(The World of Linguistics 6) Geoffrey Haig, Geoffrey Khan - The Languages and Linguistics of Western Asia - An Areal Perspective-De Gruyter (2018)
(The World of Linguistics 6) Geoffrey Haig, Geoffrey Khan - The Languages and Linguistics of Western Asia - An Areal Perspective-De Gruyter (2018)
(The World of Linguistics 6) Geoffrey Haig, Geoffrey Khan - The Languages and Linguistics of Western Asia - An Areal Perspective-De Gruyter (2018)
WOL 6
The World of Linguistics
Editor
Hans Henrich Hock
Volume 6
De Gruyter Mouton
The Languages
and Linguistics
of Western Asia
An Areal Perspective
Edited by
Geoffrey Haig
Geoffrey Khan
De Gruyter Mouton
ISBN 978-3-11-042608-3
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-042168-2
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-042174-3
www.degruyter.com
Acknowledgements
We have been very fortunate in having the assistance of various people in the prepa-
ration of this volume. In the early stages Nicholas Peterson (Bamberg) assisted
in copy-editing, later Soner Ö. Barthoma (Cambridge) copy-edited several chap-
ters, while the bulk of the final copy-editing and preparation of the indices was
undertaken by Laurentia Schreiber (Bamberg). Nils Norman Schiborr (Bamberg)
produced the maps. We gratefully acknowledge their valuable contribution to the
project.
Many thanks also to the staff at Mouton de Gruyter for their guidance and
efficiency during the long process of producing this volume: to Birgit Sievert for
organisation and support in the early phases of the project, to Barbara Karlson for
accompanying the editing process through to completion, and to Frauke Schafft
for supervising the final production of the volume.
We would also like to thank all the scholars who participated in the project for
their excellent contributions, and their enduring patience.
Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to the many anonymous speak-
ers of the languages described in this volume, who provided much of the data on
which the contributions are based. Without their interest and enthusiasm for their
own languages, we could not have produced this volume.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-201
Table of contents
1
We are very grateful to Christina van der Wal Anonby, Erik Anonby, René Lacroix and
Ludwig Paul for comments and corrections on an earlier version of this introduction.
We of course bear the responsibility for the remaining shortcomings.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-001
2
Geoffrey Haig and Geoffrey Khan
Figure 1: Approximate locations of main languages and language groups covered in this volume
Introduction 3
2
We are grateful to Ilya Yakubovich for drawing our attention to this latter volume in
preparation.
4 Geoffrey Haig and Geoffrey Khan
Within language typology, the relevance of large-scale areal units in shaping the
global distribution of typological features is increasingly emphasized. The region
under consideration here has not, however, generally been recognized to date.
Dryer’s (1992) proposal has been influential, and recognizes the following six
macro-areas (see Hammarström and Donohue 2014 for critical discussion):
• Africa
• Australia-New Guinea
• Eurasia
• North America
• Southeast Asia and Oceania
• South America
3
See e. g. http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/click/fourthAct.html.
4
It is worth pointing out that many of the regions traditionally considered to be linguistic
areas (or Sprachbünde) lack clearly identifiable borders (e. g. “the Balkans”), and are
defined in different ways by different scholars.
Introduction 5
The linguistic diversity of the region is, within the broader Eurasian context,
relatively high: four distinct language families5 are represented (Turkic, Semitic,
Indo-European, Kartvelian), and within Indo-European, four branches (Arme-
nian, Iranian, Indic, and Hellenic). But with the exception of Armenian, none of
these groupings are indigenous to the region: all the languages represent outliers
of larger groups, and have close relatives outside the immediate region. The high
level of linguistic diversity has thus arisen secondarily, as it were, through the
regionʼs location at the intersection of several large genetic groupings. This is in
stark contrast to, for example, the linguistic diversity of the Caucasus (Nicholsʼ
1992 canonical example of a “residual zone”), stemming from three indigenous
language families, all of which lack (proven) relatives outside the region itself. In
a number of publications Stilo (e. g. 2005, 2012) looks at the region centred on the
catchment of the Araxes river, considering it to be an “intersection zone”. Among
the most striking phenomena is the areal distribution of adpositional typologies,
which shift from Turkic-type postpositional, across Iranian mixed typologies, to
Semitic prepositional. Haig (2001, 2017) considers eastern Anatolia as a “transi-
tion zone”, with gradual areal shifts across a number of morphosyntactic features,
but also its own set of defining features. Among them is the common Anatolian
OVX word order pattern (where “X” refers to various kinds of non-direct object
arguments, in particular goals, addressees, and recipients, see §3.4.3 below). Like
the mixed adpositional typologies of Iranian, the OVX word order can be con-
sidered a compromise strategy between OV and VO word orders. These kinds of
typologically unusual patterns illustrate that a transition zone is not merely the
sum of the participant language families, but may develop its own profile with
typologically rare structures – rare simply because transition zones themselves
emerge only under very specific, hence globally very rarely occurring, condi-
tions. If large-scale macro-areas are relevant to understanding the distribution of
structural features, then we suggest that the transitional zones that lie between
them also merit close scrutiny, precisely because they involve the comparatively
rare areal contiguity of different language types, yielding configurations that are
unlikely to arise elsewhere.
5
We are ignoring some of the more recent arrivals to the region, such as communities of
Chechen speakers in Anatolia.
6 Geoffrey Haig and Geoffrey Khan
Two or more languages spoken in the same region may exhibit structural similari-
ties through (i) mere chance, (ii) inheritance from a common ancestor, (iii) contact
influence, or (iv) a combination of (i)–(iii). We are primarily interested in (iii), but
assigning similarities to contact influence requires caution, and should only be
undertaken after due consideration of other possible causes. First, we need to bear
in mind the histories of related languages spoken outside the region (to the extent
that they are known) in order to formulate a benchmark of comparison against
which the developments in the languages under consideration can be assessed.
As an example of how the facts from related languages can be brought to
bear in assessing contact influence, let us consider the example of North-Eastern
Neo-Aramaic (NENA) and Central Neo-Aramaic (CNA) in the region (Khan, this
volume, chapters 2.5, 3.4, and 4.4). These languages have developed ergative (or
split-intransitive) alignments with their perfective verb forms, matching a broadly
similar alignment profile in the neighbouring varieties of Kurdish. Alignment
systems have often been considered relatively immune to areal influence (Nichols
1992: 181), so in principle, the similarities between Neo-Aramaic and Kurdish
could have occurred independently, and we need solid arguments to make a case
for contact influence. In this case, evidence from the related languages, but outside
the immediate contact region, is extremely relevant. With regard to Semitic, the
Neo-Aramaic development of ergativity is unique within the Semitic language
family as a whole. It is absent in Western Neo-Aramaic in Syria, a close relative of
NENA and CNA outside of the area. This fact greatly strengthens the argument in
favour of assuming contact influence: if it were a solely language-internal devel-
opment, we might have expected traces of it within related languages outside the
geographical contact zone, but this does not seem to be the case. Furthermore,
contact between Kurdish and the Neo-Aramaic speech communities of the region
has been intense and continuous for many centuries, and there is widespread evi-
dence of borrowing in other parts of the grammar (Khan 2007), lending further
credence to the assumption of structual convergence. Considering the histories of
the respective language families is also important in order to establish the direc-
tion of influence. We know that some kind of tense-sensitive ergativity is widely
attested in Iranian languages spoken beyond the contact zone with Neo-Aramaic
(e. g. Pashto, or eastern varieties of Balochi, or Tatic, Haig 2008). Thus the sim-
plest assumption is that ergativity developed in Kurdish through inheritance from
its Iranian ancestors, while its occurrence in Neo-Aramaic is (at least in part)
Introduction 7
broken Arabic plurals borrowed from Arabic). At the other end of the spectrum,
a derivational suffix such as Turkic -či (with various vowel-harmonic variants),
meaning ‘occupation associated with the base’ (e. g. saat-či ‘watchmaker’) turns
out to be readily borrowable, and occurs in most of the languages in the region
(e. g. in the Muş dialect of Northern Kurdish mesî-čî ‘fisherman’, from Kurdish
masî ‘fish’, example from Songül Gündoğdu p.c.). The suffix -čî is perceptually
salient, affixal, and regular in form and meaning.
Finally, a useful distinction is drawn by Matras (2007) between matter borrow-
ing, and pattern borrowing. The former involves the borrowing (or copying) of
items together with the phonological substance of the donor language. A clear case
of matter borrowing is found in Turkic varieties spoken in northern Iraq, which
have borrowed a comparative suffix -tär from neighbouring Iranian languages
(Bulut, chapter 4.2, §2.3.1.4). Pattern borrowing involves the borrowing of, e. g.
the structural organization of paradigms, or the relative ordering of morphemes in
a word, or specific principles of form-meaning correspondence, but without bor-
rowing of actual phonological material. An example of pattern borrowing is m-in-
itial reduplication, where a word is reduplicated, but the initial segment replaced
by [m]: Turkish para mara ‘money and stuff’, Laz dadzi madzi ‘thorns and stuff’
(Lacroix, chapter 6.2, §3.4). This is widespread across the region (see e. g. Khan
2016, vol. 2: 99 for NENA, Haig 2001 for other languages of Anatolia). Of course
matter and pattern borrowing are not mutually exclusively. Often, pattern borrow-
ing is accompanied by phonological similarity of the items concerned, as in the
m-segment in the reduplication example just mentioned.
3.2. Phonology
A number of languages of the region have increased their consonantal inventory by
acquiring consonants from other languages by areal diffusion. A particularly clear
case of this is the spread of glottalized consonants, realized as unaspirated stops
or ejectives, across the northern sector of the region, including Armenian dialects,
Northern Kurdish dialects of eastern Anatolia and northwestern Iran, the Neo-Ar-
amaic dialects belonging to the NENA group spoken in this Northern Kurdish
area, and some languages of the Caucasian rim, such as Laz and Ossetic. In Laz
glottalization is a feature inherited from Kartvelian. In Armenian it has considera-
ble historical depth, as shown by the fact that it occurs in Classical Armenian, and
is possibly an inheritance from earlier Indo-European (Martirosyan, chapter 2.2,
§4.1), but it may well have been reinforced by the fact that it is an areal feature.
In Kurdish, Neo-Aramaic and Ossetic it is not an inherited feature and has entered
these languages by areal diffusion. This is clearly demonstrable in the case of
Kurdish and Neo-Aramaic, since dialects of these languages spoken further south
in northern Iraq and western Iran do not have glottalized consonants. The area of
glottalized consonants extends further north into the Caucasus region, where it is
Introduction 9
6
In the transcription unaspirated stops are distinguished by diacritics thus: p̂ , ṱ, k̭.
10 Geoffrey Haig and Geoffrey Khan
could then undergo further phonetic change by converging with the phonetic
features of ejectives in languages with such ejective glottalized consonants by a
“perceptual magnet effect”, as Blevins (2017) puts it. As mentioned, dialects of
Northern Kurdish (Kurmanjî) spoken in close proximity to Armenian also possess
unaspirated voiceless stops (in some dialects with ejective characteristics) in their
native lexicon. These elements are not directly inherited from Iranian, but likewise
cannot be easily explained in terms of a spread from loanwords; the number of
clearly identifiable Armenian loans in the everyday lexicon of Kurmanjî is very
small. We see, then, that the presence of perceptually salient segments in a contact
language may act as attractors in guiding the direction of internal changes.
Conversely, languages that have inherited glottalized consonants may undergo
weakening or reduction of this feature, if they are geographically isolated from lan-
guages with it. This is the case in Laz (Kartvelian), where the inherited glottalized
consonants are weakened in comparison to related Georgian (Lacroix, chapter 6.2,
§6.1), presumably due to the isolation of Laz from its Kartvelian relatives, and the
influence of neighbouring Turkish. Nevertheless, Lacroix still posits glottalized
consonants for Laz. Full loss of glottalization is apparently a rare phenomenon
in the Western Asian context. Glottalized consonants appear to be thus (a) fairly
resistant to loss, and (b) prone to spread in contact situations.
Pharyngeal and pharyngealized consonants, which are an inherited feature
of the sound inventories of Semitic languages, have spread by diffusion to some
non-Semitic languages of the region. The process of areal diffusion is not so clear-
cut as that of glottalized consonants. Several non-Semitic languages exhibit phar-
yngeals in loanwords from Arabic. Some Iranian languages, such as Kurdish and
the languages of Kordestan and Kermanshah provinces, have developed innovative
pharyngeals in native lexical items, in particular the unvoiced pharyngeal, which,
for example, is commonly found in these languages in the numeral ‘seven’ (North-
ern Kurdish, Hawrami ħaft, Central Kurdish ħawt). The Semitic inherited pharyn-
geals, unvoiced [ħ] and voiced [ʕ], are found in the Arabic dialects of the region
and in the Central Neo-Aramaic dialects of southeastern Turkey. In the NENA
dialect group situated to the east of the Tigris, however, the inherited pharyngeals
have been mostly lost, especially in many of the dialects in the eastern sector of the
NENA area in the Hakkari mountains of Turkey and northwestern Iran. The pres-
ervation of pharyngeals in Central Neo-Aramaic and their partial preservation in
some NENA dialects is likely to be conditioned by extensive contact with Arabic.
This would, therefore, be a case of language contact preserving sound patterns.
When pharyngeals occur in the aforementioned subgroup of NENA dialects these
are predominantly inherited pharyngeals in the environment of pharyngealized
consonants, e. g. Qaraqosh ṭaʿən [ˤtˤɑːʕən] ‘he bears’, pharyngeals arising from
the debuccalization of pharyngealized consonants, e. g. Jewish Sanandaj ʾaḥra
< *ʾˤaˤtˤrˤaˤ < *ʾaṯrā ‘town’, or innovative pharyngeals resulting from strength-
ening of laryngeals for functional purposes. The latter category includes cases
Introduction 11
7
Data from Matras, Yaron et al. 2016. The Dialects of Kurdish. Web resource, University
of Manchester. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/ (accessed 17 March 2018).
8
The superscribed symbol + denotes suprasegmental pharyngealization.
12 Geoffrey Haig and Geoffrey Khan
tion of dorsals in the contact languages than speakers in the north (for details see
Khan 2016: 111).
In the vowel systems of the languages of the region a clear case of areal dif-
fusion is the fronting of the high back vowel [uː] to [yː] (transcribed ü below).
Front rounded vowels are generally considered marked in comparison to back
rounded vowels. The only languages of the region to have historically inherited
front rounded vowels are the Turkic languages. Interestingly, among the lan-
guages treated in this volume which have undergone heavy contact influence from
Turkic, none are analysed as having front rounded vowels in their vowel system.
These languages include Romeyka (Schreiber, chapter 6.4), Anatolian dialects of
Arabic (Procházka, chapter 2.4, see also Jastrow 2011), Laz (Lacroix, chapter 6.2),
Northern Kurdish of Anatolia (Haig, chapter 2.3). This is particularly noteworthy
for the Arabic dialects of Siirt, Kozluk and Sason, discussed in Jastrow (2011).
Although the vowel systems (and some parts of morphosyntax) have been exten-
sively restructured under Turkish influence, they apparently do not include front
rounded vowels.
Front rounded vowels are found in the Kurdish dialects in southeastern Anato-
lia (Şemzînan) and northwestern Iran, and in the Bahdini Kurdish dialect of north-
ern Iraq. This results in a pull-chain effect whereby [oː] is raised to [uː] to fill the
gap left by the fronting of original [uː] (Haig, chapter 3.3, §4.1.2). The same pro-
cesses are found in NENA dialects that were in contact with these specific Kurdish
dialects, e. g. +Mawana: xabüša < *ḥabbūšā ‘apple’, ruqe < *rōqē ‘spittle’. The
emergence of this areal feature appears to have come about through processes
of fronting rather than under the influence of Turkic. This can result in partial
fronting outcomes. In the Christian Urmi dialect of NENA, for example, long ū is
not fully fronted but shifts to a diphthong with a palatal offglide: xabuyša ‘apple’
(Khan, chapter 2.5, §5.5.2). In this latter case the perceptual magnet of the Kurdish
front rounded vowel has resulted in only a partial convergence. In the Christian
NENA dialect of Salamas the offglide is pushed up rather than forward, and is
realized as a velar fricative x, e. g. xibuxša < *ḥabbūša ‘apple’ (Khan, chapter 2.5,
§5.5.2). This may be a strategy to create a sound pattern that is more saliently
distinct from u than uy, suggesting that it was a later internal development in this
Neo-Aramaic after a diphthong uy had arisen by contact with the Kurdish fronted
rounded vowel. Fronting may be conditioned by assimilation processes at mor-
pheme boundaries, as in Gorani dialects of western Iran: [ø] occurs in some verb
forms, e. g. [møinɨm] ([<mæ-win-ɨm < *mæ-bin-ɨm], ‘I see’, Mahmoudveysi et al.
2012: 11). An exceptional case of the emergence of front rounded vowels by diffu-
sion from Turkish is Asia Minor Greek of Cappadoccia (not treated in this volume,
see Dawkins 1916), which is frequently cited as a language exhibiting exception-
ally high levels of influence from Turkish. Turkic languages that have been heavily
influenced by Iranian languages, on the other hand, have often lost at least some of
their front rounded vowels. The most extensive loss is found in Turkic varieties in
14 Geoffrey Haig and Geoffrey Khan
Iran and the southernmost varieties of Iraq Turkic, Mandali and Khanaqin. Bulut
(chapter 3.5, §2.1.2.3, chapter 4.2, §2.1.2.1) gives examples of the shift of the front
rounded vowels /ü/ and /ö/ to their unrounded counterparts /i/ and /e/ (or [ie]), such
as /sit/ < süt ‘milk’, and [Ieːz] < öz ‘self, own’, or [dek-] < dök- ‘to pour’.
The backing of the vowel a is a feature that has diffused across several lan-
guages in the Anatolian region. In Central Neo-Aramaic spoken in the area of Ṭūr
ʿAbdīn all historical long a vowels have the quality of o, e. g. Ṭuroyo: ḥmoro ‘ass’
(< *ḥmārā). This is a feature also of modern Western Aramaic dialects spoken in
Syria (Arnold 2011) and can be traced to a considerable time depth in Aramaic
in the Levant and other ancient Semitic languages of this region, such as Phoe-
nician and Hebrew. It is likely to have diffused to Central Neo-Aramaic dialects
of Turkey from the Levant at an early period. NENA dialects that were spoken in
Turkey adjacent to Central Neo-Aramaic exhibit some degree of convergence with
this vowel typology. In some NENA dialects of the Bohtan area long a in stressed
syllables shifts to o, e. g. Ruma xmóra ‘ass’ (< *ḥmārā). This may be explained as
the perceptual coupling of long ā in NENA with long ō in Central Neo-Aramaic in
salient stressed syllables but not in non-salient syllables. In other NENA dialects
of the Bohtan cluster, such as Hertevin, a long a is realized as a back [ɑː], i. e.
with a lesser degree of convergence with ō. In Armenian dialects an a shifts to ɔ
in stressed syllables in the area of Cilicia and even to the high vowel u in Svedia
(Martirosyan, chapter 2.2, §6.1). In Kurdish dialects of the area of Mardin a low
central unrounded [aː] of Standard Kurdish is retracted to [ɑː] and, in dialects
further west, has the quality of [ɔː] (Haig, chapter 2.3, §3.1.2).
Although the diffusion of the backing and rounding of ā is not a general feature
of the sound systems of NENA dialects, it can be identified in the paradigm of
the possessive suffixes in all dialects, where it has been exploited as a strategy of
distinguishing otherwise homophonous suffixes. The 2fs suffix is -ax. The histor-
ical form of the 2ms suffix is *-āx and by the normal process of historical pho-
nology the reflex of this in the modern NENA dialects should have been -ax, i. e.
a homophone of the 2fs suffix. In order to resolve this homophony the long *ā of
the historical 2ms form *-āx shifts to /o/, which results in the maintenance of the
distinction between the 2ms -ox and 2fs -ax in the paradigm. This shift of *ā > /o/
in the 2ms suffix -ox, which, as remarked, is not a general feature of all NENA
dialects, can be identified as a convergence with the phonology of neighbouring
languages that is motivated by the needs of the morphological system.9 In such
cases the areal feature is activated beyond the area of general diffusion to enrich
the possibilities of making distinctions between linguistic forms. Another example
of this phenomenon can possibly be identified in the limited diffusion of pharyn-
geals in Kurdish, where its sporadic use in native words in some cases appears
9
Cf. the work of Malkiel (1968, 1976) on the morphological motivations for “irregular”
sound changes in Romance.
Introduction 15
3.3. Morphosyntax
itself is obscure, but it seems likely that the development of systematic marking
of definiteness, otherwise rare in Iranian, was influenced by contact with Arabic,
which generally employs definiteness marking. The languages to the north of the
region lack definiteness markers (Ossetic, Iranian languages of the Caspian, Laz,
NENA dialects in the area of Northern Kurdish). Romeyka, Armenian and Central
Neo-Aramaic, however, have inherited morphological markers of definiteness. A
‘definiteness isogloss’ across the region as a whole thus cannot be drawn, but a
general tendency is that the languages to the southeast of the region are more likely
to mark definiteness than those northward of Lake Van.
10
For a detailed treatment of this process see Gutman (2018).
18 Geoffrey Haig and Geoffrey Khan
Iranian languages of the region. We may surmise that copular constructions are
particularly prone to contact influence due to their omnipresence in everyday com-
munication (e. g. in utterances such as ‘what’s this?’, or ‘that’s mine’, ‘he’s at
home’ etc.), and are presumably among the earliest utterance types to be acquired
in multi-lingual settings.
11
The position of pronominal objects in Kumzari is noteworthy because it violates Green-
berg’s Universal number 25, according to which if pronominal objects follow the verb,
then nominal objects likewise do. A possible account might run as follows: the pronom-
inal objects of Kumzari basically appear in the position of the clitic object pronouns
of many West Iranian languages, including Persian, namely immediately following the
verb, or the light verb complement if the verb is a complex predicate, cf. examples
(4) and (5) in van der Wal Anonby (chapter 4.7). Furthermore, the object pronouns of
Kumzari show obvious phonological similarities to the clitic pronouns of other West
Iranian languages. What appears to have happened is that the erstwhile object clitic
pronouns have developed into free pronouns, but have retained their position to the
right of their former hosts. Such a development (clitic pronoun > free pronoun) is obvi-
ously unusual, but given that Greenberg’s Universal 25 is a fairly robust generalization,
violations presumably require exceptional circumstances such as very heavy contact
influence.
Introduction 23
opposite direction (see Gell-Mann and Ruhlen 2011 for a recent statement to this
effect).
3.4.3. OVG (direct object – verb – goal) word order in the region
While word-order typology has focussed on the position of direct objects relative
to the verb, the position of other verbal arguments relative to the verb has received
much less attention (see Hawkins 2008 for discussion). The implicit assumption
is that generally, all objects will occur on the same side of the verb, thus in VO
languages we can expect indirect objects etc. to be post-verbal, and in OV lan-
guages we expect them to be pre-verbal. Languages that violate this expectation
are quite rare, and interestingly, generally appear to be OV languages (Hawkins
2008). A relatively well-known example is Mande (generally classifed as Niger-
Congo, West Africa), where adpositional arguments follow, while direct objects
precede the verb (Nikitina 2011).
In the Western Asian context, a similar phenomenon occurs in the majority of
OV languages: constituents expressing goals of verbs of movement, or of caused
movement (‘put’, ‘place’ etc.) overwhelmingly follow the verb, yielding a char-
acteristic OVG (G=Goal) order across much of the region (Haig 2014b, 2017, to
appear). The generalization that can be drawn is the following:
(18) Phrases expressing goals of verbs of motion and caused motion are
post-verbal, irrespective of the position of the direct object in the
language concerned.
For the VO languages of the region, e. g. the Arabic dialects west of the Tigris
(Procházka, chapter 2.4), this yields an unremarkable and harmonic word order, in
which all manner of verbal complements follow the verb. The following example
from Mosul Arabic illustrates the post-verbal position of a goal (‘to.house’), and
of an indirect object (‘some apples’):
(19) qabǝl-mā y-ġōḥ ʕa-l-bēt ə
štaġa təffāḥ
before-prtcl 3 sg . m -go.ipfv to-def -house buy.pfv .3 sg . m apples.coll
‘Before he went home he bought some apples.’ (Procházka,
chapter 2.4, ex. 29)
In OV languages, however, (18) leads to a disharmonic order, with direct objects
preceding, but goals following the verb. This is illustrated in (20), from the Jewish
Sanandaj dialect of NENA. The direct object ‘one cow’ of ‘buy’ precedes the verb,
while the goal of ‘bring’ follows the verb:
24 Geoffrey Haig and Geoffrey Khan
after the verb (Haig, to appear), but dialects of Northern Kurdish further north put
addressees of ‘tell’ in front of the verb (cf. Haig, chapter 2.3, Fig. 5). Stilo (2010)
notes for a dialect of Vafsi (Tati, see also Stilo, this volume, chapter 5) that recip-
ients of ‘give’ are overwhelmingly post-verbal, while addressees of ‘say, tell’ are
overwhelmingly pre-verbal.
Although we lack detailed syntactic analysis for many of the languages in this
volume, it is nevertheless possible to formulate some provisional conclusions with
regard to post-verbal constituents. Firstly, they are predominant in the region of
northern Iraq, western Iran, and southeastern Anatolia. The extent and frequency
of post-verbal constituents fades out as one progresses northward and eastward.
In Ossetic and Laz, the phenomenon is only marginal. In spoken Persian they are
very common, but not grammatically obligatory (Haig 2017), and further eastward
(e. g. the easternmost dialects of Balochi, or in East Iranian languages, for example
the Wakhi texts in Obrtelová 2017), they are scarce. Second, there appears to be a
hierarchy of post-posability, approximately as follows:
(24) H ierarchy of post - posability in OV languages of W estern A sia
( those to the left are most frequently post - posed )
goals of (caused) motion > recipients of ‘give’ > addressees of ‘tell’ >
other
More generally, the wide distribution of OVG order (in Iranian, some of Neo-Ar-
amaic, and Turkic) suggests that goal arguments are comparatively susceptible to
“synchronization” with a contact language, leading to a common ordering, while
the linear placement of direct objects is more resistant to change (see Haig 2014b).
post-verbal relative clauses, and this is even found in Iran Turkic, where generally
patterns of subordination have moved closer to the Iranian type (see Khan, chap-
ters 2.1 and 4.1 for an overview of subordination). Ossetic has the most complex
patterns of subordination, and has also pre-verbal participial relative-like construc-
tions (see the nominalized verb ‘go’ in the Ossetic relative clause in (23) above),
perhaps reflecting a shift from the original post-verbal Iranian type towards the
pre-verbal pattern in the Caucasus. Laz is generally head-final in this respect,
again reflecting the overall trend for the languages to the north of the region to
adhere more closely to a consistent head-final type.
References
Arnold, Werner. 2011. Western Neo-Aramaic. In Stefan Weninger, Geoffrey Khan, Michael
Streck & Janet Watson (eds.), The Semitic languages: An international handbook, 685–
696. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Belleli, Sara. 2016. A study on language and folklore in the city of Harsin (Kermānshāh
Province, West Iran). Sketch grammar with texts and lexicon. Naples: University of
Naples dissertation.
Bickel, Balthasar, Johanna Nichols, Taras Zakharko, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, Kristine
Hildebrandt, Michael Rießler, Lennart Bierkandt, Fernando Zúñiga & John B. Lowe.
2017. The AUTOTYP typological databases. Version 0.1.0 https://github.com/autotyp/
autotyp-data/tree/0.1.0 (accessed 15 December 2017).
Blevins, Juliette. 2017. Areal sound patterns: From perceptual magnets to stone soup. In
Raymond Hickey (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of areal linguistics, 88–121. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Butts, Aaron (ed.). 2015. Semitic languages in contact. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Chirikba, Viacheslav A. 2008. The problem of the Caucasian Sprachbund. In Pieter Muys-
ken (ed.), From linguistic areas to areal linguistics, 25–94. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:
Benjamins.
Dawkins, Richard. 1916. Modern Greek in Asia Minor. A study of the dialects of Sílli, Cap-
padocia and Phárasa, with grammar, texts, translation and glossary. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Dryer, Matthew S. 1988. Universal of negative position. In Michael Hammond, Edith
Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology, 93–124. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68(1). 81–
138.
Dum-Tragut, Jasmine. 2009. Armenian. (London Oriental and African Language Library,
14). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Fattah, Ismaïl Kamandâr. 2000. Les dialectes kurdes méridionaux: étude linguistique et
dialectologique. (Acta Iranica, 37). Leuven: Peeters.
Frommer, Paul. 1981. Post-verbal phenomena in colloquial Persian syntax. Los Angeles:
University of Southern California dissertation.
Gandon, Ophélie. 2016. La relativisation dans une perspective areale: lʼaire Caucase – Ana-
tolie de lʼest – Iran de lʼouest. Paris: Universite Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3 dissertation.
Gell-Mann, Murray & Merritt Ruhlen. 2011. The origin and evolution of word order. Pro-
ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108(42).
17290–17295.
Grawunder, Sven. 2017. The Caucasus. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The Cambridge hand-
book in areal linguistics, 356–395. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Güldemann, Tom. 2018. Areal linguistics beyond contact, and linguistic areas in Afrabia. In
Tom Güldemann (ed.), The languages and linguistics of Africa. (The World of Linguis-
tics, 11), 448–545. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Gutman, Ariel. 2018. Attributive Constructions in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic. Studies in
Diversity Linguistics 15. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2001. Linguistic diffusion in present-day east Anatolia: From top to bot-
tom. In Robert Dixon & Alexandra Aikhenvald (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic in-
28 Geoffrey Haig and Geoffrey Khan
Malkiel, Yakov. 1976. Multi-conditioned sound change and the impact of morphology on
phonology. Language 52. 757–778.
Matras, Yaron. 2002. Kurmanji complementation: Semantic-typological aspects in an areal
perspective. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung / Language typology and lan-
guage universals 55(1). 49–63.
Matras, Yaron. 2007. The borrowability of structural categories. In Yaron Matras & Jeanette
Sakel (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective, 31–73. Berlin &
Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Matras, Yaron. 2012. A grammar of Domari. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Nikitina, Tatiana. 2011. Categorial reanalysis and the origin of S-O-V-X order in Mande.
Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 32. 251–273.
Obrtelová, Jaroslava. 2017. Narrative structures of Wakhi oral stories. Uppsala: Studia
Iranica Upsaliensia.
Stilo, Donald L. 2005. Iranian as buffer zone between the universal typologies of Turkic
and Semitic. In Éva Ágnes Csató, Bo Isaksson & Carina Jahani (eds.), Linguistic con-
vergence and areal diffusion: Case studies from Iranian, Semitic and Turkic, 35–63.
London & New York: Routledge Curzon.
Stilo, Donald L. 2010. Ditransitive constructions in Vafsi: A corpus-based study. In An-
drej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Studies in ditransitive
constructions: A comparative handbook, 243–276. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter
Mouton.
Stilo, Donald L. 2012. Intersection zones, overlapping isoglosses, and ‘Fade- out/Fade-in’
phenomena in Central Iran. In Behrad Aghaei & M. R. Ghanoonparvar (eds.), Iranian
languages and culture: Essays in honor of Gernot Ludwig Windfuhr, 3–33. Costa Mesa:
Mazda.
Testelec, Yakov. 1998. Word order in Kartvelian languages. In Anna Siewierska (ed.), Con-
stituent order in the languages of Europe, 235–256. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mou-
ton.
Weninger, Stefan, Geoffrey Khan, Michael Streck & Janet Watson (eds.). 2011. The Semitic
languages: An international handbook. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Windfuhr, Gernot (ed.). 2009. The Iranian languages. London & New York: Routledge
Curzon.
2. Eastern Anatolia and northwestern Iran
2.1. Eastern Anatolia and northwestern Iran:
overview
Geoffrey Khan
The languages covered by the chapters in this section include the Indo-European
languages Armenian and Kurdish and the Semitic languages Arabic and Neo-Ar-
amaic. The varieties of Turkic spoken in the region are treated in Section 4 of this
volume, devoted to western Iran (Bulut, this volume, chapter 4.2). The current
chapter describes the language situation that existed at the beginning of the 20th
century. Some components of the language situation have undergone major changes
since this period. This applies in particular to Armenian and Neo-Aramaic, which
are now spoken only by small isolated communities in the Republic of Turkey. At
the beginning of the 20th century Armenian was spoken throughout the region and
Neo-Aramaic was spoken in numerous communities in southeastern Turkey from
the region of Ṭūr ʿAbdīn (Mardin) eastwards. The language situation of the region
had undergone various evolutions also at earlier periods. Armenian and Neo-Ara-
maic have deeper historical roots, which predate the arrival of Arabic, Kurdish and
Turkic languages. All the languages of the region in the modern period exhibit a
considerable diversity of dialects. The numerous dialects of Armenian are broadly
divided into western and eastern Armenian, with the boundary between the two
coinciding roughly with the border between eastern Turkey and Armenia and Iran.
The Kurdish dialects belong to the northern variety of the language known as
Kurmanji and this can be divided into various subgroups according to geograph-
ical area. The Neo-Aramaic dialects fall into the Central Neo-Aramaic subgroup
spoken west of the Tigris river and the North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) sub-
group spoken east of the Tigris. The Arabic dialects are divided into the eastern,
sedentary-type dialects (often called qǝltu dialects, from the form qǝltu ‘I spoke’,
which is a distinctive feature of this group), and the western Bedouin type of dia-
lects.
Numerous contact-induced convergences can be identified in the languages
described here. A selection of these are noted in this introductory chapter. The
languages are attested in a wide range of dialects, classifiable into a variety of
geographical subgroups, and so shared areal features generally relate to specific
areas of the wider region.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-002
32 Geoffrey Khan
1. Phonology
the Mardin area, where as just indicated, also pharyngeal consonants have devel-
oped, it seems in association with the pharyngealization of the consonants (Haig,
chapter 2.3, §2.1.2). In the NENA dialects in the eastern half of the region, the
original pharyngealization of the consonantal segments has developed into a
suprasegmental feature that takes a whole word as its domain. In the Christian
dialects where this suprasegmental feature develops, an original pharyngealized
stop ṭ [ˁt] becomes reanalyzed as an unaspirated stop ṱ, which is faciliated by the
existence of unaspirated unvoiced stops in their phoneme inventories.
1.4. h>x
The shift of the laryngeal h > x is a characteristic of the Armenian dialects of the
Van and Urmi areas. In the variety of the Christian Urmi NENA dialect spoken
in Armenia a historical h is shifts to the velar fricative /x/ under the influence of
a similar shift in the Armenian dialects of the region, e. g. xada ‘thus’ (< hada).
1.5. Palatalization
Palatalization of dorsals is found throughout the region. In NENA the process is
particularly common in the southeast of the region and is most advanced in the
Christian Urmi dialect, in which the stops *k and *g shift without conditioning to
affricates č [ʧh] and j [ʤ]. Parallels to such advanced palatalization can be found
in the Azeri Turkic and Kurdish dialects of the Urmi region. In the NENA Chris-
tian Urmi dialect there is complete palatalization of *k in some words resulting in
y, e. g. *dukta > *duyta ‘place.’ A parallel to this can be found in the Armenian
dialects of the Urmi area, in which unaspirated k and g become y and aspirated
k becomes hy before syllable-initial consonants (Martirosyan, chapter 2.2, §6.6).
Kurdish dialects in the Şemzînan area exhibit a lesser degree of palatalization of the
stops g and k, which are realized with a palatal offglide preceding front or central
unrounded vowels, e. g. Standard Kurdish [kɨraːs], Şemzînan [kʸɨraːs] ‘robe’.
1.6. Rhotics
In the Kurdish dialects of the region two types of rhotic are found, viz. trills [r] or
flaps [ɾ]. These can contrast when not in word-initial position, e. g. [pɨr] ‘much’ vs.
[pɨɾ] ‘bridge’ (Haig, chapter 2.3, §2.2). In NENA dialects of the region rhotics are
likewise either trills or flaps, which can contrast. The trills, which are pronounced
with greater muscular tension, are typically also pharyngealized. In some of the
NENA dialects of the Tyare area, in addition to the non-pharyngealized flap and
the pharyngealized trill a non-pharyngealized retroflex ɻ has developed, resulting
in a three-way rhotic opposition, e. g. Ashitha: paɻa ‘layer of dust’, para ‘orna-
mental coin’, paṛa ‘lamb’.
34 Geoffrey Khan
1.7. a>o
The backing of the vowel a is a feature that is shared by many of the languages
in the western area of the region. In Armenian dialects an a shifts to ɔ in stressed
syllables in the area of Cilicia and even to the high vowel u in Svedia (Marti-
rosyan, chapter 2.2, §6.1). In Kurdish dialects of the area of Mardin a low central
unrounded [aː] of Standard Kurdish is retracted to [ɑː] and, in dialects further
west, has the quality of [ɔː] (Haig, chapter 2.3, §3.1.2). In some NENA dialects of
the Bohtan area long a in non-final open syllables shifts to o, e. g. Ruma xmóra
‘donkey’ (< *ḥmārā). In other NENA dialects of the Bohtan cluster, such as Herte-
vin, a long a is realized as a back [ɑː]. In Central Neo-Aramaic spoken further west
in the area of Ṭūr ʿAbdīn all historical long a vowels have the quality of o, e. g.
