactic pattern can express either
a conditional or a concessive conditional.
3. Counterfactual conditional patterns are similarly
characterised. In addition, a special trait of this
conditional type is discussed, namely the fact that a couple
of expressions can take the place of the counterfactual
protasis without changing the function of the entire
pattern.
4. A special function of similar constructions termed
‘narrative conditionals’ is examined and compared with
counterfactuals. Their function is explained vis-à-vis
other clause types. It is concluded that they are generic
expressions.
5. Finally, the co-occurrence of ordinary conditionals, which
express epistemic modality, with seemingly synonymous
epistemic particles (e.g., ‘perhaps’) is analysed and the
different functions of each are distinguished functionally.
 Conditional Patterns in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Zakho 219

References

Akatsuka, Noriko. 1985. ‘Conditionals and the Epistemic Scale’. Language 61:
625–39.

Cohen, Eran. 2007. ‘Zakho Neo-Aramaic and Old Babylonian Akkadian: The
(Concessive-)Conditional Pattern’. In Studies in Semitic and General Linguistics
in Honor of Gideon Goldenberg, edited by Tali Bar and Eran Cohen, 159–77.
Alter Orient und Altes Testament 334. Münster: Ugarit.

———. 2010. ‘Marking Nucleus and Attribute in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic’.

In Proceeding of the VIII Afro-Asiatic Congress (September 2008, Naples),
Studi Maghrebini (Nuova Serie), VI: 79–94.

———. 2012a. Conditional Structures in Mesopotamian Old Babylonian. Languages

of the Ancient Near East 4. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

———. 2012b. The Syntax of Neo-Aramaic: The Jewish Dialect of Zakho. Gorgias
Neo-Aramaic Studies 13. Piscataway: Gorgias.

———. 2015. ‘Circumstantial Clause Combining in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic

Dialect of Zakho’. In Clause Combining in Semitic: The Circumstantial Clause
and Beyond, edited by Bo Isaksson and Maria Persson, 271–93. Abhandlungen
für die Kunde des Morgenlandes. Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden.

Dancygier, Barbara. 1998. Conditionals and Prediction. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Khan, Geoffrey. 2008. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar. Handbook of Oriental

Studies I-96. Leiden: Brill.

Narrog, Heiko. 2005. ‘On Defining Modality Again.’ Language Sciences 27 (2):
165–92.

Nuyts, Jan. 2006. ‘Modality: Overview and Linguistic Issues’. In The Expression
of Modality, edited by William Frawley, 1–26. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Palmer, Frank. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Taylor, John. 1997. ‘Conditionals and Polarity’. In On Conditionals Again,

edited by Angeliki Athanasiadou and René Dirven, 289–306. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
220 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Corpus

[bare numbers] = Polotsky, Hans J. 1944–1947. Unpublished Zakho Texts.

Jerusalem.
MA= Meehan, Charles and Jaqueline Alon. 1979. ‘The Boy Whose Tunic
Stuck to Him: A Folktale in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Zakho (Iraqi
Kurdistan)’. Israel Oriental Studies 9: 174–203.
SAG= Sabar, Yona. 2007. ‘Agonies of Childbearing and Child Rearing in Iraqi
Kurdistan: A Narrative in Jewish Neo-Aramaic and its English Translation’.
In Studies in Semitic and General Linguistics in Honor of Gideon Goldenberg,
edited by Tali Bar and Eran Cohen, 107–45. Alter Orient und Altes Testament
334. Münster: Ugarit.
 LANGUAGE CONTACT AND ṬUROYO:
THE CASE OF
THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL CLAUSE

Michael Waltisberg

Introduction
When one studies language contact, especially between closely
related languages such as Aramaic and Arabic, grammatical
replication, as opposed to, for instance, phonological borrowing,
remains problematic.1 The term ‘grammatical replication’
describes constructions that are reproduced by linguistic means
in the borrowing language. Mithun (2012, 15) correctly states:
Speakers replicate categories and patterns with native material.
Without the substance, the process can be difficult to detect.

A case in point, which clearly illustrates this problem, is the

circumstantial clause in Ṭuroyo. As I argued in an article published
a few years ago, this can be ascribed to Arabic interference
(Waltisberg 2013).2 This conclusion was not necessarily premature
or rash, but I did not discuss the whole spectrum of the problem
and all the relevant data. The current article resumes the earlier
discussion and summarises the relevant linguistic facts, arriving
at a slightly different conclusion.

1 For introductory literature see, for example, Weinreich (1953); Hickey

(2010); Epps et al. (2013).
2 Kurdish seems to be irrelevant to the argument (see Bedir Khan and Lescot
1986 and Chyet 1995).

© Michael Waltisberg, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0209.06

222 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

1. Ṭuroyo
The circumstantial clause in Ṭuroyo (see Waltisberg 2016, 316ff.)
is either asyndetic, i.e. without a conjunction, or syndetic, i.e.
with the conjunction w- ‘and’. It may occur before or after the
matrix clause. It usually indicates concomitant states and actions
or refers to the narrative background. There is no discernible
distinction between the two syntactic options, as the following
examples show.
A preposed asyndetic circumstantial clause:3

(1) ăḥna naʿime, koṯe l-bol-i,

we children it.is.coming to-mind-my

b-i-qriṯo ĭzzawăyna qŭṭliwăyna ăd-debure

in-the-village we.used.to.go we.used.to.kill the-wasps

‘When we were children, it occurs to me, we used to

go and kill the wasps in the village.’ (R2 456.1)

Here the circumstantial clause is formed with the pronoun

ăḥna ‘we’ and the noun naʿime ‘little ones, children’. There is no
copular element.
A circumstantial clause may also occur within matrix clauses:

(2) mĭḷḷa … gdoṯe zlam, hăt damixo,

she.said he.will.come man you sleeping

gqoṭĭʿ qărʿ-ŭx
he.will.cut.off head-your

3 The transcription of Ṭuroyo used in this paper follows Jastrow (1997) and
consistently indicates lax vowels (mostly in closed syllables) with a breve
diacritic.
 Language Contact and Ṭuroyo  223

‘She said: a man will come, (and) while you are

asleep, he will cut your head off.’ (R3 354.47)

Morphosyntactically, syndetic circumstantial clauses are

almost identical. They simply introduce the clause with the
conjunction w-:

(3) măṣrĭn-ne w-ʿăyn-i măṣre măwfăqqă-lli

they.shackle-them and-eyes-my bound they.led.out-me

m-u-băyt-awo
from-the-house-that

‘They shackled (my hands). With my eyes covered,

they led me out of that house.’ (Talay 2004, 76.127)

The next example has the same semantics as (2) above, but is
joined to what precedes syndetically:

(4) w-kfĭxle b-feme d-Kăyalo

and-he.poured.it in-mouth of-Kăyalo

w-hiye damixo
and-he sleeping

‘and he poured (the grease) into Kăyalo’s mouth, while

he was asleep.’ (R2 574.153)

All the examples cited so far have a non-verbal predicate.

It is not entirely certain whether circumstantial clauses with
a verbal predicate exist, as such constructions largely overlap
with coordinated clauses. Some examples, however, may be
interpreted as a circumstantial clause. The present tense form
224 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

koroqĭḏ ‘he dances’ in example (5) below serves as the predicate

of the circumstantial clause:

(5) disane bdele moḥe ʿal i-ʿărban-ayo

again he.began he.beats upon the-timbrel-that

diḏe w-u-măymun koroqĭḏ

of.his and-the-monkey he.is.dancing

‘He began to beat his timbrel again, while the monkey

was dancing.’ (Jastrow 1968, 46.54)

The following syntactic features of the circumstantial clause

in Ṭuroyo emerge from these examples:

(6) Features of the circumstantial clause:

a. It is syndetic or asyndetic (with or without the

conjunction w- ‘and’).

b. A subject pronoun (or noun) stands at the head of

the clause and the predicate immediately follows.

c. There is no copula, but examples with verbal

predicates (in the present tense) possibly occur.

We may thus come to the preliminary conclusion that the

circumstantial clause in Ṭuroyo is a perfect replica of the Arabic
circumstantial clause (cf., for example, Reckendorf 1921, 447ff.;
Brustad 2000, 339ff.; Procházka 2002, 159).
Despite the morphosyntactic and semantic similarities,
however, there are some problems with this conclusion:
 Language Contact and Ṭuroyo  225

(7) Arguments against Arabic interference:

a. Some dialects of Anatolian Arabic use a copula in

non-verbal clauses, even in circumstantial clauses.

b. In older Aramaic, especially in Syriac, circumstantial

clauses also occur with the conjunction w- ‘and’;
this is, however, rare, as they mostly involve the
conjunction kaḏ (Nöldeke 1898, 261 = 1904, 272).

c. In Barwar Neo-Aramaic, there are similar clauses

which, according to Khan (2008, 22, 849ff.),
cannot be assigned to Arabic interference.

Anatolian Arabic
The situation in Anatolian Arabic is significant. The copula of the
third person singular masculine and feminine has the following
paradigm in the dialect of Hasköy (Kurdish Dêrxas, Muş province,
eastern Turkey):

(8) ism-i Mḥamma-wa

name-my Mḥamma-it.is

‘My name is Mḥamma.’ (Talay 2001, 77ff.)

(9) Aḷmānya bōš kwīse mī-ya

Germany very good not-it.is

‘Germany is not that good.’ (ib.)

A copula may also be used in circumstantial clauses,

for example in the Mḥallami dialect of Kinderib (Mardin
province, south-eastern Turkey), as shown in the two following
226 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

examples, which contain the 3fs (-ye) and the 3ms (-we) copulas
respectively:

(10) ṭalaʿu dáwrəya w-əd-dənye b-əl-layl-ye

they.went.out patrol and-the-world in-the-night-it.is

‘During the night, they went out on patrol.’ (Jastrow

2003, 458.3)

(11) hal-səwwēqīn ... w-hūwe qāyəm-we baqa

the-ploughmen and-he standing-he.is INCHOATIVE

yətfarraǧūn
they.look.on

‘The ploughmen began to look on, while he was

standing (there).’ (Jastrow 2003, 462.31)

If the variety of vernacular Arabic that is the contact language

of Ṭuroyo uses a copula, even in circumstantial clauses, the
borrowing of this construction from Arabic into Ṭuroyo would be
less likely. This is because Ṭuroyo, as we have seen, never uses a
copula in non-verbal circumstantial clauses.
There are, however, also circumstantial clauses without the
copula in Kinderib, as the following asyndetic example shows:

(12) yḥəṭṭū-hu ṛāṣ-u fə l-ġarb w-sāqāt-u

they.put-it head-his in the-west and-feet-his

lə ṣawb əš-šarq hūwe ʿa n-naʿš

to direction.of the-east he on the-bier

‘They put the head (of the body) to the West, and his
feet in the direction of the East, while he was lying on
the bier.’ (Jastrow 2003, 108.40)
 Language Contact and Ṭuroyo  227

There are further instances of circumstantial clauses without

copulas in the Mḥallami dialect, such as the following example
from Sasse (1971):

(13) l-yăwm tətroḥin trăyr rəḥki neyme

today you.leave you.see yourself sleeping

ʿa lə-zbale w-čăntət-ki tăḥt ras-ki

on the-dunghill and-bag-your under head-your

‘(When) you leave today, you will see yourself sleeping

on top of the dunghill, with your bag under your
head.’ (Sasse 1971, 290.5)

Circumstantial clauses without copulas are attested also in

some other varieties of Anatolian Arabic, such as the dialect of
Āzəx (Şırnak province, SE Turkey):

(14) məsku l-ḥabl w-hūwe qāyəm qədda

they.took the-rope and-he standing in.front.of

s-səǧara
the-tree

‘They took the rope, while he was standing in front

of the tree.’ (Wittrich 2001, 160)

Compare this example with the semantically very similar

clause in (11) above. The main difference is the use of the copula
in Kinderib and its absence in Āzəx.
The evidence from Anatolian Arabic, therefore, does not
necessarily contradict the assumption of Arabic influence on the
Ṭuroyo circumstantial clause.
228 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

3. Other Aramaic Varieties

The situation in older varieties of Aramaic is also important for
this issue, for the syntax of the Ṭuroyo circumstantial clause may
be the continuation of earlier linguistic usage. Syriac, as stated
above, rarely uses the conjunction w- ‘and’ in circumstantial
clauses, which are normally introduced by kaḏ. The following
example is from the Julian Romance (probably 6th century C.E.),
transcribed according to the eastern Syriac tradition:

(15) w-lå eṯmṣiw la-mšåwzåḇu-ennon men

and-not they.were.able to-save-them from

yaqdånå d-nurå aykannå d- paṣy-an

immolation of-fire as he.saved-me

Mšiḥå w-šåwzḇ-an men yaqdånå

Christ and-he.delivered-me from immolation

d-nur-åḵ w-ʿayn-ayk ḥåzyån

of-fire-your and-eyes-your seeing

‘They could not save them from the fiery immolation,

as Christ saved and delivered me from your fiery
immolation, while you were looking on.’ (Hoffmann
1880, 52.11 = Sokoloff 2017, 111.10)4

The interpretation of such clauses may sometimes be

somewhat problematic. In the following example, taken
from the story about Mar Maʾin, the clause in question,
despite its morphosyntactic similarities, may not actually be
a circumstantial clause, but rather a sequential clause with a
participle in durative function:

4 Sokoloff’s text erroneously gives <ʾykʾ> for aykannå.

 Language Contact and Ṭuroyo  229

(16) håydȩn npaq nåšå hålȩn l-ṭurå

then they.went.out people these to-mountain

w-hennon meṯkarkin b-ȩ w-ʿal

and-they moving.about in-it and-they.entered

l-håy mʿarṯå w-eškḥu-y

into-that cave and-they.found-him

‘Then these men left for the mountains, and they were
walking about, went into that cave and found him.’
(Brock 2008, 31.-14)

Despite its rather rare occurrence, this older Aramaic usage

may have continued in Ṭuroyo.
Similar clauses can be found in other modern Aramaic varieties
such as those of North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA). These are
mostly asyndetic, as, for instance, in the Christian dialect of
Barwar. Khan (2008, 22, 849ff.) rejects Arabic interference for this
variety, presumably on the grounds of a predominantly Kurdish
environment. Therefore, these clauses must be an independent
development. An asyndetic example reads as follows:

(17) yazíwa zràʾaˈ yazíwa xzàdaˈ

they.used.to.go cultivating they.used.to.go harvesting

yazíwa mɛθóye mə́ndi ta-bɛ̀θaˈ

they.used.to.go bringing something for-house

ʾáni ṣìme.ˈ
they fasting

‘They would go to cultivate (the fields), go to harvest,

go and bring things for the house, while they were
fasting.’ (Khan 2008, 851)
230 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

The syntax of the clause ʾáni ṣìme is the same as in the Ṭuroyo
examples (1) and (2) above, i.e. ăḥna naʿime and hăt damixo
respectively. It is not entirely certain what such parallels,
apparently independent from each other, mean for the syntax
of modern Aramaic in general, as they could well be due to
tendencies toward paratactic structures in spoken language (cf.
the short remark in Givón 2001, 218).

4. Conclusion
From the evidence presented in this paper, some questions arise:

a. Is the circumstantial clause in Ṭuroyo an independent

development, as presumably it is in NENA, i.e. Christian
Barwar?
b. Can the Ṭuroyo circumstantial clause still be interpreted as
the result of Arabic interference, despite the existence of
copular circumstantial clauses in Anatolian Arabic (primarily
Kinderib)?
c. How does the evidence of older Aramaic, i.e. Syriac, which
rarely uses the conjunction w- ‘and’ in such clauses, fit into
this picture?
d. Can the Ṭuroyo circumstantial clause be explained
by a so-called trigger effect ‘releasing or accelerating
developments which mature independently’ (Weinreich
1953, 25)?

This leads to the following tentative conclusion. The model of

Arabic syntax played a part in the Ṭuroyo circumstantial clause,
if only in the sense of reinforcing developments already nascent
in Ṭuroyo; see the evidence from Syriac and NENA cited earlier.
Clues for Arabic interference in the circumstantial clause of
Ṭuroyo may be found in the following syntactic features:
 Language Contact and Ṭuroyo  231

a. Ṭuroyo uses the conjunction w- ‘and’ regularly and without

exception. Despite the Syriac evidence, this regular feature
seems to be dependent on an Arabic prototype.
b. Ṭuroyo never has a copula in circumstantial clauses, as is
the case in most dialects of Anatolian Arabic (see Mḥallamī
and Āzəx). There is no apparent reason why Ṭuroyo by
itself should not use its own copula in such a conspicuous
construction.
c. In addition, the occurrence of a verbal predicate (present
tense) in a circumstantial clause may be due to Arabic
influence, but this remains uncertain.

On the whole, therefore, the circumstantial clause in Ṭuroyo

is a perfect example of the complex interaction between several
internal and external factors in the development of linguistic
features. The exact degree of influence of each of these factors is
difficult, if not impossible, to determine.

References

Bedir Khan, Emir Djeladet and Roger Lescot. 1986. Kurdische Grammatik.
Kurmanci-Dialekt. Disputationes Linguarum Et Cultuum Orbis K 1—
Disputationes Linguae Et Cultus Kurdica 1. Bonn: Kurdisches Institut.

Brock, Sebastian P. 2008. The History of the Holy Mar Ma’in. With a Guide to
the Persian Martyr Acts. Persian Martyr Acts in Syriac 1. Piscataway, NJ:
Gorgias.

Brustad, Kristen E. 2000. The Syntax of Spoken Arabic. A Comparative Study

of Moroccan, Egyptian, Syrian, and Kuwaiti Dialects. Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University Press.

Chyet, Michael L. 1995. ‘Neo-Aramaic and Kurdish. An Interdisciplinary

Consideration of their Influence on each other’. Israel Oriental Studies 15:
219–52.

Epps, Patience et al. 2013. ‘Introduction: Contact Among Genetically Related

Languages’. Journal of Language Contact 6: 209–19.
232 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax. An Introduction. Volume II. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.

Hickey, Raymond (ed.). 2010. The Handbook of Language Contact. Malden:

Wiley-Blackwell.

Hoffmann, J. Georg E. 1880. Iulianos der Abtruennige. Syrische Erzählungen.

Leiden: Brill.

Jastrow, Otto. 1968. ‘Ein Märchen im neuaramäischen Dialekt von Mīḏin (Ṭūr
ʿAbdīn)’. Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 118: 29–61.

———. 1997. ‘The Neo-Aramaic Languages.’ In The Semitic Languages, edited by

Robert Hetzron. London: Routledge, 334–77.

———. 2003. Arabische Texte aus Kinderib. Semitica Viva 30. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.

Khan, Geoffrey. 2008. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar. 3 vols. Handbuch der
Orientalistik 96. Leiden: Brill.

Mithun, Marianne. 2012. ‘Morphologies in Contact: Form, Meaning, and Use

in the Grammar of Reference’. In Morphologies in Contact, edited by Martine
Vanhove, Thomas Stolz, Aina Urdze and Hitomi Otsuka. Studia Typologica
10. Berlin: Akademie, 15–36.

Nöldeke, Theodor. 1898. Kurzgefasste syrische Grammatik. Anhang: Die

handschriftlichen Ergänzungen in dem Handexemplar Theodor Nöldekes
und Register der Belegstellen bearbeitet von Anton Schall. 1966. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

———. 1904. Compendious Syriac Grammar. Translated (with the sanction of

the author) from the second and improved German edition by James A.
Crichton. London: Williams & Norgate.

Procházka, Stephan. 2002. Die arabischen Dialekte der Čukurova (Südtürkei).

Semitica Viva 27. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

R2,3 = Ritter, Hellmut. 1969–1971. Ṭūrōyo. Die Volkssprache der syrischen

Christen des Ṭūr ‫ع‬Abdîn. A: Texte. Vol. II, III. Wiesbaden: Steiner (Kommission).

Reckendorf, Hermann. 1921. Arabische Syntax. Zweite, unveränderte Auflage.

Reprint 1977. Heidelberg: Winter.

Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1971. Linguistische Analyse des arabischen Dialekts der

Mḥallamīye in der Provinz Mardin (Südosttürkei). PhD thesis. Munich:
University of Munich.
 Language Contact and Ṭuroyo  233

Sokoloff, Michael. 2017. The Julian Romance. A New English Translation. Revised
Edition. Texts from Christian Late Antiquity 49. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias.

Talay, Shabo. 2001. ‘Der arabische Dialekt von Hasköy (Dēr-Khāṣ) Ostanatolien.
Teil I: Grammatikalische Skizze’. Zeitschrift für arabische Linguistik 40: 71–89.

——— (ed.). 2004. Lebendig begraben. Die Entführung des syrisch-orthodoxen

Priesters Melki Tok von Midən in der Südosttürkei. Einführung, Aramäischer
Text (Turoyo), Übersetzung und Glossar. Studien zur Orientalischen
Kirchengeschichte 29. Münster: Lit.

Waltisberg, Michael. 2013. ‘Ṭuroyo und Arabisch’. In Nicht nur mit Engelszungen.
Beiträge zur semitischen Dialektologie. Festschrift für Werner Arnold zum 60.
Geburtstag, edited by Renaud Kuty et al. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 353–64.

———. 2016. Syntax des Ṭuroyo. Semitica Viva 55. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in Contact. French, German and Romansh in

Twentieth-century Switzerland. 2nd printing 1963. The Hague: Mouton.

Wittrich, Michaela. 2001. Der arabische Dialekt von Āzəx. Semitica Viva 25.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
 THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC
CONSERVATISM OF WESTERN
NEO-ARAMAIC DESPITE CONTACT WITH
SYRIAN ARABIC

Ivri Bunis

1. Introduction
This paper is a historical-comparative study of basic tense, aspect
and mood (TAM) distinctions in two closely related languages:
Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic. It compares their shared
cognate verbal paradigms, shows the overlap and differences in
their grammatical functions and discusses the independent parallel
developments such as the innovation of new verbal constructions.
It will demonstrate that the Western Neo-Aramaic conservatism
and resilience to contact-induced change in its verbal system is
striking in light of its prolonged and close contact with Syrian
Arabic and the morphological similarities between the Western
Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic verbal paradigms—factors which
have been found to facilitate contact-induced change in other
bilingual situations.
Two of the four cases of divergence that are presented
in this article also stand out in that they involve embedded
structures, specifically, modal and phasal complement clauses
and conditional protases. Western Neo-Aramaic preserves more
complex patterns of subordination with these structures than is
found in Syrian Arabic, which is the dominant language in the
Western Neo-Aramaic speech region. This appears to go against
Matras’s suggestion (2009, 244 and see also ibid., 248–50)
that such embedded structures are prone to contact-induced

© Ivri Bunis, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0209.07

236 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

convergence with the linguistic patterns of the model or donor

language.
Of the two branches of Aramaic that are known to us from the
Late Aramaic stage (3rd–6th centuries CE), namely Western and
Eastern Aramaic, the sole surviving heirs to the varieties that were
part of the western branch are the three Neo-Aramaic dialects
spoken in the Qalamun mountains in Syria, around 60 kilometres
North-East of Damascus. Unlike the majority of the eastern
Neo-Aramaic dialects, which have been in contact mostly with
non-Semitic languages, possessing very different morphologies
from their own, Western Neo-Aramaic has developed in contact
with Arabic. Both Aramaic and Arabic belong to Central Semitic.
The genetic relation between the two language groups entails a
large degree of morphological similarity. Western Neo-Aramaic
especially stands out in the extreme closeness of its verbal
morphology to that of Syrian Arabic. The morphological affinity
between Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic in general,
particularly in their verbal morphology, provides an opportunity
to examine a case of prolonged contact between closely related
languages, in this instance likely spanning over a millennium.
Syrian Arabic is the dominant language in the Western Neo-
Aramaic speech region and all Western Neo-Aramaic speakers
have been bilingual for several generations at the very least
(Correll 1978, 136). Evidence for the long history of contact
between Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic is found in the
extensive influence of Syrian Arabic on Western Neo-Aramaic
in the areas of lexicon (Arnold and Behnstedt 1991, 61) and
morphology and syntax (Correll 1978, 135–53).
One central feature of the verbal morphology of the Western
Neo-Aramaic dialects that brings it very close to Syrian Arabic
verbal morphology is the retention of both of the earlier Central
Semitic finite verbal paradigms, namely the suffix conjugation (i.e.
qtal) and the prefix conjugation (i.e. yiqtol). These conjugations
exist alongside the imperative and the two participial paradigms,
i.e. the so-called active participle and the so-called passive or
resultative participle. Western Neo-Aramaic contrasts in this
feature with nearly all of the eastern varieties of Neo-Aramaic,
 The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-Aramaic  237

in which the two finite paradigms have fallen out of use and the
verbal system is based on the historical active and resultative
participles. Only Neo-Mandaic has preserved one of the finite
paradigms, namely the qtal conjugation (Hӓberl 2009, 178ff.).
The participial forms of Western Neo-Aramaic have undergone
some development. Notably, they have acquired prefixal person
inflection (Arnold 1990b, 75, 77), which parallels suffixal person
marking in eastern varieties of Neo-Aramaic. However, apart
from this development, which has also affected adjectives, and
some other changes to inflectional morphemes expressing person,
number and gender, Western Neo-Aramaic verbs preserve the
morphology of Late Western Aramaic, which in turn constitutes
the general verbal morphology of Central Semitic.
The retention of the two finite verbal paradigms has special
significance for the issue of language contact between Western
Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic. Syrian Arabic too has suffix and
prefix conjugations, an active participle, a passive/resultative
participle and an imperative paradigm. The morphology of the
Western Neo-Aramaic suffix and prefix conjugations and the
active participle very closely parallels that of Syrian Arabic.
For the discussion of language contact, I adopt here the terms
‘matter replication’ and ‘pattern replication’ employed by Matras
(2009, 234–35) to refer respectively to borrowings of concrete
forms of words or morphs as opposed to the replication of more
abstract patterns. Matras (ibid., 240–43) presents a model for
pattern replication based on ‘pivot-matching’, whereby speakers
identify pivotal features of a pattern in the model language, and
match them ‘to the inventory of context-appropriate forms’ and
‘their formation and combination rules’ (ibid., 243). The result
is the replication of the model pattern using inherited linguistic
material.
Much of the study of language contact is devoted to
understanding which elements of language tend to be replicated
as borrowed linguistic matter, as linguistic patterns or the
combination of both. Various hierarchies have been suggested
concerning the propensity of various elements to be taken over
238 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

in the replica language through matter or pattern replication

(Matras 2009, 153–65, 243–45).
Since the focus of the present article is the function of verbal
paradigms of Western Neo-Aramaic, in relation to cognate
Syrian Arabic verbal paradigms, the most relevant type of
linguistic change in this context would be pattern replication.
The occurrence of pattern replication is explained in various
ways, with a prominent role given to bilingualism. As noted,
Aramaic/Syrian Arabic bilingualism has existed among Western
Neo-Aramaic speakers for an extended period of time. In this
context, a suggested motivation for pattern replication is to
maximise the efficiency of speech production in a bilingual
situation, by allowing patterns to converge (Matras 2009, 235).
Furthermore, prolonged bilingualism is believed to result in the
levelling of structures through ‘orientation toward a prestigious
outsider language’, which may be accompanied in the case of
diglossia by ‘a considerable influx of loanwords’ (ibid., 237). Loss
of categories through language contact has also been reported
(ibid., 258). The dominance of Syrian Arabic in the Western Neo-
Aramaic speech-region is very much reflected in such an influx of
Arabic loanwords and the replacement of many original Aramaic
lexemes. On the other hand, as this article aims to show, the
morphosyntax of the expression of TAM reflects a large measure
of stability, in that the levelling of structures and loss of categories
has not occurred.
Studies of language contact that specifically touch on
morphology suggest that the morphological similarities between
the Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic verbal systems could
have had the potential to facilitate the replication of the Syrian
Arabic patterns by cognate, similar-sounding forms in Western
Neo-Aramaic. Firstly, replication involving derivational and even
inflectional morphology is attested even between languages with
very different morphologies (Matras 2009, 258–65). Noorlander
(2014) has applied Matras’s model to the eastern varieties of
Neo-Aramaic. He has found many examples of morphosyntactic
replication among varieties of Eastern Neo-Aramaic that were
induced by their contact with Kurdish, an Indo-European
 The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-Aramaic  239

language, despite its very different morphology. Khan (2020) has

drawn attention to the fact that contact between North-Eastern
Neo-Aramaic dialects and Iranian languages can result in partial
convergence based on the matching of particular details between
the languages without replicating full grammatical systems.
Moreover, the morphological and phonological similarities that
exist between Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic cognate
verbal forms are known from other contact situations to have
served as pivotal features facilitating pattern replication (Matras
2009, 245–46).
The potential for pattern replication and its lack of realisation
in the case of Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic is the
main concern of this article, to which I apply Matras’s model. In
this case, the close similarities in sound and morphology between
cognate Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic verbal forms
would be the potential pivotal features that could have facilitated
pattern replication.
When compared with many of the contact situations that have
been studied by contact linguists, the degree of sound-similarity
between the cognate verbal forms of Syrian Arabic and Western
Neo-Aramaic, which I address later on in this article, stands out.
An important additional factor is that some of the cognate and
similar-sounding forms already had parallel functions in both
languages as a result of parallel development in both languages
or shared retention. Lastly, I aim to show that speakers of Western
Neo-Aramaic have recognised the morphological closeness
between Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic verbal forms.
We would have expected that these factors, coupled with
the prolonged contact between the two languages, and the
dominance of Syrian Arabic, would have facilitated and prompted
the replication of Syrian Arabic morphosyntactic patterns within
Western Neo-Aramaic.
Correll (1978, 142–53) has devoted attention to the question
of the Syrian Arabic influence on Western Neo-Aramaic verbal
syntax, on the basis of the texts that he had at his disposal.
Correll generally finds much Syrian Arabic influence on the
function of the Western Neo-Aramaic verb, though he often
240 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

qualifies this influence, noting somewhat obscurely that ‘with all

of the recognised impact of the donor language [i.e. Arabic], it
is hardly possible to speak of explicit Arabisation’ (Correll 1978,
148).1 Notably, Correll (ibid., 153) proposes that the contact with
Arabic might have been a conservative force, responsible for
the preservation of the two finite verbal paradigms in Western
Neo-Aramaic. Arabic, Correll suggests, hindered the inherent
tendencies of the precursors of Western Neo-Aramaic, which
might have led to the loss of the earlier finite verbal paradigms
as happened in the eastern varieties of Aramaic. In the relevant
sections of the present article, some of Correll’s remarks will be
considered in greater detail.
The opinions Correll expresses on this issue seem to be
somewhat contradictory (1978, 142–45). With respect to the
qtal and yiqtol paradigms in Western Neo-Aramaic, he states
that their functions are very close to those of the cognate Syrian
Arabic forms, making Syrian Arabic influence on their function
likely. And yet, he reasons, their functions are too close to those
found in older Aramaic to establish Syrian Arabic influence with
certainty. Nevertheless, Correll strongly believes that the Western
Neo-Aramaic active participle has converged in its functions with
Syrian Arabic b-+yiqtol, stating in this regard
There can be no doubt that this is a case of direct and meticulous
replication of the circumstances in Arabic (Correll 1978, 144–45).2

Arnold (2007, 189) notes that qtal and yiqtol in Western Neo-
Aramaic ‘are used to express preterite tense and subjunctive
exactly as in the Arabic dialects of Syria’.
The present article aims to show that despite the factors of
prolonged contact of Western Neo-Aramaic with Syrian Arabic

1 ‘… von ausdrücklicher Arabisierung kann also, bei aller zugestandenen

Einwirkung von seiten der Adstratsprache, schwerlich gesprochen werden’
(my translation).
2 ‘Es kann wohl nicht der geringste Zweifel daran bestehen, daß man es
hier mit einer geradezu minuziösen Nachbildung der Gegebenheiten im
Arabischen zu tun hat’ (my translation), and see also Correll’s comment,
p. 144, n. 272.
 The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-Aramaic  241

and the close morphological affinity between the two languages,

Western Neo-Aramaic preserves a significant degree of difference
from Syrian Arabic in its verbal morphosyntax.
The examination presented here is contrastive. In order
to appreciate the significance of the functional divergences
presented in Section 4, between cognate and similar-sounding
verb forms in Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic, these
divergences are contrasted with other contexts in which Syrian
Arabic influence on Western Neo-Aramaic is significant (Sections
2–3), and Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic show parallel
functions of their cognate verbal forms (Section 3). It is within
this wider context, which, I suggest, includes a recognition on
the part of the speakers of the correspondences between Western
Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic, that the existence of such
divergences is striking.
The investigation offered in this article consists of three
sections. In Section 2, I illustrate the close and extensive
contact that has existed between Western Neo-Aramaic and
Syrian Arabic by reviewing facets of lexical, morphological
and syntactic influences of Syrian Arabic outside of the
verbal system. In Section 3, I present shared features of the
Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic verbal forms, due to
independent development, shared retention or convergence. This
section serves as a background, against which, the functional
divergences, presented in Section 4, between the cognate Syrian
Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic verbal paradigms, can be fully
understood.

2. Syrian Arabic Influence on Western

Neo-Aramaic: Loanwords and Multiword
Expressions, and their Syntactic Context
To appreciate the divergences that are the focus of this paper,
the duration of the contact between Western Neo-Aramaic and
Syrian Arabic and the ways that this contact has impacted on
Western Neo-Aramaic need to be understood.
242 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Throughout this article, the linguistic examples are transcribed

as they appear in the respective publications.
With regard to the duration of contact, Arnold (2002, 6–7)
has pointed out two phonological features of Syrian Arabic
loanwords that reflect prolonged contact between Western Neo-
Aramaic and Syrian Arabic.
Some Arabic loanwords in Western Neo-Aramaic, such as rkʿ
‘return’ in the fourth stem, contain the consonant /k/ where
contemporary Syrian Arabic has /ǧ/ or /ž/ (cf. ržʿ ‘return’).
In words of Aramaic stock, /k/ most often originates from the
voiced velar stop *g, e.g. felka < *pelgā ‘half’ (Spitaler 1938, 17).
Other Arabic loanwords in Western Neo-Aramaic reflect
spirantisation of bgdkpt consonants, e.g. xōf <Arabic kāfī
‘enough’.
Arnold convincingly suggests that the first category of
loanwords was borrowed into the precursors of Western Neo-
Aramaic before the voiced velar stop /g/ in Syrian Arabic
shifted to /ǧ/ and subsequently in many of the Syrian Arabic
dialects to /ž/. Later borrowings from Syrian Arabic contain
/ž/, e.g. čōžra ‘merchant’ < Syrian Arabic tāžer. Following
Spitaler (1938, 21), Arnold suggests that the second category
goes back to the time when the twofold pronunciation of the
bgdkpt consonants in Aramaic, as either stops or fricatives, was
still allophonic. The two realisations are no longer allophonic in
contemporary Western Neo-Aramaic, but have developed into
discrete phonemes. Thus [k] and [x], which were originally
allophones of /k/ constitute minimal pairs in xafna ‘hunger’
versus kafna ‘burial shroud’ < Arabic kafan (Arnold 1990b,
14). The initial /k/ in the Arabic loanword kafna in contrast to
the initial /x/ in xōf < Arabic kāfī also presumably signifies
that the former was borrowed into Western Neo-Aramaic at a
later period than kāfī.
The influence of contact with Syrian Arabic on the lexicon of
all three Western Neo-Aramaic dialects is massive. It includes the
replacement of many Aramaic lexemes with Arabic lexemes (1).
 The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-Aramaic  243

(1) Maʿlūla
aḥḥaḏ ifqer w-aḥḥaḏ iġǝn

‘one poor man and one rich man’ (Arnold 1991, 12:1)

Most Syrian Arabic loanwords, including the forms ifqer

< Arabic faqīr and iġǝn < Arabic ġanī in example (1), reflect
integration into Western Neo-Aramaic morphology, which is also
an indication of the long duration of contact.
Material replication of Syrian Arabic lexicon is not limited in
Western Neo-Aramaic to content words but includes many function
words as well. Just to illustrate, these include adverbs such as
baḥar ‘much, very’ < Arabic baḥar ‘sea’, bnawb ‘completely’ <
Syrian Arabic bnawb with the same meaning, subordinators such
as ḥetta ‘in order that’ and the reciprocal pronoun baʿḏ̣ < Arabic
baʿḏ̣. In Matras’s view, since contact-induced linguistic change
originates in the discourse of bilingual speakers, discourse
markers are particularly prone to be materially replicated (Matras
2009, 98–100, 144–45). A significant portion of the replicated
Syrian Arabic function words in Western Neo-Aramaic includes
discourse markers, such as ṭayyeb ‘OK, good’, bass ‘but’, yaʿni ‘I
mean’. All of these originate in identical Syrian Arabic forms
with the same meanings.
The ordinal numbers in Western Neo-Aramaic have been
completely replaced by Syrian Arabic forms: awwal,3 ṯēn(i), ṯēleṯ,
etc. (Arnold 1990b, 403). In this regard, Western Neo-Aramaic is
extreme. There is much documentation in the world’s languages
for the borrowing of ‘first’ and ‘second’ but not of higher
ordinals (Matras 2009, 202–03), which may point to a special
propensity of lower ordinals to undergo contact-induced material
replication. This holds for a number of Aramaic dialects as well.
The Arabic form ʾawwal ‘first’ was taken over by varieties of
Palestinian Aramaic already in the Middle Ages (Fassberg 2010,

3 Following Arnold’s practice, an initial glottal stop is not indicated in the

transcription of Western Neo-Aramaic.
244 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

92, n. 102). A number of North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects

have borrowed either ʾawwal3 by itself (Garbell 1965, 56–7; Khan
2008, 186–87; Fassberg 2010, 92), or together with forms for
‘second’ (Khan 1999, 181; Khan 2004, 206; Khan 2009, 213).
Likewise in some dialects of Ṭūrōyo, ‘first’ and ‘second’ have been
replaced by Arabic forms and the Arabic ordinal for ‘third’ (tēləṯ)
is occasionally used alongside a native Aramaic form (Ritter
1990, 47). In the Mīdin dialect of this group ‘second’ and ‘third’
are borrowed from Arabic, whereas qamoyo, the older Aramaic
form for ‘first’ is preserved and used adjectivally (Jastrow 1985,
245). By contrast Western Neo-Aramaic has replaced all ordinals
from ‘one’ to ‘ten’ with Arabic forms. Aramaic cardinal numbers,
though, have been retained in Western Neo-Aramaic. In Trans-
Zab Jewish varieties of North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic, we find a
combination of matter and pattern replication with all ordinal
numbers. In these varieties, ordinals are formed on the basis of
native Aramaic cardinal numbers, which are suffixed with -mīn.
The suffix -mīn has been materially replicated from Kurdish,
and Kurdish is also the model for the pattern cardinal+suffix
(Noorlander 2014, 215).
The influence of Syrian Arabic is not limited to the material
replication of lexical items, but includes replication of derivational
morphemes and pattern replication. Two clear examples of this
are the Arabic elative pattern aqtal, and the seventh and eighth
Arabic verbal stems. For Matras (2009, 209–10), a requirement
for recognising morphological borrowing is ‘backwards diffusion’,
i.e., ‘replication of borrowed morphs in connection with pre-
existing, inherited lexicon’. The elative aqtal pattern is used not
only with Arabic loanwords, such as aqwa ‘stronger’, from the
Arabic root qwy, but with Aramaic roots as well, as in awrab
‘greater, older’ from rbb.4
Syntactic influence of Syrian Arabic is evident with the ordinal
numbers and the elative, on top of the lexical and morphological
influence that those two categories reflect. When these categories

4 The seventh and eighth Arabic derived stems are discussed in Section 3
below (see further Correll 1978, 25–6, 141).
 The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-Aramaic  245

function as modifiers, Western Neo-Aramaic (2a-c) replicates the

syntactic pattern in which they appear in Syrian Arabic (3a-c).
The pattern consists of a noun phrase structure in which the
modifier, in an uninflected masculine singular form, precedes the
head noun, an unusual word order elsewhere in Western Neo-
Aramaic, but one that is well known in Arabic (Grotzfeld 1965,
71, 93–4).

(2) Western Neo-Aramaic (Maʿlūla)

a. awwal yōma
‘first day’ (Arnold 1991, 72:23)

b. ṯēn lēlya
‘second night’ (Arnold 1991, 34:178)

c. awrab aḥḥaḏ
‘oldest one’, literally ‘greater one’ (Arnold 1991,
136:2)

(3) Syrian Arabic (ʿAyn et-Tīne)

a. awwal xarūf
‘first ram’ (Behnstedt 2000, 360:14)

b. ṯēni lēle
‘second night’ (Behnstedt 2000, 364:44)

c. aktar šī
‘mostly’, literally ‘most thing’ (Arnold 1987, 1:1)

Multiword expressions constitute a category with which

matter replication also inherently involves syntactic structures,
which fall into the category of patterns (Matras 2009, 240–43).
246 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Numerous Syrian Arabic expressions such as (4) have been

borrowed into Western Neo-Aramaic. I adduce this example to
illustrate how the structural affinity between the two languages
has enabled such expressions to be adopted almost as they
appear in the model language. In (4), the dimension of syntax
also indicates how speakers of Western Neo-Aramaic are able
to match forms in Syrian Arabic with non-cognate forms with
parallel function in Western Neo-Aramaic.
In (4), the Arabic expression qaṭaʿ-∅ ǝl-ʾamal ‘[he] lost hope’
(4a), literally ‘[he] cut the hope’ is mirrored by a very close
expression in Western Neo-Aramaic (4b). The noun ʾamal ‘hope’
has been borrowed and integrated into Western Neo-Aramaic
morphology in the form aml-a, whereby it has acquired the
Western Neo-Aramaic nominal suffix -a. The root qṭʿ ‘cut’ is found
historically both in Arabic and in Aramaic, but its use in Western
Neo-Aramaic in this phrase in collocation with aml-a doubtless
originates in the Syrian Arabic expression.

(4)

a. Syrian Arabic

lā tǝ-qṭaʿ-∅ ǝl-ʾamal
not 2-cut.imp-ms def-hope

‘Don’t give up hope.’ (Stowasser 1964, 118b)

b. Neo-Aramaic (Maʿlūla)

qaṭʿ-ul-l aml-a
cut.qtl-3mpl-dom hope-npsfx

‘They lost hope.’ (Arnold 1991, 14:39)

Thus, beyond the borrowing of the Syrian Arabic lexical

item ʾamal and its morphological integration into Western
Neo-Aramaic, the replica phrase exemplifies how Western Neo-
Aramaic makes use of its own morphosyntax to replicate the
 The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-Aramaic  247

pattern of the model expression in the donor language. In Syrian

Arabic, the noun ʾamal appears in the phrase in its definite form,
marked as such by the definite article ǝl-, a nominal prefix. No
fully analogous definite article in the form of a nominal prefix is
found in Western Neo-Aramaic, though other means are found
for marking noun phrases as definite, one of which is the verbal
suffix -l, which differentially marks the definite direct object
nominal. In (4b) this morpheme appears in the replicated pattern
with the verbal form qaṭʿ-ul-l, marking its direct object aml-a as
definite.
The Western Neo-Aramaic pattern in (4b) fully corresponds
to the Syrian Arabic pattern, even in the definiteness of the noun
aml-a. Western Neo-Aramaic, however, has not replicated the
matter that is used to express the noun’s definiteness in the model
language, but uses a native component belonging to a different
category to replicate the Syrian Arabic pattern. Pivot-matching
on the basis of phonological similarity might have played a role
in the replication of the Syrian Arabic definite article ǝl- by means
the Western Neo-Aramaic verbal suffix -l.

3. Shared Features of the Western Neo-Aramaic

and Syrian Arabic Verbal Systems
due to Shared Retention, Convergence or
Parallel Development
To appreciate the significance of the divergences between Western
Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic that are the focus of this paper,
Section 2 above serves as a general background. Its purpose is
to illustrate that Western Neo-Aramaic has extensively borrowed
Syrian Arabic lexicon and morphology, and has replicated
Syrian Arabic morphosyntactic patterns associated with those
borrowings, either by means of the borrowed forms themselves,
or through its own linguistic matter.
The divergences in the verbal system, which are presented
in section 4 below, are striking not only against this general
background of extensive impact of Syrian Arabic, but especially
248 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

in light of similarities both in matter and in pattern, or in form

and in function, between the verbal systems of the two language
groups.
The scope of the present article does not permit a close
examination of all of the functions of the Western Neo-Aramaic and
Syrian Arabic verbal paradigms, but I present here a comparison
of some major functions of the shared cognate paradigms (i) qatal
(Syrian Arabic) and qtal (Western Neo-Aramaic), (ii) yiqtol, (iii)
qātel (Syrian Arabic) and qōtel (Western Neo-Aramaic) and (iv) of
the Western Neo-Aramaic qtīl/qattīl paradigm of the resultative
participle.

3.1 Background to the Divergences in the Verbal System:

Cognate Inflectional Morphology
As noted in the introduction, due to the shared origins of the
two languages, the inherited verbal morphology of Western
Neo-Aramaic very closely parallels that of Syrian Arabic. Table
1 outlines the parallel Tense–Aspect–Mood (TAM) inflectional
paradigms of the Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic verbal
systems, as they are reflected in the first or basic stem.

Table 1: The TAM Paradigms of the Syrian Arabic

and Western Neo-Aramaic Verbs

Paradigm Arabic Aramaic

(ktb ‘write’) (fṯḥ ‘open’, ḏmx ‘sleep’)

qatal/qtal katab ifṯaḥ (< earlier Aramaic *pṯaḥ)

yiqtol yǝktob yifṯuḥ
imperative ktōb fṯōḥ
qātel/qōtel5 kāteb ḏōmex (< earlier Aramaic *dāmex)
resultative maktūb iḏmex (< earlier Aramaic *dmīx (i.e. *qtīl))
participle šammeʿ < *šammīʿ (*qattīl, Arnold 1990b, 76)

Adapted from Arnold and Behnstedt (1993, 12, 55) and Grotzfeld (1965, 108).

5 Historically, the active participle.

 The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-Aramaic  249

One of the central features of the Western Neo-Aramaic verbal

morphology is the retention of the suffix and prefix conjugations
unlike other Neo-Aramaic dialects. Syrian Arabic and Western
Neo-Aramaic share these two paradigms, to which I shall refer
as qatal (Syrian Arabic) or qtal (Western Neo-Aramaic) and yiqtol
respectively. They also share the qātel (Syrian Arabic) or qōtel
(Western Neo-Aramaic) paradigm, which goes back historically
to the active participle, as well as the imperative paradigm. Thus,
in the morphology of the TAM paradigms, the two languages
reflect complete parallelism. The exception is the resultative
participles: these show divergent forms.
The Person–Number–Gender (PNG) inflectional morphology
of the verbal system, too, is largely parallel, but not completely
identical, in the two languages, as exemplified in Table 2 (taken
from Arnold and Behnstedt 1993, 55) with respect to the qatal/
qtal paradigm of the verb ḏ̣ḥk ‘laugh’ in the first stem, which has
been borrowed into Western Neo-Aramaic from Syrian Arabic.
The Western Neo-Aramaic column contains the forms that are
found in the dialect of Maʿlūla.

Table 2: Verbal Inflection of the Qatal/Qtal Paradigm, First Stem

Arabic Aramaic (Maʿlūla)

3ms ḏ̣aḥak-∅ iḏ̣ḥek-∅

3fs ḏ̣aḥak-it ḏ̣iḥk-aṯ
3pl ḏ̣aḥak-u iḏ̣ḥek-∅

2ms ḏ̣aḥak-t ḏ̣iḥk-ič

2fs ḏ̣aḥak-ti ḏ̣iḥk-iš
2mpl ḏ̣aḥak-tu ḏ̣iḥk-ičxun
2fpl ḏ̣aḥak-tu ḏ̣iḥk-ičxen
1s ḏ̣aḥak-t ḏ̣iḥk-iṯ
1pl ḏ̣aḥak-na ḏ̣iḥk-innaḥ

ḏ̣ḥk ‘laugh’
250 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

As Table 2 indicates, the two language groups share the same

general inflectional scheme, which in the case of the qatal/
qtal paradigm consists of verbal suffixes. Through their verbal
inflection, the two languages express the same categories of PNG,
with the exception of three significant differences. In the Neo-
Aramaic dialects of Maʿlūla and Ǧubbʿadīn, gender distinction is
preserved between the 2mpl. and 2fpl. forms, whereas in Syrian
Arabic this distinction has been levelled out. Syrian Arabic also
does not formally distinguish between 1s. and 2ms., whereas these
are distinct in Western Neo-Aramaic. Conversely, Syrian Arabic
maintains number distinction between 3ms. and 3pl., whereas
these are expressed by identical forms in Western Neo-Aramaic.
The cross-linguistically rare case of the replication of
inflectional morphology from Syrian Arabic has not been found
in Western Neo-Aramaic. A possible example, though, of pattern
replication with respect to Syrian Arabic inflectional paradigms
occurs in the Western Neo-Aramaic dialect of Baxʿa. In this dialect,
as in Syrian Arabic, gender distinction has been lost in plural
verb forms through the generalisation of historical mpl. forms.
Thus, in the qtal conjugation of the dialect of Baxʿa, the 2pl. suffix
for both genders is -ićxun, whereas the other two Western Neo-
Aramaic dialects maintain separate forms (see Table 2). Arnold
and Behnstedt (1993, 56) plausibly attribute the development in
the Western Neo-Aramaic dialect of Baxʿa to the influence of the
Syrian Arabic of the nearby villages.

3.2. Background to the Divergences in the Verbal

System: Borrowing of Verbal Derivational
Morphology
One area in which there is clear influence of Syrian Arabic on
the Western Neo-Aramaic verbal system is in the replication of
Arabic derivational morphology, i.e. of derived stems which are
not found in earlier Aramaic. Replication of verbal derivational
morphology is apparently quite uncommon cross-linguistically
(Matras 2009, 211). The forms of these stems have been borrowed
extensively into Western Neo-Aramaic, notwithstanding the
 The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-Aramaic  251

typical Western Neo-Aramaic sound changes, as shown in Table

3, which contains the 3ms forms of the qatal/qtal conjugation
(Arnold and Behnstedt 1993, 58).

Table 3: The Syrian Arabic Derived Stems in Western Neo-Aramaic

Arabic stem Arabic form Aramaic form Gloss

III šāraṭ šōreṭ ‘bet’

VI trāfaq črōfeq ‘join’
VII nfaǧar in fžar
ǝ
‘explode’
VIII ftaham if čham
ǝ
‘be understood’
X staqbal sčaqbel ‘accept’

Matter and pattern replication coincide in the borrowing of

the derived stems.
Firstly, the borrowing of the Syrian Arabic derived stems is not
merely part of the lexical influence of Syrian Arabic on Western
Neo-Aramaic, but clearly constitutes morphological borrowing.
The borrowed derived stems show ‘backwards diffusion’, namely,
the ‘replication of borrowed morphs in connection with pre-
existing, inherited lexicon’ (Matras 2009, 209–10). In other
words, the borrowed Arabic stems are widely used with existing
Aramaic roots.
Secondly, the Syrian Arabic VII and VIII passive stems, i.e.
nfaʿal and ftaʿal, borrowed into Western Neo-Aramaic as inǝfʿal
and ifǝčʿal respectively, additionally reflect pattern replication
(Arnold and Behnstedt 1993, 58–9). These borrowed stems have
replaced the older Aramaic ʾeṯpʿel passive stem, which has been
retained in Western Neo-Aramaic through one verbal lexeme
(see Arnold 1990b, 62, 126–28). Active verbs of the first stem,
whether Arabic or Aramaic in origin, are passivised through
Arabic stem VII: ifṯaḥ ‘[he] opened’ > inǝfṯaḥ ‘[he] was opened’,
unless their first radical is /n/, in which case they are passivised
through the Arabic eighth stem, as with inxas ‘[he] slaughtered’
> inǝčxas ‘[he] was slaughtered’, from the originally Aramaic root
252 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

nxs. The same morphophonemic rule operates in Syrian Arabic.

Thus, the Syrian Arabic pattern has been replicated in Western
Neo-Aramaic both with respect to the use of Arabic stems VII and
VIII as the passive counterparts of stem I, as well as in terms of
the morphophonemic rule that governs the selection of each of
these stems.
Coghill (2015, 83–107) has compared the borrowing of Arabic
derived stems in Western Neo-Aramaic and in dialects of Eastern
Neo-Aramaic. She has found that of all of the Neo-Aramaic dialects,
Western Neo-Aramaic has borrowed the largest number of Arabic
stems. Likewise, Western Neo-Aramaic shows the greatest degree
of integration of derived stems; of all of the Neo-Aramaic dialects
that she examined, only the replicated Arabic seventh and eighth
stems in Western Neo-Aramaic show use with native Aramaic
verbal roots. As factors in the acceptance of Arabic derived stems,
she suggests duration and intensity of contact and the specific
repertoire of inherited derived stems. I would suggest, in addition
to those factors, that the close morphological similarities that
existed between Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic, but not other
Neo-Aramaic dialects, in the inflection of the TAM paradigms
(Table 1) as well as in the inflection for PNG (Table 2) facilitated
the borrowing and integration of Syrian Arabic derived stems in
Western Neo-Aramaic.
As we have seen, the clear formal parallelism that is reflected
in the verbal morphologies of Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-
Aramaic correlates with Syrian Arabic influence on both Western
Neo-Aramaic verbal inflection and derivational morphology,
in the form of pattern replication as well as matter replication,
especially in the case of the seventh and eighth Arabic stems.
This would suggest a recognition of the parallelism between the
morphologies of the Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic
verbs at some level on the part of the speakers of Western
Neo-Aramaic.
 The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-Aramaic  253

3.3. B
 ackground to the Divergences in the Verbal
System: Shared Functions and Morphosyntactic
Contexts of Cognate Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-
Aramaic Verbal Paradigms
Table 1 presents the cognate TAM paradigms of Syrian Arabic
and Western Neo-Aramaic. Pattern replication appears to be
common in many languages with respect to TAM (Matras 2009,
236, 248–49), yet in this category significant divergences are
found between the two languages, as shown in Section 4 below.
The divergences in the uses of the verb forms are striking in
light of the functions and morphosyntactic patterns in which
the Western Neo-Aramaic qtal and yiqtol conjugations parallel
cognate and similar-sounding qatal and yiqtol conjugations of
Syrian Arabic. These are covered in this section. In the examples
below I use the following glosses for the verbal paradigms: qtl:
qtal (Western Neo-Aramaic)/qatal (Syrian Arabic), yqtl: yiqtol
(Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic), qātl: qātel (Syrian
Arabic historical active participle), qōtl: qōtel (Western Neo-
Aramaic historical active participle), and qtīl: qtīl/qattīl (Western
Neo-Aramaic historical resultative participle).
The shared functions of Western Neo-Aramaic qtal and yiqtol
and cognate qatal and yiqtol of Syrian Arabic are likely to be
the outcome of independent development in each language
or possibly shared retention in the case of qatal/qtal, and not
language contact.
To these shared functions, however, contact between Western
Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic has added very extensive matter
replication of Syrian Arabic content and function words, and
multiword expressions (§2). This has resulted in numerous
contexts in which Western Neo-Aramaic corresponds to Syrian
Arabic at two levels: (i) At the level of the verbal form, its qtal
and yiqtol forms match cognate qatal and yiqtol of Syrian Arabic
in both function and sound; (ii) At the level of the construction,
replicated elements, such as lexical items loaned from Arabic,
match forms in Syrian Arabic, in meaning (in the case of calques),
or in both meaning and sound (in the case of materially replicated
lexical borrowings).
254 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

These contexts created a potential for bilingual speakers of

Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic to match Syrian Arabic
forms with cognate, similar-sounding Western Neo-Aramaic
forms (i.e. pivot-matching), by way of analogy, in other contexts
where these cognate forms did not function as in Syrian Arabic.
This type of contact-induced analogical levelling is known cross-
linguistically (Matras 2009, 237). In Section 4, we shall see that
despite this potential, such analogical pattern replication did not
occur.
The qatal conjugation (Syrian Arabic) and qtal conjugation
(Western Neo-Aramaic) express the general past tense in both
languages. This shared function exists in Late Aramaic and
Classical Arabic, and is either a parallel innovation or even a
feature of Central Semitic to which both languages belong.
In example (5a), taken from the Syrian Arabic dialect of ʿAyn
et-Tīne, an Arabic-speaking village situated about three and a
half kilometres to the south of Maʿlūla, the qatal form žāb ‘he
brought’ is past relative to the moment of speaking reflected in
the initial clause beginning with badd-i ‘I wish’. Similarly in (5b)
from the Western Neo-Aramaic dialect of Baxʿa, the qtal form
ććaffq-iṯ ‘I agreed’ is past relative to the moment of speaking,
which is reflected in the preceding verb amar-∅ ‘he said’ and the
direct speech that follows it.
 The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-Aramaic  255

(5)

a. Syrian Arabic (ʿAyn et-Tīne)

badd-i ∅-ḥki-l-kun ʾiṣṣa

desire-1s 1s-tell.yqtl-to-2pl story

ʿan Žiḥi… maṛṛa

about Žiḥi… once

žāb-∅ ǝʾrūn
bring.qtl-3ms horn.pl

‘I wish to tell you a story about Žiḥi … once he

brought horns.’ (Behnstedt 2000, 360:1, 3)

b. Neo-Aramaic (Baxʿa)

amar-∅… ōṯ aḥḥaḏ sʿūḏay-∅

say.qtl-3 exist one saudi-ms

ććaffq-iṯ ʿemm-i
agree.qtl-1s with-3ms

‘He said: “… there is a Saudi with whom I

agreed…”’ (Arnold 1989, 198:16)

The yiqtol conjugation is found in both languages in many

parallel contexts. In main clauses it functions as a modal form,
expressing irrealis (i.e. non-indicative) moods. This modal
function is a parallel innovation in both languages. Yiqtol
already developed into an irrealis mood in the documented Late
Western Aramaic dialects. As in many other dialects of Spoken
Arabic, though, in Syrian Arabic yiqtol can also appear with a
number of preverbal particles that express TAM categories such
as indicative and progressive (see §4.1.). Therefore, bare yiqtol
is transcribed in the examples as ∅-yiqtol, and glossed as mod,
i.e. modal.
256 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

A context shared by both languages in which yiqtol expresses

deontic modality is formulas of blessings (6a, c) and curses (6b,
d). This modal function of yiqtol already appears in Late Aramaic.
In Middle Arabic as well, yiqtol is commonly found in this use,
in contrast to Classical Arabic, which mostly employs the suffix
conjugation qatala, the precursor of later Arabic qatal, in such
formulas (Blau 2002, 45).

