Neo‑Aramaic (Afroasiatic, Semitic)

The function of pronominal suffixes varies according to which verbal stem they are attached to. With the preterite stem, the suffixes which otherwise are used for the object mark subject instead, and vice versa.

1 Background

The following is based on Hoberman's (1989) study of the northeastern Neo-Aramaic dialect of Amadiya, spoken (or formerly spoken) in Kurdistan. An abbreviated synopsis of the verb paradigm is given below. The relevant features to note are:

• A verb has five stems, labelled O, J, P, Pt and C; the first three suffice for illustration.
• Two sets of pronominal suffixes are found, labelled A and L, whose function is described below.

The future, qam-preterite and subjunctive are identical to the general present, except that the future has the prefix p-/b- in place of k-/g-, the qam-preterite has the prefix qam-, and the subjunctive has no prefix. The suffix -wa may be added to any of the J- or P-stem paradigms, occurring in between the A and L pronominal suffixes. It marks past tense, the particulars depending on the TAM value it combines with, e.g.:

2 Deponency in Neo-Aramaic

There are two sets of pronominal suffixes, labelled A and L:

Morphologically, the position of A- and L-suffixes is the same in all paradigms, with A-suffixes preceding L-suffixes (with -wa- intervening, if present). However, their value is not always the same. In all forms based on the J-stem, the A-suffixes mark the subject and the L-suffixes mark the object; likewise, in the imperative (O-stem), where the subject is not marked, the object is marked by L-suffixes. But in the forms based on the P-stem, the values are reversed: the A-suffixes mark the object and the L-suffixes mark the subject. (Note that indirect objects take L-suffixes regardless of stem type.)

Hoberman (1989) does not give a complete paradigm for any single word, but a number of direct comparisons can be made on the basis of forms found in the text. For reasons of space, the paradigm has been broken into two tables; in each, the A-suffix values are listed in the left-hand column, L-suffix values in the top row:

(Note the regular assimilation of the initial l- of the L-suffixes to the preceding consonant.)
* These constructions (P-stem forms with object agreement only) imply an unspecified agent, often interpreted as 3rd person plural animate (Hoberman 1989: 112).
** P-stem forms of the first conjugation with no other suffix have the optional suffix ‑ɨn (Hoberman 1989: 31). This is the one deviation from the otherwise parallel system of pronominal suffixation in the J- and P-stem forms.

Hoberman (1989) argues that the apparent inversion is purely morphological, and does not involve syntactic realignment across TAM values.³ Evidence of the consistency of grammatical relations between J- and P-stem forms comes from the following:

• Reflexivization: refexive pronoun is co-referenced by the A-suffix in J-stem forms and by the L-suffix in P-stem forms (note that the reflexive pronoun triggers feminine singular agreement on the verb):

• Case marking: there is not normally any case marking on independent nominals. However, there is a set of object pronouns used in highly formal style, which replace the object suffix found on the verb. Typically, this occurs only with P-stem forms, where it is the A-suffixes which are replaced. Very rarely, though, it may also occur with J-stem forms, in which case it is the L-suffix which is replaced:

• Definite object agreement: in the presence of an overt nominal object, object marking on the verb is correlated with definiteness; this is manifested with L-suffixes on J-stem forms and A-suffixes on P-stem forms:

3 Diachrony and dialect variation

The J-stem forms originally derive from the active participle with pronominal affixes, while the P-stem forms derive from the passive particple, with the agent expressed as a possessor by means of the inflected preposition l- 'to' (which gave rise to the L-suffixes). Thus a form like ptɨx‑li 'I opened him' will originally have been construed as 'he is opened (ptɨx‑) to me (l-i)', i.e. 'I have him opened'. The subsequent development of this construction into a perfect parallels that found in Romance and Germanic (Hopkins 1989). This will originally have been limited to transitive verbs, yielding an 'ergative' construction; it is commonly suggested that this was due to the influence of Iranian languages, where this construction is widepread (Kapeliuk 1996).

A whole range of variants on this system are found in the northeast Neo-Aramaic dialects, e.g.:

• Sulemaniyye/Halabja (Khan 2004: 85-86): Only transitive preterites take L-suffixes for their subject; intransitives take A-suffixes.
• Jilu (Fox 1997: 36-38), Qaraqosh (Khan 2002: 92), Amadhin (Krotkoff 1982: 28), Arbel (Khan 1999: 223), Zakho (Sabar 2002: 49): preterites only permit a limited range of A- and L-suffix combinations: L-suffixes can only follow 3rd person forms (i.e. the original forms of the passive parciple, whose endings were -Ø 'masculine', -a 'feminine' and -i 'plural').
• Heretvin (Jastrow 1988: 60-62): The object is marked by L-suffixes for all stem types, so that preterites with direct object marking have a sequence of two L-suffixes.
• Urmi (Hoberman 1989: 105-106, references therein): Essentially the same system as in Amadiya, but the suffixes found with J-stem forms have begun to diverge from those found with P-stem forms, so that the morphosyntactic flip-flop found in Amadiya is interrupted in some cases. This suggests that the A-suffixes (L-suffixes) found with J-stems are no longer identified with the A-suffixes (L-suffixes) found with P-stems.

Thus, among the dialects that have been described, only that of Amadiya shows an exact mirror-image correspondence between the J-stem and P-stem forms. Judging by diachrony and the evidence of other dialects, the system in Amadiya is the result of a gradual development in which the P-stem forms were modelled on those of the J-stem. In this light, the system of Urmi appears to go one step further: the systematic morphological relationship between the two has been severed, and they have begun to develop independently of each other.

Notes

¹ These constructions (P-stem forms with object agreement only) imply an unspecified agent, often interpreted as 3rd person plural animate (Hoberman 1989: 112).

² P-stem forms of the first conjugation with no other suffix have the optional suffix -‑ɨn (Hoberman 1989: 31). This is the one deviation from the otherwise parallel system of pronominal suffixation in the J- and P-stem forms.

³ Historically, though, it presumably did: the J-stem was originally an active participle and the P-stem a passive participle, where the logical subject was treated as a possesser/indirect object (Hoberman 1989: 97, 119).

References

Fox, Samuel Ethan. 1997. The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Jilu. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

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.

Hopkins, Simon. 1989. Neo-Aramaic dialects and the formation of the preterite. Journal of Semitic Studies 37. 74-90.

Jastrow, Otto. 1988. Der neuaramäische Dialekt von Hertevin (Provinz Siirt). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Kapeliuk, Olga. 1996. Is Modern Hebrew the only 'Indo-Europeanized' Semitic language? And what about Neo-Aramaic? Israel Oriental Studies 16: 59-70.

Khan, Geoffrey. 1999. The Neo-Aramaic dialect spoken by Jews from the region of Arbel (Iraqi Kurdistan). Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 62/2.. 213-225.

Khan, Geoffrey. 2002. The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Qaraqosh. Leiden: Brill.

Khan, Geoffrey. 2004.Khan, Geoffrey. 2000.The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dalect of Sulemaniyya and Halabja. Leiden: Brill.

Sabar, Yona. 2002. A Jewish Neo-Aramaic dictionary. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.