Ṭuroyo: ḥmoro ‘ass’ (< *ḥmārā).
1.9. w>x
In many Armenian dialects of eastern areas of the region the w of the diphthong
aw shifts to x by a process of fortition before a dental stop or affricate, e. g. eawt‘n
‘seven’ > Mełri ɔ́xtə (Martirosyan, chapter 2.2, §5.1). This process in Armenian
may have been a factor in the fortition of the offglide of long u to x in some NENA
dialects of the area, e. g. Christian Salamas xibuxša < *ḥabbūša ‘apple’ (Khan,
chapter 2.5, §5.5.2).
Eastern Anatolia and northwestern Iran: overview 35
2. Morphology
2.1. Pronouns
A salient feature of the Anatolian Arabic qǝltu dialects is occurrence of n in several
plural pronouns and pronominal inflections of common gender. In such forms one
would expect m, which is a feature of the masc. plural pronouns in other Arabic
dialects and Old Arabic, e. g. Mardin hənne (3 cpl independent pronoun), -hən
(3 cpl pronominal suffix), ʾəntən (2 cpl independent pronoun), -kən (2 cpl pronom-
inal suffix). It is likely that these were influenced by the form of the corresponding
pronouns in the Neo-Aramaic dialects of the area, which contain n, e. g. Ṭuroyo
(Mardin area) hənne (3 cpl independent pronoun), NENA Hertevin (Bohtan area)
ʾaḥniton (2 cpl independent pronoun), -eḥon (2 cpl pronominal suffix) (Khan,
chapter 2.5, §6.1).
In the Kurdish of the region demonstrative constructions typically consist of a
demonstrative pronoun before a noun and a postposed deictic clitic, e. g. ew-deft-
er=e ‘this book’, ev-defter=e ‘that book’. (Haig, chapter 2.3, §2.2.3). The clitic
may also be attached directly to a demonstrative pronoun when it is used inde-
pendently, e. g. ew-e ‘this one’. This pattern may have influenced the demonstra-
tive constructions in Central Neo-Aramaic, which consists of a preposed definite
article (originally an anaphoric pronoun) and a postposed demonstrative suffix,
e. g. ʾu-malk-ano ‘this king’ (Khan, chapter 2.5, §6.1.).
In most of the Kurdish dialects of the region there are near deixis and far deixis
demonstratives, which are distinguish by the contrast of /v/ and /w/, viz. ev (near
deixis), ew (far deixis). In the Şemzînan area the [v] and [w] are not phonologi-
cally distinct and so there is only one demonstrative, viz. ew. Near deixis is dis-
tinguished by attaching the deictic clitic, e. g. ew-defter=e ‘this book’, ew-defter
‘that book’, ew-e ‘this one’, ew ‘that one’. These constructions and the phonetic
shape of the demonstratives have close replicas in some NENA dialects of the
area, which are innovative and have most likely developed by a process of con-
vergence with Kurdish, e. g. Ashitha ʾawwa (< ʾaw-ha) ‘this one’, ʾaw ‘that one’
(anaphoric). The forms have Aramaic etymologies but have taken on the phonetic
shape of the corresponding Kurdish forms. The same applies to the qəltu Arabic
dialect of Siirt, in which near deixis demonstratives have an innovative form as
a result of convergence with the phonetic shape of Kurmanji, e. g. āva < *hāḏā
(Jastrow 1978, 1: 108).
Some NENA and Arabic dialects of the region have three types of deixis, viz.
(i) near to speaker, (ii) near to hearer, (iii) far from both speaker and hearer, e. g.
NENA Ashitha (i) ʾawwa, (ii) ʾaw, (iii) ʾawaha, Arabic Daragözü (Jastrow 1978,
1: 109) (i) āza, (ii) āk, (iii) ukkā́ . The hearer deixis form (ii) functions also as an
anaphoric pronoun. The far deixis form (iii) is formed by adding a deictic suffix
–ha. In the case of the NENA Ashitha (iii) form, this clitic is added to the (i) form,
36 Geoffrey Khan
which already has a deictic clitic, resulting in the accumulation of two suffixes
(ʾawaha < ʾaw-ha-ha). This three-way distinction of demonstratives is found in
Eastern Armenian (Dum-Tragut 2009: 129–130) and also in some Kurmanji dia-
lects in northern Iraq, which resemble closely the three-way set of NENA demon-
stratives cited above, e. g. Kurmanji of Amedia: awa ‘this’, aw ‘that (anaphoric),
awēhē ‘that over there’ (MacKenzie 1961: 82, 174). Bedir Khan and Lescot (1968:
224) also mention the additional demonstrative particle ha / he, which attaches
to a noun modified by a demonstrative, following the postposed clitic mentioned
above: ev jinik=a ha ‘this woman’.
2.2.2. Adjectives
In many of the Arabic dialects of the region a noun and its attributive adjective are
combined in a genitive-type construction, which is shown by the fact that a defi-
nite head noun does not have the article (Procházka, chapter 2.4, §4.2).
38 Geoffrey Khan
(9) Mardin
bǝnt ǝl-ǝkwayys-e
girl def -beautiful-f
‘the beautiful girl’
This is an innovation in Arabic which is likely to have developed by convergence
with Kurdish, in which a noun is regularly linked to an adjective by the relative/
genitive ezafe particle, e. g.
(10) bajar-ek-î mezin
town-indef - ez . m big
‘a big town’
Some features of the syntax of adjectives in Kurdish appear to have had an impact
on NENA constructions. The use of independent ezafe particles to add additional
dependents to a head noun and to nominalize an adjective have parallels in NENA,
in which a demonstrative pronoun stands in the position of the ezafe, e. g.
(11) Kurdish
bra-yê min ê mezin
brother-ez . m 1sg . obl ez . m big
‘my older brother’
(12) C. Urmi (Khan 2016, 2: 49)
brāt-malca ʾe +
ɟurta
daughter-king dem . fs . big
‘The elder daughter of the king’
2.3. Prepositions
Some grammaticalization pathways of nouns to prepositions that are found in
Kurdish have been replicated in NENA, e. g.
Kurdish: ser ‘head’ li ser ‘on, upon’
NENA (C. Urmi): riša ‘head’ b-rīš ‘on, upon’
Eastern Anatolia and northwestern Iran: overview 39
1
Matras (2010: 75) considers the parallels among the languages discussed here to be the
result of a common grammaticalization pathway, suggesting that the prefixes “usually
derive from a preposition indicating location or similarity”. This appears unlikely for
the languages of Anatolia, but note that the etymology of the Kurdish indicative prefix
di-, or the functionally equivalent forms da-, a- in other varieties of Kurdish, has not yet
been satisfactorily resolved.
40 Geoffrey Khan
guages, such as Arabic, the progressive is still the basic function of the form. In
most languages the aspectual range has been extended to habitual as well as pro-
gressive (e. g. Ṭuroyo, Kurmanji and many western Armenian dialects). In these
languages a progressive is sometimes specifically marked by additional particles,
e. g. Ṭuroyo kal-ko-nošəq ‘he is kissing’, or in some cases by repeating the parti-
cle, e. g. Armenian Zeyt‘un gɔ g-aṙnum ‘I am taking’. In Southeastern Kurmanji
(Bahdini) a progressive is expressed by combining the present with an ezafe par-
ticle, which functions as a copula in these dialects, e. g. yê di-hêt ‘he is coming’.
In Armenian, Neo-Aramaic and Arabic the irrealis subjunctive is expressed
by the verb without a preverbal particle, whereas in Kurmanji the subjunctive is
expressed by a dedicated particle.
In the eastern Armenian dialects in the east of the region the indicative present
is expressed by other types of constructions, mostly consisting of an infinitive
(sometimes in the locative case), participle or verbal noun and the copula (Mar-
tirosyan, chapter 2.2, §4.2). In NENA dialects east of Bohtan, such constructions
based on the infinitive are used to express the progressive, constructions with the
preverbal particle being largely restricted to the habitual. In the far east of the
region, in northwestern Iran, the usage of constructions based on the infinitive are
extended to include the habitual, in some cases as an alternative to the habitual
expressed by a construction with a preverbal particle, e. g. Christian Urmi, and
in some cases as the regular form for both progressive and habitual, e. g. Jewish
Salamas. The distribution of the construction in the Jewish Salamas NENA dialect,
therefore, exhibits the greatest convergence with eastern Armenian dialects. The
indicative construction based on the copula and infinitive is found also in north-
west Iranian languages belonging to the Caspian and Tatic groups (see Stilo, this
volume, chapter 5) in adjacent areas in the Caspian region in northern Iran and
southern Azerbaijan, where eastern Armenian dialects were also spoken. In some
cases, this is the general construction for the indicative, e. g. North Talyshi (Tatic),
in other cases it has specifically a progressive sense, e. g. Harzani, Kalāsuri
(Caspian) (Stilo, this volume, chapter 5, §6.5.1.3). Preverbal particles are used to
form the indicative in north-west Iranian languages spoken further south (Stilo,
this volume, chapter 5, §6.5.1.1). Standard Turkish spoken in the Republic of
Turkey expresses the progressive by locative constructions based on the infinitive,
but the various non-standard Turkic vernaculars of the region do not exhibit this
feature (Bulut, this volume, chapter 4.2, §2.3.3.2).
In some Armenian dialects other constructions are used to express the pro-
gressive, such as possessive constructions with the verb ‘to have’ (Martirosyan,
chapter 2.2, §4.2.), parallels for which can be found in north-west Iranian lan-
guages (Stilo, this volume, chapter 5, §6.5.8).
Eastern Anatolia and northwestern Iran: overview 41
2.5.2. Future
The future tense is expressed by a preverbal particle in most languages of the
region. In the Arabic qəltu dialects this is ta-. In Ṭuroyo (Central Neo-Aramaic)
the future is expressed by a preverbal particle with various allomorphs (g, k, gd,
kt), all of which derive historically from a particle with the form *gəd (Jastrow
1985: 148–149). This can also express habitual aspect. In Mlaḥso (Central
Neo-Aramaic) the future particle has the form d-, which is likely to be related
(Jastrow 1994: 52). It is likely that the alveolar element t/d in these forms is a
subordinating particle. In NENA dialects of the region the future preverbal par-
ticle has the form bəd-, which is often contracted to b- or, before vowels, p̂ ṱ- ṱ.
In Kurmanji Kurdish the future is expressed by the preverbal particle (d)ê or wê
followed by the verb with a subjunctive prefix bi- (though in the southeastern
dialects of Kurmanji, the verb lacks this prefix in the future tenses). The Arabic
ta- is derived from the purpose particle *ḥattā ‘so that, in order that’. The NENA
future particle appears to be derived from the volitive expression *bāʿē d- ‘wants
to’. The Kurmanji future marker dê/wê is likely to be a fossilized third singular
form of the verb vîyan / -vê- ‘be necessary, desirable’, still used in many dialects
to express ‘want’, cf. Sorani awē, southeastern varieties of Kurmanji dɨvê(t). A
parallel to the Ṭuroyo future can be identified in the expression ga d- (< *ka d-)
to express the imminent future (‘about to’), which is used in NENA dialects in
northern Iraq (Khan 2008: 583–584) and some of the dialects of Anatolia.
In Standard Kurmanji the future particle dê/wê etc. can be combined with a
negated subjunctive form of the verb to express negated future. However, in the
varieties of Kurmanji spoken in Şemzînan and northern Iraq, this is not possible.
Instead, a negated form of the indicative is used to express the negated future. The
lack of a future particle in negative future constructions is the norm in the qəltu
Arabic dialects (Jastrow 1978, 1: 313) and the NENA dialects.
In some of the languages of the area future verb forms may also be used to
express the habitual aspect. This is the case in Ṭuroyo, NENA and the Kurmanji
dialects in the southeast of the region (known as Badini).
2.5.3. Perfect
The perfect is formed in Arabic qəltu dialects and in Ṭuroyo Neo-Aramaic by
combining a deictic/presentative particle with the past perfective form (Procházka,
chapter 2.4, §3.3; Khan, chapter 2.5, §7). The particle is typically the same, or
similar to, the one used with present verbs to express the present indicative or
present progressive and is a reduced form of a 3 s deictic copula, e. g. Arabic Āzəx
kū-ṣərtu ‘I have become’ (Jastrow 1978, 1: 307), Ṭuroyo ko-qayəm ‘he has arisen’.
Armenian and the NENA dialects east of Bohtan express the perfect by a par-
ticiple and copula. In Armenian this is a perfect participle, e. g. Eastern Armenian
42 Geoffrey Khan
gnac’el em (go.prf . ptcp cop .1 s ) ‘I have gone’ (Dum-Tragut 2009: 222), in NENA
it is expressed by a participle that functions as both a resultative and perfect parti-
ciple, e. g. Christian Urmi xišə-vən (go.res . ptcp cop .1 ms ) ‘I have gone’. In some
Armenian dialects the construction with the perfect participle has come to express
the perfect, Kakʻavaberd (eastern Armenian), xəmal əm ‘I drank’. In Kakʻavaberd
the perfect is now formed by a construction with a resultative participle (Muradyan
1967: 139).
The perfect in Standard Kurmanji appears to be a hybrid between these two
strategies. Most of the paradigm of Standard Kurmanji looks like a simple past
combined with a present 3 s copula, e. g. hat-im-e (come.pst -1 s - cop .3 s ) ‘I have
come’ (cf. hatim ‘I came’) but the 3 s form looks more like a perfect participle +
copula hatiy-e ‘he has come’ (cf. hat ‘he came’) (Thackston 2006: 53).
In Southeastern Kurmanji dialects the perfect is formed by a combination of
the ezafe particle with a past participle, e. g. yê hatî (ez . ms come.pst . ptcp ) ‘he has
come’. In such dialects the ezafe functions as a copula, so this is equivalent to the
strategy of combining the participle with a copula.
The Mlaḥso dialect of Central Neo-Aramaic and the NENA dialects of the
Bohtan area express the perfect by attaching to a past stem a set of person suf-
fixes that are characteristic of the inflection of the present, e. g. Ruma (Bohtan):
qəm-la (perfective < qim rise. pst - erg .3 fs ) ‘she stood up’, qim-a (perfect: qim
rise. pst - direct .3 fs ) ‘she has stood up’; cf. qem-a (present: stand.prs - direct .3 fs )
‘she stands up’.
The western Bedouin subgroup of Arabic dialects express the perfect by
the active participle, which is a common strategy across many Arabic dialects
(Procházka, chapter 2.4, §3.3).
The languages of the region use the perfect not only to express events from
a reference point of the present (resultative or anterior) but also to express the
evidential.
2.6. Copula
All the languages of the region express the copula by an enclitic that is attached
to the predicate. In the Indo-European languages, Armenian and Kurmanji, the
copula is verbal in origin, though phonetically reduced to little more than person
markers. In the Semitic languages, Arabic and Neo-Aramaic, the copula is pro-
nominal in origin. In Arabic the enclitic copula is found specifically in the qəltu
dialects, which share many other areal features with contact languages. In these
qəltu dialects the copula is clearly pronominal (Procházka, chapter 2.4, §4.1). Also
in Central Neo-Aramaic (Ṭuroyo and Mlaḥso) the enclitic copula is clearly pro-
nominal. In NENA dialects, however, the copula reflects some feature of verbal
inflection, which is an innovation that has presumably developed by convergence
with the verbal copulas of Kurmanji and Armenian.
Eastern Anatolia and northwestern Iran: overview 43
In addition to the enclitic copula, qəltu Arabic and Neo-Aramaic also have
deictic copulas, which draw attention to an entity or a situation. These typi-
cally consist of a deictic pronominal element and an enclitic copula, e. g. Arabic
(Kəndērīb) kūwe (< k + uwe) (Jastrow 1978, 1: 139), NENA Ashitha hole (<
ha-ʾaw=ile) ‘there it is him, there he is’. In Ṭuroyo it consists of an object pronoun
rather than an enclitic copula, e. g. kalé ‘see him, there he is’.
In the Southeastern Kurmanji dialects (Bahdini) the ezafe, originally a relative/
attributive particle, has come to be used as a copula. Unlike the enclitic copulas
just described, the ezafe copula is placed before the predicate, sometimes in an
independent form, e. g. Ergin yê bərsî ‘Ergin is hungry’. This appears to have
developed first in affirmative contingent and locative predicates. Such construc-
tions are replicated in qəltu Arabic and NENA dialects by deictic copula construc-
tions, e. g.
(13) Arabic Qarṭmīn (Jastrow 1978, 1: 140)
əbnu kū qəddām əmm-u
son-his deic . cop .3 ms before mother-his
‘His son is in front of his mother’
(14) NENA Ashitha
bron-e hole qam-yəmm-e
son-his deic . cop .3 ms before-mother-his
‘His son is in front of his mother’
In negative copula constructions, the enclitic copulas are typically attached to the
negators in Arabic, Neo-Aramaic and Armenian, e. g.
(15) Arabic Mḥallami (Procházka, chapter 2.4, §5.3)
ma-na hawn
neg - cop .1s here
‘I am not here’
(16) NENA (Ashitha)
lɛle (< la=ile) laxxa
neg - cop .3 ms here
‘He is not here‘
(17) Eastern Armenian (Dum-Tragut 2009: 215)
Anuš-ě gełec’ik ałǰik ē
Anuš. nom -the beautiful girl.nom cop .3 s
‘Anuš is beautiful girl’
(18) Anuš-ě gełec’ik ałǰik č’-ě
Anuš. nom -the beautiful girl.nom neg - cop .3 s
‘Anuš is not a beautiful girl’
44 Geoffrey Khan
3. Syntax
References
Bedir Khan, Emir Djeladet and Roger Lescot. 1968. Grammaire kurde (dialecte kurmanji).
Paris: Maisonneuve.
Dum-Tragut, Jasmine. 2009. Armenian. (London Oriental and African Language Library
14). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Jastrow, Otto. 1978. Die mesopotamisch-arabischen Qəltu-Dialekte, vol. 1. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Jastrow, Otto. 1985. Laut- und Formenlehre des neuaramäischen Dialekts von Mīdin im Ṭūr
ʻAbdīn. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Jastrow, Otto. 1994. Der neuaramäische Dialekt von Mlaḥsô. (Semitica Viva 14). Wies-
baden: Harrassowitz.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2008. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar, 3 vols. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2016. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of the Assyrian Christians of Urmi, 4 vols.
Leiden & Boston: Brill.
MacKenzie, David Neil. 1961. Kurdish Dialect Studies. London Oriental Series, vols. 9–10.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Makaev, E. A. 1977. The origins of the modal particle ke in Armenian. In N. Ya Gabaraev
(ed.), Questions of Iranian and General Philology, 195–200. Tbilisi: Metsniereba pub-
lishing house. [In Russian].
Matras, Yaron. 2010. Contact, convergence, and typology. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The
handbook of contact linguistics, 66–85. Maldon & Oxford: Blackwell.
Muradyan, H. D. 1967. Kak‘avaberdi Barbaṙə. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Thackston, Wheeler. M. 2006. Kurmanji Kurdish: A reference grammar with selected read-
ings. Unpublished Manuscript, Harvard University. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/
Kurmanji/index.html (accessed 15 January 2015).
2.2. The Armenian dialects
Hrach Martirosyan
1. Introduction
The Armenian language is known to us from the fifth century CE onwards thanks
to an unbroken literary tradition, which involves three periods: Classical (5th to
11th centuries), Middle (12th to 16th), and Modern (17th to 21st). Modern Arme-
nian was canonized in the 19th century and consists of two branches: Western
(based on western dialects such as that of Constantinople/Polis) and Eastern
(based on the dialects spoken on the Ararat plain and surroundings). Armenian is
genetically related to Indo-European languages such as Hittite, Sanskrit, Avestan,
Greek, Latin, Gothic, and Slavic.
One usually distinguishes around fifty or sixty modern Armenian dialects, a
number of which are now extinct. The dialects have been classified according to a
phonological principle, namely the development of the consonant system, as well
as a morphological one, that is the formation of the indicative present (these two
features are jointly demonstrated in Table 2). J̌ ahukyan (1972; Djahukian apud
Greppin and Khachaturian 1986: 19–24) offers a multi-feature classification and
on this basis identifies eleven dialectal groups. Armenian is written with its own
script, shown in Table 1. To enhance accessibility, most of the material in this
chapter is provided in a Latin-based transcription.
After a short bibliographical sketch and brief accounts of the problems of the
dialectal archaisms, the classification of the Armenian dialects and the earliest
dialectal isoglosses, we shall turn to the description of a number of dialects from
different dialectal groups.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-003
The Armenian dialects 47
2. Bibliographical sketch
can be found in Ačaṙyan (1909, 1911), J̌ahukyan (1972), and Hewsen (2001: 227,
Nr. 218).
The existence of dialectal diversity in the Classical period is much debated. Schol-
ars consider a number of traces of early diversity (Aɫayan 1958; Winter 1966:
205; Kortlandt 1980: 105, 2003: 32; Beekes 2003: 142–143; Clackson 2004–2005:
154). A frequently cited example is dial. *lizu vs. Classical lezu ‘tongue’ (Meillet
1936: 11; Viredaz 2003: 76). The modern dialects preserve important data for the
reconstruction of the oldest history of the language.
All the modern dialects have fully participated in the fixation of the pro-
to-Armenian accent on the (prehistoric) penultimate syllable and the subsequent
apocope (loss of some sounds of the final unaccented syllable). The formation of
the Armenian dialects cannot thus be pushed back beyond the date of apocope. At
a later stage, the accent was retracted back to the penultimate syllable in Eastern
dialects.1 It is certain, however, that Armenian dialect diversity existed in the pre-
historic period (i. e. before the 5th century CE), and the modern dialects have
preserved features which are not present in Classical Armenian.
Issues regarding the origin of the Armenian dialects and their existence in the
classical period, as well as numerous archaic dialectal words and features are dealt
with in several monographs (Ačaṙyan-AčaṙHLPatm1 1940b: 118–122; Ačaṙyan-
AčaṙHLPatm2 1951: 114–141, 324–439; J̌ahukyan 1972, 1985, 1987: 252–256,
274–279; Simonyan 1979) and a number of papers mostly by Armenian scholars.
In these studies, dialectal archaisms are often represented as a preservation of what
has been lost in the corresponding classical forms. This view should be verified
in each individual case. Many deviant features that have been assigned to great
antiquity can, in fact, be easily explained within the framework of recent internal
developments.
The deviant dialectal forms and features are systematically treated in the recent
etymological dictionary of the inherited lexicon, Martirosyan (2010).
1
See Ačaṙyan (1899: 184–186; AčaṙHLPatm2 1951: 371–372); Weitenberg (2002: 148–
152).
The Armenian dialects
2
For a discussion and references, see Khachaturian (1983); Pisowicz (1997); Vaux
(1997, 1998: 7–12, 211–241); Weitenberg (2002: 146–151) and Haneyan (2010).
The Armenian dialects 51
The particles kə/ku, ha and others are also involved in making the present
progressive/continuous forms in western dialects. In the village of Galaduran the
particle ha(y) forms both the simple and continuous presents, and kə is used for
the subjunctive. The particle kə/ku (> gə/gu) is often doubled, e. g. Zeyt‘un gɔ
g-aṙnum ‘I am taking’; verbs starting with a consonant do not distinguish between
the simple and progressive or continuous present (Ačaṙyan 2003: 246–252).
A combination with gɔr (a by-form of the progressive / continuous particle) is
observable in other dialects, such as Polis g-ɛrt‘am gɔr ‘I am going’ (Ačaṙyan
1941: 150–151), Sebastia b‘ɛrɛm gɔr ‘I am bringing’, g-udɛyi gɔr ‘I was eating’
(Ačaṙyan 1911: 227). Some dialects combine kə with other particles: Aslanbek gə
sirim háyɛ ‘I am loving’ (Ačaṙyan 1951: 353), Trapizon g-aṙnim ɛr ‘I was taking’
(Ačaṙyan 1951: 344), Šapin-Garahisar g-əsim dar ‘I am saying’ (Ačaṙyan 1911:
174–175). Sivri-Hisar uses kar, kikɛnan or ɛr/ɛrɛr (Mkrtč‘yan 1995: 212; 2006:
115, 181–184), and Nikomedia uses yɔr (Ačaṙyan 1951: 353).
Hamšen uses the verb unim ‘to have’ as a progressive marker: b‘ɛrim uni (or
b‘ɛrim g-uni, with the same particle gə) ‘I am bringing’ (ClArm. 1sg . prs berem ‘to
bring, carry’), b‘ɛrɛyə g-uni ‘I was carrying’ (ClArm. 1sg .impf berēi); or involves
the infinitive: yɛs ɛguš ä ‘I am coming’ (ClArm. es ‘I’; ek- aor. stem of the supple-
tive verb gam ‘to come’; 3sg copula ē ‘is’), tun ɛguš ä ‘you are coming’ (ClArm.
du sg ‘you’; ek- aor stem of the suppletive verb gam ‘to come’; 3.sg copula ē
‘is’), etc.; or with a subject in the genitive: imə/ims ɛguš ä ‘I am coming’, k‘ugə(d)
ɛguš ä ‘you are coming’, with im ‘my’ and kʻo ‘your’ respectively (Ačaṙyan 1947:
140–141). Note also Arabkir g-ɛrt‘am (ə)nə ‘I am going’ (Ačaṙyan 1911: 216;
1951: 349).
For the material and a discussion on the (progressive) present tense, see espe-
cially G. Geworgyan (1985, 1994, 2010). For a general overview in English, see
Weitenberg (2002: 145–146).
be ashamed’, ancʻanem ‘to pass’, aṙnum ‘to take’, asem ‘to say, tell’, arjakem
‘to untie, loosen’, banam ‘to open’, gam ‘to come’, grem ‘to write’, ertʻam ‘to
go’, lam ‘to weep’, lsem ‘to hear, listen’, xaɫam ‘to move, play’, xawsim / xōsim
‘to speak, talk’, xmem ‘to drink’, kardam ‘to shout, call, read’, mnam ‘to remain,
stay’, nstim ‘to sit’, sirem ‘to love’, tam ‘to give’, uze(na)m ‘to will, wish’, utem
‘to eat’.
In the last two columns of the table one can find references to linguistic, eth-
nographical and folklore literature concerning the individual dialect areas. The
dictionaries are given in italics.
A. Western grouping
I. The Antiok‘ or extreme South-Western group: K‘esab/Svedia, Beylan.
II. (I–III) The Cilicia or South-Western intergroup: Hačən, Maraš/Zeyt‘un.
III. The Asia Minor or Western group: Karin, Šapin-Garahisar, Sebastia, Evdokia,
Marzvan/Amasia, Nor-Naxiǰewan/Crimea, Polis (Constantinople), Sivri-
Hisar, Kyurin, Syolyoz, Malat‘ia, Kesaria, Xarberd/Erznka, Aslanbek, Akn,
Arabkir.
IV. (I–III–VI) The Hamšen or North-Western intergroup: Hamšen, Edesia.
V. (III–VI) The Aṙtial (Transylvania) or extreme North-Western intergroup:
Aṙtial (Transylvania).
VI. The Muš/Tigranakert or South-Central group: Muš, Talvorik/Motkan, Sasun/
Gelieguzan, Tigranakert.
VII. (VI–VIII) The Van or Southern intergroup: Van, Moks, Šatax, Diadin.
B. Eastern grouping
VIII. The Xoy/Maraɫa or South-Eastern group: Xoy, Maraɫa.
IX. The Ararat or North-Eastern group
X. Ararat, J̌ uɫa, Bayazet, Astraxan, Ardvin/T‘iflis.
XI. (IX–XI) The Ɫarabaɫ/Šamaxi or extreme North-Eastern intergroup: Mehtišen,
Ɫarabaɫ, Ɫazax/Kirovabad, Kṙzen, Havarik, Šamaxi, Burdur.
XII. The Agulis/Meɫri group: Agulis, Meɫri.
3
J̌ ahukyan (Djahukian) apud Greppin and Khachaturian (1986: 19–24).
Table 2: Overview of dialect classification
Indo-Eur. *gh *g *k
Classical g(‘) k k‘ Pres. indicative Dial. descr. Ethn. & Folklore
Xarberd/ Gr. 1 g‘/k g k‘ gə sirim, g-uzim Baɫramyan (1960); Andranik (1900); Sargisean (1932);
Dersim Gasparyan (1979), Halaǰyan (1973); Hayk (1959);
Kostandyan (1982) Srapean (1960)
Šapin-Garah. Gr. 1 g‘ g k‘ gə sirɛm, H. S. Xač‘atryan (1985) Tēōvlēt‘ean (1954)
g-ɛrt‘am
Arabkir Gr. 1 g‘ g k‘ sirim gu, Dawit‘-Bēk (1919) Baxtikean (1934);
g-ɛrt‘am ga, P‘olatean (1969)
gɔ g-ɛrt‘am
Sebastia Gr. 1 g‘ g k‘ sirɛm gə, Gabikean (1952) Gabikean (1952: 591–682)
g-ɛrt‘am gə
Akn Gr. 1 g‘ g k‘ gü sirim, g-üdim Maxudianz (1911); Čanikean (1895); Azatean (1943);
Mak‘sudeanc‘ (1910); K‘ēč‘ean & Parsamean (1952)
Gabriēlean (1912)
Aṙtial Gr. 1 g‘ g k‘ gi sirim Hanusz (1887–1889);
Ačaṙyan (1953)
Crimea / Gr. 1 g‘ g k‘ k‘(i)-sirim, gə Ačaṙyan (1925); Patkanov (1875.1);
Nor- lsim J̌ alašyan (2012) P‘ork‘šeyan (1971)
Naxiǰewan
Hamšen Gr. 1/4 g‘/k g k‘ sirim gu, g-udim Ačaṙyan (1947); Bläsing Muradean (1901); T‘oṙlak‘yan (1981,
(1992, 1995, 2007); 1986); Gurunyan (1991); Simonian
Vaux (2000–2001, (2007); JaynHamš 1–4; HamšHamš
The Armenian dialects
Indo-Eur. *gh *g *k
Classical g(‘) k k‘ Pres. indicative Dial. descr. Ethn. & Folklore
Xotorǰur Gr. 1/2 g‘ k/g k‘ sirim, mənam; Kostandyan (1985); Gawaṙac‘i (1903); Hačean (1907);
k-asin Baɫramyan (1976) YušamXotorǰ (1964)
Erznka Gr. 2/7 g‘/k k k‘ k/gə sirim, Kostandyan (1979) Tēr-Vardanean (1968)
k-udam
Hrach Martirosyan
Karin Gr. 2 g‘ k k‘ sirɛm k/gə, Tomson (1887); H. Lalayean (1892, 1897, 1983);
k-udem k/gə M. Mkrtč‘yan (1952); Mxit‘areanc‘(1901); Malxasyanc‘
Hakobyan (1974: (1958); Hakobyan (1974)
409–437)
Muš Gr. 2 g‘ k k‘ kə sirim, k-aɫam Patkanov (1875.2); Sedrakean (1874); Lalayean (1917a);
Msereanc‘ Melik‘ean (1964); Movsisyan (1972);
(1897–1901);Baɫdasaryan Hovannisian (2001)
T‘ap‘alc‘yan (1958);
Tarōnean (1961)
Alaškert Gr. 2 g‘ k k‘ kə sirim, k-aɫam Madat‘yan (1985) Yovsēp‘eanc‘(1892: 47); Nždehean
(1899–1910)
Ararat Gr. 2 g‘ k k‘ sirə/um ɛm Nawasardeanc‘ (1903);
Kapancjan (1975);
Markosyan (1989)
Nor J̌ uɫa Gr. 2 g‘ k k‘ sirum am, Ačaṙyan (1940a) Eremean (1923, 1930)
moṙanum am;
lalman am,
talman am
Polis Gr. 3 g g k‘ gə sirɛm, Ačaṙyan (1941) Svazlyan (2000)
g-ɛrt‘am
Indo-Eur. *gh *g *k
Classical g(‘) k k‘ Pres. indicative Dial. descr. Ethn. & Folklore
Trapizon Gr. 3 g g k‘ sirim gu, g-uzim Ačaṙyan (1911: 178) Yovakimean (1967); T‘oṙlak‘y.
(1986); Hovannisian (2009)
Evdokia Gr. 3 g g k‘ gə sirim, Gazančean (1899) Alpōyačean (1952)
g-ɛrt‘am
Marzvan Gr. 3 g g k‘ gə sirim, gə T‘umayean (1930)
banam
Amasia Gr. 3 g g k‘ (nstim ga, Ačaṙyan (1951: 350)
g-ɛrt‘am ga)
[3sg karda-v!]
Kesaria Gr. 3 g g k‘ ga sirɛm, ga Ant‘osyan (1961) Grigorean & Garakēōzean (1963)
g-aṙnum
St‘anoz Gr. 3 g g k‘ g-ɛrt‘am kar N. A. Mkrtč‘yan (2006: Ōtean-Gasbarean (1968)
202–222, 293–294)
Aynt‘ap Gr. 3 g g k‘ – Vaux (1999–2000) Sarafean (1953)
Indo-Eur. *gh *g *k
Classical g(‘) k k‘ Pres. indicative Dial. descr. Ethn. & Folklore
Svedia Gr. 4 k/g‘ g k‘ gə sirim, Andreasyan (1967); Svazlyan (1984, 1994);
gy-äṙnim Ačaṙyan (2003); Gyozalyan (2001)
Hananyan (1995)
Aramo Gr. 4 k g k‘ (hay) sirɛym, Ayceamn (1907),
(hay) urt‘ɔum Ɫaribyan (1958: 9–77)
Hrach Martirosyan
Indo-Eur. *gh *g *k
Classical g(‘) k k‘ Pres. indicative Dial. descr. Ethn. & Folklore
Karčewan Gr. 6 g k k‘ siríy im / im sirís Ɫaribyan (1939: 59–82);
Muradyan (1960)
Kak‘avaberd Gr. 6 g/k k k‘ xəmúm əm, Muradyan (1967)
ásəm əm;
A. mənáyis im
Hrach Martirosyan
B. mənális im
Astraxan Gr. 7 k k k‘ asəm ɛm, lsəm Ačaṙyan (1911: 82–86); G. G. Geworgyan (1980); Ɫaziyan &
ɛm Ačaṙyan (1951: 333) Vardanyan (2004)
Goris/ Gr. 7 k k k‘ sirum ɛm, Vartapetjan (1962); Lisic‘yan (1969)
Syunik‘ xəmum ɛm Margaryan (1975)
Ɫarabaɫ Gr. 7 k k k‘ sírəm əm, Ačaṙyan (1899); Barxudareanc‘(1883);
xɔ́səm əm Davt‘yan (1966); Barxutareanc‘(1883); Melik‘-
Sargsyan (2013) Šahnazareanc‘(1907 f); Lisic‘yan
(1981); Ɫaziyan (1983); Lalayean
(1897a, 1988); Grigoryan-
Spandaryan (1971); L. Harut‘yunyan
(1991)
Tavuš Gr. 7 k k k‘ sirəm ɛm, Mežunc‘ (1989) Xemč‘yan (2000, 2008)
mnəm ɛm
Burdur Gr. 7 k k k‘ sirum əm, Mkrtč‘yan (1971, 2006:
mənum əm 304)
Šamaxi Gr. 7 k k k‘ A. siräm äm, Baɫramyan (1964) Ɫaziyan & Vardanyan (2004)
mənam am;
B. kyiris ɛm,
mənays ɛm
Indo-Eur. *gh *g *k
Classical g(‘) k k‘ Pres. indicative Dial. descr. Ethn. & Folklore
y
Šaɫax Gr. 7 k k k‘ k əriys əm, Ɫaribyan (1939: 50–58);
mənayis əm Davt‘yan (1966)
Hadrut‘ Gr. 7 k k k‘ siris əm, mənas Ɫaribyan (1939: 107–
əm 127); Poɫosyan (1965);
Davt‘yan (1966)
Urmia Gr. 7 k k k‘ kyirɛs ɛm/s, 3sg Ɫaribyan (1939: 128–
kyirɛl i; 146; 1953: 342–358);
mənas ɛm/s, 3sg Asatryan (1962)
mənal i
Xoy Gr. 7 k k k‘ üzɛl ɛm, ɛt‘äl ɛm Asatryan (1962)
Maraɫa Gr. 7 k k k‘ üzeli im, Ačaṙyan (1926)
amč‘ənalǝ́ yim
Hin J̌ uɫa Gr. 7 k k k‘ talman am Ačaṙyan (1940a: 27–32)
Van Gr. 7 k k k‘ kə sirem, Ačaṙyan (1952); Sedrakean (1874); Tēr-Sargsencʻ
k-uzem, Tʻuršyan (2018) (1875); Šērenc‘ (1885–1999);
ku kyäm Lalayean (1910, 1914, 1915,
1917b); Sruanjteanc‘ (1978); S.