(6)

a. Syrian Arabic (ʿAyn et-Tīne)

aḷḷa ∅-y-xallī-∅-l-ak abū-k

God mod-3m-leave.yqtl-s-for-you.ms father.cst-2ms

‘May God preserve your father.’ (Arnold 1987,

368:80)

b. Syrian Arabic (ʿAyn et-Tīne)

ʾal-ū-l-u ∅-yi-xrib-∅ bēt-ak

say.qtl-3pl-to-him mod-3m-destroy.yqtl-s house.cst-2ms

‘They said to him: “May [God] destroy your house.”’

(Behnstedt 2000, 368:101)

c. Neo-Aramaic (Maʿlūla)

y-ṭawwlel-∅-l ʿomr-ax Alō

3m-lengthen.yqtl-s-dom life.cst-2ms God

‘May God lengthen your life.’ (Arnold 1991,

24:47)
 The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-Aramaic  257

d. Neo-Aramaic (Baxʿa)

amr-il-l-un alō y-ḥurpel-∅-l

say.qtl-1s-to-them come.imp-2fs eat.imp-2s

payṯ-ay-xun
house-pl.cst-2pl

‘I said to them: “May God destroy your houses.”’

(Arnold 1989, 204:83)

Many of the blessing and curse formulas in Western Neo-

Aramaic, including (6c, d) replicate multiword expressions in
Syrian Arabic, similarly to example (4b) above. This is detailed in
the following paragraphs. As with (4b), the replication is mostly
at the level of the lexicon and lexical semantics, whereas the
morphosyntax is that of Western Neo-Aramaic. For instance, in
both (6c) and (6d) the definiteness of the direct object nominal
is expressed through the verbal suffix -l. Nonetheless, these
replicated expressions largely match the model Syrian Arabic
expressions in sound and function, both at the level of the
replicated lexical elements and of the cognate yiqtol forms.
In (6c) from Maʿlūla, both the verbal lexeme ṭwl (stem II)
‘lengthen’ and the noun ʿomr-a ‘life’ are material replications of
Syrian Arabic ṭwl (stem II) ‘lengthen’ and the noun ʿomr ‘life’.
The curse in Neo-Aramaic example (6d) is noteworthy in that,
unlike (6c) or (4b), it does not materially replicate the parallel
Syrian Arabic expression, which appears in (6b), but matches it
with cognate, similar-sounding forms. Most conspicuous is the
matching of the Syrian Arabic verbal root xrb (6b) in the first
stem with the cognate Western Neo-Aramaic verbal root ḥrb
‘destroy’, also in the first stem. The first radical of the Aramaic
root /ḥ/, matches /x/ in Syrian Arabic, even though /ḥ/ and /x/
are discrete phonemes in Western Neo-Aramaic. The expression
itself is not necessarily a replication of Arabic. At the very least,
the root ḥrb ‘destroy’, as well as the collocation ḥrb + byt ‘house’
occur in a variety of earlier Aramaic dialects, such as Christian
258 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Palestinian Aramaic, a dialect of Late Western Aramaic: šbyq

l-kwn byt-kn ḥrb ‘your house is left to you desolate’ (Matthew
23:38).
In the Neo-Aramaic story in which (6d) appears, the curse
formula appears in direct speech, in a conversation between a
Neo-Aramaic speaker and a group of Syrian Arabs, which no
doubt took place in Syrian Arabic. This would indicate that for
the narrator, the curse in (6d) actually represents the common
Syrian Arabic curse in (6b). The use of a very similarly sounding
formula, however, in which Arabic xrb is matched with Aramaic
ḥrb, again points to the recognition on the part of bilingual
speakers of Western Neo-Aramaic and Arabic of the parallelisms
in sound and structure between the two languages. A similar
case of matching of similar-sounding, though not identical,
cognate verbal roots between Aramaic and Arabic occurs below,
example (10).
The overlapping use of the yiqtol conjugation in the two
languages is also very obvious in specific constructions, shared by
both languages, in which yiqtol consistently appears in embedded
clauses. Here too, Western Neo-Aramaic is matched with Syrian
Arabic at two levels. The cognate yiqtol forms match in sound and
modal function, and the constructions more generally overlap in
their functions, lexical components and morphosyntax.
For example, in both languages, yiqtol is the embedded verb
form in the modal complement of verbs of ability. Also this use
is found in earlier varieties of Aramaic and Arabic. It is likely
to be an independent innovation in both languages and not the
direct result of contact between Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-
Aramaic. On the other hand, ability is expressed in both languages
by the same matrix verbal lexeme, which Western Neo-Aramaic
has replicated from Syrian Arabic. In Syrian Arabic, the verb qdr
and its variant ġdr ‘be able’ is the most common matrix verb of
ability, as seen in (7a), from the village of Ǧrēǧir, located around
thirty kilometres North-East of Maʿlūla. This lexeme has been
borrowed into Western Neo-Aramaic as qtr, in the forth stem
aqtar ‘be able’ and is also widely used (7b).
 The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-Aramaic  259

(7)

a. Syrian Arabic (Ǧrēǧir)

ma ġidr-u ∅-y-saww-u f-ī šī

not able.qtl-3pl mod-3m-do.yqtl-pl in-him thing

‘They were not able to do anything with him.’

(Behnstedt 2000, 354:13, and see also Cowell
1964, 348 [17])

b. Neo-Aramaic (Maʿlūla)

lōfaš ∅-maqǝtr-a č-iḏeʿ

not 3-able.qōtl-fs 3fs-know.yqtl

‘She is not able to know.’ (Arnold 1991, 8:7)

Other specific constructions that are shared by both languages

make use of the Arabic pseudo-verb badd- ‘desire’, which has
been replicated in the Western Neo-Aramaic dialects of Maʿlūla
and Baxʿa as batt-. In both languages, these forms appear with
pronominal suffixes and a modal complement. The basic function
of Syrian Arabic badd- (8a) and the replicated form batt- (8b) is to
express volition. The Western Neo-Aramaic dialect of Ǧubbʿadīn
uses the native Aramaic form bēl- (8c) in place of badd-/batt-.
Like badd-, bēl- appears with possessive suffixes and a modal
complement and expresses volition. Correll (1978, 219) posits
that the form bēl- developed from bʿē, the resultative participle of
bʿy ‘desire’ + the preposition l- ‘to’.
260 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(8)

a. Syrian Arabic (ʿAyn et-Tīne)

badd-i ∅-∅-ḥki-l-kun ʾiṣṣa

desire-1s mod-1s-tell.yqtl-to-you.pl story

‘I wish to tell you a story.’ (Behnstedt 2000,

360:1)

b. Neo-Aramaic (Baxʿa)

amǝr-laḥ-l-i batt-aḥ n-zē-ḥ

say.qtl-1pl-to-him desire-1pl 1-go.yqtl-1pl

ʿa sʿudōyṯa
to Saudi.Arabia

‘We said to him: “We wish to go to Saudi

Arabia.”’ (Arnold 1989, 198:6)

c. Neo-Aramaic (Ǧubbʿadīn)

b-aḥ n-aḥǝč ext

desire-1pl 1-tell.yqtl how

∅-ṯōqn-an ḥaml-ōṯa
3-become.qōtl-fpl flood-fpl

‘We wish to tell [you] how floods occur.’

(Arnold 1989, 198:6)

The same construction of pseudo-verb with pronominal suffix

and modal complement in yiqtol has been expanded to express
purpose. Again, this shared function is expressed in Syrian Arabic
through badd- (9a), in the Western Neo-Aramaic dialects of
Maʿlūla and Baxʿa through the Arabic loanword batt- (9b), and
in the dialect of Ǧubbʿadīn, by means of the native Aramaic bēl-
(9c). Such purpose clauses are often embedded by motion verbs.
 The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-Aramaic  261

(9)

a. Syrian Arabic (ʿAyn et-Tīne)

iž-u haḏōli badd-un

come.qtl-3pl these desire-3mpl

∅-yi-ʾǝtl-ū
mod-3m-beat.yqtl-pl.him

‘These [men] came in order to beat him.’

(Behnstedt 2000, 362:25)

b. Neo-Aramaic (Maʿlula)

ṯō-l-un batt-ayy y-xuṭb-un-na

come.qtl-to-3mpl desire-3mpl 3m-betroth.yqtl-pl-her

‘They came in order to betroth her.’ (Arnold 1991,

26:74)

c. Neo-Aramaic (Ǧubbʿadīn)

∅-qōym-a ∅-ṯy-ō-l-a hō
3-rise.qōtl-fs 3-come.qōtl-fs-to-her this.fs

ḥarīmča… bēl-a č-laṭṭaʿen-ne

woman… desire-3fs 3fs-form.yqtl-it

‘The woman comes … in order to form it.’ (Arnold,

1990a, 22, 3:5)

A precursor to bēl-, based on the resultative participle of

bʿy, is not found in Late Western Aramaic as a matrix predicate
taking a volitional clause. Rather, Late Western Aramaic employs
active forms, including the active participle of bʿy for this
purpose. Considering this, as well as the similarity between of
the morphosyntax of bēl- and Arabic badd-, it is not unlikely that
bēl- replicates the morphosyntactic pattern of Arabic badd-.
262 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

4. T
 he Divergences between Western
Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic Cognate Verb
Forms
The previous sections provide the background to this section,
which is the main focus of the article. This section shows how
despite the potential for Syrian Arabic verbal forms to be
functionally matched with cognate Western Neo-Aramaic verbal
forms, with respect to the expression of TAM, Western Neo-
Aramaic preserves the independent functions of its verbal forms.
It was shown in the previous sections that a combination
of factors created the potential for matching: (i) Similarity in
morphology and sound between cognate verbal forms; (ii)
Functions of the suffix conjugation (Arabic qatal and Aramaic
qtal), and prefix cojugation (Aramaic and Arabic yiqtol) that
were already shared between the two languages as a result of
independent parallel development; (iii) the fact that Western
Neo-Aramaic reflects a very large degree of material replication
of Syrian Arabic lexicon, pattern replication of Syrian Arabic
words and multiword expressions (calques) and the combination
of both. As a result numerous contexts arose in which Syrian
Arabic is matched with Western Neo-Aramaic, both at the level
of the verbal form and at the level of the syntactic construction
or multiword expressions.

4.1. P
 arallel Functions Performed by Non-cognate Forms
This sub-section presents the first type of divergence between
Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic verbal morphosyntax.
Here, Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic share a verbal
function but do not mark it with a shared historically cognate
verbal paradigm. Western Neo-Aramaic employs a different
verbal paradigm, even though it has inherited a paradigm that
is cognate and similarly-sounding to the Syrian Arabic paradigm.
This contrasts with examples (5–9), in which the shared historical
descent and the sound-similarity of the qatal/qtal and yiqtol
paradigms correlates with parallel functions in the two languages.
 The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-Aramaic  263

The first example is the non-past indicative. Syrian Arabic and

Western Neo-Aramaic each possess such a form, with parallel
usages, one of which is to express the general or simple present.
The form is b-yiqtol (10a) in Syrian Arabic, consisting of the
preverb b- and the yiqtol paradigm. The ∅-yiqtol paradigm, i.e.
the form without the preverb, is used in the irrealis mood and
modal complements (examples [6–9]). In the glosses, I mark this
preverbal particle b- as ind. In Western Neo-Aramaic, however,
the same function of non-past indicative is expressed by the
qōtel paradigm, which is cognate with the Syrian Arabic qātel
paradigm. Both are historically the active participle.

(10)

a. Syrian Arabic (ʿAyn et-Tīne)

lǝ-ḥʾūl ʿan-na b-i-samm-ū-ha

def-field.pl at-us ind-3-call.yqtl-pl-her

miṯl ǝl-ḥwekīr
like def-ḥwekīr

‘They call our fields “ḥwekīr”=our fields are

called “ḥwekīr.”’ (Arnold 1987, 1:7)

b. Neo-Aramaic (Maʿlūla)

šužžōtča ∅-mšammy-il-l-a
šužžōtča 3-call.qōtl-mp-to-her

‘They call it “šužžōtča”=it is called “šužžōtča.”’

(Arnold 1991, 264:40)

Examples (10a) and (10b) are very similar to examples (6–9)

in that Western Neo-Aramaic (10b) parallels a Syrian Arabic
construction (10a). But whereas in (6–9) both languages employ
yiqtol within the parallel constructions, here Western Neo-
Aramaic employs qōtel where where Arabic employs b-yiqtol.
264 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

The Aramaic expression in (10b) relates to the Arabic

expression in (10a) very similarly to the way Aramaic (6d) relates
to Arabic (6a) above. There the Syrian Arabic verbal root xrb
is matched in Western Neo-Aramaic with cognate ḥrb within a
shared expression, both appearing in the first stem. Here, Syrian
Arabic smy ‘call’ (10a) is paralleled by the cognate Aramaic root
šmy ‘call’ (10b), both in the second stem, also within a shared
expression. Both verbs appear in the 3mpl form, which constitutes
a shared impersonal construction. In both languages the verbal
root is derived from the noun for ‘name’, which is ʾism in Arabic
and ušm-a in Western Neo-Aramaic. As with ḥrb in (6d), the
derived verbal root šmy ‘call’ in (10b) is documented in earlier
Aramaic, as is its use in the second stem as in (10b). Therefore,
this parallel derivation of smy and šmy from the respective nouns
ʾism and ušm-a ‘name’ in both languages is not likely to be the
result of language contact. Still, the selection of this expression
or preference for it in Western Neo-Aramaic might well have
been influenced by the existence of a similar expression in
Syrian Arabic. This adds to the general impression that bilingual
speakers of Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic recognise
the parallelisms between the two languages.
It should be noted that Western Neo-Aramaic shares a preverbal
particle ʿam(mal)- with Syrian Arabic, which marks progressive,
continuous and habitual aspects (Correll 1978, 61–2; Grotzfeld
1965, 84, 87). The specific uses of this shared particle in both
languages are beyond the scope of this article, and warrant a
separate study, which I aim to undertake in a future publication.
Nonetheless, in Syrian Arabic this preverbal particle appears with
either the ∅-yiqtol or b-yiqtol paradigms. In the Syrian Arabic
texts published by Arnold (1987) and Behnstedt (2000) from
the Qalamun region, where Western Neo-Aramaic is spoken,
ʿam(mal)- is most commonly found with ∅-yiqtol. In Western
Neo-Aramaic it appears with the qōtel paradigm and not with the
yiqtol paradigm.
Another verbal function where the two languages diverge is the
expression of perfect aspect. The perfect is an innovation in both
Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic but the two languages use
 The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-Aramaic  265

distinct verbal forms. The paradigm that expresses perfect aspect in

Syrian Arabic, illustrated in (11a, b) is qātel, an innovation that is
widespread in Spoken Arabic, also outside of the Levant (Brustad
2000, 182–84). This is historically the active participle of which
the reflexes in Western Neo-Aramaic, namely qōtel, express the
general present. In Western Neo-Aramaic, however, the perfect
is not expressed by cognate qōtel, but by means of the qtīl/qattīl
paradigm, the Aramaic resultative participle. Judging from the
testimony of documented forms of Late Aramaic, this innovation
crystalised in Western Neo-Aramaic after the Late Aramaic period.
The morphological patterns qtīl/qattīl, which are used in the first
stem, have been inherited from earlier Aramaic. In (11c), the
pattern qtīl is reflected in the historically transparent form ṭmir- of
the first stem. In the other stems, the older Aramaic forms of the
resultative participles with initial m- such as *mqattal, *maqtal for
the second and fourth stems respectively, have not been preserved,
in contrast to some of the Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects (e.g. Khan
1999, 94; Fassberg 2010, 96). They have been replaced with
innovative forms, created by analogy with the pattern qtīl of the
first stem. In (11d) this is exemplified by the form hirreb-, reflecting
the innovative pattern qittīl of the second stem. Two features have
been expanded from qtīl of the first stem to the rest of the stems,
namely, the lack of initial m-, and the vowel ī, which in hirreb- is
realised as e (see Spitaler 1938, 211, §187l; Arnold 1990b, 82, 252).

(11)

a. Syrian Arabic (ʿAyn et-Tīne)

tʿažžab-u haḏōli žayy-īn

wonder.qtl-pl those come.qātl-mpl

yi-ʾǝtl-u žiḥi
3-beat.yqtl-pl Žiḥi

‘Those who had come to beat Žiḥi wondered.’

(Behnstedt 2000, 362:31)
266 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

b. Syrian Arabic (ʿAyn et-Tīne)

ʾal-l-ha iži-t il-ʾarmbi

say.qtl-to-3fs come.qtl-3fs def-rabbit.fs

ma mwaṣṣī-∅-ha ʾabǝl
rel ask.qātl-ms-her before

yōm
day

‘He said to her [=his wife]: “Did the rabbit

come?”’ [in other words,] what he had asked
of her [=his wife] the day before.’ (Behnstedt
2000, 368:79)

c. Neo-Aramaic (Maʿlūla)

eččṯ-il malka nša-čč-il

wife-cs king forget.qtl-3fs-dom

santūqa ti ∅-ṭmir-∅-lē-la
box rel 3-bury.qtīl-ms-do-for.her

beʿl-a
husband-her

‘The wife of the king forgot the box that her

husband had buried for her.’ (Arnold 1991,
20:12)
 The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-Aramaic  267

d. Neo-Aramaic (Baxʿa)

ḥmi-nnaḥ bikāp urdunōy-∅

see.qtl-1pl pickup.ms Jordanian-ms

up-p-a šaġġil-ō surōy-in

exist-in-her worker-mpl Syrian-mpl

∅-hirreb-∅-l-un
3-smuggle.qtīl-ms-to-3mpl

‘We saw a Jordanian pickup truck, in which there

are [=were] Syrian workers which he [=our
driver] had smuggled.’ (Arnold 1989, 202:75)

Examples (10–11) reflect two TAM functions that are shared

between Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic, namely, the
expression of the general present and the expression of the perfect
aspect. In (10) the Syrian Arabic expression even appears to be
matched in Western Neo-Aramaic by elements such as a cognate
verbal root and stem, and identical impersonal construction.
What is noteworthy here, however, is that there is no matching
between Arabic and Aramaic morphological forms, as was the
case with qatal/qtal and with yiqtol, whose patterns of use and
morphological forms were matched in the two languages (see
§3.3.).
In the construction in (10) there would have been a potential to
match in the same way the element yiqtol in Syrian Arabic b-yiqtol
with the cognate and similar-sounding form yiqtol in Western
Neo-Aramaic. On the basis of the many shared contexts where
cognate and similar-sounding yiqtol forms in Aramaic and Arabic
are matched in their function (§3.3.), the bilingual speakers of
Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic could have reanalised
Aramaic yiqtol as ∅-yiqtol, replicating the Syrian Arabic pattern
of verbal morphology that characterises its yiqtol paradigm.
Subsequently, preverbal prefixes could have been replicated in
Aramaic, such as the Syrian Arabic preverbal particle b, to express
268 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

the indicative. We have seen that matter replication of an Arabic

preverbal particle is already attested in Western Neo-Aramaic
with ʿam(mal)-. Despite this potential, however, Western Neo-
Aramaic uses a non-matching morphological form for expressing
the general present.
Similar potential would have existed to match Syrian Arabic
qātel with the cognate and similar-sounding Western Neo-Aramaic
Neo-Aramaic qōtel to express the perfect. Nonetheless, a non-
matching morphological form is used in Western Neo-Aramaic.

4.2. D
 ivergences in Verbal Function in which Western
Neo-Aramaic Marks Distinctions Absent from Syrian
Arabic
In this section I present the most striking category of divergences
between the Western Neo-Aramaic verbal paradigms and those
of Syrian Arabic with respect to the expression of TAM, when
we consider the general background presented in Sections 2–3,
especially 3.3. The two divergences are revealed by examining
two syntactic constructions in Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-
Aramaic and comparing the verbal forms used in them in each
language.
The constructions in question are both embedded clauses,
namely, phasal complements of the matrix verb ‘begin’ and
protases of counterfactual conditions. We shall see that Western
Neo-Aramaic preserves a more complex pattern of embedding
than Syrian Arabic with respect to these constructions. This fact
is in itself noteworthy. As pointed out in the introduction, the
preservation of independent morphosyntactic patterns with these
constructions appears to go against Matras’s suggestion (2009,
244 and see also ibid., 248–50) that such embedded constructions
are typically among the first in the replica language to converge
with the patterns of the model language.
The special significance of these divergences, however, is
that in these two respective constructions Syrian Arabic yiqtol
is matched in Western Neo-Aramaic by qōtel, and Syrian Arabic
qatal is matched by Western Neo-Aramaic yiqtol. By contrast, in
 The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-Aramaic  269

Section 3.3. we saw various other contexts in which Syrian Arabic

qatal and yiqtol are matched in their function with cognate and
similar-sounding Western Neo-Aramaic qtal and yiqtol. Those
contexts where cognate qatal/qtal and cognate yiqtol have the
same function in both languages would have created a potential
for the levelling of the Western Neo-Aramaic grammatical
distinction by analogy with Syrian Arabic. Despite this potential,
levelling has not occurred.
The first syntactic construction is that of phasal complements
of the matrix verb ‘begin’. In Syrian Arabic, the morphosyntax of
modal and phasal complements are similar. The complement is in
the ∅-yiqtol form (Grotzfeld 1965, 90, §e1). By contrast, Western
Neo-Aramaic clearly differentiates between modal (e.g. denoting
ability and volition) and phasal complements. Like Syrian Arabic,
modal complements follow the matrix verb in yiqtol form, but
unlike Syrian Arabic, phasal complements take qōtel forms.
This is striking given that the Aramaic matrix verbs of phasal
complements are likely to be calques of those found in Syrian
Arabic. One such verb that takes phasal complements in Western
Neo-Aramaic is ṯqn, which Arnold and Behnstedt (1993, 64) identify
as a calque of Syrian Arabic ṣār. In Syrian Arabic, ṣār ‘become’ is
a very common inchoative verbal lexeme, which most commonly
takes complements in ∅-yiqtol (12a, b). The verb ṯqn in Western
Neo-Aramaic likewise signifies ‘become’ and is used in the sense of
‘begin’ with a complement clause. In contrast to Syrian Arabic ṣār,
Aramaic ṯqn takes a complement in qōtel (12c, d).

(12)

a. Syrian Arabic (Ǧrēǧir)

w-ṣōr-∅ ∅-y-karkir-∅ hal-mayy

and-become.qtl-3ms mod-3m-trickle.yqtl-s the-water

min ǧism-u
from body-his

‘And the water began to flow from his body.’

(Behnstedt 2000, 356:36)
270 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

b. Syrian Arabic (ʿAyn et-Tīne)

ṣār-u ∅-y-daʿws-u ʿl-ē

become.qtl-3pl mod-3m-trample.yqtl-pl on-him

‘They began to trample upon it [=the grave].’

(Behnstedt 2000, 370:133)

c. Neo-Aramaic (Maʿlūla)

ṯiqn-aṯ ∅-marqy-a
become.qtl-3fs 3-harass.qōtl-fs

‘She began to harass.’ (Arnold 1991, 60:73)

d. Neo-Aramaic (Baxʿa)

ṯiqn-iṯ ni-mqalleb-∅ b-ā

become.qtl-1s 1-turn.qōtl-ms in-her

‘I began to turn it.’ (Arnold 1989, 202:55)

Two other very similar verbal lexemes that are used in the
two languages as matrix verbs of phasal complements are Syrian
Arabic qʿd and Western Neo-Aramaic qʿy in the first stem, both
meaning ‘sit’. Again despite their close semantics, as in the case
of ṣār and ṯqn, Syrian Arabic qʿd embeds a ∅-yiqtol form (13a),
whereas Western Neo-Aramaic qʿy embeds a qōtel form (13b).

(13)

a. Syrian Arabic (ʿAyn et-Tīne)

iž-u ʾaʿd-u ∅-yi-sʾal-ū

come.qtl-3pl sit.qtl-3pl mod-3m-ask.yqtl-pl.him

‘They came and began to ask him.’ (Behnstedt

2000, 360:7)
 The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-Aramaic  271

b. Neo-Aramaic (Maʿlūla)

qʿō-l-e ∅-mnažžar-∅
sit.qtl-to-3ms 3-work.wood.qōtl-ms

‘He began to work wood.’ (Arnold 1991, 30:125)

The Western Neo-Aramaic morphosyntax reflected in the

phasal complements in (12–13), although divergent from that
of the parallel Syrian Arabic constructions, is identical to that
found in Late Western Aramaic. All three Late Western Aramaic
dialects, Samaritan, Christian Palestinian and Jewish Palestinian
reflect a parallel distinction to that found in Western Neo-Aramaic
between matrix verbs of volition and ability, which commonly
embed modal complement clauses with yiqtol, and the matrix
verb šry ‘begin’ of the second stem, which embeds an active
participle (Bunis, forthcoming). This morphosyntactic distinction
appears to have been preserved in Western Neo-Aramaic.
The final example that will be presented here is the use of
divergent verb forms in Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic,
in verbal protases of counterfactual conditionals. In this example,
Syrian Arabic employs qatal or b-yiqtol, whereas Western Neo-
Aramaic employs yiqtol or qtīl/qattīl forms. This contrasts with
many other contexts (examples [5–9]) in which the two Syrian
Arabic finite paradigms qatal and yiqtol are functionally matched
with cognate and similar-sounding Western Neo-Aramaic qtal
and yiqtol and Western Neo-Aramaic qtīl/qattīl (the resultative
participle) functionally corresponds to Syrian Arabic qātel
(historically the active participle).
Both Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic distinguish
between predictive conditions, and those that are highly
hypothetical or counterfactual. With regard to the structure of
the protasis, however, this distinction is expressed somewhat
differently in Syrian Arabic and in Western Neo-Aramaic.
In Syrian Arabic, the distinction between predictive
conditions and hypothetical conditions is expressed by the
272 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

conditional conjunction that introduces the protasis. Predictive

protases follow the conjunction ʾiza, ʾiḏa (14a, b) whereas highly
hypothetical or counterfactual protases are introduced either by
law, lu or law la, lu la (14c) (see Cowell 1964, 331–7; Grotzfeld
1965, 106–7). In both types of conditionals, and in all time
references, qatal is commonly used, as can be seen in (14a, c).
According to Grotzfeld (1965, 106), qatal freely interchanges
with b-yiqtol in conditionals, with all time references. Bruweleit
(2015, 161–3), on the other hand, reports that in the closely
related Lebanese Arabic dialect of Beirut, qatal is used in the
protasis in all time references, whereas b-yiqtol is only used in
conditionals with present or future time reference.
I adduce here examples (14a, b) from the dialect of ʿAyn
et-Tīne, which show the interchange of qatal and b-yiqtol in
predictive protases with future time reference introduced by ʾiḏa.
Example (14c) of a counterfactual condition is taken from a text
included in Grotzfeld’s grammar of Damascene Arabic. According
to the textual context, its time reference is past. The main point
here is that neither ∅-yiqtol nor qātel forms are used in any type
of protasis in Syrian Arabic, whether predictive, hypothetical or
counterfactual. This contradicts Correll’s comment that Syrian
Arabic is ‘not limited, in the protasis of hypothetical sentences, to
any specific form, and can also employ the y-imperfect [i.e., the
∅-yiqtol form] here’ (1978, 144).6

6 ‘…in der Protasis hypothetischer Sätze ja an keine bestimmte Form

gebunden ist und unter anderem hier auch das y-lmperfekt zur Anwendung
bringen darf’ (my translation). Correll (1978, 144, note 267) bases this
statement on Bloch (1965, 20–21), but in my view Bloch’s examples there
are not relevant for Correll’s claim.
 The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-Aramaic  273

(14) Syrian Arabic

a. ʿAyn et-Tīne

ʾiḏa ʾiža-w b-ti-bʿat-ī-hun

if come.qtl-3pl ind-2-send.yqtl-fs-mpl

laʿind-i ʿa-l-barrīye
to-1s to-def-field

‘If they come, you will send them to me, to the

field.’ (Behnstedt 2000, 366:68)

b. ʿAyn et-Tīne

iḏa b-ti-nzil-∅
if ind-2-go.down.yqtl-ms

ʿa-ssaʾi bi-t-laʾī-∅-ha
to-irrigated.fields ind-2-find.yqtl-ms-her

miṯǝl ǝžnāyin
like gardens

‘If you go down to the irrigated fields you will

find that they are like gardens.’ (Arnold 1987,
1:5)
274 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

c. Damascene

lula ma rakad-ti
if not run.qtl-2fs

w ʾǝl-tī-li mama
and say.qtl-2fs-to.me mama

ma b-a-ʿrf-ek ʾǝnno
not ind-1s-know.yqtl-2fs that

ʾǝnti bǝnt-i
you.fs daugther-my

‘If you had not run and said to me “Mama”, I wouldn’t

have known that you are my daughter.’ (Grotzfeld
1965, 107)7

It should be noted with regard to the verbal forms in the

protases in examples (14a, b), that in the published texts the
forms are transcribed as ∅-yiqtol forms, i.e. tibʿatīhun (14a) and
tinzil, tlaʾīha (14b). I have listened, however, to the recordings of
the texts on the Semitisches Tonarchiv website of the University
of Heidelberg and have been able clearly to discern the preverb
b- with all three forms, as I have transcribed in the examples.8
In Western Neo-Aramaic, the distinction between predictive
and hypothetical or counterfactual conditions is manifested in

7 For the full context see Grotzfeld (1965, 131), third paragraph from the
top of the page. In the text on page 131, the conjunction is lu la, which
I have copied in (14c), whereas the form that appears in the analysis on
page 107 is lu.
8 The recordings are found respectively at https://heidicon.ub.uni-heidel
berg.de/eas/partitions/3/0/316000/316723/ce062ce58090716df9e7
b3b019b76a1eae1a2090/audio/mpeg/behnstedt_sprachatlas_s360.mp3
and https://heidicon.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/eas/partitions/3/0/316000/
316712/ead2e3bc00501a076568a3b7a0bbe5bab5018f28/audio/mpeg/
arnold_aynittine_01.mp3 (both accessed 23 April 2020).
 The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-Aramaic  275

the structure of the protasis in an additional way. Besides the

use of different conditional conjunctions, as in Syrian Arabic, to
introduce protases of the two conditional sub-types, the distinction
between predictive and hypothetical or counterfactual conditions
is also expressed through the use of different verb forms within
the protasis.
In the most recent texts of Western Neo-Aramaic, namely,
those recorded by Arnold, the conjunctions lōb (15b), the Arabic
loanword iḏa (15a) and lab are used in the dialects of Maʿlūla,
Baxʿa and Ǧubbʿadīn respectively for predictive conditions,
while yīb, yīb, ib/lib are used respectively in the three dialects
for hypothetical and counterfactual conditions (Arnold 1990b,
398–9). Arnold notes in addition, that the Arabic loanword law
is also used with the latter type of conditions. Another form is
found in his texts but not presented in his grammar, namely, lōla
(15c, d). With respect to the verb form within verbal protases,
either qtal or qōtel is employed with predictive conditionals
(15a, b respectively), but with hypothetical or counterfactual
conditionals, either yiqtol or the resultative participle qtīl/qattīl is
used (15c, d respectively).

(15) Neo-Aramaic

a. Baxʿa

iḏa aḥǝk-∅ mett

if say.qtl-3ms something

n-qaṭel-∅-l-i
1-beat.part-ms-to-3ms

‘If he says anything I will kill him.’ (Arnold 1989,

206–208:134)
276 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

b. Maʿlūla

lōb ču č-mayṯē-∅-l
if not 2-bring.qōtl-ms-def

žwōba … bann-∅ n-quṭǝʿ-l-ēx

answer… desire-1ms 1-cut.yqtl-to-2ms

rayš-ax
head-2ms

‘If you do not bring the answer … I will cut off

your head.’ (Arnold 1991, 142:29)

c. Maʿlūla

lō-la n-arǝxp-enxun w
if-not 1-give.ride.yqtl-2mpl and

n-ayṯ-∅-enxun la nafḏ-ičxun
1-bring.yqtl-2mpl not arrive.qtl-2mpl

‘If I had not given you a ride and brought you here,
you would not have arrived.’ (Arnold 1991, 40)

d. Maʿlūla

lō-la ∅-ʿayyīz-∅-l-a la
if-not 3-need.qtīl-ms-to-3fs not

šaql-∅-a
take.qtl-3ms-3fs

‘If he had not needed it, he would not have taken

it.’ (Arnold 1991, 80:6)

This distribution of verbal forms was also found in the earlier

texts analysed by Correll. The divergence from the Syrian Arabic
pattern prompted Correll to suggest that the occurrence of qtal
 The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-Aramaic  277

forms, in conformity with Arabic, solely in protases of predictive

conditions, and their absence from protases of counterfactual
conditions was due to insufficient examples of the latter type
(Correll 1978, 123–5). Arnold’s texts show that this suggestion is
not correct. They clearly demonstrate that counterfactual protases
in Western Neo-Aramaic consistently differ in their verbal forms
from the forms in the corresponding Syrian Arabic constructions.
It is unknown when yiqtol and qtīl/qattīl began to be used
in counterfactual protases in the precursor to Western Neo-
Aramaic. This use, however, might well have developed after
the Late Aramaic stage (i.e. after the 6th century CE). In Late
Western Aramaic, the morphosyntax of counterfactual protases
actually resembles that of modern Syrian Arabic and not Western
Neo-Aramaic. Counterfactual protases with past time reference
contain qtal and not yiqtol forms. The development of qtīl/qattīl
into a perfect aspect is also not yet documented in Late Western
Aramaic.
On the other hand, the use of qtal in Western Neo-Aramaic
predictive protases is likely to be an inheritance from older
Aramaic, as it is documented in Late Aramaic. This use of qtal
is another morphosyntactic context, in addition to expressing
the general past tense ([5] above), where Syrian Arabic qatal
is paralleled by cognate and similar-sounding Western Neo-
Aramaic qtal. Despite these contexts, which could have facilitated
the levelling of the Western Neo-Aramaic distinction between
predictive protases with qtal (or qōtel) and counterfactual
protases with yiqtol and qtīl/qattīl by analogy to Syrian Arabic,
this levelling has not occurred.

5. Summary and Discussion

This comparative study has demonstrated that despite the
prolonged and extensive language contact between two closely
related Semitic languages, Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian
Arabic diverge in the way their cognate verbal constructions
express TAM. Contact with Arabic has resulted in considerable
matter and pattern replication in many Western Neo-Aramaic
278 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

constructions. In the verbal system, however, contact has not

lead to change.
First of all, both languages share features of morphology and
phonology due to their common origins, and perhaps relatively
conservative nature. Western Neo-Aramaic, which is the most
conservative among the Neo-Aramaic dialects, is particularly
close to Syrian Arabic in its verbal morphology. The two language
groups share four cognate verbal paradigms, namely, qatal/qtal
(suffix conjugation), yiqtol (prefix conjugation) and qātel/qōtel
(active participle) and the imperative. The PNG inflection in
each of these paradigms strongly parallel each other in the two
language groups.
Whereas the verbal paradigms of both languages are very close
in morphology, they show important differences in their functions.
Despite prolonged and close contact with Arabic, Western Neo-
Aramaic has not replicated the functions of the cognate Syrian
Arabic verbal forms, but has preserved the independent functions
of its verbal forms. Such conservatism is significant given their
use alongside Syrian Arabic in a largely bilingual setting.
The divergent functions in themselves require no explanation.
Arabic and Aramaic innovated independently, whereby their
historically cognate paradigms took on different functions. Indeed,
many of the distinct functions of the Western Neo-Aramaic verbal
forms are already documented in Late Western Aramaic and are
likely to have existed in the precursor of Western Neo-Aramaic
before it came into intensive contact with Arabic.
The lack of convergence, however, is highly significant,
given that there would have been potential for contact-induced
change. Specifically, with Western Neo-Aramaic being a minority
language, spoken within a largely Arabic-speaking population,
we might have expected that the Western Neo-Aramaic verbal
paradigms would replicate the patterns of use of the cognate
Syrian Arabic paradigms, and take on their functions, but this
did not take place.
The phonological and morphological similarities in verbal
morphology did facilitate the borrowing of Syrian Arabic derived
stems into Western Neo-Aramaic. Such correspondences could
 The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-Aramaic  279

potentially have facilitated full convergence in pattern but they

did not. Table 4 presents a summary of the comparison of the uses
of the Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic verbal paradigms
for marking TAM, discussed in this article. The constructions that
diverge are in bold.

Table 4: Correspondences in the Functions of Syrian Arabic

and Western Neo-Aramaic Verbal Paradigms within Parallel
Morphosyntactic Contexts

Functional Context Arabic Aramaic

General past time

qtal
Predictive protases qatal
Past time counterfactual protases (yiqtol)
qtīl/qattīl
Perfect aspect qātel
Irrealis mood (main clause)
yiqtol
Modal complements yiqtol
Complement of ‘begin’
General present qōtel
b-yiqtol
Predictive protases

Table 4 indicates four different functional contexts that are

shared by Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic (in bold), in
which the two languages employ non-cognate and non-similar-
sounding verbal forms. The significance of these divergences is
illuminated by the wider context in which the verbal forms occur
in the two languages.
The two most striking contexts of divergent verbal function
are phasal complements and counterfactual protases with past
time reference. The preservation of these two distinctions in
Western Neo-Aramaic through its verbal paradigms is significant
in that modal and phasal complement clauses and conditional
protases are both embedded structures, which goes against the
expectations of Matras’s functional-communicative model. The
fact that Western Neo-Aramaic preserves more complex patterns
280 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

of subordination with these structures than is found in Syrian

Arabic goes against Matras’s suggestion that
The pressure to converge the inventory of constructions in the
repertoire [might be expected] to begin with those that organise
complex propositions. We would expect the structure of complement
clauses, adverbial clauses, and relative clauses and embeddings as
well as the structure of coordination to be targeted first in the process
of convergence (Matras 2009, 244 and see also ibid., 248–50).

Western Neo-Aramaic distinguishes between phasal

complements in qōtel and modal complements, which use yiqtol.
This distinction has been inherited from Late Western Aramaic.
Its preservation, however, is significant in light of the fact that
Syrian Arabic uses yiqtol for both functions and also given that
both languages use yiqtol for deontic modality in main clauses.
Thus, various morphosyntactic contexts existed, as detailed
in Subsection 3.3. and summarised in Table 4, in which both
Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic employed cognate
and similar-sounding yiqtol, without a connection to language
contact. Language contact, however, added to the similarities
in that within these contexts, Western Neo-Aramaic borrowed
much Syrian Arabic lexicon (matter replication), or replicated
its lexical semantics (pattern replication). This is exemplified in
this article with the matter replication of ability verbs qdr (Syrian
Arabic) as qtr (Western Neo-Aramaic), the volitional pseudo-verbs
badd- (Syrian Arabic) as batt- (Western Neo-Aramaic) ‘desire’,
and in various formulas of blessings and curses. The numerous
contexts where Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic were
matched both at the level of the verbal paradigm, i.e. in their use
of cognate yiqtol, and more widely at the levels of morphosyntax
and lexicosyntax would have created the potential for Western
Neo-Aramaic to level the inherited distinction between phasal
and modal complements, by analogy with Syrian Arabic and use
yiqtol for both functions. Despite this potential, Western Neo-
Aramaic preserves this distinction.
With respect to conditional clauses, similarly, Western
Neo-Aramaic distinguishes by means of the embedded verbal
 The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-Aramaic  281

paradigm between counterfactual protases with past time

reference and predictive protases. The former employs yiqtol
or qtīl/qattīl whereas predictive protases use qtal or qōtel. This
distinction is due to independent innovation in Western Neo-
Aramaic, but again, its preservation is significant in light of
contact with Syrian Arabic. In Syrian Arabic these two types
of conditional protases are not distinguished by means of the
verbal paradigm in the same way. Qatal is used in both. B-yiqtol
is also used in predictive protases for present and future time
refences. Thus, here too, when considering the wider context of
contact between Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic, there
were constructions in which both languages use cognate and
similar-sounding forms, that could have facilitated analogical
levelling in Western Neo-Aramaic. Both languages employ qatal/
qtal in predictive protases, and to express the general past tense.
As discussed in the previous paragraph, the yiqtol form used in
counterfactual protases in Western Neo-Aramaic is matched with
Syrian Arabic yiqtol in numerous other shared constructions.
These numerous contexts could have created the potential for
bilingual speakers of Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic
to level the Western Neo-Aramaic grammatical distinction
between predictive and counterfactual protases, by analogy with
Syrian Arabic. Nonetheless, Western Neo-Aramaic preserves this
distinction.
Two other cases of divergence concern the expression of the
general present and the perfect aspect. The two languages share
both of these TAM categories, yet each language expresses it by
means of a distinct verbal construction. To express the general
present, Syrian Arabic uses b-yiqtol. Aramaic, on the other hand,
employs qōtel (< *qātel), historically the active participle, and
cognate with Syrian Arabic qātel. The use of the active participle
*qātel- to express the general present is a common Aramaic
innovation, inherited from pre-modern Aramaic. Nonetheless,
the wide range of contexts in which Western Neo-Aramaic
yiqtol parallels Syrian Arabic yiqtol, as outlined in the previous
paragraphs, could have facilitated analogical replication of
Syrian Arabic b-yiqtol, on the basis of the cognate yiqtol paradigm
282 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

of Western Neo-Aramaic. The material replication of a Syrian

Arabic preverbal particle (such as b-) is already documented in
Western Neo-Aramaic for ʿam(mal)-, which, together with qōtel,
expresses continuous and progressive aspects.
Lastly, the two languages innovated independently in the
expression of the perfect aspect. Syrian Arabic expresses the
perfect aspect by means of qātel (the active participle cognate
with Aramaic qōtel) but Western Neo-Aramaic by means of qtīl/
qattīl (the historically resultative participle).
To conclude, the data we examined reflect a recurrent theme:
Western Neo-Aramaic preserves the independent morphosyntax
of its TAM system despite factors that could have facilitated
analogical levelling and reanalysis of its paradigms in conformity
with the cognate paradigms of Syrian Arabic. These factors
include:

(i) close morphological and phonetic similarity between the

Western Neo-Aramaic and Syrian Arabic verbal systems;
(ii) shared inheritance and/or parallel development of the
TAM functions of the qatal/qtal and yiqtol paradigms in
the two languages;
(iii) a large degree of replication of Syrian Arabic lexical matter
and lexical semantics, which created numerous contexts
of shared constructions in which both languages employ
common Central Semitic qatal/qtal or yiqtol;
(iv) indications that bilingual speakers of Western Neo-
Aramaic and Syrian Arabic have recognised the structural
parallelism between the two languages.
 The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-Aramaic  283

Glossing Abbreviations not in the Leipzig Glossing

List

ind Syrian Arabic preverbal particle b-.

dm Discourse marker.
mod Modal.
qātl Syrian Arabic qātel paradigm (historical active participle).
qōtl Western Neo-Aramaic qōtel paradigm (historical active participle).
qtīl Western Neo-Aramaic historical resultative participle.
qtl qatal and qtal suffix conjugations in Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-
Aramaic respectively.
yqtl yiqtol prefix conjugation in Syrian Arabic and Western Neo-Aramaic

References

Arnold, Werner. 1987. ‘Text I aus ʿĒn iṭ-Ṭīne: Aus der Landwirschaft’. Text and
translation published on the website of the Semitisches Tonarchiv (http://
semarch.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/).

-———. 1989. Das Neuwestaramäische. Vol. 1, Texte aus Baxʿa. Semitica Viva
4/I. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

-———. 1990a. Das Neuwestaramäische. Vol. 2, Texte aus Ǧubbʿadīn. Semitica

Viva 4/II. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

-———. 1990b. Das Neuwestaramäische. Vol. 5, Grammatik. Semitica Viva 4/V.

Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

-———. 1991. Das Neuwestaramäische. Vol. 4, Orale Literatur aus Maʿlūla.

Semitica Viva 4/IV. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

-———. 2002. ‘Zur Geschichte der arabischen Lehnwörter im

Neuwestaramӓischen’. In Neue Beiträge zur Semitistik: erstes Arbeitstreffen der
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Semitistik in der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft
vom 11. bis 13. September 2000 an der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena,
edited by Norbert Nebes, 5–11. Jenaer Beitrӓge zum Vorderen Orient 5.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
284 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

-———. 2007. ‘Arabic grammatical borrowing in Western Neo-Aramaic’. In

Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, edited by Yaron Matras
and Jeanette Sakel. 185–95. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology
38. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Arnold, Werner and Peter Behnstedt. 1993. Arabisch-Aramӓische

Sprachbeziehungen im Qalamūn (Syrien). Semitica Viva 8. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.

Behnstedt, Peter. 2000. Sprachatlas von Syrien. Vol. 2, Volkskundliche Texte.

Semitica Viva 17/II. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Blau, Joshua. 2002. A Handbook of Early Middle Arabic. The Max Schloessinger
Memorial Series: Monographs 6. Jerusalem: The Max Schloessinger
Memorial Foundation.

Bloch, Ariel. 1965. Die Hypotaxe im Damaszenisch-Arabischen: Mit Vergleich

zur Hypotaxe im Klassisch-Arabischen. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des
Morgenlandes XXXV, 4. Wiesbaden: Steiner.

Bruweleit, Stefan. 2015. Aspect, Tense and Action in the Arabic Dialect of Beirut.
Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 79. Leiden: Brill.

Brustad, Kristen E. 2000. The Syntax of Spoken Arabic: A Comparative Study

of Moroccan, Egyptian, Syrian, and Kuwaiti Dialects. Washington D.C.:
Georgetown University Press.

Coghill, Eleanor. 2015. ‘Borrowing of Verbal Derivational Morphology between

Semitic Languages: the Case of Arabic Verb Derivations in Neo-Aramaic’.
In Borrowed Morphology, edited by Francesco Gardani, Peter Arkadiev and
Nino Amiridze, 83–107. Language Contact and Bilingualism 8. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.

Correll, Christoph. 1978. Untersuchungen zur Syntax der neuwestaramäischen

Dialekte des Antilibanon (Maʿlūla, Baḫʿa, Gubb ʿAdīn) mit besonderer
Berücksichtigung der Auswirkungen arabischen Adstrateinflusses. Abhandlungen
für die Kunde des Morgenlandes XLIV, 4. Wiesbaden: Steiner.

Cowell, Mark W. 1964. A Reference Grammar of Syrian Arabic (Based on the Dialect
of Damascus). Arabic Series: Number 7. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown
University Press.

Fassberg, Steven E. 2010. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Challa. Studies in

Semitic Languages and Linguistics 54. Leiden: Brill.
 The Morphosyntactic Conservatism of Western Neo-Aramaic  285

Garbell, Irene. 1965. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Persian Azerbaijan:

Linguistic Analysis and Folkloristic Texts. Janua Linguarum Studia Memoriae
Nicolai Van Wijk Dedicata: Series Practica III. London: Mouton.

Grotzfeld, Heinz. 1965. Syrisch-Arabische Grammatik (Dialekt von Damaskus).

Porta Linguarum Orientalium: Neue Serie VIII. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Hӓberl, Charles. 2009. The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr. PhD Diss.,

Rutgers.

Jastrow, Otto. 1985. Laut- und Formenlehre des neuaramӓischen Dialekts von
Mīdin im Ṭūr ʿAbdīn. 3rd Expanded Edition. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Khan, Geoffrey. 1999. A Grammar of Neo-Aramaic: The Dialect of the Jews of

Arbel. Handbook of Oriental Studies 47. Leiden: Brill.

-——— 2004. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Sulemaniyya and Ḥalabja.

Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics XLIV. Leiden: Brill.

-——— 2008. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Urmi. Gorgias Neo-Aramaic

Studies 2. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias.

-——— 2009. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Sanandaj. Gorgias Neo-Aramaic

Studies 10. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias.

———. 2020. ‘Contact and Change in Neo-Aramaic Dialects’. In Historical

Linguistics 2017, edited by Bridget Drinka, 391–411. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Noorlander, Paul M. 2014. ‘Diversity in Convergence: Kurdish and Aramaic

Variation Entangled’. Journal of Kurdish Studies 2 (2): 201–224.

Ritter, Helmut. 1990. Ṭūrōyo: Die Volkssprache der syrischen Christen des Ṭūr
ʿAbdîn. Vol. C, Grammatik. Schriften der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft
an der Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe-Universitӓt Frankfurt am Main:
Geisteswissenschafltliche Reihe; Nr. 6. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

Spitaler, Anton. 1938. Grammatik des neuaramӓischen Dialekts von Maʿlūla

(Antilibanon). Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes XXIII, 1.
Leipzig: Deutsche Morgenlӓndische Gesellschaft.

Stowasser, Karl and Moukhtar Ani. 1964. A Dictionary of Syrian Arabic: English-
Arabic. Arabic Series: Number 5. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University
Press.
 ON THE AFEL STEM IN WESTERN
NEO-ARAMAIC

Steven E. Fassberg

1. Introduction
The historical reconstruction of Aramaic from its earliest
attestations to the modern-day dialects can, at times, be difficult.
For example, how far back was the dialectal split between the
eastern and western branches of Aramaic?1 The reconstruction
at other times, however, can be relatively straightforward.
For instance, a basically linear development is discernible in
the Aramaic of Syria-Palestine. One begins with the Middle
Aramaic attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls, moves on to the Late
Aramaic corpora of Jewish Palestinian, Christian Palestinian and
Samaritan Aramaic, and concludes with Western Neo-Aramaic.2
The study of Western Neo-Aramaic began in 1863 with the
publication by Jules Ferrette (1863) of transcriptions of a text
and vocabulary items from Maʿlula. Since then, the dialect of
Maʿlula has been fortunate that outstanding Semitists have
turned their attention to it. The greatest of Semitists, Theodor
Nöldeke, commented on Ferrette’s material already in 1867,
and contributed more insights in an article from 1917–1918

1 The split is fully evident in Late Aramaic (as delineated in Joseph A.

Fitzmyer’s 1979 classification of the Aramaic periods), but there are
indications of a dialectal divide already in Old Aramaic inscriptions.
See Greenfield (1968, 1978); and most recently Fales and Grassi (2016).
Margaretha Folmer (1995) has shown dialectal differences in the Official
Aramaic corpus, which preceded Late Aramaic.
2 Abraham Tal (1979, 1980, 1983) has demonstrated this in a series of
articles dealing with different Western Aramaic grammatical phenomena.

© Steven E. Fassberg, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0209.08

288 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

following Gotthelf Bergsträsser’s publication of the texts (1915)

collected by Eugen Prym and Albert Socin. Many scholars have
investigated Western Neo-Aramaic, but three in particular have
shaped the field: Bergsträsser with the publication of texts
(1915; 1919–1920), a glossary (1921), and a short grammatical
description (1928, 80–9), Anton Spitaler with a grammar
(1938) and texts (1957), and especially Werner Arnold with an
unparalleled wealth of oral texts (1989; 19901; 19911; 19912) as
well as a synchronic grammar (19902), which includes not only
Maʿlula, but also the two other Western Neo-Aramaic dialects
spoken in the nearby villages of Baxʿa and Jubbʿadin. Moreover,
Arnold has recently published a comprehensive dictionary of the
three villages (2019). To date the comparative notes in Spitaler’s
grammar remain the fullest historical treatment of Maʿlula. Since
the publication of that grammar, however, thanks to the intensive
investigation into the literary dialects of Late Western Aramaic
and the rich material from Maʿlula, Baxʿa, and Jubbʿadin that
Arnold has presented, scholars now have the wherewithal to
investigate further the links between older Western Aramaic and
Western Neo-Aramaic. A detailed diachronic description of the
development of Western Late Aramaic into Western Neo-Aramaic
remains a desideratum.

2. Afel
In general, the verbal system of Western Neo-Aramaic has
diverged less from earlier Aramaic than have the verbal systems
of other varieties of Neo-Aramaic. The morphosyntax of Maʿlula,
Baxʿa, and Jubbʿadin is, on the whole, easily derived from older
Western Neo-Aramaic forms,3 though it shares innovations
paralleled in other non-Western varieties of Neo-Aramaic, for

3 Yet, there are some noteworthy changes from older Aramaic that are
attested in Western Neo-Aramaic, e.g., the prefixing of pronominal
morphemes to the old active participle and the penetration of the qattīl
nominal pattern into the verbal system.
 On the Afel Stem in Western Neo-Aramaic  289

example, the tendency of native Aramaic reflexive-passive t-stems

to disappear, leaving behind only lexical traces.
I wish to focus on one phenomenon of the verbal system
that Spitaler noted in his grammar (1938, §120c) but did not
attempt to explain: the presence in Maʿlula of Afel verbs that
in older Aramaic are inflected in Peal, and in Arabic in the 1st
form. Spitaler collected a number of such verbs, some of which
are frequent in the language. He cited four Aramaic roots: nḏr
‘praise’, rhṭ ‘run’ xwy ‘burn’, ykl (ʾaukel) ‘overpower’. The list of
borrowings from Arabic is significantly longer: ʿṣy ‘be stubborn’,
ʿzm ‘invite’, bdw ‘begin’, dʿw ‘curse’, ḍll ‘remain’, dwy ‘echo’, ḍžž
‘rumble, roar’, fzz ‘jump up’, ġḍb ‘be angry’, ġrq ‘fall asleep’, ġyb
‘be absent’, hwn ‘be light’, ḥky ‘speak’, ḥll ‘settle’, ḥqq ‘be right’,
ḥrf ‘answer’, ḥss ‘notice’, ksb ‘earn’, ndm ‘regret’, nṭṭ ‘leap, spring
up’, qdr ‘be able’, ṣʿd ‘rise, ascend’, ṣbr ‘wait’, ṣḥw ‘guard against’,
tʿb ‘become tired’, tmm ‘remain’, wṣf ‘prescribe’, xṣṣ ‘concern,
affect’, zʿl ‘be angry’, ẓhr ‘show oneself’. Spitaler commented that
most of the verbs are intransitive. I think this fact is significant,
as I shall try to show below.
Spitaler (1938, §121) wrote of the tendency in Maʿlula for
weak verbs to shift from one verbal category to another. This
phenomenon is also true for earlier periods of Aramaic. Spitaler
mentioned I-ʾ verbs influencing medial II-w/y verbs, and
geminates influencing I-n. Of relevance to the discussion is the
Afel-looking participle mōmar ‘saying’ from the root ʾmr, whose
creation Spitaler (1938, §121, §162b) attributed to a similarity
with the II-w/y Afel verbal forms and an imperfect analogy of the
type
ōqem (Afel ‘he raised’) : mōqem (Afel ‘he raises’) ::
ʾōmar (Peal ‘he says’) : X
X = mōmar.4
Another germane example given by Spitaler (1938, §171b) is
the Afel verb appi ‘he gave’, which is commonly derived from the

4 The vowel a is a reflex of the older Aramaic rule *i > a /__ guttural.
290 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

root yhb ‘gave’ (Bergsträsser, 1928, 84). According to Bergsträsser,

a shift such as 3fs *yahbat > *yabbat led to an analogy of the type
xassat (‘she covered’; III-y root) : appat (‘she gave’) ::
xassi (‘he covered’) : X
X= appi.5
In his brief discussion, Spitaler did not include as examples
of the shift from Peal to Afel the preterite Peal II-w/y áqam ‘he
arose’ and ámet ‘he died’, but I believe that the initial vowels in
these forms show an incipient move to Afel, like mōmar and appi
mentioned above, and thus are relevant to the discussion at hand.

3. Explanation of the Phenomenon

Why is there a movement of older Aramaic Peal verbs and Arabic
1st stem verbs to Afel in Maʿlula? Is it the result of contact with
another language? Is it an internal semantic development in
Maʿlula, or can its origins be reconstructed back to an earlier
period of Aramaic?

3.1. Contact with Arabic?

Because of the considerable influence of Arabic on Maʿlula and
the widescale absorption of Arabic verbs into the vocabulary
of Maʿlula, one might be tempted to seek the origins of the
phenomenon in the centuries of contact that existed between
Aramaic and Arabic in Syria. The mutual influences of the two
languages have been described by Arnold and Behnstedt (1993).
The authors noted that the Aramaic Afel is extremely productive
in Western Neo-Aramaic, but that the Arabic 4th stem has mostly
disappeared from the spoken Arabic of the Qalamūn area, and
those 4th form verbs that have survived reflect the influence of
literary Arabic, e.g., aslam/yislem ‘convert to Islam’ (Arnold and

5 
As if from the root *npy (Bergsträsser 1928, 84). Spitaler noted that
speakers could interpret the form as the Pael of a root *ʾpy.
 On the Afel Stem in Western Neo-Aramaic  291

Behnstedt 1993, 57–58). In his description of the Damascene

dialect, Heinz Grotzfeld (1965, 27) gave more examples of literary
4th stem forms that appear in the vernacular: ʾazhar ‘bloom’, ʾaḥka
‘speak’, ʾaznab ‘sin’, ʾamkan ‘be able’, ʾaṣbaḥ ‘become’, ʾaxṭa ‘sin’.
Arnold and Behnstedt pointed out that sometimes the Aramaic
Afel verbs of Arabic etymology are derived not only from 4th
form verbs, but also from 1st form verbs and from nouns:

Arabic Aramaic
ʿutma ‘darkness’ > ʿačem ‘become dark’
ġiriq fi nnawm ‘fall asleep’ > ʿaġrek̩ ‘fall asleep’
ʿazam ‘invite’ > aʿzem ‘invite’
bada ‘begin’ > abət ‘begin’
ḏ̣all ‘remain’ > ōḏ̣el ‘remain’

The merger of the 4th and 1st forms in many Neo-Arabic

dialects has been attributed to phonetic factors—the aphaeresis
of the initial alif in the Perfect (ʾafʿala > fʿal) and Imperative
ʾafʿil > fʿel as well as the conditioned neutralisation of u and i,
which led to blurring of the distinction between the Imperfect
of both forms: yufʿil > yəfʿel.6 A confusion of 1st and 4th forms
is known already in Middle Arabic texts, where it is especially
common in geminates and other weak verbs.7 In the light of
the movement from the 4th form to the 1st form in the Neo-
Arabic of the region, it is clear that the Aramaic phenomenon in
Maʿlula of the shift of Peal to Afel cannot be attributed to Arabic
influence.

