THE VERBAL SYSTEM OF THE JEWISH NEO-ARAMAIC DIALECT OF ARBEL.

• Author: KHAN, GEOFFREY

This article examines the syntax of the verb in the neo-Aramaic dialect of the Jews of Arbel (Iraqi Kurdistan). This dialect belongs to the group known as Northeastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA). It exhibits a number of features in its verbal system that distinguish it from other dialects in this group. As in other NENA dialects, past and present tense verbs are formed from bases that correspond, respectively, to the passive and active participles of earlier Aramaic. A distinctive feature of the Arbel dialect is the use of the pre-verbal particle la to express aspectual nuances. This particle also has a discourse function.

BEFORE THE MASS EXODUS OF Iraqi Jewry to the state of Israel in 1950-51 [1] Aramaic-speaking Jewish communities were found in various towns and villages throughout northeastern Iraq, northwestern Iran and southern Turkey. The Neo-Aramaic dialects of the Jews of this area belong to the subfamily of dialects known as Northeastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA). [2] The other subfamilies include (1) the western group spoken in [Ma.sup.[subset]]lula and various other villages near Damascus, (2) the Turoyo group, spoken in [Tur.sup.[subset]]Abdin in southeastern Turkey and in the village of Mlahso in east-central Turkey, and (3) Mandaic, spoken until recently in the city of Ahwaz, Iran (Hoberman 1989: 3-6). The NENA dialects are closer typologically to the Turoyo group than to either of the other two subfamilies (Jastrow 1990: 90). The NENA group contains a far greater diversity of dialects than any of the groups.

In Iraq, the Jewish Aramaic speakers were found in an area that may be defined as the land lying above a line drawn on a map across the country through the towns of Mawsil (Mosul) and Kirkuk. Aramaic was not the first language of all Jews of the area. In the large towns of Mawsil, Kirkuk, Aqra, as well as Arbel, Arabic was the Jewish vernacular. In some villages the Jews spoke Kurdish as their first language. In Iran, Aramaic-speaking Jewish communities were found as far south as Kerend. The northern limits of the Jewish Aramaic area were formed by communities in the region of Lake Van in southern Turkey and those around Lake Urmia in northwest Iran (Hopkins, 1993: 62-64). The NENA group includes dialects spoken by both Jews and Christians. The Christian dialects in all cases differ from the Jewish dialects, even where the Jews and Christians lived in the same town or geographical region. There are considerable differences, for example, between the Jewish dialect and the Christian dialect in the towns of Urmi a, [3] Salamas, and Sanandaj, in which the two communities lived side-by-side. In other geographical areas, such as Zakho and the surrounding region, the differences between the dialects of the two communities are of a lesser degree (Hopkins 1993: 65). The Jewish dialects, moreover, differ from one another according to the geographical area in which they were spoken. In the present state of research it is not possible to produce a detailed atlas of the Jewish dialects, though a general classification can be made. Hopkins (1993: 67) divides the known dialects into four groups according to their structural affinities. These correspond to the following areas in the Aramaic speaking region: (1) northwest (Zakho, Amedia), (2) southwest (Arbel, Koy Sanjak, Ruwandiz), (3) northeast (Urmia and the surrounding region), (4) southeast (Iranian Kurdistan). Earlier classifications of the Jewish dialects by Y. Rivlin (1959: 80) and D. Cohen (1971, col. 948) did not recognize the distinction between the southwestern and the southeastern groups. Recent work on dialects from these regions, including my own work on the dialect of the Arbel region, has brought to light considerable differences between the dialects of the two areas.

The knowledge of Aramaic among the immigrant communities in Israel is quickly fading, especially among the younger generations, who generally are unable to speak the dialects at all. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialects, therefore, are approaching extinction. Over the last century some linguistic studies have been made of the Jewish dialects. Many of the dialects, however, still remain virtually unknown to scholarship. One such case is the dialect that was spoken by the Jews in the region of Arbel. For several months during 1991, I was able to undertake fieldwork in this dialect among the Jewish immigrants from Kurdistan who have settled in Israel. I collected some further data also during a short visit in 1994. [4]

The town of Arbel lies seventy-seven kilometers east of Mawsil in the foothills of mountains that rise to the east. There are a number of variant forms of the name Arbel. The form Arbel, which is used throughout this paper, is the Neo-Aramaic form of the name. The Arabic speaking Jews of the town refer to it as Arbil or Arwil. In classical Arabic sources it is known as Irbil. The Kurds call it Hawler, which has developed from the form Arbel by a series of metatheses of consonants.