M. Avagyan (1978); Hovannisian
(2000)
Moks, Šatax Gr. 7 k k k‘ kə sirim, M. H. Muradyan (1962, Yovsēp‘eanc‘ (1892); Šahpazean
kə xaɫam, 1982); Orbeli (2002) (1913); Lalayean 2 (1914)
k-ənc‘nim
The Armenian dialects
59
60
Indo-Eur. *gh *g *k
Classical g(‘) k k‘ Pres. indicative Dial. descr. Ethn. & Folklore
Ozim Gr. 7/2 k/g‘ k k‘ kə kaṙtəäm, N. E. Hovsep‘yan
k-arc‘kim (1966);
Arewikyan (1967)
Sivri-Hisar Gr. 7 k k k‘ (cont.) k-ɛt‘am N. A. Mkrtč‘yan (1995, PtmSivHisHay (1965)
ɛr / kar, 2006)
Hrach Martirosyan
xɔsim kɛnam
Yozgat‘ / Gr. 7 k k k‘ sirim ka N. A. Mkrtč‘yan (2006) T‘emurčyan (1970)
Gamirk‘
The Armenian dialects 61
5.2. Miscellaneous
There are more of such isoglosses, e. g. the additional -n mostly represented
in the dialects of the old Arc‘ax-Siwnik‘ area, which is a feature originating in
the pre-literary period (H. D. Muradyan 1982: 322–326; Weitenberg 1985) and
monophthongization of the final stressed -ay, which can be traced back to the fifth
century (Weitenberg 1999–2000).
Dialect Phonological Present Accent Diphthong o- ɔxt ‘7’ Ačaṙ. Law Devoicing tesanel
classification indicative retraction
Aṙtial Gr. 1 gi sirim no no yes no no -nul
Arabkir Gr. 1 sirim gu, no no no no no -nal
g-ɛrt‘am ga,
gɔ g-ɛrt‘am
Hrach Martirosyan
Dialect Phonological Present Accent Diphthong o- ɔxt ‘7’ Ačaṙ. Law Devoicing tesanel
classification indicative retraction
Kak‘avaberd Gr. 6 xəmúm əm, yes yes yes yes no/yes -(n)il
ásəm əm;
mənáyis im,
-lis im
Ɫarabaɫ Gr. 7 sírəm əm, yes yes yes yes yes -nal
Hrach Martirosyan
xɔ́səm əm
Urmia Gr. 7 kyirɛs ɛm/s, no yes yes yes yes -nel
3sg kyirɛl i;
mənas ɛm/s,
3sg mənal i
Maraɫa Gr. 7 üzeli im, no yes yes yes yes -nel
amč‘ənalǝ́ yim
Van Gr. 7 kə sirem, no yes no yes yes -nal
k-uzem,
ku kyäm
Moks, Šatax Gr. 7 kə sirim, kə no yes no yes yes -nel /
xaɫam, -nil
k-ənc‘nim
The Armenian dialects 65
6. Dialectal groups
The Armenian dialects are presented in eleven groups in accordance with J̌ ahuk-
yan’s multi-feature classification. The dialects of the Eastern grouping (groups
VIII-XI) have developed and are still spoken in the Republic of Armenia, Arcʻax
(Karabagh / Ɫarabaɫ), as well as Parskahayk‘/Persian Armenia and surroundings
(North West Iran). By contrast, the western dialects (groups I–VII) which had
developed on the territory of the western part of the historical Armenia (that is,
the eastern half of present-day Turkey) for many centuries, with a few exceptions,
are no longer spoken in their original location. This is because of Turkish constant
genocidal policy and especially the Armenian Genocide starting in 1915 which
resulted in extermination of more than one million Armenians and constituted an
amputation of Armenian life, and therefore also an amputation of Armenian dia-
lects. Some surviving groups of the Armenian population were dispersed around
the world. Their descendants have partially preserved their dialects in the Republic
of Armenia, J̌ avaxk‘ (now in Georgia), Russia and other countries.
For these reasons our information on the western dialects is uneven. Many of
them are now almost or completely extinct. Some of them have been described
before the Genocide, others are known by some secondary materials recorded
from the refugees, and for the rest we practically have no information.4
In this survey of the dialects I shall concentrate on the most characteristic fea-
tures of a number of dialects from different groups. When discussing them, I often
present comparative data from dialects of other groups. The data concerning the
phonological and morphological classifications and the aforementioned earliest
isoglosses can be found in Tables 2 and 3 and will be specified here only when
necessary.
A. Western grouping
6.1. Svedia (the Antiok‘ or extreme South-Western group)
Armenians have been living in the northern parts of Syria and Mesopotamia pre-
sumably since the time of Tigran the Great (1st century BCE). There is informa-
tion on migration of some Armenian population to Syria in the 6th century CE.
The Armenian presence in these areas became more significant especially since
the 10th century. Here the Armenians called themselves k‘ist‘inə / k‘isdinɛ, which
reflects the word k‘ristoneay ‘Christian’, and the dialect, k‘ist‘inəg / k‘isdinig /
k‘ist‘inüg ‘language of a Christian, Armenian’.
The Armenian dialects of Syria and Cilicia are very divergent and extremely
interesting. Svedia is the best studied one among them. It was spoken in the Arme-
nian villages of the Svedia district, which is located at the foot of the mountain
4
For a general outline on these issues and the linguistic situation in the Republic of
Armenia, see Weitenberg (2002: 141–143 and 2006).
66 Hrach Martirosyan
Phonology
According to Ačaṙyan (2003: 401), Classical Armenian voiced stops are reflected
in Svedia as voiced aspirates b‘ g‘ d‘ in initial and intervocalic positions and after
ɫ and r. In the descriptions of other subdialects, Andreasyan (1967) and Hananyan
(1995), b d g yielded p t k. Table 4 provides a simplified table of the development
of CA plosives into the dialect of Svedia.
One of the most characteristic phonological features of Svedia is the change a > u
in a stressed position, where Beylan and the Cilician dialects have ɔ. As Ačaṙyan
(1951: 364–378, 2003: 349, cf. 10–11) points out, the development a > ɔ > u
logically ends in Syria, which marks the last habitat in the extreme SW corner of
Armenian-speaking areas.
In Agulis, an eastern dialect that is very far from Svedia both geographically
and linguistically, we find a similar change only in monosyllables. In Hamšen and
Akn we find a > ɔ only before a nasal. Table 5 provides examples from these dia-
lects, with the addition of some dialects that do not display a > ɔ, namely Ararat
(an eastern dialect) and Moks/Šatax (a western dialect).
The Armenian dialects 67
5
This is the K‘esab form (Č‘olak‘ean 1986: 197a). The word is not recorded in Svedia
itself.
6
Cf. HAB [Hayerēn armatakan baṙaran] vol. 1: 80a.
68 Hrach Martirosyan
Nominal morphology
An important morphological peculiarity is the instrumental marker -um in Svedia,
which is not found in other Armenian (sub)dialects of Syria. K‘esab has -uɔn
(Č‘olak‘ean 1986: 68); K‘abusie has -u for inanimate objects and /genitive + hid
‘with’/ for people (Ɫaribyan 1958: 96).
For K‘abusie, Ɫaribyan (1958: 78–79, 83, 96–99) records a remarkable con-
trast: nominative-accusative indefinite murt‘ vs. definite maurt‘, cf. äs maurt‘ ‘this
man’; the preposition z- in the accusative, as in CA, is found in a definite context.
Note also the preposition i / y- in an allative usage: is i dün g-ürt‘um ‘I am going
home’; y-ambɔur g-ürt‘um ‘I am going to the barn’.
Table 6 provides the paradigms of hac‘, i-stem ‘bread’, and mard, o-stem ‘man,
human’, in Svedia, Zeyt‘un, (Ačaṙyan 2003: 165, 184, 460–461) and K‘abusie
(Ɫaribyan 1958: 98). In the following table n = nominative, acc = accusative, gd
= gentive/dative, abl = ablative, i = instrumental:
Verbal morphology
Table 7 shows the present and imperfect paradigms of sirem ‘to love’ in the
Haǰi-Habibli subdialect (Ačaṙyan 2003: 482–490) and grem ‘to write’ in the Xtrbek
subdialect (Hananyan 1995: 125–126).
Table 7: Present and imperfect paradigms, sirem ‘to loveʼ & grem ‘to write’ in Svedia
(Haǰi-Habibli subdialect)
Present indicative Imperfect
CA Svedia 1 Svedia 2 CA Svedia 1 Svedia 2
sg sirem, grem gə sirim gɛu kərim sirēi, grēi gə sirɛr ɛ gɛu kərōr
sires, gres gə siris gɛu kəris sirēir, grēir gə sirɛr gɛu kərɛr
sirē, grē gə sirɛ gɛu kəri sirēr, grēr gə sirir gɛu kərir
pl siremk‘, gremkʻ gə sirinkʻ gɛu kərənk sirēak‘, grēak‘ gə sirɛr inkʻ gɛu kəräyrənk
sirēk‘, grēkʻ gə sirikʻ gɛu kərək sirēik‘, grēik‘ gə sirɛr ikʻ gɛu kəräyrək
siren, gren gə sirin gɛu kərin sirēin, grēin gə sirɛr in gɛu kəräyrən
Unlike the neighbouring K‘esab, the Beylan dialect forms the indicative present
and imperfect with the particle gä and therefore belongs to the kə-group. The
imperfect is also marked by a postposed particle di throughout the paradigm
excluding the third- singular form.7 Table 9 provides the paradigms of kardam ‘to
shout, read’ and grem ‘to write’.
It is easy to notice that gartɔm etc. reflect CA present forms, kardam etc. The
stressed a turns to ɔ, e. g. amaṙn ‘summer’ > amɔṙ, ardar ‘righteous’ > artɔr,
beran ‘mouth’ > pərɔn, caṙ ‘tree’ > jɔṙ. Without the particle gä, the forms are used
for the subjunctive, thus: Beylan gartɔm ‘I may read’ from CA kardam ‘I read,
I am reading’. The conditional and debitive are formed with gə8 and bə / bədə
respectively: gə gartɔm ‘I will read’ and bə / bədə gartɔm ‘I have to read’. Table
10 combines the aorist paradigm of the verb tam ‘to give’ in Middle Armenian
(1901: 333, 2002: 315–316; Ant‘osyan 1975: 213; L. S. Hovsep‘yan 1997: 68–69),
Modern West and East Armenian (Ant‘osyan 1975: 214), Svedia (Ačaṙyan 2003:
494, 498), Aramo (Ɫaribyan 1958: 47) and Zeyt‘un (Ačaṙyan 2003: 243).9
7
Compare Hamšen 2nd-person singular imperfect ending -di, e. g. kie-di gu ‘you were
writing’ (on this see Vaux 2007: 268).
8
Łaribyan (1955: 229) explicitly distinguishes between gä and gə.
9
In the table (and henceforth) CA = Classical Armenian, SWA = Standard Western Arme-
nian.
The Armenian dialects 71
10
Printed as ənväyn in Łaribyan (1958: 47), probably a misprint.
72 Hrach Martirosyan
The most complete description of the dialect is Ačaṙyan (1947). Texts: Haykuni
(1892) and Dumézil (1964, 1965, 1967, 1986–1987). Hamšen/Homšec‘ma is one
of the most divergent Armenian dialects. Due to its isolated position the dialect
preserves a considerable number of archaisms, both morphological and lexical,
and also developed numerous peculiar innovations.
Phonology
The most characteristic phonological feature of Hamšen Armenian is the change a
> o when followed by a nasal consonant: amis > ɔmis ‘month’, ban > pɔn ‘thing’,
etc.; also in Turkish loans, e. g. tavan > t‘avɔn ‘ceiling’ (Ačaṙyan 1947: 11, 22–24;
Ačaṙyan 1971: 404–406; Bläsing 2003: 9–12). See also §6.1 (Svedia).
Nominal morphology
Table 11 gives the paradigms of hac‘, i-stem ‘bread’ and mard, o-stem ‘man,
human’ in Hamšen (Ačaṙyan 1947: 90–91).
The Armenian dialects 73
A number of Classical Armenian words that were mainly used in the plural appear
in the majority of dialects with petrification of the nominative plural form. Table
12 provides a few remarkable relics of the old genitive plural in Hamšen, Zeyt‘un12
and Evdokia13 (see also §6.3. Aṙtial).
11
Abl. hac‘-ä is indefinite, and hac‘-ən is definite. Other forms: hac‘-ɛc‘-ən, hac‘-ɛn.
12
See Ačaṙyan (1947: 98 and 2003: 188–189) and glossaries, also Martirosyan (2010:
17–18, 98–99, 454–455).
13
Gazančean (1899: 81) (the forms here do not seem phonetically very accurate).
74 Hrach Martirosyan
Verbal morphology
Hamšen has the following important peculiarities in verbal morphology:
The CA infinitive ending -(V)l has been replaced by -uš (probably of Turkish
origin) in all four conjugations, e. g. berel ‘to bring’ > pɛruš, ert‘al ‘to go’ > ɛštuš,
etc. (Ačaṙyan 1947: 11, 156–158; Ačaṙyan 1965: 46–47).
In Mala and the villages of Trapizon the verb ‘to have’ is used as a progressive
marker: b‘ɛrim uni or g-uni ‘I am bringing’, b‘ɛrɛyə g-uni ‘I was carrying’. Čanik
uses a different pattern involving the infinitive and 3sg copula: yɛs ɛguš ä ‘I am
coming’, tun ɛguš ä ‘you are coming’, etc.; or with a subject in genitive: imə/ims
ɛguš ä ‘I am coming’, k‘ugə(d) ɛguš ä ‘you are coming’, etc. (Ačaṙyan 1947: 11,
140–141).14
The second-person singular imperfect ending -yd(ə) / -di of Hamšen is compa-
rable with -idi (of Turkish origin) seen throughout the whole imperfect paradigm
in Hačən.15
First person plural imperfect: The Classical Armenian first person plural imper-
fect ending is characterized by the presence of a vowel -a-; thus, for example, in
the e-conjugation we have the following set of endings: -ēi (1sg ), -ēir (2sg ), -ēr
(3sg ), -ēak (1pl ), ‘-ēik‘ (2pl ), -ēin (3pl ). In most dialects of Modern Armenian this
-a- has been analogically eliminated, but some dialects have preserved it intact.
In table 13 I present the Classical imperfect paradigm of the verb utem ‘to eat’
and its corresponding tense forms (imperfect or past subjunctive) in the dialects
of Akn (Ačaṙyan 1911: 223, cf. 227 on Sebastia), Hamšen (Ačaṙyan 1947: 136,
139), and South Eastern Armenian. I also include two paradigms from the region
of Dersim, grem ‘to write’ in Xarberd/Erznka, and k‘ašem ‘to pull, drag’ in Č‘mšk-
acag (Baɫramyan 1960: 22, 30); the latter preserves the -a- intact whereas the
former is innovative.
The same 1pl -a- is seen in the aorist of Classical Armenian. Here again, some dia-
lects preserve it intact, cf. e. g. the paradigms of xaɫam ‘to play’ and sirem ‘to love’
14
For a discussion, see Vaux (2007: 263).
15
See Ačaṙyan (1959: 568–569); cf. Vaux (2007: 268).
The Armenian dialects 75
in Hamšen: xaɫac‘i (1sg ), xaɫac‘ir (2sg ), xaɫac‘ (3sg ), xaɫac‘ak‘ (1pl ), xaɫac‘ik‘
(2pl ), xaɫac‘in (3pl ), sirɛc‘i (1sg ), sirɛc‘ir (2sg ), sirɛc‘ (3sg ), sirɛc‘ak‘ (1pl ),
sirɛc‘ik‘ (2pl ), sirɛc‘in (3pl ) (Ačaṙyan 1947: 128, 131). In old monosyllabic aorist
forms of this dialect we find yet another archaism, the augment e-.16 Table 14 gives
the example of banam, aor stem bac‘- ‘to open’ (Ačaṙyan 1947: 135).
Classical Armenian asem ‘to say, tell, speak’ displays aorist forms based on ast-
in Hamšen. According to Ačaṙyan (1947: 134–135), the -t- is an epenthesis of a
phonetic nature, cf. almas > almast ‘diamond’, etc. This explanation is not entirely
satisfactory because: (1) it is not clear why the -t- is only found in the aorist; and
(2) we expect to see the reflexes of the aoristic c‘-. I, therefore, propose the fol-
lowing solution.
In Classical Armenian the aorist stem of this verb is asac‘. This subtype dis-
plays both non-syncopated and syncopated aorist forms in Hamšen, namely xaɫac‘i
and xaɫc‘i ‘I played’ (see Ačaṙyan 1947: 130–131). It seems, therefore, likely that
Hamšen asti etc. derive from the syncopated forms *asc‘i etc.; the development
*asc‘i > asti is probably due to dissimilation, which may have been triggered or
reinforced by the -(s)t- epenthesis. For the inclusion of the 3sg .aor . med into the
main paradigm, compare the aforementioned pac‘aw alongside ɛ-pac‘.
Table 15 combines the Classical and Hamšen paradigms with that of Šamaxi /
K‘yärk‘yänǰ, an easternmost dialect (on which see Baɫramyan 1964: 166).
16
For a discussion of this Hamšen archaism, see Vaux (2007: 265–266). It is also present
in a neighboring dialect of Xotorǰur (Kostandyan 1985: 60).
76 Hrach Martirosyan
Table 15: The verb ‘to say’ in CA, Hamšen, and Šamaxi
CA Syncope Hamšen Šamaxi
sg asac‘i *asc‘i as-t-i asc‘i, assi
asac‘er *asc‘er as-t-ir asc‘ir, assir
asac‘ *as(a)c‘-aw (med.) as-t-av asɛc‘, asɛc
pl asac‘ak‘ *asc‘ak‘ as-t-ak‘ asc‘ink‘, assink‘
asac‘ēk‘, -ik‘ *asc‘ēk‘, -ik‘ as-t-ik‘ asc‘ik‘, assik‘
asac‘in *asc‘in as-t-in asc‘in, assin
Table 16 combines the aorist paradigms of the irregular verb tam ‘to give’ in
Hamšen (Ačaṙyan 1947: 137) and literary forms of Armenian.
Table 16: The irregular verb tam ‘to give’ in Hamšen and literary forms of Armenian
CA Mid. Arm. SWA Hamšen
sg etu tu-i tu-i dvi
etur tu-ir tu-ir dvir
et etu-r, eret, tu-aw tu-aw dvav, ɛrɛd
pl tuak‘ tuak‘ tu-ink‘ dvak‘
etuk‘ tuik‘ tu-ik‘ dvik‘
etun tuin tu-in dvin
Phonology
Voiced aspirates: for a discussion, see Pisowicz (1997: 216–217) and Vaux (1997:
233–234).
Nominal morphology
Important archaisms:
CA accusative definite marker z- (Ačaṙyan 1953: 10, 135–136, 156–157);
CA harsaneac‘ (gen .pl of harsani-k‘ ‘wedding’) > gen harsnic‘, loc harsnec‘n
(see also §6.2. Hamšen);
CA dustr, gen dster ‘daughter’ > d‘usdrə, gen d‘sder (Ačaṙyan 1953: 141–
142).
Table 17 gives he paradigms of hac‘, i-stem ‘bread’ and mard, o-stem ‘man,
human’ in Aṙtial (Ačaṙyan 1953: 136–137).
CA Aṙtial
sg n mard mard‘
acc (z)mard (əz)mard‘
gd mard-oy mard‘-u
abl i mard‘-unmɛ,
mard-oy mard‘-əvɛn
i mard- mard‘-ɔw,
o-v mard‘-əvɔw
78 Hrach Martirosyan
Verbal morphology
In the table below, I present the paradigms of sirem ‘to love’ in Aṙtial (Ačaṙyan
1953: 160–164) and Polis (Ačaṙyan 1941: 149–151). The 2sg . impf ending -r is
replaced by -s by analogy with the present. This did not take place in the Polish
subdialect:
The aorist (sirec‘i ‘I loved’) has been replaced by the pattern [past participle +
copula], siril im.
Phonology
Fourfold system of plosives: b‘ (in anlaut only) b p p‘. CA h- becomes x in some
subdialects, such as Baɫeš and Xlat‘, and remains intact elsewhere.
In word internal and final positions, CA voiced aspirates become voiceless aspi-
rates in Muš and voiceless unaspirated in Alaškert. In the same positions, CA voice-
less aspirates become voiceless unaspirated in Alaškert but remain intact in Muš.
The dialect also has an initial voiced h‘-, either as prothetic or deriving from
y- (cf. Martirosyan 2010: 764–765).
Nominal morphology
Archaisms: def. accusative z- and locative/allative i /y-; preposed prepositions:
məč‘ mər tan ‘in our house’. The subdialect of Alaškert does not have the z-. Table
19 shows the paradigms of p‘ayt, i-stem ‘wood’ and ji, o-stem ‘horse’ in Alaškert
(Madat‘yan 1985: 76–78).
CA Alaškert CA Alaškert
sg n ji j‘i pl ji-k‘ j‘i-an
acc (z)ji j‘i (z)ji-s j‘i-an
gd ji-oy j‘i-u ji-o-c‘ j‘i-an-ɛr-u
abl i ji-oy j‘i-u-c i ji-o-c‘ j‘i-an-ɛr-u-c,
j‘i-an-ɛr-ɛn
i ji-o-v j‘i-ɔv ji-o-v-k‘ j‘i-an-ɛr-ɔv
80 Hrach Martirosyan
Verbal morphology
Indicative present: kə sirim ‘I love’, k-aɫam ‘I grind’. Table 20 combines the aorist
paradigm of the verb tam ‘to give’ in Muš (Baɫdasaryan-T‘ap‘alc‘yan 1958: 169),
Sasun (Petoyan 1954: 59), Polis (Ačaṙyan 1941: 149) and elsewhere.
Table 20: Aorist paradigms for tam ‘to give’ in CA and South-Central dialects
CA SWA SEA Muš Sasun Polis
sg etu tu-i tv(ec‘)i təv(ɛc‘)i dväc‘ə duvi
etur tu-ir tv(ec‘)ir təv(ɛc‘)ir dväc‘ər duvir
et tu-aw tvec‘ təvɛc‘ dvəc‘ duvav
pl tuak‘ tu-ink‘ tv(ec‘)ink‘ təv(ɛc‘)ink‘ dväc‘ək‘ (!) duvink‘
etuk‘ tu-ik‘ tv(ec‘)ik‘ təv(ɛc‘)ik‘ dväc‘ək‘ duvik‘
etun tu-in tv(ec‘)in təv(ɛc‘)in dväc‘ən duvin
(M. H. Muradyan 1962); Moks (M. H. Muradyan 1982); Sevan region (Baɫramyan
1972, passim); Diadin/Vardenis (V. Xač‘atryan 2004). A very rich glossary of
Moks: Orbeli (2002), ca. 4500 words. Ozim is described in Ačaṙyan (1911: 147–
150), Ɫaribyan (1953: 93–97), N. E. Hovsep‘yan (1966), Arewikyan (1967), and
especially in the unpublished thesis by Hovsep‘yan (1970, non vidi). Texts from
Ozim: Kaycoṙik (1899); Ačaṙyan (1911: 156–158).
M. H. Muradyan (1982) discusses 72 phonological and morphological
isoglosses between Urban Moks, Rural Moks, Ozim, Šatax and Van and concludes
that Rural Moks is closest in relationship to Urban Moks and furthest from Van,
and Šatax takes an intermediate position between Rural Moks and Van. According
to some scholars (Ɫaribyan 1953: 93–95; N. E. Hovsep‘yan 1966), Ozim should
be treated as a distinct dialect. J̌ ahukyan (1972: 135) takes it together with Van.
Phonology
One of the earliest Armenian dialectal isoglosses (see §4.1) is Ačaṙyan’s Law, that
is, the fronting of back vowels after voiced obstruents.17 This feature unites the
Van-Urmia and Goris/Ɫarabaɫ/Kṙzen/Agulis areas. Table 21 provides examples for
both voiced and unvoiced obstruents in the initial and internal positions respec-
tively.
Table 21: Fronting of back vowels after voiced obstruents (Ačaṙyan’s Law)
CA gloss Van Moks/Šat. Urmia Ɫarabaɫ Kṙzen
bak courtyard päk päk päky päk, pɛk –
bah spade päx päx päx päh bäh
barak subtle päräk pärak päräky pä/ɛrak bärak
barj pillow päṙc‘ pärc‘ päṙc‘ pä/ɛrc‘ bärj/c‘
beṙn burden peṙ pɛ/eṙ pɛṙ pɛṙnǝ bɛṙ
beran mouth pɛran pɛran pɛran pɛ́ran bǝran
berd fortress peṙt‘ pirt‘/pert‘ pɛṙt‘ – –
boɫk radish pöxk pöɫk poxky pɔ̈/ɛxk bɔ̈xk
boc‘ flame pöc‘ püc‘ poc‘ – –
burd wool pürt‘ pürt‘ pürt‘ pürt‘ bürd/t‘
pakas less pakas pakas pakas pákas pakas
paɫ cold paɫ paɫ paɫ – –
paṙaw old woman paṙav paṙav paṙav paṙav paṙav
port navel poṙt puṙt poṙt pɔr/ṙt pɔrt
gal to come kyäl kyäl ikyäl kyäl gyöl
gaṙn lamb kyäṙ kyäṙ kyäṙ kyäṙnǝ gyäṙ
garun spring kyärün kyärun kyärün kyärunk‘ gyärunk‘
get river kyet kyit/kyet kyet kyɛt gyɛt
17
For a discussion and literature on Ačaṙyan’s Law, see Vaux (1992) and Martirosyan
(2010: 747).
82 Hrach Martirosyan
The vocalism in Moks and Šatax is worthy of note. In e. g. Van ärtär and Ɫarabaɫ
ärt‘är ‘righteous’ we can reconstruct the following sequence of developments: CA
ardar > *artär > ärtär. Moks and Šatax18 did not share the assimilation in vowel
quality with Van, but preserved the intermediate form artär.
Nominal morphology
There are a number of plural markers, such as (Ačaṙyan 1952: 108–115):
• -er, with monosyllables, e. g. xac‘, pl. xac‘er;
• -ner (1) with words that became monosyllabic after the loss of final -n, e. g.
cük (from CA jukn ‘fish’), pl. ckner; (2) with polysyllables, e. g. axpɛr (cf. CA
eɫbayr ‘brother’), pl. axpɛr-ner;
• -hyter < *-k‘-ter, with polysyllables ending in a vowel or -n, e. g. kyini (< CA
gini ‘wine’), pl. kyini-hyter; maṙan ‘pantry, cellar’, pl. maṙan-hyter;
• -ɛstar, e. g. ikyi, pl. ɛkyɛstar from CA aygi ‘vineyard’, cf. coll. aygestan(i).
An archaism that is preserved in Moks, Šatax and Ozim but lost in Van is the def.
accusative marker z-: əz-caṙ kətric‘ ‘(he/she) cut the tree’; əz-lač höröxkic‘ ‘(he/
she) sent the boy’.
As Ačaṙyan (1952: 13) points out, the ablative in -ic‘ and the accusative/dative
by-forms with animate nouns give Van an intermediate position between western
and eastern dialects.
The ablative of place names is formed with -a, e. g. Vänä ‘from Van’, cf. CA
abl. i Vanay.
Relics of Classical Armenian plural genitive, e. g. Van ceṙ, gen. ceṙac‘ reflect-
ing CA jeṙn (cf. pl. jeṙ-k‘) and gen.pl jeṙ-a-c‘ ‘hand’, respectively. Table 22 pro-
vides the paradigms of hac‘, i-stem ‘bread’ and gini, wo-stem, ea-stem ‘wine’
(Ačaṙyan 1952: 117, 121).
18
See Ačaṙyan (1952: 248) and M. H. Muradyan (1962: 192). The form is corroborated
by the genuine record of Orbeli (2002: 208) in the Moks area in 1911–1912.
84 Hrach Martirosyan
CA Van CA Van
sg n gini kyini pl kyini-hy-ter
acc (z-)gini kyini kyini-hy-ter
gd ginw-oy kyinu gine-a-c‘ kyini-hy-ter-ac‘
abl i ginw-o-y kyinu-c‘ kyini-hy-ter-ac‘
i ginw-o-v, kyin-ɔv gine-a-w-k‘ kyini-hy-ter-ɔv
gine-a-w
Verbal morphology
Table 23 combines the paradigms of the verb tam ‘to give’ in Van (Ačaṙyan 1952:
173), Moks (M. H. Muradyan 1982: 173), Šatax (M. H. Muradyan 1962: 148), in
CA and SWA.
B. Eastern grouping
6.6. Xoy-Urmia (the Xoy / Maraɫa or South-Eastern group)
J̌ ahukyan (1972: 135) here takes one dialect, Xoy/Maraɫa, and identifies four rep-
resentatives of it: Maraɫa, Urmia, P‘ayaǰuk and Xoy. This dialectal area comprises
the territory of the Armenian historical province of Parskahayk‘ (Persian Armenia),
as well as some adjacent regions, in particular Maraɫa (east of Lake Urmia), where
Armenians have lived since the 13th century. In 1828, a considerable part of the
Armenian populations of these regions migrated to the Caucasus, the village of Aza
(Naxiǰewan, on the River Arax), Ɫarabaɫ and elsewhere. Before the First World War
there lived 368 Armenian families in the Maraɫa region, and in 1920 the number
was 200. Nowadays the dialect is also spoken in a few regions of the Republic of
Armenia, namely Artašat, Vayoc‘-jor, Kotayk‘, Hoktemberyan, etc. (Ačaṙyan 1911:
288; 1926: 9–13; 1951: 359; Ɫaribyan 1953: 342–343; Asatryan 1962: 9–11).
Dialect description of Urmia/Xoy in Ačaṙyan (1911: 288–290), Ɫaribyan
(1939: 128–146; 1953: 342–358) and Asatryan (1962). Maraɫa is described in
Ačaṙyan (1926).
Phonology
Before a syllable-initial consonant, the velars k/ky and g/gy become y, while k‘/k‘y
becomes hy, cf. taxtak ‘board, plank’, pl. taxtəynɛr; axč‘iky ‘girl’, pl. axč‘iynɛr,
p‘ɛt‘ägy ‘beehive’, pl. p‘ɛt‘äynɛr; irɛk‘y ‘three’, irɛhy xɛt ‘three times’, etc. This
also holds for words with, e. g., k‘n from gn, such as aganim ‘to put on clothes’ >
xahynɛl (cf. hak‘nɛ/il in the majority of dialects). See also §6.5, Van. On Ačaṙyan’s
Law and the shift h > x, see §§5.1, 6.5 (Van), 6.8 (Ɫarabaɫ).
Nominal morphology
There are three plural markers:
• -ɛr in monosyllables, e. g. ɛc (from CA ayc ‘goat’), pl. ɛc-ɛr;
• -nɛr (1) in words that became monosyllabic after the loss of final -n, e. g. kyäṙ
(< CA gaṙn ‘lamb’), pl. kyäṙnɛr; (2) in polysyllables, e. g. kyäzän (< CA gazan
‘beast’), pl. kyäzännɛr;
• -k‘yɛr (a combination of the Old Armenian plural markers k‘ and -e(a)r) in
polysyllables, e. g. pälis (< CA acc.pl banali-s ‘key’), pl. pälis-k‘yɛr.
In some subdialects one finds the following distribution: -nɛr in words ending in
a vowel, and -k‘yɛr in words ending in a consonant, cf. aṙu-nɛr (aṙu ‘brook’) vs.
karas-k‘yɛr (karas ‘jar’).
In some subdialects the marker -k‘yɛr is used in possessive constructions for
expressing the plurality of the possessor, cf. tun-əs ‘my house’, tən-ɛr-əs ‘my
houses’ and tənə-k‘yɛr-əs ‘our houses’. The paradigms of caṙ, o-stem ‘tree’ and
hogi ‘spirit’ in CA and the Xoy dialect (Asatryan 1962: 77–78) are provided in
Table 24.
86 Hrach Martirosyan
CA Xoy CA Xoy
sg n hogi xɔk‘i pl hogi-k‘ xɔk‘i-nɛr
acc (z-)hogi xɔk‘i (z-)hogi-s xɔk‘i-nɛr
gd hogw-o-y xɔk‘-u hogw-o-c‘ xɔk‘i-nɛr-i(/ə)
abl i hogw-o-y xɔk‘iy-ɛ i hogw-o-c‘ xɔk‘i-nɛr-ɛ
i hogw-o-v xɔk‘(iy)-ɔv hogw-o-v-k‘ xɔk‘i-nɛr-ɔv
Verbal morphology
The dialect belongs to the l-group; the indicative present is formed as with the
construction participle + copula: üzɛl ɛm ‘I want’, ɛt‘äl ɛm ‘I go’ (Xoy); üzeli im
‘I want’, amč‘ənalǝ́ yim ‘I am ashamed’ (Maraɫa).
Remarkable is Urmia, in which the 3rd singular form has -l vs. -s in the rest
of paradigm, thus: kyirɛs ɛm/s ‘I/you write’, 3sg kyirɛl i ‘he or she writes’; mənas
ɛm/s ‘I/you stay’, 3sg mənal i ‘he or she stays’. It is interesting to compare this
pattern to that of Areš/Havarik (an eastern dialect displaying no consonant shift),
in which the 1st person has -li(s), whereas in the others the -l- is combined with
the participial ending -um: 1sg sirɛlis əm / sirɛli yəm, 2sg sirɛləm əs, 3sg sirɛlim i
(CA sirem ‘to love’).19The paradigms of the present indicative of the verb grem ‘to
write’ in Urmia and Areš/Havarik are provided in Table 25.
19
For the forms and a discussion, see the relevant dialect descriptions, particularly Asa-
tryan (1962: 7–17), as well as G. Geworgyan (1985, 2010).
The Armenian dialects 87
The imperfect is formed by addition of the particle ɛr to the present form, but the
3sg form is not distinct here. Thus:
• kyirɛs ɛm ‘I write’ vs. kyirɛs ɛm ɛr ‘I was writing’;
• kyirɛs ɛs ‘you write’ vs. kyirɛs ɛs ɛr ‘you were writing’;
• kyirɛl i ‘he/she writes’ vs. kyirɛs ɛr ‘he/she was writing’.
Phonology
Ararat is a typically eastern dialect with indicative present in um (sirə/um ɛm
‘I love’) and penultimate accentuation. The series g/k/k‘ practically remains intact;
some subdialects have voiced aspirates b‘/g‘/d‘ in initial position.
The diphthongs oy and iw both become u or (in e. g. Loṙi) i, e. g. loys ‘light’ >
lus or lis, k‘oyr ‘sister’ > k‘ur or k‘ir; ariwn ‘blood’ > arun or arin, jiwn ‘snow’ >
jun or jin.
Nominal morphology
The paradigms of hac‘, i-stem ‘bread’, and mard, o-stem ‘man, human’ in the
Ararat dialect (Ačaṙyan 1957: 549–551; Markosyan 1989: 109) are provided in
Table 26.
CA Ararat
sg n mard mart‘
acc (z)mard mart‘(-u)
gd mard-oy mart‘-u
abl i mard-oy mart‘-uc‘
i mard-o-v mart‘-ɔv
Verbal morphology
The debitive pəti (< piti) can be both preposed and postposed, in the latter case
being conjugated, e. g. pəti aɫam vs. aɫal (pə)tɛm ‘I have to grind’.
One of the most interesting features of the Loṙi subdialect is the doublet forms
of imperfect, one of which is identical with the CA paradigm and can be derived
from it, though a secondary creation is also considered possible (Asatryan 1968:
24–25, 121–122; J̌ ahukyan 1972: 105). Table 27 gives the relevant forms in CA
and the Loṙi subdialect.
The Armenian dialects 89
Table 27: Verbal paradigms for the imperfect in CA and Loṙi subdialect
Present Imperfect
CA Loṙi CA Loṙi 1 Loṙi 2
sg berem bɛrəm ɛm berēi bɛrɛi bɛrəm i
beres bɛrəm ɛs berēir bɛrɛir bɛrəm ir
berē bɛrəm a berēr bɛrɛr bɛrəm ɛr
pl beremk‘ bɛrəm ɛnk‘ berēak‘ bɛrɛink‘ bɛrəm ink‘
berēk‘ bɛrəm ɛk‘ berēik‘ bɛrɛik‘ bɛrəm ik‘
beren bɛrəm ɛn berēin bɛrɛin bɛrəm in
Similarly, there are doublet forms for the 3sg .aor . ending in Loṙi, e. g. ber-uc‘ vs.
ɛ-ber ‘he/she brought’. The latter is an archaic relic of CA e-ber. For the complete
aorist paradigm, see §6.8, Ɫarabaɫ.
Phonology
An archaic set of isoglosses such as accent retraction onto penultimate syllable and
Ačaṙyan’s Law (fronting of back vowels after voiced obstruents)20 demonstrates
an opposition between the South-Eastern periphery (Ɫarabaɫ/Agulis area) and Van,
on the one hand, and the Central and Western regions, on the other. The Van-Urmia
intermediate area may originally have formed part of the South-Eastern area. Note
also the sharp contrast between Muš and Ɫarabaɫ (see section 6). Ɫarabaɫ and Van
also share the devoicing consonant shift, in this case in contrast with Agulis, Meɫri
and Kṙzen.