6 Nöldeke (1904, 36); Blau (1966, §51.2, n. 44); Fischer and Jastrow (1980,
46). In the Damascene dialect, the meaning of the 4th form, on the other
hand, is taken over by verbs in the 2nd form (Grotzfeld 1965, 27).
7 Nöldeke (1904, 36); Blau (1966, §51.2); Hopkins (1984, §72).
292 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

3.2. Shift of Peal to Afel in Western Neo-Aramaic

A tendency of Peal verbs to shift to Afel appears to be unknown
in the dialects of NENA, Central Neo-Aramaic, and Mandaic,8 but
does occur in all three Western Neo-Aramaic dialects. Because
we possess more oral texts from Maʿlula than from Baxʿa or
Jubbʿadin, it is not surprising that there are more examples from
Maʿlula than from the other two dialects.
Is the movement from Peal to Afel an internal semantic
development in Maʿlula? In different Semitic languages the C-stem
is sometimes intransitive with an ingressive nuance, i.e., entering
into a state or condition, e.g., Hebrew ‫‘ ֶה ֱא ִדים‬become red’, ‫ִה ְל ִּבין‬
ܶ ܰ
‘become white’, Syriac ‫ܐܓܪܒ‬ ‘become leprous’, ‫ܢܗܪ‬ ܰ ‘begin to
ܰ ‫ܐ‬
shine’ and Arabic ʾaqbala ‘approach’, ʾaslama ‘become a Muslim’.9
A weakening of ingressivity seems to have led on occasion to a
blurring of the difference between verbs that occur in both the G
and C stems, and this can be detected, for instance, in Syriac ‫ܗܦܟ‬ ܰ
and ‫ܗܦܟ‬ ܰ ܶ
ܷ ‫‘ܐ‬turn around’, and ‫ ܟܬܒ‬and ‫‘ ܐܟܬܒ‬write’. The Hebrew
ܰ ܰ 10

of the Second Temple period—Late Biblical Hebrew, the Hebrew

of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Rabbinic Hebrew—also testifies to
the merger of Qal and Hifil. Some transitive and intransitive Qal
verbs move to Hifil, e.g.,
‫‘ ָּבזָ ה‬despise’ > ‫ה ְבזָ ה‬,ִ
‫‘ גָ ֵדל‬grow’ > ‫הגְ ִּדיל‬,
ִ
‫‘ ָל ַעג‬mock’ > ‫ה ְל ִעיג‬. ִ 11
In the case of a weak verb like ‫‘ יָ ִׂשים‬he will place’, the
morphological ambiguity—it can be parsed as Qal or Hifil—led

8 Other shifts of stems are attested. For example, in Jewish Koy Sanjak
(Mutzafi 2004, 75–77) some older Pael verbs have integrated into the Koy
Sanjak Peal, while others have integrated into Afel; in Jewish Urmi (Khan
2008, 65–67) older Pael stem verbs have merged with Peal or with Afel; in
Jewish Sanandaj (Khan 2009, 65–67) Pael has on the whole merged with
Peal; in Bohtan (Fox 2009, 31–36) Pael includes some verbs from older
Peal.
9 Wright (1896, §45); Leemhuis (1977, 38–42).
10 Duval (1881, §198). ‫ܟܬܒ‬ܶ ‫ܐ‬
ܰ also retains its causative meaning ‘dictate’.
11 Moreshet (1976).
 On the Afel Stem in Western Neo-Aramaic  293

to a reinterpretation of the Classical Biblical Hebrew Qal in Late

Biblical Hebrew as a Hifil and the subsequent creation of a passive
Hufal. Yet, despite the semantic overlapping of G and C in some
Semitic languages, I wonder if more is at play in Maʿlula, and a
look at earlier Western Aramaic may provide the key.

3.3. Shift of Peal to Afel in Earlier Western Aramaic

I propose that the origin of the shift to Afel lies in the Late Western
Aramaic dialects of Jewish Palestinian, Christian Palestinian, and
Samaritan Aramaic. The latter two dialects evidence a general
retraction of stress, which led to an increase in prosthetic vowels.12
Earlier Aramaic corpora have sporadic anaptyctic vowels before
consonantal clusters involving sibilants and dentals, however, the
helping vowel is not related to a retraction of stress, e.g., Biblical
Aramaic ‫‘ ֶא ְד ָרע‬arm’, ‫‘ ִא ְׁש ִּתיו‬they drank’, Syriac ‫ܫܟܚ‬
ܰ ‫ܐ‬ܶ ‘he found’.
In the three dialects of Late Aramaic from Syria-Palestine the
number of examples with prosthetic vowels grows considerably.
In Christian Palestinian and Samaritan Aramaic the prosthetic
vowel sometimes occurs before the word-initial cluster and other
times breaks up the cluster:13

(1) Jewish Palestinian:

‫‘ ַא ְד ָמה‬the blood’, ‫יׁש ָתה‬

ְ ‫‘ ִא‬six’, ‫‘ ַא ְר ַּת ָּכה‬wagon’, ‫אשקק‬
‘lane’, ‫‘ אידמיך‬he slept, he died’, ‫‘ איזמר‬he pruned’, ‫אנהרין‬
‘they (f.) shone’

12 Stress may have shifted back also in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, but there
is no direct evidence for this.
13 Historically, the insertion of a medial vowel in these two dialects is
not the preservation of the original full vowel, but rather a secondary
lengthening of a reduced vowel (shewa mobile). See Bar-Asher (1977,
421–482); Müller-Kessler (1991, §3.1.3.2); Ben-Ḥayyim (2000, §8.9);
Tal (2013, §2.3.26). The examples listed here are taken from Bar-Asher
(1977); Tal (2000); Sokoloff (2014); Sokoloff (2017).
294 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(2) Christian Palestinian:

‫‘ ܐܕܡܐ‬the blood’, ‫‘ ܐܙܒܢ‬time’, ‫ܫܘܡܝܢ‬/‫‘ ܐܫܡܝܢ‬heavens’,

‫‘ ܐܫܩܩ‬lane’, ‫‘ ܐܬܡܘܪܝܢ‬dates’, ‫‘ ܡܝܩܡ‬he raises’, ‫‘ ܢܝܫܪ‬we
shall sing’

(3) Samaritan:

‫‘ אדמה‬the blood’, azbån ‘time’, ‫‘ אסתב‬winter’, ‫‘ אשתה‬six’,

‫‘ שומים‬heavens’, åbād̊ åt ‘she made’, anbāq̊ u ‘they (m.)
left’, anbāq̊ i ‘they (f.) left’

The creation of prosthetic vowels in Peal stems was probably

more extensive in Late Aramaic speech than in the written texts
that have survived. The assimilation of the t of t-stems in verbs
in these dialects (e.g., Jewish Palestinian‘ ‫‘ אשכח < אשתכח‬he
was found’; Fassberg 2012, 30) may also have been interpreted
by speakers as Peal intransitive forms with prosthesis. From the
vocalisation of Jewish Palestinian, the Samaritan oral tradition,
and the use of matres lectionis in Christian Palestinian Aramaic,
one sees that there were three prosthetic vowels i, ə, and a; the
first two appeared more frequently before sibilants.
I would like to suggest that it was the retraction of stress and the
subsequent creation of initial epenthetic vowels, a phenomenon
that began in Late Western Aramaic, which led in Western Neo-
Aramaic to the reinterpretation of Peal verbs as Afel forms.
Maʿlula and Jubbʿadin preserve verbs of the *qatila type, i.e.,
intransitive verbs that have a reflex of e in the base of the verb in
the perfect: iḏmex ‘he slept’, išmeʿ ‘he heard’, isleq ‘he ascended’.14
The retraction of the stress and the creation of a prosthetic vowel
may have led speakers to associate Peal intransitive verbs of the
shape Vqtel with Afel preterite forms. I surmise that this process
began with intransitive verbs and then was extended to transitive

14 In Baxʿa speakers have tended to shift *qatila verbs into the pattern of
*qatala: idmax (but still išmeʿ). See Arnold (19902, §3.1.1).
 On the Afel Stem in Western Neo-Aramaic  295

verbs of the iqtal type. I think that indirect corroboration for this
reconstruction can be found in the fact that many of the verbs
which show up in Afel in Maʿlula are indeed intransitive, as noted
by Spitaler. Additional pressure for the reinterpretation of Peal
forms as Afel would have come from the II-w/y Peal verbs in
which the retraction of stress created Afel-looking forms, e.g.
áqam ‘he/they arose’ vs. older Aramaic qām
ámet ‘he died’ vs. older mīṯ
Although Arabic dialects of the region cannot be responsible
for this development, it is curious that the creation of prosthetic
vowels before word-initial consonantal clusters in *qatila verbs
can be found in an Arabic dialect in Syria. As pointed out to me by
Simon Hopkins, Palmyrene Arabic shows the curious form ʾönzel
‘he descended’, which developed from nazila > nizil > ʾönzel.15
Unfortunately, Aramaic inscriptions from the same area but from
a much earlier period and written in Palmyrene Aramaic give no
written indication of prosthesis and a retraction of stress.

4. Conclusion
The shift of Peal verbs to Afel in Western Neo-Aramaic dialects
may have begun in an earlier period of Western Aramaic, probably
Late Western Aramaic, in which there was a widespread retraction
of stress and subsequent creation of prosthetic vowels that
resolved word-initial consonantal clusters. This situation might
have led in Proto-Western Neo-Aramaic to the reinterpretation of
Peal Vqtel (< *qatila) forms as Afel forms. This reanalysis would
have been reinforced by the overlap between Peal and Afel verbs
in expressing state and condition. Peal and Afel did not merge
completely in Maʿlula, but a trend, which may have begun much
earlier in Western Aramaic, increased significantly in Western
Neo-Aramaic.

15 Cantineau (1934, 121). Cf. katab ‘he wrote’ (< *qatala).

296 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

References

Arnold, Werner. 1989. Das Neuwestaramäische. 1: Texte aus Baxʿa. Semitic Viva
4.1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

―――. 19901. Das Neuwestaramäische. 2: Texte aus Ğubbʿadin. Semitic Viva 4.2.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

―――. 19902. Das Neuwestaramäische. 5: Grammatik. Semitic Viva 4.5.

Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

―――. 19911. Das Neuwestaramäische. 3: Volkskundliche Texte aus Maʿlūla.

Semitic Viva 4.3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

―――. 19912. Das Neuwestaramäische. 4: Orale Literatur aus Maʿlūla. Semitic

Viva 4.4. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

―――. 2019. Das Neuwestaramäische. Teil VI: Wörterbuch: Neuwestaramäisch–

Deutsch. Semitic Viva 4.6. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Arnold, Werner and Behnstedt, Peter. 1993. Arabisch-Aramäische

Sprachbeziehungen im Qalamūn (Syrien). Semitica Viva 8. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.

Bar-Asher, Moshe. 1977. ‫ מסורותיה ובעיות‬,‫ מקורותיה‬:‫מחקרים בסורית של ארץ ישראל‬

‫[ נבחרות בדקדוקה‬Palestinian Syriac Studies: Source-Texts, Traditions and
Grammatical Problems]. Jerusalem: n.p.

Ben-Ḥayyim, Ze’ev. 2000. A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew Based on the Recitation

of the Law in Comparison with the Tiberian and Other Jewish Traditions.
Jerusalem/Winona Lake, IN: Magnes Press/Eisenbrauns.

Bergsträsser, Gotthelf. 1915. Neuaramäische Märchen und andere Texte aus Maʻlūla
hauptsächlich aus der Sammlung E. Prym’s und A. Socin’s. Abhandlungen für
die Kunde des Morgenlandes 13.2. Leipzig: Deutsche Morgenländische
Gesellschaft.

―――. 1919–1920. ‘Neue Texte im aramäischen Dialekt von Maʻlūla’. Zeitschrift

für Assyriologie 32 (1919): 103–163; 33 (1920): 68–69.

―――. 1921. Glossar des neuaramäischen Dialekts von Maʻlūla. Abhandlungen

für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 15.4. Leipzig: Deutsche Morgenländische
Gesellschaft.

―――. 1928. Einführung in die semitischen Sprachen: Sprachproben und

grammatische Skizzen. München: Max Hueber.
 On the Afel Stem in Western Neo-Aramaic  297

―――. 1933. Phonogramme im neuaramäischen Dialekt von Malula: Satzdruck und

Satzmelodie. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Blau, Joshua. 1966. A Grammar of Christian Arabic Based Mainly on South-

Palestinian Texts from the First Millennium. 3 vols. Corpus Scriptorum
Christianorum Orientalium 27–29. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO.

―――. 2002. A Handbook of Early Middle Arabic. Jerusalem: Max Schloessinger

Memorial Foundation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Cantineau, Jean. 1934. Le dialecte arabe de Palmyre. Tome 1: Grammaire.

Beyrouth: Institute français de Damas.

Duval, Rubens. 1881. Traité de grammaire syriaque. Paris: F. Vieweg.

Fales, Frederick Mario and Grassi, Giulia Francesca. 2016. L’aramaico antico:
Storia grammatica, testi commentati con un’appendice paleografica di Ezio
Attardo. Fonti et Testi: Raccolta di Archeologia e Storia dell’arte. Udine:
Forum.

Fassberg, Steven E. 2012. ‘t-Stem Verbs without Metathesis in Aramaic and

Hebrew Documents from the Judean Desert’. In Language and Nature: Papers
Presented to John Huehnergard on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, edited by
Rebecca Hasselbach and Naʻama Pat-El, 27–37. Chicago: Oriental Institute
of the University of Chicago.

Ferrette, Jules. 1863. ‘On a Syriac Language, Still Spoken in the Antilebanon’.
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 20: 431–436.

Fischer, Wolfdietrich and Jastrow, Otto. 1980. Handbuch der arabischen Dialekte.
Porta Linguarum Orientalium Neue Serie 16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 1979. ‘The Phases of the Aramaic Language’. A Wandering

Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays, 57–84. Society of Biblical Literature
Monograph Series 25. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.

Folmer, Margaretha L. 1995. The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period:

A Study in Linguistic Variation. Orientalia Lovaniensa Analecta 68. Louvain:
Peeters.

Fox, Samuel Ethan. 2009. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Bohtan. Gorgias Neo-
Aramaic Studies 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.

Greenfield, Jonas C. 1968. ‫‘[ קווים דיאלקטיים בארמית הקדומה‬Dialect Traits in Early
Aramaic’], Lĕšonénu 32: 359–368.
298 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

―――. 1978. ‘The Dialects of Early Aramaic’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies
37: 93–99.

Grotzfeld, Heinz. 1965. Syrisch-Arabische Grammatik, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Hopkins, Simon. 1984. Studies in the Grammar of Early Arabic Based upon Papyri
Datable to before 300 A.H./912 A.D. London Oriental Series 37. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Khan, Geoffrey. 2008. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Urmi. Gorgias Neo-
Aramaic Studies 2. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.

―――. 2009. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Sanandaj. Gorgias Neo-Aramaic

Studies 10. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.

Leemhuis, Frederik. 1977. The D and H Stems in Koranic Arabic: A Comparative

Study of the Function and Meaning of the faʿʿala and ʾaf ʿala Forms in Koranic
Usage. Leiden: Brill.

Moreshet, Menachem. 1976. ‫‘[ הפעיל ללא הבדל מן הקל בלשון חז"ל‬The Hifʿil in
Mishnaic Hebrew as Equivalent to the Qal’]. Bar-Ilan Annual 13: 249–281.

Müller-Kessler, Christa. 1991. Grammatik des christlich-palästinisch-Aramäischen,

Teil 1: Schriftlehre, Lautlehre, Formenlehre. Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik
6. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.

Mutzafi, Hezy. 2004. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Koy Sanjaq (Iraqi
Kurdistan). Semitica Viva 32. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Nöldeke, Theodor. 1867. ‘Beiträge zur Kenntnis aramäischer Dialekte I’.

Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 21: 183–200.

―――. 1904. Neue Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Strassburg: Karl

J. Trübner.

―――. 1917–1918. ‘Texte im aramäischen Dialekt von Maʻlūla’. Zeitschrift für

Assyriologie 31: 203–230.

Sokoloff, Michael. 2014. A Dictionary of Christian Palestinian Aramaic. Orientalia

Lovaniensia Analecta 234. Leuven: Peeters.

―――. 2017. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period.

3rd revised and expanded edition. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press.

Spitaler, Anton. 1938. Grammatik des neuaramäischen Dialekts von Maʿlūla.

Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 23.1. Leipzig: Deutsche
Morgenländische Gesellschaft.
 On the Afel Stem in Western Neo-Aramaic  299

Tal, Abraham. 1979. ‫ הנו"ן המוספת כאמת מידה‬:‫ישראל‬-‫רבדים בארמית היהודית של ארץ‬
[‘Layers in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic: The Appended Nun as a Criterion’].
Lĕšonénu 43: 165–84.

―――. 1980. ‫ כינויי הרמז‬:‫ישראל‬-‫‘[ בירורים בארמית של ארץ‬Investigations in

Palestinian Aramaic: The Demonstrative Pronouns’]. Lĕšonénu 44: 43–65.

―――. 1983. ‫ישראל‬-‫‘[ המקור לצורותיו ברובדי הארמית היהודית בארץ‬The Infinitive and
Its Forms in the Layers of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic’]. In ‫מחקרי לשון מוגשים‬
‫חיים בהגיעו לשיבה‬-‫[ לזאב בן‬Hebrew Language Studies Presented to Professor
Zeev Ben-Ḥayyim], edited by Moshe Bar-Asher et al., 201–218. Jerusalem:
Magnes Press.

―――. 2000. A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic. Handbuch der Orientalistik

50. Leiden: Brill.

―――. 2013. Samaritan Aramaic. Lehrbücher orientalischer Sprachen 3.2.

Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

Wright, William. 1896. A Grammar of the Arabic Language. Vol. 1. 3rd edition
revised by W. Roberston Smith and M. J. de Goeje. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
 THE RE-EMERGENCE OF THE GENITIVE
IN NORTH-EASTERN NEO-ARAMAIC1

Ariel Gutman

1. Introduction
A commonplace claim in historical linguistics is that languages
change in cycles: morpho-syntactic markers appear to make a
given construction clearer, then disappear when they are felt
redundant, and then re-appear again in different guise. Maybe
the best known case of such a linguistic cycle is the cyclic
reappearance of pre- and post-verbal negation markers in various
languages, a phenomenon that has been termed ‘Jespersen’s
cycle’ by Dahl (1979) following the earlier work of Jespersen
(1917).
Yet in core morphological domains of language, such as case
morphology, it is difficult to come across documented cases of
cyclic change, most probably due to the long time spans in which
core morphology changes. Aramaic, however, with its almost
3,000 years of documented history, provides one such case study,
that I shall examine in this paper.
Based on the evidence from Akkadian and Classical Arabic,
it is generally assumed that proto-Semitic exhibited a three-way
case system, distinguishing nominative, accusative and genitive

1 Acknowledgements: I would like to thank my doctoral supervisors for

their support and much appreciated feedback. First and foremost Eleanor
Coghill, who was a truly exceptional doktormutter, as well as Frans Plank
and Eran Cohen, and initially also Pollet Samvelian. The research was
funded for one year (2011–2012) by a doctoral grant awarded by the École
Normale Supérieure (Paris) and subsequently (2012–16) by the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft as part of the project ‘Neo-Aramaic morphosyntax
in its areal-linguistic context’ led by Eleanor Coghill.

© Ariel Gutman, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0209.09

302 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

cases. Yet Aramaic, from its earliest attested stages, shows no case
system. The fact that Aramaic used to have a case system in its
pre-historical stage, however, can be deduced from the Aramaic
Samʾal inscriptions from the 8th century BCE, where masculine
plural nouns conserve an archaic distinction between nominative
and oblique cases (Dion 1978, 117).
The main cycle of change I shall describe here, based on my
PhD thesis (Gutman 2016; Gutman 2018), is the re-emergence
of the genitive case (and thus case-marking in general) in North-
Eastern Neo-Aramaic after about 2,500 years of absence of case
marking. This cyclic change is accompanied by other cyclic
morphological changes, that will be examined as well.

1.1. Terminology
I shall use here the term attributive construction to denote
constructions in which a head nominal (the primary) is
qualified semantically and syntactically by another nominal (the
secondary). The prototypical attributive construction in Semitic
languages is the annexation construction, also known as the
construct state construction, in which the head noun is marked
by a special morphological form called the construct state.
From a dependency grammar point of view, we may say
that the attributive construction exhibits an attributive relation
between the primary and the secondary (see Goldenberg 1987).
From a morpho-syntactic point of view, however, this relation
can be marked by different means. The different markers can be
classifed on the following two dimensions, following the work of
Plank (1995, 38ff.):
• Two loci of marking: primary and secondary.
• Two types of marking: relational (pure morpho-syntactic
marking) and pronominal (marking that has a nominal
referent).
This yields four principal marker types, that are presented in
Table 1 together with the corresponding gloss label, that will be
used in the examples below.
 The Genitive in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic  303

Table 1: Four AC marker-types

Primary Secondary

Relational Construct state (cst) Genitive case (gen)

Pronominal Possessive (poss) Linker (lnk)

I reserve the notion of case to denote morphological marking

of the dependent, i.e. the secondary. Hence, in the context of
attributive constructions, the notion of genitive case is reserved
for relational marking of the secondary, while the parallel
marking of the primary is considered to pertain to the domain
of state marking. The construct state is a morphological marking
of a noun that indicates that it has a complement (i.e. it is a
primary of an attributive construction), while a noun that is not
thus marked is said to be in the free state. For an analysis of the
category of state as a valid cross-linguistic category reflecting
the syntactic valency of nouns see Gutman (2018, 32) as well as
Creissels (2009, 74).
Pronominal markers are defined as markers that have
referential power, substituting for a noun phrase, and thus can
themselves serve as primaries or secondaries.
To clarify these terms, we can consider the following Turkish
textbook example:

(1) oda-nın kapı-sı

room-gen door-poss.3

‘the door of the room’ (Turkish, Göksel and Kerslake

2005: 183)

The suffix -sı marks the primary kapı ‘door’. It is a pronominal

marker, since the expression kapısı can stand by itself meaning
‘its door’. The suffix -nın, on the other hand, is a pure relational
marker of the secondary oda ‘room’ (though it also conveys the
semantic value of definiteness), and therefore it is an example of
genitive case.
304 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

1.2. Methodology
The aim of this paper is to investigate and explain language-change
processes observed in NENA dialects. The claims made here are
based on a detailed study of several different NENA dialects, of
which text samples have been arranged in an extensive database,
as described in Gutman (2016; 2018, 13ff.).2 As this paper gives,
however, a “bird-eye’s view” of the processes involved, the best
examples from different dialects will be presented in order to
justify the different claims. I invite the interested reader to refer
to Gutman (2016, especially §10.4; 2018, especially 320ff.) for a
more detailed description.
Throughout the paper, I shall assume that a process of
language change can ideally be attributed either to influence of
some contact language, or be language-internally motivated. Of
course, in most cases it is probable that both motivations exist to
some extent.
As NENA is spoken in the same area as Kurdish dialects, both
of the Sorani and Kurmanji types, I shall concentrate on these
dialects as the main contact languages. As the point of departure
of the changes in NENA, I shall take Syriac, a Classical Aramaic
dialect spoken between the 2nd and 7th centuries (at least) as the
backdrop for these changes, serving as an approximate ‘Proto-
NENA’ (disregarding the question whether the NENA dialects
stem in fact from a unique proto-language). Syriac was spoken in
the same area as NENA is spoken, and many structural features of
NENA can be traced back to Syriac constructions. Thanks to the
extensive ancient literature that has survived in Syriac (due to its
important role in the propagation of Eastern Christianity), it is a
very well described and documented ancient dialect of Aramaic.

2. Attributive Constructions in Syriac

In Syriac we find three principal attributive constructions. The
expression ‘house of a/the king’, for example, can be expressed
in the following three ways:

2 The database can be found online as part of Gutman (2016).

 The Genitive in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic  305

(i) The construct state construction (=CSC), restricted mostly

to idioms and fixed expressions. In this construction
the primary noun is marked by the construct state:

(2) bēṯ malkā

house.cst king

The construct state can be in general identified as lacking the

emphatic-state suffix -ā, which in Syriac marks free-standing
nouns, such as the secondary malkā ‘king’ in (2). In older strata
of Aramaic, this suffix marked definiteness, yet in Syriac it lost
this function, and became instead a formal exponent of free-state
nouns. Consequently, the construct-state form can be regarded as
derived by apocope from the free-state noun.

(ii) The analytic linker construction (=ALC), which is the

most productive and frequent of the three. In this
construction the primary is left unmarked (in the
free state), but instead a proclitic d- particle, a linker,
intervenes between the two nouns:

(3) bayta d= malkā

house lnk= king

(iii) The double annexation construction (=DAC); in contrast

to the former two constructions, this construction
implies definite reading (‘house of the king’). As the
above construction, it is marked by the proclitic d-, but
in addition to that the primary noun is marked by a
possessive suffix co-referent with the secondary:

(4) bayt-ēh d= malkā

house-poss.3 lnk= king
306 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Some authors have treated the d- proclitic as being a genitive

case marker (see for example Doron and Meir 2013 or Bulakh
2009 regarding a similar Geʿez particle), yet, as Goldenberg
(1995, 3–6) notes, since it is a pronominal element, it is distinct
from a genitive case marker. Its pronominal nature is clear in
examples where it completely assumes the role of the primary, in
the absence of an explicit nominal primary:

(5) habaw hākēl d= qesar l= qesar

give.imp.pl then lnk= Caesar to= Caesar

w= d= alāhā l= alāhā
and= lnk= God to= God

‘Give then that which is of Caesar to Caesar and that

which is of God to God.’ (Peshitta, Matthew 22:21;
Muraoka 1997, 71)

In Syriac, therefore, as in all Aramaic varieties of antiquity,

there is no genitive marker.

3. Emergence of a Genitive Case in NENA

Following Cohen (2010), I have showed in Gutman (2016) and
Gutman (2018, chapter 4) that the Syriac d- linker diversified
into 3 different markers in NENA dialects:
1. A modern d- linker, with possible variations of its form
2. A neo-construct state suffix -əd
3. A genitive prefix d-
In what follows, I shall concentrate on the development of the
two latter markers, and especially the genitive marker.
 The Genitive in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic  307

3.1. Stage I: Emergence of the Neo-CSC in NENA

Following Mengozzi (2005), one can trace the Neo-CSC of NENA
dialects, in which the construct state noun is marked by an -əd
suffix, back to the Syriac DAC, exemplified here by the expression
bayt-ēh d=malkā. Judging by the evidence from the NENA
manuscripts from the 17th century, the transformation process
can be broken down into the following steps:
1. The possessive suffix -ēh, which in Syriac can inflect,
becomes morphologically fossilised and attenuates
phonetically to a schwa -ə.
2. The proclitic linker d- encliticises to the primary,
resulting in a sequence -ə=d.
3. The resulting unit is reanalysed as a unitary construct
state suffix.
As a result the NENA Neo-CSC emerges with the form baytəd
malka.
The above is a description of the ‘mechanics’ of the change
process. What, however, motivates it? One can postulate three
motivating forces:
• A universal tendency of functional elements to become
enclitics and subsequently suffixes (Lahiri and Plank
2010: 395).
• An areal preference for head-marked constructions (cf.
Cohen 2015). See, however, Gutman (2017) and Gutman
(2016, §10.3; 2018, 307) for a negative evaluation of
the possibility that this is a direct pattern replication of
the Kurmanji ezafe construction.
• The cognitive force of linguistic economy (cf. Slobin
1977, 186): a single-marked construction is simpler than
a double-marked construction.
308 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

3.2. Stage II: Hopping of the d- segment back to the

secondary
The process continues further. Judging by dialectal evidence,
we see that the d- segment, now part of the CSC suffix, is
phonologically not stable:
1. In environments where the secondary has an
initial vowel (or a glottal stop), the final -d has
a tendency to re-syllabify with the secondary:
*ṣadr-əd awwa susa ‘chest of this horse’ > ṣadr-ə d-awwa
susa (Barwar, Khan 2008b, 397)
2. A final schwa following an open syllable is not stable,
with the result that it is sometimes elided: yal-əd axona
‘children of my brother’ > *yal-ə -d=axona > yal
-d=axona (Qaraqosh, Khan 2002: 208)
3. Alternatively, to save the schwa, the [d] may geminate:
*paqart-əd ane ḥawāwīn ‘neck of these animals’ >*paqartə
d=áne ḥawāwīn > paqart-əd d=ane ḥawāwīn (Qaraqosh,
Khan 2002: 208)
Note that in all the examples above, the primary noun is
distinct from the corresponding free-state forms (ṣadra, yala,
paqarta), thus the resulting constructions are different from the
ALC, which still exists in the NENA systems.

3.3. Stage III: Reanalysis of the d- segment as a genitive

prefix
The aforementioned stage is purely phonological, yet the crucial
step happens due to a reanalysis of the added phonological
material: when the d- segment is doubled, the d- prefix can be
reanalysed as a genitive prefix.
 The Genitive in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic  309

(6) pumm-əd d-aw nāša

mouth-cst gen-def.ms man

‘the mouth of the man’ (Jewish Zakho, Cohen 2012,

107 (76))

This happens indeed with a select class of vowel-initial

demonstratives and determiners, as shown by Cohen (2010). A
partial selection of these elements is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Case inflected definite determiners in Jewish Zakho

(Cohen 2010, 88)

Case Determiner

aw ms
–gen ʾ-
ay fs
+gen d-
an pl

Following this reanalysis, the d- marked genitive forms appear

in environments where the original phonological motivation is
no longer present, but where genitive-case marking is expected,
such as NPs following prepositions, or on phrase-internal
demonstratives:

(7) mən d-ay xzēna

from gen-def treasure

‘from the treasure’ (Jewish Zakho, Cohen 2012, 108

(77))

(8) gnay-ət tawra d-o= goṛa

fault-cst ox gen-def.ms= big.ms

‘the fault of the big ox’ (Barwar, Khan 2008b, 517

[D2:19])
310 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Yet the introduction of a genitive prefix is highly surprising,

not only because it re-introduces a case system into Aramaic,
absent for about 2,500 years, but also because it goes against the
aforementioned universal tendency of suffixation. So a natural
question is: What were the motivations for this re-analysis?
Several potential answers can be given. First, we note that the
high frequency of vowel-initial demonstratives or determiners
acting as secondaries (or the first elements thereof), makes
the morphological re-analysis of the phonological realignment
plausible.
A partial internal explanation, suggested by Khan (2009a,
71), may be the analogy of the d- marked demonstratives with
independent genitive pronouns, which also start with a [d]
segment such as Barwar bɛθa diy-a ‘her house’. Yet such an
analogy would explain only the genitive form of independent
demonstratives, and not of determiners.
It seems, however, that the main driving force of this
grammatical change lies in language contact, and more specifically
in an analogy with the Kurdish Kurmanji demonstrative system.
As shown in Table 3, the Kurmanji demonstratives exhibit two
cases: a nominative and an oblique case. It may be no coincidence
that the nominative, as in Aramaic, is vowel-initial, while the
oblique is consonant-initial.

Table 3: Kurmanji near-deixis demonstratives

nom obl

ms vî
fs ev vê
pl van

It should be noted that the various contexts where the

genitive-marked NENA demonstratives appear (i.e. marking
attributive NPs or complements of prepositions) fit the usage of
the Kurmanji oblique demonstratives. Thus, the emergence of a
NENA genitive-prefix may result from a pattern replication process,
 The Genitive in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic  311

in the sense of Matras and Sakel (2007), of the Kurmanji system.

Indeed, the geographical distribution of the NENA genitive prefix
corroborates this hypothesis, since the prefix is present mainly in
NENA dialects that are in direct contact with Kurmanji dialects.
Yet, as Cohen (2010, 90) notes, there is a difficulty with
this idea, since the NENA genitive prefix, in contrast to the
Kurmanji oblique case, does not mark complements of verbs.
Does this difficulty refute the pattern-replication hypothesis? Not
necessarily. It is quite possible that while replicating the Kurmanji
pattern the NENA speakers did not generalise the occurrence of
the d- segment outside its initial domain of appearance, but rather
restricted its reanalysis to the attributive domain. The occurrence
of the genitive prefix after prepositions is natural in this respect,
as the construct-state suffix can appear on certain prepositions,
as in the following example:

(9) mənn-ət bela

from-cst house

‘from the house’ (Jewish Urmi, Khan 2008a, 196)

3.4. Stage III: Reanalysis of the d- segment as an oblique

prefix
Interestingly, at least in one dialect, namely the peripheral dialect
of Jewish Sanandaj, the d- prefix has completely replicated the
Kurmanji pattern, as it is used not only as a marker of adnominal
complements of nouns and prepositions, but also as a marker of
verbal objects (preceding the verb as is the case in Kurdish), as
the following three examples show:

(10) bela d-o

house obl-3s

‘his house’ (Jewish Sanandaj, Khan 2009b, 200)

312 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(11) reša d-o

on obl-3s

‘on it’ (Jewish Sanandaj, Khan 2009b, 224)

(12) d-o grəš-le

obl-3ms pulled-a.3ms

‘He pulled him.’ (Jewish Sanandaj, Khan 2009b, 159)

In these three examples the form d-o is used as an independent

pronoun, but it can also be used as a case-marked determiner
of an NP. It is also worth noting that except these uses of the
d- prefix (which are in fact optional), there are no other reflexes
of the Classical Aramaic d- linker in this dialect.
Khan (2009b, 158) explains the usage of the d- prefix
as a verbal-complement marker, as being a sub-case of the
prepositional-complement marker, since it can also appear after
the accusative preposition həl:

(13) həl= d-o grəš-le

acc= obl-3ms pulled-a.3ms

‘He pulled him.’ (Jewish Sanandaj, Khan 2009b, 158)

Thus, Khan (2009b, 158) explains example (12) as resulting

from the simple omission of the preposition həl. Yet, given the
above outlined development path of the case-marking d- prefix
in NENA dialects, it is plausible to analyse this development as
the final step of replication of the Kurmanji pattern, in which the
d- prefix assumes completely the role of an oblique case-marker.
Interestingly, this happens in the dialect of Jewish Sanandaj,
which is not in direct contact with Kurmanji (the Kurdish spoken
in Sanandaj is of the Sorani type, in which there is no case-
marking). As the origin of the pattern replication must be in the
 The Genitive in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic  313

Kurmanji-speaking area, this seems to be an indication that the

speakers of Jewish Sanandaj came originally from that area.

4. Renaissance of the Apocopate Construct State

The reanalysis of the d- prefix as a genitive marker has led in
some dialects to the reanalysis of the apocopate primary form
as a new construct state formation. In the following example,
the form brāt can be contrasted with the free-state form brāta
‘daughter’, effectively being a construct-state form:

(14) brāt d-ay baxta

daughter.cst gen-def.fs woman

‘the daughter of the woman’ (Jewish Zakho, Cohen

2012, 110)

It is worthwhile noting that the new apocopate construct state

is formally similar to the historical construct state, as both are
formed by apocopation, yet as some irregular forms show, it is
distinct from it. For example, the Syriac construct state of the
noun brāta is bat.
Once the new form has been reanalysed as a new kind of
construct-state marking (on a par with the neo-construct-state
suffix -əd marking), it spreads to contexts where no d- prefix is
found:

(15) ʾaqlās xa mənn-u

feet.pl.cst one from-3pl

‘the feet of one of them’ (Jewish Zakho, Cohen 2012,

115)

This development marks again a closure of a cycle. In the

earliest strata of Aramaic the apocopate construct state was
314 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

the standard way of marking the attributive relation. Later, in

Syriac it lost its expressive power and became confined mostly to
idioms, yet in NENA it re-emerges as a standard way of marking
the attributive relation, alongside other morpho-synactic means.

5. Conclusions
In this paper I have drawn attention to the existence of two
important cycles of morpho-syntactic change in the nominal
domain in the long history of Aramaic:
1. The disappearance of the case system of the earliest
strata of Aramaic followed by the re-emergence of case
marking (genitive or oblique) in NENA dialects, about
2,500 years later.
2. The decline of the apocopate construct state in Syriac,
followed by the development of suffixed neo-construct-
state marking in NENA dialects, which in turn led to the
emergence of a neo-apocopate construct-state marking
in some dialects.
These cycles are accompanied by a phonological cycle, in
which a proclitic element (the d- linker) becomes a suffix (in the
construct state suffix) and then shifts back to being a prefix (as a
genitive case-marker). Yet a key observation is that phonological
re-arrangements (cliticisation, resyllabification) cannot by
themselves cause a morpho-syntactic change of the linguistic
system. Rather, they must be followed by a process of reanalysis
of the phonological material in order for them to have a lasting
effect.
From the point of view of the marking quantity of the
attributive constructions, we can observe another abstract cycle.
The double annexation construction of Syriac, in which the
primary is marked by a possessive suffix and the secondary by a
pronominal linker, transforms into a single-marked construction
(the suffixed construct-state construction of NENA), which
in turn transforms back in some environments and dialects to
another double-marked construction, in which the primary is
 The Genitive in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic  315

marked by the construct-state (either apocopate or suffixed) and

the secondary is marked by the genitive case. Intriguingly, we
see that while the original double construction used pronominal
markers on both loci, the modern double construction uses
relational markers on both sites.
The history of Aramaic permits us to corroborate the old idea
that languages do indeed change in cycles, yet we see that these
cycles do not constitute exact repetition. The fluctuations in
marking-quantity corroborate the idea that two opposing forces
shape language: economy, on one hand, and clarity, on the
other hand. In slightly different terms, this idea has been neatly
summarised by Slobin (1977, 192):
The first two charges—clarity and processibility—strive toward
segementalisation. The other two charges—temporal compactness
and expressiveness—strive toward synthesis, however. As a result,
Language constantly fluctuates between the poles of analyticity and
syntheticity, since none of the charges can be ignored.

The details of the various processes should, in principle,

be attributed to specific motivations, either language-internal
motivations or, as is often the case, to language-contact. Yet even
in the most pristine ‘laboratory’ conditions of language change,
which Aramaic with its richly documented history approaches,
not all details of change can be accounted for. This is since the
various forces operating on the development of a language are
ultimately mediated by the creativity of its speakers.

References

Bulakh, Maria. 2009. ‘Nota Genitivi za- in Epigraphic Geez’. Journal of Semitic
Studies 54 (2): 393–419.

Cohen, Eran. 2010. ‘Marking nucleus and attribute in North-Eastern Neo-

Aramaic’. In Proceeding of the VIII Afro-Asiatic Congress (September 2008,
Naples), 79–94. Studi Maghrebini (Nuova Serie) 7.

———. 2012. The Syntax of Neo-Aramaic: The Jewish Dialect of Zakho. Gorgias
Neo-Aramaic Studies 13. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.
316 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

———. 2015. ‘Head-Marking in Neo-Aramaic Genitive Constructions and the

ezafe Construction in Kurdish’. In Semitic Languages in Contact, edited by
Aaron M. Butts. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 82. Leiden:
Brill, pp. 114–25.

Creissels, Denis. 2009. ‘Construct Forms of Nouns in African Languages’. In

Proceedings of a Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory
2, edited by Peter K. Austin, Oliver Bond, Monik Charette, David Nathan,
and Peter Sells, 73–82. London: SOAS.

Dahl, Östen. 1979. ‘Typology of Sentence Negation’. Linguistics 17 (1-2): 79–106.

Dion, Paul-E. 1978. ‘The Language Spoken in Ancient Samʾal’. Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 37 (2): 115–18.

Doron, Edit and Irit Meir. 2013. ‘Construct State: Modern Hebrew’. In
Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by edited by Geoffrey
Khan, Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary A. Rendsburg, Aaron D.
Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and Tamar Zewi, 1: 581–89. Leiden-Boston:
Brill, 2013.

Göksel, Aslı and Celia Kerslake. 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar.

Comprehensive Grammars. London: Routledge.

Goldenberg, Gideon. 1987. ‘‫[ ’יחסים תחביריים וטיפולוגיה בלשונות שמיות‬Syntactic

Relations and Typology in Semitic Languages]. In ‫עיונים בעקבות מפעלו‬
‫ דברים שנאמרו בערב לכבוד יעקב פולוצקי בהגיעו לגבורות‬:‫[ של פולוצקי‬Following
Polotsky’s Teachings: Lectures in honour of H. J. Polotsky on the occasion
of his eightieth birthday]. Delivered at the Israel Academy of Sciences and
Humanities in a meeting held on the 21st of January 1986, 7–18. Jerusalem:
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Translated into English by
Shmuel Bar in Gideon Goldenberg. 1998. Studies in Semitic Linguistics:
Selected Writings. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 138–47.

———. 1995. ‘Attribution in Semitic Languages’. Langues Orientales Anciennes:

Philologie et Linguistique 5–6: 1–20. Reprinted in Gideon Goldenberg. 1998.
Studies in Semitic Linguistics: Selected Writings, 46–65. Jerusalem: Magnes
Press.

———. 1998. Studies in Semitic Linguistics: Selected Writings. Jerusalem: Magnes

Press.

Gutman, Ariel. 2016. ‘Attributive Constructions in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic:

Areal, Typological and Historical Perspectives’. Doctoral thesis, University
of Konstanz. URL: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-0-352520.
 The Genitive in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic  317

———. 2017. ‘Can Pattern Replication be Easily Established? The Case of

the Neo- Aramaic Neo-Construct’. 18e Rencontres Jeunes Chercheurs en
Sciences du Langage, June 2015, Paris, France. In: Actes des 18e Rencontres
Jeunes Chercheurs en Sciences du Langage. URL: https://hal-univ-paris3.
archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01495125.

———. 2018. Attributive Constructions in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic. Language

Science Press. URL: http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/123.

Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. København: A.

F. Høst.

Khan, Geoffrey. 2002. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Qaraqosh. Studies in Semitic

Languages and Linguistics 36. Leiden: Brill.

———. 2008a. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Urmi. Gorgias Neo-Aramaic

Studies 2. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.

———. 2008b. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar. 3 vols. Handbook of Oriental

Studies I-96. Leiden: Brill.

———. 2009a. ‘The Genitive and Relative Clauses in the North-Eastern Neo-
Aramaic Dialects’. In Relative Clauses and Genitive Constructions in Semitic,
edited by Janet C.E. Watson and Jan Restö, 69–87. Journal of Semitic Studies
Supplement 25. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

———. 2009b. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Sanandaj. Gorgias Neo-

Aramaic Studies 10. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.

Lahiri, Aditi and Frans Plank. 2010. ‘Phonological Phrasing in Germanic: The
Judgement of History, Confirmed through Experiment’. Transactions of the
Philological Society 108 (3): 370–98.

Matras, Yaron and Jeanette Sakel. 2007. ‘Investigating the Mechanisms of

Pattern replication in Language Convergence’. Studies in Language 31 (4):
829–65.

Mengozzi, Alessandro. 2005. ‘Extended Prepositions in Neo-Aramaic, Kurdish

and Italian’. In Studi Afroasiatici (Afro-Asiatic Studies): XI Incontro Italiano
di Linguistica Camitosemitica (11th Italian Meeting of Afro-Asiatic Linguistics),
edited by Alessandro Mengozzi, 371–90. Materiali linguistici 52. Milano:
FrancoAngeli.

Muraoka, Takamitsu. 1997. Classical Syriac: A Basic Grammar with a

Chrestomathy. Porta Linguarum Orientalium—Neue Serie 19. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz Verlag.
318 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Plank, Frans. 1995. ‘(Re-)Introducing Suffixaufnahme’. In Double Case:

Agreement by Suffixaufnahme, edited by Frans Plank, 3–110. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Slobin, Dan I. 1977. ‘Language Change in Childhood and in History’. In Language

Learning and Thought, edited by John Macnamara, 185–214. Perspectives in
Neurolinguistics and Psycholinguistics. New York: Academic Press.
 MODELLING VARIATION IN THE
NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF AZRAN
WITH ARTICULATORY PHONOLOGY

Lidia Napiorkowska

1. Introduction
Linguistic theories, as perhaps theories in general, are neat and
helpful constructs, but they represent a state well beyond the
basic data analysis. This is true, for example, of the traditional
binary classification of sounds into phonemes and allophones.
Whereas this division allows us to organise the material in a
transparent way, it requires compromises and simplifications
to a smaller or larger extent (cf. Lyons 1971, 68; Jung and
Himmelmann 2011, 204). The tension between the theory and
the description of the empirical data results in the need to find a
balance between presenting the material in a coherent way and
presenting it in a faithful way. This issue is familiar to any field
linguist who faces the challenge of transcribing audio material.
In practical terms, the dilemma consists in deciding how much
of the rich repertoire of each speaker should be represented,
typically what is identified as phonemic, and how much should
be left out, typically what is identified as allophonic variation?
The question is even more complex when the data come from a
linguistic community that has a background of dialect mixing.
The North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) dialect of Azran dealt
with in the present paper is a case in point. I wish to propose a
way to deal with the aforementioned challenge by suggesting
an alternative way of analysing phonetic empirical data,

© Lidia Napiorkowska, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0209.10

320 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

employing not the traditional units of phonemes, but rather

gestures involved in speech production.1

2. The Dialect and the Data

Azran is a NENA dialect whose speakers now live in the town
of Diyana in northern Iraqi Kurdistan. Azran was a village in
the Turkish area of Gardi in the vicinity of Shemizdin. I was not
able to identify its precise location. The Azran speakers regard
themselves as belonging to the Gargarnaye tribe, which includes
also the speakers of other dialects, such as Hawdiyan. The dialect
of Azran is close to the Christian Diyana-Zariwaw (CDZ) variety
described by Napiorkowska (2015a; 2015b). They, however,
exhibit distinct features and so should be classified as separate
varieties. The Azran examples presented below are based on the
author’s own fieldwork (Napiorkowska 2015c).
It needs to be borne in mind that the Azran community, as
is the case with many other Neo-Aramaic communities, has
experienced displacement and migration. This combined with
the factor of language contact, mainly with Kurmanji Kurdish,
has resulted in a substantial degree of linguistic variation. Both
a ‘horizontal’ and a ‘vertical’ variation can be identified. The
horizontal variation arises from contact with other languages
and NENA varieties. The vertical variation, on the other
hand, has arisen from different degrees of linguistic change
across different generations and groups of speakers. Variation
is a conspicuous phenomenon in Azran, which needs to be
accommodated in the description of the dialect if it is to reflect
the linguistic reality.

1 The data on this variety were gathered during the project ‘The
Documentation of the Neo-Aramaic Cluster of Gargarnaye’, IPF 0203
funded by the Endangered Languages Documentation Programme, SOAS,
and carried out at the University of Cambridge.
 Modelling Variation in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Azran  321

3. Transcription Challenges
A commonly adopted transcription practice, following from the
two-way distinction mentioned in §1, is to represent phonemic
contrasts and exclude phonetic features that are identified
as allophonic. For instance, in the Azran word ‘scattered (fs.)’
[bʊr.ˈbəs.tʰa] from barbuze ‘to scatter’, the devoicing of /z/ to
[s] occurs under the influence of /t/ as a predictable process;
consequently, the word is transcribed as burbəzta. Many properties
of speech, however, are not easily sifted out in the same way,
since they do not occur regularly. In this paper, I shall consider
the cases of phonological fronting, and to a smaller extent also
phonological emphasis, whose distribution is far from regular in
Azran.
Consider the word ṱəḷḷa < *ṭəllā [ˈtˁə̱lˁ.lˁa] ‘shade’, where
the former emphatic, i.e. pharyngealised, *ṭ developed into an
unaspirated /ṱ/, influencing also the neighbouring segments.2
Historical emphasis is, however, very different in the case of
words like ṱinten realised as [ˈtən.t͡sʰən] ‘I have become pregnant
(f.)’ <*ṭ-ʾ-n ‘to carry’. Here there is lack of aspiration in the
segment in the onset of the first syllable, reflecting historical
emphasis, but heavy aspiration in the second /t/, resulting in an
affricate. The affrication in this word is conditioned by a process
that is different from the loss of historical emphasis. Should
such a process that has led to the emergence of an affricate be
represented, or is the marking of the lack of emphasis sufficient
in the transcription? Furthermore, a word such as ‘stone, rock’
*kēp̄ ā > čipa involves a range of interchangeable realisations,
i.e. [ˈkʲiːpʰa]~ [ˈt͡ʃʰiːpʰa]~[ˈt͡sʰiːpʰa], which do not seem to be
conditioned variants. They all represent the word ‘stone’ for
the Azran speakers, the latter being considered a hallmark of
the dialect.3 The different realisations of the same word are

2 For the discussion of phonological emphasis in the dialects of Diyana see

Napiorkowska (2015a) where it is argued that the lack of aspiration in
/ṱ/ in CDZ is a reflex of the former emphasis in *ṭ. This is also the case in
Christian Urmi (Khan 2016).
3 The Azran speakers are apparently often teased about their rendition of
the historical velar stops.
322 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

perceptible to the speakers. How should then the word ‘stone’

be represented in the transcription? One way would be to treat
the alveolar affricate [t͡sʰ] as an allophone of a postalveolar
phoneme, which can be represented /č/, based on its diachronic
derivation. Then, however, the perceived reality of Azran would
be compromised. Could we perhaps find grounds for regarding
[t͡sʰ] as a separate phoneme, which could be represented /c/?
The examples above illustrate the transcription challenges
based on linear approaches where phonemes are strung one
after another and transitions between units are largely ignored.
These transitions, however, produce phonetic output that do
not necessarily match the phonological representation. In order
to diminish this gap between phonology and phonetics let us
consider a dynamic model that combines the two.

4. Articulatory Phonology
Articulatory Phonology (ArtP) is a model of phonological
description developed mainly by Browman and Goldstein in
a series of articles (inter alia 1986; 1989; 1991; 1992). The
fundamental assumption of ArtP is the organisation of speech
into gestures, i.e. degrees of constriction in particular locations
within the vocal tract. These are the velum (VEL), tongue
body (TB), tongue tip (TT), lips (LIPS) and glottis (GLO). Each
gesture is specified for the location and degree of constriction. In
addition, it has an inherent duration. ArtP is a non-linear model
since it construes speech as overlapping spatio-temporal events.
According to this model, the Azran word čipa ‘stone’ could be
represented as displayed in Illustration 1.
The leftmost boxes represent the major gestural actors (called
‘vocal trajectories’) and the values within the boxes specify the
constriction location and degree (closure, critical, narrow, middle
or wide). The closure (clo) gesture is mainly associated with the
TT, TB and LIPS and the production of stops, whereas the gesture
critical (crit) is responsible for creating friction. Vowels and
approximants are determined by the middle (mid), narrow or
wide gestures.
 Modelling Variation in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Azran  323

Illustration 1: Articulatory Phonology Model

/č i p a/

VELUM

TONGUE BODY narrow narrow   wide

alveopalatal alveopalatal pharyngeal
TONGUE closure
alveopalatal
TIP
LIPS middle closure
labial
GLOTTIS wide wide

Finally, the glottis and the velum may be defined as wide open
for the productions of devoicing and nasals, respectively.
The size of each box represents the duration of gesture with
respect to a particular sound.4 The temporal parameter of ArtP
predicts that the retiming of a specific gesture results in the
overlapping or disjoining of gestures.
This retiming, in turn, gives rise to processes, such as, for
example, fronting of the place of articulation.5 Another important
implication of the spatio-temporal parameter of ArtP is that
the magnitude of each gesture may be increased or reduced,
depending on the phonetic, but also pragmatic factors, and due
to individual conditioning of the speaker. ArtP is, thus, a model
which has ample room for accommodating variation and changes
in progress, such as those encountered in Azran.

4 In this article it is represented in a purely impressionistic manner, rather

than based on gesture duration measurement.
5 Some cases of partial or total overlapping of gestures are no different from
the well-known process of assimilation. Here, however, the focus is on
the mechanics of the processes and their immediate outcomes, for which
assimilation is only a label.
324 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

5. ArtP and the NENA Data

Using the set of grids (called ‘scores’ in ArtP) we can visualise the
way in which the shift in Azran from the form kipa (< *kēp̄ ā) to
čipa is likely to have occurred. It is here assumed that first the
narrow alveopalatal gesture responsible for the production of the
vowel /i/ was retimed, i.e. produced before the completion of
the previous gesture, and so it overlapped with the velar gesture
of the tongue body constriction in /k/. As a result, a shift of the
velar /k/ to the alveopalatal /č/ took place. This is represented in
(1a) and (1b), where the relevant areas have been shaded.
Building on this assumption it may be postulated that in
the third variant of pronunciation encountered in Azran (1c) a
further retiming of /i/ influences the constriction of the tongue
body responsible for the production of /č/. The narrow vocalic
gesture spreads from the alveopalate to the alveolar ridge and
so the closure is advanced to the alveolar region.6 The result is
realised as an affricate /c/ [t͡sʰ]. Note also the spreading of lips
associated with this pronunciation.

(1) Palatalisation and advancement to alveolar ridge with

vowel opening

čipa ‘stone’ <*kēp̄ ā

(1a) [ˈkʲiːpʰa] 7

/č i p a/
TB clo, velar narrow, alvpal wide, phar
TT
LIPS middle clo, lab
GLO wide wide

6 Cf. the characterisation of the alveopalatal sounds by Ladefoged as those

produced with the blade of the tongue ‘always close to the back part of
the alveolar ridge (…), made farther in the mouth’ than the alveolars
(Ladefoged 2006, 12).
7 Within the scores the following abbreviations were used: alv for alveolar,
alvpal for alveopalatal, pal for palatal, phar for pharyngeal, lab for labial
 Modelling Variation in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Azran  325

(1b) [ˈt͡ʃʰiːpʰa]

/č i p a/
TB narrow, narrow, wide,
alvpla alvpal phar
TT clo, alvpal
LIPS clo,
middle
lab
GLO wide wide

1c) [ˈt͡sʰiːpʰa]

/c i p a/
narrow, narrow, wide,
TB
alv alvpal phar
TT clo, alv
clo,
LIPS narrow
lab
GLO wide wide

(Within the ArtP framework, the variation of /k~ č~ c/> [kʲ

> t͡ʃʰ> t͡sʰ] in *kēp̄ ā> kipa> čipa> cipa ‘stone’ is easily handled
as a spectrum of articulations triggered by the anticipation of
the alveopalatal vowel gesture. Moreover, such a representation
bypasses the stage of categorical phonemic vs. allophonic division
between /k~ č~ c/. I have, therefore, decided to represent [t͡sʰ]
with a separate symbol /c/. It is not claimed that /c/ constitutes a
separate phoneme in its canonical sense; rather, introducing /c/
represents a significant perceived auditory feature of Azran. In
other words, differentiating between /č/ and /c/ in transcription
does not mark a transgression of boundaries between phonemes,
but rather mirrors the linguistic reality of the dialect with such
internal variation.

and uvu-phar for uvular-pharyngeal.

326 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

6. Further Examples
The ArtP model may further be employed to represent the
feature called emphasis spread. In Azran, as mentioned above
(§3.0.), the reflex of earlier emphatic (pharyngealised) *ṭ is a
non-pharyngealised unaspirated /ṱ/. The gesture of tongue tip
closure for /ṱ/ is, thus, accompanied by glottalic closure. If this
gesture is retimed, the following relevant segments are rendered
unaspirated, such as /p̌ / in ṱəp̌ ṛa < *ṭəprā ‘fingernail’ in (2):

(2) Emphasis spread or retiming of closed glottis gesture

ṱəp̌ ṛa ‘fingernail’ [ˈtəp.rˁa] <*ṭəprā

/ṱ ə p̌ ṛ a/

(TR narrow) 8
TB mid, wide,
uvu- phar
phar
TT clo, narrow,
alv alv
LIPS clo, lab
GLO clo clo

The gesture of the closed glottis appears here as almost a

continuum, pertaining to the relevant segments. The approach of
ArtP has, therefore, an advantage over a linear approach, where
we would have two segments specified each for the feature of
nonaspiration.

8 The ArtP model is yet to develop a unified way of representing the tongue
root gestures. Here, the TR narrow gesture is equivalent to the [+RTR]
feature and stands for the articulatory setting generally assumed in NENA
for the production of the emphatic consonants, i.e. the constriction of the
upper pharynx (cf. Khan 2013, 112).
 Modelling Variation in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Azran  327

The next example (3) is similar to (1), but involves the voiced
counterpart. It is likewise assumed that the retiming of /i/ is
responsible for the shift from the alveopalatal /j/ [d͡ʒ] to alveolar
[d͡z]. Consequently, [d͡z] is represented by a separate symbol /ȷ/.
The final example (4) illustrates not the strictly temporal, but
rather the gradable parameter of gesture magnitude. Here, the
first segment is the unaspirated reflex of the earlier emphatic
*ṭ, whereas the final consonant /t/ is the aspirated stop of the
feminine suffix. In (4a), /ṱ/ is still pronounced with some emphasis,
i.e. constriction of the pharynx and retraction of the tongue root.
It is, thus, sufficiently different from the pronunciation of the
aspirated /t/ where no tongue root gesture is involved. In (4b), by
contrast, where the only reflex of the earlier emphasis is the lack
of aspiration, there is a need to magnify the difference between
/ṱ/ and /t/. As a result, the shift of the tongue tip from closure in
/t/ in (4a) to a critical position in (4b) renders the affricate [t͡sʰ],
whereby the contrast between the two consonants in question is
maximised.