Most of the Jews who were residents of the town of Arbel spoke Arabic as their first language. Aramaic was the vernacular of the Jews living in villages situated on the plain of Arbel (known in the dialect as dastit Arbel), which lay to the north, west and south of the town. The speakers of this dialect are sometimes referred to as "the plain dwellers" (dastakne). This was also spoken by some Jews who were resident in the town of Arbel itself, who had recently moved to the town, or had close contacts with the Aramaic speaking Jews of the plain.

The Jewish dialect of the Arbel region was spoken at the southwestern periphery of the Aramaic speaking area. In the towns of Koy Sanjak and Ruwandiz, which lie in the mountains to the east and northeast of Arbel, respectively, the Jews spoke a closely related but nevertheless clearly distinct dialect. The dialect spoken by Jews living north of the Great Zab river in the village of Dobe (about fifty km north of Arbel), in the foothills of the mountains north of the plain, should also be classified as distinct from the Arbel dialect. [5]

One feature that clearly sets apart the speech of the Jews of the Arbel plain from the other related dialects is its verbal system.

In all NENA dialects, including Jewish Arbel, the finite verbal forms of earlier Aramaic have been completely supplanted by participles, except in the imperative. The verbal forms of Jewish Arbel are derived from one of three bases, viz., present, past, and imperative. These are descended, respectively, from the active participle, the passive participle, and the imperative of earlier Aramaic. The bases of these can be represented schematically as qatil- (present), qtil- (past), and qtol- (imperative), though the actual forms vary according to the verbal root and the stem of the verb.

The present base (qatil-) is inflected with suffixes which express the subject of the verb. These derive historically from gender and number inflections of the active participle, which in the 1st and 2nd persons are combined with enclitic pronouns. The 3rd person masc. sing, has zero inflection:

3rd pers.

m. qatil

f. qatla

pl. qatli

2nd pers.

m. qatlet

f. qatlat

pl. qatletun

1st pers.

m. qatlen

f. qatlan

pl. qatlex

The agent of the past base (qtil-) is expressed by an enclitic element consisting of the preposition l- + pronominal suffix. Historically these prepositional phrases were not grammatical subjects, but rather an expression of the agent in a passive construction consisting of the passive participle and an agentive prepositional phrase, i.e., * qtil li 'it was killed by me'. This construction developed in Eastern Aramaic under the influence of the Iranian languages. [6] These prepositional phrases, however, have now taken on some grammatical properties of subjects. They are obligatorily affixed to past bases and they agree with subject nominals or independent pronouns, e.g., gora plitle 'the man went out', ?ana plitli 'I went out'. [7] The agent standing outside the verbal complex, moreover, is treated syntactically as the subject and is not expressed by an agentive phrase introduced by l-:

3rd pers.

m. qtille

f. qtilla

pl. qtillu

2nd pers.

m. qtillox

f. qtillax

pl. qtilluxun

1st pers.

sing. qtilli

pl. qtillan

The distinctive feature of the Jewish Arbel verbal system lies in the inflection and function of the present and past bases.

The past base of Jewish Arbel is inflected only with l-suffixes. This contrasts with many NENA dialects, which inflect the past base with either l-suffixes or the subject suffixes that are attached to the present base. In such dialects the use of two series of inflectional suffixes on the past base expresses distinctions in aspect or transitivity. In the Hertevin dialect (of southeastern Turkey) and Jewish Urmia, for instance, the preterite is formed by attaching l-suffixes to the past base CCiC- and the present perfect by subject suffixes, e.g., qtilli 'I killed' (preterite) vs. qtilen 'I have killed' (perfect). In some dialects the suffix attached to the past base is equivalent to that of the present copula. In the Jewish dialects of Iranian Kurdistan and in Turoyo, the preterite of transitive verbs is formed by the past base CCiC + l-suffixes, whereas the past base with enclitic subject suffixes is used with intransitives, e.g., in Kerend: plitli 'I brought out (transitive)' but plitna 'I left (intransiti ve)' (cf. Hopkins 1989b: 428). In Jewish Arbel, by contrast, the past base is inflected with l-suffixes in both transitive and intransitive verbs, in both the preterite and the perfect.

In many NENA dialects the present tense may be expressed both by forms derived from the participle base (qatil- and also by inflected forms of the infinitive. The infinitive constructions express specifically the progressive aspect. In Jewish Arbel, by contrast, present tense verbs are always derived from the qatil- base.

The lack of these features in the past and present forms of the...