The evidence for Ačaṙyan’s Law (see the table in 6.5, Van, as well as Marti-
rosyan 2010: 747) corroborates the assumption of A. E. Xač‘atryan (1984: 321–
322) that Ɫarabaɫ pɛ́rp‘ɛl is the regular outcome of Classical Armenian borb- ‘to
inflame’ rather than an archaic reflex of an otherwise unattested e-grade form
*berb-. Similarly untenable is the derivation of Ɫarabaɫ kɛ́ɫɛl and Meɫri gɛ́ɫil ‘to
hide, conceal oneself’ from an archaic *geɫ-. A. E. Xač‘atryan (1984: 321) con-
vincingly argues that these forms rather continue gaɫel ‘to hide’ through Ačaṙyan’s
Law.
Nominal morphology
Morphological archaisms: Ɫarabaɫ gen. tɛ́ṙnə from CA te-aṙn, gen. of tēr < *ti-ayr
‘master, lord’ (Martirosyan 2010: 61); Ɫarabaɫ cɛṙɔk‘ from CA instr . pl jeṙ-a-
w-k‘ ‘by/with hands’ (Davt‘yan 1966: 107). Table 28 shows the paradigm of hac‘
‘bread’ (Davt‘yan 1966: 105, 114–118):
20
For Ačaṙyan’s Law in Łarabał see Ałabekyan (2010: 154).
The Armenian dialects 91
Verbal morphology
Ɫarabaɫ basically belongs to the um-branch: indicative present sírəm əm (also
in Tavuš), Goris sirum ɛm ‘I love’. Šaɫax and Hadrut‘, however, belong to (l)
is-branch, cf. mənayis əm and mənas əm ‘I stay’, respectively.
CA paradigm of ek-, suppl. aor. of gam ‘to come’ (1sg eki, 2sg ekir, 3sg ekn,
3pl ekin, etc., imper. ek) is preserved in Ɫarabaɫ aor. yɛ́kɛ, yɛ́kɛr, yɛ́kə, imper. yɛk,
etc. (Martirosyan 2010: 249). The CA and Mid.Arm. aorist paradigms of the verb
tam ‘to give’ are shown together with those in the dialects of Šamaxi (Baɫramyan
1964: 129, 162, 167), Kṙzen (Baɫramyan 1961: 151), Hadrut‘ (Poɫosyan 1965:
212) and Ararat/Loṙi (Asatryan 1968: 141) in Table 29.
Table 29: Verbal paradigms in CA and Mid. Arm., and selected dialects
CA Mid. Arm. Šamaxi Kṙzen Hadrut‘ Loṙi
sg etu tu-i tur/vi tə/uvi tuvɛ təvi
etur tu-ir tur/vir tə/uvir tuvɛr təvir
et etu-r, eret, tu-aw u-tur, tur/vav ə-rɛt, təvuc‘ tu/əvav təvuc‘
pl tuak‘ tuak‘ turink‘ tə/uvink‘ tuvɛk‘y təvink‘
etuk‘ tuik‘ turik‘ tə/uvik‘ tuvɛk‘y təvik‘
etun tuin turin tə/uvin tuvɛn təvin
Abbreviations
References
Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi. 1898a. (Ačaṙean), K‘nnut‘iwn Aslanbēgi barbaṙin [Study of the
dialect of Aslanbēg] Bazmavēp 56(1). 31–35; (2). 83–88.
Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi. 1898b. (Ačaṙean), K‘nnut‘iwn Aslanbēgi barbaṙin [Study of
the dialect of Aslanbēg] (reprinted from 1898). Venice: S. Lazar. (Usumnasirut‘iwnner
haykakan gawaṙabanut‘ean, 1).
Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi. 1899. (Ačaṙean), K‘nnut‘iwn Ɫarabaɫi barbaṙin [Study of the
dialect of Ɫarabaɫ] (reprinted from “Ararat” 1899). Vaɫaršapat: Tparan Mayr At‘oṙoy S.
Ēǰmiacni. (Usumnasirut‘iwnner haykakan barbaṙaxōsut‘ean, 3).
Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi. 1902. (Ačaṙean), T‘urk‘erēnē p‘oxaṙeal baṙer hayerēni mēǰ [Turk-
ish loanwords in Armenian] (Ēminean azgagrakan žoɫovacu, vol. 3). Moscow: Vaɫaršapat.
Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi. 1903. (Adjarian), Lautlehre des Van-Dialekts. Zeitschrift für ar-
menische Philologie 1. 74–86, 121–138.
Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi. 1909. (Adjarian), Classification des dialectes arméniens. Paris:
Librairie Honoré Champion.
Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi. 1911. (Ačaṙean), Hay barbaṙagitut‘iwn: uruagic ew dasawor-
ut‘iwn hay barbaṙneri (barbaṙagitakan k‘artēsov) [Armenian dialectology: A sketch
and classification of Armenian dialects (with a dialect map)]. Moskua: Nor-Naxiǰewan.
(Ēminean azgagrakan žoɫovacu, vol. 8).
Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi. 1913. (Ačaṙean), Hayerēn gawaṙakan baṙaran [Armenian re-
gional dictionary]. T‘iflis (Ēminean azgagrakan žoɫovacu, vol. 9).
Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi. 1925. (Ačaṙean), K‘nnut‘iwn Nor-Naxiǰewani (Xrimi) barbaṙi
[Study of the dialect of Nor-Naxiǰewan (Crimea)]. Yerevan.
The Armenian dialects 93
Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi. 1926. (Ačaṙean), K‘nnut‘iwn Maraɫayi barbaṙi [Study of the
dialect of Maraɫa]. Yerevan.
Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi. 1935. (Ačaṙean), K‘nnut‘iwn Agulisi barbaṙi [Study of the dia-
lect of Agulis]. Yerevan: PetHrat (State Press).
Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi. 1940a. (Ačaṙean), K‘nnut‘iwn Nor-J̌uɫayi barbaṙi [Study of the
dialect of Nor-J̌ uɫa]. Yerevan.
Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi. 1940b-1951. (AčaṙHLPatm 1–2): Hayoc‘ lezvi patmut‘yun [His-
tory of the Armenian language], vol. 1 (1940), Yerevan: University Press; vol. 2 (1951).
Yerevan: State Press of Armenia (HayPetHrat).
Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi. 1941. K‘nnut‘yun Polsahay barbaṙi [Study of the dialect of Polis
Armenian]. Gitakan ašxatut‘yunner of Yerevan State University, vol. 19. 19–250.
Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi. 1947. K‘nnut‘yun Hamšeni barbaṙi [Study of the dialect of
Hamšen]. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi. 1952. K‘nnut‘yun Vani barbaṙi [Study of the dialect of Van].
Yerevan: University Press.
Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi. 1953. K‘nnut‘yun Aṙtiali barbaṙi [Study of the dialect of Aṙtial].
Yerevan: Academy Press (Hayeren barbaṙner: 1).
Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi. 1955–1971. (AčaṙLiak), Liakatar k‘erakanut‘yun hayoc‘ lezvi
[Complete grammar of the Armenian language] (Introductory vol. 1955); (vol. 3, 1957);
(vol. 6, 1971). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi. 1971–1979. (HAB), Hayerēn armatakan baṙaran [Armenian
root dictionary], in 4 vols (2nd edn.). Yerevan: University Press. [The original edition:
1926–1935, in 7 volumes, Yerevan: University Press].
Ačaṙyan, Hrač‘ya Hakobi. 2003. K‘nnut‘yun Kilikiayi barbaṙi [Study of the dialect of Cili-
cia]. Yerevan: University Press.
Aɫababean, A. 1901. Hawlabarc‘oc‘ mtawor keank‘ə [Intellectual life of inhabitants of
Havlabar]. T‘iflis: Tparan K. Martiroseanc‘i.
Aɫabekyan, Melada A. 2010. Syunik‘-Arc‘ax tarack‘i barbaṙneri patmakan hnč‘yunaba-
nut‘yun [Historical phonology of the dialects of the Syunikʻ-Arcʻax area]. Hayereni
barbaṙagitakan atlas: usumnasirut‘yunner ew nyut‘er 3, 54–165. Yerevan: “Nairi”.
Alaverdyan, S. A. 1968a. Ardvini barbaṙi hnč‘yunakan bnoroš aṙanjnahatkut‘yunnerə [Pho-
nological peculiarities of the dialect of Ardvin]. Lraber hasarakakan gitut‘yunneri
1968, Nr 9. 83–94.
Alaverdyan, S. A. 1968b. Ardvini barbaṙi jewabanut‘yan mi k‘ani aṙanjnahatkut‘yunnerə
[Some morphological peculiarities of the dialect of Ardvin]. In: PBH 1968, Nr 3. 229–
240.
Aɫayan, Ē. B. 1954. Meɫru barbaṙ [The dialect of Meɫri]. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Aɫayan, Ē. B. 1958. Barbaṙayin hnaguyn tarberut‘yunner hayerenum [Ancient dialectal dif-
ferences in Armenian]. Teɫekagir: hasarakakan gitut‘yunner 1958, Nr 5. 67–80.
Allahvērtean, Y. 1884. Ulnia kam Zeyt‘un. K-Polis: Paɫtatlean/Aramean.
Alpōyačean, Aršak. 1952. (Archag Alboyadjian) Patmutʻiwn Ewdokioy hayocʻ: teɫagrakan,
patmakan ew azgagrakan teɫekutʻiwnnerov. Gahirē: “Nor astɫ” [History of the Arme-
nians in Tokat. With topographical, historical and ethnographical information]. Cairo:
New Star Press.
Alpōyačean, Aršak. 1961. (Archag Alboyadjian or Alpoyačean) Patmut‘iwn Malat‘ioy
hayoc‘: teɫagrakan, patmakan ew azgagrakan [History of the Armenians in Malatia:
with topographical, historical and ethnographical information.] Beirut: Sevan Press.
94 Hrach Martirosyan
Amatuni, Sahak Vardapet. 1912. Hayoc‘ baṙ u ban [Armenian word and speech].Vaɫaršapat.
Andranik. 1900. Tērsim: čanaparhordut‘iwn ew teɫagrut‘iwn [Dersim: travel and topogra-
phy]. T‘iflis: Aragatip M. Martiroseanc‘i. (T‘iflisi hayoc‘ hratarakč‘akan ənkerut‘iwn,
188).
Andreasyan, Tigran. 1967. Svediayi barbaṙə (K‘ist‘inəgi lezun) [The dialect of Svedia].
Yerevan: Academy Press.
Ant‘osyan, S. M. 1961. Kesariayi barbaṙə [The dialect of Kesaria]. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Ant‘osyan, S. M. 1975. Xonarhman hamakargi zargac‘man ənt‘ac‘k‘ə. In Hayoc‘ lezvi pat-
makan k‘erakanut‘yun, vol. 2, 159–377. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Arewikyan, a. i. 1967. Ozmi barbaṙə [The dialect of Ozim]. Lraber hasarakakan gitut‘yun-
neri 1967, Nr 5. 66–78.
Asatryan, G. S. 1992. Kontakty armjanskogo s novoiranskimi jazykami [Contacts of Arme-
nian with New Iranian languages]. (Doctoral dissertation). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Asatryan, M. E. 1962. Urmiayi (Xoyi) barbaṙə [The dialect of Urmia (Xoy)]. Yerevan:
University Press.
Asatryan, M. E. 1968. Loṙu xosvack‘ə [The subdialect of Loṙi]. Yerevan: “Mitk‘”, Univer-
sity Press.
Avagyan, Serine Movsesi. 1978. Arčak. Hay azgagrutʻyun ew banahyusutʻyun 8. Yerevan:
Academy Press.
Avagyan, Suren Artemi. 1973. Vimakan arjanagrut‘yunneri hnč‘yunabanut‘yun [Phonol-
ogy of inscriptions] (X-XIV dd.). Yerevan: Academy Press.
Awde, Nicholas (ed.). 1997. Armenian perspectives: 10th anniversary conference of the
Association Internationale des Etudes Arméniennes. Richmond & Surrey: Curzon.
Ayceamn. 1907. Nmoyš mə Aramō giwɫin hay lezuēn [A sample of the Armenian language
of the Aramo village]. Handēs amsōreay 21. 27.
Ayvazyan, Argam. 1984. Agulis: patmamšakut‘ayin hušarjanner [Agulis: historical-cul-
tural memorials] Yerevan: “Hayastan”.
Azatean, T‘. 1943. Akn ew Akncʻikʻ: azgagrakan u kensagrakan yišatakaran [Akn: ethno-
graphical and biographical monument]. Istʻanpul: Tpagr. Y. Abrahamean.
Baɫdasaryan-T‘ap‘alc‘yan, S. H. 1958. Mšo barbaṙə [The dialect of Muš]. Yerevan: Acad-
emy Press.
Baɫdasaryan-T‘ap‘alc‘yan, S. H. 1973. Araratyan barbaṙi xosvack‘nerə Hoktemberyani
šrǰanum [The Ararat subdialects in the district of Hoktemberyan]. Yerevan: Academy
Press.
Baɫramyan, Ṙ. H. 1960. Dersimi barbaṙayin k‘artezə [The dialectal map of Dersim]. Yere-
van: Academy Press.
Baɫramyan, Ṙ. H. 1961. Kṙzeni barbaṙə [The dialect of Kṙzen]. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Baɫramyan, Ṙ. H. 1964. Šamaxii barbaṙə [The dialect of Šamaxi]. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Baɫramyan, Ṙ. H. 1972. Hayereni barbaṙner: Sewana lči avazani xosvacqnerə [Armenian
dialects: the subdialects of the basin of Lake Sevan]. Yerevan: Haykakan petakan man-
kavaržakan institut.
Baɫramyan, Ṙ. H. 1976. Xotrǰuri barbaṙə [The dialect of Xotrǰur] PBH 1976, Nr 3. 95–105.
Barxudareanc‘, Makar Vard./Epis. 1883. Pələ-Puɫi. T‘iflis: Mov. Vardaneani ew Ənk. tpara-
num.
Barxutareanc‘, Usta-Gēorg. 1883. Arazə tarin ktari. Šuši: Tparan M. Mahtesi-Yakobeanc‘.
Baxtikean, S. A. 1934. Arabkir ew šrǰakayi giwɫerə: patmakan-azgagrakan hamaṙōt
tesut’iwn [Arabkir and the adjacent villages]. Pēyrut‘: Tp. “Vahagn” H. Yakobean.
The Armenian dialects 95
Mak‘sudeanc‘, Mesrop. 1910. Aknay barbaṙi p‘ox aṙac baṙerə ōtar lezuneric‘ [The loan-
words of the dialect of Akn]. Handēs amsōreay. 57–63.
Mak‘sudeanc‘, Mesrop. 1911. Zeyt‘uni barbaṙi jaynakan drut‘iwnə [The phonology of the
dialect of Zeytʻun]. Yušarjan 1911. 319–323.
Malxasyanc‘, Step‘an. 1958. Aṙakner avandut‘yunner anekdotner (Axalc‘xayi barbaṙov)
[Proverbs, traditional stories and anecdotes (in the dialect of Axalcʻxa)]. Yerevan:
Academy Press.
Margaryan, Alek‘sandr S. 1975. Gorisi barbaṙə [The dialect of Goris]. Yerevan: University
Press.
Markosyan, Ṙazmik Ararati. 1989. Araratyan barbaṙ [The dialect of Ararat]. Yerevan:
“Luys”.
Martirosyan, Hrach Kayosiki. 2010. Etymological dictionary of the Armenian inherited lex-
icon. Leiden & Boston: Brill. (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series
8).
Martirosyan, Hrach Kayosiki. 2013.Armj anskie dialekty: xarakteristika otdel’nyx diale-
ktov [Armenian dialects: Description of individual dialects]. In Yuri B. Koryakov &
Andrej A. Kibrik (eds.), Languages of the World: Relict Indo-European languages of
Western and Central Asia, 334–385. Moscow: Academia.
Maxudianz, Mesrob. 1911. Le parler arménien d’Akn (quartier bas). Paris: Librairie Paul
Geuthner.
Meillet, A. 1936. Esquisse d’une grammaire comparée de l’arménien classique. Wien: Me-
chitharisten.
Melik‘-Šahnazareanc‘, Kostandin K. (Tmblač‘i Xač‘an). 1907–1908 (1–2). Zuṙna-tmbla.
Vol. 1, 1907; vol. 2, 1908. Vaɫaršapat: Elēk‘trašarž Tparan M. At‘oṙoy S. Ēǰmiacni.
Melik‘ean, Eɫišē Y. 1964. Hark‘-Xnus. Ant‘ilias, Lebanon: Tparan Kat‘oɫikosut‘ean Hayoc‘
Meci Tann Kilikioy.
Mežunc‘, B. X. 1989. Šamšadin-Diliǰani xosvack‘ə [The subdialect of Šamšadin-Diliǰan].
Yerevan: University Press.
Mkrtč‘yan, Garik. 2015. Barbaṙagitutʻyan himunkʻner [Foundations of dialectology].(Lec-
tures). Yerevan: “Daso Print”.
Mkrtč‘yan, H. M. 1952. Karno barbaṙə [The dialect of Karin]. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Mkrtč‘yan, Nerses Alek‘sani. 1971. Burduri barbaṙə [The dialect of Burdur]. Yerevan:
Academy Press.
Mkrtč‘yan, Nerses Alek‘sani. 1995. Sivri-Hisari gaɫt‘ōǰaxi ew barbaṙi masin [On the com-
munity and dialect of Sivri-Hisar]. PBH 1995, Nr 2. 205–214.
Mkrtč‘yan, Nerses Alek‘sani. 2006. Anatoliayi norahayt hay barbaṙnerə ew banahy-
usut‘yunə [The newly-found Armenian dialects and folklore of Anatolia]. Yerevan:
“Ōrenk‘ ew irakanut‘yun”. (Heɫinakayin hratarakut‘yun).
Movsisyan, Sahak (Bense). 1972. Hark‘ (Mšo Bulanəx). Hay azgagrut‘yun ew banahy-
usut‘yun 3. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Msereanc‘, Lewon. 1897–01. (Mserianc), Ètjudy po armjanskoj dialektologii, 1–2 (on the
dialect of Muš). Moscow: University Press.
Msereanc‘, Lewon. 1899. Hayerēn barbaṙaxōsut‘iwn [Armenian dialectology]. (Armenian
transl. from Russian by Gabriēl Mēnēvišean). Vienna: Mxit‘arean Tparan. (Azgayin
Matenadaran, 30).
Muradean, Y. 1901. Hamšēnc‘i hayer [Hamšen Armenians]. T‘iflis: K. Martiroseanc‘i
tparan (reprinted from Azgagrakan handēs).
The Armenian dialects 101
Tarōnean, Eduard. 1961. Baɫēši nahangi Xult‘ik giwɫi barbaṙə [The dialect of the Xultʻik
village in the province of Baɫēš]. Ant‘ilias, Lebanon: Tparan Kat‘oɫikosut‘ean Hayoc‘
Meci Tann Kilikioy.
T‘emurčyan, V. S. 1970. Gamirk‘i hayerə [The Armenians of Gamirkʻ]. Hay azgagrut‘yun
ew banahyusut‘yun 1. 7–140.
Tēōvlēt‘ean, Sargis X. 1954. Yušer Šapin Garahisarēn [Memories from Šapin Garahisar].
P‘ariz: “Le soleil”.
Tēr-Aɫek‘sandrean, Gēorg. 1885. T‘iflisec‘oc‘ mtawor keank‘ə [Intellectual life of inhabit-
ants of Tʻiflis]. T‘iflis: Yovhannēs Martiroseanc‘i tparan.
Tēr-Pōɫosean, Gr. 1921–22. Havariki barbaṙə [The dialect of Havarik]. Banber Hayastani
Gitakan Instituti. Vol. 1–2. 160–177.
Tēr-Sargsencʻ, Aristakēs vardapet. 1875. Panduxt vancʻin [The emigrant from Van].
K. Pōlis: Tntesean.
Tēr-Vardanean, Gurgēn. 1968. Erznka-Kamax gawaṙabarbaṙə ew azgagrakan yušer [The
dialect of Erznka-Kamax and ethnographical memories. Erusaɫēm.
Tēr-Yakobean, Yakob. 1960. Partizakə xatutik. Yaweluacabar – Manušak ew ir hēk‘eat‘nerə.
Paris.
Tomaschek, Wilhelm. 1896. Sasun und das Quellengebiet des Tigris: historisch-topogra-
phische Untersuchung. Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Classe der
Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 133.4. Wien.
Tomson, A. 1887. Lingvističeskija izsledovanija [Linguistic studies], vol. 1. S. Peterburg:
Tipografija E. Evdokimova.
Tomson, A. 1890. Istoričeskaja grammatika sovremennago armjanskago jazyka goroda
Tiflisa [Historical grammar of the modern Armenian language of the city of Tiflis].
S.-Peterburg: Tipografija E. Evdokimova.
T‘oṙlak‘yan, Barunak G. 1981. Hamšenahayeri azgagrut‘yunə [Ethnography of the Hamšen
Armenians]. Hay azgagrut‘yun ew banahyusut‘yun 13. Yerevan: Academy Press.
T‘oṙlak‘yan, Barunak G. 1986. Nšxarner Hamšeni ew Trapizoni banahyusut‘yan [Frag-
ments of folklore of Hamšen and Trapizon]. Yerevan: University Press.
T‘umayean, Karapet. 1930. Marzuani gawaṙabarə [The dialect of Marzuan]. Vienna: Mx-
it‘arean tparan.
Tʻuršyan, Harutʻyun. 2018. Baṙaran Vani barbaṙi [Dictionary of Van dialect] (Dr. Haykanush
Mesropyan, ed.). Yerevan: “Gitutyun” publishing house of NAS RA.
Vardanyan, Sergey. 2009. Kronap‘ox hamšenahayeri barbaṙə, banahyusut‘yunə ew er-
garvestə: nyut‘er ew usumnasirut‘yunner [The dialect, folklore and song art of con-
verted Armenians of Hamšen: materials and studies]. Yerevan: University Press.
Vartapetjan, N. A. 1962. Sjunikskij dialekt [The dialect of Syunikʻ]. (PhD dissertation).
Yerevan: Academy Press.
Vaux, Bert. 1992. Adjarian’s Law and consonantal ATR in Armenian. In Proceedings of the
Fourth International Conference on Armenian Linguistics, Cleveland State University,
Cleveland, Ohio, September 14–18, 1991, 271–293. (John A. C. Greppin, ed.). Delmar
& New York: Caravan Books.
Vaux, Bert. 1997. The phonology of voiced aspirates in the Armenian dialect of New Julfa.
In N. Awde (ed.), Armenian Perspectives, 231–248. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon.
Vaux, Bert. 1998. The phonology of Armenian. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Vaux, Bert. 1999–2000. Notes on the Armenian dialect of Ayntab. Annual of Armenian
linguistics 20. 55–82.
104 Hrach Martirosyan
Vaux, Bert. 2000–2001. Hemshinli: The forgotten Black Sea Armenians. Journal of Arme-
nian studies 6(2). 47–71.
Vaux, Bert. 2001. The Armenian dialect of Aslanbeg. Annual of Armenian linguistics 21.
31–64.
Vaux, Bert. 2007. Homshetsma: The language of the Armenians of Hamshen. In Hovann H.
Simonian (ed.), The Hemshin: History, society and identity in the Highlands of North-
east Turkey, 257–278. London & New York: Routledge.
Viredaz, Rémy. 2003. The Great Armenian Puzzle is not thorny. Annual of Armenian lin-
guistics 22–23. 59–81.
Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 1985. Additional ‑n in Armenian. Annual of Armenian linguistics 6.
101–106.
Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 1986. Additional h‑, initial y‑ and Indo‑European *y‑ in Armenian.
In Maurice Leroy & Francine Mawet (eds.), La place de l’arménien dans les langues
indo-européennes, 90–101. Louvain: Peeters.
Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 1992. An early dialectal phonetic split in Classical Armenian: the cases
of t‘awt‘ap‘em and p‘lanim. In John A. C. Greppin (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on Armenian Linguistics, Cleveland State University, Cleve-
land, Ohio, September 14–18, 1991, 295–318. Delmar, New York: Caravan Books.
Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 1993. Initial y- in Classical Armenian and the early development of
Armenian dialects. In L. Hovsepian, N. Parnassian & S. Simonian (eds.), Proceedings
of the Second International Symposium on Armenian Linguistics, 21–23 September
1987, 208–217. Yerewan: Armenian Academy Press.
Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 1996. On the early development of the Armenian dialects. In Dora
Sakayan (ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Armenian Linguis-
tics, McGill University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada May 1–5, 1995, 93–118. Delmar
& New York: Caravan Books.
Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 1999–2000. On the early development of Armenian dialects – 2. The
monophthongization of ay. Annual of Armenian linguistics 20. 1–26.
Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 2001. Thoughts on early Armenian accentuation. Annual of Armenian
linguistics 21. 65–73.
Weitenberg, Jos J. S. 2002. Aspects of Armenian dialectology. In Jan Berns & Jaap van
Marle (eds.), Present-day dialectology: Problems and findings, 141–157. Berlin & New
York: De Gruyter Mouton. (Trends in linguistics: Studies and monographs, 137).
Winter, Werner. 1966. Traces of early dialectal diversity in Old Armenian. In H. Birnbaum
& J. Puhvel (eds.), Ancient Indo-European dialects: proceedings of the Conference
on Indo-European linguistics held at the University of California, Los Angeles, 1963,
201–211. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Xač‘atryan, A. E. 1984. Jayndarji hin erewuyt‘ner hay barbaṙnerum [Old phenomena of
ablaut in Armenian dialects].In International symposium on Armenian linguistics (Ye-
revan, September 21–25, 1982): Reports, 318–326. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Xač‘atryan, H. S. 1985. Šapin Garahisari barbaṙ (holovumə ew xonarhumə) [The dialect
of Šapin Garahisar: declension and conjugation]. In Hayereni barbaṙagitakan atlas:
usumnasirut‘yunner ew nyut‘er 2, 136–159. Yerevan: Academy Press.
Xač‘atryan, Ṙaisa. 1999. T‘alin. Hay azgagrut‘yun ew banahyusut‘yun 20. Yerevan: Acad-
emy Press “Gitut‘yun”.
Xač‘atryan, V. 2004. Vardenisi (Diadini) barbaṙə [The dialect of Vardenis (Diadin)]. Yere-
van: “Nairi”.
The Armenian dialects 105
1. Introduction
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-004
Northern Kurdish (Kurmanjî) 107
Haig and Öpengin (2018) for discussion and references). Between around 1920
and 1990, the only reliable publications on Kurdish spoken in Turkey are Jas-
trow’s sketch of the phonology of the Van dialect (1977), and Ritter’s collection of
spoken Kurdish narratives from the Midyat region (1971 and 1976). A rich body
of material has also been compiled under the auspices of L’Institut kurde de Paris,
though we still await a more structured survey. Very recently, an online-accessible
data-base of Kurdish dialects has been launched (Matras et al. 2016), which pro-
vides the most comprehensive coverage to date of the Kurmanjî varieties spoken
in eastern Anatolia. Although there is considerable dialectal variation within Ana-
tolia, the situation is one of a dialect continuum, with a high degree of mutual
intelligibility across most of the region, except between the farthest southeastern
and northwestern dialects (see §4 below). In this regard, the situation of Kurmanjî
is rather different to that of Neo-Aramaic, likewise spoken in eastern Anatolia and
northern Iraq, but which consists of scattered and distinct local dialects (or perhaps
languages), with low levels of mutual intelligibility (see Khan, this volume, chap-
ters 2.5 and 3.4).
Below I provide a brief outline of the history and current situation of the speak-
ers (Section 1.2), followed by a grammatical sketch of what is termed here “Stand-
ard Kurmanjî”, loosely based on the dialect of Cizre and Botan in southeastern
Turkey (Section 2). In Section three, selected areas of variation are presented,
illustrating the two most divergent dialects in eastern Anatolia, namely southeast-
108 Geoffrey Haig
ern Kurmanjî and western Kurmanjî. Section four sums up the main points of the
chapter.
2.1. Phonology
2.1.1. Vowels
The basic vowel system consists of eight simple vowel phonemes, five long (or
tense) vowels, and three short, or lax vowels.
Long, or tense vowels: /a/ <a>; /i/ <î>; /e/ <ê>; /o/ <o>; /u/ <û>
Short, or lax vowels: /æ/ <e>, /ʊ/ <u>, /ɨ/ <i>
110 Geoffrey Haig
The tense vowels are /i/, /e/, /a/, /u/ and /o/. They are generally realized phonetically
long, particularly in open syllables, and indeed, they are the ones that are stretched
in traditional Kurdish songs. However, vowel length by itself is not phonemically
distinctive in Kurdish. The full vowels occupy approximately the five positions of a
fairly typical five-term vowel system; the other three vowels are more centralized.
Examples from Haig and Öpengin (2018, §3.1.1) are presented in Table 1.
Table 1: The tense vowels of Kurmanjî (from Haig and Öpengin, 2018)
/a:/ <a> /e:/ <ê>
Orthography IPA Gloss Orthography IPA Gloss
agir [a:gɨr] fire êvar [e:var] evening
sar [sa:r] cold sêv [se:v] apple
mal [ma:l] house, home lêv [le:v] lip
mar [ma:r] snake thêr [te:r] satiated
zava [za:va:] bridegroom avê [ave:] water(obl )
/o/ <o>
Orthography IPA Gloss
toz [thoz] dust
çok [ʧhok] knee
got [got] said
zozan [zo:zan] alpine summer settlement
koçer [koʧhæɾ] nomad
Northern Kurdish (Kurmanjî) 111
The two lax vowels vowels /ʊ/ and /æ/are realized more centrally than the tense
vowels. They are less prone to lengthening in open syllables, but are not subject
to elision under the phonological processes to be discussed below. They may also
occur at the end of words. Examples are provided in Table 2:
Table 2: The lax vowels of Kurmanjî (from Haig and Öpengin, 2018)
/æ/ <e> /ʊ/ <u>
Orthography IPA Gloss Orthography IPA Gloss
em [æm] we guh [gʊ(h)] ear
dest [dæst] hand kuştin [kʊʃtɨn] kill
ser [sæɾ] head gund [gʊnd] village
dev [dæv] mouth quling [qʊlɨŋ] crane (bird)
re [ræʃ] black xurt [xʊɾt] strong, sturdy
1
When the surrounding consonants are sonorants, as in dimirim ‘I die’, a lexical vowel
may be elided.
112 Geoffrey Haig
may attach directly to a vowel-final past verb stem, such as kêşa- ‘draw, pull’ (note
that some dialects have a different past stem for this verb). The infinitive is thus
kêşa-n. Following a consonant-final stem, however, an epenthetic [ɨ] is inserted to
avoid non-licensed syllable codas; see Table 4 for examples
Vowel epenthesis may also occur in syllable-onset clusters in lexical items, though
there is considerable regional variation here:
bɨlɨnd ~ blɨnd ‘high’ sɨtra:n ~ stra:n ‘song’
bɨlu:ɾ ~ blu:ɾ ‘type of wooden flute’ bɨɾa: ~ bɾa: ‘brother’
dɨre:ʒ ~ dre:ʒ ‘long’ ʃɨkæft ~ ʃkæft ‘cave’
fɨɾotɨn ~ fɾotɨn ‘sell’ zɨma:n ~ zma:n ‘tongue, language’
sɨpi: ~ spi: ‘white’ zɨla:m ~ zla:m ‘man’
Certain inflectional prefixes, and prepositions, consist of a single consonant plus
the central vowel /ɨ/. Examples are:
di- Indicative present
bi- Subjunctive
li ‘at, in’
bi ‘through’
ji ‘from’
In these formatives, the central vowel can also be considered epenthetic rather
than lexical. It tends to be deleted under certain conditions (and in some dialects
these vowels are seldom realized, regardless of phonological conditioning). For
example the preposition ji [ʒɨ] ‘from’ undergoes reduction and devoicing in normal
connected speech: ‘from you’ [ʒɨ tæ > ʃtæ].
Northern Kurdish (Kurmanjî) 113
2.1.2. Consonants
The consonant phonemes of Kurmanjî are shown in Table 5.
Table 5: The consonant phonemes of Kurmanjî, generalized scheme (Haig and Öpengin,
2018)
bilab. lab.- dent alveol post-alv. pal. vel. uvul. pharyn. glott.
dent.
Plos. ph p b th t d kh k g q ʔ
Fric. vf ʃʒ xɣ ʁ ħ ʕ2 h
Affr. ʧh ʧ ʤ
Nas. m n ŋ
Trill r
Flap ɾ
Approx. w j
Lateral l (dialectally also ɫ)
The most unusual feature of the consonant system is the three-way contrast on the
stops and affricates, which emerged most probably through Armenian influence,
illustrated with examples in Table 6.
Table 6: Three-way contrast on the stops and affricates (Haig and Öpengin, 2018)
voiceless aspirated: [pho:r] ‘hair’ [thæv] ‘together’
voiceless, unaspirated: [po:z] ‘nose’ [tævɨr] ‘hoe, mattock’
voiced: [bo:z] ‘grey-white (of horses)’ [dæv] ‘mouth’
2
The phonemic status of the pharyngeal sounds in Kurmanjî is controversial. First, they
are most prominently linked to Semitic loan words, though Barry (2017) points to lan-
guage-internal factors that have contributed to the emergence of pharyngeals, and their
spread to native vocabulary (e. g. most dialects have initial [ħ] in the word for the
numeral “7”). Second, the extent to which they are realized is subject to considerable
cross-dialectal variation. Finally, as pointed out by Christiane Bulut (p.c.), in Kurdish
as well as other languages of the region, the corresponding segments can be considered
to be glottal stops produced with a retracted tongue root, rather than fricatives. Given
their prominence in at least some varieties, we include them in Table 2. We also note
that pharyngealization may be a feature that permeates over an entire syllable, rather
than being localizable on a single segment.
114 Geoffrey Haig
All word-initial <r> sounds are trilled, but in other environments the distribution
is not predictable. Examples for trilled and flap <r> are as follows:
Trilled Flap
[pɨr] ‘much, many’ [pɨɾ] ‘bridge’
[kær] ‘deaf’ [kʰæɾ] ‘donkey’
[bɨri:n] ‘to cut’ [bɨɾi:n] ‘wound’
With regard to pharyngeal segments, there is considerable cross-dialect variation,
(see Khan 2008 on pharyngealization as a variant feature of pronunciation, and
Haig and Öpengin, 2018, §4.2.1 for discussion of local variation). Some relatively
widespread examples include [ʕeli:] ‘Ali’; [teʕm] ‘taste’; [pʰeħn] ‘flat’.
Table 7: Case and indefiniteness in Standard Kurmanjî (Haig and Öpengin, 2018)
Masculine singular Feminine singular
Definite Indefinite Definite Indefinite
Dir. Obl. Dir. Obl. Dir. Obl. Dir. Obl.
gund gund-î gund-ek gund-ek-î jin jin-ê jin-ek jin-ek-ê
The forms for oblique case marking on singular nouns are provided in Table 7.
Note that the expression of the oblique case is suppressed when the noun con-
cerned is followed by the ezafe, and it may be absent with singular masculine
nouns (see below). The oblique case is used in the following syntactic functions:
I. Object of a present-tense transitive verb
II. Goal or Recipient argument immediately following a predicate of motion or
transfer
III. Complement of any adposition (though dropped in certain combinations)
IV. Possessor in an ezafe construction
V. Subject of a past-tense transitive verb
The direct case is used elsewhere.
Zero is common for proper nouns, and for masculine singular nouns particularly
when they have generic reference, in most dialects of Central Anatolia. The fol-
lowing example is from the Kurdish textbook Hînker:
(1) Ez şîr ve-na-xw-im
I milk(m ) prv -ind -drink.prs -1sg
‘I do not drink milk.’
Stem-vowel raising is found in many dialects; it only affects the open, non-rounded
vowels [a, æ], when they are in stressed syllables, and raises them: [a, æ → e:].
For example:
aş êş ‘mill’ ga gê ‘ox’
nan nên ‘bread’ ba bê ‘wind’
baxçe bêxçe ‘garden’ kevir kêvir ‘stone’
bajar bajêr3 ‘town’ zilam zilêm ‘man’
hesp hêsp ‘horse’ xanî xênî ‘house’
şivan şivên ‘shepherd, goatherd’ lawik lêwik ‘boy, son’
welat welêt ‘state, country’ ezman ezmên ‘sky’
ziman zimên ‘tongue, language’
3
In some dialects where stem-vowel raising is not an option for marking the oblique
case, the raised form bajêr ‘town’ has become the unmarked form of the noun, used in
all contexts, implying that the rule existed at earlier stages of the language.