(3) Advancement to alveolar ridge with vowel opening

jiya ‘tired’ (ms.) < g-h-y

(3a) [ˈd͡ʒɪːja]

/j i y a/

TB narrow, narrow, narrow, wide, phar

alvpal alvpal pal
TT clo,
alvpal
LA mid narrow

GLO clo
328 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(3b) [ˈd͡ziːja]

/ȷ i y a/
TB narrow, narrow, wide,
narrow, alv
alvpal pal phar
TT clo, alv
LA narrow
GLO clo

(4) The maximisation of glottalic gesture contrast

ṱinta ‘pregnant’

(4a) [ˈtˁə̱n.tʰa]9

/ṱ i n t a/

VEL wide wide,

phar
(TR narrow)
TB narrow,
alvpal
TT clo, alv clo, alv
GLO clo wide

(4b) [tən.t͡sʰa]

/ṱ i n t a/

VEL wide wide,

phar
TB narrow, clo, narrow,
alvpal alv alv
TT clo,
clo, alv
alv
GLO clo wide

9 The spread of nasality was ignored in this example.

 Modelling Variation in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Azran  329

7. ArtP and Language Contact

The palatalisation of the velar stops, presented in the Azran
examples in (1) and (3), is not unique to this dialect (see also
Christian Urmi in Khan 2016) and appears to be an areal
feature of the Eastern Anatolian and Caucasian Sprachbünde.
The NENA dialects have undoubtedly been heavily influenced
by the surrounding varieties, mainly Kurmanji Kurdish, in which
palatalisation is well attested (Kapeliuk 2011, 737). Nonetheless,
it should be borne in mind that external influence is rarely the
sole factor responsible for linguistic change. Rather, it is coupled
with an internal potential of the language to accommodate the
influence. In the light of ArtP, we may observe how the shift
/k/> /č ~ c/ emerges as an innovation independently of
external influence. Furthermore, similar developments of the
velar stops are typologically wide-spread, for example, among
the Bantu varieties (Hyman and Moxley 1996) where no external
motivation for change has been postulated. Among internal
factors one could also include sociolinguistics and the rather
low prestige of Azran compared to other NENA varieties, such as
the Iraqi koine. According to Trudgill (2011), the non-standard
or isolated varieties tend to employ more casual and careless
speech, which results in reduction processes in pronunciation and
grammar. The speakers of Azran indeed constitute a rather small
and tightly-knit community. This would be expected to licence a
less careful pronunciation, leading to a phonological shift.
It is not claimed here that the fronting and palatalisation in
Azran, or indeed in NENA, is totally unconnected with the similar
processes in Kurdish. Rather, it is suggested that there is a need
to recognise both the external and the internal motivations for
a change. Acknowledging equally the role that the input from
the inside and outside play in shaping the language is a more
satisfactory approach to the study of sound change. In the case
of the palatalisation and affricativisation in Azran, we may say
that the mechanism of gesture retiming is a development that is
reinforced by language contact rather than primarily conditioned
by it.
330 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

8. Conclusions
ArtP is a model enabling us to observe how the reorganisation
of gestures results in allophonic variation ranges, which pass
seamlessly across boundaries delimited by phonemes in linear
approaches (ex. 1, 2 and 3). It is, therefore, an efficient means of
capturing variation. Moreover, it handles well some cases of the
so-called ‘mixed-words’, i.e. former emphatic words containing
front segments (example 4), which are otherwise problematic
within the approach of vowel harmony and autosegmental
phonology. Lastly, giving credit to the internal mechanism of
sound shift together with language contact allows us to identify
the multiple causation of linguistic change with greater precision.
Returning to the initial question of tension between theory
and empirical data in the creation of transcriptions, it must be
admitted that ArtP is impractical for documentation purposes.
Some critics have judged it to be inconclusive or in many respects
inadequate (e.g. McMahon, Foulkes and Tollfree 1994; Clements
1992). Nevertheless, it is here argued that ArtP is highly valuable
as a model for the interface between phonology and phonetics.
Including a few selected ArtP scores in a phonological description
of a language would help to justify the transcription convention
that is adopted in the documentation, such as introducing /c/
and /ȷ/ here. In practical terms, ArtP allows us to achieve a
deeper understanding of what it is that we are trying to represent
through a highly conventionalised transcription system.

Abbreviations

alv alveolar
alvpal alveopalatal,
ArtP Articulatory Phonology
clo closure
crit critical
GLO glottis
 Modelling Variation in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Azran  331

lab labial
pal palatal,
phar pharyngeal
TB tongue body
TT tongue tip
uvu-phar uvular-pharyngeal
VEL velum

References

Ball, Martin, Nicole Müller and Ben Rutter. 2010. Phonology for Communication
Disorders. New York: Psychology Press.

Beltzung, Jean-Marc, Céderic Patin and George N. Clements. 2015. ‘The feature
[ATR]’. In Features in Phonology and Phonetics: Posthumous Writings by Nick
Clements and Coauthors, edited by Annie Rialland et al., 217–246. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter, 2015.

Browman, Catherine P. and Louis Goldstein. 1986. ‘Towards an Articulatory

Phonology’. Phonology Yearbook 3: 219–252.

———. 1989. ‘Articulatory Gestures as Phonological Units’. Phonology 6:

201–251.

———. 1991. ‘Tiers in Articulatory Phonology, with some Implications for

Casual Speech.’ In Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the Grammar
and the Physics of Speech, edited by Mary E. Beckman and John Kingston,
341–376. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 1992. ‘Articulatory Phonology: An Overview’. Phonetica 49: 155–180.

Bybee, Joan L. 2001. Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Clements, George N. 1992. ‘Phonological Primes: Features or Gestures?’

Phonetica 49: 181–193.

Goldstein, Louis. 2014. English Gestures Dictionary. [online] http://sail.usc.

edu/~lgoldste/ArtPhon/.
332 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Haig, Geoffrey, Nicole Nau, Stefan Schnell and Claudia Wegener. 2011.
‘Introduction: Documenting Endangered Languages before, during and
after DoBeS Programme’. In Documenting Endangered Languages, edited by
Geoffrey Haig et. al., 1–14. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Haine, Bernd and Tania Kutewa. 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical
Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Halle, Morris, Bert Vaux and Andrew Wolfe. 2000. ‘On Feature Spreading
and the Representation of Place of Articulation’. Linguistic Inquiry 31 (3):
387–444.

Hyman, Larry M. and Jeri Moxley. 1996. ‘The Morpheme in Phonological

Change: Velar Palatalization in Bantu’. Diachronica 13 (2): 259–282.

Jung, Dagmar and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann. 2011. ‘Retelling the Data: Working
on Transcription’. In Documenting Endangered Languages, edited by Geoffrey
Haig et al., 200–220. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kapeliuk, Olga. 2011. ‘Language Contact between Neo-Aramaic Dialects and

Iranian’. In The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, edited by
Stefan Weninger et al., 738–747. Mouton: De Gruyter.

Khan, Geoffrey. 2013. ‘Phonological Emphasis in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic’.

In Base articulatoire arièrre: Backing and Backness, edited by Jean Léo Léonard
and Samia Naïm, 111–132. Munich: Lincoln Europa.

———. 2016. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of the Assyrian Christians of Urmi. Vol.1.
Leiden: Brill.

Ladefoged, Peter. 2006. A Course in Phonetics, 5th ed. Boston: Wadsworth.

Lyons, John. 1971. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

McMahon, April, Paul Foulkes and Laura Tollfree. 1994. ‘Gestural Representation
and Lexical Phonology’. Phonology 11: 277–316.

Mowrey, Richard and William Pagliuca. 1995. ‘The Reductive Character of

Articulatory Evolution’. Rivista di Linguistica 7 (1): 37–124.

Napiorkowska, Lidia. 2015a. A Grammar of the Christian Neo-Aramaic Dialect of

Diyana-Zariwaw. Leiden: Brill.

———. 2015b. ‘A Diachronic Perspective on Emphasis in Christian Diyana-

Zariwaw’. In Neo-Aramaic in its Linguistic Context, edited by Geoffrey Khan
and Lidia Napiorkowska, 130–144. Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press.
 Modelling Variation in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Azran  333

———. 2015c. The Documentation of the Neo-Aramaic Dialect Cluster of

Gargarnaye, 2013–2015 ELDP Project. [online] http://elar.soas.ac.uk/
deposit/0291.

Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic

Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Walther, Markus and Bernd J. Kroeger. 1994. ‘Coupling Phonology and

Phonetics in a Constraint-Based Model’. [online] https://archive.org/
details/arxiv-cmp-lg9412007.

Zeroual, Chakir and George N. Clements. 2015. ‘The Feature [Pharyngeal]’. In

Features in Phonology and Phonetics: Posthumous Writings by Nick Clements
and Coauthors, edited by Annie Rialland et al., 247–276. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
ON THE ORIGIN OF SOME PLANT NAMES
IN ṢŪRAYT/ṬŪRŌYO IN ṬŪR ʿABDĪN

Aziz Tezel

1. ʿArkūwo and Ḥaršaf

One of the most important wild plants in Ṭūr ʿAbdīn is termed
ʿarkūwo. This is ‘a thorny plant, whose root and stem are edible,
when cooked’. It closely resembles ‘cardoon’. The word ʿarkūwo
occurs in the village dialects of Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo, while the largest
Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo dialect, namely the dialect of Məḏyaḏ, uses the
term ḥaršaf for the same plant. In the Spring, this plant is highly
sought after, especially during the long fasting before Easter.
In the region, the term ʿarkūwo corresponds to Persian kangar,
which is also the word used in Turkish and the Kurdish dialect
that is spoken in Ṭūr ʿAbdīn. Some Arabic sources render the
Persian kangar by a Greek loanword qulqās,1 which is translated
by Lane as ‘the root of a certain plant, which is eaten cooked
and used medicinally’.2 This word of Greek origin is found also
in Jewish Aramaic and Syriac (see below §2). Syriac sources
refer to the Persian kangar. The word also constitutes the base
of the Syriac kangarzad ‘the juice’ or ‘the gum’ of the artichoke’,
which in Syriac is explained as dūʿtā ḏ-laġnā (more on this below
§2).3 The Arabic dialects in and around Ṭūr ʿAbdīn use the word
ḥaršaf to denote the same plant. The aforementioned Ṣūrayt/
Ṭūrōyo term ḥaršaf is, therefore, a borrowing in the dialect of
Məḏyaḏ. The Arabic ḥaršaf also occurs in literary Arabic. The
Persian kangar, the Greek loanword qulqās and Arabic ḥaršaf are

1 al-Munjid (1975, 701a).

2 Lane (2003, 2560b).
3 Thesaurus (1981, col. 1764).

© Aziz Tezel, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0209.11

336 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

important words for my further discussion of the word ʿarkūwo

and of another Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo word, namely qalqo, to which I
shall return.
Concerning the origin of Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo ʿarkūwo, it should be
noted first of all that, unlike the foreign word ḥaršaf, it ends in
the native ending -o. This suggests that we are dealing with an
inherited word. It is likely to have its origin in the Syriac word
with the form ʿakkūḇā ‘cynara cardunculus’, which can be best
translated ‘cardoon’. This is to be compared to Jewish Aramaic
ʿakkōḇīṯā ‘a thistle sting’ and Arabic ʿakkūb ‘globe-thistle’.4 For
some reason, this important meaning of the Syriac word is lacking
in Payne Smith’s Dictionary, where the Syriac ʿakkūḇā is defined
as ‘a pock-mark; a wart’.5 In the Thesaurus Syriacus, on which
Payne Smith’s Dictionary is founded, however, we note that the
Syriac word ʿakkūḇā is equated with Arabic ḥaršaf and ʿakkūb
and Persian kangar. Payne Smith significantly gives the Syriac
synonym laġnā defined as ‘cynara scolymus, a kind of artichoke’.6
This laġnā seems to be the source of NENA (=North-Eastern Neo-
Aramaic) laġna ‘a thorny plant eaten when young, root and stem’,
according to Maclean, who is alone in indicating the form laġna.7
Other sources of NENA have lagna, with g.8 In my investigation of
NENA I could not find any reflex of the Syriac ʿakkūḇā. Judging
by the meaning of the NENA laġna or lagna, it denotes the same
plant as that of Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo ʿarkūwo. It seems that Ṣūrayt/
Ṭūrōyo has preserved the reflex of the Syriac ʿakkūḇā, while the
NENA dialects have retained its synonym laġnā (or lagna). The
latter is also found in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, although only
in the plural laġnē.
Turning to the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo ʿarkūwo, the r in this word
can be explained either as a result of contiguous regressive

4 For the etymological comparison, see Brockelmann (1982, 523b).

5 J. Payne Smith (1903, 412a).
6 For Thesaurus, see (1981, col. 2872); for Payne Smith, see (1903, 235b).
7 Maclean (1901, 145b).
8 For example, see lagna in the Barwar dialect of NENA, Khan (2008, 1318)
and for lagnə (pl.), lagənṯa (sing.) in the Qaraqosh dialect of NENA, see
Khan (2002, 736a).
 
On the Origin of Some Plant Names in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo in Ṭūr ʿAbd 337

dissimilation, i.e. *kk > rk, or as a case of epenthesis. The former

requires that the change took place when the old gemination was
still alive in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo. If the r is the result of epenthesis, it
might have arisen by analogy with Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo ʿarqūwo ‘heel’,
with which ʿarkūwo bears close similarities in its phonological
shape and form, although their semantic fields are very different.
The next question that arises is how we can be sure that the
Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo ʿarkūwo is a reflex of the Syriac ʿakkūḇā and
not a borrowing from Arabic ʿakkūb. The historical phonology
of the word gives us the answer we need, since the historical
*b has shifted to w as in inherited words, in accordance with
the development of the bgdkpt consonants in Syriac. If it occurs
in foreign words, the sound shift in question must have been
taken place in Syriac, for example, Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo malḥōwo ‘a
winnowing-fork’, via Syriac malḥāḇā, from Arabic milḥāb. Direct
borrowings from Arabic into Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo do not, as a rule,
undergo such a sound shift. We can, therefore, confidently
propose that the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo ʿarkūwo is derived from Syriac
ʿakkūḇā, more precisely, from its Western Syriac form. Is it
possible that a borrowing process took place between Syriac
ʿakkūḇā and Arabic ʿakkūb? The question cannot be answered
with certainty. If, however, a borrowing process is involved, there
are reasons to assume an Arabic borrowing from Syriac. This is
because the Arabic ʿakkūb, referring to the plant in question,
is not a word that is widely used across the Arabic dialects. It
seems to be common in Levantine Arabic, concerning which both
al-Munjid and Barthélemy state that it is a borrowing from the
Syriac ʿakkūḇā.9

2. Qalqo
When the plant known as ʿarkūwo grows old, from an edible stage
to an inedible one, it not only changes shape but also name. When
it is in this condition, it is called qalqo (plural qalqe), at least
in the dialect of Mīdən and Bsōrīno. It develops beautiful spiky

9 
al-Munjid (1975, 521c); Barthélemy (1935–1969, 542).
338 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

flowers containing its seeds, which resemble small, tiny grains of

sand. Its inner seeds are surrounded by a very hard shell, which
must be crushed by a stone in order to extract the edible seeds.
The origin of this word, unlike that of ʿarkūwo and ḥaršaf, is not
clear. The following observations can be made. Firstly, Syriac
possesses a Greek loanword, namely qalqā (Western Syriac qalqō),
from Greek κάχληξ ‘pebble’. This resembles Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo qalqo
in form, but its semantic connection is problematic, unless one
were to hypothesise that the plant in question in this stage of
development was called so because of the resemblance of its seeds
to ‘pebbles’. Such a semantic development is possible. To be sure,
the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo word qalqo in Ritter’s Wörterbuch is translated
‘Kieselstein’, referring to its occurrence in the following passage:

ʾōno g-saymōno bäblīsōke w-g-māqīmōno ʾū-ʿafro waq-qalqe,

ʾī-qyamto g-māqīmalla
‘Ich werde dann einen Wirbelsturm erregen und Erde und
Kiesel aufwirbeln, ihr einen Jüngsten Tag anstellen.’
(‘I will then stir up a hurricane and whirl up earth and
pebbles, make it a doomsday.’)10

I strongly suspect, however, that Ritter’s translation is based

on the Syriac meaning ‘pebbles’, for the informant (in this case
Slēmān Ḥanna Maskōbi, originally from Mīdən), in all probability
is referring to the plant in question and not to ‘pebbles’. All elderly
people in Mīdən know that when qalqo becomes dry, it becomes
very light and is blown away by whirlwinds. The people of Mīdən,
therefore, have coined a figurative phrase xāyīfō=yo xdū qalqo
‘he is fast like qalqo’. Thus, Ritter’s translation ‘Kieselstein’ of the
Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo qalqo is not correct.
The next noteworthy word is the other aforementioned Greek
loanword qulqās, whose form in Syriac and Jewish Aramaic
is qōlqās. The nominal ending -o in the word qalqo, however,
indicates that it has been integrated into the native morphological

10 Ritter (1979, 396; 1969, 626–627).

 
On the Origin of Some Plant Names in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo in Ṭūr ʿAbd 339

system, which is likely to have taken place at an earlier period.

In fact, in Supplement to the Thesaurus Syriacus we find a plural
form qelqē, exemplified by the phrase ʾatten qelqē ‘fumigate with
colocasia’, which, according to this source, is a plural form for
the Syriac qōlqās.11 In Brockelmann’s Lexicon, however, this word
is cited with the singular form qalqā and is said to be derived
from Latin calx ‘chalk’. Sokoloff, therefore, in his version of
Brockelmann’s Lexicon translates the same phrase ʾatten qelqē
‘fumigate with chalk’,12 which does not fit contextually. In the
context the fumigation with qelqē was intended to drive away
gnats. It is mentioned together with galbanum in the following
Syriac passage:

ʾatten ʾaykā ḏ-ḏammīḵ=ʾa(n)t ḥelḇānīṯā w-ḵeḇrīṯā w-ʿārqīn,

ʾaw ʾatten qelqē w-ʾāḇdīn
‘Fumigate the place where thou sleepest with galbanum and
sulphur, and they will fly away; or fumigate with colocasia,
and they will perish.’13

A third possibility is that the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo qalqo reflects an

unattested *qalqlo, which by dissimilation could take the form
qalqo. Syriac has qalqīnā ‘a low-growing herb’. Akkadian has a
plant name qulqulliānu, which refers to an unknown species.14
Ugaritic has a word with the consonantal skeleton qlql ‘herb fed
to horses’, related to Hebrew qelōqēl ‘miserable food’.15 Some
sources connect these words with Arabic qilqil, which in some
sources is translated by ‘cassia’.16 In its borrowed form in Persian,
the Arabic word qilqil is described by Steingass (1977, 985b) as

11 Margoliouth (1981, 304b).

12 Brockelmann, (1982, 670b); Sokoloff, (2009, 1375b).
13 For the Syriac text, see Budge (1976, vol. 1, 579), and for the English
translation see the same source (1976, vol. 2, 689).
14 For the Syriac qalqīnā, see J. Payne Smith (1903, 508a); for Akkadian
qulqulliānu, see CAD (1956-, vol. 13, 301a-b).
15 Gordon (1965, 478b).
16 Koehler and Baumgartner (2001, 1106b-1107a).
340 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

‘a species of plant producing a grain so hard that it cannot be

pounded’, which is reminiscent of the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo qalqo. If
Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo qalqo is derived from Arabic qilqil, this form would
have to exist in Anatolian Arabic and denote the same plant. I
have not yet been able to establish whether Anatolian Arabic has
a specific word for ḥaršaf when it is growing old. Kurdish in the
area uses kärämber when Kurdish kangar is growing old. Thus, a
borrowing from Kurdish is out of the question. Evidence against
the hypothesis that the word is borrowed from the neighbouring
languages is the native ending -o. All borrowed plant names from
these languages known to me do not end in -o.
Further evidence against the possible borrowing of Ṣūrayt/
Ṭūrōyo qalqo from a neighbouring language is the fact that the
form qalqa has been identified by Hezy Mutzafi in the NENA dialect
of Mer near Cudi daǧı with the meaning of ‘the seeds of lagna.’17
As has been remarked, the NENA-lagna corresponds in meaning
to Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo ʿarkūwo. This may be an important indication
that the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo qalqo also originally denoted only the
seeds of ʿarkūwo. The situation in NENA, however, is complicated
by the fact that some NENA dialects (the Ṭiyāre dialects) use the
form qaqna rather than qalqa to denote dried lagna.18 It is not
clear from the information I have received whether this qaqna
is also used for the seeds of lagna. What is more, in the NENA
dialect of Barwar qaqna is described as a ‘thorny plant’. This is
yellow in colour and grows in the mountains. When the sap sets
it produces a gum known as deṯa, which is softened in water and
then chewed.19 We have seen before that the Persian loanword
kangarzad ‘the juice or the gum of the artichoke’ is explained in
Syriac as dūʿtā ḏ-laġnā. The Barwar deṯa, which is a reflex of the
earlier dūʿtā, denotes the ‘gum’ of qaqna and not of lagna.
To sum up the case qalqo so far, I find the Syriac plural
form qelqē in The Syriac Book of Medicines to be significant for
explaining the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo qalqo (plural qalqe). The shift e

17 Hezy Mutzafi, personal communication (September 2016).

18 Hezy Mutzafi, personal communication (September 2016).
19 For the Barwar dialect of NENA, see Khan (2008, 1365).
 
On the Origin of Some Plant Names in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo in Ṭūr ʿAbd 341

> a in a closed syllable is regular in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo. Thus the

change qelqē > qalqe would not present a problem. Whether this
is a plural formation for the Syriac qōlqās or a variant plural
form of the Syriac qalqē ‘pebbles’ or, as stated by Brockelmann, a
borrowing from the Latin calx, is a question for further discussion.
Notable is the fact that some versions of Bar ʿAlī’s Syro-Arabic
Lexicon have qelqē instead of qalqē ‘pebbles’.20 NENA qalqa is
the same word as that of Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo qalqo. NENA qaqna is
probably cognate with qalqa.

3. Rašāle, Daḥle and Ḥērafrūfo

The next three words that will be considered are rašāle (fem.),
daḥle (fem.) and ḥērafrūfo (masc.). The words rašāle and daḥle are
dialectal words denoting an edible wild plant with a sharp taste,
which can be identified as ‘cress’. The word ḥērafrūfo denotes
‘Scandix Ausralis L’ (southern chervil), which in some dialects
has the form ḥəfrūfo. It is, likewise, edible and has a sharp taste,
although milder in taste in comparison with rašāle, daḥle. Both
these are, like ʿarkūwo, among those most sought-after plants
during the Spring, especially during the long fasting before Easter.
The word rašāle occurs in the dialect of Məḏyaḏ and some village
dialects around Məḏyaḏ, while daḥle occurs in some dialects in
the periphery, for example, in the dialect of Mīdən.
Rašāle is a loanword, which ultimately goes back to Arabic
rašād ‘garden peppergrass (Lepidium sativum L)’. This is also the
word used to denote this plant in the Kurdish dialect spoken in
Ṭūr ʿAbdīn (in the form rašād or rašāl see below). The Arabic
rašād has also meanings such as ‘integrity of conducts; good sense,
maturity’, which is a derivative of the Arabic root rašada ‘to be
on the right way’. Given the meaning of the root, one naturally
wonders why the plant ‘garden peppergrass’ was called rašād in
Arabic. It seems that the meaning relating to this plant originated
in Iraqi Arabic. This can be deduced from Lisān ʾal-ʿarab, where
we read:

20 Bar ʿAlī (1928, 349).

342 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

war-rašād wa-ḥabbu r-rašādi, nabtun yuqālu lahu ṯ-ṯuffāʾu;

qāla ʾabū Manṣūr: ʾahlu l-ʿirāq yaqūlūna lil-ḥurfi ḥabbu
r-rašādi, yataṭayyarūna min lafẓi l-ḥurfi li-ʾannahu ḥirmānun
fa-yaqūlūna ḥabbu r-rašādi.21
‘Rašād or the seed of the rašād is a plant, which is called
ṯuffāʾ. ʾAbū Manṣūr said: ‘the people of Iraq call the plant
known as ḥurf ḥabbu r-rašād (the seed of rašād). They see an
evil omen in the pronunciation of ḥurf, because ḥurf means
‘deprivation, bereavement, ill-fatedness.’

In other words, the plant in question was known to the Arabs

either as ṯuffāʾ or ḥurf. Since ḥurf also has meanings with negative
connotations, the people of Iraq came to give it the name rašād,
since rašād has, unlike ḥurf, positive connotations. If the meaning
rašād ‘garden cress’ really originated in Iraqi Arabic, it must have
spread from this dialect to the other Arabic dialects in the region,
for all major Arabic dialects in the region use the word with this
meaning.
Turning to the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo rašāle, as can be seen, it exhibits
two differences from the Arabic word rašād, namely the shift d
> l, which is unusual in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo, and the ending e. If it
reflects a direct borrowing from an Arabic dialect, the Arabic
form should be *rašāde or *rašāda, with a literary Arabic form
rašādatun, which I could not find in this meaning. According to
the information I have obtained, some Kurdish villages in Ṭūr
ʿAbdīn use the form rašād and others the form rašāl. This suggests
that the shift r > l did not take place in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo. It took
place either in Kurdish or Anatolian Arabic. In any case, if it is
a borrowing from Kurdish, the -e reflects the Kurdish oblique
ending -e. The word in the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo village dialects may
have been taken from the dialect of Məḏyaḏ or directly from the
local Kurdish.
I shall now consider the word daḥle, which, like rašāle, is a
feminine noun ending in -e. The ending -e in almost all feminine
singular nouns in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo is a foreign element. It reflects

21 
Līsān ʾal-ʿarab (1955, vol. 3, 177a).
 
On the Origin of Some Plant Names in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo in Ṭūr ʿAbd 343

either dialectal Arabic -e, which is the reflex of original a, or it

reflects the Kurdish oblique ending -e. In the case of the word
daḥle, however, the matter is complicated. First it should be
pointed out that there seem to be in the language two different
words with the form daḥle. Some dialects use daḥle with the
meaning ‘a thicket; a fruit orchard with water’, while other
dialects use daḥle, with the meaning ‘cress’. With regard to daḥle
with the meaning of ‘a thicket; a fruit orchard’, it is relevant
to note that in Anatolian Arabic we find daḥle, translated into
German ‘Wald, Waldstück, Gehölz’.22 The same word occurs in
Kurdish, either in the form deḥl or dehl, with the same or similar
meanings. Some Arabic sources also have the form dahl, with
h (thus at least in Dozy).23 The ultimate origin of this word is
probably Arabic daġl ‘abundance of plants or herbs or trees’.
This means that in the case of the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo daḥle ‘a thicket;
a fruit orchard with water’, we are dealing with a borrowing
either from Anatolian Arabic daḥle or from the Kurdish form
deḥl.
As for the origin of the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo daḥle ‘cress’, its ultimate
source is Syriac taḥlā (plural taḥlē); hence also NENA taxla
‘garden cress’, indicated at least for Christian Urmi; however
with unknown gender.24 Most Syriac sources indicate the Syriac
taḥlā as feminine. As has been suggested, the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo
daḥle displays the shift t > d, which seems to have a considerable
time depth, for already in some Syriac sources we find daḥlā for
the original taḥlā. That the t in this word is original is also shown
by the cognate root of this word in other Semitic languages.
Akkadian has šeḫlātu, Ugaritic šḫlt, Rabbinic Hebrew šəḥālīm
(plural). The Old Aramaic form of the plural absolute form is
also with š, namely šḥlyn, apparently to be read šaḥlīn. The latter
corresponds to Jewish Palestinian Aramaic tḥlyn, apparently to be
read as taḥlīn. In Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, the corresponding
word is contextually attested only in the plural emphatic form

22 For Anatolian Arabic daḥle, see Vocke and Waldner (1982, 151).
23 Dozy (1881, 467a).
24 For Christian Urmi, see Khan (2016, 41).
344 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

taḥlē.25 In Syriac, both the singular form taḥlā and the plural
taḥlē are attested contextually, with the plural form taḥlē as the
predominant one. The entry in Löw’s Flora has the Syriac word
in the plural form taḥlē.26 The question arises as to whether the
-e in the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo daḥle reflects the plural morpheme -e,
which the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo speakers could have interpreted as the
foreign element -e. Even if the root of a feminine singular noun
ending in -e is native, the -e is a foreign element, for example,
Məḏyaḏ gəḏḏāle ‘braid’, formed under the influence of Anatolian
Arabic jəddāle, i.e. the root gḏl is native but not the form of the
word. A genuine Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo reflex of the Syriac singular
form taḥlā should thus consistently have the form *taḥlo, with a
plural *taḥle, and with the shift t > d, the expected singular form
would be *daḥlo. In Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo there is no sure case of the
plural morpheme -e occurring on a feminine singular noun. Even
words with collective meanings end either in the singular ending
-o or in the plural ending -e, and they are construed syntactically
as singulars or plurals respectively. Thus, we say baqro ‘herd of
cattle’ ʾī-baqro (feminine singular), bōqo ‘gnats’, ʾī-bōqo (feminine
singular), qanyōne ‘cattle’, ʾaq-qanyōne (masculine plural), but
never *ʾī-baqre, *ʾī-bōqe, *ʾī-qanyōne. I am aware of the situation
in NENA, where some originally plural nouns are interpreted as
feminine singular, for example, kawe ‘a small window’, which
is interpreted as a reflex of the Syriac plural form kawwē (the
plural of kawṯā), but such an interpretation in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo is
improbable. Thus, if the -e in daḥle reflects the plural morpheme
-e, this would mean a unique case in the language. That the
Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo daḥle is a reflex of the Syriac taḥla is also evident
from the NENA taxla, which has preserved the original form,
disregarding the shift ḥ > x, which is regular in NENA.
The word ḥērafrūfo (or ḥəfrōfo in some dialects) is of obscure
origin. There are three possible ways of reconstructing its
background.

25 For a general etymological comparison, see Koehler and Baumgartner

(2001, 1462b); for Jewish Palestinian Aramaic tḥlyn, see Sokoloff (2002,
579b); for Jewish Babylonian Aramaic taḥlē, see Sokoloff (2002, 1200a).
26 Löw (1928, 396).
 
On the Origin of Some Plant Names in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo in Ṭūr ʿAbd 345

Firstly, it might be an augmented form of Syriac ḥūrpā,

explained in Syriac as ʿesbā (h)w d-lā ʿḏakkīl qṭar qanyā d-šebblē
‘a grass whose stalk has not hardened’. This is related to Jewish
Babylonian Aramaic ḥpwrʾ,27 which is tentatively to be read
ḥəp̄ ūrā. As the precise species of this word in Syriac as well as
in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic is not clear, it is difficult to be
sure about its connection with the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo ḥērafrūfo.
An addition problem is the etymology of Syriac ḥūrpā, which
occurs with three different meanings. These include in addition
to the meaning of a type of grass also ḥūrpā ‘sharpness’ or ‘a
sharp edge’ or ‘point (of, for example, a sword, nail), and ḥūrpā
‘a yearling sheep’. Ḥūrpā ‘sharpness’ is a well-known derivative
of the root ḥrp ‘to be sharp’, while ḥūrpā ‘a yearling sheep’ has
an etymological equivalent in Arabic ḫarūf ‘a young sheep, lamb,
yearling’. Oddly, the etymological dictionaries of Syriac consider
the Syriac ḥūrpā ‘a grass whose stalk has not hardened’ to be the
same word as ḥūrpā ‘a yearling sheep’,28 perhaps suggesting that
the grass in question is in its early stage of development, as it
describes a grass whose stalk has not hardened.
Secondly, I have already mentioned that the word for ‘garden
cress’ was originally termed ḥurf in some dialects of Arabic rather
than rašād. This ḥurf in Arabic is considered to be derived from
the root ḥrf, which in some derivatives has the notion ‘sharp;
pungent, acrid (the latter of taste)’. This is cognate with Syriac
ḥrp, which also occurs in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo, where ḥarūfo means
‘sharp; pungent’ (both of cutting edge and taste). The question
is whether the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo ḥērafrūfo is an independent
augmentative formation of this ḥārūfo.
Thirdly, studies in the neighbouring languages may be of help
in identifying this word. A borrowing from the Kurdish used in
the area is out of the question for two reasons. The proper Kurdish

27 For the Syriac ḥūrpā and its definitions in Syriac, see Thesaurus (1981, col.
1379–1380) and for the etymological connection with Jewish Babylonian
Aramaic ḥpwrʾ, see Sokoloff (2002, 477a).
28 For the Syriac ḥūrpā with three different meanings and its comparison
with other Semitic languages, see Brockelmann (1982, 258a-b).
346 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

word used for this plant in the area is termed zūčərk, according
to the information I have obtained. The Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo word,
moreover, ends in the native ending -o. As has been remarked
above, all Kurdish borrowings pertaining to the names of flora
are non-integrated ones. There remains the possibility that it has
its origin in Anatolian Arabic. The word denoting this plant in
Anatolian Arabic dialects is, however, so far unknown to me.
Before drawing any conclusions, therefore, the name in Anatolian
Arabic needs to be established.

4. ‘Tree’ and ‘Thorn Bramble’

In this section I shall consider the words for ‘a tree’ and for ‘a
thorn bramble’. The former has a common word, which is termed
dawmo, while the latter has three etymologically quite different
words across the various dialects, namely ʿəlto, sālənto and
ṭawʿənto.
The word dawmo is interesting in several respects. It can
have the specific meaning of ‘oak-tree’ in Ṭūr ʿAbdīn, but it is
also used with the general meaning ‘tree’. The Syriac word for
‘tree’, ʾīlānā has the reflex ʾīlōno in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo. The word
ʾīlōno is not common in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo but speakers still know
its meaning. All the forests around the villages in Ṭūr ʿAbdīn
contain the dawmo ‘oak-tree’ (plural dawme). Its fruit is termed
in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo bālūṭo, which is a reflex of the Syriac word
ballōṭā, hence Arabic ballūṭ, according to several sources. While
in Syriac the word ballōṭā denotes both ‘the oak-tree’ and its fruit
‘acorn’, in Ṣūrayṭ/Ṭūrōyo the word bālūṭo does not denote the
‘oak-tree’ but only its fruit ‘acorn’. The ‘oak-tree’ is termed either
by the word dawmo alone or by the phrase dawmo dū-bālūṭo. It
grows wild. Until fifty years ago, this tree constituted the lifeline
in the area. Before modern building techniques were introduced
into the area, the timber cut from this tree was used to build
ceilings. Its branches were also used as fodder for animals, as also
were its fruits, the acorns. Moreover, the wood cut from this tree
served as the most important wood fuel during the cold months
of the year. During a famine (referred to in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo by
 
On the Origin of Some Plant Names in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo in Ṭūr ʿAbd 347

the word ġāla, an Arabic loanword) the ‘acorns’ of this tree were
ground into bread flour. The bread baked from this flour served
as the most important food for the local people. Nowadays, it
is completely forbidden to cut off parts or fell these trees in the
forest for the domestic use.
What is the origin of this word dawmo? Although it has the
native ending -o, it is a foreign word in the language, coming
from Arabic dawmatun, a nomen unitatis of the collective dawm
‘the doom-palm’. The word is also found in English, into which
it was introduced via French, from Arabic dawm, according to
Colin’s Dictionary. In the Arabic dialects around Ṭūr ʿAbdīn, the
word is attested in Qinderib, having both the collective dawm and
the nomen unitatis dawme. According to al-Munjid, this tree and its
species are growing in Egyptian, Sudan and Saudi Arabia.29
As for the words for ‘a thorn bramble’, among the
aforementioned three words, the dialectal word ʿəlto (plural ʿōle)
is readily recognizable. It is a clear reflex of Western Syriac ʿōltō
(Syriac ʿāltā, plural ʿālē), a feminine form which has presumably
been formed as a nomen unitatis from ʿālā (or from its pl. ʿālē).
The form ʿālā itself would seem to be a reflex of Syriac ʿaʾlā,
whose root ʿʾl is comparable to that of Hebrew ṣʾl in ṣeʾelīm and
that of Arabic ḏ̣ʾl in ḏ̣aʾl.30 The occurrence of the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo
ʿəlto (plural ʿōle) was until now known only from the dialect of
Mīdən, but in my latest research journeys to Ṭūr ʿAbdīn I noted
its occurrence also in two other village dialects, namely in the
dialect of Bēqusyōno and Zāz. The informants of the dialect of
Bēqusyōno stated that for the ‘shrub’ they say ʿəlto (plural ʿōle),
but for its thorns they say sālūne (plural).
This brings us to the other word sālənto (plural sālūne), which
is used in some dialects, among them the dialect of Məḏyaḏ. In
Syriac, only in the supplement of Augin Manna’s Syro-Arabic
Lexicon could I find a word with the form selōnā (Western Syriac:
selūnō). This is rendered by Arabic ʾumm ġaylān, ʿusaj, with the

29 For Colin’s Dictionary, see (1991, 469) under doum or doom-palm; Jastrow
(2005, 53b); al-Munjid (1975, 230c).
30 Brockelmann (1982, 503a).
348 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

same or a similar meaning.31 The Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo plural form

sālūne is clearly a reflex of this word, which, oddly, is classified
in this source as a foreign word, without giving the etymon of
the foreign word in question. The supplement is of very late date
and is not written by the author of the lexicon. In any case, I
think this word has, one way or another, a historical connection
with Syriac salwā and Jewish Aramaic silwā ‘thorn’, connected
by Koehler and Baumgartner with Hebrew sallōn, Arabic sullāʾ
and Akkadian ṣ/sillû, all with the meaning ‘thorn’.32 The Ṣūrayt/
Ṭūrōyo sālənte could be a backformation from the plural sālūne.
In favour of such an interpretation is the situation in the dialect
of Bēqusyōno, where the tree is called ʿəlto (plural ʿōle), but
its thorns and fruit are termed sālūne. There is thus no sālənto,
according to my informants.
Finally, I shall mention that a group of village dialects, the
so-called Rāyīte-dialects, have a word of their own for the
‘thorny bramble’, namely ṭawʿənto (plural ṭawʿūne). According to
some of my informants, its fruits are termed ṭawʿūne because of
their being like ṭawʿūne (plural) ‘small offerings of bread stamped
with a symbol of the cross’, a diminutive of ṭawʿe, the reflex of
the Syriac ṭaḇʿē, root ṭbʿ ‘to seal; to sink’. It is difficult to know
whether this is a folk-etymology or not. Alternatively it may be
proposed that the word has its origin in Syriac ṭʿūntā and ṭʿantā
‘a crop of fruit’, root ṭʿn ‘to bear; to carry’. A reflex of the Syriac
word ṭʿūntā is found in NENA, e.g. Barwar ṭunta ‘fruit of a tree’.33
Such an interpretation would mean that the w in the Ṣūrayt/
Ṭūrōyo ṭawʿənto is secondary; cf. Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo ʿwōno ‘a sheep’,
from *ʿōnō, root ʿʾn.

31 Manna (1975, 946a).

32 Koehler and Baumgartner (2001, 756b-757a).
33 Khan (2008, 1427).
 
On the Origin of Some Plant Names in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo in Ṭūr ʿAbd 349

References

al-Munjid. 1975. = al-Munjid fī al-luġa wal-ʾaʿlām. Beirut: Dār al-mašriq.

Bar ʿAlī’s Syro-Arabic Lexicon. From ōlaf to mīm edited by Georg Hoffmann, Kiel
1874. From nūn to taw edited by Richard H.J Gottheil, Paris 1928.

Barthélemy, Adrien. 1935–1969. Dictionnaire arabe-français; Dialects de Syrie:

Alep, Damas, Liban, Jérusalem, Paris: Geuthner.

Brockelmann, Carl. 1982. Lexicon Syriacum. Editio secunda aucta et emendata.

Halis Saxonum (2. unveränderter reprographischer Nachdruck der 2.
Auflage, Halle an der Saale 1928: Niemayer, Tübingen): Hildesheim: G.
Olms.

Budge, E. A. Wallis. 1976. The Syriac Book of Medicines: Syrian Anatomy,

Pathology and Therapeutics in the Early Middle Ages; with Sections on
Astrological and Native Medicine and Recipes by an Anonymous Physician.
Philo Press: Amsterdam.

Dozy, Reinhart. 1881. Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes. Brill: Leyde.

Gordon, Cyrus H. 1965. Ugaritic Textbook. Pontifical Biblical Institute: Rome.

Ibn Manẓūr, see Lisān al ʿarab.

Jastrow, Otto. 2005. Glossar zu Kinderib. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Khan, Geoffrey. 2002. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Qaraqosh. Brill: Leiden.

———. 2008. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar. 3 vols. Handbook of Oriental

Studies 96. Brill: Leiden.

———. 2016. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of the Assyrian Christians of Urmi. 4 vols.
Brill: Leiden.

Koehler, Ludwig and Baumgartner, Walter. 2001. The Hebrew and Aramaic
Lexicon of the Old Testament: Study Edition, 2 vols. Brill: Leiden.

Lane, Edward William. 2003. Arabic-English Lexicon, 8 vols., London 1863–93.

Reprinted by the Islamic Texts Society (UK), 2 vols.

Lisān al ʿarab, li-Jamāl ad-Din Muḥammad bin Mukarram ibn Manẓūr. 1955. 15
vols. Dar Sader: Beirut.

Löw, Immanuel. 1881. Die Flora der Juden. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann:
Leipzig.
350 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

MacLean, Arthur John. 1901. A Dictionary of the Dialects of Vernacular Syriac as

Spoken by the Eastern Syrians of Kurdistan, North-West Persia, and the Plain of
Mosul. With Illustrations from the Dialects of the Jews of Zakhu and Azerbaijan,
and of the Western Syrians of Tur ‘Abdin and Ma‘lula. Oxford: Clarendon.

Manna, Jacques-Eugene. 1900. Leksīqōn kaldōyō-ʾarabōyō - Arabic title: Qāmūs

kaldānī-ʿarabī- English title: Chaldean-Arabic Dictionary. Mosul. [reprinted
1975 with a new appendix by Dr. Raphael J. Bidawid, Chaldean bishop of
Beirut. Babel Center Publications: Beirut].

Margoliouth, Payne Jessie. 1927. Supplement to the Thesaurus Syriacus of R.

Payne Smith, S.T.P. Oxford: Clarendon Press [reprint 1981: Hildesheim-
New York: Georg Olms].

Oppenheim, Adolf Leo, Erica Reiner et al. (eds.). 1956-. The Assyrian Dictionary
of the University of Chicago, 21 vols. Chicago, IL.

Payne Smith, Jessie. 1903. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon.

Payne Smith, Robert. 1981. (ed.), Thesaurus Syriacus, I–II. Oxford 1879–1901.
Nachdruck der Ausgabe Oxford 1879–1901, Hildesheim, New York: G.
Olms.

Ritter, Helmut. Ṭūrōyo: Die Volkssprache der syrischen Christen des Ṭūr ʿAbdīn:

———. 1969. Texte, Band II, Beirut in Kommission bei Franz Steiner Verlag:
Wiesbaden.

———. 1979. Wörterbuch. Beirut, in Kommission bei Franz Steiner Verlag:

Wiesbaden.

Sokoloff, Michael. 2002. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the

Talmudic and Geonic periods, Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, and
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

———. 2002. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period,

Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, and Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.

———. 2009. A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction,

Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum, Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.

Steingass, Francis. 2006. Persian-English Dictionary. New Delhi: Manohar

Publishers.
 
On the Origin of Some Plant Names in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo in Ṭūr ʿAbd 351

Tezel, Aziz. 2003. Comparative Etymological Studies in the Western Neo-Syriac

(Ṭūrōyo) Lexicon. With Special Reference to Homonyms, Related Words and
Borrowings with Cultural Siginification, Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 18.
Elanders Gotab: Stockholm.

Thesaurus, see Payne Smith, R.

Vocke, Sibylle and Waldner, Wolfram. 1982. Der Wortschatz des anatolischen
Arabisch. Magister-Arbeit, Universität: Erlangen-Nürnberg.
 REMARKS ON SELECTED
EXPONENTS OF THE 208-SWADESH LIST
IN ṬUROYO

Eugene Barsky and Yulia Furman

Introduction
The present paper is a supplement to the 208-Swadesh list for
Ṭuroyo published in Barsky, Furman and Loesov (2018).1 It
discusses the following selected exponents of the list that were
not included in the original publication: bird, head, husband,
man (male), man (human being), sun, wife and woman.
The lexical study is based on fieldwork conducted in Berlin
and Gütersloh among the Ṭuroyo-speaking community (August
2016). Another source of our data is the published field corpus
of Ṭuroyo, which mainly consists of the texts of H. Ritter (Ritter
1967, 1969 and 1971) and E. Prym and A. Socin (PrS).
The texts from the three Ritter volumes (Ritter 1967, 1969,
1971) will be cited by the number of text and sentence along
with the speaker’s place of origin, e.g. 61:9, Kfarze. The texts
from the Prym-Socin collection, which originate from one Midyat
speaker, will be cited by page number and line, e.g. 21/3. The
concepts of the Swadesh list will be given in small capitals, e.g.
woman, fat.

1 See the detailed introduction to the work on the Ṭuroyo Swadesh List in


Barsky, Furman and Loesov (2018). The 208-Swadesh list is a modified

version of the standard 207-Swadesh list (with one additional concept ‘to
go’), which is a compilation of basic concepts used in comparative and
historical linguistics for quantifying the interrelatedness of languages.

© Eugene Barsky and Yulia Furman, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0209.12

354 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

1. Bird
In Ṭuroyo, there are two main lexemes for the notion bird:
safruno (RW 450) and ṭayro (RW 531), both in the published
corpus and the data from our fieldwork.
Basically, safruno means small bird, but it can also be used
as a generic term for bird and as the name of a particular species:
sparrow.
Some of our informants use safruno in neutral contexts:

(1) kito ġắlabe šəklat d-safrune bu=aṯrayḏan

kito ġắlabe šəklat d-safrune b-u=aṯr-ayḏan

exist many species of-birds in-art.ms=land-possII.1pl

‘There are many bird species in our land.’ (Mzizaḥ)

See also the following examples from the corpus:

(2) gzobaṭle safruno mede aw ṭayrək mede b-lebe

g-zobaṭ-le safruno mede aw ṭayrək

prs-catch.ipfv -3ms-dat.3ms bird
2
some or birdie

mede b-leb-e
some in-heart-possI.3ms

‘He thinks of a bird or a birdie.’ (94:436, ʿIwardo)

The passage describes a game in which a participant thinks of

a bird name and others are supposed to guess it. Later in the story,

2 
This represents the imperfective base also referred to as infectum,
which, being bare or modified with affixes, appears in various functions
(subjunctive, present, future, habitual past etc.).
 Remarks on Selected Exponents of the 208-Swadesh List in Ṭuroyo 355

one of the participants reveals the name of the bird he thought

of: flān safruno-yo ‘This is a certain bird’ (94:440, ʿIwardo). It is
clear that safruno is used here as a general term for bird.
In the same text, safruno appears in a list of birds inhabiting
Ṭur-ʿAbdin and denotes sparrow:

(3) af=fərḥoṯe, d-kofayri-ste, hani-ne: (…) safrune

af=fərḥoṯe d-ko-fayr-i-ste hani-ne safrune

art.pl=birds rel-prs-fly.ipfv-3pl-too these-cop.3pl sparrows

‘Flying birds are as follows: (…) sparrows.’ (94:223,

ʿIwardo)

It should be noted that the word fərḥoṯe is employed here as

a generic term for bird, which is not found anywhere else in
the searchable corpus. It must be an adapted borrowing from
Classical Syriac, which goes back to pāraḥtā ‘bird’ (SL 1236).
On the other hand, ṭayro means big bird, which can also be
employed as a general term for bird and the name of a particular
species: eagle. Consider the following examples for the meaning
bird, both cited by our informants and found in the corpus:

(4) kit tamo ṭayro, bas mən ṭayro-yo, lə=kfəraqno u=ǧəns

d-kətle

kīt tamo ṭayro bas mən ṭayro-yo

exist there bird but what bird-cop.3s

lə=k-fəraq-no u=ǧəns
neg=prs-distinguish.ipfv-1ms art.ms=sort

d- kət le
rel exist dat.3ms

‘There is a bird there, but I cannot distinguish what

kind of bird this is.’ (Midyat)
356 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(5) skandar yaləf b-lišone daḥ=ḥăyewən w daṭ=ṭayre-stine

skandar yaləf b-lišon-e d-aḥ=ḥăyewən

pn learn.pret.3ms in-language-ez of-art.pl=animals

w d-aṭ=ṭayre-stine
and of-art.pl=birds-too

‘Skandar learned the language of animals and birds.’

(60:10, Kfarze)

Ṭayro may also refer to eagle. Some of our informants

translated ‘Which kind of bird is this one? This is an eagle’ as

(6) mən šəkəl ṭayro/safruno-yo hano? hano ṭayro-yo

(Arkaḥ/Mzizaḥ)

mən šəkəl ṭayro safruno-yo hano hano ṭayro-yo

what kind bird bird-cop.3s this.m this.m eagle-cop.3s

‘Which kind of bird is this one? This is an eagle.’

It is not clear why Ṭuroyo speakers (i.e. our informants and the
informants for the corpus) choose ṭayro or safruno for denoting
bird in neutral contexts. Both words can be used in the same
situation regardless of the speaker’s origin. Nonetheless, safruno
occurs more frequently in the speech of our informants. In the
corpus, occurrences of ṭayro and safruno with the meaning of bird
are only sporadic and occur roughly with the same frequency.
A comparable picture can be observed in Soqotri, a Modern
South Arabian language, where two terms for bird exist: nóyhər
and əṣféro. The former denotes ‘a generic small bird’ and the
latter ‘a generic big bird.’ These words, however, can also be
used synonymously. Furthermore, in the speech of L. Kogan’s
informants, nóyhər denotes a generic bird, while əṣféro means a
 Remarks on Selected Exponents of the 208-Swadesh List in Ṭuroyo 357

certain bird species, namely sparrow (Kogan 2015,489). The

semantic development of the term nóyhər is similar to that of
ṭayro: nóyhər goes back to Proto-West Semitic *našr- ‘eagle’; ṭayro
goes back to Middle Eastern Aramaic (MEA)3 ṭayrā ‘bird, raptor’.

2. Head
According to the data of the published corpus and according to
our informants, qarʿo (RW 399) is the main word for head in
Ṭuroyo, whether of human beings or animals. Contrary to our
expectations, rišo (RW 443) and qarʿo are rarely synonyms.
Only one speaker from Midən and one from Bsorino employ rišo
alongside qarʿo. In the corpus, however, a competition between
the two words is observed in the texts from Midən, where qarʿo
and rišo occur in the speech of the same speakers with equal
frequency:

(7) grəšle u=sayfo, qṭəʿle qarʿe

grəš-le u=sayfo qṭəʿ-le

pull.pret-3ms art.ms=sword cut_off.pret-3ms

qarʿ-e
head-possI.3ms

‘He unsheathed the sword and cut his head off.’

(74:159, Midən)

3 
The term Middle Aramaic is employed here in accordance with the
classification of Klaus Beyer (1984). It includes three Eastern Aramaic
varieties (Classical Syriac, Classical Mandaic and Jewish Babylonian
Aramaic) and three Western Aramaic idioms (Christian Palestinian
Aramaic, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic and Samaritan Aramaic). The term
corresponds to Late Aramaic in Fitzmyer’s taxonomy (Fitzmyer 1979).
358 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(8) d-qoyəm ... gqoṭəʿ riše!

d-qoyəm g-qoṭəʿ
if-stand_up.ipfv.3ms fut-cut_off.ipfv.3ms

riš-e
head-possI.3ms

‘Had he got up, (the emir) would have cut his head
off!’ (74:89, Midən)

(9) i=kurke gməḥyo ruḥa bayne qarʿe di=kurfayo

i=kurke g-məḥy-o ruḥ-a

art.fs= sitting_hen prs-throw.ipfv-3fs refl-possI.3fs

bayne qarʿ-e d-i=kurf-ayo

between head-ez of-art.fs=snake-that.f

‘The sitting hen threw itself directly on the head of

this snake.’ (JL 13.11.9, Midən)

(10) riša xud-i=kaffe d-iḏi rabo paṯyo

riš-a xud-i=kaffe d-iḏ-i rab-o

head-possI.3fs like-art.fs=palm of-hand-possI.1s big-ms

paṯy-o
wide-ms

‘Its (= the snake’s) head was as big and wide as the

palm of my hand.’ (JL 13.11.7, Midən).

In published material other than the Midən texts, qarʿo occurs

much more often than rišo as the exponent of head. The word
rišo, however, is still occasionally used alongside qarʿo. The word
 Remarks on Selected Exponents of the 208-Swadesh List in Ṭuroyo 359

may occur in the stories told by the same informant. When rišo
does appear, what motivates the speaker to use this less frequent
variant is unclear to us. Consider the following examples below:

(11) kul naqqa koḥoyər bi=qaqwoniṯo komər: “ma hawxa-yo?”

hiya kohayzo qarʿa w kəmmo: “e!”

kul naqqa ko-ḥoyər b-i=qaqwoniṯo

every time prs-look.ipfv.3ms on-art.fs=partridge

k-omər ma hawxa-yo hiya ko-hayz-o

prs-say.ipfv.3ms q so-cop.3s she prs-shake.ipfv-3fs

qarʿ-a w k-əmm-o e
head-possI.3fs and prs-say.ipfv-3fs yes

‘Each time he looked at the partridge and said: “Is this

so?”, she nodded and said: “It is!” (52:84, ʿIwardo)

(12) “hawxa-yo lo?” həzla riša: “e!”

hawxa-yo lo həz-la riš-a e

so-cop.3s no shake.pret-3fs head-possI.3fs yes

“This is so, is it not?” She nodded: “It is!” (52:108,

ʿIwardo)

(13) hedi hedi hazwo qarʿe laq-qəddam w laxalf

hedi hedi haz-wo qarʿ-e

slowly slowly shake.ipfv.3ms-pst head-possI.3ms

laq-qəddam w laxalf
forth and back

‘He was shaking his head slowly back and forth.’

(11:231, Midyat)
360 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(14) harke ḥa, ayko d-maʿle riše, knəflo ʿayne ʿal ʿito

harke ḥa ayko d maʿle riš-e

here one.m where lift.ipfv.3ms head-possI.3ms

k-nəfl-o ʿayn-e ʿal ʿito

prs-fall.ipfv-3fs eye-possI.3ms on church

‘Here, wherever one lifts his head, his eyes fall on a

church.’ (11:74, Midyat)

It seems that rišo made way for qarʿo in the sense of head
and its usage shifted to the field of derived meanings and set
expressions such as the following:

(15) ‘top’:

saləq l-riše du=ṭuro

saləq l-riš-e d-u=ṭuro

climb.pret.3ms to-head-possI.3ms of-art.ms=mountain

‘He climbed to the top of the mountain.’ (115:89,

Midən)

(16) ‘tip, point’:

mḥalle reše du=sayfo b-ʿayne

mḥa-lle reš-e d-u=sayfo b-ʿayn-e

throw.pret-3pl head-ez of-art.ms=sword into-eye-possI.3ms

‘They thrusted the tip of the sword into his eye.’

