Stammbaum or continuum? The subgrouping of Modern Aramaic dialects reconsidered.

• Author: Kim, Ronald

1. INTRODUCTION

   The terrible and still largely unknown series of persecutions suffered by speakers of Modern Aramaic (MA) outside of Syria and their emigration en masse from their homelands mean that most MA dialects today are either extinct or highly endangered. Under these circum stances, all researchers in MA have been encouraged to concentrate on the urgent task of fieldwork, so that we might be able to record as many texts and write as complete gram matical descriptions of as many dialects as possible (see Krotkoff 1985: 133).

   Yet although many varieties still remain to be documented, we now have a far fuller picture of MA dialectal diversity than was available twenty or even ten years ago. Jastrow's monographs on Hertevin and Mlahso (1988, 1994a) were followed by preliminary reports of previously unknown Christian MA dialects of southeastern Turkey (1994b, 1997b) and Sinha's grammar of Besp[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]n and the neighboring Cudi dialects (2000). A number of studies have begun to fill in the blanks in our knowledge of the pre-1915 dialects of the Mountain Nestorians (Bergnestorianer) of the Hakkari district, including Talay's descriptions of the dialects spoken by their descendants living along the Khabur River in northeastern Syria (1999, 2008), and Fox's research on Jilu (1997) and Bohtan (2002). Hoberman 1989 and more recently Khan 1999a, 2002a, 2004, and Mutzafi 2004b have given us detailed treat ments of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]Amadiya (Jewish), Arbel (Jewish), Qaraqosh (Syrian Christian), Sulemaniyya and Halabja (Jewish), and Koy Sanjaq (Jewish) in Iraq, respectively; while Sabar's 2002 dictionary provides a wealth of invaluable data for the Jewish dialects of Zakho and neighboring villages in northwestern Iraq.

   As for the MA of Iran, Younansardaroud (2001) provides a precise description of a dialect very close to the Christian speech of Urmia, the basis of the Modern Syriac literary language. The previously all-but-unknown dialects of Iranian Kurdistan are now becoming accessible, thanks to the work of Hopkins (1989, 2002) and others on the Jewish dialects, and of Panoussi (1990) and Heinrichs (2002) on Senaya, the language of the Christians of Sanandaj (Aramaic Sena). Further monographic descriptions are due to appear shortly, e.g., from Geoffrey Khan's students at Cambridge University, who have conducted fieldwork on other Iraqi MA varieties.

   The information available on MA dialectology, then, has increased so markedly over the past generation, and especially the last decade, that one need not apologize for incorporating new findings into a comparative and historical study. Indeed, comparative investigations can play an essential role in determining which grammatical features or patterns need to be the focus of further studies or of fieldwork on unrecorded dialects. (1) The time therefore seems ripe for a reevaluation of earlier views on the historical development and dialectal diversification of present-day Aramaic.

2. THE SUBGROUPING OF MA DIALECTS

   2.1. Previous Treatments

   The oldest and most fundamental classification of MA distinguishes between two groups: Modern West Aramaic (MWA), spoken in the three villages of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (today officially Sarxa), and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (MWA [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) in the Qalamun valley of the Antilebanon mountains, north of Damascus; and Eastern MA, comprising all the other dialects of Syria, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. Such a bifurcation makes sense geographically, as the Qalamun is close to Palestine, home to the three major Western Middle Aramaic languages of the 1st millennium A.D.: Jewish Palestinian, Christian Palestinian, and Samaritan. With respect to the isoglosses distinguishing Western and Eastern Middle Aramaic dialects of the 1st millennium A.D., MWA clearly sides with the western dialects, whereas the rest of MA has participated in the innovations of the eastern group. (2)

1. 3sg. m. y- in the subjunctive (continuing the old imperfect), vs. eastern n- ~ l-: [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] batte yidmux 'he will sleep' vs. Syriac nedmok. (3)

2. Masculine plural -o (in variation with older -oya in [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) ~ -o(y)- before pronominal enclitics < MidAr *-ayya (status emphaticus), vs. eastern -e: (4) [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'door,' pl. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]-o 'doors,' [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'his doors' vs. Syriac kalb-a 'dog,' pl. kalb-e 'dogs' (with b from the sg., like Turoyo kalb-e, C. Urmia koelb-i 'dogs'; cf. J. Zakho kalw-e < *kalb-e). (5)

3. Infixed -nn- between imperfect verbs and accusative pronominal suffixes, vs. eastern -[empty set]-: [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] subj. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'that he carry,' [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'that he carry you (m.)' vs. Syriac [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