116 Geoffrey Haig
Bare masculine singular nouns only consistently receive a suffixal marking of the
oblique in the Badinan dialects of North Iraq, and in the east of the Hekari region
in Turkey. As noted above, suffixation is regularly and consistently applied to all
masculine singular nouns, and across all dialects, when the NP concerned has a
determiner such as a demonstrative, or the interrogative kîjan ‘which?’, or carries
the indefiniteness suffix -ek. An example with a demonstrative is (2); the presence
of an oblique suffix suppresses stem-vowel raising:
(2) li vî welat-î … (not: *li vî welêt-î … or *li vî welêt …)
in dem .obl homeland-obl . m
‘in this homeland’
See Haig and Öpengin (2018, §3.2.4) for regional variation in the marking of sin-
gular masculine obliques.
An ending for indefinite direct plural -in is regularly cited in pedagogical works
and is shown in brackets above, but it is only frequently attested in the dialects
of Mardin region, and across the border in Syria. Elsewhere it is rare or lacking
completely.
Nouns in the direct case do not inflect for plural. Such nouns are usually sub-
jects, so plurality is generally reflected in number agreement on the verb:
zarok hat-in ‘the children came’
zarok hat ‘the child came’
There is a tendency in the dialects to the west for the Oblique plural marker to
become a general plural marker, which is used on nouns in the direct case, and also
on the demonstratives; see below on Mereš dialect.
Northern Kurdish (Kurmanjî) 117
2.2.3. Pronouns
The forms for the personal pronouns are given in Table 9. The “third person” pro-
nouns are basically the distal demonstratives.
Table 9: Personal pronouns in Standard Kurmanjî (cf. Haig and Öpengin 2018)
D irect O blique
SG 1 ez min
2 tu te
3 ew wî (m.) /wê (f.)
PL 1 em me
2 hûn we
3 ew wan
Table 11: Ezafe with the nouns gund ‘village’, bra ‘brother’, jin ‘woman’, çira ‘lamp’
Singular Plural (masc. and fem.)
masculine feminine
Def Indef. Def. Indef. Def. Indef.
gund-ê gundek-î jin-a jinek-e gund-ên / -êt gund-in-e
bra-yê brayek-î çira-ya çirayek-e jin-ên / -êt jin-in-e
bra-yên / -yêt bra-n-e
çira-yên / -yêt çira-n-e
The plural forms with -êt are found mainly in the Behdinī (see Haig, this volume,
chapter 3.3, §4). As mentioned above in connection with gender, the gender dis-
tinction in the ezafe following the indefinite marker -ek tends to weaken, with
considerable uncertainty and inconsistency in the forms. In the spoken language,
an ezafe may be omitted completely following nouns with indefinite -ek, and this
can also be witnessed sporadically in the written language: li ber derê kafeyek
internetê ‘in front of the door of an internet cafe’, with no ezafe following the
initial head noun (Dirêj 2011: 21).
120 Geoffrey Haig
4
Interestingly, in Şemzînan (and probably Badinan generally) this sometimes does not
hold, and the demonstrative may actually remain in the direct case: tu ew çiyayêt bilind
dibînî? ‘Do you see those high mountains’, where the demonstrative is in direct case.
Northern Kurdish (Kurmanjî) 121
2.4. Numerals
The main numbers, given in Standard Orthography (following Bedir Khan and
Lescot 1970) are as follows:
1 yek 11 yanzdeh, yazdeh 30 sî
2 didu, du 12 dwanzdeh 40 çel, çil
3 sisê, sê 13 sêzdeh 50 pêncî
4 çar 14 çardeh 60 şêst
5 pênc 15 panzdeh 70 heftê
6 şeş 16 šanzdeh 80 heştê
7 heft [ħæft] 17 hevdeh 90 nod, not
8 heşt [ħæʃt] 18 hejdeh 100 sed
9 neh 19 nozdeh 201 du sed û yek
10 deh 20 bîst 1000 hezar
The short forms of 2 and 3 are used when they are quantifiers in a NP: sê zarok
‘three children’. In the western parts of the Kurmanjî speech zone, the typically
Indo-European opaque forms for 11 and 12 have disappeared, and all the numer-
als 11–19 have been regularized along the lines of “10-and-1”, “10-and-2” etc:
dehûyek, dehûdu, dehûsê (cf. Haig 2006). This would appear to reflect contact
influence from Armenian and Turkish, which lack opaque forms for 11 and 12, and
instead have regularly-formed “10–1” etc.
5
From a short story Hirmîka Xirş by Mihemed Selim Siwarî, a writer from the Beh-
dinī-speaking region in North Iraq, published in Antolojiya çirokên kurmancên başûr,
edited by Xelîl Duhokî (Avesta, 2011).
122 Geoffrey Haig
2.5. Adpositions
In Kurmanjî, I distinguish three components of the adpositional system, which can
be combined in various ways: basic prepositions, locational nouns, and postposi-
tional particles.
6
ister … ister is a modified loan construction from Turkish, based on the Turkish verb
istemek ‘want’
Northern Kurdish (Kurmanjî) 123
Verbs are quite a small, closed word class in Kurmanjî (probably no more than 150
simplex verbs in regular usage in most dialects). The only moderately productive
derivational process for creating new verbs is a causative suffix, -and, used for
Northern Kurdish (Kurmanjî) 125
deriving transitive verbs from intransitive present stems: gerîn ‘walk, stroll’ →
gerandin ‘lead’, nivistin ‘sleep’ → nivandin ‘put to sleep’. New verb meanings are
normally created using light verb constructions usually based on kirin, bûn, dan
(see below). Additional verbs may also be derived through the lexicalization of
verb plus a dummy prepositional complement, for example jê birin ‘win’, literally
‘take from him/her’, also ‘erase’; lê xistin ‘beat (a person), lit. ‘strike on him/her’;
lê hatin ‘become’. Incorporation of a pre-verbal element may also yield a new verb
(see below).
7
Two verbs negate the present stem with ni-, zanîn ‘know’ and karîn ‘be able’: n izanim /
nikarim ‘I don’t know / I can not’. The verb šiyan ‘be able’, used in Behdinī and
Şemzînan dialects, negates the present stem with ne: nešêm ‘I can not’.
126 Geoffrey Haig
the Behdinī dialects of North Iraq, the subjunctive present forms used to make the
future tense regularly drop the prefix bi-.
Verb forms based on the past stem, however, are not necessarily prefixed. The
simple past tense is basically thus the past stem of the verb plus the appropriate
person agreement markers. In the past tenses, an aspect distinction between pro-
gressive (or imperfective) and simple past is available, signalled by the prefix di-.
Negation of both simple and progressive pasts8 is through addition of the
prefix ne-: ne-hatin ‘they didn’t come’, or ne-di-hatin ‘they weren’t coming’. In
past tenses, agreement patterns vary according to the transitivity of the verbs (cf.
§3.4–3.5 below). Sample paradigms are given in Table 14.
8
Negation of progressive past in Western Kurmanjî (Adiyaman-Urfa) is na-, as in na-de-
kir-in ‘they were not doing it’.
Northern Kurdish (Kurmanjî) 127
The Standard K. indicative singular 1sg form of ‘come’ is têm, resulting from a
contraction of *di-hê-m with the typical devoicing of the d- in such contexts (in
some dialects the trace of the stem-initial h- can still be heard), while the negation
is nayêm. In the western dialects of Kurmanjî (WK, see §3.4.2 below), the imper-
ative stem -her- of ‘go’ is also used in the indicative, so for example in Elbistan,
Dersim, Erzurum, and Elaziğ, it is used for all forms of the present stem. Thus
first person indicative present in these dialects is terim (<*di-her-im) ‘I go / am
going’, while negative indicative present is narim (<*na-her-im). In other dialects,
the imperative form is also used to cover subjunctive meanings in the present.
The imperative stem of hatin is also often used in place of the regular subjunctive
(which is bêm in the first singular).
2.6.3. Mood
With the present stem, there is a simple distinction between indicative verb forms,
marked with di-, and subjunctive verb forms, prefixed with bi- or zero in some
dialects.
The subjunctive of the present stem (cf. 18–21) has a wide range of functions,
including clauses with irrealis sense (wishes or orders), and subordinate clauses
expressing possible or intended outcomes. It is obligatory in the complements of
modal predicates such as ‘want’, ‘be able’, ‘be obliged/must’. Some examples
follow (from Bedir Khan and Lescot 1970: 317–321):
(18) Kafir jî b-e
unbeliever add be.prs . subj -3 sg
‘even if (he) is an unbeliever’
128 Geoffrey Haig
9
The verb zanîn ‘know’ usually takes this form for the negated simple past.
Northern Kurdish (Kurmanjî) 129
initially; see (28) below. The main verb is in the present subjunctive. High-fre-
quency verbs such as gotin ‘say’ generally drop the bi- prefix in the future tense,
as does the verb bûn ‘be’ (exs. from Haig and Öpengin 2018).
(26) ji_bo Xwedē sal-ek-ē ez=ē řožī bi-gir-im
for God year-indf - obl 1 sg = fut fasting subj -keep. prs -1 sg
‘For the sake of God I will fast during one year.’
(27) ew dē mesel-ē ji te re bēž-e
3 sg fut issue-obl . f from 2 sg . obl postp say. subj .prs -3 sg
‘He will tell you the issue.’
(28) wē čawa heval-ēn nexweš derbas bi-bi-n
fut how friend-ez . pl ill prv .pass subj -be. prs -3 pl
‘How will the wounded friends pass?’
(29) ewro ne, dē sibe či-m
today no, fut tomorrow come. subj .prs -1 sg
‘not today, (but) tomorrow I will come’
In Standard K. and contemporary written Kurdish, the future auxiliary can be
retained in negative sentences, in which case the negation marker is the subjunc-
tive negation ‘ne-’. In Behdinī, there is no dedicated negative future; the negative
indicative is used:
Standard K.: Ez ē sibe bi wan re ne-či-m.
Behdinī: Ez sibe digel wan na-či-m ‘I won’t go with them
tomorrow’
the recipient argument immediately after the verb, in the oblique case but with no
adposition. The southeastern dialects make more extensive use of the post-predi-
cate position, which is almost always coupled with the presence of the directional
particle on the verb (§2.6.5). These dialects also make use of a preposition bo with
some post-predicate recipients and benefactives (see Haig 2015 on post-predicate
goals), in which case no directional particle occurs on the verb.
In most other dialects, these constructions are not used. Instead, canonical sub-
jects in the Direct case are used, or, in the case of possession, the possessor is the
modifier in an ezafe construction. A remnant of this construction may be found in
many dialects in the expression çav ketin ‘eye fall’, i. e. ‘catch sight of’, where the
‘possessor’ of çav occurs clause-initially, rather than via an ezafe-construction.
The following example from Ritter’s Midyat texts (transcription adapted) is fairly
typical:
(38) waxtê ku sofî çav pê ket …
time-ez . m compl Sufi eye with.him fall. pst .3 sg
‘When the Sufi caught sight of him …’
Table 17: Lexical expressions for SPEAK (numbers in brackets refers to numbering in
Figure 4)
deyn/deng kirin (1)
ştaxilîn (2)
xeber dan (3)
axaftin (4)
peyivîn (5)
qise kirin (6)
qez kirin (7)
şor kirin (8)
Figure 4: Distribution of lexical variants for ‘speak’ (from Haig and Bulut, 2017)
Having briefly illustrated the main dialectal divisions within Kurmanjî, I will turn
to some more specific features of phonology and morphosyntax, focussing on fea-
tures where SEK and WK show the most divergent features with respect to Stand-
ard K., and what has been provisionally termed Southern Kurmanjî above. Again,
it must be stressed that Southern Kurmanjî is not a well-defined entity, but essen-
tially covers those areas that are not captured by SEK and WK. Within SK, there
is of course a great deal of finer-grained dialectal differentiation, but it is beyond
the scope of this chapter to cover it.
Northern Kurdish (Kurmanjî) 137
10
The final [i:] of participles is centralized when the participle is used predicatively (dis-
cussed in §3.2.1), as in: mala wan a soti ‘their house has burnt down’. Otherwise, par-
ticiples retain the final long vowel.
138 Geoffrey Haig
is neutralized. For example, Standard K. av, şev, çav ‘water, night, eye’ are pro-
nounced aw, şew, çaw in Şemzînan. The process can also be observed in loan-
words, such as vazo ‘vase’ (from Turkish), which is wazo in Şemzînan. The few
occurrences of [v], as in vize viz ‘swirling of flies’ and bive ye ‘it’s dangerous’ in
child language, are onomatopoeic words and the speakers are usually not system-
atic in their pronunciation. In the Behdinī dialect of Dohuk, however, lenition of
Standard K. [v] is not evident, and in fact the [v] in syllable-final position tends
to be devoiced to [f]. Thus in these dialects, an opposition between [v] and [w] is
retained (Haig, this volume, chapter 3.3, §4).
Standard K. [ɛ] or [æ] is also regularly retracted to a low central unrounded vowel
[æ̱ ] in WK. Thus Standard K. dest ‘handʼ and dev ‘mouthʼ ([dæst], [dæv]) become
[dæ̱ st] and [dæ̱v] respectively.
Turning to the consonants, the Standard K. [b] is lenited via [β] into an approx-
imant [w] in intervocalic, and in some cases, in word-initial and word-final posi-
tions. Note that the phenomenon is restricted to intervocalic position in other
dialects (such as northern part of Kurmanjî speech zone). The process regularly
affects an initial [b-] of verbal stems, when they are preceded by a tense, aspect,
mood, or negation prefix.
One of the features distinguishing SEK from Standard K. and the rest of Kurmanjî
is the use of the ezafe as a predicative element, rather than as part of the noun
phrase. This phenomenon is discussed in MacKenzie (1961a: 205–208) and in
Haig (2011); here we will only briefly outline it for Şemzînan (and SEK). Essen-
tially it involves an ezafe which agrees in number and gender with its antecedent,
but does not link that antecedent to some modifier; instead it introduces a verb
phrase. Examples of this kind of usage are given below. (42) illustrates a clausal
expression of possession (realized via the copula in Standard K.).
(42) min du bičūk-ēt he-y
1 sg . obl two child-ez . pl existent-not . analyzed
‘I have two children’
140 Geoffrey Haig
3.2.2. Ezafe in WK
The ezafe forms and their functions constitute another domain where the WK
dialect diverges remarkably from Standard K. Related forms are below:
With definite nouns the basic ezafe forms are -ī and -ē. The alternative forms -ē
and -ɔ, masculine and feminine respectively, which are parallel to Standard K.
forms, occur rarely and the conditions of their occurrence are not yet clear. The
plural ezafe, as in Mardin, is a reduced form -ē. Thus, theoretically, in some cases
of definite nouns, gender and number distinctions of ezafe are neutralized, illus-
trated in following examples:
ziman-ī/-ē mi ‘my tongue’ (masc. sg.)
mɔl-ē/-ɔ min ‘my home’ (fem. sg.)
sēv-ē mi ‘my apples’ (pl.)
mɔl-ē bɔv-ī te ‘your father’s home/house’ (mɔl ‘home’: fem. sg.; bɔv
‘father’: masc. sg.)
In indefinite nouns, however, the alternative forms are not used at all. Thus, the
ezafe forms in indefinite nouns are the same with Standard K. in singular mascu-
line and plural but differ from Standard K. in feminine, illustrated below:
kečik-ek-ē rindik ‘a lovely girl’ (fem. sg.)
mērik-ek-ī gir ‘a big man’ (masc. sg.)
pisīk-n-e řeš ‘(some) black cats’ (pl.)
The demonstrative or pronominal ezafe forms are substantially different from
Standard K. and other dialects. A three way distinction (singular feminine and
masculine, and plural) is preserved albeit with different forms.
æ̱ v pisīkɔ ɔ min=e ‘This cat (fem) is mine.’
æ̱ v xɔynɔ ī min=e ‘This house (masc) is mine.’
æ̱ v xɔynɔnɔ ē min=in ‘These houses are mine.’
The most distinctive feature of Elbistan WK morphosyntax is the obligatory use of
what appears to be an ezafe, which cliticizes to the subject constituent of certain
types of clauses. The examples below show the construction in copular clauses:
142 Geoffrey Haig
The prepositions li, bi and di are never realized as they are cited here; they are
reduced to the consonantal element when preceding a vowel, and they show
metathesis to il, ib, id preceding a consonant. They are thus realized as enclitics on
whatever element precedes the prepositional phrase. This could be considered part
of a general tendency to tolerate more complex syllable codas in SEK as opposed
to dialects to the north and west. However, it also needs to be noted that simple
prepositions are often completely elided (shown in parentheses), as seen in this
proverb (49):
(49) čūn (ji/li) mirū=ye, hatin (ji/li) xudē
going (from) man=cop .3 sg coming (from) God
‘Going is (from) man, returning (from) God.’
SEK makes use of simple ‘bo X’ construction, as in (48a) rather than Standard K.
circumposition‘ji X re’ for expressing benefactive; ‘(li)gel X’ rather than Standard
K. ‘bi X re’ for comitative. Finally, the common Standard K. postpositional particle
ře/řa exists in SEK only in a circumposition di … řa ‘through’ or its contracted
pronominal form tē řa ‘through it’.
As in Standard K., there are also complex prepositions composed of a simple
preposition and a local noun (cf. §3.5). In such combinations, the basic preposition
is generally dropped, yielding what appears to be a new set of simple prepositions:
(li) se ‘on’ (Standard K. li ser), (li) nik ‘beside’, (li) bin ‘under’.
The present and past stem of a number of intransitive verbs (mostly “unaccusative”)
in SEK have an extension -(i)yē (for present) and -(i)ya (for past); see Table 23. Fur-
thermore, in a number of verbs, also shown in Table 23, the present and past stems
of the verbs in SEK/Şemzînan are different from Standard K. and other dialects.
In Standard K., there is a set of opaque preverbal particles such as hil, řā, da, which
combine with verb stems to create new verbs. In the infinitive, they are usually
written together with the stem as a single item. However, inflectional prefixes such
as negation, or indicative/imperfective, are inserted between the preverb and the
stem, as in Standard K. ra-di-keve ‘goes to sleep’, from raketin ‘go to sleep’. In
SEK, however, negation and imperfective prefixes will often precede these pre-
verbal particles, indicating full lexicalization of preverb+stem and the creation of
a new stem. The same phenomenon is also found in the southernmost dialects of
Southern Kurmanjî, for example around Midyat; see Haig and Öpengin (2018),
ex. (75) and accompanying discussion.
Examples (51a) and (51b) show preverb incorporation in Şemzînan (SEK).
In (51a), the present indicative form of the verb hel-(h)atin ‘preverb-come’
(=‘rise’) has the indicative prefix preceding the preverbal element, and in (51b),
both negation and indicative prefixes precede the preverbal element.11
(51) a. řoj spēdē zū di-helē-t11
sun morning quick ind -rise.prs -3sg
‘The sun rises early in the morning.’
11
The verb form can be analysed as a contraction of di-hel-hē-t (ind - prv -come.prs -3 sg ).
Cf. the corresponding standard K. form hil-t-ê (prv - ind -come.prs .3 sg ).
Northern Kurdish (Kurmanjî) 145
12
In Mêrd. dialect, a similar incorporation of preverbal particles can also be observed,
cf. §4.2 in Haig and Öpengin (2018).
146 Geoffrey Haig
dialect, but unlike Şemzînan dialect of SEK, the person marking distinctions on
verbs is reduced to three levels: 1sg – 2sg /3sg – 1pl /2pl /3pl .
The ezafe forms marking the subject in the present tense and copular construc-
tions apply also to non-pronominal subjects. The resulting forms are (superfi-
cially) identical with oblique marked agents in past tense constructions of Stand-
ard K. and other dialects: Musayī læ viræ ‘Musa-ez . m (is) here’. With plurals, the
ezafe applies regardless of whether the subject carries the plural oblique suffix, as
in (60b), or does not carry it, as in (60a).
(60) a. pisīk-ē šīr væ-dæ-xɔ-n
cat-ez .pl milk prv -ind -eat.prs -3pl
‘The cats are drinking milk.’
b. pisīk-ɔn-ē šīr væ-dæ-xɔ-n
cat-obl .pl -ez .pl milk prv -ind -eat.prs -3pl
‘The cats are drinking milk.’
Note that in this dialect, the plural oblique case suffix has been generalized to
apply to nouns which in Standard K. would be in the direct case, as in (60b).
However, it does not seem to have been fully reanalyzed as a generic plural suffix,
since it does not systematically mark all the plural entities, hence the variation
between (60a) and (60b).
With complex subject noun phrases, the particle occurs at the end of the subject
phrase, as in (61):
(61) a. pisīk-n-e řeš-ē šīr væ-dæ-xɔ-n
cat-indf .pl -ez black-ez .pl milk prv -ind -eat.prs -3pl
‘The black cats are drinking milk.’
b. vī īlag-ɔ-y qilēr=e
this shirt-prox -ez . m dirty=cop .3sg
‘This shirt is dirty.’
The same system apparently also applies to the future tense, according to the
description in Kömür (2003: 18–20). The relevant forms are provided in Table 24.
I assume that in the plural, the relevant clitic is uniform =ê, though this is not
shown in the source. Note also the identical person marking suffixes in the second
and third persons, as mentioned above. Unfortunately, we lack a detailed analysis
of the verbal system of these dialects.
Table 24: Gender marking in Western Kurmanjî verbs (‘send’, present stem şîn-)
P resent F uture
1 sg . m az=î da-şîn-im az=î ku bi-şîn-im
1 sg . f az=ê da-şîn-im az=ê ku bi-şîn-im
2 sg . m tu=yî da-şîn-i tu=yî ku bi-şîn-a
2 sg . f tu=yê da-şîn-i tu=yê ku bi-şîn-a
3 sg . m aw=î da-şîn-i aw=î ku bi-şîn-a
3 sg . f aw=ê da-şîn-i aw=ê ku bi-şîn-a
148 Geoffrey Haig
13
This may be a present perfect formative, widely used in this dialect, rather than the
directional particle. It is impossible to decide in this context (they cannot both be
overtly realized on the same verb).
14
This is observed also for the geographically close Tunceli (Kr. Dersim) Kurmanjî in
Haig (2006).
150 Geoffrey Haig
Northern Kurdish is spoken across most of eastern Anatolia, and has thus been
exposed to contact influence from several different languages: In the southeast, it
has co-existed for centuries with Neo-Aramaic and local varieties of Arabic, while
probably the most important historical contact language in central and northeast-
ern Anatolia would have been Armenian. More recently, Turkish has exerted con-
siderable influence on all varieties of Kurmanjî, through Turkish-language mass
media, compulsory schooling, military service, and large-scale migration to the
main administrative centres, where representatives of the Turkish state tend to be
concentrated.
Areally, Kurmanjî is split across the Mesopotamian zone and the Caspian/Cau-
casian zone, and variation in morphosyntax corresponds broadly to this north/
south divide (Haig 2017). For example, the SEK dialects are firmly within the
Mesopotamian zone, and here we find widespread use of non-canonical sub-
jects with experiencer predicates, modal ‘want’, and expressions of possession
(Haig 2006, 2017), a greater reliance on prepositions (§3.3), and a larger range
of arguments that can occur post-predicatively (Haig 2015). The dialects of the
north and west lack these features. This ties in with the general picture of Semitic
influence in the southeast with a gradual fade-out northwards and westwards. But
not everything fits this picture. It is quite unclear, for example, how areal consid-
erations would be relevant in understanding the Western Kurmanjî constructions
with the ezafe particle in the verbal domain (§3.2, 3.4).
In general, the core areas of Kurmanjî morphology show relatively little evi-
dence of heavy structural borrowing (Haig 2007: 180). Most plausible candidates
for contact-induced developments stem from phonology, lexicon, and syntax. The
following list of candidate features for contact influence is not exhaustive, but
merely illustrates some of those discussed in the literature:
1. Additional series of voiceless obstruents, presumably in part through Armenian
influence (§2.2);
2. Pharyngealization, presumably through Semitic influence, but building on
inherited features of the phonological system (Barry 2017);
3. Close similarities across the vowel systems in the languages of Anatolia
(Haig 2017: 402);
4. Borrowing of Turkish conditional clitic =ise (cf. (66) from WK);
Northern Kurdish (Kurmanjî) 151
The following text is an excerpt from the story ‘The poor man, the snake, the
Jew, and good fortuneʼ, recorded in the 1960ʼs in one of the villages southeast of
Midyat which, at that time, were still inhabited by Yezîdîs. The speaker was the Pîr
of the local Yezîdîs, and the recording was made by a local Kurd, who was collab-
orating with the German Semitist Hellmut Ritter. They subsequently transcribed
and published this and several other texts, together with a German translation, in
Ritter (1976). Unfortunately, Ritter himself passed away in 1971, and the original
magnetic tapes have never been recovered.
These stories represent one of the very few reliable records of spoken Kurmanjî
from this period, and are typical of the oral tradition preserved in e. g. MacKen-
zie (1962), or Blau (1975), and discussed in Turgut (2012). Ritterʼs original tran-
scription is phonetic rather than phonemic, and uses quite idiosyncratic symbols,
making it rather inaccessible. In the version provided below, I have adapted it to
the standard Kurmanjî orthography as outlined in Section 2 above, but the syntax
remains as in the original, and dialectal features are noted where necessary.
(68) roj-ek15-ê kerk-ê16 wî li mil-ê wî
day-indf - obl . f yoke-ez . m 3 sg . obl . m at shoulder-ez . m 3 sg . obl . m
ye
cop .3 sg
‘One day, his yoke is at his shoulder
15
In the original transcription, the indefinite suffix is rendered with -(i)k, but I have stand-
ardized it throughout. Reduction of the indefiniteness suffix is a typical dialect feature
of the Mardin region, where the suffix is realized as [-(ɨ)k], unlike Standard Kurmanjî
[-æk].
16
This word, transcribed in the original as kärkē (with ezafe), is translated into German as
“Holzgabel”, evidently a wooden artefact to enable a person to carry a load of wood on
his or her shoulder. I have not been able to trace it in any of the Kurdish lexical sources
known to me.
Northern Kurdish (Kurmanjî) 153
17
This reflects the original, though in Standard K. one might have expected lê belê here.
Northern Kurdish (Kurmanjî) 155
Abbreviations
References
Asatrian, Garnik. 2009. Prolegomena to the study of the Kurds. Iran and the Caucasus 13.
1–58.
Bailey, Denise. 2005. A comparative study of grammatical relations in Northern Kurdish.
Göttingen: University of Göttingen, unpublished MA thesis.
Barry, Daniel. 2017. The emergence of pharyngeal sounds in Kurmanji Kurdish. Paper held
at the 7th International Conference on Iranian Linguistics, Institute of Asian and African
Studies, Lomonosov Moscow State University, 28–30 August, 2017.
Bedir Khan, Emir & Roger Lescot. 1970. Grammaire Kurde. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve.
Blau, Joyce. 1975. Le Kurde de ’Amādiya et de Djabal Sindjār: Analyse Linguistique, Tex-
tes Folkloriques, Glossaires. Paris: Klincksieck.
Bynon, Theodora. 1979. The ergative construction in Kurdish. Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies 42. 211–224.
Çapar, Fidan. 2009. Code-Switching und Sprachkontakt bei kurdischen Migranten aus Maraş.
Frankfurt am Main: Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, unpublished MA t hesis.
Dahl, Östen 2004. The growth and the maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Dirêj, Evdila. 2011. Kurdî Kurmancî. Berlin: Dilop.
Dorleijn, Margreet. 1996. The decay of ergativity in Kurmanci. Tilburg: Tilburg University
Press.
Haig, Geoffrey. 1998. On the interaction of morphological and syntactic ergativity: Lessons
from Kurdish. Lingua 105. 149–173.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2001. Linguistic diffusion in present-day East Anatolia: From top to bot-
tom. In Alexandra Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic
inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics, 195–224. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2002. Noun-plus-verb complex predicates in Kurmanjî Kurdish: Argument
sharing, argument incorporation, or what? Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung
/ Language typology and universals 55(1). 15–48.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2004. The invisibilisation of Kurdish: The other side of language planning
in Turkey. In Stephan Conermann & Geoffrey Haig (eds.), Die Kurden: Studien zu ihrer
Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur, 121–150. Schenefeld: EB.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2006. Turkish Influence on Kurmanjî: Evidence from the Tunceli Dialect.
In Lars Johanson & Christiane Bulut (eds.), Turkic-Iranian Contact Areas: Historical
and Linguistic Aspects, 283–299. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2007. Grammatical borrowing in Kurdish (Northern Group). In Yaron Ma-
tras & Jeanette Sakel (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective,
165–183. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2008. Alignment change in Iranian languages: A Construction Grammar
approach. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2011. Linker, Relativizer, Nominalizer, Tense-Particle: On the Ezafe in
West Iranian. In Yap Foong, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominali-
zation in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives, vol. 1, Sino-Ti-
betan and Iranian Languages, 363–392. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2015. Verb-Goal (VG) word order in Kurdish and Neo-Aramaic: Typolog-
ical and areal considerations. In Geoffrey Khan & Lidia Napiorkowska (eds.), Neo-Ar-
amaic and its linguistic context, 407–425. New York: Gorgias Press.
Northern Kurdish (Kurmanjî) 157
Haig, Geoffrey & Necle Bulut. 2017. Hearing, speaking, looking and learning: A pilot study
of lexical variation across Kurmanjî Kurdish. Wiener Jahrbuch für Kurdische Studien
5. Special edition: Katharina Brizić, Agnes Grond, Christoph Osztovics, Thomas
Schmidinger & Maria Six-Hohenbalken (eds.), Sprache-Migration-Zusammenhalt:
Kurdisch und seine Diaspora. 99–109.
Haig, Geoffrey & Ergin Öpengin. 2014. Kurdish: A critical research overview. Kurdish
Studies 3. 99–122.
Haig, Geoffrey & Ergin Öpengin. 2015. Gender in Kurdish: Structural and socio-cultural as-
pects. In Marlis Hellinger & Heiko Motschenbacher (eds.), Gender across Languages,
vol. 4, 247–276. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Haig, Geoffrey & Ergin Öpengin. 2018. Kurmanjî Kurdish in Turkey: Structure, varieties,
and status. In Christiane Bulut (ed.), Linguistic Minorities in Turkey and Turkic speak-
ing minorities of the peripheries, 157–230. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Jastrow, Otto. 1977. Zur Phonologie des Kurdischen in der Türkei. Studien Zur Indologie
und Iranistik 3. 84–106.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2007. Grammatical borrowing in North-eastern Neo-Aramaic. In Yaron
Matras & Jeanette Sakel (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective.
197–214. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2008. The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Barwar, vol. 1, Grammar. Leiden: Brill.
Kömür, Mehmet. 2003. Taw dilo: Akçadaǧ-Elbistan aǧzıyla Kürt folkoründen seçmeler
[Taw dilo: Selections from Kurdish folklore from the Akçadaǧ-Elbistan dialects]. Istan-
bul: Weşanên Enstîtuya Kurdî ya Stenbolê.
Lewendî, Mehmûd. 1997. Kurdên Şêxbizinî [The Şêxbizinî Kurds]. Bîrnebûn 3. 78–98.
Le Coq, Albert von. 1903 [2003]. Kurdische Texte: Kurmānğí-Erzählungen und -Lieder,
nebst einer Zāzā-Erzählung. Teil I und II. Berlin. [Reprint Amsterdam: APA-Philo Press].
MacKenzie, David. 1961a. Kurdish dialect studies I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacKenzie, David. 1961b. The origins of Kurdish. Transactions of the Philological Society
60(1). 68–86.
MacKenzie, David. 1962. Kurdish dialect studies II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacKenzie, David. 1995. The Kurdish of Mullâ Sa’îd Shamdînânî. The Journal of Kurdish
Studies 1. 1–27.
Matras, Yaron. 1997. Clause combining, ergativity, and coreferent deletion in Kurmanjî.
Studies in Language 21. 613–653.
Matras, Yaron. 2002. Kurmanji complementation: Semantic-typological aspects in an areal
perspective. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung / Language typology and uni-
versals 55. 49–63.
Matras, Yaron et al. 2016. The Dialects of Kurdish. Web resource, University of Manches-
ter. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/ (accessed 10 November 2017).
McWhorter, John H. 2005. Defining Creole. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oberling, Pierre. 2008. Khorasan i. Ethnic groups. Encyclopædia Iranica. New York:
Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/
khorasan-1-ethnic-groups (accessed 16 September 2017).
Öpengin, Ergin & Geoffrey Haig. 2014. Regional variation in Kurmanjî: A preliminary
classification of dialects. Kurdish Studies 3. 143–176.
Paul, Ludwig. 1998. The position of Zazaki among West Iranian languages. In Nicholas
Sims-Williams (ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Iranian Studies,
163–176. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
158 Geoffrey Haig
Paul, Ludwig. 2009. Zazaki. In Gernot Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian languages, 545–586.
London & New York: Routledge.
Ritter, Helmut. 1971. Kurmanci-Texte aus dem Tur’abdin. Teil I. Oriens 21–22. 1–135.
Ritter, Helmut. 1976. Kurmanci-Texte aus dem Tur’abdin Teil II. Oriens 25–26. 1–37.
Schroeder, Christoph. 1999. Attribution in Kurmancî (Nordkurdisch). In Karl Wagner &
Wolfgang Wildgen (eds.), Studien zur Phonologie, Grammatik, Sprachphilosophie und
Semiotik, 43–63. Bremen: Institut für Allgemeine und Angewandte Sprachwissenschaft.
Thackston, Wheeler M. 2006. Kurmanjî Kurdish: A reference grammar with selected readings.
Unpublished Manuscript, Harvard University. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/
Kurmanjî/ (accessed 15 January 2015).
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complex-
ity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Turgut, Lokman. 2012. Mündliche Literatur der Kurden in den Regionen Botan und Hekarî.
Berlin: Logos.
2.4. The Arabic dialects of eastern Anatolia
Stephan Procházka
1. General remarks
1
For details see the maps in Jastrow (1978), Procházka (2003: 88) and Procházka (2018)
as well as the lists of villages in Andrews (2002).
2
A detailed classification of Anatolian Arabic is given in Jastrow (1994: 121) and Jas-
trow (1978: 3–23).
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-005
160 Stephan Procházka
like the ʕAbbāsids and Ḥamdānids.3 This is corroborated by the close linguis-
tic relationship of the Eastern Anatolian qǝltu Arabic with the dialects spoken in
northern Iraq and, albeit less distinctive, in northern Syria.4 However, over the
centuries many changes due to emigration, displacement, and resettlement took
place. The qǝltu-Arabic-speaking communities, with the exception of Mardin and
its surroundings, have become isolated language islands amidst Kurdish- and —
restricted to the towns— Turkish-speaking majority populations.5 This picture is
clearly reflected in the “dialectal landscape”: the Mardin dialect group is much
more conservative, and thus closer to Northern Iraqi Arabic, than the dialects of
the “outer circle” of Arabic-speaking enclaves (Jastrow 2006–2007: 64). A good
example of how volatile ethnic and religious identities can be is the group called
the Mḥallamīye, who live between Mardin and Midyat.6 Their self-designation
most likely goes back to the name of a Kurdish tribe and they may have been
Christians until around 1600 (Benninghaus 2002: 179). Thus they originally spoke
Aramaic and were Arabicized only after they became Muslim (Jastrow 2004: 99).
Another example of shifting identities in the region is the saying of a man from
Mardin recorded in Grigore (2007: 34): ana tǝrki-ana, abūy kǝrdi-we w ǝṃṃi
ʕarabīye-ye ‘I am a Turk, my father is a Kurd, and my mother is an Arab.’
It has to be added that in all but the remote mountain regions regular, although
often hostile, contacts with the Arab nomads of the Syrian Steppe have always
existed.
In the Harran-Urfa area there are seven important Arabic-speaking tribes (with
numerous sub-tribes) whose presence in the region north of the Euphrates prob-
ably goes back to the very first centuries of Islam (Oppenheim 1939: 222). The
immigration of Arab tribes to the region reached a peak in the late 10th century
(Heidemann 2002: 32), but migration to and from the Jazeera happened up to the
First World War. Many of them were semi-nomads until the middle of the 20th
century and therefore had close contacts with their fellow tribes-people in the
3
Cf. Encyclopedia of Islam (EI), s. v. Anadolu, Ḥarrān, Ḥiṣn Kayfā, Mardin, Siʕird. It is
worth mentioning that the eastern branch of the line of fortifications against the Byzan-
tines, the ṯuġūr al-Ǧazīra, was “only so-called because the ribāṭs there are manned by
the men of Mesopotamia” (EI, s. v. al-T̲h̲ ug̲ h̲ ūr).
4
Local tradition, however, does not always coincide with these assumptions. For exam-
ple, the two Arab tribes in the village of Tillo trace themselves back to immigrants who
settled in the region only in the 14th and 17th centuries, respectively (Lahdo 2010: 26).
5
The more or less complete isolation of all Anatolian Arabs from the rest of the Ara-
bic-speaking world took place only after 1923, when it became almost impossible for
them to cross the borders into Syria and Iraq. This situation only changed in the late
1990s.
6
Tens of thousands of them emigrated to Lebanon after WW I, where they are now called
Mardilli and regarded as Kurds. Kern (2015) presents a very good overview on the dif-
ferent Mḥallami identities.