(70:265, Iḥwo)
 Remarks on Selected Exponents of the 208-Swadesh List in Ṭuroyo 361

(17) ‘end’:

i=naqqa d-naḥət reše du=ḥawlo l-gabe, saləq bu=ḥawlo

lalʿəl

i=naqqa d naḥət reš-e d-u= ḥawlo

when go_down.pret.3ms head-ez of-art.ms=rope

l-gab-e saləq b-u=ḥawlo lalʿəl

to-side-possI.3ms go_up.pret.3ms with-art.ms=rope up

‘As soon as the end of the rope was near him, he

climbed up the rope.’ (69:222, Iḥwo)

(18) ‘leader, chief’:

qrele lu=rišo dax=xodume, d-kətne gabe

qre-le l-u=rišo d-ax=xodume

call.pret-3ms to-art.ms=head of-art.pl=servants

d-kət-ne gab-e
rel-cop-3pl side-possI.3ms

‘He called the head of the servants that were with

him.’ (81:55, Midən)

(19) a directional preposition ‘towards’:

a. azzé u=faqirawo l-reše du=təǧǧar

azzé u=faqir-awo l-reš-e

go.pret.3ms art.ms=poor-that.m to-head-ez

d-u=təǧǧār
of-art.ms=merchant

‘The poor went to the merchant.’ (108:44,

Xarabe Məška)
362 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

b. u=babayḏe … ḥakəm-wa. hule xabro, lat=təxetər

kulle. latimi ʿal riše w səmme u=zʿurano ʿamaliye

u=bab-ayḏe ḥakəm-wa hu-le

art.ms=father-possII.3ms ruler-cop.pst.3s give.pret-3ms

xabro l-at=təxetər kul-le latim-i ʿal

word to-art.pl=doctors all-3pl gather.pret-3pl on

riš-e w səm-me u=zʿur-ano ʿamaliye

head-possI.3ms and do.pret-3pl art.ms=boy-this.m surgery

‘The father [of this boy] was a ruler. He called all

the doctors. They gathered to him and performed
a surgery on this boy.’ (60:244, Kfarze)

(20) in a number of set expressions,4 e.g.

a. mi=saye d-aloho, d-reše d-babayna w du=šulṭono,

mede lo=fayəš bi=arʿo, d-l=axilan

m-i=saye d-aloho d-reš-e d-bab-ayna

from-art.fs=shadow of-god of-head-ez of-father-possI.1pl

w d-u=šulṭono mede
and of-art.ms=sultan something

lo=fayəš b-i=arʿo d-l=axi-lan

neg=remain.pret.3ms in-art.fs=land rel-neg=eat.pret-1pl

‘[I swear] by the shadow of God, by our father’s

head and by the sultan’s [head], nothing is left in
the land that we would not have eaten.’ (105:47,
Sedari)

4 See more in RW 443f.


 Remarks on Selected Exponents of the 208-Swadesh List in Ṭuroyo 363

b. zux li=briṯayo, mḥay rišo b-emi, babi w tux!

zux l-i=briṯ-ayo mḥay rišo

go.imp.ms to-art.fs=world-that.f strike.imp.s head

b-em-i bab-i w tux

in-mother-possI.1s father-possI.1s and come.imp.ms

‘Go to that world, visit (lit. strike the head

on) my mother and my father and come back!’
(58:118, Anḥil)

3. Man (male) and Husband

Both man (male) and husband can be rendered by gawro (RW
171) and zlām (RW 587). Apparently, gawro was the main term
for both man (male) and husband at the time when H. Ritter
was collecting his texts. In the speech of our informants, however,
zlām conveys these meanings, except in the dialects of Midyat
and Arkaḥ, where gawro is still in use.
In the corpus (1960s) gawro is the main term both for man
(male) and husband, irrespective of the variety.
The core meaning of zlām in the published texts is man
(person), but the word happens to denote man (male) and
husband in a couple of passages:

(21) ádyawma ono, d-kətno barṯo, d-kətno ḥurma, hat d-kəttat

zlām, d-kəttat gawro, l-mə gdoṯat l-gabi?

ádyawma ono d-kət-no barṯo d-kət-no ḥurma

today I rel-cop-1s girl rel-cop-1s woman
364 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

hat d-kətt-at zlām d-kətt-at gawro

you rel-cop-2s man rel-cop-2s man

l-mə gd-oṯ-at l-gab-i

why fut-come.ipfv-2s to-side-possI.1s

‘I am a girl, an [unmarried] woman, and you are a man,

a male, why have you come to me today?’ (105:98,
Sedari)

(22) i=naqqa d-huwwe i=bəšra li=emo, li=emo mbašalla

u=babo: “ádyawma u=zlamayḏi ǧġil!”

i=naqqa d huw-we i=bəšra

when give.pret-3pl art.fs=good_news

l-i=emo l-i=emo mbašal-la

to-art.fs=mother a-art.fs=mother report.pret-3fs

u=babo ádyawma u=zlam-ayḏi

art.ms=father today art.ms=husband-possII.1s

ǧġīl
speak.pret.3ms

‘After they had given the mother the good news, she
reported it to her father: “Today my husband has
begun to speak!” (111:44, Xarabe Məška).

In the searchable corpus, gawro husband has 143 tokens, while

gawro man (male) is represented by 37 tokens (the total number
of gawro tokens including the meanings man (male), husband as
well as other meanings such as ‘a man’s man’, ‘hero’, etc. is 306).
Zlām has 11 entries for husband and 17 for man (male), while
the total number of zlām entries including the aforementioned
meanings is 716. This is represented in the Table 1:
 Remarks on Selected Exponents of the 208-Swadesh List in Ṭuroyo 365

Table 1: The meanings of gawro and zlām

husband man Total tokens

gawro 143 37 306

zlām 11 17 716

By contrast, zlām is the most frequent word for man (male)

and husband used by our informants from Midən, Kfarze, Bsorino
and Zaz. Midyat and Arkaḥ speakers employ only gawro, while
a speaker from Mzizaḥ uses both words. Consider the following
examples:

(23) u=zlamayḏi taxtor-yo (Midən) vs. u=gawrayḏi

doqtor-yo (Midyat)

u=zlam-ayḏi taxtōr-yo
art.ms= husband-possII.1s doctor-cop.3s

u=gawr-ayḏi doqtōr-yo
art.ms= husband-possII.1s doctor-cop.3s

‘My husband is a doctor.’

(24) l-aloho xləqle zlām (gawro) w pire

l-aloho xləq-le zlām (gawro) w pire

a-god create.pret-3ms man man and woman

‘God created man and woman.’ (Mzizaḥ)

(25) ḥamši=gawre w əšti=niše koʿayši bi=qriṯayḏan

ḥamši=gawre w əšti=niše
fifty=men and sixty=women
366 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

ko-ʿayš-i b-i=qriṯ-ayḏan
prs-live.ipfv-3pl in-art.fs=village-possII.1pl

‘Fifty men and sixty women live in our village.’ (Arkaḥ)

4. Man (Human Being)

The basic exponents of mankind as a human being, regardless
of sex, are ənsān (RW 252) and nošo (RW 369).
In the searchable corpus, the main term is ənsān: we have found
80 tokens of ənsān meaning human being vs. only nine instances
of nošo with the same sense.5 See the following examples:

(26) uno ḥakimo-no, kul kewo, kul ʿəlle, d-howe lu=ənsan,

uno kibi manəḥnola

uno ḥakimo-no kul kewo kul ʿəlle

I physician-cop.1s every illness every sickness

d-howe l-u=ənsān uno kib-i

rel-be.ipfv.3ms to-art.ms= human I can-1s

manə́ḥ-no-la
cure.ipfv-1ms-3fs.p

‘I am a physician, I can cure any human illness and

sickness.’ (24:65, Midyat)

(27) hano latyo nošo, əlla hano kšobəh, d-kətyo malaxo m

d-aloho w qadišo

hano latyo nošo əlla hano k-šobəh

this.m neg.cop.3s human but this.m prs-be_like.ipfv.3ms

5 Both words can also mean ‘somebody’.


 Remarks on Selected Exponents of the 208-Swadesh List in Ṭuroyo 367

d-kət-yo malaxo m d-aloho w qadišo

that-cop-3s angel from of-god and saint

‘He is not a human, but he looks like a holy angel of

God.’ (35:47, ʿIwardo)

In the contemporary usage of Ṭuroyo speakers, nošo is gaining

ground as an exponent of man (human being). Some speakers
use exclusively nošo in this meaning, some employ both words
and some still use ənsān.
Note that noše may be used as a plural of ənsān, alongside
ənsanat. Thus a speaker who invariably uses ənsān for human
being employs noše as its plural:

(28) u=ənsan d-lo maye laybe ʿoyəš

u=ənsān d-lo maye layb-e ʿoyəš

art.ms=human without water neg.can-3ms live.ipfv.3ms

‘Man cannot live without water.’ (Midyat)

(29) an=noše kibən məǧġoli, aḥ=ḥayewən laybən məǧġoli

an=noše kib-ən məǧġol-i

art.pl=people can-3pl speak.ipfv-3pl

aḥ=ḥăyewən layb-ən məǧġol-i

art.pl=animals neg.can-3pl speak.ipfv-3pl

‘People can speak, but animals cannot.’ (Midyat)

368 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

5. Sun
The concept sun has two exponents in the language, the inherited
šəmšo (RW 496) and an innovative one that also means day,
yawmo (RW 575). They are attested in the corpus conveying two
different meanings: šəmšo is the source of warmth and sunshine,
while yawmo is the source of daylight.
The basic meaning of the Ṭuroyo word yawmo is day. In
addition yawmo is used in published texts in connection with the
sun’s movement across the sky, i.e. sunset and sunrise. In other
words, yawmo denotes sun as a moving celestial body, which
is responsible for alternation of day and night. It is, therefore,
closely associated with the idea of daytime. In this meaning,
yawmo occurs only within the following collocations:

5.1. Verbs

(30) ʿly ‘to go up’:

u=yawmo ʿali
art.ms=sun rise.pret.3ms

‘The sun rose.’ (8:4; 28:105)

(31) gny ‘to set (about sun)’:

gani yawmo
set.pret.3ms sun

‘The sun set.’ (28:103; 65:451; 88:80; 90:24, 34)

(32) nfq ‘to go out’:

awwəl d nofəq u=yawmo

as soon as go_out.ipfv.3ms art.ms=sun

‘As soon as the sun rose.’ (29:349; 58:201)

 Remarks on Selected Exponents of the 208-Swadesh List in Ṭuroyo 369

(33) qlb ‘to roll over’:

qaləb u=yawmo
roll_over.pret.3ms art.ms=sun

The sun set.’ (8:13)

(34) slq ‘to ascend’:

ko-saləq u=yawmo
prs-ascend.pret.3ms art.ms=sun

‘The sun is going to rise.’ (LB 251)

(35) ṭwʿ ‘to sink’:

ṭawəʿ u=yawmo
set.pret.3ms art.ms=sun

‘The sun set’ (61:149; 62:273; 69:407, 525; 89:34, 35,

36; 97:64; 98:44; 102:47, 48; 112:12, 78)

Consider a few examples:

(36) mḥawrable me ṣafrayto, hul ṭawəʿ u=yawmo

mḥawrab-le me ṣafrayto hul

fight.pret-3ms from morning till

ṭawəʿ u=yawmo
set.pret.3ms art.ms=sun

‘He was fighting from morning till sunset.’ (98:44,

Arkaḥ)
370 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(37) gani u=yawmo, l=aṯyo i=tərto

gani u=yawmo l=aṯy-o

set.pret.3ms art.ms=sun neg=come.pret-3fs

i=tərto
art.fs=cow

‘The sun set, but the cow had not yet come.’ (90:24,
unknown)

5.2. Nouns

(38) gneto/gnayto:

gnete/gnayte d-yawmo ‘sunset’ (11:51; 65:299)

(39) ġyoṭo:

ġyoṭe d-yawmo ‘sunset’ (LB 75)

(40) sloqo:

sloqe d-yawmo ‘sunrise’ (73:353)

(41) ṭwoʿo/twaḥto:

ṭwoʿe/twaḥte d-yawmo ‘sunset’ (11:171; 29:274; 58:201;

63:15; 69:31, 148, 407, 487, 519, 522, 524; 91:8; 23;
96:136, 157; 113:83)

Cardinal points can be expressed with yawmo-collocations as

well:
 Remarks on Selected Exponents of the 208-Swadesh List in Ṭuroyo 371

(42) ‘east’:

nfəqte d-yawmo (11:22, 24; 26:145; 61:241; 91:53;

92:10);
sloqe d-yawmo (74:49; 75:53, 54; 115:1, 162)

(43) ‘west’:

ṭwoʿe/twaḥte d-yawmo (61:241; 92:12);

gnete d-yawmo (26:145);
ġyoṭe d-yawmo (73:240; 75:53; 78:190)

5.3. From Day to Sun

We must admit that the semantic boundary between the concepts
of day and sun as a source of daylight is very blurred. Yawmo in
all the examples above can also be interpreted as ‘day, daylight’
in a metaphorical sense.
The only case where the features of šəmšo, i.e. the sunshine,
are attributed to yawmo is an expression used for describing the
outstanding beauty of a human being.

(44) kətle ḥḏo barṯo bəlḥuḏe. kəmmo lu=yawmo: “taxər

d-ubono šawq ʿal i=mamlake m-darbux!”

kət-le ḥḏo barṯo bəlḥuḏe

exist-dat.3ms one.f daughter alone

k-əmm-o l-u=yawmo taxə́r

prs-say.ipfv-3fs to-art.ms=sun mover_over.imp.s

d-ub-o-no šawq ʿal i=mamlake

that-give.ipfv-f-1s sunshine over art.fs= country
372 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

m-darb-ux
in_place-possI.2ms

‘He had only one daughter. [She was so beautiful

that she could] tell the sun: “Move over so that I can
give sunshine to the country in place of you!”’ (28:71,
Midyat)

(45) kale xort, ʿumre arbaḥṣar=əšne, hama, komalle

lu=yawmo: “nḥat, d-oṯeno l-dukṯux!”

kal-e xōrt ʿumr-e arbaḥṣar=əšne

pres-3ms boy life-possI.3ms fourteen=years

hama ko-mal-le l-u=yawmo

dm prs-say.ipfv.3ms-dat.3ms to-art.ms=sun

nḥat d-oṯe-no l-dukṯ-ux

descend.imp.s that-come.ipfv-1ms to-place-possI.2ms

‘There was a boy of fourteen years old, [he was so

handsome that he could] tell the sun: “Come down so
that I can occupy your place!”’ (95:87, Xarabe Kafre).

As for šəmšo, it conveys the sense of ‘the source of warmth and

sunshine’:

(46) yawmo d-qayṭo-yo, hawa basəmto-yo. i=šəmšo kmabrqo

w kobo šḥanṯo l-hawír

yawmo d-qayṭo-yo hawa basəm-to-yo

day of-summer-cop.3s weather pleasant-fs-cop.3s

i=šəmšo k-mabrq-o w k-ob-o

art.fs=sun prs-shine.infect-3fs and prs-give.ipfv-3fs
 Remarks on Selected Exponents of the 208-Swadesh List in Ṭuroyo 373

šḥanṯo l-hawīr
warmth to-around

‘It is a summer day. The weather is pleasant. The sun

shines and heats up the air.’ (4:11, Midyat)

(47) u=sawko kəmḥafəḏ̣ u=qarʿo mi=šəmšo, mu=maṭro w

šmənto maḏ̣=ḏ̣arbat w mu=ǧroḥo

u=sawko kə-mḥafəḏ̣ u=qarʿo

art.ms=hair prs-protect.ipfv.3ms art.ms=head

m-i=šəmšo m-u=maṭro w šmənto

from-art.fs=sun from-art.ms=rain and little

m-aḏ̣=ḏ̣arbat w m-u=ǧroḥo
from-art.pl=blows and from-art.ms=injury

‘The hair protects the head from the sun, the rain and,
to some extent, from blows and injury.’ (3:5, Midyat)

Moreover, šəmšo by itself can mean ‘shine’, e.g., in i=šəmšo

du=ṣahro ‘the shining of the moon’ (115:128, Midən; JL 7:7:9,
Midən).
These two components of the sun concept are in complementary
distribution in the published texts: šəmšo is never used in the
collocations associated with yawmo; yawmo almost never means
‘the warmth and the shining of the sun’ (except for the set
expression mentioned above).
As for the answers from our informants, the usage varies. The
word šəmšo can be used in the yawmo-collocations and, moreover,
yawmo can mean a celestial body. Consider their translations of
the following sentences:
374 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(48) ‘The sun set, but the cow had not yet come home.’

gani yawmo w heš tərto lə=maḥwela (Midyat)

gani yawmo w hēš tərto

set.pret.3ms sun and yet cow

lə=maḥwe-la
neg=appear.pret-3fs

ṭawəʿ u=yawmo i=tərto heš lo=daʿiro lu=bayto

(Midyat)

ṭawəʿ u=yawmo i=tərto hēš

set.pret.3ms art.ms=sun art.fs=cow yet

lo=daʿir-o l-u=bayto
neg=return.pret-3fs to-art.ms=house

u=yawmo ṭawəʿ elo i=tərto he lo=daʿiro lu=bayto

(Mzizaḥ)

u=yawmo ṭawəʿ elo i=tərto he

art.ms=sun set.pret.3ms but art.fs=cow yet

lo=daʿir-o l-u=bayto
neg=return.pret-3fs to-art.ms=house

i=šəmšo ṭawiʿo bas i-tərto l=aṯyo lu=bayto (Arkaḥ)

i=šəmšo ṭawiʿ-o bas i=tərto

art.fs=sun set.pret-3fs but art.fs=cow

l=aṯy-o l-u=bayto
neg=come.pret-3fs to-art.ms=house

(49) ‘The sun rose.’

 Remarks on Selected Exponents of the 208-Swadesh List in Ṭuroyo 375

w saləq yawmo (Midyat)

w saləq yawmo
and ascend.pret.3ms sun

nafiqo i=šəmšo (Midyat)

nafiq-o i=šəmšo
go_out.pret-3fs art.fs=sun

u=yawmo nafəq=ste (Mzizaḥ)

u=yawmo nafəq-ste
art.ms=sun go_out.pret.3ms-too

i=šəmšo saliqo (Arkaḥ)

i=šəmšo saliq-o
art.fs=sun ascend.pret-3fs

(50) ‘The Sun is one of the stars.’

i=šəmšo-ste kəkwo mak=kəkwe di=šmayo-yo (Midyat)

i=šəmšo-ste kəkwo m-ak=kəkwe

art.fs=sun-too star from-art.pl=stars

d-i=šmayo-yo
of-art.fs=sky-cop.3s

i=šəmšo kəkwo-yo bayne d-kəkwe (Midyat)

i=šəmšo kəkwo-yo bayne d kəkwe

art.fs=sun star-cop.3s among stars

u=yawmo kəkwo-yo bayne d-kəkwe (Mzizaḥ)

u=yawmo kəkwo-yo bayne d kəkwe

art.ms=sun star-cop.3s among stars
376 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

i=šəmšo kəkwo-yo b-bayn d-kəkwe (Arkaḥ)

i=šəmšo kəkwo-yo b-bayn d kəkwe

art.fs=sun star-cop.3s in-among stars

A semantic shift day > sun is known in various languages of

the world, in particular in Kurmanji, where roj is the basic word
for both day and sun (Chyet 521, 733, 826). In some of NENA,
the MEA *yawmā also acquired the meaning ‘sun’: Barwar yoma
(Khan 2008, 1451); C. Urmi yuma (Khan 2016, vol. 3, 342). In
Modern South Arabian languages PS *yawm- day has become the
main word for sun (Kogan 2015, 541).

6. Woman and Wife

The Midyat (məḏyoyo) and the village (quryoyo) dialects of
Ṭuroyo have their own sets of basic words for the concepts
of woman and wife. These notions can often be rendered by
the same words. However, the relationship between the words
for woman and wife within both sets is complex. Through a
few illustrative passages we shall discuss the meaning and the
dialectal distribution of the words aṯto (RW 39), ḥurma (RW
246), žənəke (RW 257) and pire (RW 382).

6.1. Midyat Dialect

The basic məḏyoyo word for wife is aṯto. However, aṯto is almost
never used as a form of address in direct speech when the speaker
addresses his wife. For this purpose the word žənəke, which
usually means woman, is used as in the example below:

(51) ʿaṣriye aṯi lu=bayto. mə́llela li=aṯto, omər: “žənəke!”

ʿaṣriye aṯi lu=bayto

evening come.pret.3ms to-art.ms=house
 Remarks on Selected Exponents of the 208-Swadesh List in Ṭuroyo 377

mə́l-le-la l-i=aṯto omər

say.pret-3ms-dat.3fs to-art.fs= wife say.ipfv.3ms

žənəke
woman

‘In the evening, he came home and called his wife:

“Wife!”’ (PrS 12/21)

It should be noted that žənəke is a general form of address that

can refer to any female person.
Aṯto is a generic term for a human female, woman (female),
but it is only rarely used to denote a referential female person,
woman (person). This function is performed by žənəke.

(52) l=əḏʿiwo, d-kətyo aṯto, ḥəšwiwola gawro. mu=sabab

d-aǧ=ǧule d-u=gawro aʿla-wayye

l=əḏʿ-i-wo d-kət-yo aṯto

neg=know.ipfv-3p-pst that-cop-3s woman

ḥəšw-í-wo-la gawro m-u=sabab

think.ipfv-3pl-pst-3fs.p man from-art.ms=reason

d-aǧ=ǧule d-u=gawro aʿl-a-wayye

that-art.pl=clothes of-art.ms=man on-possI.3fs-cop.3pl

‘They did not know that she was a woman, they were
thinking [she was] a man, because she dressed in men’s
clothes.’ (24:178, Midyat)

(53) u=ḥa yawmo aṯyo žənəke sawto w faqərto, mlaʿela w

ṭləbla meni i=odayaṯe

u=ḥa yawmo aṯy-o žənəke

art.ms=one.m day come.pret-3fs woman
378 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

saw-to w faqər-to mlaʿe-la

old-fs and poor-fs beg.pret-3fs

w ṭləb-la men-i i=oday-aṯe

and ask.pret-3fs from-possI.1s art.fs=room-this.f

‘One day an old and poor woman came, begging and

asking me [to rent out] this room.’ (2:64, Midyat)

Compare, however, also:

(54) qayəm u=Bardawil, azzé li=walay, mšayele m-ḥḏo aṯto,

omər: “l-ma mahzamle an=nišayḏan?”

qayəm u=Bardawil azzé l-i=walay

get_up.pret.3ms art.ms=pn go.pret.3ms to-art.fs=town

mšaye-le m-ḥḏo aṯto omər

ask.pret-3ms from-one.f woman say.ipfv.3ms

l-ma mahzam-le an=niš-ayḏan

why abduct.pret-3ms art.pl=women-possII.1pl

‘Bardawil came to the town and asked one woman:

“Who has abducted our wives?”’ (PrS 40/12-14)

Niše/neše is a suppletive plural used for both woman and

wife in the Midyat dialect of Ṭuroyo.
Ḥurma occurs two times in Ritter’s corpus meaning woman.
Pire is found in the Prym-Socin collection only with the meaning
of old woman.
 Remarks on Selected Exponents of the 208-Swadesh List in Ṭuroyo 379

6.2. Village Dialects

There are two prominent words for wife in quryoyo: aṯto and
ḥurma. Though ḥurma occurs quite often in the published corpus,
aṯto is attested in the meaning of wife at least twice as much as
ḥurma is:

Table 2: wife in other dialects

Midən ʿIwardo Kfarze Anḥil

aṯto ‘wife’ 65 55 80 13
ḥurma ‘wife’ 21 10 34 8

An exception is constituted by two villages of the Raite region

dialectal cluster—Xarabe Məška and Xarabe Kafre—where ḥurma
is a basic word for wife, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: wife in the Raite dialectal cluster

Raite

XM S Ḥwo XK A
aṯto ‘wife’ 12 22 13 1 12
ḥurma ‘wife’ 35 6 4 4 8

As in məḏyoyo, aṯto is not used as a form of address for wife

in direct speech. Ḥurma takes on this function. Consider the
following example:

(55) qayəm sġəḏle li=aṯto d-ruḥe, məlle: “ya ḥurma! ḥaṭino

qumax, kobaʿno d-ʿofatli”

qayəm sġəḏ-le l-i=aṯto

get_up.pret.3ms bow.pret-3ms to-art.fs=wife
380 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

d-ruḥ-e məl-le ya ḥurma

of-refl-possI.3ms say.pret-3ms voc woman

ḥaṭi-no qum-ax k-obaʿ-no

sin.pret-1ms before-possI.2fs prs-want.ipfv-1ms

d-ʿof-at-li
that-forgive.ipfv-2s-1s.p

‘He got up, bowed to his own wife and said: “Wife!
I’ve sinned against you, I want you to forgive me.”’
(62:349, Kfarze)

Ḥurma is used as a general form of address for any female

person (wife, mother, familiar or unfamiliar woman).
Occasionally, pire and žənəke can also mean wife.
The basic word for woman (female) as well as for woman
(person) in the village dialects is ḥurma. Consider the following
examples:

(56) mqadamla l-gab Farxuṣaf, məlla: “ya i=ḥoṯayḏi! hawo

d-mamṭelelax, ono ḥurma-no”

mqadam-la l-gab Farxuṣaf

come_near.pret-3fs to-side pn

məl-la ya i=ḥoṯ-ayḏi
say.pret-3fs voc art.fs=sister-possII.1s

hawo d-mamṭé-le-lax ono ḥurma-no

this.m that-bring.pret-3ms-2fs.p I woman-cop.1s

‘She came near to Farxuṣaf and said: “O, my sister! The

man who brought you [there], [i.e.] I, is [actually] a
woman.”’ (62:350, Kfarze)
 Remarks on Selected Exponents of the 208-Swadesh List in Ṭuroyo 381

(57) kətwa ḥḏo ḥurma, kurdiye, əmmíwayle Ḥore

kət-wa ḥḏo ḥurma kurdiye

exist-pst one.f woman Kurdish.f

əmm-í-way-la Ḥore
say.ipfv-3pl-pst-3fs.p pn

‘There was a Kurdish woman, named Ḥore.’ (80:2,

Midən)

The word pire can hardly have a claim on the status of basic
word for woman in any of the village varieties in Ritter’s corpus.
Though it is more popular in the dialects of the Raite region,
as shown in Table 4 below, ḥurma still holds its position as the
main word for woman. The more typical meaning of pire is
old woman. It should be noted, however, that pire is the only
word for woman found in Jastrow’s Lehrbuch (JL) texts, which
represent the Midən variety of Ṭuroyo. Two of our informants,
one from Midən and the other from Bsorino, consistently used
pire in their replies.

Table 4: pire across dialects

Raite Midən Kfarze

XM S Ḥwo XK A
pire ‘old woman’ 5 4 0 0 8 1 58
pire ‘woman’ 2 5 1 2 6 0 0

Žənəke is yet another secondary word for woman (person)

in quryoyo. It is worth mentioning that in Anḥil, it is used even
more frequently than ḥurma (11 tokens of žənəke vs. 4 tokens of
ḥurma).
Niše/neše and pirat are suppletive plurals for both woman and
wife. Pirat is more common in the dialects of the Raite region.
382 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Niše/neše is attested in all the village varieties, especially in Kfarze

and Anḥil, where pirat is only rarely used. In the dialects where
both niše/neše and pirat are present, the former word stands for
woman and wife, while the latter one merely means woman.

6.3. Summary
To summarise, aṯto is the basic word for wife and woman
(female) in the Midyat dialect. Žənəke is the main word for
woman (person) which can also be used as a form of address
for any female person, including a wife. Niše/neše are suppletive
plurals for both woman and wife.
In the village dialects, the basic words for wife are aṯto and
ḥurma depending on the variety. Ḥurma is the main exponent of
the notions woman (female) and woman (person), which can
be used as a form of address for female persons including wife.
Pire is the main word for woman (both female and person) in
some modern Ṭuroyo dialects (Midən, Bsorino). Niše/neše and
pirat are suppletive plurals for woman and wife.

7. Etymology
The following list shows our suggested etymologies of the lexemes
in the previous discussion:

(1) bird

safruno < MEA: ṣeprōnā ‘little bird’ (SL 1299); ṣipronā

‘bird, fowl’ (DJBA 962); ṣipra ‘little bird, sparrow’ (MD
394), ṣupra, ṣuprina idem, colloq. dimin. (MD 390).

ṭayro < MEA: Syriac ṭayrā ‘bird’ (SL 528).

(2) head

rišo, rešo < MEA: rēšā ‘head’ (SL 1462); rēšā ‘head, top
part’ (DJBA 1078); riša ‘head, top’ (MD 434).
 Remarks on Selected Exponents of the 208-Swadesh List in Ṭuroyo 383

qarʿo: see Arab. qarʿ ‘gourd’ and qarʿa ‘gourd, skull,

head’ (DMWA 887–888), qarʿa ‘Kürbis’ (VW II 116),
qarʿa ‘Kürbis” (Kinderib 113) and Syriac qarʿā ‘gourd’
and qarʿṯā ‘skull’ (SL 1414), the latter is considered
a borrowing from Arabic. Tezel (2003, 119) assumes
qarʿo to be an Arabic loanword. See also a discussion in
Tezel (2003, 117ff).

(3) man, husband

gawro < MEA: gaḇrā ‘man, person, husband’ (SL 202);

gaḇrā ‘man, husband’ (DJBA 258); gabra ‘man’ (MD 73).

zlām < Kurd. zilam ‘man’ (Chyet 691). The Kurdish

word must be a borrowing from Arabic, see EALL II:
606.

(4) human being

ənsān < Arab.: insān ‘man, human being’ (DMWA 39).

nošo < MEA: nāšā ‘man, human beings’ (SL 65); ināšā
‘man’ (DJBA 120); (a)naša ‘human being’ (MD 24).

(5) sun

šəmšo < MEA: šemšā ‘sun’ (SL 1576); šimšā ‘sun,

sunlight’ (DJBA 1136); šamšā ‘sun’ (MD 443).

yawmo < MEA: yawmā ‘day’ (SL 568); yōmā ‘day, sun’
(DJBA 529); iuma ‘day’ (MD 190).

(6) woman, wife

aṯto < MEA: atṯā ‘woman, wife’ (SL 66); ittəṯā (DJBA
128); ʿnta ‘woman, wife’ (MD 354). Nöldeke (§
146) posits attā for Syriac (as against atṯā, expected
etymologically), yet the Ṭuroyo form is not the expected
regular descendant (in terms of historical phonology)
of any of the aforementioned MEA words.
384 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

ḥurma < Arab.: ḥurma ‘that which is holy, inviolable;

woman, lady, wife’ (DMWA 201); ḥərme (pl. ḥarīm)
‘femme (appartenant à un homme)’ in Mardin Arabic
(Grigore 2007, 196); ḥərme, pl. ḥəram ‘femme’, lat.
fœmina, mulier, uxor (DAS 154).

pire < Kurd.: pîr ‘old woman; wife’ (Chyet 464).

žənəke < Kurd.: jin ‘woman; wife, married woman’

(Chyet 290). The source form must be the indefinite
oblique jinekê.

Abbreviations
Languages and Dialects

Arab. Arabic
Ḥwo Iḥwo
Kurd. Kurdish (Kurmanji)
MEA Middle Eastern Aramaic
NENA North Eastern Neo-Aramaic
PS Proto-Semitic
S Sedari
Tur. Ṭuroyo
A Arkaḥ
XK Xarabe Kafre
XM Xarabe Məška
 Remarks on Selected Exponents of the 208-Swadesh List in Ṭuroyo 385

Glossing Abbreviations not in the Leipzig Glossing List

dm discourse marker
exist existential
ez ezafe
pn personal name
poss possessive suffix
pret preterite

Bibliographical Abbreviations

Chyet Chyet, Michael L. 2003. Kurdish-English Dictionary.

New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
DAS Barthélemy, Adrien. 1969. Dictionnaire Arabe-
Français. Dialectes de Syrie: Alep, Damas, Liban,
Jérusalem. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul
Geuthner.
DJBA Sokoloff, Michael. 2002. A Dictionary of Jewish
Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic
Periods. Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan University Press;
Baltimore; London: The John Hopkins University
Press.
DMWA Wehr, Hans. 1979. A Dictionary of Modern Written
Arabic. Edited by J. Milton Cowan. 4th edition.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
EALL Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics.
Leiden, Boston: Brill. 2006–2009.
JL Jastrow, Otto. 2002. Lehrbuch der Ṭuroyo-Sprache.
Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag.
Kinderib Jastrow, Otto. 2005. Glossar zu Kinderib (Anatolisches
Arabisch). Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag.
386 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

LB Talay, Shabo. 2004. Lebendig Begraben. Münster: Lit

Verlag.
MD Drower, Ethel Stefana and Rudolf Macuch. 1962. A
Mandaic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Nöldeke Nöldeke, Theodor. 1966. Kurzgefasste syrische
Grammatik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft. Reprint.
PrS Prym, Eugen and Albert Socin. 1881. Der Neu-
Aramaeische Dialekt des Ṭûr ’Abdîn. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
RW Ritter, Hellmut. 1979. Ṭūrōyo. Die Volkssprache der
syrischen Christen des Ṭūr ʿAbdîn. B: Wörterbuch,
Beirut: Franz Steiner Verlag.
SL Sokoloff, Michael. 2009. A Syriac Lexicon. Winona
Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.
VW Vocke Sibylle and Wolfram Waldner. 1981. Der
Wortschatz des Anatolischen Arabisch. 1981. Tl. I–II.
Nürnberg.

Bibliography

Barsky, Eugene, Yulia Furman and Sergey Loesov. 2018. ‘Two-Hundred-Word

Swadesh List for a Modern Aramaic Variety (Ṭuroyo)’. In Aula Orientalis
36/1: 75–110.

Beyer, Klaus. 1984. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer: samt den Inschriften
aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und
den alten talmudischen Zitaten. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Fitzmyer, Joseph. 1979. ‘The Phases of the Aramaic Language’. In A Wandering

Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, pp. 57–84. Missoula,
MT: Scholars Press.

Grigore, George 2007. L’arabe parlé à Mardin: Monographie d’un parler arabe
«périphérique». Bucureşti: Editura Universităṭii din Bucureşti.
 Remarks on Selected Exponents of the 208-Swadesh List in Ṭuroyo 387

Khan, Geoffrey. 2008. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar. Leiden, Boston: Brill.

———. 2016. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of the Assyrian Christians of Urmi. Leiden,
Boston: Brill.

Kogan, Leonid. 2015. Genealogical Classification of Semitic. The Lexical Isoglosses.

Boston; Berlin: De Gruyter.

Ritter, Hellmut. 1967. Ṭūrōyo. Die Volkssprache der syrischen Christen des Ṭūr
ʿAbdîn. A: Texte. Band I. Beirut: Franz Steiner Verlag.

———. 1969. Ṭūrōyo. Die Volkssprache der syrischen Christen des Ṭūr ʿAbdîn. A:
Texte. Band II. Beirut: Franz Steiner Verlag.

———. 1971. Ṭūrōyo. Die Volkssprache der syrischen Christen des Ṭūr ʿAbdîn. A:
Texte. Band III. Beirut: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Tezel, Aziz. 2003. Comparative Etymological Studies in the Western Neo-Syriac

(Ṭūrōyo) Lexicon. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.
 NEO-ARAMAIC ANIMAL NAMES

Hezy Mutzafi

1. Aspects of Neo-Aramaic Animal Names in

Scholarly Literature1
The topic of animal names in the field of Neo-Aramaic (NA)
has hardly attracted any scholarly interest, nor is there any
lexicological work dedicated to this topic. This is in contrast
with the better investigated subject of some animal names in
pre-modern Aramaic languages, the most noteworthy works in
this respect being Löw’s comparative studies in Aramaic names
of fishes, reptiles and amphibians (Löw 1906, 1909a, 1909b,
1912a, 1912b), and Talshir’s comparative work on animal names
in the Samaritan Aramaic version of the Pentateuch (Talshir
1981). These works contain some references to NENA animal
names mentioned in scholarly literature, primarily in Maclean’s

1 Data on Neo-Aramaic regional varieties is fieldwork-based, unless a

reference is adduced, and except for Western Neo-Aramaic, based on
Arnold (2019). Abbreviations: Ar. = Arabic, Aram. = Aramaic, BH =
Biblical Hebrew, C. = Christian (NENA dialect), dim.suff. = diminutive
suffix, J. = Jewish (NENA dialect), JBA = Jewish Babylonian Aramaic,
JPA = Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Kurd. = Kurdish, lit. = literally,
NA = Neo-Aramaic, NENA = North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic, NM = Neo-
Mandaic, post-cl. M = post-classical (literary) Mandaic, pre-mod. =
pre-modern, NA = Neo-Aramaic, Pers. = (modern) Persian, Sam.Aram.
= Samaritan Aramaic, st. abs. = status absolutus, st. emph. = status
emphaticus, Syr. = Syriac, Trg.O = Targum Onkelos, Ṭur. = Ṭuroyo,
WNA = Western Neo-Aramaic. Main sources for pre-modern Aramaic are
Cook (2008), DJBA, DJPA, LS, SL, Thesaurus; for Akkadian CAD, AHw; and
for Kurdish Chyet (2003), İzoli (1992) and Omar (1992).

© Hezy Mutzafi, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0209.13

390 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

dictionary of ‘vernacular Syriac’ (Maclean 1901). Additionally,

some NA animal names inherited from older Semitic layers and
attested in the literature are adduced in volume 2 of Semitic
Etymological Dictionary by Militarev and Kogan (2005).
Various inherited and borrowed animal names in a large
number of Neo-Aramaic varieties are attested in grammars, texts
and especially dictionaries and glossaries pertaining to these
varieties. Still, the inventory of NA animal names published to
date remains partial, and some of these zoonyms did not receive
accurate zoological definitions. Examples related to the former
point, taken from the NENA dialects, are the following hitherto
unattested animal names:2

Table 1: Hitherto unattested Neo-Aramaic animal names

NENA dialect and animal name Compare

1. Hertevin parḥadüdək ‘bat’ Syr. praḥdūḏā ‘bat; a flying insect’3

2. Tisqopa yaʾta (pl. yaʾə) ‘sandgrouse’ Syr. yaʿʿā ‘sandgrouse or quail’4
3. Haṣṣan mašoṭa ‘caterpillar’ Syr. māšōṭā ‘caterpillar’ +5

2 Notes on transcription: č̭, k̭, ṱ are unaspirated phonemes whereas č, k, t are

aspirated. Vowel length is indicated only where it is phonemic, i.e., for ā
vs. a. Superscript + indicates word-emphasis. Stress is penultimate unless
otherwise indicated (transcription of NENA words quoted from scholarly
works is adapted to this method).
3 Hertevin evinces restructuring by analogy with parḥa ‘bird, fowl’, as well
as what seems to be a Kurdish diminutive ending ək (although the local
Kurdish parallel is, according to Hertevin informants, çêlêçêlê).
4 Cf. also yaʿʿā, yaʿṯā ‘sandgrouse; wood pigeon; turtledove or ringdove’
in Gewargis Ashitha (2018, 399a), which is one of the many imports
from Manna’s Syriac-Arabic dictionary (Manna 1975, 313b) in Gewargis
Ashitha’s dictionary, and by no means represents any genuine NA forms,
nor are the definitions related to pigeons and doves relevant to NENA.
5 Note also that māšōṭā ‘caterpillar of locust’ in Gewargis Ashitha (2018,
528b) is highly inaccurate, given genuine NENA mašoṭa ‘caterpillar’ and
the fact that the larva of a locust, called ‘nymph’, is not a caterpillar, the
latter being strictly the larva of a butterfly or a moth.
 Neo-Aramaic Animal Names  391

NENA dialect and animal name Compare

4. Telkepe xargəlta ‘Saga pedo’ Syr. ḥargālā ‘large wingless locust’6

5. Jinet peḥu ‘mosquito’ Gaznakh xepo ‘mosquito’, Syr.
ḥē(ʾ)pay ‘a kind of gnat’

The following are three examples of inaccurate definitions

in the literature: In Maclean’s dictionary pašuwa is defined ‘foul
smelling black centipede’ (Maclean 1901, 260a) instead of ‘(black)
millipede’,7 yoša is defined ‘a large bird like a goose, inhabiting
the lake shore’ (ibid., 118b) instead of simply ‘bustard’,8 and ṭoya
is defined ‘deer’ (ibid., 109a) instead of ‘gazelle’.
Another problematic aspect related to Neo-Aramaic animal
names in lexicological works concerns Classical Syriac animal
names that have nothing to do with vernacular Aramaic and
nonetheless occur in dictionaries from the 19th century and the
first half of the 20th century. Syriac animal names in Maclean’s
dictionary, such as—to take a few names of reptiles—ʾamaqta
‘gecko’ (Maclean 1901, 14b), yadyāda ‘chameleon’ (ibid., 94b;
cf. Syr. yaḏyāḏa ‘millipede; hoopoe’) and patna ‘asp, adder’
(ibid., 261b), were imported into this dictionary from the C.
Urmi translation of the Bible, in particular of the Hebrew Bible,
which includes quite a few Classical Syriac zoonyms not used in

6 For this definition, based on medieval lexicons, see Thesaurus, 1367

(followed by Payne Smith 1903, 156a).
7 Originally a nomen agentis of the verbal root pšy ‘to fart inaudibly’
(*pāšōyā), it is related to informants’ description of the millipede as
curling itself into a coil and emitting a foul brown secretion when touched
or threatened (and see Hutchins 2004, vol. 2, 364–365).
8 As already in Bar Bahlul’s 10th century lexicon, where yaḇšā ‘bustard’ is
referred to as a dialectal Mesopotamian word (Duval 1888–1891, vol. 1,
711/9, 835), hence likely an early NENA vernacularism in that lexicon.
The correct NENA meaning is adduced, as regards C. Urmi yoša, in Khan
(2016, vol. 3, 342). An older form, yawša, is found in the NENA dialect
clusters of Baz and Ṭyare.
392 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

colloquial speech.9 Some other animal names imported from the

Urmi Bible into Maclean’s dictionary are qāqa ‘pelican’ (ibid.,
284a), deṣa ‘wild goat’ (ibid., 65b), yaxmur, yaxmura ‘antelope,
roebuck’ (ibid., 119a) and rema ‘wild ox, or unicorn’ (ibid.,
293a).
These aforementioned classicisms, their sources and vernacular
C. Urmi parallels, are presented in what follows:

Table 2: C. Urmi classicisms and vernacular parallels

Animal name (Maclean C. Urmi Cf. vernacular C. Urmi

1901) Bible

1. ʾamaqta ‘gecko’ Lev. 11.30 +

mazuzta ‘(any) lizard’
2. yadyāda ‘chameleon’ Lev. 11.30 (no chameleons in Urmi
area)10
3. patna ‘asp, adder’ Deut. 32.33 +
corāmal ‘viper’
4. qāqa ‘pelican’ Lev. 11.18 +
sak̭k̭av ‘pelican’11
5. deṣa ‘wild goat’ Deut. 14.5 +
ʾəzzət/+ɟečit +ṱuyra ‘wild
goat’
6. yaxmur(a) ‘antelope, Deut. 14.5 +
jeyran ‘gazelle, roe deer’
roebuck’
7. rema ‘wild ox or unicorn’ Job 39.9 + the aurochs is extinct

9 The Peshiṭta vocables ʾāmaqṯā, yaḏyāḏā and paṯnā appear side by side in
a parallel column with the C. Urmi literary classicisms derived thereof
— ʾāmaqtā, yadyādā, patnē (pl.) — in Perkins 1852, Lev. 11: 30 (lizards),
Deut. 32: 33 (snake). The pl. form patnē in the C. Urmi version diverges
from the singular paṯnā in the Peshiṭta by virtue of the former being a
translation of BH pəṯånim ‘asps’. The same vocables appear in the revised
version of the C. Urmi Bible (1893), which was published in New York by
the American Bible Society, and includes only the ‘modern Syriac’ part.
10 Another case of infelicitous definition ‘chameleon’, despite the absence
of this reptile from the area, is xulda ‘chameleon’ in Sabar’s dictionary
(2002, 194a), rather than the genuine meaning ‘mole-rat’.
11 See Khan (2016, vol. 3, 281).
 Neo-Aramaic Animal Names  393

These imports from the Urmi Bible are listed in Stoddard’s

unpublished dictionary of ‘Modern Syriac’12 as well,13 and three
of them, taken from Stoddard’s dictionary, are cited in Thesaurus
Syriacus as ‘Neo-Syriac’ words.14
All these Syriac words are not marked in Maclean’s dictionary
with an asterisk, which is the regular symbol in this work for
marking ‘ecclesiastical or literary, but not colloquial [words]’
(Maclean 1901, xxii). There are, however, a few animal names
in Maclean’s dictionary which do appear with an asterisk,
including Syriac terms such as garsa ‘adder, basilisk’ (ibid., 57b)
and xarmāna ‘adder’ (ibid., 106b), as well as Biblical Hebrew
animal names copied intact, and independently of the Peshiṭtā,
into the Urmi Neo-Aramaic Bible, such as xāġaw ‘type of locust
or grasshopper’ (ibid., 92a; BH ‫חגָ ב‬, ָ Peshiṭta ḥargālā) and ʿāġor
‘crane’ (ibid., 235a; BH ‫‘ ָעגּור‬type of bird’, Peshiṭta snōnīṯā)
Oraham’s Dictionary is teeming with Classical Syriac words,
which the author incorporated zealously as part of his policy
of rendering his dictionary ‘enriched’. In Oraham’s dictionary
ʾamaqta ‘lizard’ (Oraham 1943, 24b), yadyāda ‘hoopoe’ (ibid.,
98b), pattāna (!) ‘asp’ (ibid., 422a), qāqa ‘pelican’ (ibid., 461a),
dayṣa ‘ibex’ (ibid., 111b), yaxmur ‘fallow-deer, bubal’ (ibid.,
202a) and rayma ‘buffalo, water buffalo; unicorn’ (ibid., 479b)
are all classicisms, mostly copied from Payne Smith 1903.
Based on these dictionaries, one might be inclined to assume
that the animal names ʾamaqta, yadyāda, patna, qāqa, deṣa/
dayṣa yaxmur/yaxmura and rema/rayma are genuine modern
Aramaic words that exist in C. Urmi or some other Christian
NENA dialect(s), but no such vocables are known to occur in any
modern Aramaic variety.15

12 Yale University ms. AOS Rn St 64m; written between the publication of

the Urmi Bible in 1852 and Stoddard’s death in 1857.
13 P. 12 ʾamaqta ‘weasel’ (!), marked as ‘anc[ient]’, p. 153a yadyāda ‘hyena’
(!), p. 348a patna ‘a kind of serpent’, p. 397a qāqa ‘pelican’, p. 80a dayṣa
‘wild goat’, 155b yaxmora ‘wild buffalo’, 391a rayma ‘wild ox’.
14 See Thesaurus, 1554 yadyādā, 3345 patnā, 3897 raymā.
15 Consider Militarev and Kogan (2005, 90, 249, 172, 319) where ‘Neo-
Syriac’ patnâ, rémâ, ḳâḳâ and yakhmûrâ are derived from Maclean’s
394 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

2. Chronological Strata of Neo-Aramaic

Animal Names
Neo-Aramaic animal names can be classified into three major
chronological strata, starting with reflexes of the oldest names
harking back to Proto-Aramaic, and in most cases to an earlier
Semitic layer, if not Proto-Semitic, followed by terms inherited
from a later Aramaic layer, mostly regional words, and ending in
the layer of modern innovations and recent loanwords. Indeed, it
seems that the entire lexical stock of any modern Aramaic variety
can be chronologically stratified in this way. The following are
selected examples of NA animal names in each of the three layers:

2.1. Oldest Stratum: Neo-Aramaic Vocables

Inherited From Proto-Aramaic
Among the oldest inherited animal names are the ones within the
first group shown in Table 3 below. All five selected pre-modern
Aramaic lexical items have Semitic cognates which justify their
classification as belonging to a Semitic chronological layer that
pre-dated Proto-Aramaic. The first item, tawlʿā, tawlaʿtā, already
attested in Old (Ancient) Aramaic as twlʿh (f. form in st. abs., see
DNWSI, vol. 2, 1206), has reflexes in all four major NA dialect
groups, as well as Semitic cognates such as Akk. tūltu, Harari
tuluʾ, Soddo tǝlä, Soqotri taʿáleh and Mehri təwālōt.16 Likewise,
the inherited Aramaic words for ‘dove’, ‘hare’, ‘gazelle’ and ‘ass
foal’ and their cognates in other Semitic languages must be of
ancient Semitic pedigree.17

dictionary. Löw, however, realised that Maclean’s ʾamaqta is not genuine

NA but Syriac (Löw 1912a, 127); whilst he thought that patna did exist in
‘Neo-Syriac’ (Löw 1908, 42).
16 For these and further cognates see Militarev and Kogan (2005, 294–295).
17 See Militarev and Kogan (2005, 321–322; 20–21; 310–312; 65–66).
 Neo-Aramaic Animal Names  395

Table 3: Common Aramaic animal names

Pre-modern Aramaic WNA Ṭuroyo NENA Neo-Mandaic

1. tawlaʿtā, tawlʿā ‘worm’ ṯawlaʿča tlawʿo tawəlʾa18 tollɔ19

2. yāwnā ‘dove’ yawna20 yawno yawna21 həyunɔ
3. ʾarnəḇā ‘hare’ ʾarᵊnba arnuwo 22
ʾarnuwa 23
arwɔ24
4. ṭaḇyā ‘gazelle’ ṭabya — ṭoya25 ṭawyɔ
5. ʿīlā ‘ass foal’ ʿila ʿilo ʾila26 —

As a matter of course, there are inherited Aramaic animal

names that did not survive in every NA language or dialect.
Thus, for instance, Ṭuroyo does not preserve the native name for
‘gazelle’, having replaced it with the Arabic loanword ġazāle, and

18 In Hertevin. Among NENA dialectal cognates are J. Dohok toleʾṯa (also
‘caterpillar’), Chamba d-Mallik-Ṭyare tlolāṯa, Tkhuma tawəlṯa, Timur
+
tuwəlla and Sat +tolta.
19 Also ‘caterpillar’.
20 Thus in Maʿlula. In Jubbʿadin: žawna.
21 In various C. NENA varieties, e.g. Baz, C. Aradhin, Harbole. Contracted
to yona in some other NENA dialects, e.g. Ashitha, C. Urmi and
Tkhuma-Gáwaya.
22 In the Rayite-Ṭuroyo dialects arnowo (Ritter 1971, 284/244, 300/344);
and another NA cognate is Mlaḥsô arabbó (Jastrow 1994, 138(15), 169,
on the latter page with a question mark).
23 E.g. in Haṣṣan, Betanure; in some dialects, e.g. Ashitha, haṛnuwa; also
ʿaṛnuwa, with ʿ by assimilation to ṛ, e.g. in Telkepe, J. Dohok.
24 < *ʾárənḇā. First attested in Macuch (1965, 214:16, mistranscribed ārβa),
this is an obsolescent term marginally used amongst the oldest generation
of speakers alongside the dominant Arabic loanword ʾarnab. The latter is
already attested in post-classical Mandaic (see Drower and Macuch 1963,
38a).
25 Restricted to ʿAnkawa and some C. NENA dialects of the area of Mosul,
e.g. Telkepe and Qaraqosh. An older form ṭawya manifests itself in
Chamba d-Mallik-Ṭyare in the phrase gəldət ṭawya ‘parchment made of
gazelle hide’.
26 In Qaraqosh, Bariṭle and ʿAnkawa.
396 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Neo-Mandaic resorted to the phrase jihəl al-bəhimɔ ‘offspring of a

donkey’ as the term for ‘ass foal’.

2.2. Later Stratum: Neo-Aramaic Vocables Inherited

From Late Aramaic
The second layer involves NA animal names that are inherited
from a later stage in the history of Aramaic, and cannot be ascribed
to Proto-Aramaic. Their antecedents are either loanwords or late
innovations. Most are not widely attested in Late Aramaic, but
appear to be regional vocables, being confined to some Aramaic
languages of either the eastern or western branch. Thus in the
following examples, listed in Table 4.

Table 4: Region-specific animal names

Pre-modern WNA Ṭuroyo NENA Neo-

Aramaic Mandaic

Eastern
1. zāġā ‘chick of — zoġo ‘cock’ zāʾa zɔġɔ ‘cock’
hen’ ‘chick’ +
2. kurpā ‘viper’ — kərfo ‘snake’ kərpa —
‘viper’
3. *māʾeṣ ʿezzē — — māṣəzze —
‘lizard’
4. peqʿā ‘frog’ — — pəqʾa, paqettɔ
paqeʾṯa
Western
5. ʾurdʿānā ‘frog’ wurtaʿna — — —
6. ṭabzā — ṭabzo — —
‘hyrax’ ‘badger’
 Neo-Aramaic Animal Names  397

(1) zāġā (cf. Syriac zāġā27 ‘chick of hen’, JBA ‫‘ אגז‬cock’, post-cl.
M zaga ‘cock’) is considered an Iranian loanword,28 and has
reflexes in all major divisions of Eastern NA. The meaning ‘cock’
in Ṭuroyo and NM, as already in JBA and post-cl. M, may have
evolved from *‘cockerel’. Indeed, in Bariṭle zāʾa is ‘chick of a
hen; cockerel’, but it is unclear whether Bariṭle ‘cockerel’ exhibits
an inherited meaning or an independent dialectal innovation. In
some NENA dialects zāʾa (e.g. in Tisqopa and Telkepe) or zaʾa
(e.g. in Karimlash) is ‘chick of a hen’, as in Syriac; whereas some
other dialects evince semantic broadening, either to any chick
(e.g. J. Zakho and Qaraqosh zāʾa), or even to the offspring of
a bird or animal in general (e.g. as regards Ko d-Chalwe-Ṭyare
zāʾa, Geramun zāya, C. Salmas +zāya).

(2) kurpā, of uncertain origin,29 is attested in Syriac, where it

denotes ‘viper’—as is evident from the synonym ʾāḵeḏnā ‘viper’
and the Arabic gloss ʾafʿa(y) ‘ditto’ in medieval Syriac lexicons30—
as well as some other kinds of snakes.31 The only known reflex
in NENA is Hertevin kərpa, which preserves the meaning ‘viper’,

27 Vocalisation is according to Audo (1897, vol. 1, 253a).

28 For the different possible Iranian etyma of this word see Ciancaglini
(2008, 171, DJBA, 399a, SL, 364b).
29 Perhaps from Akk. kuppû as (inter alia) a kind of snake (see CAD K,
551b-552a).
30 See Hoffman (1874, 657, 4669); Duval (1888–1891, vol. 1, 883).
Accordingly, it is glossed ‘viper’ in Thesaurus, 1837–1838.
31 See Löw (1908, 39–40), where also ‘deaf snake’ (unknown species), ‘Eryx
jaculus’, ‘adder’ (Vipera berus, a viper not found in the Middle East) and
‘female serpent’ are mentioned. The latter is the definition of kurpā in LS,
349a (followed by SL, 615a), and is based on the Arabic gloss ʾal-ʾunṯa(y)
‘the female’. However, the epithet ʾal-ʾunṯa(y) may well be related to the
fact that kurpā is a feminine noun. Consider also the NENA epithets dādé-
ḥuwa (Hertevin) and yəmmət xuwwe (Ashitha, Betanure), both referring to
the viper (Hertevin kərpa, Ashitha, Betanure šəlya) as ‘mother of snake’.
All three epithets may be related to the fact that local vipers bring forth
live young, unlike other local snakes, which lay eggs.
398 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

whereas Ṭuroyo expanded the denotation of kərfo into a generic

term for ‘snake’.32

(3) *māʾeṣ ʿezzē ‘lizard’, more precisely ‘monitor lizard’, lit. ‘goat
sucker’, is in accordance with the emendation of Bar Bahlul’s māʾeṣ
ʿērā ‘monitor lizard’, offered by Löw33 and, recently, Sokoloff.34
There can be little doubt that ʿērā is indeed corrupt and that this
emendation is justified, given the following considerations:

(i) Bar Bahlul’s lexicon is replete with words derived from local
Mesopotamian—quite possibly early NENA—vernaculars.35
Unlike ‘māʾeṣ ʿērā’, with the second component not related to
any known Aramaic or foreign root or noun, *māʾeṣ ʿezzē, lit.
‘goat sucker’, is clearly the antecedent of NENA dialectal forms
such as māṣəzze (Marga), maṣəzze (Ko d-Chalwe-Ṭyare), miẓaẓẓe
(Bariṭle), māč̣əẓẓe (Geramun), all ‘lizard’ (genus Lacerta) and
+
mazuzta (C.  Urmi) ‘lizard’ (generic).36 Synchronically more
transparent forms, based on the same myth of lizards sucking
milk from goats, are Mer mayṣa-ʾəzze and Barwar mɛṣa-ʾəzze37
‘lizard’ (genus Lacerta), lit. ‘she sucks [milk from] goats’.38

32 For ‘viper’ > ‘snake’ cf. the case of NENA šəlya below §3.
33 See the corrupt form in Duval (1888–1891, vol. 1, 668, line 22) and the
emendation in Löw (1912a, 129), where also the vocables mn ṣʿrʾ and
mā ṣʿrʾ in Bar ʿAli’s 9th century lexicon and in Bar Bahlul’s 10th century
lexicon, respectively—already considered ‘most corrupt’ in Thesaurus,
1070—were emended by Löw to māʾeṣ ʿezzē.
34 See DJBA, 533b, s.v. ‫יילא‬. In SL, 703b, however, the form ʿērā remains
unaltered.
35 Most vernacular words mentioned in Mutzafi (2016, 511–512) concerning
Bar ʿAli’s lexicon apply to Bar Bahlul’s lexicon as well.
36 Indeed, Löw (1912a, 139–140) connected medieval māʾeṣ ʿezzē to NA
forms furnished in Maclean (1901: 152b) and Stoddard’s unpublished
dictionary (the later cited in Thesaurus); and Sokoloff (DJBA, 533b, s.v.
‫ )יילא‬adduces the NENA form transcribed miṣʿizî in Maclean (1901, 152b,
s.v. māʾeṣ ʿezzē).
37 Also mɛṣantǝt ʾəzze (Khan 2008, vol. 2, 1077, 1334).
38 There is also a NENA form with š, more specifically in the Christian dialect
of Ardishay, Urmi plain, mentioned in Maclean (1901, 203b) as ‘mîsh’izzî’
 Neo-Aramaic Animal Names  399

(ii) The folk belief that monitor lizards suck milk from livestock,
particularly cows, is already evident in the Babylonian Talmud
(Shabbat 54b).39

(iii) The noun maṣuṣta (< *māṣōṣtā ‘sucker’), in all likelihood

signifying ‘lizard’ or some kind of lizard), is manifest in a
Mandaic incantation dated to the 5th-7th centuries (Abudraham
and Morgenstern 2017, 757).