4. Retention of the semantic contrast between status absolutus and status emphaticus (e.g., *malk 'king,' *malk-a 'the king'), vs. loss of the latter's determinative function in the east (cf. Syriac malk-a '(the) king'). MWA has generalized the status emphaticus in nouns, but the contrast survives in adjectives, e.g., [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] psona [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] '(a) small boy' vs.psona [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'the small boy'; the status absolutus is used after numerals as a count plural, e.g., [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] tlota [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) 'three doors' < m. pl. *-in, etlat warkan 'three pieces of paper' < f. pl. *-an. (6)

   In addition, the old West Semitic perfect and imperfect (i.e., suffixed and prefixed conjugations) are retained to this day in MWA, but have been lost everywhere else. (7)

   This two-way split, which goes back to the earliest days of MA studies, remains the principal framework for more recent treatments of MA dialectology: For example, Jastrow's survey article (1997a) begins with a description of MWA, then proceeds to examine the eastern dialects together as a group. Nevertheless, scholars have long been aware of the enormous diversity within Eastern MA, which includes such mutually unintelligible languages as Turoyo, standard Modern Syriac based on the Christian dialect of Urmia, the Jewish dialects of Iranian Kurdistan, and Modern Mandaic. Noldeke (1881: 675) first emphasized the separation between Turoyo and the MA dialects east of the Tigris, based on features such as the following:

1. MidAr *a is unconditionally raised and rounded to o (phonemically /o/) in Turoyo and Mlahso, but not in NENA. (8)

2. Old geminate consonants are simplified in Turoyo and Mlahso (i.e., MidAr *VCC > *VC [V:C]), but retained in NENA. Cf. MidAr *gilla 'grass', *[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'goat' < Turoyo gelo, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], but Hertevin gella, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], C. Urmia gill[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], +zza. (9)

3. MidAr *x (i.e., *k, the spirantized postvocalic allophone of *k) and *h are preserved in Mlahso and Turoyo, but merged as h in Hertevin and x elsewhere in NENA (Jastrow 1988: 6, 1997a: 349).

4. NENA, including the dialect of Hertevin, has undergone certain innovations in the pronominal system not shared by Turoyo (Hoberman 1988: 572):

   a. The spread of initial a to the 3rd person independent pronouns: cf. Hertevin sg. m. ahu, f. ahi, pl. ahni, J. Zakho awa, aya, ani, C. Urmia aw, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] vs. Turoyo (Midyat) huwe, hiya, hinne, ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) hiye, hiya, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

   b. The addition of final -t to the 3pl. independent pronoun in NENA (see above), but not in Turoyo (Midyat) hinne.

   c. The lpl. verbal suffix in NENA is -ax (Hertevin -ah), compared with Syriac m. -innan, f. -annan (< nominal pl. -in, an + enclitic -nan) and Turoyo -ina.

5. The clitic copula in Turoyo and Mlahso for the most part continues the MidAr unstressed subject pronouns, e.g., 1sg. -no, lpl. -na < MidAr *-na, *-nan (cf. Syr. -na, -nan). In contrast, NENA has created a new copula from a syntagm containing *it 'there is,' e.g., Hertevin 3sg. m. -ile, 1sg. m. -iwen, C. Urmia -ijli, -ijvin, J. Azer. -ile, -ilen. See Noldeke 1868: 200-206; Fox 1990: 74-75, Jastrow 1997a: 372-73.

6. The MidAr passive stems ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) survive in Turoyo and Mlahso (albeit with various modifications and remodelings; Jastrow 1996), but have been lost in the NENA dialects, which express passive voice by means of a periphrastic construction with [square root of (pys)] 'become' and the past participle (historically the MidAr passive participle in status emphaticus, m. sg. *[C.sub.1][C.sub.2]i[C.sub.3]-a-; see [section]3.1, no. 6).

7. The imperative of G-stem verbs ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) is [C.sub.1][C.sub.2]a[C.sub.3]- in Turoyo and Mlahso, (10) but [C.sub.1][C.sub.2]u[C.sub.3]- in NENA: cf. Mlahso gras, pl. grasun, Turoyo gras, pl. grasu vs. Hertevin gros, pl. grusen, Mangesh gros, pl. grusu, C. Urmia grus, pl. grusun, Kerend grus ~ gurus, pl. grusmun ~ gurusmun 'pull!' (Jastrow 1997a: 365). (11) The two groups have generalized the vocalism of stative resp. non-stative verbs in Middle Aramaic; cf. Syr. dmak 'sleep!' vs. ktob 'write!' (12)

   Consequently, he proposed a division of MA dialects into three subgroups: 1) Western, or MWA; 2) Central, i.e., Turoyo; (13) and 3) Eastern. This classification has been followed by most other scholars of Modern Aramaic, including Socin (1882: v), Duval (1896: 125-26), (14) and more recently Tsereteli (1977) and Jastrow (1985a: xx).

   Macuch's discovery of a modern descendant of Mandaic (see especially Macuch 1993) adds a fourth subgroup to Noldeke's scheme. The resulting four-way classification was adopted by Hoberman (1988: 557-58...