The Arabic dialects of eastern Anatolia
Syrian Desert —which explains the relatively few linguistic differences between
these groups.7
1.3. Current size and status of the speech community: religious affiliation
The last official census of the Republic of Turkey which gathered data relevant
to languages dates back to 1965. Hence all numbers given in the following are
based on more or less rough estimates. The qǝltu-Arabic speakers of eastern Ana-
tolia number approximately 620,000 people8, and the speakers of Harran-Urfa
Arabic can be estimated to be around 150,0009. The latter are all Sunni Muslims.
Among the other group were significant Christian and Jewish minorities until a
few decades ago. Today, there are no Jews in the region, and many of the Chris-
tians have also left, particularly those who were living in villages or in the smaller
towns.10 Thus the overwhelming majority of the remaining Arabic-speaking pop-
ulation is Sunni Muslim.
7
One has to bear in mind that until the 1920s there were no political borders between
what is today Syria, Iraq, and Turkey.
8
This number is given on the “Ethnologue” website www.ethnologue.com/language/ayp
(accessed 8 July 2016).
9
Cf. Procházka (2003: 76).
10
Cf., e. g. Wittrich (2001: 4).
11
Cf. Benninghaus (2002: 179) for the Mḥallami; and Lahdo (2009), which is a good case
study on the situation in the village of Tillo in the Siirt Province.
12
Only 15,000 speakers of Aramaic were left in Turkey in 2014 (data according to
www.ethnologue.com/language/tru, accessed 14 July 2016).
The Arabic dialects of eastern Anatolia 163
On the whole, both branches of Eastern Anatolian Arabic are still vigorous,
non-endangered varieties of Arabic with the following caveat: dialects spoken in
small enclaves whose speakers have few contacts with other Arabic speakers must
be considered highly endangered. Many Arabic speakers in such places suffer from
both poor economic conditions and increasing Kurdish nationalism and therefore
leave their homes. This is particularly true of Christians but has been reported for
Muslim villages as well.13 But larger communities such as the Arabs of Mardin
may also have difficulties in resisting the social and economic pressures that are
resulting in a gradual shift to Turkish among the young people, many of whom
recent studies have shown lack full proficiency in Arabic (Grigore 2007: 34–36).
Such developments are also observed among the youngest generation of speakers
of Harran-Urfa Arabic.
In general, the prestige of local Arabic is rather low. For many decades minor-
ity languages were completely ignored if not actively suppressed by the Turkish
authorities. This attitude only changed around the year 2000 with an ever-increas-
ing public and academic interest in local spoken languages. These developments
may strengthen the self-confidence of the Arabic communities and foster efforts
towards language preservation among their younger generation. There are increas-
ing activities on internet sites as well as on local radio and TV stations to promote
local varieties of Arabic. Another event which has changed the sociolinguistic
setting is the massive immigration of Syrians who fled from the civil war that
began in 2011. Thus, speakers of Urfa Arabic in particular have begun to adapt
their speech to the dialect of the Syrian migrants and increasingly use typical
words and phrases of Syrian Arabic.
As most Arabic speakers of the region in question are illiterate in Arabic, the
local vernacular is usually not written. There are, however, numerous internet
sites where one can find single phrases, songs, and proverbs in vernacular Arabic
written in Latin script.14
2. Linguistic description
The huge differences between the two varieties of Arabic here under consider-
ation, which are mutually not understandable,15 make it necessary to split many
13
According to Lahdo (2009: 112) the number of Arabic speakers in Tillo decreased from
3,000 to less than 1,000 during the five years from 2000 to 2005.
14
A good example is http://www.mahalmi.com/default.asp?t=23 (accessed 28 Febru-
ary 2013) and the “Dictionary” of the dialect found on http://www.haldeh.com/index.
php?option=com_content&view=category&id=44&Itemid=119 (accessed 8 July 2016).
15
Communication between local Arabs and the Arabic-speaking farm workers from the
Mardin area who annually come to the Plain of Harran for harvest is usually in Turk-
164 Stephan Procházka
chapters of the following linguistic sketch. For the qǝltu dialects, this article will
mainly focus on the dialect of the region of Mardin, where by far most of the
qǝltu-Arabic speakers live. However, outstanding linguistic features of other than
this region will be referred to.16 For the sake of convenience the western, Bedouin,
dialects will be called Harran-Urfa Arabic, the eastern, sedentary, dialects, qǝltu
Arabic when referring to the whole group, otherwise Mardin Arabic.
2.1. Phonology
2.1.1. Consonants
The following table includes the consonantal phonemes of Mardin and Harran-
Urfa Arabic. Sounds marked by * occur in Mardin Arabic only.
ish. According to informants the situation is different in the easternmost parts of the
province of Urfa. The Arabic vernacular of the regions of Viranşehir and Ceylanpınar
reputedly shows more influence from the neighboring qǝltu dialects.
16
Detailed descriptions of dialects from the whole region are found in Jastrow (1978),
which is the classic monograph on qǝltu Arabic. Other comprehensive studies are
Grigore (2007) on Mardin, Jastrow (1973) on Daragözü, Lahdo (2010) on Tillo, Sasse
(1971) on Mḥallamīye, Talay (2001) and (2002) on Hasköy, Wittrich (2001) on Āzǝx/
İdil, Akkuş (2016) on the Mutki-Sason region.
The Arabic dialects of eastern Anatolia 165
The sound /ġ/ is only marginal in Harran-Urfa Arabic because it is usually reflected
as /q/ (qanam ‘sheep’)17. There are several sub-groups of qǝltu Arabic where the
interdental fricatives (ḏ, ṯ, ḏ)̣ have shifted to dental stops (d, t, ḍ), sibilants (z, s, ẓ),
or labio-dental fricatives (v, f, ṿ), respectively (Jastrow 1978: 34–39).
A very common phenomenon of qǝltu Arabic is the devoicing of voiced con-
sonants in final position: e. g. ʔīd > ʔīt# ‘hand’, bīḏ ̣ > bīṯ#̣ ‘white (pl )’ (Jastrow
1978: 98); and (Siirt) ǧēmeʕ > ǧēmeḥ# ‘mosque’.18 The same phenomenon exists
in Urfa Arabic, e. g. aṭluʕ> aṭluḥ# ‘I ascend’.
2.1.2. Vowels
Mardin Arabic possesses two short (/ǝ/ and /a/) and five long (/ā/, /ē/, /ī/, /ō/, /ū/)
vowel phonemes as well as two diphthongs, /ay/ and /aw/ (Jastrow 1978: 81–84).
The vowels [ē] and [ō] are often products of the lowering of /ī/ and /ū/ when
preceding a velarized or back consonant: malēḥ < malīḥ ‘good’, ṭyōṛ < ṭyūr ‘birds’
(Grigore 2007: 77). Diachronically seen, the vowel /ē/ has also emerged from /ā/
by the shift of ā > ē conditioned by a short or long i in an adjacent syllable: e. g.
Mardin ǧmēl < ǧimāl ‘camels’.19
Harran-Urfa Arabic has the same five long vowels20 as Mardin Arabic but three
short vowels, /a/, /i/ and /u/. The phonemic status of /i/ and /u/ is weak and only
attested by a handful of minimal pairs.
17
Whereas OA /q/ is reflected as /g/: e. g. bugaṛ ‘cows’.
18
The devoicing of /ʕ/ does not occur in Mardin Arabic (Jastrow 1978: 43).
19
For a detailed description of this phenomenon called ʔimāla cf. Jastrow (1978: 65–69).
20
The two long vowels /ē/ and /ō/ are products of the monophthongization of OA /ay/ and
/aw/.
21
The syllable structure of the Anatolian qǝltu dialects is presented in detail by Jastrow
(1978: 85–95).
22
The syllable C1v̆ /v̄ C2C3 does not occur with C3 = m, n, l, r: e. g. *fa-taḥl-ki > fataḥǝlki
‘he opened (for) you’, but xalf-na ‘behind us’ (Jastrow 1978: 88).
23
In the qǝltu dialects only if the last C = m, n, l, r: e. g. šahr > šahǝr ‘month’ (see also
preceding footnote).
166 Stephan Procházka
(Jastrow 1978: 87).24 This is also true of Harran-Urfa Arabic, but there forms like
trāb ‘soil’ and ghawa ‘coffee’25 can also be heard.
In all Anatolian qǝltu dialects /ǝ/ (< /i/, /u/) is elided in unstressed open sylla-
bles unless this elision causes a cluster of CCC: e. g. Mardin yqēʕǝd ‘he sits down’,
yqēʕdūn ‘they sit down’; but yǝktǝbūn ‘they write’.26 If, however, the vowel /ǝ/
goes etymologically back to /a/, it is not elided (Jastrow 1978: 62): e. g. šǝṛǝbna
‘we drank’ < Old Arabic (= OA) šaribnā).
In Harran-Urfa Arabic too, /i/ and /u/ are elided in unstressed open syllables:
e. g. yākul ‘he eats’, yāklūn ‘they eat’. However, both vowels are retained if they
go back to OA /a/: e. g. zimān < zamān ‘time’. Certain patterns are subject to sound
changes if suffixes are attached. This is especially true for words of the structure
CaCaC, which show regular re-syllabification regardless if the word in question is
a verb or a noun. For instance, ḏạ ṛab ‘he hit’ vs. ḏṛ̣ ibat ‘she hit’; ḥaǧal ‘partridges
(coll )’ vs. ḥǧile ‘partridge’, maras ‘rope’ vs. mrise ‘thick rope’.27
2.2.1. Inflection
As in all Arabic vernaculars there are no case markers in Eastern Anatolian Arabic.
Nouns are inflected according to the three numbers singular, dual, and plural.
The singular is not marked. The suffix of the dual is -ayn (Mardin) and -ēn (Har-
ran-Urfa). The plural is formed by suffixes (in particular -āt and -īn) or by modi-
fication of the word pattern.
24
Only in the Kozluk-Sason group is the epenthetic vowel inserted: e. g. *ftaḥ > fǝtáḥ
‘open!’ (Jastrow 1978: 87).
25
Unless otherwise indicated the examples from Harran-Urfa Arabic are from unpub-
lished own research.
26
Exceptions from that rule are found in the Kozluk-Sason group (Jastrow 1978: 88).
27
Cf. Procházka (2003: 77).
28
In Harran-Urfa Arabic, the plural suffix -īn is almost exclusively used with adjectives
and participles.
The Arabic dialects of eastern Anatolia 167
2.2.2. Pronouns
The following table shows the independent and bound personal pronouns of
Mardin and Harran-Urfa Arabic (from Procházka 2006–2007: 125 and Jastrow
1978: 127–131; Jastrow 2006: 90).
A salient feature of the Anatolian qǝltu dialects (with some exceptions in the
Kozluk-Sason group) is the sound n in several plural pronouns as well as in inflec-
tion morphemes of the perfect. As can be seen from the corresponding forms in
Harran-Urfa Arabic, the qǝltu forms (as in hǝnne, bayt-ǝn, ʔǝntǝn, bayt-kǝn) coin-
cide with the respective feminine pronouns whereas Harran-Urfa masculine pro-
nouns have -m instead.30 It should be mentioned that Harran-Urfa Arabic exhibits
gender distinction in all plural forms except the first person in both pronouns and
verbs (see below).
29
The pronominal suffix is indicated by the lengthening and stressing of the final vowel.
30
For the pronouns that show an -n, Aramaic substratum influence has been suggested.
The pros and cons of such a development are discussed in detail in Arnold and Behn-
stedt (1993: 75–79), Diem (1979: 44), Owens (2006: 244–245), Weninger (2011: 749).
168 Stephan Procházka
2.3.1. Inflection
Finite verbs are conjugated for perfect and imperfect. In qǝltu Arabic two dif-
ferent vowel patterns exist in the basic stem (Form I): CaCaC and CǝCǝC for the
perfect and -CCaC, and -CCǝC for the imperfect. Harran-Urfa Arabic possesses
two stems for the perfect, CCiC and CaCaC (the latter with the phonological vari-
ants CiCaC and CuCaC), and three for the imperfect, -CCaC, -CCiC, and -CCuC.
Table 3: Paradigms for the perfect and imperfect in Mardin and Harran-Urfa
Perfect Imperfect
Mardin Harran-Urfa Mardin Harran-Urfa
1 sg šǝṛǝb-tu šrib-it ʔa-šṛab ʔa-šṛab
2 sg m šǝṛǝb-t šrib-it tə-šṛab ti-šṛab
2 sg f šǝṛǝb-ti šrib-ti tə-šṛab-īn ti-šṛab-īn
3 sg m šəṛəb šrib yə-šṛab yi-šṛab
3 sg f šəṛb-ət širbat tə-šṛab ti-šṛab
In the qǝltu dialects, the final -n of the inflection morphemes -īn and -ūn is dropped
when a pronoun suffix is attached: e. g. yišṛabū-hu ‘they drink it’ (Jastrow 2006:
93). In Harran-Urfa Arabic the -n is retained: e. g. yšūfūn-ha ‘they see her’.31
31
In Harran-Urfa Arabic, the final -n of the plural morpheme is elided when an indirect
object pronoun is attached to a participle: e. g. gāylīn ‘they have told’, but gāylī-li ‘they
have told me’.
The Arabic dialects of eastern Anatolia 169
Imperative
Mardin and Harran-Urfa Arabic possess a special particle which serves to empha-
size the imperative, dē ~ dǝ- in Mardin and di- ~ du- in Harran-Urfa: e. g. Mardin:
dǝ-qūmu ‘stand up (pl )!’ (Jastrow 1978: 310); and Harran-Urfa di-niṭni ‘give
(m . sg ) me!’, du-gul-li ‘tell (m . sg ) me!’ (see below in §3).
2.3.2. Derivation
In both groups there are nine forms for tri-consonantal roots and two forms for
quadri-consonantal roots that are used for the derivation of verbs. A tenth tri-con-
sonantal form is limited to a very few verbs. Each form has a set of patterns for the
perfect and imperfect base as well as for the active and passive participle.32
A characteristic feature of the dialect of Mardin and its surroundings is that
Form II verbs, which usually have causative and intensifying functions, are fre-
quently used instead of the corresponding Form I verbs if they govern a direct
object in plural:
(1) a. Mardin (Jastrow 1978: 164)
yǝ-qṭaʕ-lu ʕūd mǝ-d-dawm
ipf .3. m . sg -cut.form 1-for.3. m . sg stick.sg from-def -tree
‘He cuts himself a stick from the tree.’
b. yǝ-qaṭṭǝʕ-lu ʕūd-ayn mǝ-d-dawm
ipf .3. m . sg -cut.form 2-for.3. m . sg stick.pl from-def -tree
‘He cuts himself sticks from the tree.’
32
Cf. Jastrow (1978: 146–195); Lahdo (2010: 124–147); Procházka (2003: 81–82).
170 Stephan Procházka
33
A very good overview of the complex verbal system is Jastrow (1999), which deals with
the dialect of the village of Kǝndērīb. But most of Jastrow’s findings are true for the
majority of the qǝltu dialects of Anatolia.
34
Jastrow (1978: 300), bǝ-nqūl ‘we say’. Jastrow denies any influence from the analogous
modifier that is found in Syrian Arabic.
35
In the village of Tuzlagözü lē- (< li-/la- ‘in order to’) is used: e. g. lēbqa ‘he will stay’
(Jastrow 1978: 303).
The Arabic dialects of eastern Anatolia 171
2.4.1 Copula
A conspicuous feature of all Anatolian qǝltu dialects is the consistent use of a
copula that links the subject and predicate of a sentence without a verb. The “Ana-
tolian copula” consists of enclitic variants of the personal pronoun and is attached
to the predicate.36
(9) Mardin (Jastrow 1978: 27)
bayt-i gbīr-we
house-1. sg big-cop .3. m . sg
‘My house is big.’
(10) Mardin (Grigore 2007: 289)
mērdīn fōq ǝǧ-ǧabal-ye
proper . name on def -mountain-cop .3. f . sg
‘Mardin is on the mountain (top).’
(11) Mardin (Grigore 2007: 288)
ana Mērdīni-ana
1.sg inhabitant.of.Mardin-cop .1. sg
‘I am an inhabitant of Mardin.’
The dialect of Siirt is an exception in that in propositions the copula is placed
between subject and predicate (ex. 12). In questions, however, Siirt Arabic con-
forms to the other varieties (ex. 13).
(12) Siirt (Jastrow 1978: 132)
āvi l-bǝnt īye malīḥ-a
dem . f . sg def -gril cop .3. f . sg good-f
‘This girl is good.’
(13) Siirt (Jastrow 1978: 132)
ʔǝxt-ok malīḥ-a-ye?
sister-2. m . sg good-f - cop .3. f . sg
‘Is your sister good?’
36
The complete paradigms of three dialects are given in Jastrow (2006: 91).
The Arabic dialects of eastern Anatolia 173
The grade of determination depends on whether the last element of the phrase is
determined or not (ex. 14). All qǝltu dialects possess a prepositional marker for
syndetic attribution.37 It is, however, rare, being used mainly to avoid the repetition
of the noun (ex. 15).
(14) Harran Urfa (Procházka 2013: 209/3)
miǧann-t [< miǧann-e] aẓ-ẓġāṛ
cemetery-f . constr . st def -small.pl
‘the cemetery of the small (i. e. children)’
(15) Qarṭmīn (Jastrow 1978: 125)
ǝl-faṛas ḏīl-i-ye
def -horse gen . marker -1. sg - cop .3. f . sg
‘This horse is mine.’38
Only in the remote dialects of the Kozluk-Sason region and in Hasköy is analytical
nominal attribution frequent: it may even be regarded as the default case (Jastrow
1978: 126; Eksell 2006: 84).
(16) Hasköy (Talay 2001: 79)
sǝʕēb lē baqqāl
owner gen . marker shop
‘the owner of the shop’
(17) Hasköy (Talay 2001: 79)
ṛēḥān lē mōy
mill.pl gen . marker water
‘water-mills’
In Harran-Urfa Arabic the prepositional marker for substantive or pronominal
attributes is very infrequent. Even for foreign words attribution is asyndetic: e. g.
pīkab-i ‘my pick-up truck’.39
As for adjectival attributes, in the qǝltu dialects definite noun-adjective phrases
do not differ from definite noun-substantive phrases (Grigore and Biţună 2012:
553). This implies that the head noun of the phrase appears in the construct state,
and that the definite article is attached to the following adjective only (whereas in
37
Most forms can be traced back to *ḏī-la, the etymology of which is, however, not undis-
puted. Jastrow (1978: 125) points out that it resembles the OA relative pronoun allaḏī.
But Talay (2001: 78), fn. 23 suggests an Aramaic origin. In the former Jewish dialect
of Siverek the typically Syrian form tabaʕ was used: e. g. mǝ-nǝstaḥi mǝn dīn tabaʕna
‘We are not afraid of our religion.’ (Nevo 1999: 71).
38
Instead of *ǝl-faṛas faṛasi-ye.
39
Rarely hnīt ‘thing’ is attested to express a kind of belonging, e. g., ʔiḥna, ᵊhnīt as-sūg
mā nāxuḏhe ‘We do not buy the one from the market’.
174 Stephan Procházka
Arabic usually both components take the definite article). In Harran-Urfa Arabic,
the article is usually attached to both components, though with the peculiarity that
feminine nouns appear in the construct state.
(18) Mardin (Jastrow 1978: 124)
bǝnt ǝl-ǝkwayys-e
girl def -beautiful-f
‘the beautiful girl’
(19) Mardin (Grigore 2007: 216)
bǝqč-ǝt ǝl-wǝsx-a
bale-f . constr . st def -dirty-f
‘the dirty bale’
(20) Harran-Urfa (own data)
al-ʕarab awwali balāy al-ghaw-t
def -Arab.coll formerly without def -coffee-f . constr . st
al-murr-a mā-y-ṣīr
def -bitter-f neg - ipf .3. m . sg -become
‘In former times, among the Arabs, nothing happened without bitter
coffee.’
In Harran-Urfa Arabic an adjectival attribute is nearly always linked to its head
noun by the enclitic suffix -in if the head noun is indefinite40 (exs. 21–22). The
same morpheme is also used to link qualifying components other than adjectives
to indefinite nouns (ex. 23). (For relative clauses see below, section 2.5.1).
(21) Harran-Urfa (own data)
ʕaǧīy-in ẓaġīr ʕǝmr-u šahaṛ šahr-ēn
child-linker small age-3. m . sg month.sg month.dual
‘a small child whose age is one or two months’
(22) Harran-Urfa (own data)
ḥōš-in čibīr
house-linker big
‘a big house’
(23) Harran-Urfa (own data)
ṛabīʕ-in miṯl-ak
friend-linker like-2.m . sg
‘a friend like you’
40
This suffix is also called a tanwīn after the term for the indefinite marker in OA.
The Arabic dialects of eastern Anatolia 175
2.4.3 Negation
Anatolian qǝltu dialects use two different particles to negate perfect and imperfect,
mā and mō. The latter also negates sentences which do not contain a verb.
(24) Mardin (Grigore 2007: 169)
mō tǝ-ǧi
neg ipf .2. m . sg -come
‘You don’t come.’
(25) Mardin (Grigore 2007: 169)
mā daxal
neg enter.pf .3. m . sg
‘He did not enter.’
(26) Mardin (Jastrow 1978: 30)41
mō hawn-ana
neg here-cop .1. sg
‘I am not here.’
In Harran-Urfa Arabic, the particle mā is used to negate both perfect and imperfect
verbs. Non-verbal predicates are negated by a combination of m(v̆)- and the per-
sonal pronouns (exs. 29–30).
(27) Harran-Urfa (own data)
ʔawwal marra mā ligā-ha
first time neg find.pf .3. m . sg -3. f . sg
‘At the first time he did not find her.’
(28) Harran-Urfa (own data)
mā y-āxḏ-ūn-hum ʕa-l-garāye
neg ipf .3. m -take-pl -3. m . pl to-def -village.pl
‘They don’t take them to the villages.’
(29) Harran-Urfa (own data)
m-āni čaḏḏāb
neg -1. sg liar
‘I am not a liar.’
(30) Harran-Urfa (own data)
mi-hin šēn-āt
neg -3. f . pl bad-pl . f
‘They (f . pl ) are not bad.’
41
In some Anatolian dialects the enclitic pronoun is attached to the negator: e. g. Mḥal-
lami mana hawn ‘I am not here’ (Jastrow 1978).
176 Stephan Procházka
In both groups the particle lā negates the imperative and the optative: e. g. Mardin:
lā yǝǧi ‘He may not come!’ (Jastrow 2006: 92); Harran-Urfa: lā tibčīn! ‘Don’t
(f . sg ) cry!’
42
This conjunction is a loan from Turkish, but ultimately of Persian origin.
The Arabic dialects of eastern Anatolia 177
43
The conditional sentences of Mardin Arabic are described in detail by Grigore (2007:
293–308) and Grigore (2008); for the dialect of Kǝndērīb see Jastrow (1999: 51–53).
178 Stephan Procházka
44
In Harran-Urfa Arabic the relative is identical with the definite article and thus subject
to assimilation to following dentals and sibilants (see ex. 53).
180 Stephan Procházka
in the qəltu dialects,45 but only occasionally found in Harran-Urfa Arabic. Thus for
the Anatolian qǝltu dialects there are completely identical structures for (definite)
noun-substantive, noun-adjective, and noun-clause attributions.
(50) Mardin (Grigore 2007: 309)
ʕarab-at la xalf-na t-rīd
car-f . constr . st rel behind-1. pl ipf .3. f . sg -want
ta-t-fūt-na
conj - ipf .3. f . sg -pass-1. pl
‘The car behind us wants to pass us.’
(51) Mardin (Grigore 2007: 310)
kalb la gabbaṛ-tu fǝ-ḥawš-na
dog rel raise-pf .1. sg in-court-1. pl
‘the dog which I have raised in our court’
(52) Qarṭmīn (Jastrow 1978: 124)
ayn-i ḥǝnṭ-ǝt lǝ-tǝ-yǝ-ḥṭī-k
q .where-cop .3. f . sg wheat-f . constr . st rel - fut - ipf .3. m . sg -give-2. m . sg
‘Where is the wheat which he will give to you?’
(53) Harran-Urfa (Procházka 2003: 83)
zlim-t as sōlaf-t-u minu?
man-constr . st 46 rel speak-pf .2. m . sg -3. m . sg q .who
‘Who is the man you spoke with?’
(54) Harran-Urfa (own data)
al-ḥunṭ-it al mā t-tiṣawwal
def -wheat-f . constr . st rel neg ipf .3. f . sg -be.soaked
y-ṣīr xubuz-he mitīn
ipf .3. m . sg -become bread-3. f . sg hard
‘Bread from wheat which has not been soaked becomes hard.’
(55) Harran-Urfa (own data)
al-ǧild al y-ḥuṭṭ-ūn bī as-samin
def -skin rel ipf .3-put-m . pl in.3. m . sg def -ghee
‘the skin in which they put the ghee’
There is evidence of relative clauses in Harran-Urfa Arabic which contain a head
noun carrying the suffix -in although it is semantically clearly definite.
45
Examples showing the definite article on the head noun are also attested, e. g. from Tillo
ạw ǝl-kurmanč lay kǝǧ-ǧaw mǝn qabǝl ‘these Kurds that came earlier’ (Lahdo 2010:
178).
46
The word zlime ‘man’ has the morphological feminine ending but is, of course, mascu-
line by natural gender.
The Arabic dialects of eastern Anatolia 181
All Arabic dialects spoken in eastern Anatolia exhibit features that indicate the
influence of the two major languages of the region, Turkish and Kurdish. Neo-Ara-
maic may have played a more significant role in the past, particularly in the region
adjacent to Tur Abdin. But it must be emphasized that the local distribution of con-
tact-phenomena is highly variable. As was pointed out in Procházka (2006–2007:
116), the bulk of idiosyncratic dialectal features is found in “language islands”
(especially in the Kozluk-Sason group). On the whole, the Bedouin-type dialects
of the Harran-Urfa region show much less Turkish (and Kurdish) influence than
the qǝltu dialects.47
Most striking is the Turkish and Kurdish impact on the lexicon of the region’s
Arabic, resulting in a large number of loanwords that constitute up to one-third of
the vocabulary.48 A clear indicator of intensive contact or even bilingualism are the
47
For possible reasons cf. Procházka (2006–2007: 115–117).
48
For the village of Daragözü, see Vocke and Waldner (1982: xliii). Exhaustive lists of the
Turkish and Kurdish loanwords in the dialect of the village of Tillo are found in Lahdo
(2010: 203–214, 217–219).
182 Stephan Procházka
49
This is particularly true of the qǝltu dialects, but less common in Urfa Arabic.
50
In a few roots g is also found in Arabic words as a consequence of the generalization
of assimilated consonants: gǝbǝṛ – yǝgbaṛ ‘to grow’. Cf. Jastrow (1978: 47) for further
examples.
51
For further phonological contact phenomena see Talay (2006–2007: 181–183), and
Lahdo (2010: 191–192).
52
Cf. Jastrow (1973: 91), Talay (2006–2007: 185).
The Arabic dialects of eastern Anatolia 183
ʕašṛa sǝtte ‘16’ follow the Turkish model (on üç, on altı). Talay (2001: 78, fn. 26)
reports that in the village of Hasköy nominal attribution is sometimes done by
using the Kurdish linking suffix -ē: e. g. šǝllī-yē ṛabīh ‘spring rain’.
Probably the most striking contact phenomenon on the syntactical level is the
consistent use of a copula in all the qǝltu dialects (see above, section 2.4.1). As this
feature is found in Kurdish, Turkish, and Aramaic, but not in other Arabic dialects,
it can certainly be traced back to the influence of these adstratum languages.
As is pointed out by Talay (2006–2007: 183) and Jastrow (2011: 91), there
are many similarities between the tense and aspect categories expressed by verbal
modifiers in the qǝltu dialects (see above, section 2.3.3) and the Turkish verbal
system. The existence of similar categories in many other Arabic dialects clearly
indicates that they are not a direct product of Turkish influence, but the degree of
coincidence is so striking that one can assume that the Arabic verbal system has
developed at least some of these categories by analogy with the Turkish model.
This may be especially true for constructions like ka-tǝ-tǝftaḥ ‘you would have
opened’, which is rather unusual elsewhere53 and morphologically a copy of the
Turkish suffix -ecek-ti, a combination of future and perfect tense markers like the
Arabic ka-tǝ-.
Equally influenced by Turkish is the use in Harran-Urfa Arabic of the partici-
ple to express evidentiality (i. e. like the Turkish miş-perfect). This is very often
found in narrative speech when the speaker refers to an event which was not per-
sonally observed or experienced.54 For example, in a story about a girl who went
mad, the narrator frequently used participles instead of perfect forms:
(61) Harran-Urfa (Procházka and Batan 2016: 464)
gāyil Šēx Mǝṭar ʔǝnṭ-ū-ni hāt-ū-li
say.ap . m . sg proper . name give-imp . m . pl -1. sg give-imp . m . pl -to.1. sg
hdūm-ha! ᵊmnawwš-īn ᵊhdūm-ha …
clothes-3. f . sg hand.ap - m . pl clothes-3. f . sg
minṭī-he gāym-e ti-lbas gāyl-e
give.ap . m . sg -3. f . sg stand.up.ap - f . sg ipf .3. f . sg -put.on say.ap - f . sg
‘Sheikh Mǝṭar said, “Give me her clothes!” They handed him her clothes;
and when he gave them to her, she started to put them on and said …’
Another possible influence of Turkish in Tillo Arabic is that temporal clauses
usually precede the main clause (Lahdo 2010: 174). Grigore (2007: 168) claims
that the particle dǝ-, which emphasizes an imperative (see above, §2.3.1), goes
back to the Turkish interjection haydi ‘let’s go!’ But this is doubtful as Turkish pos-
sesses a distinct suffix to intensify imperatives (-sana/-sene) and the use of haydi
53
In the dialect of the Jews of Kurdistan the same combination of prefixes is found in a
very similar function: e. g. kān t-īmūtūn ‘they had died’ (Jastrow 1990: 66).
54
For a more detailed analysis cf. Procházka and Batan (2016: 464–465).
184 Stephan Procházka
together with such forms is only optional.55 Somewhat more likely is to assume
influence of the particle de which is widely used in Kurmanjî Kurdish in the same
function (Thackston 2006: 206), e. g. de rûne ‘Do sit down!’56 However, this par-
ticle may well be of Arabic origin (probably a reflex of the OA demonstrative ḏā/
ḏī) as it is also found in various bedouin-type dialects such as Harran-Urfa Arabic
and even Baghdadi Arabic (Erwin 1963: 140). Similar forms are also attested for
Aleppo, e. g. dē ʔǝl-la ‘Come on, tell it to her!’ (Sabuni 1980: 76), and Bahraini
Arabic, e. g. d-rūḥi yumma, trayyagay ‘Go (f ), my dear, and have your breakfast!’
(Holes 2016: 304) for both of which Kurdish influence is less likely.
In summary: With the exception of the Kozluk-Sason group the impact of
Turkish and Kurdish on the region’s dialects is surprisingly low outside of the
lexicon. Kurdish has clearly had less impact on the region’s Arabic than Turkish
despite its longer duration of contact and the fact that Kurdish is still the area’s
dominant everyday language. A possible explanation for this could be that Kurdish
has never had such a dominant role as Turkish in the media and in school educa-
tion, both of which strongly influence all layers of the population.
55
Furthermore, the Turkish haydi is widely attested in the Anatolian dialects as hēdi, ēdi
etc. (Vocke and Waldner 1982: 451), which makes it rather unlikely that it has been
shortened to become a prefix.
56
I owe this suggestion to Geoffrey Haig who also provided the example.
The Arabic dialects of eastern Anatolia 185
Abbreviations
References
Akin, Cahit, Jastrow, Otto & Shabo Talay. 2017. Nōṛšēn – ein anatolisch-arabischer Dialekt
der Sason-Muş-Gruppe. Zeitschrift für arabische Linguistik 65. 73–95.
Akkuş, Faruk. 2016. The Arabic dialect of Mutki-Sason areas. In George Grigore & Babriel
Bițună (eds.), Arabic varieties: Far and wide. Proceedings of the 11th Conference of
AIDA – Bucharest, 2015, 29–41. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București.
Andrews, Peter Alford (ed.). 2002. Ethnic groups in the Republic of Turkey. Wiesbaden:
Reichert.
Arnold, Werner & Peter Behnstedt. 1993. Arabisch-Aramäische Sprachbeziehungen im Qa-
lamūn (Syrien). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Benninghaus, Rüdiger. 2002. Identity in question – Some preliminary remarks on the Mḥal-
lami. In Peter Alford Andrews (ed.), Ethnic groups in the Republic of Turkey. Supple-
ment and Index, 179–189. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Dahlgren, Sven-Olof. 1998. Word order in Arabic. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothobur-
gensis dissertation.
Diem, Werner. 1979. Studien zur Frage des Substrats im Arabischen. Der Islam 56. 12–80.
Eksell, Kerstin. 2006. Analytic Genitive. In Kees Versteegh (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Arabic
Language and Linguistics, vol. 1, 82–85. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Erwin, Wallace M. 1963. A short reference grammar of Iraqi Arabic. Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University Press.
Grigore, George & Gabriel Biţună. 2012. Common features of North Mesopotamian Ara-
bic dialects spoken in Turkey (Şırnak, Mardin, Siirt). In M. Nesim Doru (ed.), Bilim
düşünce ve sanatta Cizre, 545–555. Istanbul: Mardin Artuklu Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Grigore, George. 2007. L’arabe parlé à Mardin: monographie d’un parler arabe «périphéri-
que». Bucharest: Editura Universitãţii din Bucureşti.
Grigore, George. 2008. Conditional structures in Mardini Arabic. Zeitschrift für Arabische
Linguistik 49. 63–77.
Heidemann, Stefan. 2002. Die Renaissance der Städte in Nordsyrien und Nordmesopotam-
ien: Städtische Entwicklung und wirtschaftliche Bedingungen in ar-Raqqa und Harrān
von der Zeit der beduinischen Vorherrschaft bis zu den Seldschuken. Leiden & Boston:
Brill.
Holes, Clive. 2016. Dialect, culture, and society in Eastern Arabia, vol. 3: Phonology, Mor-
phology, Syntax, Style. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Jastrow, Otto. 1973. Daragözü: Eine arabische Mundart der Kozluk-Sason-Gruppe (Sü-
dostanatolien). Grammatik und Texte. (Erlanger Beiträge zur Sprach- und Kunstwis-
senschaft 46). Nürnberg: Hans Carl.
Jastrow, Otto. 1978. Die mesopotamisch-arabischen qǝltu-Dialekte, vol. 1: Phonologie und
Morphologie. Wiesbaden: Steiner.
Jastrow, Otto. 1981. Die mesopotamisch-arabischen qǝltu-Dialekte, vol. 2: Volkskundliche
Texte in elf Dialekten. Wiesbaden: Steiner.
Jastrow, Otto. 1990. Der arabische Dialekt der Juden von ʿAqra und Arbīl. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Jastrow, Otto. 1994. The qǝltu dialects of Mesopotamian Arabic. In Jordi Aguadé, Federico
Corriente & Marina Marugán (eds.), Actas del congreso internacional sobre interfer-
encias lingüísticas arabo-romances y paralelos extra-iberos, 119–123. Zaragoza: [no
publisher].
188 Stephan Procházka
Jastrow, Otto. 1999. Verbformen und ihre Funktionen im arabischen Dialekt von Kǝndērīb
(Südostanatolien). In Norbert Nebes (ed.), Tempus und Aspekt in den semitischen
Sprachen: Jenaer Kolloquium zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, 43–53. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Jastrow, Otto. 2004. Aramäische Lehnwörter im arabischen Dialekt von Kinderib (Südost-
Türkei). Estudios de Dialectología Norteafricana y Andalusí 8. 99–103.
Jastrow, Otto. 2006. Anatolian Arabic. In Kees Versteegh (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Arabic
Language and Linguistics, vol. 1, 87–96. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Jastrow, Otto. 2006–2007. Where do we stand in the research on the Anatolian qəltu dia-
lects? Romano-Arabica 6–7. 63–69.
Jastrow, Otto. 2011. Turkish and Kurdish influences in the Arabic Dialects of Anatolia. Türk
Dilleri Araştırmaları 21(1). 83–94.
Kern, Laurenz W. 2015. Kurden, Araber, Scheinlibanesen: Die vielschichtige Ethnizität der
Mḥallami. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 105. 189–202.
Lahdo, Ablahad. 2009. Some remarks on language use and Arabic dialects in eastern Tur-
key. Orientalia Suecana 58. 105–114.
Lahdo, Ablahad. 2010. Tillo-Arabic: A dialectological study with emphasis on social-lin-
guistic and language-contact phenomena. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publisher.
Morony, Michael G. 2005. Iraq after the Muslim Conquest, 2nd ed. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias
Press.
Nevo, Moshe. 1999. Notes on the Judaeo-Arabic dialect of Siverek. Zeitschrift für Arabis-
che Linguistik 36. 66–84.