(iv) Syrian Ar. raḍḍāʿ il-maʿiz ‘salamander’, lit. ‘goat sucker’

(Behnstedt and Woidich 2010, 370a) may well be a calque on
pre-mod. Aram. *māʾeṣ ʿezzē.40

(4) peqʿā ‘frog’ is attested in Bar ʿAli’s and Bar Bahlul’s Syriac
lexicons of the 9th and 10th centuries,41 most probably as a
regional vernacularism, possibly an early NENA word.42 Its
etymology is uncertain, but it is likely related to Syr. paqʿā ‘noise,
din, thunderbolt’, as well as the verbs paqqaʿ ‘make a noise of
breaking, rattle, crackle’, ʾap̄ qaʿ ‘make a noise’, in connection
with noisy anuran croaks.43

(apparently +mišǝzzǝ).
39 Cf. DJBA, 533b, s.v. ‫יילא‬.
40 Consider also dialectal Moroccan Ar. rṭēṭaʿ əl-bqaṛ ‘gecko’, lit. ‘little cow-
sucker’ (Behnstedt and Woidich 2010, 367, 369c) and similar Maghrebin
lexemes (ibid., 370a; also in Dozy 1967, vol. 1, 534b as raḍḍāʿat ʾal-baqar
‘red-spotted lizard’), as well as Palestinian Ar.  raḍḍāʿa ‘skink’ (Dalman
1923, 72, No. 72) and ‘reptile similar to stellion lizard with soft, smooth
skin, famous for sneaking and sucking milk from small cattle’ (Barghouthi
2001, 511). Similar terms, referring to the monitor lizard, are Kurmanji
bizinmêj, lit. ‘goat-sucker’, pezmijok, lit. ‘sucker of small cattle’ and
mangemijok, lit. ‘cow-sucker’. At least some of these terms may ultimately
be the outcomes of an early Aramaic influence. English goatsucker
‘nightjar’, modelled on Latin caprimulgus ‘nightjar’, lit. ‘goat milker’, is a
similar case, albeit related to a bird.
41 See Hoffmann (1874, 404); Duval (1888–1891, vol. 1: 87, line 23).
42 See Mutzafi (2014, 121), Mutzafi (2016, 511–512).
43 Cf. LS, 590a and SL, 1224a where peqʿā ‘split, gorge, seaweed, frog’ is
regarded as a polysemic derivative of pqʿ ‘to split’. Other suggestions in
400 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Among the NENA reflexes of peqʿā are the dialectal cognates

pəqʿa (Qaraqosh),44 pəqʾa (Hertevin), pəqqa (e.g. in Telkepe),
p̭ ək̭k̭a (C. Urmi),45 piqqa (e.g. in Tin), peqa (Mer), pəqa (e.g. in
Harbole), pŭqa (Bariṭle), paqa (Inishke) and paqeʾṯa (Betanure),
all denoting ‘frog, toad’. Betanure (northernmost Iraq) paqeʾṯa
and NM (south-western Iran) paqettɔ ‘frog, toad’ appear to have
each evolved independently as reflexes of *paqəʿṯā (< *paqʿəṯā <
*peqʿəṯā), a feminine derivative of peqʿā.

(5) Trg.O. ‫עורדען‬, JPA ‫עורדען‬, ‫ אורדען‬and Sam.Aram. ‫ערדען‬, ‫ארדען‬

‘frog’ exhibit an innovation whereby the forms *ʿurdʿā, ʾurdʿā
(or rather their alternants in st. abs.)—the latter, ʾurdʿā, being
attested in Syriac—were expanded by the ending -ān in these
three Aramaic varieties of Palestine. Modern reflexes of the
Western Aramaic innovation ‫( אורדען‬or rather its alternant in
st. emph.) are Maʿlula wurtaʿna and Jubbʿadin burṭaʿnṯa (<
*wurtaʿnṯa).
A NA cognate is likely Midyat-Ṭur. gurdaʿdaʿ (informants),
gurdaʿa (Ritter 1979, 180). Assuming that these forms represent
a native Ṭuroyo word,46 its etymon would seem to be identical
to Western Syriac ʾurdʿō ‘frog’, whence *wurdʿo (by partial
assimilation of ʾ to u) > *gurdʿo (with a highly irregular change

scholarly literature: Thesaurus, 3222 hesitantly compared peqʿā ‘frog’ to

Ar. faqʿ ‘red(dish) worms’, which is hardly likely; whereas Löw (1909,
395) derives peqʿā ‘frog’ from Pers. pak, bak ‘frog’ and compared peqʿā to
NENA piqqa, bāqa, etc. ‘frog’. Similarly, Maclean (1901, 255b) derived
pəqqa ‘frog’ from Kurd. beq and Pers. pak ‘id.’, Fox (2009, 158) derives
Borb-Ruma pəqa ‘frog’ from Kurd. beq ‘id.’ and Napiorkowska (2015,
506b) derives Diyana-Zariwaw piqqa ‘frog’ from Kurdish. Medieval
Mesopotamian Aramaic peqʿā is obviously the etymon, however, and the
similar sounding Iranian parallels might have only reinforced or facilitated
the ousting of older Aramaic ʾurdʿā by the innovation peqʿā.
44 See Khan (2002, 533, 740a).
45 See Khan (2016, 54, 262).
46 No such word is known to exist in any neighbouring language—consider
local Arabic ʿaqṛōqa (informant and Behnstedt and Woidich 2010, map
129b and p. 383c) and Kurdish beq (> rural Ṭur. baqqe, baqe).
 Neo-Aramaic Animal Names  401

w > g) > gurdaʿa (with final a found in a small number of

native nouns—see Tezel 2003, 32, 222) > partial reduplication:
gurdaʿdaʿ.47 It is nevertheless only in WNA that the Western
Aramaic form with -ān(ā) has modern reflexes.

(6) Ṭuroyo ṭabzo ‘badger’, used at least in the southern dialect of

Ba-Dibbe, is most probably a reflex of ṭabzā ‘hyrax’, attested in
JPA as ‫ טבזא‬alongside ‫ טפזא‬and ‫( טפסא‬st. abs. ‫טבז‬, ‫טפז‬, ‫)טפס‬, which
are cognate with Sam.Aram. ‫( טפסה‬st. abs. ‫‘ )טפס‬hyrax’.48 The
earliest occurrences appear in Trg.O as ‫ טפזא‬and ‫טבזא‬. Therefore,
although Ṭuroyo is an Eastern NA language, it inherited a
Western Aramaic word as a result of diffusion northward and
eastward. Since the northernmost distribution of the hyrax is in
Lebanon, the original meaning of the term ṭabzā could not have
been preserved in Ṭuroyo, and the reflex ṭabzo came to refer to
another chubby, short-limbed mammal, the badger.49

2.3. Latest Stratum: Modern Innovations

The latest stratum is that of Neo-Aramaic lexical innovations,
many of which are new creations based on inherited Aramaic
etyma moulded by mechanisms of word formation. Some of these
innovations are highly imaginative and picturesque. Selected
examples from NENA are furnished in what follows:

NENA dialect 1. ‘ladybird’ 2. ‘snail’

Ishshi tawərtət bābí-ʾalāha saṭāna
Harbole ktɛtət bābí-ʾalāha šeda
Qaraqosh sustət ʾabuna nəṯyaṯtəd mar daniyel

47 Cf. Tezel (2003, 221–222).

48 For a linguistic and zoological treatment of the latter word and its cognates
see Talshir (1981, 102–103).
49 Note also that the Qalamun mountains, where WNA is spoken, are outside
the geographical distribution of the hyrax, hence it has no name in WNA
(Prof. Werner Arnold, e-mail).
402 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

NENA dialect 1. ‘ladybird’ 2. ‘snail’

C. Urmi ʾurxət +xālu spaditət xuvva
Chamba d-Mallik baṭibāṭo šarro

NENA dialect 3. ‘guinea-fowl’

Telkepe kṯeṯət pərʿon
C. Urmi ctetət haštarxan
Lizin-Ṭyare məštarxa
Bne Romta-Ṭyare kṯɛšət qāna

(1) As for some of the dialectal NENA terms for the ‘ladybird’, in
Ishshi creative imagination forged the name tawərtət bābí-ʾalāha,
lit. ‘cow of my Father God’, which has striking parallels in some
of the Slavic languages, e.g. Polish boża krówka, lit. ‘God’s little
cow’.50 These are outcomes of the same human imagination of
this plump spotted creature as a tiny cow,51 that is considered
to be a godsend for farmers by virtue of the fact that ladybirds
mainly feed on aphids. In Harbole, however, the chubby ladybird
was compared to a hen and the parallel term is ktɛtət bābí-ʾalāha
‘hen of my Father God’.52
Perhaps no less picturesque is Qaraqosh sustət ʾabuna,53
lit. ‘our priest’s mare’, which in some other C. NENA dialects

50 See further terms in Merkin (1993, 130).

51 Hence also regional English ladycow and Spanish vaca de San Antón ‘Saint
Anthony’s cow’ (Merkin 1993: 130; and see ladycow also in OED Online),
as well as modern Irish bóín Dé ‘God’s little cow’ (bóín < bó ‘cow’ + dim.
suff. ín).
52 Cf. Danish mariehøne, Norwegian marihøne, lit. ‘[Virgin] Mary’s hen’;
as well as dialectal Catalan gallineta, lit. ‘little hen’, gallineta de Nostre
Senyor, lit. ‘little hen of Our Lord’ (and similar terms)—see Veny and
Pons i Griera (2014, map and p. 1546 (=http://aldc.espais.iec.cat/
files/2015/03/Mapa-1546.pdf).
53 Thus according to my informants. In Khan (2002, 743b susta l-abuna).
 Neo-Aramaic Animal Names  403

designates the praying mantis (e.g. C. Aradhin sustət ʾabona, lit.

‘bishop’s mare’). C. Urmi ʾurxət +xalu is literally ‘way of uncle’,
to be precise ‘the way to the maternal uncle’, and is based on a
tradition of telling children that if they made this beetle fly, their
uncle would come.54 ʾurxət +xalu may have also been influenced
by Kurdish xalxalok ‘ladybird’, lit. ‘spotty’, which is based on the
Kurdish noun xal (< Ar.) ‘birthmark, freckle’. ‘Spotty’ is also
the basic meaning of baṭibāṭo in the Chamba d-Mallik dialect of
Ṭyare and some other C. NENA dialects, derived from bəṭṭa ‘spot’
(cf. Syr. beṭṭā ‘spark’) or from a reduplicative form thereof, akin
to Syr. baṭbāṭā ‘spark’.55

(2) As for NENA words for ‘snail’, in some Christian dialects (e.g.
Ishshi, Telkepe and Ashitha) the snail is referred to as saṭāna,
‘Satan, devil’, which is a semantic parallel of Harbole šeda ‘demon;
snail’, Jilu šida ‘snail’, Ṭur. šiḏo ‘Satan, devil; snail’ and Kurd.
şeytanok ‘snail’, lit. ‘little devil’. Similarly, +ʾaynət šida ‘snail’,
lit. ‘devil’s eye’ is listed in Maclean (1901, 238b) as a C. Urmi
term, but, unknown to informants from the city of Urmi itself, is
perhaps to be found in some village(s) in the vicinity, or has gone
obsolete by now. Semantically related is šarro ‘snail’ in the Ṭyare
dialect of Chamba d-Mallik, ultimately from Arabic šarr ‘wicked’.
The semantic background of these terms might be related to
the snail’s eyestalks, which a fanciful mind may relate to the

54 See Khan (2016, vol. 3, 85).

55 There is also biṭibāṭu ‘brightness, sheen’ in LS 66a, followed by SL, 140b,
but this is based on the occurrence of the word biṭibāṭo in Budge’s edition
of the Syriac book of medicines, a manuscript replete with NENA words
and forms. The text, referring to a type of glowing or sparkling flowers,
reads ʾa(y)ḵ biṭibāṭo d-nahrā b-qayṭā (Budge 1913, vol. 1, 598/6), and this
was mistranslated by Budge (1913, vol. 2, 711/10) ‘like the sparkling of
the waters of a river in the summer’. It seems to me that nahrā ‘river’ is a
miscopying of nāhrā ‘it glows’, and that the correct translation should be
‘like a firefly that glows in summer’, with biṭibāṭo being a dialectal NENA
word (cf. Telkepe biṭubāṭu ‘firefly’). Consider also the translation ‘[like]
fireflies by the river in summer’ in Margoliouth (1927, 53b), based upon
the Chaldean priest and native NENA speaker Alphonse Mingana (for the
latter’s contributions to Margoliouth’s work see ibid., vii, viii).
404 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

demonic horns of Satan. Indeed, in the Ṭyare dialect of Bne

Belatha the snail is called qanānət saṭāna, lit. ‘Satan’s horns’.
By contrast, in Qaraqosh the snail has a positive name,
nəṯyaṯtəd mar daniyel ‘Saint Daniel’s ear’, apparently referring to
a Mesopotamian monk of the fifth century, Daniel the Stylite.
Informants could offer no explanation as to the connection to
that saint, but at least one can find a faint resemblance between
a snail shell and the human ear.56
A rather neutral, yet no less picturesque name for ‘snail’ (and
‘snail shell’) is the C. Urmi term spaditət xuvva ~ spaditət xuvvə,57
lit. ‘snake’s pillow’. The surreal image of a sleepy snake using
a snail shell as a pillow might have ultimately been taken from
a folktale, but informants know of no such tale, nor could they
offer any other background for this rather quaint term. It may
well be that this term is a calque on some unattested Kurdish
construction denoting ‘snake’s pillow’, given Kurmanji balif
‘pillow; snail’.58 This postulated Kurdish term would also be the
model on which the term sariná-xiwá ‘snail’ (< sariná ‘pillow’ <
Kurd. serîn + inherited NENA xiwá ‘snake’) was coined in the
Jewish NENA dialect of Kerend.

(3) Some dialectal NENA innovations refer to new species of

animals introduced into NENA-speaking areas, such as the
guinea-fowl, more accurately the helmeted guinea-fowl, which
was raised in some C. NENA-speaking villages for its meat and
eggs. Telkepe kṯeṯət pərʿon ‘Pharaoh’s hen’ has a striking parallel
in Italian, namely faraona, an ellipsis of gallina faraona ‘Pharaonic
hen’.59 The connection to the Pharaohs is, presumably, the African

56 Cf. J. Urmi +nahaltət +šeytan ‘snail, snail shell’, a calque on Kurd. guhşeytan
‘snail’, both literally denote ‘Satan’s ear’; and consider also the zoological
term auriculella for a genus of snail endemic to Hawaii (see Cowie et al.
2016, 248–250, 252, 262–263, including photos), literally ‘little ear’, a
diminutive form of Latin auris ‘ear’.
57 First attested in Sargis (1909, 587, s.v. улитка).
58 See İzoli (1992: 41b).
59 Cortelazzo and Zolli (2004, 430a).
 Neo-Aramaic Animal Names  405

origin of the bird and possibly the idea that it was one of the
delicacies served to the rulers of ancient Egypt.
C. Urmi ctetət haštarxan ‘guinea-fowl’60 is a hen from Hashtar
Khan, which is one of the old names of Astrakhan near the
Caspian Sea (I could not find any information about guinea-fowl
breeding in Astrakhan, though). Lizin-Ṭyare məštarxa must be an
ellipsis of *kṯɛša mən ʾǝštarxan ‘hen from Astrakhan’, especially
in the light of Chamba d-Mallik-Ṭyare ʾǝštarxǝn ~ kṯɛšǝt ʾǝštarxǝn
‘guinea-fowl’. The innovation in Bne Romta-Ṭyare kṯɛšət qāna
‘hen of horn, horned hen’ is after the fowl’s horn-like protrusion.
Numerous other dialectal NENA innovations of animal names
could be added to the terms above, among which are Bne Belatha-
Ṭyare čale-miya ‘water-bride’ and Harbole xasla-mǝṭre ‘weaner of
rains’ as unique names for the salamander (the latter term, xasla-
mǝṭre, is related to the appearance of [full-grown] salamanders in
May and early June, when rainfall ceases).

3. Semantic Differences in Dialectal Cognates of

Animal Names
In some cases the same animal name refers to different referents
across specific NA varieties. Selected cases taken from the NENA
dialects are the following:

Invertebrates

Syriac Lizin-Ṭyare Shwawwa-Baz

1. naddālā ‘centipede’ madāla ‘centipede’ madāla ‘earthworm’

Birds

Borb-Ruma Qaraqosh
2. bakkā ‘cock’ buka ‘cock’ buka ‘male dove’

60 Already attested in Sargis (1909, 633, s.v. цесарка).

406 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Reptiles

Postulated etymon Haṣṣan Tilla

3. *šālyā ‘she draws [fangs]’ šəlya ‘viper’ šəlya ‘snake’

Mammals

Ṭyare Jilu
4. *kakkeš(t)ā ‘weasel’ kakəšta ‘weasel’ kakša ‘vole’

Birds, Insects

Lizin-Ṭyare Bne romta-Ṭyare

5. qāša ‘priest’ + 2 dim.suff. qašonik̭a ‘tit’ qašonik̭a ‘antlion’

(1) Pre-mod. Aram. naddālā ‘centipede’, as, e.g., in Syriac, has

reflexes in various C .NENA dialects, mostly referring to the
centipede or millipede, such as Lizin-Ṭyare madāla ‘centipede’,61
Barwar madāla ‘millipede’ (Khan 2008, vol. 2, 1324), Bne Romta-
Ṭyare nadāla ‘centipede, millipede’, Sat medāla ‘id.’. Some other
Christian NENA dialects and cognates evince a semantic shift to
another elongated creeping invertebrate, the earthworm. Thus,
e.g., Shwawwa-Baz madāla, Timur and Upper Barwar (Hakkâri)
midāla. In the dialect of Geramun madāla signifies both ‘centipede,
millipede’ and ‘earthworm’.

(2) Some of the north-western NENA dialects in the area of Bohtan

preserve an inherited NENA word for ‘cock, rooster’ closely
related to Syr. bakkā ‘cock’, a by-form of ʾāḇakkā (also ‫‘ אבכא‬id.’

61 The direct antecedent maddālā is already attested in Bar ʿAli’s 9th century
lexicon (Hoffmann 1874, 212, No. 5438) and in Bar Bahlul’s 10th century
lexicon, in the latter as a word in the (early NENA?) dialect of Tikrit
(Duval 1888–1891, 836, s.v. yadyādā).
 Neo-Aramaic Animal Names  407

in the Judaeo-Syriac Targum to Proverbs 30.31).62 Thus buka in

Borb-Ruma and Hertevin and büka in Qurich, stemming from the
antecedent *bukkā. In Qaraqosh buka exhibits a semantic change
into ‘male dove’.

(3) Various C. NENA dialects exhibit the zoonym šəlya ‘viper’,

e.g. Haṣṣan, C. Aradhin, Iṣṣin, the dialect cluster of Ṭyare and
Sharmen. In all these dialects šəlya is a feminine noun. I postulate
the etymon *šālyā, a fs. participle of the pre-modern Aramaic
verbal root šly ‘to draw, pull out’, hence šəlya is a snake that
‘draws’ its fangs and bites. The connection between šly ‘to draw,
pull out’ and a venomous snake is attested in JPA: ‫שדיי שלח לחוויה‬
‫‘ דאשלי לארס‬God sent the snake, which drew out the venom.’
(DJPA 553a, s.v. 2‫)שלי‬. For the vowel change *a > ə in *šālyā
>*šalya >šəlya compare ləxma, ləxmá ‘bread’ in some NENA
varieties (e.g. Ṭyare and Arbel, respectively).
In the NENA dialect of Tilla the denotation of šəlya was
expanded to include any snake, followed by the ousting of
inherited NENA xuwwe ‘snake’ out of the dialect’s lexical system.63

(4) Ṭyare kakəšta ‘weasel’ is etymologically related to JBA ‫כרכושתא‬

‘weasel’ and Syr. kāḵuštā ‘weasel, ferret, mongoose, cat’ (*‘weasel’
> ‘mice-eating mammal’), among other cognates. The antecedent
of the Ṭyare form appears to have been *kakkeštā, closely akin to
*kakkuštā, the postulated precursor of the JBA cognate. Another
cognate form is kākšā ‘weasel’ in a late Nestorian manuscript.64
In the light of C. Salmas and Van kakša ‘weasel’ and the fact that
this manuscript includes a number of NENA vocables,65 kākšā is

62 Perhaps the feminine form ‫ בכתה‬already occurs in Old Aramaic, if its

meaning is ‘hen’—see DNWSI, vol. 1, 192.
63 Cf. kurpā ‘viper’ > Ṭur. kərfo ‘snake’ above §2.2.
64 Hoffmann (1880, 90: 19), where the reading ḵākšā (!) with initial ḵ (x)
appears to be the result of an inadvertent speck of ink under the first letter
kap (cf. Nöldeke 1914–1915, 240). Indeed, LS 326b, followed by SL, 621b,
read kākšā.
65 E.g. ḵyārē ‘cucumbers’ (Hoffmann 1880, 92/19) < NENA xiyāre or +xyārǝ
< Ar.; and slāwlyō ‘weasel’ (ibid., 90/19), as in C. Aradhin slawəlyo
408 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

likely an interpolation of a NENA word into that Syriac text. In

addition, Jilu kakša evinces a change of meaning into another
small, short-legged, agile mammal, the vole.66
Further cognates are kakča ‘mole, rat’ (Maclean 1901, 131b),
kaška ‘field mouse’ (Tsereteli 1980, 44) and ‘mole’ (David 1924,
English-NA part, 64). All these pre-modern and modern cognates
might hark back to Akkadian kakkišu, which appears to have
denoted ‘weasel’,67 in which case the form closest to the etymon is
modern kakša (< *kakkəšā) rather than the pre-modern cognates.

(5) Oddly enough, in Ṭyare qašonik̭a is a term for two entirely

different creatures according to dialect, denoting ‘tit’ (a songbird)
in Lizin and ‘antlion’ in Bne romta. Informants construe the
literal meaning of this word as ‘little priest’. Indeed, qašonik̭a
is synchronically, and probably also etymologically, based on
inherited NENA qāša (consider Syriac qaššā < qaššīšā) ‘priest’
with two diminutive suffixes, native -on and ik̭a. The latter is
based on the Kurdish diminutive suffix ik. The connection to
‘priest’ eludes me, however, and is completely opaque as far as
the speakers are concerned.

‘weasel’, with a typical NENA ending o found in many animal names

(including baṭibāṭo ‘ladybird’ and šarro ‘snail’ above, §2.3., as well as gāṛo
‘weasel; vole, rat’ in n. 66 below).
66 Similar cognates involving a weasel or another musteline animal and a
rodent are NENA gāṛo ‘weasel’ (e.g. in Mer, Rekan), ‘vole, rat’ (e.g. in
Betanure, Halmun); BH ḥolɛḏ, Mishnaic Hebrew ḥuldå ‘marten, weasel and
closely related mammals’ and Ar. xuld, Syr. ḥuldā ‘mole-rat’ (Talshir 2012,
95–106); quite possibly Akk. akbaru ‘jerboa’, Hebrew ʿaḵbår ‘mouse’ and
Tigre ʿerkib ‘badger’ (assuming metathesis; see Militarev and Kogan 2005,
47); and, farther afield, Classical Armenian ak‘is ‘weasel; rat’ (Martirosyan
2010, 159).
67 See AHw vol. 1, 422a kakkišu ‘weasel’, compared to Aram. ka(r)kuštā,
whereas CAD K, 50a defines it as a small animal, possibly a rodent. The
Aramaic forms denoting ‘weasel’, including NENA kakša, support AHw.
 Neo-Aramaic Animal Names  409

References

Abudraham, Ohad and Morgenstern, Matthew. 2017. ‘Mandaic Incantation(s)

on lead scrolls from the Schøyen Collection’. Journal of the American Oriental
Society 137: 737–765.

AHw—Soden, Wolfram von. 1965–1981. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. 3 vols.

Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Arnold, Werner. 2019. Das Neuwestaramäische. Teil VI: Wörterbuch:

Neuwestaramäisch–Deutsch. Semitica Viva 4.6. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Audo, Toma. 1897. Simtā d-Leššānā Suryāyā [Treasure of the Syriac Language]. 2
vols. Mosul: Imprimerie des Pères Dominicains.

Behnstedt, Peter and Woidich, Manfred. 2011. Wortatlas der arabischen Dialekte.
Band 1: Mensch, Natur, Fauna und Flora. Leiden: Brill.

Budge, Ernest A.W. 1913. Syrian Anatomy, Pathology and Therapeutics, or The
Book of Medicines. 2 vols., London: Oxford University Press.

CAD—Gelb, Ignace J. et al (eds.). 1956–2010. Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (The

Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago). 26
vols., Chicago: Oriental Institute.

Chyet, Michael L. 2003. Kurdish-English Dictionary. Ferhenga Kurmancî-Inglîzî.

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Ciancaglini, Claudia A. 2008. Iranian Loanwords in Syriac. Wiesbaden: L.

Reichert.

Cook, Edward M. 2008. A Glossary of Targum Onkelos. Leiden: Brill.

Cortelazzo, Manlio and Zolli, Paolo. 2004. l’Etimologico minore. DELI, Dizionario
etimologico della lingua italiana. Bologna: Zanichelli.

Cowie, Robert H. et al. 2016. ‘Annotated Catalogue of Types of Hawaiian Land

and Freshwater Snails (Mollusca: Gastropoda) in the Muséum national
d’histoire naturelle, Paris, with Lectotype Designations’. Zoosystema 38:
245–266.

Dalman, Gustaf. 1923. ‘Palästinische Tiernamen’. Zeitschrift des Deutschen

Palästina-Vereins 46: 65–78.

David, Shmuel. 1924. The First Chaldean-English Dictionary. Chicago: n.p.

410 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

DJBA—Sokoloff, Michael. 2002. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of

the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press.

DJPA—Sokoloff, Michael. 2017. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the

Byzantine Period. 3rd. ed., Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press.

DNWSI—Hoftijzer, Jacob and Jongeling, Karel. 1995. Dictionary of the North-

West Semitic Inscriptions. 2 vols., 2nd. ed., Leiden: Brill.

Dozy, Reinhart P. 1967.  Supplement aux dictionnaires arabes. 3rd. ed., Leiden:

Brill.

Drower, Ethel S. and Macuch, Rudolf. 1963. A Mandaic Dictionary. Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

Duval, Rubens. (ed.). 1888–1891. Lexicon syriacum auctore Hassano bar Bahlule,
3 vols., Paris: Reipublicæ Typographæ.

Fox, Samuel E. 2009. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Bohtan. Piscataway, NJ:

Gorgias Press.

Gewargis Ashitha, Odisho M. 2018. Hilqa de Leshana: Assyrian-Arabic Dictionary.

2nd edition. Dohok: n.p.

Hoffmann, Georg (ed.). 1874. Syrisch-arabische Glossen: Autographie einer

Gothaischen Handschrift enthaltend Bar Ali’s Lexikon von Alif bis Mim. Kiel:
Schwers’sche Buchhandlung.

———. 1880. Opuscula Nestoriana Syriace Tradidit. Kiel: G. von Maack.

Hutchins, Michael et al. (eds.). 2004. Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopedia. 2nd.
ed., 17 vols., Farmington Hills, MI: Gale.

İzoli, D. 1992. Ferheng Kurdi-Tırki. Istanbul: Deng Yayınları.

Jastrow, Otto. 1994. Der neuaramäische Dialekt von Mlaḥsô. Wiesbaden:

Harrassowitz.

Khan, Geoffrey. 2002. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Qaraqosh. Leiden: Brill.

———. 2016. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of the Assyrian Christians of Urmi. 4 vols.,
Leiden: Brill.

Löw, Immanuel. 1906. ‘Aramäische Fischnamen’. In Orientalische Studien:

Theodor Nöldeke zum siebzigsten Geburtstag (2. März 1906) gewidmet von
Freunden und Schülern. 2 vols., edited by Carl Bezold, 549–570. Giessen: A.
Töpelmann.
 Neo-Aramaic Animal Names  411

———. 1909a. ‘Aramäische Schlangennamen’, In Festschrift zu Ehren des Dr.

A. Harkavy aus Anlass seines am 20. November 1905 vollendeten siebzigsten
Lebensjahres. 3 vols., edited by David Günzburg and Isaac Markon, vol. 1:
27–52. St. Petersburg: H. Itzkowski,.

———. 1909b. ‘Aramäische Lurchnamen (Frosch und Salamander).’ In Florilegium

ou recueil de travaux d’érudition dédiés à Mosieur le Marqis Melchior de Vogüé
à l’occasion du quatre-vingtième anniversaire de sa naissance, 18 octobre 1909,
edited by Melchior Vogüé, 391–406. Paris: Imprimerie nationale.

———. 1912a. ‘Aramäische Lurchnamen. 1. Eidechsen.’ Zeitschrift für

Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete 26: 126–147.

———. 1912b. ‘Aramäische Lurchnamen. 2. Wurmzüngler (Chamäleon); 4.

Panzerechsen (Krokodil); 5. Schildkröten’, in Judaica: Festschrift zu Hermann
Cohens siebzigstem Geburtstage, edited by Hermann Cohen, 333–346. Berlin:
B. Kassirer.

LS—Brockelmann, Carl. 1928. Lexicon Syriacum. 2nd. ed., Halle: Max Niemeyer.

Maclean, Arthur J. 1901. A Dictionary of the Dialects of Vernacular Syriac. Oxford:

Clarendon press.

Macuch, Rudolf. 1965. Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic. Berlin: W.

de Gruyter.

Manna, Yaqub E. 1975. Chaldean-Arabic Dictionary, Printed with a New Appendix

by Dr. Raphael J. Bidawid. Beirut: Babel Center Publications.

Margoliouth, Jessie. 1927. Supplement to the Thesaurus Syriacus. Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

Martirosyan, Hrach K. 2010. Etymological Dictionary of the Armenian Inherited

Lexicon. Leiden: Brill.

Merkin, Reuven. 1993. ‘‫ =( פרת משה רבנו‬Ladybird)’. Lešonenu Laʿam 44.3:

129–134.

Militarev, Alexander and Kogan, Leonid. 2005. Semitic Etymological Dictionary,

vol. II: Animal Names. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

Mutzafi, Hezy. 2014. Comparative Lexical Studies in Neo-Mandaic. Leiden: Brill.

———. 2016. ‘The Origin of the Neo-Aramaic Verb dʿr ‘To Return’ and Its
Cognates: A New Proposal’. Journal of Semitic Studies 61.2: 507–525.
412 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Napiorkowska, Lidia. 2015. A Grammar of the Christian Neo-Aramaic Dialect of

Diyana-Zariwaw. Leiden: Brill.

Nöldeke, Theodor. 1914–1915. ‘‫’כרכושת‬. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte

Gebiete 29: 239–246.

Omar, Feryad F. 1992. Kurdisch-deutsches Wörterbuch (Kurmancî). Berlin: Institut

für Iranistik der Freien Universität Berlin.

Oraham, Alexander J. 1943. Dictionary of the Stabilized and Enriched Assyrian

Language and English. Chicago: Consolidated Press.

Payne Smith, Jessie. 1903. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon

Press.

Perkins, Justin. 1852. Kṯāḇā Qaddīšā hānaw da-Ḏyattēqē ʿAttīqtā. Suryāʾīṯ

wPuššāqā d-men ʿEḇrāʾīṯ (The Holy Scriptures, i.e. of the Old Testament.
Syriac and Translation from Hebrew). Urmi.

Ritter, Hellmut. 1971. Ṭūrōyo: die Volkssprache der syrischen Christen des Ṭūr
ʿAbdîn, A. Texte, Band III. Beirut: In Kommission bei Franz Steiner Verlag,
Wiesbaden.

———. 1979. Ṭūrōyo: die Volkssprache der syrischen Christen des Ṭūr ʿAbdîn,
B. Wörterbuch. Beirut: Orient-Institut der Deutschen Morgenländischen
Gesellschaft.

Sabar, Yona. 2002. A Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dictionary: Dialects of Amidya, Dihok,

Nerwa and Zakho, northwestern Iraq. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Sargis (Лавров, Алексей Петрович), Arḵimandrit. 1909. Lēqsiqon d-Lišānā

Rusnāyā Pušqā l-Suryāyā (Dictionary of Russian Language Translated into
[Neo-]Syriac). Urmi: Maṭbaʿtā də-Šlixē Rusnāyē.

SL—Sokoloff, Michael. 2009. A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin,

Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum.
Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.

Tal, Abraham. 2000. A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic. Leiden: Brill.

Talshir, David. 1981. The Nomenclature of the Fauna in the Samaritan Targum.
Jerusalem: Hebrew University (in Hebrew).

———. 2012. Living Names: Fauna, Places and Humans. Jerusalem: The Bialik
Institute (in Hebrew).
 Neo-Aramaic Animal Names  413

Tezel, Aziz. 2003. Comparative Etymological Studies in the Western Neo-Syriac

(Ṭūrōyo) Lexicon. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.

Thesaurus—Payne Smith, Robert et al. 1868–1901. Thesaurus Syriacus. 2 vols.,

Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Tsereteli, Konstantin. 1980. Хрестоматия современного Ассирийского яазыка со

словарем. (A Reader of the Modern Assyrian Language with a Dictionary).
2nd ed., Tbilisi: Tbilisi University Press.

Veny, Joan and Pons i Griera Lídia. 2014. Atles Lingüístic del Domini Català, VII,
14. Insectes i altres invertebrats. Ocells. Animal salvatges, 15. Oficis. Barcelona:
Institut d’Estudis Catalans.
A CORPUS-BASED SWADESH WORD LIST
FOR LITERARY CHRISTIAN URMI
(NEW ALPHABET TEXTS)

Alexey Lyavdansky1

1. Introduction
The aim of this paper is to compile a basic word list for the literary
Neo-Aramaic dialect of the Christians of Urmi and establish
their etymologies. This study is intended as a starting point for
a comparison of the lexicon in all dialects of the North-Eastern
Neo-Aramaic (NENA) subgroup. Literary Christian Urmi is chosen
for this study because it is attested in a very large corpus of texts.
Research of Neo-Aramaic in recent decades has produced
descriptions of many dialects, especially within the NENA dialect
subgroup.2 We are now, therefore, in a good position to attempt to
understand the genealogical relationships between the dialects.
Hoberman (1988) has suggested a reconstruction of the
proto-NENA pronominal system. One of the conclusions
of Hoberman’s study was that the dialects of Northern Iraqi
Kurdistan share some morphological innovations, which may
help to single them out as a cohesive subgroup. Fox (1994)
attempts to explore relationships within NENA according to
selected phonological, morphological and lexical features. The
outcome of Fox’s study was the identification of three major

1 HSE University, Moscow. The research has been supported by RFBR grant
No. 17-04-00472.
2 For a bibliography of these dialect descriptions see: Napiorkowska
(2015, 583–594). There are 137 NENA dialects listed in (https://
nena.ames.cam.ac.uk/dialects/ Date of Access 28.01.2018).

© Alexey Lyavdansky, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0209.14

416 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

clusters of isoglosses, which, however, need to be checked with

a broader range of data.3
In this paper I shall present a Swadesh list of 110 basic words
(following the version of Kassian et al. 2010) that are attested in
a corpus of literary Christian Urmi.
The corpus used for this purpose consists of a collection of
books and newspapers issued in the latinised alphabet in Soviet
Russia and Georgia from 1929 to 1938. This corpus was chosen
on the assumption that these textual data provide sufficient
documentation needed to create a basic word list. There are
certain drawbacks in using literary texts for this purpose, because
the language of literature and journalism may not reflect the true
usage of a natural spoken language. The lexical features of the
literary register, however, usually do not affect the usage within
the scope of word lists consisting of 100 or even 200 words. It is
important to note, however, that data collected from fieldwork
are usually restricted in volume. The currently largest collection
of spoken narrative texts of a Neo-Aramaic dialect (Khan 2016)
amounts to approximately 70,000 words.

2. The Corpus4
The books and newspapers in the Assyrian new alphabet (Novij
Alfavit, henceforth NA) were published in Moscow and Tbilisi
from 1929 to 1938. This project was an integral part of the
latinisation campaign in the Soviet Union (Smith 1998, 121–42).
After 1938 the publication of Assyrian books and the newspaper
in NA ceased because most of the authors, editors and translators
had been condemned to death by the Stalinist regime.
It is important to note that the books dated 1929–1931 were
printed using the earlier variety of the Assyrian new alphabet,
which is basically Cyrillic with the admixture of some Latin
letters (t, d, j, l). A modified variety of the Assyrian NA was
introduced in 1931 and was used later as a standard, with some
further changes adopted in 1933. A table of correspondences

3 Fox (1994) uses data from a sample of only eleven NENA dialects.
4 For a detailed discussion of this corpus, see Lyavdansky, (forthcoming).
 A Corpus-based Swadesh Word list for Literary Christian Urmi  417

between the transcription notations used by various scholars and

the graphemes of the Assyrian NA is given in the appendix to this
paper.
The corpus includes 172 books and approximately 270 issues
of the newspaper Kokhva d Madinkha with the texts in NA.5 The
genres of the books are the following: translations of Russian
literary texts (the largest part of the corpus), original literary
fiction in Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, school textbooks, popular
scientific texts, Soviet propagandistic and atheistic literature.
Currently the corpus of digitised texts amounts to approximately
630,000 words from the 46 books.6 The word ‘digitised’ here
means that the texts are available in the doc/txt formats and
electronically searchable. Recently the morphologically tagged
corpus of the texts in NA has been made available for queries at:
http://neo-aramaic.web-corpora.net/index_en.html.

3. The Method of Presentation of the Results

Two kinds of queries were performed in order to determine
the exponents of the meanings of the basic word list. First, the
meanings of the word list were searched for in the Russian originals
of the translated texts.7 The corresponding exponent was checked
in the Neo-Aramaic translation. Second, the word count of the
exponents was performed on the basis of the textual database of
approximately 630,000 words. In some cases I searched in the
literature beyond the digitised corpus. I did this, for example,
for anatomical terms such as foot. They were found in a school
textbook on natural science. In the case of the words with high
frequency, the word count was made on a sample textual file of
37,000 words.
Each entry in the following list of basic words consists of:
1. the meaning

5 Most of the texts in this newspaper are printed in Syriac script.

6 The expected volume of the textual corpus after its full digitisation is
more than 2 million words.
7 More than 80 percent of the searchable textual corpus are translations
from Russian into Neo-Aramaic.
418 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

2. the exponent
3. the etymological data on the exponent
4. textual examples
5. discussion
For the lexemes with clear Aramaic origin the comparative
data are adduced in the following order: Classical Syriac, Jewish
Babylonian Aramaic, Classical Mandaic. These three languages are
subsumed under the term ‘Middle Eastern Aramaic’ (henceforth
MEA).8

4. The 110 Swadesh List

The 110 Swadesh word list for the corpus of Neo-Aramaic texts
in the New Alphabet is as follows.

(1) all
kul, kull-. > 50×.
MEA: kul, kol ‘all’ (SL 622); kullā (DJBA 559); kul (MD
206).
(2) ash
qьţma. 34×.
MEA: qeṭmā ‘ash’ (SL 1353); qiṭmā ‘ash’ (DJBA 1011);
giṭma, gaṭma ‘ash’ (MD 89).
(3) bark
qəlpə. 16×.
MEA: qlāp̄ tā ‘bark, shell’ (SL 1375); qlāp̄ ṯā ‘peel, shell’
(DJBA 1022); qlapta ‘shell, hard casing’ (MD 413).

8 The term is based on one of the classifications of Aramaic languages

which divides the Aramaic languages of the Middle period into Western
and Eastern branches (Rosenthal 1939).
 A Corpus-based Swadesh Word list for Literary Christian Urmi  419

çuluxtə. 4×.
< Kurd. çûlik ‘peau, pelure, coquille, écorce’ (DKF 318).

In most of its uses qəlpə refers to objects similar to the bark of

the tree: eggshell, nutshell, watermelon rinds, or, metaphorically,
the turtle shell. There is only one clear usage of qəlpə in a translated
text: Kirvijşi d meşə в leləvəti ki axlьj qəlpə d ijləni ‘The hares feed
at night on tree bark’ (THH 21/1). The other one renders original
Russian кора ‘bark’, but the text speaks metaphorically about the
turtle shell (THH 10/4).

(4) belly
kisə. > 50×.
MEA: karsā ‘belly, stomach’ (SL 655); karsā ‘stomach,
rumen, womb’ (DJBA 603); karsa ‘belly, stomach; womb,
uterus’ (MD 201). For the loss of the consonant *r in the
same position, cf. qənə ‘horn’ < MEA qarnā.9
(5) big
gura. > 50×.
< ? Kurd. (K) gir ‘gros, grand’ (DKF 568); gir, gur ‘large,
big’ (Chyet 213); Kurd. (S) gewre ‘grand, gros’ (DKF 557).
The Kurdish etymology for C. Urmi gura is suggested in
(Khan 2016, vol. 3, 169) with a question mark.
(6) bird
ţera. > 50×.
MEA: ṭayrā ‘bird’ (SL 528).

9 Cf. the attestations of this word in other NENA dialects: J. Challa kāsa
(Fassberg 2010, 282), J. Lishana Deni kāsa (JNAD 180), J. Betanure kāsa
(Mutzafi 2008, 356), C. Tiyari časa (Talay 2008, 100), C. Txuma časa
(Talay 2008, 101), C. Qočanəṣ kisa (Talay 2008, 339).
420 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(7) to bite
qraţa. 10×.
MEA: qrṭ pe.‘to gnaw, to wound with the beak’ (SL
1405); ṭrq pe. ‘to hit, sting, bite’ (DJBA 519).
njasa. 4×.
The etymology is uncertain. Cf. ngs pe. ‘to eat’ (DJPA
340; Mutzafi 2004, 234).
(8) black
kumə. > 50×.
MEA: kōmā ‘black’ (SL 608); ʾukkāmā ‘black’ (SL 15);
ʾukkām ‘black’ (DJBA 88); ʿukma ‘blackness’ (MD 343).
(9) blood
dimmə. > 50×.
MEA: dmā ‘blood’ (SL 307); dmā ‘blood’ (DJBA 340);
dma, adma ‘blood’ (MD 111, 8).
(10) bone
gərmə. > 50×.
MEA: garmā ‘bone’ (SL 261); garmā ‘bone’ (DJBA 302);
girma (MD 92).
(11) breast (chest)
sadra. > 50×.
Pers. ṣadr ‘breast’ (CPED 783) < Arab. ṣadr ‘Brust’
(AWSG 701).
(12) to burn (intr.)
qjədə. > 50×.
MEA: yqd ‘to burn’ (intr.) (MD 193); yqd af ‘to burn’ (tr.)
(SL 580); yqd af ‘to set on fire’ (DJBA 540).
 A Corpus-based Swadesh Word list for Literary Christian Urmi  421

(13) cloud
ajva. > 50×.
MEA: ʿaybā ‘obnubilatio, nubes humidae’ (TS 2824);
ʿēḇā ‘dark cloud, cloudiness’ (DJBA 850); aiba ‘cloud,
fog, mist, darkness’ (MD 14).
(14) cold
qajra. > 50×.
MEA: qrr pe. ‘to be cold, frosty’ (SL 1417); qrr pe. ‘to
cool down’ (DJBA 1047).
qarьjra. 23×.
MEA: qarrirā ‘cold’ (SL 1409); qarrīr ‘cold’ (DJBA 1043);
qarir (MD 403).
(15) to come
təjə. > 50×.
MEA: ʾty ‘to come’ (SL 110); ʾty ‘to come’ (DJBA 176);
ata (MD 41).
(16) to die
mjətə. > 50×.
MEA: mwt ‘to die’ (SL 731); mwt ‘to die’ (DJBA 650); mut
‘to die’ (MD 263).
(17) dog
kəlвə. > 50×.
MEA: kalbā ‘dog’ (SL 622); kalbā ‘dog’ (DJBA 580); kalba
‘dog’ (MD 197).
(18) to drink
ştəjə. > 50×.
MEA: šty ‘to drink’ (SL 1614); šty ‘to drink’ (DJBA 1184);
šta ‘to drink’ (MD 476).
422 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(19) dry
вəruzə. > 50×.
The etymology is uncertain. Cf. Arab. barāz- ‘champ,
vaste plaine sans arbres’ (BK 110; Mutzafi 2008, 340).
(20) ear
nətə. > 50×.
Syr. ʾeḏnāṯā, pl. of ʾeḏnā ‘ear’ (SL 10); cf. 17 cent. Telkepe
nhāṯa < Syr. ʾeḏnāhāṯā (Mutzafi 2005, 84, n. 5; Mutzafi
2008, 366).
(21) earth
uprə. > 50×.
MEA: ʿap̄ rā ‘dust; earth, soil’ (SL 1124); ʿap̄ rā ‘earth,
dust, powder’ (DJBA 875); apra ‘dust, ashes’ (MD 32).
(22) to eat
xala. > 50×.
MEA: ʾkl ‘to eat’ (SL 41), ʾkl ‘to eat’ (DJBA 129); akl ‘to
eat’ (MD 16).
(23) egg
вitə. 24×.
MEA: bēʿṯā ‘egg’ (SL 143); bayʿṯā, bēṯā ‘egg’ (DJBA 204);
bita ‘egg’ (MD 64).
(24) eye
ajna. > 50×.
MEA: ʿaynā ‘eye’ (SL 1097); ʿēnā ‘eye, sight’ (DJBA 855);
ayna ‘eye’ (MD 15).
(25) far
rixqə. > 50×.
< MEA: rḥq ‘to go away’ (SL 1458); rḥq ‘to be far away’
(DJBA 1071); rhq ‘to be far’ (MD 427).
 A Corpus-based Swadesh Word list for Literary Christian Urmi  423

(26) fat
tərвə. 8×.
< MEA: tarbā ‘fat’ (SL 1663f.); tarbā ‘fat’ (DJBA 1230);
tirba ‘fat of animals’ (MD 486).
(27) feather
pərrə. 14×.
< Pers. par, parr ‘a wing, a feather’ (CPED 239); Kurd.
p’er̄ ‘feather, wing’ (Chyet 439); Azer. pər ‘Flügel’ (ADW
512).
(28) fire
nurə. > 50×.
MEA: nūrā ‘fire’ (SL 904); nūrā ‘fire’ (DJBA 738); nura
‘fire’ (MD 294).
(29) fish
nunə. > 50×.
MEA: nūnā ‘fish’ (SL 900); nūnā ‘fish’ (DJBA 737); nuna
‘fish’ (MD 294).
(30) to fly
prəxə. > 50×.
MEA: prḥ pe. ‘to fly’ (SL 1235); prḥ pe. ‘to fly’ (DJBA
930); phr pe. ‘to fly’, pra pe. ‘to fly’ (MD 366, 377).
(31) foot
pənçə. 3×.
< Pers. panj ‘five’ (CPED 256). For this etymology, see
Khan (2016, vol. 3, 249). Əqlə itlə ьţma, şəqə u pənçə.
‘The leg consists of the thigh, the shin and the foot’ (TEK
II 74/23).
(32) full
miljə. > 50×.
MEA: mly ‘to fill up’ (SL 768); mly ‘to be full’ (DJBA
678); mla ‘to fill, be full’ (MD 272).
424 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(33) to give
jəvə. > 50×.
MEA: yhb ‘to give’ (SL 565); yhb ‘to give’ (DJBA 526); yhb
‘to give’ (MD 189).
(34) to go
zələ. > 50×.
MEA: ʾzl ‘to go’ (SL 24); ʾzl ‘to go, travel’ (DJBA 100); azl
‘to go, move on’ (MD 12).
(35) good
spaj. > 50×.
< Kurd. spehî ‘beau, belle, joli’ (DKF 1539).
(36) green
qijnə. > 50×.
The etymology is unclear.
mijlənə. 10×.
< Pers. mīnā ‘a blue, blueish green, green colour’ (CPED
1364; Khan 2016, vol. 3, 220).
(37) hair
kosə. 37×.
< Syriac sawkā ‘branch, twig’ (SL 978f.).10
mьsta. 27×.
MEA: mezṯā ‘hair’ (SL 736); mazzyā ‘(coll.) hair’ (DJBA
652); manza ‘hair’ (MD 248). In some cases mьsta is used
as nomen unitatis for ‘hair’.
(38) hand
ijdə. > 50×.
MEA: īḏā ‘hand’ (SL 31); yḏā ‘hand, possession’ (DJBA
523); ʿda ‘hand’ (MD 341).

10 See Mutzafi (2006, 89–9).

 A Corpus-based Swadesh Word list for Literary Christian Urmi  425

(39) head
rişə. > 50×.
MEA: rēšā ‘head’ (SL 1462); rēšā ‘head, top part’ (DJBA
1078); riša ‘head, top’ (MD 434).
(40) to hear
şmaja. > 50×.
MEA: šmʿ ‘to hear, listen to’ (SL 1574); šmʿ ‘to hear’
(DJBA 1158); šma ‘to hear, listen’ (MD 469).
(41) heart
liввə. > 50×.
MEA: lebbā ‘heart’ (SL 666); libbā ‘heart’ (DJBA 623);
liba ‘heart’ (MD 234).
(42) heavy
jaqura. > 50×.
MEA: yqr ‘to be heavy’ (SL 582); yqr ‘to increase in value’
(DJBA 540); MD yqr ‘to honor, respect’.
(43) horn
qənə. 41×.11
MEA: qarnā ‘horn’ (SL 1412); qarnā ‘horn’ (DJBA 1044);
qarna ‘horn’ (MD 403).
(44) I
ənə.> 50×.
MEA: enā ‘I’ (SL 58); ănā ‘I’ (DJBA 143); ana ‘I’ (MD 24).
(45) to kill
qţala. > 50×.
MEA: qṭl ‘to kill’ (SL 1352); qṭl ‘to kill’ (DJBA 1006); gṭl
‘to kill’ (MD 87).

11 Two attestations were found beyond the digitised corpus: MPX 13/6, VEG
44/17.
426 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(46) knee
вirkə. > 50×.
MEA: burkā ‘knee’ (SL 131); birkā ‘knee’ (DJBA 206);
burka ‘knee’ (MD 57).
(47) to know
daja. > 50×.
MEA: ydʿ ‘to know’ (SL 563); ydʿ ‘to know’ (DJBA 525);
yda ‘to know’ (MD 188).
(48) leaf
ţarpa. 22×.
MEA: ṭarpā ‘leaf’ (SL 555); ătarpā ‘leaf’ (DJBA 108);
aṭirpa ‘leaf’ (MD 13).
(49) to lie (a stative situation)
dməxə. > 50×.
MEA: dmk ‘to sleep’ (SL 310); dmk ‘to lie’ (DJBA 343).
(50) liver
çigar. 2×.12
< Azer. ciyər, qara ciyər ‘Leber’ (ADW 184).
(51) long
jarьjxa. 51×.
MEA: arrīḵ ‘long’ (SL 99); arīḵ ‘tall, long’ (DJBA 167);
arika ‘long’ (MD 37).
(52) louse
qəlmə. 6×.
MEA: qalmā ‘louse’ (SL 1372); qalmṯā ‘vermin’ (DJBA
1021).

12 The only attestation is MXM 63/25, which is currently outside the

digitised corpus.
 A Corpus-based Swadesh Word list for Literary Christian Urmi  427

(53) man (male)

urzə. > 50×.
The etymology is uncertain. For the suggestion to derive
it from Sanskrit vr̥ṣán ‘big, strong, male, ox’, see Nöldeke
(1868, 385).13
gorə. It is not yet clear, perhaps gorə should be included
as a synonym, but it refers to ‘husband’ in most cases.
(54) man (human being)
nəşə. > 50×.
MEA: nāšā ‘man, human beings’ (SL 65); ināšā ‘man’
(DJBA 120); (a)naša ‘human being’ (MD 24).
вarnəşə. > 50×.
The ratio of the usage of nəşə to вarnəşə is 10:1. Therefore,
nəşə is the main exponent of the meaning in question.
(55) many
raвa. > 50×.
MEA: rābā ‘great, large’ (SL 1425).
(56) meat
вьsra. > 50×.
MEA: besrā ‘flesh, meat’ (SL 167); bisrā ‘flesh, meat’
(DJBA 207); bisra ‘flesh, meat’ (MD 62).
(57) moon
sara. > 50×.
MEA: sahrā ‘moon’ (SL 974); sehrā ‘moon’ (DJBA 800);
sira ‘moon’ (MD 329).

13 The etymological note of Yona Sabar on this word (K < Sanskrit vrśa)
may be interpreted that the author in fact proposes a Kurdish etymon
derived from O.Ind. vṛṣán (JNAD 91).
428 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(58) mountain
ţura. > 50×.
MEA: ṭūrā ‘mountain’ (SL 521); ṭūrā ‘mountain’ (DJBA
498); ṭura ‘mountain, hill’ (MD 178).
(59) mouth
pummə. > 50×.
MEA: pūmā ‘mouth’ (SL 1165); pūmā ‘mouth’ (DJBA
889); puma ‘mouth’ (MD 368).
(60) nail
ţupurta. 14×.
MEA: ṭep̄ rā ‘nail, claw, talon’ (SL 548); ṭup̄ rā ‘fingernail,
toenail’ (DJBA 498); ṭupra ‘claw, nail’ (MD 178).
(61) name
şimmə. > 50×.
MEA: šmā ‘name’ (SL 1569); šmā ‘name’ (DJBA 1153);
šuma ‘name, reputation’ (MD 454).
(62) near
qurвə. 10×.
MEA: qrb ‘to approach to, be near’ (SL 1400); qrb ‘to
come near, bring near’ (DJBA 1037); qrb ‘to approach,
draw near’ (MD 415).
(63) neck
qdələ. > 50×.
MEA: qḏālā ‘neck’ (SL 1317); qḏālā ‘neck’ (DJBA 984).
(64) new
xətə. > 50×.
MEA: ḥaṯā ‘new’ (SL 418); ḥăḏaṯ ‘new’ (DJBA 433); hadta
‘new’ (MD 116).
 A Corpus-based Swadesh Word list for Literary Christian Urmi  429

(65) night
leli. > 50×.
MEA: lelyā ‘night’ (SL 691); lelyā ‘night’ (DJBA 626); lilia
‘night’ (MD 236).
(66) nose
nəxijrə. 34×.
MEA: nḥīrā ‘nasus’ (TS 2340); nḥīrā ‘nostril’ (DJBA 741);
nhira ‘nose’ (MD 291).
(67) not
lə, le. > 50×.
MEA: lā ‘no’ (SL 665); lā ‘no’ (DJBA 613); lā ‘no, not’
(MD 227).
(68) one
xə. > 50×.
MEA: ḥaḏ ‘one’ (SL 413); ḥaḏ ‘one’ (DJBA 430); had ‘one,
single’ (MD 116).
(69) rain
mьţra. > 50×.
MEA: meṭrā ‘rain’ (SL 749); miṭrā ‘rain’ (DJBA 665);
miṭra ‘rain’ (MD 266).
(70) red
smuqə. > 50×.
MEA: summāqā ‘red’ (SL 981); summāq ‘red object,
redness’ (DJBA 794); s(u)maq(a) ‘red, ruddy’ (MD 322).
(71) road
urxə. > 50×.
MEA: ʾurḥā ‘road’ (SL 21).
430 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(72) root
ьqra. 17×.
MEA: ʿeqqārā ‘root’ (SL 1132).
(73) round
glulə. 32×.
MEA: glālā ‘round’ (SL 238);14 glālā ‘stone-shaped object’
(DJBA 288); glala 1 ‘stone, rock, hailstone’, glala 2
‘something round, ball’ (MD 91).
(74) salt
milxə. 40×.
MEA: melḥā ‘salt’ (SL 767); milḥā ‘salt’ (DJBA 667); mihla
‘salt’ (MD 266).
(75) sand
silə. 44×.
< Kurd. seylak ‘sable’ DKF 1495; sêl DKF 1498; sêlak
DKF 1498; sêlax DKF 1498; sêleh DKF 1498; sêlix DKF
1498; sîlewan DKF 1524; sîlik DKF 1524. The mixed
source background of DKF (Sorani-Kurmanji) suggests
that the words in question are mostly used by Sorani
speakers. The corresponding Kurmanji terms with the
basic meaning ‘sand’ would be xîz (Chyet 665) and qûm
(Chyet 498). Therefore, C. Urmi silə must have been
borrowed from Sorani Kurdish.
(76) to say
mərə. > 50×.
MEA: ʾmr ‘to say’ (SL 57); ʾmr ‘to say, tell’ (DJBA 140);
amr ‘to say, speak’ (MD 23).

14 Syriac glultā pl. glulē ‘pair of compasses; globe, ball’ is attested only in the
lexicon of Bar Bahlul. It may be a borrowing from Modern Aramaic.
 A Corpus-based Swadesh Word list for Literary Christian Urmi  431

(77) to see
xzəjə. > 50×.
MEA: ḥzy ‘to see’ (SL 438); ḥzy ‘to see, look at’ (DJBA
444); hza ‘to see, look’ (MD 138).
(78) seed
вarzarra. 8×.
MEA: bar zarʿā ‘seed’ (SL 180); bazrā, bizrā ‘seed’ (DJBA
195); bazira, bazra ‘seed’ (MD 46).
(79) short
kirjə. > 50×.
MEA: karyā ‘short’ (SL 651).
(80) to sit
tjəvə. > 50×.
MEA: ytb ‘to sit’ (SL 587); ytb ‘to sit’ (DJBA 545); ytb ‘to
sit, stay’ (MD 193).
(81) skin
gildə. > 50×.
MEA: geldā ‘skin, leather’ (SL 233); gildā ‘scab, hide’
(DJBA 280); gilda ‘leather’ (MD 90).
(82) to sleep
dməxə. > 50×.
MEA: dmk ‘to sleep’ (SL 310); dmk ‘to lie’ (DJBA 343).
ţləjə >50×.
MEA: ṭlʿ etpa. ‘to suffer from sleepiness’ (SL 534); ṭulāʿā
‘deep sleep, torpor’ (SL 517); mṭalaʿ ‘heavy (sleep)’ (SL
747), mṭalʿānā ‘soporific’ (SL 747).

The character of the Classical Syriac sources that use

derivatives of ṭlʿ with the meanings relating ‘to sleep’ (Bar Bahlul
432 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

dictionary, The Book of Medicines) point to a probable Neo-

Aramaic background of these terms in these dictionaries of CS.
The verb ţlaja has the meaning ‘to fall asleep’ in most of its
uses. Nevertheless, the verb ţlaja clearly has the meaning ‘to
sleep’ in a number of instances: Lə gəşəqtə l dəhə, в leləvəti Fritjof
qujə вьţlajьva ‘Despite that, at night Fritjof was sound asleep’
(FNA 27/2); Bopre go otax al qaravat ţьljьva b şintǝ dlǝ gnǝhǝ. ‘[At
this moment] Bopre was innocently sleeping in the room on the
bed’ (PBQ 7/22).

(83) small
surə. > 50×.
MEA: zāʿorā ‘small’ (SL 390); zʿer ‘small, young’ (DJBA
418).
(84) smoke
tinnə. > 50×.
MEA: tennānā ‘smoke’ (SL 1656); tnnʾ ‘smoke’ (DJBA
1223).
(85) snake
xuvvi. 24×.
MEA: ḥewyā ‘snake’ (SL 424); ḥiwyā ‘snake’ (DJBA 450);
hiuia ‘serpent, snake’ (MD 142).
(86) to stand
kləjə. > 50×.
MEA: kly ‘to impede, prevent’ (SL 624); kly ‘to be
finished’ (DJBA 582); kla ‘to keep enclosed, hold back’
(MD 216).
(87) star
koxvə. > 50×.
MEA: kawkḇā ‘star’ (SL 606); koḵḇā ‘star’ (DJBA 558);
kukba ‘star’ (MD 206).
 A Corpus-based Swadesh Word list for Literary Christian Urmi  433

(88) stone
kipə. > 50×.
MEA: kēp̄ ā ‘stone’ (SL 594); kēp̄ ā ‘stone’ (DJBA 577).
(89) sun
şimşə. > 50×.
MEA: šemšā ‘sun’ (SL 1576); šimšā ‘sun, sunlight’ (DJBA
1136); šamšā ‘sun’ (MD 443).
(90) to swim
mxəjə sьxvь/sьxva. 29×.
sьxvь < MEA: sḥy ‘to wash o.s., bathe’ (SL 992); sḥy ‘to
wash oneself, bathe’ (DJBA 797); saa ‘to wash, perform
ablutions’ (MD 308). The periphrastic verb is modelled
after Kurmanji ajnê kirin (Chyet 3) or Sorani mele kirin
(DKF 972).
(91) tail
ţuprə. 27×.
There is no clear etymology. Possibly related to MEA:
ṭep̄ rā/ṭup̄ rā ‘nail, claw’.15
(92) that (ms.)
av. > 50×.
MEA: haw ‘that one’ (SL 333).
(93) thin
nəqijdə. 20×.
Cf. MEA nqd: naqḏā ‘clean; (gramm.) tenuis’ (SL),
naqdonā ‘delicate’ (SL 945); nquḏtā ‘dot’ (DJBA 772).

15 For references, see no. 60.

434 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(94) this (ms.)

əhə. > 50×.
For the etymology of this see Khan (2016, vol. 1, 239)
and also Militarev (2014, 172).
(95) tongue
lişənə. > 50×.
MEA: leššānā ‘tongue’ (SL 698); liššānā ‘tongue’ (DJBA
627); lišana ‘tongue’ (MD 237).
(96) tooth
kikə. > 50×.
MEA: kakkā ‘molar tooth’ (SL 621). On this word, see
Mutzafi (2014, 113).
(97) tree
ijlənə. > 50×.
MEA: ʾīlānā ‘tree’ (SL 35).
(98) two
tre. > 50×.
MEA: trēn ‘two’ (SL 1666); trē(n) ‘two’ (DJBA 1233); trin
‘two’ (MD 490)
(99) warm
şəxijnə. > 50×.
MEA: šḥn ‘to be inflamed’, pa. ‘to warm, heat’ (SL 1544);
šḥn ‘be inflamed, heat’ (DJBA 1128); šḥn ‘to become hot’
(MD 451).
(100) water
mijə. > 50×.
MEA: mayyā ‘water’ (SL 750); mayyā ‘water’ (DJBA
662); mai ‘water’ (MD 242).
 A Corpus-based Swadesh Word list for Literary Christian Urmi  435

(101) we
əxnən. > 50×.
MEA: ḥnan, ʾnḥnn ‘we’ (SL 472, 60); ănan ‘we’ (DJBA
145); anin, anʿn ‘we’ (MD 27).
(102) what?
mudij, mu. > 50×.
MEA: mā ‘what?’ (SL 700), dēn ‘then’ (SL 296), see
Nöldeke (1868, 82).
(103) white
xvara. > 50×.
MEA: ḥewwārā ‘white’ (SL 432); ḥiwwār ‘white’ (DJBA
450); hiuara ‘white’ (MD 142).
(104) wind
poxə. > 50×.
MEA: pwḥ pe. ‘to blow, to breathe’ (SL 1160), pāwḥā
‘odour, smell’ (SL 1161); pwḥ pe. ‘to breathe, blow up’
(DJBA 888).
(105) who?
mən, mənij. > 50×.
MEA: man ‘who?’ (SL 778); man ‘who’ (DJBA 636); man
‘who’ (MD 246).
(106) woman
вəxtə. > 50×.
There is no clear etymology. For the discussion of the
possible origin of this word see Khan (1999, 146–147).
436 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(107) worm
tьvьlta. 5×.16
MEA: tawlʿā ‘worm’ (SL 1630); tōlaʿtā ‘worm’ (DJBA
1197); tulita ‘worm, embryo’ (MD 483).
(108) year
şitə. > 50×.
MEA: šattā ‘year’ (SL 1581); šattā ‘year’ (DJBA 1183);
šita ‘year’ (MD 464).
(109) yellow
zərdə. > 50×.
< Pers. zard ‘yellow’ (CPED 614)
(110) you (s.)
ət. > 50×.
MEA: at ‘you (s.)’ (SL 66); ant ‘you (ms.) (DJBA 146);
anat ‘thou’ (MD 24).

5. Conclusions
The digitised corpus for literary Christian Urmi of approximately
630,000 words has been shown to be sufficient to establish the
basic 110 word list with 117 exponents. More than 70 percent
of the entries (87/117) have more than 50 attestations in the
corpus.
There are seven meanings that have two exponents: bark
(qəlpə, çuluxtə), to bite (qraţa, njasa), cold (qajra, qarьjra),
green (qijnə, mijlənə), hair (kosə, mьsta), man (nəşə, вarnəşə);
to sleep (dməxə, ţlaja). In the cases of cold and green the
problem may be solved by statistical data: the exponents qajra for

16 One of the attestations of this word was found in the text MPX 90/28,
which is not yet digitised.
 A Corpus-based Swadesh Word list for Literary Christian Urmi  437

cold and qijnə for green have considerably more attestations in

the corpus than the alternative exponents qarьjra and mijlənə. On
the other hand, bare statistical data do not help in the case of
bark (see the discussion of no. 3).
More than 90 percent of the meanings (94/110) have
exponents with reliable Middle Eastern Aramaic etymologies.
Four meanings have exponents that originate from Persian (sadra
‘breast’ < Pers. ṣadr; pərrə ‘feather’ < Pers. par; pənçə ‘foot’ <
Pers. panc; zərdə ‘yellow’ < Pers. zard). The exponents of two
meanings have Kurdish etymologies (spaj ‘good’ < Kurd. spehî;
silə ‘sand’ < Kurd. sêl). One meaning is expressed by a word
originating from Azeri Turkish (çigar ‘liver’ < Azer. ciyər). Three
meanings have each two exponents with different etymologies:
bark (qəlpə MEA; çuluxtə < Kurd. çûlik), bite (qraţa MEA, njasa—
of uncertain etymology), green (qijnə—of uncertain etymology;
mijlənə < Pers. mīnā). A special case is the meaning to swim,
which is expressed by a compound verb mxəjə sьxvь/sьxva. Both
members of this construction have Aramaic origin, but this verb
is a loan translation from Kurdish (no. 90). Six meanings have
exponents with uncertain or unknown etymologies (5. big gurə;
22. dry вəruzə; 53. man (male) urzə; 91. tail ţuprə; 94. this
əhə; 196 woman вəxtə).

General Abbreviations

af. afʿel
C. Christian
J. Jewish
K Kurmanji Kurdish
MEA Middle Eastern Aramaic
NA New Alphabet
NENA North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic
pa. paʿʿel
pe. peʿal
S Sorani Kurdish
438 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Bibliographical Abbreviations

ADW Rahmati, Nemat. 1999. Aserbaidschanisch-deutsches Wörterbuch:

unter Berücksichtigung der Besonderheiten des Nord- und
Südaserbaidschanischen. Engelschoff: Verlag auf dem Ruffel.
AWSG Wehr, Hans. 1985. Arabisches Wörterbuch für die Schriftsprache der
Gegenwart. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
BK de Biberstein-Kazimirski, Albert. 1860. Dictionnaire arabe‒français.
Paris: Maison-neuve et cie.
Chyet Chyet, Michael L. 2003. Kurdish-English Dictionary. New Haven–
London: Yale University Press.
CPED Steingass, Francis J. 1892. A Comprehensive Persian English
Dictionary. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Limited.
DJBA Sokoloff, Michael. 2002. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic
of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan
University Press.
DJPA Sokoloff, Michael. 1992. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic
of the Byzantine Period. Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan University Press.
DKF Bedir Khan, Kamuran A., Joséfa Bertolino and Kendal Nezan. 2017.
Dictionnaire Kurde-Français. Paris: Riveneuve.
JNAD Sabar. Yona. 2002. A Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dictionary. Dialects of
Amidya, Dihok, Nerwa and Zakho, Northwestern Iraq. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
MD Drower, Ethel S. and Rudolph Macuch. 1962. A Mandaic Dictionary.
Oxford: Clarendon.
MXM Marogulov, Qonstantin. 1935. Xrestomatija d saprajuta. Moskva:
Ucpedgiz.
MPX Marogulov, Qonstantin. u Petrosov, Dəvid. 1935. Xrestomatija d
saprajuta. Qə mədrəsə d şuraja. Səmə I. Moskva: Ucpedgiz.
SL Sokoloff, Michael. 2009. A Syriac Lexicon. Winona Lake &
Piscataway: Gorgias Press.
TEK II Tetjurev, Vladimir. 1937. Elm kjənetə. Səmə II. Qə klas rvьeta d
mədrəsə d şuraja. Puşəqə d U. A. Bedrojev. Moskva: Detizdat.
THH Tolstoj, Lev N. 1935. Həqətti but hejvanь. Puşəqə d A. Minasov.
Moskva: OGIZ-Detgiz.
 A Corpus-based Swadesh Word list for Literary Christian Urmi  439

TS Payne Smith, Roberth. 1879–1901. Thesaurus Syriacus, T. 1–2.

Oxford: Clarendon.
VEG Vegin, Sergej. 1933. Go səmi ьllajь d’Diqlət. Puşəqə d’Bedrojev.
Moskva: GIXL.

References

Fischer, Wolfdietrich. 2002. A Grammar of Classical Arabic, 3rd edition, New

Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Fassberg, Steven. 2010. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Challa. Studies in

Semitic Languages and Linguistics 54. Leiden: Brill.

Fox, Samuel. 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 16. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.

Hoberman, Robert D. 1988. ‘The history of the Modern Aramaic pronouns and
pronominal suffixes’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 108.4: 557–75.

Jastrow, Otto. 1990. ‘Personal and Demonstrative Pronouns in Central Neo-

Aramaic’. In Studies in Neo-Aramaic, edited by Wolfhart Heinrichs, 89–103.
Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Kassian, Alexei, George Starostin, Anna Dybo, and Vasiliy Chernov. 2010.
‘The Swadesh Word List. An Attempt at Semantic Specification’. Journal of
Language Relationship 4: 46–89.

Khan, Geoffrey. 1999. A Grammar of Neo-Aramaic: The Dialect of the Jews of

Arbel. Boston, MA: Brill.

———. 2008. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar. 3 vols. Leiden–Boston: Brill.

———. 2016. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of the Assyrian Christians of Urmi. 4 vols.
Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 86. Leiden–Boston: Brill.

Lyavdansky, Alexey. Forthcoming. ‘Neo-Aramaic Texts in the New Alphabet

Published in the Soviet Union 1929–1938’. In A Handbook of Neo-Aramaic,
edited by Steven E. Fassberg, Simon Hopkins and Hezy Mutzafi.
440 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Marogulov, Qonstantin I. 1976. Grammaire néo-syriaque pour écoles d’adultes

(dialecte d’Urmia). Translated by Olga Kapeliuk. Comptes rendus du Groupe
Linguistique d’Études Chamito-Sémitiques, 5. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste P.
Geuthner.

Militarev, Alexander. 2014. ‘A Complete Etymology-based Hundred Word List

of Semitic Updated: Items 75–100’. Journal of Language Relationship 11:
159–185.

Mutzafi, Hezy. 2004. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Koy Sanjaq (Iraqi
Kurdistan). Semitica Viva 32. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

———. 2005. ‘Etymological Notes on North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic’. Aramaic

Studies 3 (1): 83–107.

———. 2006. ‘On the Etymology of Some Enigmatic Words in North-Eastern

Neo-Aramaic’. Aramaic Studies 4 (1): 83–99.

———. 2008. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Betanure (Province of Dihok).

Semitica Viva 43. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

———. 2014. Comparative Lexical Studies in Neo-Mandaic. Studies in Semitic

Languages and Linguistics 73. Leiden: Brill.

Napiorkowska, Lidia. 2015. A Grammar of the Christian Neo-Aramaic Dialect of

Diyana-Zariwaw. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 81. Leiden:
Brill.

Nöldeke, Theodor. 1868. Grammatik des Neusyrischen Sprache am Urmia-See und

in Kurdistan. Leipzig: T. O. Weigel.

Rosenthal, Franz. 1939. Die Aramaistische Forschung seit Th. Nöldeke’s

Veröffentlichungen. Leiden: Brill. 1939.

Smith, Michael G. 1998. Language and Power in the Creation of the USSR, 1917–
1953. Berlin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Talay. Shabo. 2008. Die Neuaramäischen Dialekte der Khabur-Assyrer in

Nordostsyrien: Einführung, Phonologie und Morphologie. Semitica Viva 40.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
 A Corpus-based Swadesh Word list for Literary Christian Urmi  441

Appendix: Correspondences of Transcriptions

New Alphabet Kapeliuk17 Khan (2008)18 Khan (2016)

a a a a

в, b b b b

c č č č, č̭

ç ğ j j

d d d d

e e e e

ə ä a a

f f f f

g g g ɟ

h h h h

i i i i

j y y y

ь ə ə i, ə

k k k c, c̭

l l l l

m m m m

17 Marogulov (1976).
18 The transcription in Khan (2008 and 2016) is representative of the
transcriptions used in the descriptions of Neo-Aramaic dialects.
442 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

New Alphabet Kapeliuk17 Khan (2008)18 Khan (2016)

n n n n

o o o o

p p p p

q q q k̭

r r r r

s s s s

ş š š š

t t t t

ţ ṭ ṭ ṱ

u u u u

v v v v

x kh x x

z z z z

ƶ ž ž ž
 LEXICAL ITEMS RELATING TO
MATERIAL CULTURE IN THE NENA
DIALECTS OF THE AQRA REGION

Aziz Emmanuel Eliya Al-Zebari

(in collaboration with Anjuman M. Sabir)

This article is based on my research on the Neo-Aramaic dialects

of the Aqra (Akre) region, which are spoken across the Aqra
mountain in Iraqi Kurdistan. Some details about these dialects
have been discussed in previous publications, notably by Coghill
(2008, 102–104). No systematic documentation of these dialects
has, however, so far been published.
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of Aqra belong to the North-Eastern
Neo-Aramaic (NENA) subgroup, which is the largest and most
diverse branch of Neo-Aramaic.
The informants for this project come from various areas of the
Aqra region, where different dialects were spoken. These dialects
can be classified broadly into those of the villages lying to the
North of the Aqra mountain and those of the inhabitants of the
region to the South of the mountain. Those lying to the North are
situated in an area known as Nexla (henceforth Nx.) and include
the villages of Dinarta, Upper Girbish, and Sanaye. The inhabitants
of these are descendants of families from the villages of Geppa,
Arena and Qalunta (known in Kurdish as Shkafte, Harene, and
Kalate respectively), which were abandoned in the 1880s. The
dialect area lying to the South of the Aqra mountain (referred
to by the abbreviation Sam.) includes the town of Aqra and the
villages of Kherpa, Kharjawa, Nuhawa, Barrake, Sharmen and
Malaberwan. The most conspicuous differences between these
two dialect areas are (i) the reflexes of the historical interdentals
*θ and *ð and (ii) the pronunciation of long /u/.

© Aziz Emmanuel Eliya Al-Zebari, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0209.15

444 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

In the Nexla area in the North the historical unvoiced *θ is

debuccalised to /h/, e.g. Dinarta beha (< *bayθa) ‘house’, as in
some NENA dialects of the Baz region (Mutzafi 2000). In the
southern area, on the other hand, it is realised as a sibilant
/s/, e.g. Kherpa besa ‘house’. The reflex of the historical voiced
interndental *ð is the voiced sibilant /z/ in both areas, e.g.
Dinarta ʾiza (< ʾiða) ‘hand’. The dialect spoken in the town of
Aqra is an exception to this generalisation, since the reflex of
historical *θ is /θ/ or /s/, e.g. beθa ~ besa ‘house’, and the reflex
of historical *ð is the stop /d/, e.g. ʾida ‘hand’. This is summarised
in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Reflexes of Interdentals

Location *θ *ð

Nexla area
Dinarta /h/ /z/
Girbish /h/ /z/
Sanaye /h/ /z/

South of the Aqra mountain

Aqra town /θ/ ~ /s/ /d/
Kherpa /s/ /z/
Kharjawa /s/ /z/
Nuhawa /s/ /z/
Barrake /s/ /z/
Sharmen /s/ /z/
Malaberwan /s/ /z/

The other conspicuous feature that distinguishes the two

dialect areas is the pronunciation of the long /u/ as a fronted
rounded vowel (represented here as /ü/) in the northern Nx. area
 Lexical Items in the NENA Dialects of the Aqra Region  445

and as a back /u/ in the southern area,1 e.g. güza (Nx.), guza
(Sam.) ‘skin churn’ (< *guða).
In this paper I shall present a collection of lexical items relating
to material culture that are used in the dialects of the area. The
classification of the semantics fields is based on Khan’s lexical
lists in his grammar of the Barwar dialect (2008, vol. 2).
Lexical items are cited in the variant forms that occur in the
two dialect areas, reflecting the phonological differences that
have just been described. The gender of the nouns is indicated
and their plural form(s). The two plural inflections -aha and
-asa represent the two regional variations in the realisation of
historical *θ (< *-aθa) across the dialects of Nexla and south Aqra
mountain (Sam.) respectively. The plural inflection -aθa is used
by some speakers in the town of Aqra (At.). When the words are
loans from other languages, this is indicated by the abbreviations
Kurd. (Kurdish), Arab. (Arabic) and Turk. (Turkish) respectively.
The transcription system follows the practice of Khan’s (2008)
grammar of the Barwar dialect. Short vowels in closed syllables
and long vowels in open syllables are left without diacritical
marks. A long vowel in a closed syllable is marked by a macron
and a short vowel in an open syllable is marked by a breve. The
character /ə/ in all syllables represents a short centralised vowel,
which is realised as [ɪ] or [ə] according to the phonetic context.

1. Buildings and Structures

1.1. Houses and their Appurtenances
beha, besa m. (pl. behane, besane, bāte) house

darta f. (pl. dartaha, dartasa) courtyard, residential enclosure

ḥawš m. (pl. ḥawšane) (Kurd.) courtyard, residential enclosure

gare m. (pl. garawaha, garawasa) roof

1 For the fronting of /u/ in many languages of the region see Haig and Khan
(2018, 13–14).
446 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

qaṛiyya f. (pl. qaṛyaha, qaṛyasa) beam

sapətka m. (pl. sapətke) small beam

stüna (Nx.), stunta, stuna (Sam.) f. (pl. stunyaha, stunyasa) wooden

pole that supports the ceiling

sterka m. (pl. sterke) (Kurd.) scaffold on which food is kept

swane m. (pl. swanane) overhanging eaves of roof

mandarüne (Nx.), mandarune (Sam.) m. (pl. mandarünyaha,

mandarunyasa) roller for flattening roof

güda (Nx.), guda (Sam.) m. (pl. güdane, gudane) wall

taqa m. (pl. taqane) (Kurd.) face of the wall

bərbawa m. (pl. bərbawe) a hole made on the roof for lowering

straw into the straw store

btüne (Nx.), btune (Sam.) m. straw store

ṣalmət-güda (Nx.) ṣalmət guda (Sam.) m. front of wall facing

outwards

quṛṣulta f. (pl.quṛṣulyaha, quṛṣulyasa) outer angle of house

ṭaṛa m. (pl. ṭaṛane) door

ṭareha, ṭaresa f. small door

dəsqət-ṭaṛa f. (pl. dəsqe) handle of a door

darga m. (pl. darge) (Kurd.) main door (with two leaves)

spuqta f. (pl. spuqyaha, spuqyasa) lintel

qulqulta m. (pl. qulquyaha,qulqulyasa) rods in wooden door lock

qzila, qdila (At.) f. (pl. qzile, qdile) key

qufla m. (pl. qufle) metal lock

kaylun m. (pl. kaylone) (Kurd.) metal lock of a door

 Lexical Items in the NENA Dialects of the Aqra Region  447

panjara m. (pl. panjare) (Kurd.) window

čawiyya f. (pl. čawyaha, čawyasa) airhole of clay oven

kullina f. (pl. kulline) small opening at the top of a room without

glass

ṛazunta (pl. ṛazunyasa) (Kherpa) small opening at the top of a

room without glass

barbānka f. (pl. barbānke) (Kurd.) balcony, low structure attached

to outside of house for people to sit on

parda m. (pl. pardaha, pardasa, parde) (Kurd.) curtain; cloth blind

qam-ṭaṛa f. (pl. qam-ṭaṛane) open space in front of house

tăbaqa m. (pl. tăbaqe) (Arab.) storey

ʾăra f. floor

ʾăsās m. (pl. ʾăsāse) (Arab.) foundation

benaġa m. (pl. benaġe) (Kurd.) foundation

ləbna m. (pl. ləbne) mud brick

sarʾuli f. (pl. sarʾuliyye) (Kurd.) upper floor

ʾoda f./m. (pl. ʾodaha, ʾodasa) (Kurd./Turk.) room

ʾodəd dmaxa f. (pl. ʾodahəd dmaxa, ʾodasəd dmaxa) sleeping room

ʾodət ʾitawa f. (pl. ʾodahət ʾitawa, ʾodasət ʾitawa) sitting room

ʾodət ʾarzāq f. (pl. ʾodahət ʾarzāq, ʾodoasət ʾarzāq) store room for
cereals

ʾoda leha, ʾuda lesa f. (pl. ʾudaha laye, ʾudasa laye) upper room,
room on first floor of a house

ʾoda xteha ʾuda xtesa f. (pl. ʾudaha xtaye, ʾudasa xtaye) lower room

manzal f. (pl. manzale) (Arab./Kurd.) room

448 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

manzalət ʾitawa f. sitting room

kočəka f. (pl. kočəkyaha, kočəkyasa) (Kurd.) guest room

jăṛade f. (pl. jaradāyha, jaradyasa) ladder

səllamta f. (pl səllamyaha, səllamyasa) wooden ladder

pepalānka f. (pl. pepalānke) (Kurd.) flight of steps, staircase

došəka, došəksa f. (pl. došəkyaha, došəkyasa) outer low structure

attached to the entrance of a house used for sitting

ṣüpa (Nx.), ṣupa (Sam.) m. outer shed opening outwards

ṣupaniyya, ṣupanisa f. small outer shed opening outwards

ṣoba f. (pl. ṣobaha, ṣobasa) large stove with a chimney fuelled by

wood

došăka (pl. došăke, došakyaha, došakyasa) (Kurd.) mattress

marša m. (pl. marše) thin mattress for sitting

maršəka, maršəksa f. (pl. maršəkyaha, maršəkyasa) small mattress

for sitting

kursi m. (pl. kursiyye) (Arab.) chair

šwiyya, šwisa f. (pl. šəwyaha, šəwyasa) bed, bedding

spadiyya, stabiyya f. (pl. spadyaha, spadyasa, stabyaha, stabyasa)

pillow, cushion

taxta f. (pl. taxtaha, taxtasa) wooden bed

kulla m. (pl. kulle) mosquito net

boriyya, borisa m. (pl. boryaha, boryasa) smoke duct of stove

quprana f. (pl. qupranane) summer bed on roof mounted on wood

poles

qupraniyya, qupranisa f. (pl. qupranyaha qupranyasa) small

wooden trellis
 Lexical Items in the NENA Dialects of the Aqra Region  449

tanüra, tanura m. (pl. tanüre, tanure) oven (for baking bread)

bnüre, bnu:re m. out-door horseshoe-like hearth built of stones

and clay for cooking

bükare, bkare (Kherpa) m. (pl. bükarane, bkarane) animal shed

usually annexed to the house

kolita f. (pl. kolite) hen-house

ʾoṛṛe f. (pl. ʾoṛṛaha, ʾoṛṛasa) a box or trough in a stable or barn

from which horses or cattle eat

koska m. (pl. koske) a fenced area where sheep and cattle are kept
in summer

dünga, dunga m. (pl. dünge, dunge) winter shelter for sheep and
goats

koxa m. (pl. koxe) (Kurd.) hut

küra, kura m. (pl. küre, kure) furnace, kiln

gərba f. (pl. gərbe) beehive (cylindrical)

šana m. (pl. šanaha, šanasa) honeycomb

1.2. Church and its Appurtenances

ʾeta m. (pl. ʾetaha, ʾetasa) church

maðəbḥa m. (pl. maðəbḥe) altar

guṛna f. (pl. gorne) baptismal font

qəṭṛa m. (pl. qəṭṛe) arch, dome

kasa m. (pl. kase) chalice

pəṛma m. (pl. pəṛme) incense burner

ṛaza m. (pl. ṛaze) mass

450 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

quṛbana m. holy communion; host

kaṛuzuwwa, kaṛuzusa m. sermon, preaching

ʾəngaliyyun m. Gospel

bṛuksa m. blessing

bəsqüṛe, bəsquṛe m. (pl. bəsqüṛawaha, bəsquṛawasa) cemetery

qawṛa f. (pl. qawṛaha, qawṛasa) grave

naqoša m. (pl. naqoše) bell

ṣuṛta f. (pl. suṛyaha, suṛyasa) painting

kursi d-mawdoye m. confessional

ẓəngloka m. (pl. ẓəngloke) (Kurd.) small bell

sətra m. curtain

jullət-ṛaze m. mass vestments

jullət-šamaše n.pl. deacon apparel

huṛaṛa m. stole of deacon

ṣliwa m. (pl. ṣliwe) cross

quṛbana m. holy communion, host

ṣaṛḥaṣṣa m. deacon belt

fənda m. (pl. fənde) burning wick

ḥuðṛa m. (pl. ḥuðṛe) prayer book of liturgical calendar

qdamasər m. liturgical book of prayer

1.3. Watermill
ʾarxəl f. (pl. ʾarxəlwaha, ʾarxəlwasa) watermill

kepət reša m. upper grindstone

 Lexical Items in the NENA Dialects of the Aqra Region  451

kepət səssa m. lower grindstone

kotăla m. (pl. kotăle) raised tank attached to a water-mill which

fills with water from a channel and releases water flow at a
high pressure to drive the mill

boṭəka m. (pl. boṭəkyaha, boṭəkyasa ) large wooden channel that

carries water at high speed to drive water-mill

parwana m. (pl. parwane, parwanāt) propeller

paṛṛe n.pl. blades of propeller

dulaba m. wooden wheel to which propellers are attached

dawla m. open box over a water-mill containing wheat, with a

hole in the bottom through which wheat comes out onto the
grindstone

čaqčaqa m. wooden wheel shaking and dispensing slowly grain to

be ground by a water-mill

suṛṛəka f. lip in the ridge of the lower grindstone of a water-mill

where sesame oil pours off

bəsta m. driving rod

1.4. Churn
güza, guza m. (pl. güze, guze) skin bag used for churning

mayoya m. (pl. mayoye) long wooden rod running the length of

the frame carrying the churn bag

lawlaba m. (pl. lawlabe) wooden stick at the two ends of the frame
carrying the churn bag

1.5. Cradle
dodiyya f. (pl. dodiyye, dudyaha, dudyasa) cradle

dazbenka m. (pl.dazbenke) (Kurd.) swaddling bands

452 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

qasrika m. (pl. qasrike) pot for collecting urine and excrement of

baby

šaruqta f. (pl. šaruqyaha, šaruqyasa) pipe for taking away urine

of baby

2. Containers
2.1. Miscellaneous Vessels
badiyya m. (pl. badiyye) brass vessel (for water and dawwe)

dana f. (pl. dane) water jar

margəlta f. (pl. margəlyaha, margəlyasa) pan for cooking

maqle f. (Arab.) frying-pan

talma m. (pl. talme) (Kurd./Arab.) water pot

manjaloke f. (pl. manjalukyaha, manjalukyasa) (Kurd.) pail for

milk or yoghurt

kawaza f. (pl. kawaze) earthenware pot for water

kwara f. (pl. kwarane) storage bin for corn

lagana f. (pl. lagane) brass container for food

lina f. (pl. line) large conical-shaped pot

linta f. (pl. linyaha, linyasa) small conical-shaped pot

majmaʿa f. (pl. majmaʿe) (Arab.) tray

maṛəgla m. (pl. maṛəgle) brass pan for heating water

masina f. (pl. masine) earthenware or brass pot with spout, dish

for washing hands

qaṭxa m. (pl. qaṭxe) cup measure for grain and flour

 Lexical Items in the NENA Dialects of the Aqra Region  453

qapüla, qapula m. (pl. qapüle, qapule) a small measure used by

the owner of water-mill to measure out his share as a fee for
milling flour or sesame oil

qoqa m. (pl. qoqe) water pot

quqta f. (pl. quqyaha, quqyasa) small water pot

qasrika m. (pl. qasrike) (Kurd.) pot under a cradle for collecting

urine and excrement of a baby

ṣəṭla f. (pl. ṣəṭle) brass or aluminium bucket

seniyya f. (pl. seniyye) (Kurd./Arab.) large metal plate

senika f. (pl. senikyaha, senikyasa) (Kurd./Arab.) small metal plate

koka m. (pl. koke) large pot for cooking oil and fried meat

šarba f. (pl. šarbe) earthenware jug

šüša, šuša m. (pl. šüše, šuše) bottle

tănăka m. (pl. tănăke) tin

ṭašta f. (pl. ṭašyaha, tašyasa) (Kurd.) brass bowl (for kneading

dough)

lüliyya, luliyya m. (pl. lüliyye, luliyye) spout (on a pot)

kofka, kuwwa m. (pl. kuwwe) funnel

2.3. Cups and Glasses

glās m. (pl. glase) (Kurd./English) glass

kasa m. (pl. kase) chalice (in church)

stikana m. (pl. stikane) (Kurd.) small tea glass

samawar m. (Kurd.) samovar

bardaġ m. (pl. bardaġe) glass for drinking water

454 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

čapaste, čapaske f. (pl. čapaskyaha, čapaskyasa, čapastyaha,

čapastyasa) (Kurd.) teapot

2.3. Bags and Baskets

məziyya f. (pl. məziyaha, məziyasa) large skin bag for storing
grains

kisa m. (pl. kise) (Arab.) small bag of cloth for keeping grains

kista m. (pl. kisyaha, kisyasa) (Arab) small bag of cloth

buqča m. (pl. boqčəkyaha, buqčəkyasa) (Kurd.) a piece of cloth

used to carry or keep clothes

buqčəka (Nex.), buqčəksa (Sam.) m. (pl. boqčəkyaha, buqčəkyasa)

(Kurd.) small piece of cloth used to carry or keep clothes

čạ nṭa f. (pl. čạ nyaha, čạ nyasa) (Kurd.) shoulder bag

güza, guza m. (pl. güze, guze) skin bag for churning or carrying
liquids

širmaška m. (pl. širmaške) small skin bag for carrying milk

goniyya f. (pl. goniyye) (Arab.) sack (made of flax)

jawala f. (pl. jawalane) (Kurd.) sack (made of animal hair)

paṛuzun m. (Kurd.) woolen knapsack carried by women

pista f. (pl. pisyaha, pisyasa ) bag usually of sheep skin for keeping
cheese and jajək

qəṛṭala f. (pl. qəṛṭalane) pannier bag on the back of an animal

qupiyya, qupisa f. (pl. qupiyaha qupyasa) small pannier bag

ṭəryanta f. (pl. ṭəryanane) small basket tray used for bread or new-
born babies.

ṭəryana m. (pl. ṭəryanane) large basket tray used for storing bread
 Lexical Items in the NENA Dialects of the Aqra Region  455

gərba m. (pl. gərbe) conical basket for keeping bees

kurtana m. (pl. kurtanane) saddle-bag especially for donkeys

3. Miscellaneous Instruments and Tools

tarkəsana m. long wooden poker for stirring up the fire of an oven

baxošta f. (pl. baxošyaha, baxošyasa) big stirring spoon, ladle

ḅyaṭa m. (pl. ḅyaṭe) pickaxe

jalla m. (pl. jalle) long stick used for bringing down walnuts from
walnut trees

čakuč m. (pl. čakuče) (Kurd./Arab.) hammer

čamča f. (pl. čamče) spoon (made of wood)

čəngala f. (pl. čəngale) (Kurd.) fork

garoma m. (pl. garome) large wood rolling pin

garusta f. (pl. garosyaha, garusyasa) handmill

geṛa m. (pl. geṛe) long thin rolling pin

gəṛkə f. (pl. gəṛkaha, gəṛkasa) (Kurd.) handmill used to remove

husks from rice

jaʾoza f. (pl. jaʾoze) wood chopper

kanušta f. (pl. kanušyaha, kanuyasa) small broom, brush

kallax m. (pl. kallaxe) (Kurd.) sheep shears

kalbaṭān m. (pl. kalbṭane) (Kurd./Arab.) pincers

gupala f. (pl. gupale) (Kurd.) shepherd’s stick; walking stick

magla m. (pl. magle) sickle

magəsta f. (pl. magəsyaha, magəsyasa) small sickle

456 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

mandaṛüne, mandaṛune f. (pl. mandaṛunyaha, mandarunyasa)

roller for flattening roof

məqqara m. (pl. məqqare) gouge, chisel

məqqaṣ m. (pl. məqqaṣe) (Arab.) scissors

maṛa m. (pl. maṛe) metal spade with a piece of wood above the
metal part used to press the tool with the leg

maṛuwwa f. (pl. maṛuwwe) wooden spade for moving snow

maṛbəl f. (pl. maṛbele, maṛbəlyaha, maṛbəlyasa) metal spade

rušta f. wooden spade for cereals

mazraqa f. (pl. mazraqe) wooden stick covered in wool used to

stick bread to the oven

maṣəxwa m. (pl. maṣəxwe) metal scoop with a long handle to

carry embers or remove ash from ovens

masasa m. (pl. masase) long stick ending in one end with a goad
and the other with an iron blade used to goad oxen during
ploughing and to remove mud from the plough

maxətwa m. (pl. maxətwe) awl (with wooden handle)

məlġawa m. (pl. məlġawe) winnowing fork

daqṛa m. (pl. daqṛe) two-pronged winnowing fork

məšna f. (pl. məšne) whetstone for sharpening blades

məṣapyu f. strainer

ṣapuwwa f. (pl. ṣapuwwe) strainer

tarkəsana m. (pl. tarkəsane) wooden poker

nara m. (pl. nare) axe

nəsurta f. (pl. nəsuryaha, nəsuryasa) saw

 Lexical Items in the NENA Dialects of the Aqra Region  457

qaṭu m. big saw mounted on a wooden frame and handled by two

people to cut big tree trunks

gupala f. (pl. gupale) walking-stick

šawṭa m. (pl. šawṭe) long thin flexible stick used like a whip

maʿalləm čiči m. a cross-like shape covered with cloth to frighten

away birds in paddy fields and orchards

šapṛa m. (pl. šapṛe) large knife

beṭiyya f. (pl. beṭyaha, beṭyasa) small metal tool lie an adze for
digging up vegetables

xaṣṣina f. (pl. xaṣṣine) axe

xaššola m. (pl. xaššole) hand-held grinding stone for grinding rice

or wheat

maduxta f. a small horizontal stone mortar with a stone to crush

wet grains by rubbing them against the mortar by hand

xatoṛa m. (pl. xatoṛe) washing board

makinət xyaṭa f. sewing machine

4. Agriculture
4.1. Cultivated Land
ʾara f. (pl. ʾaraha, ʾarasa) ground, land

ʾaqaṛa m. (pl. ʾaqaṛe) area of open farmland

ʾəpra m. soil, ground; land

bayara f. land left without cultivation for one season

čamma m. (pl. čammane) large field near river; plantation

458 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

gwānda m. (pl. gawānde) boundary; strip between fields with no

cultivation to mark boundary

karma m. (pl. karmane) vineyard; orchard

marga m. (pl. margane) meadow

praza f. (pl. prazane, prazaha, prazasa) stubble field

txüba, txuba m. (pl. txübe, txu:be) boundary

zṛota f. planted vegitables and crops

4.2. Paddy Fields

sadda m. (pl. sadde) (Arab.) dammed section of paddy field
consisting of a row of basins

šella n.pl. (Kurd.) soft mud made in preparation for cultivation

of rice

makajo f. (pl. makajoye) section of a paddy field, paddy field basin

4.3. Irrigation
šaqiyya f. (pl. šaqyaha, šaqyasa) irrigation channel

darawe f. (pl. darawyaha, darawyasa) (Kurd.) dam put in an

irrigation channel (šaqiyya) to stop or redirect the flow of
water

ṣəkra m. (pl. ṣəkre) (Kurd.) dam put in an irrigation channel

(šaqiyya) to stop or redirect the flow of water

boṭəka f. (pl. boṭəkyaha, boṭəkyasa) long hollow tree trunk split in

two used to carry water across a water stream (šaqiyya)

kaṛṛaxa m. (pl. kaṛṛaxe) irrigation adminstrator, who was

concerned principally with regulating the flow of water in a
water channel (šaqiyya)
 Lexical Items in the NENA Dialects of the Aqra Region  459

4.4. Harvest and Storage

ġzada f. harvest

bədṛa f. (pl. bədṛaha, bədṛasa) threshing floor

gurza m. (pl. gurze) large tied bundle of grass or produce (usually

wheat)

qapla m. (pl. qaple) an arm-full amount of grass, produce

dwara m. threshing of grains by animals on the threshing floor

gdiša m. (pl. gdiše) pile of harvested rice, wheat or sesame

kartət ṛəzza f. (pl. karahət rəzza, karasət rəzza ) load of harvested

rice carried on the back in a piece of cloth

dṛaya m. to winnow, to separate threshed wheat from straw with

wind and rakes

qayne m. metal finger covers worn by harvesters

səmmala f. (pl. səmmale) small bundle of grass or produce

ṭaṛpa m. tree (oak) leaves for winter

ṭaṛpušna m. fallen tree leaves

deqa f. (pl. deqaha, deqasa) stack of twigs with leaves or harvested

rice stalks for animal fodder in winter

deqət ṭaṛpa f. (pl. deqahət ṭaṛpa, deqasət ṭaṛpa) stack of oak tree
twigs with leaves built around a pole for animal fodder in
winter

deqət balma f. (pl. deqahət balma, deqasət balma) stack of harvested

bundles of rice stalks built around a wood pole or animal
fodder in winter

taxa m. (pl. taxe) pile, untied bundle of grass and leaves

460 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

btüne, btune m. storage bin for straw

parta f. removed rice husks

püška, puška m. (Kurd.) rice grains with husks

4.5. Plough and Ploughing

bzara f. (pl. bzarane) plough

nira m. (pl. nire) yoke

lata f. (pl. latəkyaha, latəkyasa) furrow

latəka f. (pl. latəkyaha, latəkyasa) small furrow

psana f. a ploughed unit of land

šapna f. instrument made of oak twigs for smoothing ground after

ploughing and sowing

4.6. Sieves and Sieving

maxəlta f. (pl. maxəlyaha, maxəlyasa) sieve with small holes (for
flour)

ʾərbala f. (pl. ʾərbale, ʾərbalane) sieve with medium sized holes

sarada m. (pl. sarade) (Kurd./Arab.) sieve with large holes (for

corn)

parta f. husks remaining in sieve after sieving

dəqqa m. fine particles of grains (especially rice) after pounding

them in a stone mortar

5. Sewing, Weaving and Spinning

5.1. Sewing
xyaṭa to sew
 Lexical Items in the NENA Dialects of the Aqra Region  461

xayyaṭa m. (pl. xayyaṭe) (Arab.) tailor

xayyaṭṭa f. (pl. xayyaṭe) (Arab.) seamstress

makinət xyaṭa f. sewing machine

xmaṭa f. (pl. xmaṭyaha, xmatyasa) needle

ʾurtəxa f. (pl. ʾurtəxe, ʾurtəxyaha, ʾurtəxyasa) long needle

qaṭwa m. (pl. qaṭwe) large wooden needle

sənjaqa f. (pl. sənjaqe) crochet-hook

kəštaban f. thimble

gzaza, gdada (At.) m. (pl. gzaze, gdade) thread

bakara m. (pl. bakare) spool for thread

keliyya m. (pl. keliyye) loose stitch used to join pieces of fabric

together in a preliminary fashion before they are sewed with
the final stitching

pṛaṭa to undo a stitching by pulling apart the two sides of the

stitched cloth

5.2. Weaving
zqaṛa to weave, to knit

zəqṛa m. (pl. zəqṛe) weaving, woven product

5.3. Spinning
ʾzala to spin (wool)

ʾəzla m. yarn

küša, kuša m. (pl. küše, kuše) spindle (hanging from a distaff )

462 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

masərqa m. (pl. masərqe) large comb for carding wool

gəgla m. (pl. gəgle) skein (of wool, thread) spun on a spool

6. Hunting
lāstika f. (pl. lāstike) sling

zwəlla m. (pl. zwəlle) an elastic strip with which the sling is tied
to the pronged piece of wood used for making slings

kawla m. (pl. kawle) piece of leather fastened to the sling where

the round stone is put and fired at birds

dənjama f. (pl. denjama) (Kurd.) screen behind which hunters

hide to shoot birds

ṭappəka, ṭappəksa f. (pl. ṭappəkyaha, ṭappəkyasa) trap for partridges

and sparrows consisting of a broad stone that falls down on
a pit once the bird steps on the trigger supporting the stone.

ṭaḷḷe f. (pl. ṭaḷḷaha, ṭaḷḷasa) metal springed animal trap

tăfaqa f. (pl. tăfaqe) rifle

qeṛma f. (pl. qeṛme) shotgun

7. Fires
nüra, nura m. fire

manqušta f. (pl. manqušyaha, manqušyaha) metal instrument for

striking fire on flint

kepət manqušta m. flint used to strike fire with metal instrument

known as manqušta

lata f. flame
 Lexical Items in the NENA Dialects of the Aqra Region  463

črüska, čruska m. (pl. črüske, črüska) (Kurd.) spark

tənna m. smoke

palla m. (pl. palle) (Kurd.) ember of burning wood

qəṭma m. ash

šəmṛa m.soot

šəxṛa m. soot that forms on the surface of cooking pots or chimnies

maṣəxwa f. (pl. maṣəxwe) metal scoop with a long handle to

remove soot from fire place, carry hot charcoal, or ember.

tarkəsana m. small wooden poker

bnüre, bnure m. fireplace, hearth

sekuča m. (pl. sekuče) (Kurd.) metal frame for cooking over a fire
with three legs

malhoye to burn, to be kindled

ṭpaya to kindle

draya nüra, nura b- gu- to set fire to (used in an abstract way), e.g.
drele nüra/nura gu-ləbbi ‘he set fire to my heart’ (= he made
me very sad)

ʾiqaza to burn, maqoze, mqaza ‘to set fire to’

yuqzana m. fuel

lwaxa to catch fire, to blaze, to get furious at somebody

baṭboṭe to fluctuate when burning from one extreme to another

qmaya to scorch (clothes) (tr. and intr.)

xraxa to singe

xərxa m. singed head, forearms and legs of animal for eating

šyara to stoke (fire)

464 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

tarkose to build up embers of a fire in order to keep it burning

ṭyaxa to die down (fire), maṭyoxe to dampen down (fire)

8. Clothes and Fabrics

8.1. General Clothes
bahitta f. (pl. bayaha, bayasa) men’s long sleeve hanging from a
white shirt down the hand, women’s long sleeves that can be
tied from behind above the buttocks.

gəṛwiyya, gəṛwisa f. (pl. gəṛwe) socks

bubba m. (pl. bubbe) the lower part of a woman’s shirt below the
breasts used as a pocket

jeba m. (pl. jebane) (Arab.) pocket (men)

gəfka m. (pl. gəfke) (Kurd.) tassel

šaḷa, m. (pl. šaḷe) (Kurd.) traditional thick cloth belt worn by

women

čarukta f. (pl. čarukyaha, čarukyasa) a traditional piece of cloth

worn around one side of the waist by women, usually with
sashes

šütka, šutka m. (pl. šütke, šutke) (Kurd.) a single strand of cloth

used as a belt by women, men’s traditional belt of a long piece
of cloth worn around the waist in layers.

qupča m. (pl. qupče) button

ziqa m. neck of a shirt

8.2. Men’s Clothes

kapanak m. (Kurd.) thick woolen cloak of shepherd

šərwala m. (pl. šərwalane) (Kurd.) trousers made from white cloth

 Lexical Items in the NENA Dialects of the Aqra Region  465

təka f. cord for trousers

qayiš m. (pl. qayiše) (Kurd.) leather belt

ṣudṛa f. (pl. ṣudraha, ṣudrasa) shirt

jamadani f. a decorated cloth made into rolls and tied around a

decorated hat

kusiyya, kusisa f. (pl. kusyaha, kusyasa) hat with a sash in the

middle usually worn under the traditional headdress called
jamadani

qabaya m. (pl. qabayane) (Kurd.) waistcoat

pašma=u barguzta (pl. pašma=u bargüze/barguze) (Kurd.)

traditional festive suit

saqa m. (pl. saqe) legging (covering lower leg)

šütka, šutka (pl. šütke, šutke) long cloth belt turned many times
around the waist

qundərta f. (pl. qundəre) shoes

8.3. Women’s Clothes

helaka m. (pl. helake ) waistcoat without sleeves

ṣudra f. (pl. ṣudraha, ṣudrasa) shirt

šala m. (pl. šale) (Kurd.) sash wrapped around waist

čarukta (pl. čarukyaha, čarukyasa) a traditional piece of cloth

worn around one side of the waist by women, usually with
sashes

dasmālka (pl. dasmālke) coloured piece of cloth worn by women

on head, handkerchief

pošiyya f. (pl. pošyaha, pošiyyasa) festive head dress

kusiyya f. (pl. kusyaha, kusyasa) hat worn under the pošiyya

466 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

xürət/xurət ṣudṛa m. long undergarment ending with a coloured

part above the feet)

qundərta f. (pl. qundəre) shoes

8.4. Shoes
liyane n.pl. snow shoes

pelawət lāstik n.pl. (Kurd.) rubber shoes

pelawta m. (pl. pelawe ) (Kurd.) shoes

qundərta f. (pl. qundəre) (Kurd./Turk.) leather shoes with heals

qaytan m. (pl. qaytane) shoe-lace

jazma f. (pl. jazma) long plastic shoes worn in winter

8.5. Fabrics
bara m. (pl. bare) (Kurd.) sheet

parča m. (pl. parče) (Kurd.) sheet of cloth

baza m. type of fabric

čapan f. white fabric

kənjəṛṛa m. (pl. kənjəṛṛe) (Kurd.) piece of (usually useless) cloth

čita m. (Kurd.) type of thin smooth fabric

čoxa f. (Kurd.) broadcloth, thick woolen fabric

grawa m. (Kurd.) off-white cotton fabric

ʾabresəm m. silk

jurjet m. type of velvet fabric

ləhefa m. (pl. ləhefe) (Kurd./Arab.) duvet

 Lexical Items in the NENA Dialects of the Aqra Region  467

nəqša m. embroidery

prasta f. cloth spread on floor on which food is laid, spread,

covering for floor (such as rug or carpet)

tatiyya m. (pl. tatiyye) mat made of compressed wool

maḥfərṭa f. (pl. maḥfəryaha, maḥfəryasa) (Kurd.) carpet

matraḥta f. (pl. matraḥyaha, matraḥyasa) (Arab.) small mat for

sitting

zəqṛa m. (pl. zəqṛe) woven fabric

gota f. a ball of woven thread

bakara m. (pl. bakare) (Arab.) spool

8.6. Ropes and Ties

xawla m. (pl. xawle) rope

xawəlta f. (pl. xawəlyasa, xawəlyaha) short rope

patəka f. (pl. patəkyaha patəkyasa) (Kurd.) short rope tethering an

animal to a stake, shorter than a xawəlta

hawsara m. (pl. hawsare) (Kurd.) rope for leading an animal

gzaza, gədda, gdāda (At.) m. (pl. gzāze gədde) string; thread

rəsta f. (pl. rəsyaha, rəsyasa) line (for hanging clothes)

səkka f. (pl. səkkake) tether

qəxṛa m. (pl. qəxṛe) knot

həmbaluqta f. (pl. həmbaluqyaha, həmbaluqyasa) loop, knot

(joining two pieces of rope)

hečiyya m. (pl. hečiyye) a pronged piece of (oak) wood to used as

a loop to tie loads on animals.
468 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Abbreviations

Nx. Nexla area

Sam. area South of the Aqra mountain

Bibliography

Coghill, Eleanor. 2008. ‘Some Notable Features in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic

Dialects of Iraq’. In Neo-Aramaic Dialect Studies, edited by Geoffrey Khan,
91–104. Piscataway: Gorgias.

Haig, Geoffrey, and Geoffrey Khan, eds. 2018. The Languages and Linguistics of
Western Asia: An Areal Perspective. The World of Linguistics 6. Berlin: De
Gruyter.

Khan, Geoffrey. 2008. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill.

Mutzafi, Hezy. 2000. ‘The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Maha Khtaya d-Baz.

Phonology, Morphology and Texts’. Journal of Semitic Studies 45 (2):
293–322.
 ARABIC LOANWORDS IN THE
NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF ANKAWA

Salam Neamah Hirmiz Hakeem

1. Introduction
The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Ankawa belongs to the North-Eastern
Neo-Aramaic (NENA) subgroup. It is spoken by a Christian
minority in the town adhering to the Chaldean Catholic Church,
who refer to it by the term Suret or Sureth. Ankawa is located
to the North of the city of Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan,
where Kurdish is the dominant means of communication.
Aramaic, the ancestor of Sureth, and Arabic are genetically
related in that they both belong to the Semitic language family.
As we shall see, however, this does not seem to be the primary
cause of the introduction of an extensive number of Arabic words
in the speech of the Sureth-speakers of Ankawa. This is because
there are so many more Arabic words in the speech of the young
than in that of the older generation. So the crucial factor must be
the current social situation rather than the linguistic affinity of
the two languages.

2. Research Data
The source of the majority of the data presented in this paper is
my own native-speaker knowledge of the Sureth of Ankawa. I
am also a speaker of Arabic as a second language. The data and
analyses have been verified through various audio recordings
of interviews and spontaneous conversations that have been
elicited from other native speakers of Ankawa Sureth of
different ages.

© Salam Neamah Hirmiz Hakeem, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0209.16

470 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

3. Findings and Discussion

Versteegh (2001, 473) states that:
In borrowing speakers are primarily interested in lexical items from
another language, which are either perceived to be more prestigious
than the lexical equivalents in their own language, or for which their
own language has no equivalents at all.

This seems to be true with regard to a large number of Arabic

loanwords that can be heard in the speech of the young Sureth-
speakers in Ankawa. The young generation have started to
consider Arabic as a more prestigious language than their mother
tongue on account of the wider use of Arabic and its richer
vocabulary. They have, moreover, studied academic subjects such
as physics and biology in Arabic and do not know equivalents to
the technical terminology in Sureth. The common genetic origin
of the two languages facilitates the process of borrowing, since
in many cases the Arabic loanwords do not sound very different
from their own native vocabulary, e.g.

Arabic Sureth
ḥub ḥubba ‘love’
zamān zawna ‘time’

It is not clear when exactly this process of borrowing started,

but we can deduce from the nature of the loanwords that the
Arabic public education and local television channels during
the middle of the twentieth century played a pivotal role in
initiating and facilitating this process. Although nowadays the
educational system has shifted to Kurdish instead of Arabic and
there is no immediately neighbouring Arab community, we
can still notice an increase in the use of Arabic loanwords by
the Sureth-speakers of Ankawa. This may be ascribed to the
remaining influence of schooling and education, which were
predominantly in Arabic until the end of the last century, in
addition to the television channels and other media that still
 Arabic Loanwords in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Ankawa  471

involve an extensive use of Arabic. As a result, most of the

technical words used in the region, including those used by other
sections of the population, such as Kurds, Turkmens, Yezidis,
are Arabic. Another more recent and prevailing source for more
Arabic loanwords is social media, such as Facebook, Instagram,
Snapchat and Twitter, in which Arabic is the predominant
means of communication.
It can be observed that in the majority of cases the Arabic
loanwords have not undergone any phonological changes. This is
in agreement with Thomason and Kaufman’s assumption that ‘the
more the borrowing speakers come to know the foreign language,
the more they tend to take over the foreign phonological elements
in an unadapted form’ (1988, cited in Versteegh, 2001, 476).
Furthermore, morphological borrowing occurs in loanwords,
particularly in the use of Arabic plural forms of nouns, whether
regular or broken, e.g. ʾiḥtimālāt ‘possibilities’ and ʾaḥwāl
‘conditions’. Sometimes borrowed Arabic nouns are used either
with their Arabic plural form or with the Sureth plural inflection
(see §4.1 below), e.g. kutub ~ kitābānə ‘books’.
The following sections present a classification and analysis
of the most common Arabic loanwords that I have noticed as
a native speaker in conversations and in the interviews with
Sureth-speakers in Ankawa. The source of loanwords is Modern
Standard Arabic rather than Iraqi dialectal Arabic. This is
because this is the variety of Arabic that the people of Ankawa
have been mostly exposed to. The counterpart of the Arabic
words in Ankawa Sureth is provided when available. In some
cases, however, there is no counterpart in Ankawa Sureth as far
as can be established.

4. Nouns
The vast majority of the Arabic nouns have been borrowed
into Sureth in their singular form without any modification or
inflection. Those for which a counterpart in Ankawa Sureth can
be identified include the following:
472 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Arabic Sureth
kalima tanēθa ‘word’
ḥayāt xāyə ‘life’
ḥub bʾāya ‘love’
ʾixtilāf šuxlāpa ‘difference’
fikir xušāwa ‘thought’
xawf zdōθa ‘fear’
tartīb msazgōrə ‘arrangement’
zamān zawna ‘time’
wajih poza ‘face’
ʿāʾila našwātha ‘family/
relatives’
nāḥiya dəpna ‘side/aspect’
šāb jwonqa ‘young man’
šābba xamθa ‘young woman’
sāʿa šēθa ‘hour’
faraḥ pəṣxūθa ‘joy’
ḥaṣād ġzāda ‘harvest’
najəm kawəxwa ‘star’
lāʿəb mṭaʿlāna ‘player’
muʿalim malpana ‘teacher’
ṭālib yālōpa ‘student’
xāliq bārōya ‘Creator’

Examples of borrowed Arabic nouns for which there is no

clear counterpart in Ankawa Sureth are the following:

fikra ‘idea’
ʿaqil ‘mind’
taqqabul ‘tolerance’
tafāhum ‘understanding’
suʾāl ‘question’
 Arabic Loanwords in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Ankawa  473

jawāb ‘answer’
xuṭṭa ‘plan’
ʾihmāl ‘negligence’
ḥurriya ‘freedom’
taḥrīr ‘release’
suhūla ‘ease’
qarār ‘decision’
silāḥ ‘weapon’
θiqa ‘trust’
ʾiḥtirām ‘respect’
xilāf ‘disagreement’
taqlīd ‘imitation’
taḍḥiya ‘sacrifice’
maqbara ‘cemetery’
muškila ‘problem’
marḥala ‘stage’
ṣabir ‘patience’
taḥammul ‘endurance’
nawʿ ‘sort’
ʿilim ‘science’
musāʿid ‘assistant’
qāḍi ‘judge’
maḥkama ‘court’
ḥāl ‘condition’
šikil ‘shape/image’

There are, however, also Arabic roots that are used with Sureth
noun patterns (especially as verbal nouns), e.g.

ʿarabana ‘wagon’
nəʿməta ‘grace’
474 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

ḥukīθa ‘tale’
ḍġaṭa ‘pressure/pressing’
mṣalōḥə ‘reconciliation’
mjarōbə ‘trial/testing’
mbadōlə ‘change/changing’
mḥarōkə ‘moving/
movement’
maqlōbə ‘turning over’
maxlōsə ‘saving/salvation’
mḥamōyə ‘protecting/
protection’
msafōrə ‘travelling’

In some both the original Arabic form and Arabic root with a
Sureth morphological pattern are used interchangeably, e.g.

ziyāda ~ zodāna ‘addition’

naqiṣ ~ nuqṣāna ‘shortage’
qiṣṣa ~ qəṣṣəta ‘story’
ṣura ~ ṣurta ‘picture’
ʾuʿjūba ~ ʿajibūθa ‘wonder’
xaṭīʾa ~ xṭīθa ‘sin’.