Oppenheim, Max Freiherr von. 1939. Die Beduinen, vol. 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Owens, Jonathan. 2006. A linguistic history of Arabic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Procházka, Stephan & Ismail Batan. 2016. The functions of active participles in Šāwi
Bedouin dialects. In George Grigore & Gabriel Biţună (eds.), Arabic Varieties: Far
and Wide. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of AIDA – Bucharest, 2015,
457–466. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București.
Procházka, Stephan. 2003. The Bedouin Arabic Dialects of Urfa. In Ignacio Ferrando &
Juan José Sánchez Sandoval (eds.), AIDA, 5th Conference Proceedings. Cádiz, Septem-
ber 2002, 75–88. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz.
Procházka, Stephan. 2006–2007. Does geographical periphery imply linguistic periphery?
The examples of the Arabic dialects of Cilicia and Urfa in southern Turkey. Roma-
no-Arabica 6–7. 109–132.
Procházka, Stephan. 2010. Genüsse aus der Steppe: Kulturgeschichtliches und Etymolo-
gisches zur Wüstentrüffel nebst einem Text im arabischen Dialekt von Urfa (Südost-
Türkei). Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 100. 119–135.
Procházka, Stephan. 2013. Interesting facts on Ancient Mounds – Three Texts in the Bedouin
Arabic Dialect of the Harran-Urfa-Region (Southeastern Turkey). In Clive Holes & Ru-
dolf de Jong (eds.), Arabia and its dialect heritage. Essays in honour of Bruce Ingham,
203–213. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Procházka, Stephan. 2018. The Northern Fertile Crescent. In Clive Holes (ed.), The histor-
ical dialectology of Arabic: Linguistic and sociolinguistic approaches. Oxford: Oxford
University Press [forthcoming].
Retsö, Jan. 2004. Relative-clause marking in Arabic dialects: A preliminary survey. In Mar-
tine Haak, Rudolf de Jong & Kees Versteegh (eds.), Approaches to Arabic dialects:
A collection of articles presented to Manfred Woidich on the occasion of his sixtieth
birthday, 263–273. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
The Arabic dialects of eastern Anatolia 189
Retsö, Jan. 2009. Nominal attribution in Semitic: Typology and diachrony. In Janet C. E.
Watson & Jan Retsö (eds.), Relative clauses and genitive constructions in Semitic,
3–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sabuni, Abdulghafur. 1980. Laut- und Formenlehre des arabischen Dialekts von Aleppo.
Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1971. Linguistische Analyse des arabischen Dialekts der Mḥallamīye
in der Provinz Mardin (Südosttürkei). Munich: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität dis-
sertation.
Talay, Shabo. 2001. Der arabische Dialekt von Hasköy (Dēr-Khāṣ) Ostanatolien. Teil I:
Grammatikalische Skizze. Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik 40. 71–89.
Talay, Shabo. 2006–2007. The influence of Turkish, Kurdish and other neighbouring lan-
guages on Anatolian Arabic. Romano-Arabica 6–7. 179–188.
Thackston, Wheeler M. 2006. Kurmanji Kurdish: A reference grammar with selected read-
ings. Unpublished Manuscript, Harvard University. https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~ira-
nian/Kurmanji/kurmanji_1_grammar.pdf (accessed 20 February 2018).
Vocke, Sibylle & Wolfram Waldner. 1982. Der Wortschatz des anatolischen Arabisch. Er-
langen: W. Waldner.
Weninger, Stefan. 2011. Aramaic-Arabic language contact. In Stefan Weninger (ed.),
The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, 747–755. Berlin & Boston: De
Gruyter Mouton.
Wittrich, Michaela. 2001. Der arabische Dialekt von Āzex. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
2.5. The Neo-Aramaic dialects of eastern Anatolia
and northwestern Iran
Geoffrey Khan
1. Genetic affiliation
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of Anatolia and northwestern Iran belong to two major
subgroups of Neo-Aramaic. These are the Central Neo-Aramaic (CNA) subgroup
and the North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) subgroup.1 The dialect geography
of Neo-Aramaic in the region has undergone radical changes over the last one
hundred years, the most stark result of which has been the displacement of all the
NENA-speaking communities from Turkey (see §2). The following geographical
description, therefore, relates to the situation that existed at the beginning of the
twentieth century, before these major upheavals. The CNA subgroup of dialects
were spoken by Christian communities in southeastern Turkey in the region of Ṭūr
ʿAbdīn, which extends from the town of Mardin in the west up to the boundary of
the Tigris river in the east and north. The main component of this subgroup is the
cluster of dialects of the Neo-Aramaic variety generally known in the academic
literature as Ṭuroyo.2 The main dialect split in Ṭuroyo is between the dialect of
the town of Midyat and the dialects of the surrounding villages. The differences
between the Ṭuroyo dialects are small and they are mutually comprehensible
(Jastrow 1985; Ritter 1990; Waltisberg 2016). In addition to the Ṭuroyo cluster
one other dialect is known to have existed in the CNA subgroup. This is the dialect
of the Christians of the village of Mlaḥso (now Yünlüce), situated near Lice in
northern Diyarbakir province, which is related to Ṭuroyo but exhibits a number of
significant differences (Jastrow 1994a, 2011).
The NENA dialects of the region were spoken to the east of the CNA area
across southeastern Turkey up to Lake Urmi in West Azerbaijan province in north-
western Iran. The boundary between the areas of the two dialect subgroups is
formed by the Tigris river. The NENA dialect area of the region is an extension
of the NENA dialect area of northern Iraq (Khan, this volume, chapter 3.4). As in
northern Iraq, the NENA dialects in the region dealt with in this chapter exhibit
considerable diversity. In southeastern Turkey the vast majority of the dialects
were spoken by Christian communities, with only isolated Jewish communities.
1
The term Central Neo-Aramaic was proposed by Tsereteli (1977) for Ṭuroyo in his
classification of the Neo-Aramaic dialects. The term North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic was
coined by Hoberman (1988: 557). For the basic features of NENA see chapter 3.4.
2
The most commonly used term used by native speakers of Ṭuroyo to refer to their lan-
guage is Ṣurāyt.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-006
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of eastern Anatolia and northwestern Iran 191
In the region of Urmi in northwestern Iran, on the other hand, there were several
NENA-speaking Jewish communities, in particular in the towns of Urmi, Šəno
(official name Ushnuye), Solduz (official name Naghade) and Sablagh (now
Mahabad) (Garbell 1965; Khan 2008), in the area of Salamas north of the Urmi
plain (Duval 1883; Mutzafi 2015), and in adjacent towns that are now situated in
the east of Turkey, such as Başkale and Gawar (official name Yüksekova). The
Jewish dialects of this area are closely related and form a single cluster, which
is referred to here as the J. Urmi cluster. These are an extension of the so-called
trans-Zab cluster of Jewish dialects in Iraq (Khan, this volume, chapter 3.4;
Mutzafi 2008). A few isolated NENA-speaking Jewish communities were found
elsewhere in southeastern Turkey, for example in Challa (Čāl) (Fassberg 2010) in
Hakkâri province and Cizre (Nakano 1973) in Şırnak province, who spoke dialects
very closely related to those of the so-called lišana deni cluster of Jewish dialects
of northwestern Iraq (Khan, this volume, chapter 3.4).
The Christian NENA dialects of the region may be classified into several clus-
ters. These include the following:
i. The Bohtan cluster, spoken in villages in the area that is now the Şırnak and
Siirt provinces of Turkey (referred to below as C NENA Bohtan).3
ii. The Cudi cluster, spoken in villages in the area of the Cudi mountain (Cudi
Daği) that is now in the Şırnak province of Turkey (referred to as C NENA
Cudi).
iii. The Tiyare cluster, divided into Upper Tiyare and Lower Tiyare, spoken in
villages on the western side of what is now the Hakkâri province of Turkey
(referred to as C NENA Tiyare).
iv. The Txuma cluster, spoken in villages lying to the east of the Lower Tiyare
area (referred to as C NENA Txuma).
v. The Hakkari cluster, spoken in a variety of villages in the Hakkari mountains
east and north-east of Tiyare, including villages in the area of lake Van, and
Salamas in northwestern Iran (referred to as C NENA Hakkari).
vi. The cluster of dialects spoken in the far east of Turkey in the areas of
Šamməsdin, Gawar and in the mountains of Tergawar over the border in
northwestern Iran (referred to as C NENA Šamməsdin-Gawar).
vii. The Urmi cluster, which includes varieties of what is best considered a single
dialect spoken by Christians in villages situated on the plain of Urmi and
within the town of Urmi (referred to as C. Urmi).
3
Fox (2002, 2009) uses the regional term “Bohtan” to refer to the dialect specifically of
the villages of Ruma, Shwata, and Borb, which are distinct from other dialects of the
Bohtan cluster in some features. For the sake of clarity, examples from Fox’s data are
cited here under the name of the village Ruma.
192
Geoffrey Khan
The geographical division between the Central Neo-Aramaic subgroup and the
NENA subgroup coincides with the ancient border between the Romans and Par-
thians, and later between the Byzantines and the Sassanians (Kim 2008). The lin-
guistic boundary between the two subgroups also coincides with an early Chris-
tian ecclesiastical division between the Jacobite (Syrian Orthodox) denomination
of the communities west of the Tigris and the Nestorian (Church of the East)
denomination of the communities to the east of the Tigris. The Christianity of
the NENA-speaking communities has become more diverse in recent centuries,
especially after the formation of the Chaldean Church, which is in communion
with Rome, and the activities of Protestant missionaries in the 19th century. There
are only sparse historical records relating to the various Neo-Aramaic-speaking
settlements of the region. Some linguistic aspects of the dialects, however, give
us insights into the history of the communities. The diversity of the NENA dia-
lects, for example, can be interpreted as a reflection of the antiquity of settlement
of the communities. Another factor that is likely to have had a bearing on this
diversity is the fact that many of the NENA-speaking communities had the status
of semi-independent tribes (ʾaširatte). As elsewhere in the NENA subgroup, the
Jewish NENA dialects of the region exhibit major differences in their structure
from the neighbouring Christian NENA dialects. This reflects the differing migra-
tion histories of the communities. The Jews of Urmi, for example, had settled in
the town at an early period whereas the Christians of the area were almost exclu-
sively agriculturalists living in the surrounding villages and only began to settle in
the town in large numbers in the late 19th century.
The Neo-Aramaic-speaking communities underwent a major upheaval during
the First World War in 1915, when they suffered massacres and mass displace-
ment from their homes in an Ottoman-led campaign in southeastern Turkey. No
accurate statistics are available for the total death toll, but it is estimated that as
much as half of the Neo-Aramaic-speaking population perished, either through
violence, disease or starvation, possibly amounting to around 250,000. Some of
the survivors of the Christian communities subsequently returned to their homes
in the Ṭūr ʿAbdīn area and the villages in the vicinity of the Cudi mountain. The
NENA-speaking communities in the remainder of southeastern Turkey, however,
became permanently displaced. The majority settled initially in refugee camps in
Iraq, then subsequently in Iraqi towns, in particular Baghdad and Kirkuk. Some
of the Christians from the Bohtan region fled northwards and found safety in the
Russian empire, eventually settling in the village of Gardabani in Georgia or in
Krosnodar. From 1933 to 1935 about ten thousand refugees from southeastern
Turkey were settled in refugee camps in northeastern Syria, then subsequently in
villages on both sides of the Khabur River. During the Kurdish uprisings in the
second half of the twentieth century there were further upheavals. The villages
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of eastern Anatolia and northwestern Iran 195
in the Cudi region of southeastern Turkey were destroyed in the 1980s and early
1990s and the NENA-speaking population settled in Europe, mainly in France and
Belgium. Many of the speakers of Ṭuroyo left the region, settling in the Turkish
cities, especially Istanbul, or emigrating, mainly to Germany, Sweden and the
USA.
The vast majority of the Jews left the region in the early 1950s and settled in
the newly established State of Israel.
4. Sociolinguistic situation
There was a general state of multilingualism across the Neo-Aramaic speech com-
munities of the region. In the Ṭūr ʿAbdīn area speakers of Ṭuroyo often also speak
vernacular Arabic (of the town of Mardin or the Mḥallamī bedouin), Kurdish and
Turkish, the latter being the official state and school language. In addition, Clas-
sical Syriac is used as a liturgical language and also, by some learned members of
the community, as a written language. In Sweden in the 1980s an official written
form of Ṭuroyo in the Roman alphabet was created by Yusuf Ishaq and his collab-
orators (Ishaq 1990; Heinrichs 1990).
In the NENA-speaking area of southeastern Turkey at the beginning of twen-
tieth century before the upheavals there was general bilingualism in Neo-Ara-
maic and Kurdish. There were also Armenian-speaking communities in the region.
There was little exposure to Arabic, though Arabic loanwords within the dialects
suggest that the contact with Arabic was greater at an earlier historical period.
The communities from southeastern Turkey who settled in the Khabur area of
Syria in the 1930s speak Arabic in addition to their native NENA dialects. The
communities of the Khabur generally preserved their individual dialects and did
not develop a koine dialect as was the case among the refugee communities in Iraq
(Talay 2008a).
In northwestern Iran speakers of the NENA dialects had contact with Kurdish
and Azeri Turkish. Nowadays most Christian speakers of NENA who still live in
the area also speak Azeri, the vernacular of the Muslim population in this area, and
also Persian, the official language of Iran, but not Kurdish. There are, however,
numerous Kurdish loanwords in the NENA dialects of this area and their mor-
phology indicates that they form an older historical layer of the lexicon than the
many Azeri words. This indicates that there must have been a more widespread
knowledge of Kurdish in the NENA communities at an earlier period (Khan 2016,
vol. 3: 1–3). Western missionaries who were active among the Christian commu-
nities of the area in the middle of the 19th century developed a literary form of
the Christian Urmi dialect written in Syriac script. This form of literary language
became widely used by learned native speakers and is still used to this day (Murre-
van den Berg 1999).
The NENA speakers who live in the Caucasus speak also Russian, Armenian
or Georgian. In Armenia the Christian NENA speakers live in villages together
with Armenians and there are many intermarriages. Many of the native Armeni-
an-speakers in these villages also speak NENA.
The surviving Jewish speakers of NENA from northwestern Iran who settled
in Israel are fluent in Modern Hebrew, which is now their primary language.
The communities who have survived in Almaty now generally prefer to speak in
Russian, especially the young generations.
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of eastern Anatolia and northwestern Iran 197
5. Phonology
In dialects between these two peripheries, the unvoiced interdental *ṯ has under-
gone other shifts. In the Upper Tiyare dialects *ṯ shifts to /š/ in certain contexts,
most of which have in common the existence, either synchronically or diachroni-
cally, of a preceding high front vowel:
Upper Tiyare paθəx ‘he opens’ (< *pāṯəx),
bɛša ‘house’ (< *bayṯā),
mliša ‘full fs.’ (< *mlīṯā),
ʾiða ‘hand’ (< *ʾīḏā) (Talay 2008a: 66–68)
In many dialects in the C Hakkari cluster the interdental *ṯ is weakened to /h/ or
Ø. When its reflex is Ø, adjacent vowels merge or are connected by a glide, e. g.
Baz (C NENA Hakkari) maha ‘village’ (< *māṯā),
xədyuwwa ‘happiness’ (< *ḥidyūṯā)
(Mutzafi 2000)
Jilu (C NENA Hakkari) ma ‘village’ (< *māṯā),
məlkuwwa ‘kingdom’ (< *malkūṯā)
(Fox 1997: 16)
There is a certain degree of lexical and morphological conditioning of this weak-
ening, in that it is a feature of particular lexical items and morphemes. In some
lexical items in these dialects the reflex of *ṯ is a stop /t/, e. g.
Jilu (C NENA Hakkari) patəx ‘he opens’ (< *pāṯəx)
In the Jewish NENA dialects of northwestern Iran the interdentals generally shift
to the lateral /l/, as is the case in the Jewish trans-Zab NENA dialects of Iraq
(chapter 3.4., §5.1):
J. Urmi paləx ‘he opens’ (< *pāṯəx),
ela ‘festival’ (< *ʿēḏā)
In a few words *ṯ in this Jewish dialect cluster has lost its oral articulation and
shifted to /h/. Most words in which this shift is found have suprasegmental phar-
yngealization, e. g.
J. Urmi +
ahra ‘town’ (< *ʾaṯrā),
+
nahale ‘ears’ (< *naṯāṯā)
In a few cases, including a number of common words in the lexicon, the reflex of
*ḏ is /d/:
J. Urmi ida ‘hand’ (< *ʾīḏā),
od ‘he does’ (< *ʿāwəḏ)
In a small group of NENA dialects in the Bohtan cluster on the western periphery
of the region the velar fricative *ḵ shifts to a pharyngeal /ḥ/:
200 Geoffrey Khan
In a small group of NENA dialects in the Bohtan cluster on the western periphery
of the region, the reflex of *ḥ is /ḥ/ (Jastrow 1994b; Talay 2008a: 44–45). In such
dialects a velar fricative *ḵ has shifted to the pharyngeal /ḥ/, so the pharyngeal
reflex of *ḥ may have resulted in the development *ḥ > *x > *ḥ:
Hertevin (C NENA Bohtan) ḥmara ‘ass’ (< *ḥmārā)
In all NENA dialects the voiced pharyngeal *ʿ has been weakened to the laryngeal
/ʾ/ (occasionally /h/) or to Ø
Rumta (C NENA Tiyare) maṛʾa ‘illness’ (< *marʿā), beʾe ‘eggs’
(< *bēʿē) (Talay 2008a: 72–78; 2008b)
Qočanəṣ (C NENA Hakkari) bihe ‘eggs’ (< *bēʿē) (Talay 2008a: 79)
C. Urmi +
marra ‘illness’ (< *marʿā), biyyə ‘eggs’
(< *bēʿē) (Khan 2016, vol. 1: 169–172)
In the variety of the C. Urmi dialect spoken in Armenia a historical h shifts to the
velar fricative /x/ under the influence of a similar shift in the Armenian dialects of
the region, e. g.
C. Urmi (Armenia) xada ‘thus’ (< hada) (Khan 2016, vol. 1:
104)
5.5. Vowels
Concomitantly in these dialects the original back rounded vowel */ō/ is raised to
/u/, e. g.
C. Urmi +
naṱura ‘guard’ (< *nāṭōrā)
In these dialects an original */ū/ is fronted to the region of [y], represented here
by /ü/:
+
Mawana (C NENA xabüša ‘apple’ (< ḥabbūšā)
Šamməsdin-Gawar)
This seems to have been induced by a similar fronting of u in Kurdish dialects of
southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq (Haig, this volume, chapter 3.3, §4.1.2.).
The shift of o > u in the NENA dialects can be regarded as a pull-chain effect to
fill the space left by the fronting of u, which raises also the corresponding front
vowel e > i. In C. Urmi long */ū/ is not fully fronted but shifts to a diphthong with
a palatal offglide:
C. Urmi xabuyša
In C. Salamas and C. Gawilan, spoken to the north of Urmi, the */ū/ is pushed
upwards resulting in the fortition of the offglide of the vowel as a velar fricative:
C. Salamas xibuxša
5.6. Diphthongs
The CNA dialects, Ṭuroyo and Mlaḥso, preserve the diphthongs *aw and *ay:
Ṭuroyo/Malḥso gawzo ‘nut’, qayse ‘wood (pl.)’
Also in some of the NENA dialects of the region the diphthongs are preserved, e. g.
Baz, Maha Xtaya (C NENA yawna ‘dove’, layša ‘dough’
Hakkari): (Mutzafi 2000: 298)
Halmun (C NENA Tiyare): mawθa ‘death’, bayθa ‘house’
(Talay 2008a: 145–148)
In many NENA dialects, however, the diphthongs are contracted. The result of the
contraction of the diphthong *aw is /o/, e. g.
Ashitha (C NENA Tiyare) moθa ‘death’ (< *mawṯā)
The diphthong *ay contracts to various vowels across the NENA area, including
/e/, /ɛ/ and /a/. These have a geographical correlation and are characteristic of
specific clusters, the vowel /e/ being found in clusters on the eastern side of the
region, /ɛ/ in the Tiyare cluster in the central area, and /a/ in the western periphery
in the Bohtan and Cudi clusters:
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of eastern Anatolia and northwestern Iran 205
C Urmi +
maplə́ṱṱa
Some dialects add affixed augments to increase the number of syllables in a word.
One purpose of this is to increase monosyllabic words to bisyllabic:
Hertevin (C NENA Bohtan) ʾéttek ‘there is’ (ʾet + augment ek)
Baz, Aruntus (C NENA Hakkari) ʾíni ‘there is’ (ʾi [< *ʾīṯ] + augment ni)
The CNA dialects exhibit a number of differences in syllable structure from NENA
dialects.
In Ṭuroyo long vowels are shortened when the syllable is closed, but in Mlaḥso
the vowel generally remains long, or half long (Jastrow 1994a: 23):
Ṭuroyo Mlaḥso
dóməx [ˈdoːməx] doméx [doˑˈmeːx] ‘he sleeps’
də́mxi [ˈdəmxi] domxí [doˑmˈxiː] ‘they sleep’
206 Geoffrey Khan
5.8. Stress
In CNA there is a difference in basic stress position between Ṭuroyo and Mlaḥso,
in that Ṭuroyo has penultimate stress where Mlaḥso has word-final stress:
Ṭuroyo Mlaḥso
málko malkó ‘king’
dóməx doméx ‘he sleeps’
The attachment of enclitics does not affect stress position:
Ṭuroyo hárke ‘here’, hárke=yo ‘he is here’
Mlaḥso ʾeskó ‘woman’, ʾeskó=yo ‘it is a woman’
The Christian NENA dialects of the region have basic penultimate stress, as is
the case with the Christian NENA dialects of Iraq (chapter 3.4, §5.6). The Jewish
dialects of northwestern Iran, however, have word-final basic stress:
C. Urmi J. Urmi
béta belá ‘house’
dáməx +
damə́x ‘he sleeps’
In the Christian dialects, an original penultimate stress becomes word-final when
syllables merge due to loss of consonants. This is particularly conspicuous in dia-
lects of the Hakkari cluster, in which the fricative *ṯ is lost between vowels. Such
a process can lead to phonemic stress oppositions:
Jilu (C NENA Hakkari) báxta ‘woman’ (< *báxtā)
baxtá ‘women’ (< *baxtā́ ṯā)
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of eastern Anatolia and northwestern Iran 207
6. Nominal morphology
In Ṭuroyo the suffixed deictics are combined with the prefixed definite article, e. g.
ʾu-malk-ano ‘this king’, ʾu-malk-awo ‘that king’ (Jastrow 1985: 39). In Mlaḥso the
definite article is not obligatory in such constructions (Jastrow 1994a: 32).
Ṭuroyo also has a deictic copula which points to the existence of an entity in
the speech situation, formed from the particle ka + pronominal object suffixes
containing the element l. The pronominal copula may be optionally added to some
forms (Jastrow 1985: 122):
Ṭuroyo (Midin)
3ms. kalé ~ kalé=yo ‘There he is’
3fs. kalā́ ~ kalā́ =yo ‘There she is’
3pl. kalə́n ~ kalə́n=ne ‘There they are’, etc.
2ms. kalə́x
2fs. kaláx
2pl. kalóxu
1s. kalí ~ kalí=no
1pl. kalán
The NENA dialects of the region exhibit considerable diversity in the forms of the
personal pronouns and deictic pronouns. There are many parallels with the forms
of the pronouns used in the NENA dialects in Iraq (chapter 3.4, §6.1). Here we
shall focus on the differences between NENA and CNA.
In all NENA dialects the 3rd person singular personal pronouns, i. e. the pro-
nouns that have an anaphoric function, have a prefixed ʾa-. The proto-NENA forms
can be reconstructed as a-hu (3ms) and a-hi (3fs) (Hoberman 1988). These forms
have been preserved in some dialects of the region:
Ṭuroyo (Midyat) Baz, Maha Xtaya
(C NENA Hakkari)
3ms. huwe ʾahu
3fs. hiya ʾahi
The forms ʾahu and ʾahi may ultimately go back to far deictic pronouns *hāhū
and *hāhī, in which the *hā- is a deictic element. These deictic pronouns would
subsequently have taken on the function of anaphoric pronouns. Alternatively, the
ʾa- prefix may have developed by analogy with 1st and 2nd person pronouns, which
also begin with ʾa-.
The reconstructed proto-NENA singular deictic pronouns and the reflexes of
deictic pronouns in a selection of NENA dialects are presented in the table below.
This includes also the anaphoric pronoun, i. e. the 3rd person personal pronoun:
210 Geoffrey Khan
As can been, various innovations have taken place across the dialects. In the selec-
tion of dialects in the table, J. Urmi retains the original configuration whereby
the same pronoun expresses far deixis and anaphora (o is a contraction of *hāhū,
which in J. Urmi is of common gender). Other dialects innovated by distinguishing
the anaphoric pronoun from the far deixis pronoun by the suffixing of the deictic
element –ha to the latter, e. g. C. Urmi +ʾav (anaphoric), +ʾavva (far deixis < *ʾaw-
ha). Some dialects preserved a form of the near deixis pronoun that is derived ulti-
mately from the proto-form, e. g. Baz, Maha Xtaya ʾaha < *hāḏā. Many dialects,
however, replaced the original near deixis form by one based on the stem of the
anaphoric pronoun, by adding the deictic element –ha to this stem, e. g. Ashitha
ʾawwa (< *ʾaw-ha). It is likely that such forms originated as far deixis pronouns
(cf. C. Urmi +ʾavva), but shifted to near deixis forms when a further innovation
occurred in the far deixis forms involving the addition of a second deictic –ha
suffix, as is the case in the Ashitha dialect: ʾawaha (< *ʾaw-ha-ha). Some dialects
such as Hertevin express the distinction between the near deixis and far deixis
form by differences in the contraction of a diphthong (ʾohá ms. near deixis <
*ʾawha, ʾawa ms. far deixis < *ʾawha).
As in the NENA dialects of Iraq, many dialects can express ‘very far’ deixis by
phonological strengthening, e. g.
Hassana (C NENA Cudi)
Far deixis Very far deixis
ms ʾawáha ʾawáʾḥa
fs. ʾayáha ʾayáʾḥa
NENA dialects of the region have an enclitic copula, as in NENA dialects in other
regions (Khan, this volume, chapter 3.4, §7, chapter 4.4, §7.1). These originated
historically as enclitic pronouns, as in Ṭuroyo, but in most dialects they have
undergone morphological change resulting in their assimilation to the inflection
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of eastern Anatolia and northwestern Iran 211
Ṭuroyo has two series of suffixes. Series I consists of the basic suffixes and series 2
consists of suffixes that are composed of the morpheme -ayð- followed by a suffix
Series 1 Series 2
3ms. -e -ayðe
3fs. -a -ayða
3pl. -ayye -aθθe
2ms. -əx -ayðəx
2fs. -ax -ayðax
2pl. -ayxu -aθxu
1fs. -i -ayði
1pl. -an -ayðan
The first series of suffixes without the augmented morpheme is used predomi-
nantly to express inalienable possession, e. g. with kinship terms and parts of the
body. The second series, with the heavier suffix, is used as a general possessive
suffix. The second series is combined with the definite article, whereas the first
series combines without the article:
ʾem-e ‘his mother’
ʾu-bayt-ayðe ‘his house’
The heavier series derives from the contraction of an originally independent pronom-
inal genitive particle with a noun < *ʾu-bayto-diðe. A similar distinction between
a light and a heavy series of possessive suffixes is found in Mlahso, in which the
inserted element in the heavy series has the form –ez- (Jastrow 1994a: 29).
In NENA dialects a genitive independent pronoun can optionally be used,
typically to express alienable possession, e. g. C. Urmi betət diyyan ‘our house’.
Whereas in NENA this construction has the status of a pragmatic strategy, in CNA
it has become grammaticalized and the genitive pronoun has become morphologi-
cally bonded with the head noun.
In the eastern sector of the region, the common nominal plural ending *–ē has
been analogically extended to the feminine plural ending *-āṯā, resulting in the
form –ate or –atə, e. g.
+
Mawana C. Urmi Ashitha
(Šamməsdin-Gawar) (C Tiyare)
naš-e naš-ə naš-e ‘people’
baxt-ate baxt-atə baxt-aθa ‘women’
The CNA dialects exhibit inflections of nouns and adjectives that are comparable
to NENA. This includes the analogical extension of the basic plural ending –e to
the feminine ending in some dialects:
Singular Plural
Ṭuroyo karmo ‘vineyard’ karme
(Midyat) ʾarʿo ‘field’ ʾarʿoθo (< *ʾarʿāṯā)
This 3ms is invariable and is used also when the dependent noun is feminine sin-
gular or plural:
foθ-e d-i-emo
face-his gen - art . fs .-mother
‘the face of the mother’
In most NENA dialects of the region the subordinating particle d is suffixed to the
head noun and devoiced, e. g.
C. Urmi
bet-ət malca
house-gen king
‘the house of the king’
Such constructions may derive historically from constructions with a fossil-
ized 3ms anticipatory pronoun, as is found in Ṭuroyo, as already suggested by
Nöldeke (1868: 149):
bet-ə-t malca
house-his-gen king
The suffix may be contracted in closely-knit phrases, in particular those express-
ing kinship relations or inalienable possession:
C. Urmi
brūn malca
son king
‘the son of the king’
In the Jewish dialects on the eastern periphery an ay element is often placed
between the two nouns. The etymology of this is likely to be an Aramaic demon-
strative pronoun, but its usage was probably induced by the izafe particle of Iranian
languages in contact (Khan 2008: 176–178):
lel-ət ay-xlula
night-gen dem -wedding
‘the night of the wedding’
As in the NENA dialects of Iraq (chapter 3.4, §6.4), the genitive particle d has
become bonded with the NENA demonstrative pronouns to form genitive allo-
morphs of the pronouns (Khan 2016: 239–242):
C. Urmi
bet-ət d-o naša
house-gen gen -that man
‘the house of that man’
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of eastern Anatolia and northwestern Iran 215
7. Verbal morphology
The basic principles of verbal derivational morphology and inflection in the NENA
dialects of the region are the same as those that have been described for the NENA
dialects of Iraq (chapter 3.4, §7). Here we shall concentrate on some distinctive
features of the NENA dialects of the region and on the verbal morphology of the
CNA dialects.
The three derivational stems of verbs are preserved in the Christian NENA
dialects, e. g.
Ashitha (C NENA Tiyare)
Present Base
Stem I p-θ-x paθəx ‘to open’
Stem II mb-š-l mbašəl ‘to cook’
Stem III m-pl-x mapləx ‘to use’
In some Christian NENA dialects, predominantly in the eastern sector of the
region, the m- prefix of stem II is lost, resulting in a merger of stem II with stem I
in the present base:
C. Urmi
Stem I
p-t-x ‘to open’
Present base: patəx
Past base: ptix-
Resultative participle: ptixa
Imperative: ptux
Infinitive: ptaxa
Stem II
b-š-l ‘to cook’
Present base: bašəl
Past base: bušəl
Resultative participle: bušla
Imperative: bašəl
Infinitive: bašulə
Stem III
m-pl-x ‘to use’
Present base: mapləx
Past base: mupləx
Resultative participle: mupləxxa
Imperative: mapləx
Infinitive: mapluxə
216 Geoffrey Khan
In the Jewish dialects of northwestern Iran the merger of the stems and their inter-
nal vocalic patterns is more advanced than in the Christian dialects of the region.
In J. Urmi, for example, the original stem II has been lost completely and the
vocalic patterns of the surviving two stems have been levelled.
Stem I
+
q-t-l ‘to kill’
Present base: +
qatəl-
Past base: +
qtəl-
Resultative participle: +
qtila
Imperative: +
qtul
Infinitive: +
qatole
Stem II
m-nx-p ‘to shame’
Present base: manxəp
Past base: mənxəp-
Resultative participle: mənxipa
Imperative: mənxup
Infinitive: manxope
In most of the NENA dialects across the region the resultative perfect of both tran-
sitive and intransitive verbs is expressed by combining the resultative participle
with the copula (see chapter 3.4, §7). This construction, however, is not used in
some of the dialects of the Bohtan cluster in the western periphery of the region.
Instead they express the perfect by inflections of the past base, the perfect being
distinguished from the perfective by different inflectional suffixes. In Ruma and
the related dialects described by Fox (2009) the perfective is expressed by the past
base inflected by L-suffixes and the perfect by the past base inflected by D-suf-
fixes (see chapter 3.4, §7 for these inflectional suffixes):
Perfective Perfect
Transitive: grəš-le ‘He pulled’ griš-Ø ‘He has pulled’
grəš-la ‘She pulled’ griš-a ‘She has pulled’
Intransitive: qəm-le ‘He stood up’ qim-Ø ‘He has stood up’
qəm-la ‘She stood up’ qim-a ‘She has stood up’
In Hertevin only the perfect of intransitive verbs can be expressed in this way
(Jastrow 1988: 46–59):
Perfective Perfect
Transitive: greš-le ‘He pulled’ —
greš-la ‘She pulled’
Intransitive: qem-le ‘He stood up’ qem-Ø ‘He has stood up’
qem-la ‘She stood up’ qim-a ‘She has stood up’
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of eastern Anatolia and northwestern Iran 217
In such a system, in which the perfect form is less developed, the function of the tran-
sitive perfective form grəšle is extended to cover also that of the transitive perfect.
In the Jewish dialects of northwestern Iran on the eastern periphery of the
region one finds a system similar to that of Hertevin with a perfect constructed with
S-suffixes on the past base of intransitive verbs. The perfect of transitive verbs,
however, is expressed by a resultative participle with a copula (Khan 2008: 70–80):
Perfective Perfect
Transitive: grəš-le ‘He pulled’ grišé ‘He has pulled’
(< *griša + ile)
grəš-la ‘She pulled’ grəštá ‘She has pulled’
(< *grəšta + ila)
Intransitive: qəm-le ‘He stood up’ qim-Ø ‘He has stood up’
qəm-la ‘She stood up’ qim-a ‘She has stood up’
In many NENA dialects of the region transitive perfective verbs express definite
objects by absolutive nominative D-suffixes, which occur before the L-suffixes,
e. g.
C. Ashitha (Borghero 2005)
griš-a-le griš-i-le
pull.pfv - d .3fs - l .3ms pull.pfv - d .3pl - l .3ms
‘he pulled her’ ‘he pulled them’
In such dialects the D-suffix agrees with definite nominal objects in the clause, as
in the NENA dialects Iraq (chapter 3.4, §7).
Some dialects do not allow any absolutive pronominal objects at all and express
all pronominal objects with accusative L-suffixes. This applies, for example, to the
Ruma dialect (C NENA Bohtan) (Fox 2009: 53). In some dialects that have this pro-
nominal object-marking strategy, adjustments are made to the form of the L-suffix
that marks the subject. A noteworthy adjustment of this kind has been documented
in the Hertevin dialect (C NENA Bohtan) by Jastrow (1988: 61). In this dialect
the L-suffixes remain unadjusted if the subject is third person but are adjusted
by giving them the ending of D-suffixes if the subject is 1st or 2nd person, e. g.
C Hertevin
(a) Perfective stem + L-suffix (A)
ḥze-le ‘he saw’
ḥze-lox ‘you (ms) saw’
ḥze-li ‘I saw’
(b) Perfective stem + L-suffix (A) + L-suffix (O)
ḥze-le-li ‘he saw me’
ḥze-let-ti (< ḥze-let-li, cf 2ms D-suffix –et) ‘you saw me’
ḥze-len-ne (< ḥze-len-le, cf 1ms D-suffix –en) ‘I saw him’
218 Geoffrey Khan
The result is the conversion of the 1st and 2nd person L-suffixes that express the
agentive subject (A) to suffixes that resemble the form of nominative D-suffixes.4
In most NENA dialects of the region the progressive is expressed by con-
structions consisting of the infinitive combined with the copula, which appears
to have developed under the influence of the model of progressive forms based
on the infinitive in Eastern Armenian. This construction is not used, however, in
some of the dialects of the Bohtan cluster on the western periphery, e. g. Ruma and
Hertevin. In these dialects inflections of the present base are used to express the
progressive (Fox 2009: 31, 55; Jastrow 1988: 54).
As in the NENA dialects of northern Iraq, in the NENA dialects of the region
preverbal particles are attached to the present base when it expresses indicative
realis mood. In most dialects of south-eastern Turkey this is ʾi- or y-. In some
dialects the prefix is elided in verbs beginning with a strong consonant but is gen-
erally preserved before verbs beginning with a vowel, e. g.
C. Ruma (Bohtan) (Fox 2009: 47)
y-oxəl ‘he eats’ (realis) oxəl ‘may he eat’ (irrealis)
In dialects in which the progressive is expressed by a construction based on the
infinitive, present forms with such a prefix express the habitual. In dialects that
do not use such a progressive construction, the form with the prefix may express
both the habitual and the progressive. In the NENA dialects of southeastern Turkey
there are traces of a k- prefix, originally, it seems, combined with the prefix ʾi, e. g.