It is worth mentioning that the majority of borrowed nouns

retain their Arabic plural forms, whether sound feminine, sound
masculine or broken, e.g.

kalimāt ‘words’
taḍḥiyāt ‘sacrifices’
xilafāt ‘disagreements’
ḥurriyāt ‘freedoms’
qararāt ‘decisions’
 Arabic Loanwords in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Ankawa  475

muʿallimīn ‘teachers’
musāʿidīn ‘assistants’
lāʿibīn ‘players’
ʾasliḥa ‘weapons’
ʾafkār ‘ideas’
ʿuqūl ‘minds’
nujūm ‘stars’
ʾajwiba ‘answers’

There are also a few Arabic nouns that are modified and
inflected with Sureth plural suffixes, e.g.

zamānə ‘times’
maqbarə ‘cemeteries’

Moreover, we can also find various borrowed nouns that have

both the Arabic and Sureth plural forms, respectively, e.g.

sāʿāt ~ saʿāθa ‘hours’

xuṭaṭ ~ xuṭāθa ‘plans’
muškilāt ~ ‘problems’
muškilāθa
ʾaḥwāl ~ ḥālə ‘conditions’
ʾaškāl ~ šəklə ‘shapes/images’

5. Verbs
The Arabic verbs that are borrowed into Sureth involve an Arabic
root that is inflected with Sureth morphological patterns. In
what follows the verbs are cited in the form of the third person
singular masculine past form. In some cases there is a semantic
counterpart in the Sureth of Ankawa, e.g.
476 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Arabic Sureth
verbal root
trəklə šwəqlə ‘left/gave up’
mṭuwəllə yrəxlə ‘lengthened’
mduxəllə yəʾəllə ‘interfered’

In many cases, however, no exact counterpart in Ankawa

Sureth can be identified, e.g.

mufəqlə ‘agreed’
qnəʿlə ‘was persuaded’
msufērə ‘traveled
mḥuləllə ‘solved’
mkuməllə ‘completed’
mqurērə ‘decided’
mjuməʿlə ‘gathered’

Furthermore, Sureth speakers of Ankawa often use Arabic

nouns preceded or, more often, followed by a Sureth light verb
such as wədlə ‘did’ and wəllə ‘gave’ to produce compound verbs,
e.g.

Compound Sureth
verb
ʾistiʿmāl wədlə mupləxlə ‘used’
[use did]
ʾistirāḥa wədlə nəxlə ‘rested’
[rest did]

Examples of such hybrid compound verbs without clear

counterparts in Ankawa Sureth include the following:

taḥḥamul wədlə [endurance did] ‘endured’

ʾiʿlān wədlə [announcement did] ‘announced’
 Arabic Loanwords in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Ankawa  477

jawāb wəllə [answer gave] ‘answered’

ʾiḥtirām wəllə [respect gave] ‘respected’

The Sureth of Ankawa has a basic SVO word order. Such

compound verbs, however, generally have the light verb after the
object and this suggests that their syntax has been influenced by
Kurdish. Sureth speakers in Ankawa also know the local Kurdish,
which is an SOV language. In Kurdish also compound verbs with
borrowed Arabic nouns and light verbs are in use. The light verb
is regularly placed after the noun, in accordance with the normal
Kurdish word order, e.g.

taḥammuli kərd [endurance did] ‘endured’

jawābi da [answer gave] ‘answered’

Arabic verbs with Arabic morphological inflection are

occasionally used in Sureth. One example is the expression of
attitude ʾaʿtaqid ‘I think’, the Sureth counterpart for which is
xəšboni.

6. Adjectives
In Arabic the singular masculine is the basic form of the adjective.
It is this form that is borrowed by speakers of Ankawa Sureth and
used in all contexts, e.g.

Arabic Sureth
ʿaṣabi ʿīqa ‘nervous/angry’
mayyit mīθa ‘dead’
ḥay bəxāy ‘alive’
saʿīd pṣīxa ‘happy’
waḥīd l-xōde ‘alone’
478 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Examples of loaned Arabic adjectives without exact Sureth

counterparts include:

rəṣaṣi ‘grey’
burtuqāli ‘orange [colour]’
muḥtaram ‘respectful’
kāmil ‘complete’
ʾiʿtiyādi ‘normal’
mumkin ‘possible’
mustaḥīl ‘impossible’
mutʾakkid ‘certain’
mašġūl ‘busy’
majbūr ‘obliged’
baṣīṭ ‘simple’
ṣarīḥ ‘frank’

Sabar (1984, 206) states that in Neo-Aramaic dialects in

general ‘native adjectives agree with the qualified noun or
pronoun in singular masculine and feminine, but in plural the
masculine form serves both masculine and feminine . . . but
in the case of borrowed adjectives, the singular masculine is
used invariably with all four categories.’ The same agreement
patterns are found in the Sureth of Ankawa. For instance,
when using native adjectives, we find examples such as ʾubra
yarīxa ‘tall boy’, brāta yarixta ‘tall girl’, nāšə yarīxə ‘tall people’.
However, when using Arabic loanwords, we would hear forms
like ʾubra baṣīṭ ‘simple boy’, brāta baṣīṭ ‘simple girl’, nāšə baṣīṭ
‘simple people’.
To produce the comparative form, the Ankawa Sureth speakers
use the word bəš ‘more’ followed by the borrowed adjectives,
e.g. bəš baṣīṭ ‘more simple’, bəš ṣarīḥ ‘more frank’. Sometimes,
however, they apply the Arabic comparative morphological
pattern to the loaned adjective, e.g.
 Arabic Loanwords in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Ankawa  479

Arabic Sureth
ʾakθar bəš kabīra ‘more in
number/
amount’
ʾaqall bəš qəṣa ‘less in number/
amount’
ʾajmal bəš čalabi ‘more beautiful’

7. Adverbs
Ankawa Sureth uses borrowed Arabic adverbs of time, place, and
manner, e.g.

Arabic Sureth
marrāt naqlāθa ‘sometimes’
dāʾiman kud-ga ‘always/every time’
baʿdēn m-xardax ‘later’
xāṛij baṛay ‘abroad/outside’
taqrīban qarīwa mən ‘roughly’

Cases where there are no clear Sureth equivalents include:

ṭabʿan ‘certainly’
ʾiḥtimāl ‘maybe/probably’
fajʾatan ‘suddenly’
rajaʾan ‘please’ (used when
asking for a favour)

As we can see above, most of the adverbs of manner are

expressed by nouns in the accusative case (cf. Sabar 1984, 206).
There are also various loaned Arabic adverbs of manner that are
composed of nouns preceded by prepositions, e.g.
480 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

fī ḥāl ‘in case’

ʿala lʾakθar ‘most probably’
ʿalā šarṭ ‘on a condition’
ʿalā ġafla ‘all of a sudden’
bi-lʿakis ‘on the contrary’
biz-zōr ‘by force’
bilā dāʿi ‘without (good)
reason’
bilā zaḥma ‘without
annoyance’ (used
when asking for a
favour = Sureth
zaḥmə l-oya).

Some of these are used as heads of adverbial clauses, e.g.

fī ḥāl xzelux izdiḥām, dor

‘In case you see crowding, return.’

8. Function Words
In addition to the extensive lexical borrowing that has been
demonstrated above, various instances of borrowing of
grammatical function words can be also found.
Many such borrowed function words are conjunctions or
discourse markers, e.g.

liʾannahu ‘because’
maʿa ʾannahu ‘although’
bas/lākin ‘but’
bi-mā ʾannahu ‘as long as’
maθalan ‘for example’
 Arabic Loanwords in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Ankawa  481

Arabic ordinal numerals are another group of loanwords that

are widely used, especially by the young generation, in preference
to the equivalent Sureth forms. This applies to the ordinals first
to tenth:

Arabic Sureth
ʾawwal qamāya ‘first’
θāni dət-tre ‘second’
θāliθ dət-ṭlāθa ‘third’
rābiʿ dət ʾarba ‘fourth’ etc.

For the ordinal numerals of eleventh and above only the

Sureth forms are in use, e.g.

dət-xadesar ‘eleventh’
dət-tresar ‘twelfth’
dət-ʾəmma ‘hundredth’
dət-ʾalpa ‘thousandth’.

It is noteworthy that the Arabic forms precede nouns, in

accordance with Arabic grammar, whereas the Sureth forms
follow the nouns, e.g.

Arabic Sureth
ʾawwal ḥub ḥub qamāya ‘first love’.

Other modifiers relating to ordering and addition that are

loaned in Sureth are the following:

Arabic Sureth
ʾāxir xarāya ‘last’
ġēr xənna ‘other’
482 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

The borrowed and native forms follow the same patterns as

above, e.g.

Arabic Sureth
ʾāxir šuma šuma xarāya ‘last name’.

9. The Future of Ankawa Sureth

Khan (2007, 106–7) states that after the Arab conquests most of
the Aramaic speakers of Iraq either started to adopt Arabic, or their
speech was gradually Arabicised. Although the transition from
Aramaic to Arabic was in some cases slow, this was a continuous
process which was fastest in the central and southern areas of
Iraq. Spoken Aramaic mostly survived among the Christian and
Jewish communities in the North of Iraq.
Ankawa is one of the towns in the North where this language
has survived to this day. Will, however, this situation remain the
same in the future?
Versteegh (2001, 501–2) states that in various cases ‘Arabic
was taken over [by speakers] in the same process of acculturation
that brought Islam, and in most areas Arabic became at first the
second, and then the first language of the inhabitants.’ Unlike the
situation in such cultures, the Sureth speakers of Ankawa seem
to have borrowed the Arabic words without being influenced
by the Arab Islamic culture, either because they have retained
their Christian faith or because they have been influenced by the
communist thought that prevailed in the eighties and nineties of
the last century as well as the atheistic ideas that are becoming
globally more prevalent. The situation is similar to various
Christian minorities in the Middle East where, as Bohac (2010,
24) puts it, ‘most existing Christian groups resisted Islamization,
but they cannot resist Arabization.’
Versteegh points out that in several situations where there
was an extensive borrowing and interaction between a minority
language and Arabic within Arabic-speaking regions, the
 Arabic Loanwords in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Ankawa  483

minority language became extinct. This applied, for example,

to Coptic in Egypt. In fact, this has already happened to many
former Sureth speakers in the city of Mosul, who have almost
lost not only Sureth their mother tongue but also their identity as
Syriacs, since the majority believe that they are Christian Arabs.
In reality, the current displacement of these Arabic-speaking
Christians from Mosul to Ankawa in the wake of the invasion
of ISIS and their fear of returning due to the relative instability
of the region has created a new status quo that adds an extra
pressure on Sureth speakers in Ankawa, who have no choice
but to use Arabic most of the time when they are outside. Thus,
gradually and subconsciously, they are replacing more and more
Sureth words with Arabic ones. Besides, many Ankawi families
have emigrated to Europe, the USA or Australia because of the
instability of the region. This has created even further pressure
on this vulnerable dialect.
Could what happened to Mosul be repeated in Ankawa if
the rate of the Arabic loanwords continues to increase with the
coming generations, or will they be speaking a hybrid variety
that basically has Arabic lexical items inflected with Sureth
morphology?

10. Conclusion
O’Connor (1986, 220) states that ‘the vast majority of loans in
any language are nouns.’ As it can be seen from the material that
is presented above, nouns make up the majority of the Arabic
loanwords in the Sureth of Ankawa. The next most common set
of loanwords are Arabic verbal roots and Arabic nouns within
compound verbal constructions with light verbs. Adjectives
follow as the third group of loanwords in terms of their frequency
and adverbs are the last.
In addition to the extensive borrowing of Arabic content
words, Ankawa Sureth speakers have borrowed various Arabic
function words, such as conjunctions and ordinals, which have
become integral parts of the dialect.
484 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

It is interesting that though Ankawa is within the confines of

a neighbouring Kurdish-speaking community, Ankawa Sureth is
full of Arabic loans and has only a relatively small number of
Kurdish ones. This is a result of the fact that education was entirely
in Arabic until the last decade. This is reflected in particular in
the fact that most of the Arabic loanwords are technical terms
used in education, which in general do not have any counterparts
in Ankawa Sureth. Another more recent source for these Arabic
loanwords are the media, especially television programmes and
social media, such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and Twitter,
in which Arabic is the major means of communication. Moreover,
the recent displacement of many Arabic-speaking Christians from
Mosul to Ankawa has added a new stimulus for borrowing. This
has been accompanied by the immigration of numerous Ankawi
people abroad, making the situation even more difficult for
Sureth to thrive.
Could this dialect survive under the pressure of the increasing
number of Arabic words used by the new generation in Ankawa?
As a matter of fact, there have been several attempts to encourage
the use of Sureth vocabulary and reduce the number of Arabic
loanwords, but they do not seem to have had any effect on the
increasing preference for the use of Arabic words, which are
considered more expressive and versatile. The proportion of
Arabic loanwords is, therefore, constantly increasing and the
Sureth of Ankawa should be considered an endangered dialect
of NENA.

References

Boháč, Artur. 2010. ‘Problems of Studying Christian Minorities in the Islamic

Middle East’. Folia Geographica 15: 15–26.

Khan, Geoffrey. 2007. ‘Aramaic in the Medieval and Modern Periods’. In

Languages of Iraq, Ancient and Modern, edited by Nicholas Postgate, 95–114.
Cambridge: The British School of Archaeology in Iraq.

O’Connor, Michael. 1986. ‘The Arabic Loanwords in Nabatean Aramaic’. Journal

of Near Eastern Studies 45 (3): 213–29.
 Arabic Loanwords in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Ankawa  485

Sabar, Yona. 1984. ‘The Arabic Elements in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic Texts
of Nerwa and ʿAmādīya, Iraqi Kurdistan’. Journal of the American Oriental
Society 104 (1): 201–211.

Versteegh, Kees. 2001. ‘Linguistic Contacts between Arabic and Other

Languages’. Arabica 48 (4): 470–508.
 LANGUAGE LOSS IN THE ṢŪRAYT/
ṬŪRŌYO-SPEAKING COMMUNITIES OF
THE DIASPORA IN SWEDEN

Sina Tezel

1. Ṭūr ʿAbdīn―the Language Situation

Before describing the state of Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo in the diaspora in
Sweden, I shall give a brief account of the language situation in
Ṭūr ʿAbdīn (SE Turkey) by way of background.
Nowadays, there are only a few villages, where the population
speak only Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo. These are Mīdən, Bsōrīno, Sāre
(returning people from the diaspora), Bēqusyōno, Dayro du-ṣlībo
(a few families), Kafro, Xarābāle and the villages around Xarābāle,
namely Arbo, Eḥwo, Bādəbe, Kharabemiška.
The current inhabitants of Kafro, with its impressive newly
built houses, consist of only returning people. It was previously
completely uninhabited due to migrations to Europe. The same is
more or less true of the aforementioned villages around Xarābāle.
The only village in the area known as Rāyīte that has remained
inhabited is Xarābāle, nowadays also known as Arkaḥ among
Suryōye (i.e. the Christian speakers of Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo).
There are also a few villages that each have a few Ṣūrayt/
Ṭūrōyo-speaking families but where the majority of the population
are Kurds. These are: Mzīhaḥ, ʿIwardo, Kfarze and Anḥəl. Finally,
there is the chief town in the area, Məḏyaḏ (Midyat), where today
the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo-speakers are mixed. They consist of families
who speak the original Məḏyaḏ dialect and Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo-
speaking families who have moved to Məḏyaḏ from different
villages around it.

© Sina Tezel, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0209.17

488 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

2. Dialectal Differences
As is the case with any language, there were and are dialectal
differences in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo. What is noteworthy about this
dialectal diversity is that the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo language area is
relatively small. Two villages only two kilometres apart from each
other may have dialectal differences. The rural village dialects
as a whole can, however, be classified together in a group that
contrasts with the urban dialect of Məḏyaḏ.
Many of the dialectal differences in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo are due
to influences from the neighbouring languages such as Arabic,
Kurdish and Turkish. Geographically, Ṭūr ʿAbdīn is surrounded
by the Mesopotamian Arabic dialect area and Kurdish-speaking
villages. Among the Arabic dialects in the area the dialect of
Mardin, the chief town, was and still is the most important
one. Between Mardin and Ṭūr ʿAbdīn there are several Arabic-
speaking centres, including, among others, Bnēbīl, Ṣawro,
Maʿsarte and Qeleṯ. Around Ṭūr ʿAbdīn, especially near Məḏyaḏ,
one finds the Mḥallami-Arabic dialects, which are spoken today
only by Muslims. Beyond Mīdən eastwards there were three
Arabic dialects, namely Āzəx, Espes and Bābake, whose original
population consisted of Suryōye. There are also some Kurdish-
speaking villages in Ṭūr ʿAbdīn, namely Kerburan, ʿArbāye, Ḥaḥ,
Kafro ʿĒlayto and Yardo, all had Suryōyo inhabitants. Today,
among these villages only Ḥaḥ is populated by Suryōye, who
today also speak Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo alongside Kurdish.
We do not know with any certainty what the historical depth
was of the aforementioned influence on Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo. An
interesting statement concerning this question is found in Ritter
(1967, *19*).1 He refers to his informant Besim Akdemir speaking

1 See Ritter (1967, *19*) writing:

Der Metropolit von Mardin, Ḥasyo Ḥanna Dölapönü, sagte Besim Akdemir,
der ihn danach fragte, der Einfluß des Arabischen und Kurdischen habe
im 12. jahrhundert eingesetzt. Der Patriarch ‫ع‬azîz bar Sabṯo (Ignaz VII,
1466–1488, Spuler, Die Morgenländischen Kirchen, Leipzig 1964, p. 214)
habe den Gebrauch der fremden Sprachen verboten, sei aber damit nicht
 Language Loss in the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo-speaking Communities  489

to Ḥasyo Yuḥanon Dolabani saying that the influence from Arabic

and Kurdish began during the 13th century and, as a consequence
of this, the Patriarch Aziz Bar Sabṯo tried to forbid the people
from speaking foreign languages (Arabic and Kurdish), but then
it was too late since they had already lost many native words.
With this background, I shall now examine the current
language situation in the diaspora. To the best of my knowledge,
no systematic studies have been of this topic, so we cannot
establish the full details. We can, however, obtain a general
picture.

3. The Challenge of New Social and Cultural

Terminology
The Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo-lexicon in Ṭūr ʿAbdīn was characterised by
agricultural, narrative and religious terms. During the 1960s and
the 1970s the majority of Suryōye migrated from Ṭūr ʿAbdīn,
mostly first to Istanbul and then to different countries in Western
Europe. Previously, emigration from Ṭūr ʿAbdīn was mostly to
the Arabic-speaking countries in the region, especially Syria,
Lebanon and Iraq.
The emigration after the 1950s was far more intense than the
earlier trend of emigration. It took place during a short period
and resulted in the emptying of Ṭūr ʿAbdīn of the majority of
Suryōye. Furthermore, the migrants settled in countries that were
far more advanced than Ṭūr ʿAbdīn and the neighbouring areas in
terms of their economic, political, cultural, social, technological
and educational development.
In their new countries of residence in Western Europe the
Suryōyo community became familiar with the concept of ‘mother
tongue education’ and for the first time in their history Syriac
and Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo were taught in official schools. This was an
unexpected event in their history.

durchgedrungen. Man habe damals schon viele syrische Worte vergessen

und statt dessen fremde gebraucht.
490 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

One serious challenge was the need to find linguistic

equivalents to the social and cultural terminology of the Western
European countries. This was difficult for a minority group from
countries with very different social systems.2

4. Neologisms
During the period in which the Suryōyō community has been
in the diaspora many neologisms have been formed. There was
a need to create terms for the new cultural phenomena that
the Suryōye encountered in Western European societies. These
neologisms were formed almost entirely from lexical items of
literary Western Syriac, which were given new meanings. As
a result they were not considered as borrowings into Ṣūrayt/
Ṭūrōyo.
A situation of diglossia similar to that between Modern
Standard Arabic and Arabic dialects exists between Western
Syriac and Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo. The Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo speakers in general
view Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo as the everyday language of communication,
while they consider Western Syriac as the prestigious cultural
and ecclesiastical language.
A large number of such neologisms are in use today in
Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo. Most of these probably did not exist before the
1950s, judging by their absence in Ritter’s Ṭūrōyo collection.
They appear to have been first introduced at the beginning of
the 1970s, when Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo-speakers began to emigrate to
Sweden and other Western European countries. The formation
of their own clubs and associations in these countries, and the
publication of their own newsletters and magazines have played
an important role. They did not have the freedom to engage in
such communal activities to the same extent in their homeland.
The exact number of neologisms and their diffusion among the
Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo-speakers are not known. At any rate, it is clear
that the neologisms are used by purists in clubs and associations,
in television programs and in newspapers. They are disseminated

2 Ehrnebo (2013, 174–175).

 Language Loss in the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo-speaking Communities  491

through these means. These neologisms in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo have

been created not only for describing new phenomena in society
but also to replace foreign words.3

5. Language Loss
While the language has acquired many neologisms, the use of
which is prestigious among the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo speakers, the
language has at the same time lost or is in the process of losing
many native words.

5.1. Dialect Mixing and the Loss of Dialectal Diversity

The dialectal differences found in Ṭūr ʿAbdīn do not exist in a
consistent manner in the diaspora. A Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo-speaking
community in a Swedish or a German town consists of people
from very different dialectal areas. Consequently, the children
born in these circumstances learn and develop their mother
tongue in a linguistically mixed environment.
The mixing of the dialects results in a more homogenous
language, which is an advantage for the diaspora communities.
It has, however, the regrettable consequence of the loss of much
dialectal native vocabulary.
I present here a few examples demonstrating the dialectal
differences pertaining to the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo lexicon in Ṭūr ʿAbdīn:

(1) ‘street’

There are four dialectal words for the word ‘street’, namely šūqo
(Mīdən), bašqūqo (Bēqusyōno and Bsōrīno), basyōġo (Rāyīte) and
zābūqo. The last one is a borrowing from local Arabic into the
dialect of Məḏyaḏ, while the others are native words found in
the village dialects. Today šūqo has a new common meaning in
the diaspora, namely ‘a market place, a shopping centre’. The

3 For details and treatment of a great numbers of these neologisms, see S.

Tezel (2015, 100–109).
492 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo-speakers in the diaspora use darbo for ‘street’,

which used to refer to a road outside the villages in Ṭūr ʿAbdīn.

(2) ‘axe’

There are at least three words for ‘axe’, nargo, ʿašfo ~ ʿaǧfo and
maʿwōlo. The last of these, which is derived from Arabic miʿwāl,
is used in the Rāyīte-dialects.4

(3) ‘water-pitcher’

At least three dialectal words gḏōno (< *kaddōnō), mxōlo (<

Western Syriac mḵōrō?) and ǧarra (Arabic) denote a normal
‘water-pitcher’, a smaller one being termed dgušto (cf. NENA
gādušta and Levantine Arabic dakkūše) in Məḏyaḏ and kädūne in
villages.5

(4) ‘vineyard guard’

The word for ‘vineyard guard’ is nōṭūro in most dialects. Some

dialects use the word naḥtōr, which is a loan from Kurdish. The
Kurdish word is, in turn, a loan from Arabic nāṭōr, which itself
is a loan from earlier Aramaic nāṭōrā.6 The form naḥtōr is in the
process of disappearing in the diaspora.

(5) ‘to buy’

The verb for ‘to buy’, zwənle, which used to be common to all the
village dialects in Ṭūr ʿAbdīn, is in the process of being replaced
by šqīle, which was and still is a typical Məḏyaḏ-word in Ṭūr
ʿAbdīn. Nowadays šqīle is the common word for ‘to buy’ among
almost all Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo speakers in the diaspora.

(6) ‘hair’

In Ṭūr ʿAbdīn, the village dialects use(d) the word ṣaʿro (< *saʿrō)
for denoting ‘hair’, while Məḏyaḏ uses sawko. In the diaspora the

4 For details, see A. Tezel (2003, 175).

5 For details, see A. Tezel (2003, 161–163).
6 For details, see A. Tezel (2003, 178).
 Language Loss in the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo-speaking Communities  493

use of ṣaʿro among the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo speakers from the villages

has decreased and they tend to use instead the Məḏyōyo word
sawko.

(7) ‘good’

There is a similar situation with regard to the words for ‘good’,

namely ṭōwo in the village dialects and kāyīso in the dialect of
Məḏyaḏ. Though the word ṭōwo is native and kāyīso is foreign,
the foreign word kāyīso is in the process of being adopted even
among the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo speakers from the villages.

5.2. The Loss of Original Lexemes and Semantics

(1) ‘to change’

The village dialects in Ṭūr ʿAbdīn used the native verb mḥālafle
‘to change’. Today in the diaspora this has almost entirely been
replaced by three foreign verbs, namely mġāyarle, mbādēle and
mdāgašle. The first two are of Arabic origin and the last one is of
Turkish origin.

(2) ‘to flee’

Likewise, the native verb ‘to flee, run away’, ʿārəq, has been
replaced by the foreign verb mahzamle, which is of Arabic origin.
The use of the native word ʿārəq was restricted to a few dialects in
Ṭūr ʿAbdīn and the foreign word mahzamle seems to have entered
some varieties in Ṭūr ʿAbdīn at an early date.

(3) ‘to close’

The native verb for ‘to close’, ṣxərle, was a common word in Ṭūr
ʿAbdīn. Today many Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo speakers living in or coming
from Turkey have replaced it with the Turkish foreign verb
mqāpaṭle.
494 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(4) ‘to be informed’

A common expression that used to be in wide use and can still

be heard in the speech of the older generation is ʿal ū-mamro,
‘according to what I have heard/been informed’. Today, the
expression in question has been replaced by two foreign words.
Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo speakers from Turkey use gōya/gūya and those
from Arabic-speaking countries use ʿala bana.

(5) ‘to be surprised’

The word expressing surprise, dūmōro, and its verb mdāmar

(mostly used with first personal pronouns mdāmarno/mdamrōno)
has been replaced by the Arabic ʿəǧbo and its verb mʿāǧabno/
mʿaǧbōno.

(6) fulḥōno ‘an arable land’ > ‘political activities’

Sometimes a word loses its original meaning and acquires a new

meaning in the diaspora. A case in point is fulḥōno. Today it
usually denotes ‘activities’ in an association or ‘political activities’
in general in the diaspora. In Ṭūr ʿAbdīn the word denoted ‘an
arable land’.

(7) ḥāṣo ‘back; belt’ > ‘back’

In some cases the semantic range of a word is restricted. For

example, ḥāṣo had both the meaning ‘back’ and also the meaning
‘a belt of cloth’ in Ṭūr ʿAbdīn. In the diaspora, however, the
younger generation is only aware of the meaning ‘back’.

5.3. Phraseology and Idioms

Each language contains cultural-specific metaphors, phrases
alluding to historical events or religious and social phenomena.
Such phraseology is conditioned by the physical, cultural and
religious environment of the language community. This is best
described by the following quote in an article by Fishman (1996)
entitled ‘What do you lose when you lose your language?’, where
he (ibid., 72) writes:
 Language Loss in the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo-speaking Communities  495

Take it [language] away from the culture, and you take away its
greetings, its curses, its praises, its laws, its literature, its songs, its
riddles, its proverbs, its cures, its wisdom, its prayers.

In the case of Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo, the language has not entirely

been extracted from its culture and religion, but it has been
removed from its physical environment, which has influenced
the language in different ways. I shall demonstrate this by a few
illustrative examples.
In Ṭūr ʿAbdīn, for example, stones were a very important
feature of life and constituted a crucial building material. This
is evident from the phrases people formed with the word for ‘a
stone’ kēfo, for instance:

(1) hāwən kēfo w-kalšo

became.they stone and-lime

‘They became inseparable friends.’ (Literally: ‘They

became stone and lime.’)

The phrase is, of course, used figuratively. It is used when you

are very good friends. The phrase dāʿīri hāwən kēfo w-kalšo can
also be used when one is on bad terms with another person and
then find their way back to each other, dāʿīri meaning literally
‘they returned’.
When one built houses, the most important components were
stone and lime and then people experienced concretely how
stone and lime were composed:

(2) mḥē-le kēfe mīn-e

threw-he stones at (from)-him

‘to insult someone in an indirect way’ (Literally: ‘He

threw stones at him.’)
496 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(3) hawyō-no kēfo kamto lō səm-le b-dīḏ-i

became-I stone black not did-he in-my (mine)

‘Whatever I did, he did not do as I said.’ (Literally: ‘I

became a black stone and he did not do in accordance
with me.’)

(4) ʾī-kēfo yāqurto b-dukṯ-a ṭawtō=yo

the-stone heavy in-place-its good=is

‘The value of a person lies in his serious-mindedness.’

(This was said of a person who does not laugh or smile,
literally: ‘The heavy stone is good in its place.’)

In Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo body parts are used in the formation of

metaphorical phrases. Many such phrases contain the words lēbo
‘heart’ and mēne (pl.) ‘hair’ (or manṯo ‘a single hair’). For example:

(5) m-ū lēbo (kəmmət)

from-the heart saying.you

‘Are you serious? (Literally: ‘[Are you saying] from the

heart?’)’

(6) twər-le lēb-e

broke-he heart-his

‘He hurt his feelings.’ (Literally: ‘He broke his heart.’)

(7) lat-le lēbo

is.not-to.him a heart

‘He does not feel like it.’ (Literally: ‘He does not have
a heart.’)
 Language Loss in the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo-speaking Communities  497

(8) lēb-e qīṣ

heart-his was.cut

‘He is suspicious.’ (literally: ‘His heart was cut.’ )

(9) ʾāṯi mēne b-līšōn-i

came.he hair on-tongue-my

‘I am sick of saying it over and over again.’ (Literally:

‘Hair came on my tongue.’)

(10) kō-ṣōləḥ ʾī-manṯo

ind-he.splits the-hair

‘He is very clever.’ (Literally: ‘He splits the single hair.’)

Religion played and still plays an important part in the life of

the Suryōye and there are many phrases relating to this, such as:

(11) šubḥo l-ālo

praise to-God

‘Oh my God!’ (Literally: ‘Praise be to God!’)

(12) ʾālo ṭōrē-l-ux

God keep-acc-you

‘May God keep you!’

(13) moryo w-aq-qādīše hōwən ʾaʿm-ux

Lord and-the-saints be.they with-you

‘May the Lord and the saints be with you!’

498 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

(14) mḥālaq-le rūḥe qəm raġl-e d-ū-qādīšo

threw-he himself at feet-his of-the-saint

‘He sought protection or help from the saint by [visiting

his tomb or church].’ (Literally: ‘He threw himself at
the feet of the saint.’)

Many oaths of a religious content were used in the community,

e.g. b-ālōho ‘[I swear] by God’; bə-mšīḥo ‘[I swear] by Jesus’; b-ū-
mgalyun ‘[I swear] by the Bible’; b-aq-qādīše ‘[I swear] by the
saints’; b-ū-ṣlībo ‘[I swear] by the Cross’; b-ū-qabro ‘[I swear] by
the grave [of Jesus]’; b-indāṯ-ālo (< *yōldaṯ ʾalōhō) ‘[I swear] by
the Virgin Mary’.
Except for the phrases b-ū-ṣlībo and b-ū-mgalyun all these
expressions of oaths are in the process of disappearing among
the younger generation of speakers. In Sweden, for instance, the
younger generation frequently make use of the Swedish phrase
Jag lovar ‘I promise’.

6. Language Attrition and Codeswitching

The fact that many original words and meanings are being lost
in the diaspora is due to the imperfect learning of the language
by younger speakers and the lack of planning on the part of the
older generation as to how to pass on the language to the younger
generation. I shall illustrate this by two concrete examples.
The native verb mṭāwēle, which was used in many villages in
Ṭūr ʿAbdīn with the sense of ‘to grill’, has been almost entirely
replaced by the Arabic loanword mšāwēle in the diaspora or by
the mixed Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo and Swedish phrase səmle grilla, which
literally means ‘he did the grill’.
Another example is as follows. Once I was in a lift and somebody
told me to press the button by saying səm trycka!, which consists
of Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo səm ‘do, make’ and Swedish trycka ‘press’. The
phrase could easily be expressed by the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo phrase dəš
ʿal u-zraʿlo ‘press the button!’
 Language Loss in the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo-speaking Communities  499

The younger generation uses codeswitching, which is, of course,

very common among bilinguals. They begin a conversation in
Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo and then they suddenly switch over to Swedish
for various reasons. This is partly because the words required in
the conversation are lacking in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo or they have not
mastered them.

7. Phonology and Hypercorrection

The previous discussion concerned changes relating to the
vocabulary of the language. There has also been an important
change in phonology in the diaspora. Many of the children born
in the diaspora pronounce the interdentals /ṯ/ [θ] and /ḏ/ [ð] as
[s] and [z]. For example, qrīṯo ‘a village’ is pronounced [qrīso],
and ʿēḏo (m.) ‘a feast’ [ʕēzo]. The latter coincides with ʿēzo (f.)
‘a she-goat’.
A shift from interdentals to sibilants is not a recent phenomenon
among the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo speakers. The dialects of two villages,
namely Bēqusyōno and Dayro du-ṣlībo, had undergone this shift
long ago. Interestingly, in Ṭūr ʿAbdīn today the shift in question
has spread to the dialects of other villages. There is a phonetic
motivation behind the changes ṯ > s and ḏ > z, in that it is
easier to articulate s and z than the original interdental fricatives
ṯ and ḏ. The phenomenon is also known from Mlaḥsô and some
dialects in (NENA). The same is true in many Arabic dialects.
When some Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo speakers try to correct their
pronunciation, they create hypercorrections. They pronounce
interdentals where sibilants are correct. For example the correct
word for ‘a bishop’, hasyo, becomes instead [haθyo].

8. Bilingualism, Multilingualism and the Future

Many among the younger generation grow up as bilingual or
multilingual. The younger generation born in the diaspora are
not normally familiar with a large part of the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo
vocabulary that was originally used in Ṭūr ʿAbdīn. All the younger
generation in the diaspora normally speak the national language
500 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

with each other. They speak Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo with their parents,

relatives and elderly people.
Many of the younger Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo generation have
difficulties in making themselves understood in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo.
This is a gradual process, but eventually the younger generation
will lose so much of the language that they will inevitably shift
entirely to the national language. This situation is, of course,
a common phenomenon in minority groups, especially with
minority groups of stateless immigrants.
Fishman (1996) writes about a story told by John MacNamara,
who studied Irish all his childhood in school. He was scolded one
day when he was buying sweets by the woman who ran the shop.
He began speaking English to his sister and the woman asked him
why he did not speak Irish with her. When they came out, his
sister asked him: ‘Is Irish really for talking?’ It did not occur to
them that Irish was for talking. They considered it rather to be a
school subject. This is also what is happening among the Ṣūrayt/
Ṭūrōyo-speaking younger generation. It is no longer natural for
them to speak Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo among each other, despite the
efforts to teach the language in schools. This confirms the view of
Fishman (1996, 79) that a real—not institutional—social space
has to be created for a language to survive.

References

Ehrnebo, Paula. 2013. ‘Terminologiarbete på minoritetsspråk’. In Från ett

språk till ett annat-om översättning och tolkning: 174–75. Språkrådet, Falun:
Norstedts.

Fishman, Joshua A. 1996. ‘What Do You Lose When You Lose Your Language?’.
In Stabilizing Indigenous Languages, edited by Gina Cantoni, 71–81. Flagstaff:
Center for Excellence in Education, Northern Arizona University.

Tezel, Aziz. 2003. Comparative Etymological Studies in the Western Neo-Syriac

(Ṭūrōyo) Lexicon. With Special Reference to Homonyms, Related Words and
Borrowings with Cultural Siginification. Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 18.
Elanders Gotab: Stockholm.
 Language Loss in the Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo-speaking Communities  501

Tezel, Sina. 2015. ‘Neologisms in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo’. In Neo-Aramaic and its

Linguistic Context, edited by Geoffrey Khan & Lidia Napiorkowska, 100–09.
Piscataway: Gorgias Press.
 ABOUT THE PUBLISHING TEAM

Alessandra Tosi was the managing editor for this book.

Anna Gatti designed the cover using InDesign. The cover was
produced in InDesign using Fontin (titles) and Calibri (text body)
fonts.

Luca Baffa typeset the book in InDesign. The text font is Tex
Gyre Pagella; the heading font is Californian FB. Luca created
all of the editions — paperback, hardback, EPUB, MOBI, PDF,
HTML, and XML  —  the conversion is performed with open
source software freely available on our GitHub page (https://
github.com/OpenBookPublishers).
 INDEX

ʿAyn et-Tīne 245, 254–256, 260–261, Arabic, Classical 4, 193, 254, 256,
263, 265–266, 270, 272–273 301, 439
ʿIwardo 40, 47, 56, 60, 66, 78, 354–355, Arabic, Damascene 272
359, 367, 487 Arabic, Iraqi 341–342
Arabic, Levantine 337, 492
affectedness 31, 45–47, 58–59, 61, 63,
83, 85–87 Arabic, Moroccan 188

agent 18, 30, 37, 39–40, 45–46, 66, Arabic, Palmyrene 295
68, 72, 82–87, 134 Arabic, Syrian 29, 88–89, 235–273,
agentivity 30, 45 275–285

agreement 34, 37–40, 43, 64, 66, 71, Aradhin, Christian 395, 403, 407
75–76, 119, 200, 471, 478 Arbel 38, 62–63, 90, 135, 285, 407, 439
agreement, verbal 32, 34, 36, 38–39, Ardishay 398
42, 44, 53, 62–63, 66, 68, 70, 86–87, Arena 443
237
Arkaḥ 356, 363, 365–366, 369, 374–
Akkadian 219, 301, 339, 343, 348, 376, 384, 487
389, 408
Armenian 408, 411
alignment, split 41
articulatory phonology 326
Alqosh 91, 137
Ashitha 390, 395, 397, 403, 410
Amedia, Jewish 37–38, 73, 96, 139
aspect 45, 57, 86, 95, 97, 134–136,
Anḥil 363, 379, 381–382 138, 156–157, 162, 184, 235, 264,
Ankawa 395, 469–472, 475–479, 267, 277, 279, 281–282, 391, 472
482–484 Azeri Turkish 437
annexation 54, 302, 305, 314 Āzəx 227, 231, 233
anterior 11, 100, 174, 185 Azran 319–326, 329
Aqra 443–445, 468
Arabic 3–5, 25, 72, 76, 83, 90, 93, Bariṭle 395, 397–398, 400
96, 102, 140, 188–190, 192–193,
Barrake 443–444
221, 224–227, 229–231, 235–265,
267–272, 275, 277–281, 284–285, Barwar 28, 69, 73, 84, 90, 130, 134,
289–292, 295, 297–299, 335–337, 140, 143–146, 162, 166, 168–169,
339, 341–343, 345–347, 349–350, 177–178, 180–181, 184–186, 191,
383–385, 389–390, 395, 397, 400, 195, 219, 225, 229–230, 232,
403, 410–411, 445, 469–479, 308–310, 317, 336, 340, 348–349,
481–485, 488–494, 498–499 376, 387, 398, 406, 439, 445, 468
Arabic, Anatolian 225, 227, 230–231, basic word list 415–417
340, 342–344, 346
506 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Baxʿa 250, 254–255, 257, 259–260, conservatism 235, 278

267, 270, 275, 283, 288, 292, 294, construct state 27, 214, 302–303,
296 305–307, 313–314
Baz 391, 395, 444, 468 continuous 3, 100, 134–138, 264, 282,
beneficiary 45–47, 50, 73 482
Betanure 73, 77, 84, 91, 96, 395, 397, copula 10, 42, 63–64, 70, 87, 100–101,
400, 408, 419, 440 116, 119, 132–137, 139, 178, 180,
Billin 169 204, 214, 224–227, 231

Bne Belatha-Ṭyare 405 Cudi 169, 340

Bne Romta-Ṭyare 402, 405–406 cycle, linguistic 165, 301–302, 313–315

Bohtan 44, 89, 292, 297, 406, 410

Damascus 26, 236, 284
Borb-Ruma 405, 407
Danish 402
Bsorino 337, 357, 365, 381–382
dative 29–30, 32, 34, 36, 45, 54, 64–66,
85–87, 259
case marking, prepositional 29–34,
36–40, 43–44, 55, 62, 64–67, 69–70, dative, ethical 32, 45, 51, 53, 85–86
79–80, 82, 85, 87, 312 definite article 165, 247
case marking, zero 32–33, 55, 57, definiteness 165, 247, 257
63–64, 70, 76, 80, 85, 87 deontic modality 139, 144, 146–148,
Catalan 167, 176, 191, 402 154, 156–158, 165, 173, 188,
Central Semitic 2, 4–5, 21, 236, 254, 196–198, 256, 279–280
282 dependency 143, 146, 150, 153, 158–
Challa 96, 284, 419, 439 163, 174, 187–189, 216–217, 302

Chamba d-Mallik-Ṭyare 395, 405 Dêrxas 225

Christian Palestinian Aramaic 258, 271, deverbal adjective 1, 3–4, 25, 37

287, 293–294, 298, 357 diaspora 35, 487, 489–494, 498–499
circumstantial clause 221–228, differential object marking 30, 32, 38,
230–231 66, 68, 247
cognate 5, 188, 235, 238–241, 246, Dinarta 443–444
248, 253–254, 257–258, 262–265, Diyana 320–321, 332, 412, 440
267–269, 271, 277–278, 280–282,
341, 343, 345, 394–395, 400–401, Diyana-Zariwaw 320, 332, 412, 440
406–408 Dobe, Jewish 143, 188
complement clause 208, 210, 235, 269, Dohok, Jewish 41, 45–46, 59, 61, 69,
271, 279–280 76–78, 84, 95–98, 101, 105, 115,
concessive 195, 205–206, 208, 218 118, 128, 130, 132–133, 135–139,
395
conditional 149–150, 154, 158–159,
177, 188, 195, 198, 200–203,
205–209, 211–218, 235, 271, 275, English 29, 66, 69, 73, 141, 159, 163,
279–280 220, 233, 285, 316–317, 331, 339,
 Index  507

347, 349–350, 385, 399, 402, Hawdiyan 320

408–409, 412, 438, 453, 500 Hebrew 5, 29, 61, 65, 88, 90–91, 102,
epistemic modality 131, 158, 195–198, 292, 296–297, 299, 316, 339, 343,
200–201, 216–218 347–349, 391, 408, 412
etymology 23, 116, 291, 345, 348, 399, Hebrew, Biblical 4–5, 189, 292, 389,
419–422, 424, 427, 433–434, 437 393
eventive 16 Hebrew, Mishnaic 93, 298, 408
existential constructions 30, 55, 57, Hebrew, Modern 29–30
63, 87, 385 Hertevin 41, 68, 79, 81, 83–84, 90,
experiencer 29–30, 32–34, 36, 71–73, 390, 395, 397, 400, 407
75–86
Iḥwo 360–361, 384
fientive 16 imperfective 37, 47, 49–51, 84–85,
focus 46 157, 162, 173, 199, 354
French 23, 86, 167–168, 233, 347 impersonal constructions 29–32, 34,
future, immediate 167, 169–170, 36, 53, 57, 59, 63, 66, 71, 73, 75,
172–173, 183 77–79, 83–84, 87, 112, 264, 267
Inishke 400
Gargarnaye 320, 333 interdentals 443, 499
Gaznakh 391 intransitive 1–3, 7, 18, 21, 23, 25, 30,
genitive case 302–303, 306, 314–315 37, 52–53, 62, 77–79, 85, 115, 169,
171, 176, 289, 292, 294
Georgia 416
inversion 37
Geppa 443
Irish 402, 500
Geramun 397–398, 406
Ishshi 401–403
gestures (phonological) 320, 322–323,
326, 330 Iṣṣin 407

Geʾez 306 Italian 18, 23, 28, 91, 140, 317, 404

grammaticalisation 30, 76, 130,

137–139, 144, 148, 169 Jewish Babylonian Aramaic 27, 88,
336, 343–345, 350, 357, 385, 389,
Greek 8–15, 17–18, 20–21, 26, 335, 338 410, 418, 438
Jewish Palestinian Aramaic 1, 271,
Halmun 408 287, 293–294, 298–299, 343–344,
Harari 394 350, 357, 389, 410, 438
Harbole 169–170, 173, 176, 395, Jənnet 44, 68
400–403, 405 Jilu 403, 406, 408, 439
Harene 443 Jinet 391
Hasköy 225, 233 Jrējir (Ǧrēǧir) 258–259, 269
Haṣṣan 44, 89, 390, 395, 406–407 Jubbʿadin 28, 76, 250, 259–261, 275,
283, 288, 292, 294, 395, 400
508 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

Judaeo-Syriac 407 L-suffix 34, 36–47, 49–53, 55, 57–63,

65–66, 68–70, 73, 75–80, 82–87
Kalate 443
Karimlash 397 Malaberwan 443–444

Kerend 404 Mandaic 1, 28, 292, 357, 386, 389,

395, 399, 409–411, 418, 438
Kfarze 2, 353, 356, 362, 365, 379–382,
487 Mardin 225, 232, 384, 386, 488

Kharjawa 443–444 Marga 40–42, 44, 59, 71, 75, 81, 398

Kherpa 443–444, 447, 449 Mawana 160–161

Kinderib 225–227, 230, 232, 349, 383, Maʿlula 2, 27–28, 51–52, 72, 243, 245,
385 249–250, 254, 256–261, 263, 266,
270–271, 275, 284–285, 287–292,
Ko d-Chalwe-Ṭyare 397–398 294–296, 298, 395, 400
Koy Sanjak, Christian 166 Mehri 394
Kurdish xxv, 72, 89, 96, 102, 112, Mer 340, 398, 400, 408
117, 189, 221, 225, 229, 231, 238,
244, 285, 304, 310–312, 316–317, Meze 168
320, 329, 335, 341–343, 345, 381, Mḥallami 225, 227, 488
383–385, 389–390, 400, 403–404, Middle Aramaic 1–2, 6, 23, 25, 287, 357
408–409, 419, 427, 430, 437–438,
443, 445, 469–470, 477, 484, Middle Eastern Aramaic 357, 376,
488–489, 492 382–384, 418–437
Kurdish, Behdini 72 Midin 2, 46, 48, 62, 64, 70, 74–75, 90,
93, 233, 244, 285, 337–338, 341,
Kurmanji 105, 189, 304, 307, 310–312, 347, 357–358, 360–361, 365, 373,
320, 329, 376, 384, 399, 404, 430, 379, 381–382, 487
433, 437
Midyat 2, 46–49, 54–56, 58, 62, 75, 82,
335, 341–342, 344, 347, 353, 355,
language contact 189, 221, 237–238, 359–360, 363, 365–367, 372–378,
253, 264, 277, 280, 310, 320, 382, 400, 487–488, 491–493
329–330
mixing of dialects 319
Late Aramaic 32, 236, 254, 256, 265,
277, 287–288, 293–294, 357, 396 Mlaḥso 2, 35, 50, 61, 64–65, 90, 395,
410
Latin 26, 339, 341, 350, 399, 404,
412, 416 modality 131, 139, 158, 162, 195–198,
200, 203, 205, 214, 217–218, 256,
lexical innovation 401 279–280
Lishana Deni Jewish Neo-Aramaic 41, mood 57, 95, 97, 128–130, 235, 255,
45, 59, 84, 419 263, 279
Lizin-Ṭyare 402, 405–406 morphosyntax 30, 36, 66, 86, 238, 241,
loanword 102, 117, 238, 242–244, 246, 257–258, 261–262, 269, 271,
260, 275, 335, 338, 340–341, 347, 277, 280, 282, 288, 301
383, 394–397, 470–471, 478, 481, Mosul plain 50, 52, 143, 350, 395,
483–484, 498 409, 483–484
 Index  509

Mzizaḥ 73–74, 354, 356, 365, 374–375 Polish 402

possessee 30–31, 59–60, 64, 66–70
narrative 16, 21, 97, 134–135, 138, possessor 29–33, 35, 45, 54–55, 57,
164, 166, 170, 172, 176, 178, 181, 59, 61–66, 68–69, 71–73, 82, 85–87
183–189, 213–214, 218, 222, 416,
489 possessor, external 31, 59, 61–62

neologisms 490–491 possessor, predicative 29, 32, 34, 36,

57, 59, 61, 64–65, 68–69, 73, 84,
Neo-Mandaic 1–3, 237, 285, 389, 87, 204
395–396, 411, 440
prefix conjugation 236, 240, 248–249,
Nerwa 96, 141, 412, 438, 485 253, 255–258, 260, 262–264, 267–
Nexla 443–445, 468 272, 274–275, 277–283
nominal pattern 288 preterite 40, 45, 50, 59, 66, 68, 83–86,
non-verbal clause 225 134, 199, 203, 208–209, 240, 290,
294, 385
Norwegian 402
progressive 99, 130, 135–137, 139,
Nuhawa 443–444 177–178, 180–181, 183, 186–187,
255, 264, 282
obligatorisation 34 pronoun, dependent 66–67, 171, 176
Old (Ancient) Aramaic 394 pronoun, independent 32, 46, 55, 67,
69, 74, 85, 312
palatalisation 329 proto-Semitic 5, 301
Palmyrene Aramaic 295 purpose clause 168, 177, 181–184,
participle 3, 36, 45, 76, 100, 132, 139, 187, 260
180, 228, 236–237, 240, 248–249,
253, 259, 261, 263, 265, 271, 275, Qalamun 236, 264, 401
278, 281–283, 288–289, 407
Qalunta 443
passive 16, 18, 236–237, 251, 289, 293
Qaraqosh 51–52, 90, 135, 144, 156,
perfect 11, 16, 19, 21–22, 45, 50, 86, 166, 191, 308, 317, 336, 349, 395,
100, 133–134, 139, 224, 231, 264, 397, 400–402, 404–405, 407, 410
267–268, 277, 281–282, 294
Qurich 407
perfective 20, 37–38, 41, 44–45, 48–51,
59, 61, 66, 68, 74–75, 84–87, 97,
99–100, 134–135, 156–157, 166, Raite 39, 50, 82, 379, 381
175–176, 178 realis 98–100, 104, 128–131, 135,
Persian xxv, 25, 72, 90, 231, 285, 139, 197
335–336, 339–340, 350, 389, recipient 45–47, 55, 58–59, 61–62, 65,
437–438 73, 75, 82–83, 85–87
person marking 36, 44, 68, 87, 237 Rekan 408
phonetics 322, 330 relative tense 16, 21, 173–174
pivot 237, 254 replication 221, 237–240, 243–247,
pluperfect 16, 21–22 250–254, 257–259, 262, 267,
510 Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic

277–278, 280–282, 307, 310–312, 264–265, 267, 270–271, 278,

317 289–290, 292, 294, 304, 335–336
resultative 8, 10, 16, 45, 76, 100, 132– subject, non-canonical 30, 32, 86–87
135, 139, 236–237, 248–249, 253, subjunctive 57, 166–168, 177–178,
259, 261, 265, 271, 275, 282–283 180–181, 183–187, 189, 199–200,
resultative participle 7, 16–17, 45, 203–204, 206–209, 211, 240, 354
248, 253, 265–267, 271, 275–277, suffix conjugation 1, 27, 236, 240,
279, 281–283 248–251, 253–254, 256, 262, 267–
Russia 416 268, 271–272, 275–279, 281–283
Sulemaniyya, Christian 166
Salamas 44 Ṣurayt (Ṭuroyo) 335–340, 342–343,
Salamas, Christian 397, 407 345–346, 348
Samaritan Aramaic 287, 293, 299, Sureth 469–484
357, 389, 412 Swadesh list 353, 416
Samʾal inscriptions 302 Syria 51, 72, 76, 236, 240, 287, 290,
Sanandaj, Christian 82, 166 293, 295, 489
Sanandaj, Jewish 63 Syriac 1, 3–4, 6–7, 10, 15–16, 18–28,
Sanaye 443–444 32–33, 88, 90–92, 225, 228,
230–232, 292, 296–297, 304–307,
Saqqiz 53, 63, 71, 79–80, 90 313–314, 317, 335–340, 343, 345–
Sat 395, 406 351, 355, 357, 382–383, 386–387,
389–393, 397, 399–400, 403, 405–
Sedari 362, 364, 384
406, 408–409, 411–413, 417–418,
Semitic 29, 32, 236, 277, 292, 302, 424, 430–431, 438, 489–490, 500
343, 345, 394
Shaqlawa 67, 132, 177 TAM 55, 57, 86, 98, 235, 238, 248,
Sharmen 407, 443–444 252–253, 255, 262, 267–268, 277,
279, 281–282
Shkafte 443
Targum Onkelos 389, 409
Shwawwa-Baz 405–406
telic 8, 18–19, 21–22, 47, 53
Soddo 394
Telkepe 88, 91, 137, 391, 395, 397,
Soqotri 356, 394
400, 402–404, 422
Sorani 189, 304, 312, 430, 433, 437
tense 1–2, 10–11, 18, 23, 40, 45, 55,
Spanish 190, 402 57, 86, 95, 97, 105, 129–130, 146,
Sprachbund 154, 156, 166, 173–174, 223–224,
231, 235, 240, 254, 277, 281
Caucasian 329
Tigre 408
Eastern Anatolian 329
Tilla 406–407
stative 3, 7–8, 10, 16, 45, 74, 99–100,
133–136, 139, 426 Timur 395, 406
stem 1–2, 37, 83, 99, 135, 177–178, Tin 400
242, 244, 248–252, 257–258, Tisqopa 390, 397
 Index  511

Tkhuma 395 Urmi, Jewish 404

Tkhuma-Gáwaya 395
topic 160, 162–164, 389, 489 Van 285, 407
topicalisation 33–34, 87 verbalisation 3, 10, 87
transitive 1–2, 16, 18, 67–68, 83–84, verboid 69, 84–85
86, 133, 139, 169, 176, 292, 294
transitivisation 30, 34, 66–67, 84, 86 Western Neo-Aramaic 2, 35, 51–52,
55, 57, 65, 72, 76, 85, 235–243,
Trans-Zab Jewish Neo-Aramaic 53, 245–254, 257–260, 262–264,
61–62, 79, 244 267–271, 275, 277–284, 287–288,
trigger effect 230 290–292, 294–295, 389
Turkish 303, 316, 320, 335, 445, 488, Western Syriac 337–338, 347, 400,
493 490, 492
Ṭuroyo 21, 24–25, 335–338, 340–343,
346, 348, 350–351, 500 Xarabe Kafre 372, 379, 384
Ṭūr ʿAbdīn 350 Xarabe Məška 361, 364, 379, 384
Ṭyare 134, 391, 403–404, 406–408
Zakho, Jewish 88–89, 96, 98, 117–118,
Umṛa 44, 68, 79, 81 136, 139–141, 195, 201, 217, 219–
220, 309, 313, 315, 397, 412, 438
Upper Barwar (Hakkâri) 406
Zariwaw 320, 332, 412, 440
Urmi, Christian 34–35, 50, 56, 58–59,
67, 70, 77, 83–84, 135, 143, 181, Zaz 365
183–184, 186–187, 321, 329, 343,
376, 391–393, 395, 398, 400,
402–405, 415–416, 419, 430, 436
 Cambridge Semitic
Languages and Cultures

General Editor Geoffrey Khan

OPEN
ACCESS
Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures

About the series

This series is published by Open Book Publishers in collaboration with the
Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies of the University of Cambridge.
The aim of the series is to publish in open-access form monographs in the
field of Semitic languages and the cultures associated with speakers of Semitic
languages. It is hoped that this will help disseminate research in this field to
academic researchers around the world and also open up this research to
the communities whose languages and cultures the volumes concern. This
series includes philological and linguistic studies of Semitic languages and
editions of Semitic texts. Titles in the series will cover all periods, traditions
and methodological approaches to the field. The editorial board comprises
Geoffrey Khan, Aaron Hornkohl, and Esther-Miriam Wagner.
This is the first Open Access book series in the field; it combines the high
peer-review and editorial standards with the fair Open Access model offered
by OBP. Open Access (that is, making texts free to read and reuse) helps spread
research results and other educational materials to everyone everywhere, not
just to those who can afford it or have access to well-endowed university
libraries.
Copyrights stay where they belong, with the authors. Authors are encouraged
to secure funding to offset the publication costs and thereby sustain the
publishing model, but if no institutional funding is available, authors are not
charged for publication. Any grant secured covers the actual costs of publishing
and is not taken as profit. In short: we support publishing that respects the
authors and serves the public interest.

Other titles in the series

Jewish-Muslim Intellectual History Entangled

Camilla Adang, Bruno Chiesa, Omar Hamdan, Wilferd Madelung,
Sabine Schmidtke and Jan Thiele (eds)
doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0214

Studies in Semitic Vocalisation and Reading Traditions

Aaron Hornkohl and Geoffrey Khan (eds.)
doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0207

You can find more information about this serie at:

http://www.openbookpublishers.com/section/107/1
Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon
of Neo-Aramaic
Geoffrey Khan and Paul M. Noorlander (eds)

The Neo-Aramaic dialects are modern vernacular forms of Aramaic, which has a
documented history in the Middle East of over 3,000 years. Due to upheavals in the
Middle East over the last one hundred years, thousands of speakers of Neo-Aramaic
dialects have been forced to migrate from their homes or have perished in massacres. As a
result, the dialects are now highly endangered. The dialects exhibit a remarkable diversity
of structures. Moreover, the considerable depth of attestation of Aramaic from earlier
periods provides evidence for the pathways of change. For these reasons the research of
Neo-Aramaic is of importance for more general fields of linguistics, in particular language
typology and historical linguistics. The papers in this volume represent the full range of
research that is currently being carried out on Neo-Aramaic dialects. They advance the
field in numerous ways. In order to allow linguists who are not specialists in Neo-Aramaic
to benefit from the papers, the examples are fully glossed.

As with all Open Book publications, this entire book is available to read for free on the
publisher’s website. Printed and digital editions, together with supplementary digital
material, can also be found here: www.openbookpublishers.com

Cover image: Women in the village of Harbole, south-eastern Turkey (photograph taken by Brunot Poizat in 1978
before the village’s destruction).

Cover design: Anna Gatti

e book
ebook and OA editions
also available