Mazṛa (Txuma) k-i-ʾodax ‘we do’. In the Upper Tiyari dialects this has become
restricted to a few lexical verbs and palatalized to č-, e. g. čiʾin ‘I know’ (< *k-i-
yāḏʿən) (Talay 2008b: 306). In the NENA dialects of northwestern Iran, the k-
element has been preserved to a greater extent. In C. Urmi the indicative prefix
has the form ci- (< k + i), e. g. ci-patəx ‘he opens’. In C. Urmi an original velar *k
has been fronted to the palatal /c/. J. Urmi has preserved k- before verbs beginning
with weak consonants, e. g. k-xəl ‘he eats’ (< k + axəl).
The future is expressed throughout the NENA dialects of the region by a prefix
particle deriving from the volitive expression *bāʿē d- ‘wants to’. This has the
form bəd-, which is often contracted to b- or, before vowels, p̂ ṱ- ṱ.5 In J. Urmi the
future may be expressed also by gbe, the indicative 3ms form of ‘to want’, e. g. gbe
garšen ‘I shall pull’ (Khan 2008: 76).
Some dialects of the region use the particle de- before an imperative to give
immediacy and intensity to the command, e. g. Ashitha (C. Tyare) de-pluṭ! ‘go
out!’ (Borghero 2005: 126).
4
For futher details of the various constructions with transitive verbs in the NENA dia-
lects of the region see Khan (2017).
5
The sound transcribed as /ṱ/ is an unaspirated unvoiced alveolar stop. A /t/ without a
diacritic represents an aspirated unvoiced alveolar stop.
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of eastern Anatolia and northwestern Iran 219
The CNA dialects are similar to the NENA dialects in that their verbal system
is largely constructed on bases that were active and passive participles of earlier
Aramaic, inflected with suffixes corresponding to the D-suffixes and L-suffixes of
NENA. The CNA dialects, however, exhibit a number features that are distinctive
from NENA and these will be the main focus of the following discussion.
As in most NENA dialects Ṭuroyo has three derivational stems, e. g.
Stem I n-š-q ‘to kiss’
Present base: nóšəq-
Stem II mḥ-l-q ‘to throw’
Present base: mḥáləq-
Stem III m-nš-f ‘to cause to dry’
Present base: mánšəf
Unlike NENA, however, Ṭuroyo also has a passive base for each stem:
Stem I Passive f-t-ḥ ‘to open’
Present base: mə́ftəḥ-
Stem II Passive mḥ-l-q ‘to throw’
Present base: miḥā́ ləq-
Stem III Passive m-nš-f ‘to cause to dry’
Present base: mitánšəf-
These passive bases are derived historically from passive and middle derivational
patterns that contained a t prefix in earlier Aramaic (cf. the so-called ʾeṯpeʿel,
ʾeṯpaʿʿal and ʾettap̄ ʿal forms in Syriac). The t is preserved only in stem III.
The past bases are inflected with L-suffixes and D-suffixes. The forms of these
in Ṭuoryo are as follows (Jastrow 1985, 128–129):
L-suffixes D-suffixes
3ms. -le -Ø
3fs. -la -o
3pl. -ːe (after consonant),6 -i
-lle (after vowel))
2ms. -ləx -ət
2fs. -lax -at
2pl. -xu (after consonant) -utu
-lxu (after vowel)
1ms -li -no
1fs. -li -ono
1pl. -lan -ina
6
I. e. the final consonant of the verbal base is geminated.
220 Geoffrey Khan
The L-suffixes are used with transitive verbs and the D-suffixes with intransitive
and passive verbs. The distribution of the suffixes, therefore, is based on transi-
tivity and voice. Intransitive verbs nearly all belong to stem I, where they have a
past base that is distinct in form from the past base of active stem I verbs. The two
bases are derived historically from different participle forms of earlier Aramaic
(transitive < the passive participle *CCīC and intransitive < the verbal adjective
*CaCCīC). The category of intransitive includes unaccusative verbs and also
verbs with non-agentive experiencer subjects (e. g. ‘to hear’, ‘to know’) (Furman
and Loesev 2015):
Stem I Active transitive
Past base: nšə́q-le ‘He kissed’
nšə́q-la ‘She kissed’
Stem I Intransitive
Past base: dáməx-Ø ‘He slept’
damíx-o ‘She slept’
The dialect of Mlaḥso has a system of derivational stems that is similar to that of
Ṭuroyo but Mlaḥso exhibits significant differences from Ṭuroyo in the distribution
of the inflectional suffixes that are added to past bases. In Mlaḥso the distribution
of the suffixes correlates with verbal aspect rather than transitivity and voice. The
D-suffixes are used on past bases to express the resultative perfect of both intran-
sitive and transitive verbs. This construction is attested only in stem I on past bases
equivalent to the intransitive past base of Ṭuroyo (Jastrow 1994a: 33, 66):
n-f-q (stem I) ‘to go out’
nafiq-Ø ‘He has gone out’
nafiq-o ‘She has gone out’
s-y-m (stem I) ‘to do’
saym-Ø ‘He has made’
saym-o ‘She has made’
L-suffixes are used on transitive, intransitive and passive verbs to express a per-
fective aspect. This configuration of D-suffixes and L-suffixes has parallels with
the verbal system of some NENA dialects in the Bohtan cluster. Neither Ṭuroyo
nor Mlaḥso have constructions consisting of the resultative participle + copula or
infinitive + copula to express the resultative perfect and progressive respectively.
This differs from most of the NENA dialects of the region, but, again, coincides
with the verbal system of dialects in the NENA Bohtan cluster.
Ṭuroyo expresses 3rd person pronominal objects of transitive verbs by absolu-
tive D-suffixes as in many NENA dialects, e. g.
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of eastern Anatolia and northwestern Iran 221
grəš-Ø-li
pull.pst - d .3 ms - l .1 s
‘I pulled him’
griš-o-li
pull.pst - d .3 fs - l .1 s
‘I pulled her’
griš-i-li
pull.pst -d .3 pl - l .1 s
‘I pulled them’
The profile of Ṭuroyo with regard to pronominal object-marking is, therefore,
similar to that of many NENA dialects. Mlaḥso, by contrast, does not allow any
absolutive pronominal objects and all pronominal objects are expressed by accusa-
tive L-suffixes or separate accusative prepositional phrases (Jastrow 1994a: 54–56).
A point of difference between Ṭuroyo and NENA is that in transitive clauses
verbs do not have pronominal suffixes agreeing with a definite object argument
(Hemmauer and Waltisberg 2006: 32, 35) and as a result there is no absolutive
agreement in verbs derived from past bases:
g-nəšq-o ʾu-zlām
fut -kiss.prs -d .3FS art . ms -man
‘She will kiss the man’
nšəq-le ʾi-aθto
kiss.pst - l .3 ms art . fs -woman
‘He kissed the woman’
Ṭuroyo expresses the progressive and perfect by combining prefixes with the
present and past base respectively, e. g. kal-ko-nošəq ‘he is kissing’, ko-qayəm-Ø
‘he has arisen’ (Jastrow 1985: 146–150). The future is expressed in Ṭuroyo by
attaching to the present base a preverbal particle with various allomorphs (g,
k, gd, kt), all of which derived historically from a particle with the form *gəd
(Jastrow 1985: 148–149). This can also express habitual aspect. In Mlaḥso the
future particle has the form d-, which is likely to be related (Jastrow 1994a: 52).
The particle *gəd may be compared to the particle ket- which is used in the Herte-
vin (C NENA Bohtan) with the sense of ‘to be able’.
A distinctive feature of Ṭuroyo that is not found in the NENA dialects of the
region is the construction used to express the two pronominal objects of ditransi-
tive verbs. In these constructions the pronominal indirect object is expressed by an
L-suffix and the pronominal direct object is expressed by an enclitic pronoun that
has the same form as the copula. This expression of the pronominal direct object
is restricted to the 3rd person:
222 Geoffrey Khan
Ṭuroyo (Jastrow 1985: 142)
gd-oba-l-ləx=yo
fut -give.prs - d .1fs -l .2 ms =3s
‘I shall give him/her/it to you’
Parallel constructions are found in some of the Christian NENA dialects of the
Mosul plain (chapter 3.4, §7).
7
In these examples intonation group boundaries are marked by |, the nuclear stress of the
intonation group is marked by a grave accent and non-nuclear stress is marked by acute
accents.
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of eastern Anatolia and northwestern Iran 223
In the NENA dialects of the region verbs are negated by the particle la, e. g.
(6) C. Ashitha (Tiyare)
la-šate-Ø
neg -drink.prs - d .3 ms
‘He does not drink’.
In most NENA dialects the future particle cannot be used with the negator, so a
negated future is identical to the present habitual, e. g.
(7) C. Ashitha (Tiyare) (Borghero 2005: 129)
la-šate-Ø
neg -drink.prs - d .3 ms
‘He will not drink’.
In dialects that express the habitual by a preverbal particle ʾi-/y, the sequence la +
y contracts to le, e. g.
(8) C. Halmun (Tiyare) (Talay 2008b: 329)
le-šate-Ø
neg -drink.prs - d .3 ms
‘He will not drink’.
In C. Urmi in northwestern Iran, the negation of the habitual prefix ci- is le,
e. g. ci-šatə ‘he drinks (habitual)’, le-šatə ‘he does not drink/he will not drink’
(Khan 2016, vol. 1: 286).
In the J. Urmi dialect the future particle b- may optionally be retained in nega-
tive clauses and is placed before the negator, e. g.
(9) J. Urmi (Khan 2008: 85)
b-la šate-Ø
fut - neg drink.prs - d .3 ms
‘He will not drink’.
In NENA dialects on the western periphery of the region, in the Bohtan and Cudi
clusters, the negator cannot be used with an imperative form and prohibitions are
expressed by combining the negator with the irrealis present, e. g.
(10) C. Umra (Bohtan) (Hobrack 2000: 78)
la-maḥk-ütən!
neg -speak.prs - d .2 pl
‘Do not speak (pl.)!’
In dialects in the eastern sector of the region the negator is used with the impera-
tive, e. g.
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of eastern Anatolia and northwestern Iran 225
In the region of southeastern Turkey and northwestern Iran the major linguis-
tic boundary in Neo-Aramaic is between the CNA and NENA subgroups at the
Tigris river. CNA, especially Ṭuroyo, is more archaic than the NENA dialects in
some aspects of its phonology and morphology. Some of the NENA dialects in the
Bohtan cluster on the western periphery of the NENA area exhibit more parallels
with CNA than NENA dialects elsewhere. These features are likely to have arisen
by convergence rather than a common ancestry, since the parallels are often only
partial (e. g. the distribution of the *ā > o shift in Ruma). Within the NENA dia-
lects of the region there is considerable diversity. The Tiyare cluster on the whole
is the most archaic in its phonology and morphology. The dialects in the eastern
sector of the region are more innovative. The most innovative is the cluster of
Jewish dialects in northwestern Iran.
The lexicon of the CNA and NENA dialects contain many loanwords from the
languages in contact. Kurdish has had particular impact on the lexicon in all dia-
lects. In CNA there are also numerous loanwords from Turkish and the local Arabic
dialects. The Turkish influence on the lexicon intensified in the twentieth century
(Tezel 2015). In the NENA dialects of northwestern Iran there are many loanwords
from Azeri Turkish and Persian. These, however, appear to be a relatively recent
acquisition, since the majority of them are not morphologically integrated into
dialects, unlike Kurdish loanwords, which are generally morphologically adapted
and represent an older lexical layer in the dialects. In the dialects of northwestern
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of eastern Anatolia and northwestern Iran 229
Iran calques of Iranian and Azeri phrasal verbs containing a noun and a light verb
are particularly common, e. g. C. Urmi sohbat ʾavəd ‘he converses’ (literally: he
makes conversation; cf. Persian sohbat kardan), +k̭ aravul ɟarəš ‘he guards’ (liter-
ally: to pull guard; cf. Azer. qarovul çəkmək) (Khan 2016, vol. 1: 457–458).
11.1. Ṭuroyo
A dream (Jastrow 1985, 264–265)
The transcription and marking of prosody is taken from Jastrow’s presentation of
this text.
(26) fa b-ú-zabn-ā́ no – kə́t-wa ḥðó ʾə́šm-a faṭə́me
and at-dem -time-this there.is-pst one.fs name-her Faṭima
kə́t-way-la nxiróyo ʾə́šm-e génč-xalìl-aġa.
there.is-pst - l .3 fs lover name-poss .3 ms Genč-Xalil-Aġa
At that time there was a woman whose name was Faṭima. She had a lover
whose name was Genč Xalil Aġa.
(27) fa-hā́ no ʾí-ʿaskar d-tərkíya mbá-lle
and-this def -army gen -Turkey take.away.pst - l .3 pl
zbə́ṭ-ṭe maḥát-te b-í-ʿaskarìye ʾu
seize.pst - l .3 pl place.pst - l .3 pl in-def -army and
mbá-lle.
take.away.pst - l .3 pl
The Turkish army took this man away. They seized him, they put him in the
army and took him away.
(28) mbá-lle l-í-ʿaskarìye ʾu fayíš-o
take.away.pst - l .3 pl to-def -army and remain.pst - d .3 fs
faṭə́me táne ko-ḥə́lm-o b-lályo
Faṭima alone ind -dream.prs .- d .3 fs at-night
ʾu b-imómo b-ú-nxiroy-áyða
and in-day about-def -lover-poss .3 fs
They took him to the army and Faṭima remained alone. She dreamt night
and day of her lover.
230 Geoffrey Khan
An acute accent (v́ ) marks non-nuclear stress. A grave accent (v̀ ) marks the nuclear
stress of an intonation group. A vertical line (|) marks an intonation group bound-
ary.
(31) xá-yuma +
málla +
Nasràdən| bərrə̀xš=ələ| bəšk̭ál=ələ
one-day mullah Nasradin go.prog = cop .3 ms take.prog = cop .3 ms
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of eastern Anatolia and northwestern Iran 231
+
k̭ usárta déna mən-švàv-u.| màr=ǝlə|
cooking.pot loan from-neighbour-poss .3 ms say.prog = cop .3 ms
hál-li xá-dana +
k̭ usàrta| +
báyy-ən
give.imp = l .1 s one-single cooking.pot want. prs - d .1 ms
bášl-ən ɟáv-o bušàla.| +k̭ usárta| +
ɟúrta
cook . irr - d .1 ms in-poss .3 fs stew cooking.pot big
lə̀t-li.| bəšk̭ál-o=lə
there.is.no-l .1 s take.prog - poss .3 fs = cop .3 ms
mày-o=lə +
k̭ usárta| bušála bašùl=ələ,|
bring.prog - poss .3 fs = cop .3 ms cooking.pot stew cook.prog = cop .3 ms
labùl-o=lə, |
yáv-o=lə mə̀drə| k̭ à|
take.prog - poss .3 fs = cop .3 ms give.prog - poss .3 fs = cop .3 ms again to
švàva.| ʾína tré +k̭ usaryay-sùrə| mattúy=əl
neighbour but two pots-small. pl put.prog = cop .3 ms
ɟàv-o.|
in-poss .3 fs
One day mullah Nasradin goes and takes a cooking pot as a loan from
his neighbour. He says ‘Give me a pot, I want to cook stew in it. I do not
have a big pot.’ He takes the pot and brings it back, cooks stew, takes it
and gives it back to the neighbour, but he puts two pots in it.
(32) švàva| màr=ǝlə| ʾáha tré +k̭ usaryàtə| k̭ àm
neighbour say.prog = cop .3 ms this two cooking.pots why
muyy-é=vət?| mə̀r-rə| +
k̭ usárt-ət
bring.ptcp . ms - poss .3 pl = cop .2 ms say.pst - l .3 ms cooking.pot-gen
dìyyux| də̀l-la| tré xínə mə̀nn-o.|
gen .2 ms give.birth.pst - l .3 fs two others with-poss .3 fs
yáv=əl k̭ àt-u| ʾáv-ət basìma,|
give.prog = cop .3 ms to-poss .3 ms be.irr - d .2 ms pleasant
bitày=ələ.|
come.prog = cop .3 ms
The neighbour says ‘This is two pots, why have you brought them?’ He
said ‘Your pot has given birth, two others are with it.’ He gives this to
him ‘Thank you’ and comes back.
(33) ʾé-šabta xìta| +málla +Nasrádən bərrə́xš=əl mə̀drə.|
that-week other mullah Nasradin go.prog = cop .3 ms again
màr=ələ| +
maxlèta,| xa-+k̭ usárta buš-+ɟùrta
say.prog = cop .3 ms pardon one-cooking.pot more-big.fs
+
byáy=əvən.| +
málla +Nasràdən| +ʾáyn-u
want.prog = cop .1 ms mullah Nasradin eye-poss .3 ms
pə́lt=əva +
ʾal-xa- k̭ usart-ət
+
švàvə.| nàk̭ša
fall.ptcp . fs = cop . pst .3 s on-one-cooking.pot-gen neighbours plan
232 Geoffrey Khan
ɟríš=əva| +
bayyí-va ʾày mayyí-va-la|
draw.ptcp . ms = cop . pst .3 s want. prs .3 ms - pst that.3fs bring. prs - pst - l .3 fs
k̭ à-de| +
k̭ usárt-u yuvv-à-lə| tré-xinə=da
for-that cook.pot-poss .3 ms give.pst - d .3 fs - l .3 ms two-other.pl =also
súrə mə̀nn-o.| xə́š-lə mə̀r-rə|
small.pl with-poss .3 fs go.pst - l .3 ms say.pst - l .3 ms
+
byáy=ən xa-+k̭ usárta +
ɟùrta,| k̭ át ʾə́t-li
want.prog = cop .1 ms one-cooking.pot big.fs comp there.is-l 1 s
ʾàrxə| bàšl-ən| xùrrac ɟáv-o.|
guests cook.irr - d .1 ms food in-poss .3 fs
The next week mullah Nasradin goes again. He says ‘Excuse me, I want a
bigger pot. The eye of mullah Nasradin had fallen on one of the pots of the
neighbour. He had made a plan, since he wanted to bring back that one. For
that (reason) he gave his pot as well as two others with it. He went and said
‘I want a big pot to cook food in—I have guests.
(34) yáv-o=lə ʾe-+k̭ usárta buš-šap̂ ə́rta
give.prog - poss .3 fs = cop .3 ms that.fs -cooking.pot most-beautiful.fs
+
ɟùrta| k̭ á +málla +Nasràdən.| +málla +
Nasrádən
big.fs to mullah Nasradin mullah Nasradin
mày-o=lə| mattúy-o=lə bèta.|
bring.prog - poss .3 fs = cop .3 ms put.prog - poss .3 fs = cop .3 ms house
šváva bəxzày=ələ| xà-yuma,| trè-yumə,| xà-šabta,|
neighbour see.prog = cop .3 ms one-day two-days one-week
trè-šabay,| xà-yarxa,| trè-yarxə| +
k̭ usárta lìtən.|
two-weeks one-month two-months cooking.pot there.is.not
ba-dàx ví-la ʾa-+k̭ usárta?| mù ví-la
but-how be.pst - l .3 fs this-cooking.pot what be.pst - l .3 fs
+
k̭ usárta?|
cooking.pot
He gives the biggest and most beautiful pot to mullah Nasradin. Mullah
Nasradin brings it back and puts it in the house. The neighbour sees that
one day, two days, one week, two weeks, one month, two months (pass)
but there is no pot. ‘But what has become of the pot? What has become
of the pot?’
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of eastern Anatolia and northwestern Iran 233
(35) bərrə́xš=ələ +
ʾal-+tárr-ət +màlla,| mára +
màlla
go.prog = cop .3 ms to-door-gen mullah say.prog mullah
ṱ-ávə-t basìma| +k̭ usárta mùyy-o=vət
fut -be.irr - d .2 ms well cooking.pot bring.ptcp - poss .3 fs = cop .2 ms
ʾátən| cmá-+dana k̭ àm ʾadíyya,| +bayy-ə̀n-na.| mùt
you some-time before now want.prs - d .1 ms - l .3 fs what
+
k̭ usárta?| mə́rrə +
k̭ usárta ʾat-muyy-á-lux
cooking.pot said.pst - l .3 ms pot you-bring.pst - d .3 fs - l .2 ms
m-cə́s-lan k̭ at-bašl-ə́t-va xùrrac ɟáv-o.| ʾà|
from-with-l .1 pl comp -cook.irr - d .2 ms - pst food in-poss .3 fs this
mə̀rrə, | +
k̭ usàrta, | +
k̭ usárta mə̀t-la. |
mə́r-rə
say.pst - l .3 ms cooking.pot cooking.pot die.pst - l .3 fs say.pst - l .3 ms
ba-dàx c-óy-a mə́t-la?!| mə́rrə bas-dàx
but-how ind -be. prs - d .3 fs die.pst - l .3 fs say.pst - l .3 ms but-how
c-óy-a +
k̭ usárta yàdl-a?!|
ind -be. prs - d .3 fs cooking.pot give.birth.irr - d .3 fs
He goes to the door of the mullah and says ‘Mullah, if you please, I want a
pot that you took some time ago.’ ‘What pot?’ He said ‘A pot that you took
from me to use to cook food in.’ He said ‘Ah, the pot, the pot has died.’ He
said ‘How could it have died?!’ He said ‘How could a pot give birth?!’
Abbreviations
References
Fox, Samuel E. 2009. The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Bohtan. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.
Fox, Samuel E. 2015. A > e raising in the Jilu dialect of Neo-Aramaic. Aramaic Studies 13.
161–173.
Furman, Yulia & Sergey Loesev. 2015. Studies in the Ṭuroyo verb. In Geoffrey Khan &
Lidia Napiorkowska (eds), Neo-Aramaic and its linguistic context, 1–28. Piscataway,
NJ: Gorgias Press.
Garbell, Irene. 1965. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Persian Azerbaijan: Linguistic
analysis and folkloristic texts. Janua Linguarum. Series Practica 3. Berlin & Boston:
De Gruyter Mouton.
Heinrichs, Wolfhart. 1990. Written Turoyo. In Wolfhart Heinrichs (ed.), Studies in Neo-Ar-
amaic, 181–188. Harvard Semitic Studies 36. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.
Hemmauer, Roland & Michael Waltisberg. 2006. Zum relationalen Verhalten der Verbalf-
lexion im Ṭuroyo. Folia Linguistica Historica 27(1–2). 19–59.
Hoberman, Robert. 1988. The history of the Modern Aramaic pronouns and pronominal
suffixes. Journal of the American Oriental Society 108. 557–575.
Hobrack, Sebastian. 2000. Der neuaramäische Dialekt von Umra (Dere-Köyü). Laut- und
Formenlehre. Texte. Glossar. Erlangen-Nürnberg: Friedrich-Alexander-Universität, un-
published MA thesis.
Ishaq, Yusuf M. 1990. Turoyo: From spoken to written language. In Wolfhart Heinrichs
(ed.), Studies in Neo-Aramaic, 189–199. Harvard Semitic Studies 36. Atlanta, GA:
Scholars Press.
Jastrow, Otto. 1985. Laut- und Formenlehre des neuaramäischen Dialekts von Mīdin im Ṭūr
ʻAbdīn. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Jastrow, Otto. 1988. Der neuaramäische Dialekt von Hertevin (Provinz Siirt). Semitica
Viva 3. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz.
Jastrow, Otto. 1990. Personal and demonstrative pronouns in Central Neo-Aramaic: A com-
parative and diachronic discussion based on Ṭūrōyo and the Eastern Neo-Aramaic dia-
lect of Hertevin. In Wolfhart Heinrichs (ed.), Studies in Neo-Aramaic, 89–103. Atlanta:
Scholars Press.
Jastrow, Otto. 1992. Lehrbuch der Ṭuroyo-Sprache. Semitica Viva 2. Wiesbaden: Harras-
sowitz.
Jastrow, Otto. 1994a. Der neuaramäische Dialekt von Mlaḥsô. Semitica Viva 14. Wies-
baden: Harrassowitz.
Jastrow, Otto. 1994b. Neuentdeckte aramäische Dialekte in der Türkei. In C. Wunsch (ed.),
XXV. Deutscher Orientalistentag. Vorträge. München, 1991, 69–74. Deutsche Morgen-
ländische Gesellschaft: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Sup-
plement 10. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Jastrow, Otto. 2011. Ṭuroyo and Mlaḥsô. In Stefan Weninger, Geoffrey Khan, Michael
Streck & Janet Watson (eds.), The Semitic languages: An international handbook, 697–
707. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Jastrow, Otto. 2015. Language contact as reflected in the consonant system of Ṭuroyo.
In Aaron M. Butts (ed.), Semitic languages in contact, 234–250. Leiden & Boston:
Brill.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2001. Quelques aspects de l’expression d’”être” en néo-araméen. In Anaïd
Donabédian (ed.), Langues de diaspora. Langues en contact, 139–148. Faits de Langues
Revue de Linguistique 18. Paris: Ophrys.
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of eastern Anatolia and northwestern Iran 235
Khan, Geoffrey. 2008. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Urmi. Gorgias Neo-Aramaic
Studies. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2012. Remarks on the historical development of the copula in Neo-Ara-
maic. In Federico Corriente, Gregorio del Olmo Lete, Ángeles Vicente & Juan-Pablo
Vita (eds.), Dialectology of the Semitic languages. Proceedings of the IV Meeting on
Comparative Semitics, Zaragoza 9–11 June, 2010, 25–31. Sabadell: AUSA.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2013. Phonological emphasis in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic. In Jean Léo
Léonard & Samia Naïm (eds.), Base articulatoire arrière: Backing and backness, 111–
132. Munich: Lincon Europa.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2016. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of the Assyrian Christians of Urmi. 4 vols.
Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2017. Ergativity in Neo-Aramaic. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa
Travis (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, 873–899. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Kim, Ronald. 2008. The subgrouping of Modern Aramaic dialects reconsidered. Journal of
the American Oriental Society 128(3). 505–531.
Murre-van den Berg, Heleen L. 1999. From a spoken to a written language: The introduc-
tion and development of literary Urmia Aramaic in the nineteenth century. Leiden:
Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
Mutzafi, Hezy. 2000. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Maha Khtaya d-Baz: Phonology, Mor-
phology and Texts. Journal of Semitic Studies 45(2). 293–322.
Mutzafi, Hezy. 2008. Trans-Zab Jewish Neo-Aramaic. Bulletin of SOAS 71(3). 409–431.
Mutzafi, Hezy. 2014. The three rhotic phonemes in Ṭyare Neo-Aramaic. Aramaic Stud-
ies 12. 168–184.
Mutzafi, Hezy. 2015. Christian Salamas and Jewish Salmas: Two separate types of Neo-Ar-
amaic. In Geoffrey Khan & Lidia Napiorkowska (eds.), Neo-Aramaic and its linguistic
context, 289–304. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.
Nakano, Aki’o. 1973. Conversational texts in Eastern Neo-Aramaic (Gzira dialect). Study
of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, A Series, no. 4. Tokyo: Institute for the
Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Nöldeke, Theodor. 1868. Grammatik der neusyrischen Sprache am Urmia-See und in Kurd-
istan. Leipzig: T.O. Weigel.
Ritter, Helmut. 1990. Ṭūrōyō: Die Volkssprache der syrischen Christen des Ṭūr ʿAbdīn. C:
Grammatik. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Talay, Shabo. 2008a. Die neuaramäischen Dialekte der Khabur-Assyrer in Nordostsyrien:
Einführung, Phonologie und Morphologie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Talay, Shabo. 2008b. The Neo-Aramaic dialects of the Tiyari Assyrians in Syria: With
special consideration of their phonological characteristics. In Geoffrey Khan (ed.),
Neo-Aramaic Dialect Studies, 39–63. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.
Tezel, Aziz. 2015. The Turkish lexical influence on Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo: A preliminary selection
of examples. In Geoffrey Khan & Lidia Napiorkowska (eds.), Neo-Aramaic and its
linguistic context, 69–99. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.
Tsereteli, Konstantin. 1970. Die Assyrer in der UdSSR. In Ruth Stiehl & Hans Erich Stier
(eds.), Beiträge zur alten Geschichte und deren Nachleben: Festschrift für Franz
Altheim, 2, 375–385. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Tsereteli, Konstantin. 1977. Zur Frage der Klassifikation der neuaramäischen Dialekte.
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 127. 244–253.
236 Geoffrey Khan
Tsereteli, Konstantin. 1990. The velar spirant ġ in Modern East Aramaic dialects. In Wolf-
hart Heinrichs (ed.), Studies in Neo-Aramaic, 35–41. Harvard Semitic Studies. Atlanta:
Scholars Press.
Waltisberg, Michael. 2016. Syntax des Ṭuroyo. Semitica Viva 55. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
3. Northern Iraq
3.1. Northern Iraq: overview
Geoffrey Khan and Geoffrey Haig
1. Introduction
This section treats the main languages spoken in today’s northern Iraq. Politically,
most of this region is part of the Kurdistan Region within Iraq, established in 2005
under a local administration, the Kurdish Regional Government, with its capital
in Erbil. Historically, the region is part of what is traditionally known as Mesopo-
tamia, geographically encompassing the lower catchment areas of the Euphrates
and Tigris rivers. Across millennia, this is a region characterized by multilingual-
ism. Four thousand years ago, the Semitic languages Akkadian and Amorite, and
the genetically unclassified Hurrian and Sumerian were spoken here,1 and today’s
northern Iraq is likewise multilingual, though the constellation has shifted: Semitic
languages continue to be spoken in the region (Arabic and Neo-Aramaic), and
while no descendants of Sumerian and Hurrian have survived, Turkic and Iranian
languages have been added to the mix. Over the last century the language situa-
tion has undergone further changes due to the displacement of certain population
groups. This applies in particular to the Christian and Jewish communities who
speak Neo-Aramaic, a large proportion of whom now live in a diaspora outside of
Iraq, and also to the non-Islamic groups of Kurdish speakers, such as the Yezidis,
many of whom have been forced to leave their homeland.
Todayʼs languages are genetically affiliated to three different language families:
Semitic (Arabic, Neo-Aramaic), Iranian (Sorani and Kurmanjî Kurdish, Gorani)
and Turkic (Turkman). This section contains chapters on Arabic (Procházka),
Neo-Aramaic (Khan), Iranian (Haig) and Turkic (Bulut), the main spoken lan-
guages of northern Iraq. Each chapter covers the structure, and gives a survey
of dialectal varieties. In keeping with the aims of the volume, we do not treat
the principal official language of Iraq, Modern Standard Arabic, but focus on the
(often poorly documented) local varieties. In the rest of this introduction, we touch
on a number of striking similarities among the languages of this region, several of
which may have arisen through language contact.
1
For a historical perspective on the languages of Iraq see the contributions in Postgate
(2007).
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-007
238 Geoffrey Khan and Geoffrey Haig
2. Phonology
Several dialects of the Semitic languages of the region have lost interdental con-
sonants (ṯ and ḏ), generally by shifting the series to stops (t, d) or sibilants (s, z)
(Procházka, chapter 3.2, §2.1.1; Khan, chapter 3.4, §5.1). This brings the conso-
nant system closer to that of Iranian and Turkic, which do not have interdentals.
In several dialects of Sorani Kurdish a /d/ following a vowel or sonorant under-
goes lenition resulting in assimilation or loss of oral articulation, the so-called
‘Zagros d’ (Haig, chapter 3.3, §3.1.1), likewise attested in several Iranian lan-
guages of western Iran (see chapter 4.1, §2.1). In Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialects
spoken east of the Great Zab river (known as trans-Zab dialects) historical inter-
dentals *ṯ and *ḏ shift to the sonorant /l/ (Khan, chapter 3.4, §5.1). An intermediate
stage of development of this appears to have been the shift of the interdentals to
the voiced stop *d. The sonorant /l/ can then be regarded as lenition of the *d. Such
lenition, therefore, can perhaps be considered to be a convergence with that of the
Sorani Kurdish ‘Zagros d’.
The assimilation of /l/ to a stem-final /n/, which is a feature of derivational
suffixes beginning with /l/ in the Turkic dialects of the region (Bulut, chapter 3.5,
§2.2) has a parallel in the Neo-Aramaic dialects, in which inflectional verbal suf-
fixes beginning with /l/ assimilate to a stem-final /n/ (Khan, chapter 3.4, §7.0).
Palatalization of the dorsal stops /k/ and /g/ is a feature that is found in the
Kurdish, Turkic and Neo-Aramaic dialects of the region (Haig, chapter 3.3, §3.1.1;
Bulut, chapter 3.5, §2.1.1; Khan, chapter 3.4, §5.1). A certain degree of areal cor-
relation with regard to this feature can be identified in the various languages. The
predominance of the palatalization of these consonants in the northern varieties of
Turkic in the region, for example, corresponds to the situation in the Neo-Aramaic
dialects, in which it is found mainly in dialects spoken north of Arbil (e. g. Barwar).
The existence of unaspirated voiceless stops in the consonantal system of Kur-
manjî Kurdish in the north of the region (Haig, chapter 3.3, §4.1.1) has induced in
NENA dialects of the area the development of unaspirated voiceless stops, which
are not a historical feature of Aramaic (Khan, chapter 3.4, §5.1). The unaspirated
voiceless stops themselves probably entered Northern Kurdish through Armenian
(Martirosyan, chapter 2.2, §4.1; Haig, chapter 3.3).
In Turkic of the region there is a general tendency for a laryngeal /h/ to be
added before initial vowels and for an initial laryngeal stop /ʾ/ in loanwords to
be replaced by /h/ (Bulut, chapter 3.5, §2.1.1.2). This feature has spread to some
Neo-Aramaic dialects in the east of the region (Khan, chapter 3.4, §5.5). Develop-
ments in the back vowels of Kurmanjî Kurdish dialects in the north of the region
have been replicated in some Neo-Aramaic dialects, especially in the north-east of
the region. This involves the fronting of tense back rounded vowels ([uː] > [yː])
and the raising of close-mid back vowel [oː] towards [u] (Haig, chapter 3.3, §4.1.2;
Khan, chapter 3.4, §5.4).
Northern Iraq: overview 239
3. Morpho-syntax
The Sorani Kurdish suffixed marker of definiteness –eke is used in the Jewish
trans-Zab Neo-Aramaic dialects (Khan, chapter 3.4, §6.1) and in the Turkic dia-
lects of the region (Bulut, chapter 3.5, §2.4.4.1). There is, however, a difference in
grammatical integration. In the Turkic dialects it is added directly after the stem,
before case and plural suffixes, as in Kurdish, whereas in Neo-Aramaic it is added
after plural suffixes.
Constructions in the Kurdish noun phrase containing the genitive/attributive
marker known as ezafe (Haig, chapter 3.3, §3.2.1.1, §4.2.1) appear to have acted as
the model for developments in the Neo-Aramaic and Arabic dialects. In Neo-Ar-
amaic the genitive marker has become an affix on the head noun of genitive con-
structions, in accordance with the Kurdish model, e. g. C. Barwar bron-ət malka
son-gen king ‘the son of the king’. In Sorani Kurdish the ezafe constructions con-
sists of an invariable affix –i on the head noun, as in the Neo-Aramaic example just
cited. In Kurmanjî, however, the ezafe is inflected for gender and number, and the
dependent noun has oblique case-marking: kuř-ē pāšā-yī ‘son-ez . sg . m king-obl ’.
A replication of this oblique case-marking is identifiable in Neo-Aramaic in some
constructions, e. g. C. Barwar bron-ət d-o malka son-gen gen -that king ‘the son
of that king’. In origin the Neo-Aramaic -ət morpheme is a pronominal possessive
suffix + attributive marker < *-eh-d. A similar construction is found in some Arabic
dialects of the region, e. g. šəkl-u l-əlwalad appearance-his gen -young_man ‘the
appearance of the young man’ (Procházka, chapter 3.2, §2.4.2).
Several features of the verbal system of Kurdish have been replicated in
Neo-Aramaic, Arabic and Turkic (Matras 2010: 75; Haig 2017). One conspicu-
ous example of such areal features is the development of preverbal particles in
Neo-Aramaic (Khan, chapter 3.4, §7.0) and Arabic (Procházka, chapter 3.2,
§2.3.3). The preverbal particles in these Semitic languages appear to have a
native etymology, but their distribution and function corresponds closely to the
Kurdish model. This is seen most clearly in the development of preverbal parti-
cles expressing the indicative present, and particles expressing the future. There is
close functional correlation between these particles in Neo-Aramaic and Kurdish.
In Neo-Aramaic dialects in the Sorani-speaking area, for example, the indicative
present particle is used to express also the future, as in Sorani. In the Kurman-
jî-speaking area the Neo-Aramaic future particle is also used to express a habitual,
as in the Kurmanjî model. There are parallels in Neo-Aramaic also to the Kur-
manjî construction in which the ezafe particle is combined with the present indic-
ative to express the progressive (Haig, chapter 3.3, §4.2.2), e. g. Neo-Aramaic C.
Ankawa də-k-garəš (he is) one that pulls, i. e. ‘He is pulling’. It is noteworthy that
neither Neo-Aramaic nor Arabic has replicated the Iranian subjunctive pre-verbal
particle. Some dialects of Neo-Aramaic use a Turkic suffix on imperative verbs,
e. g. C. Barwar pluṭ-gən! ‘go out (sing.)!’ (Khan, chapter 3.4, §7.0), which cor-
240 Geoffrey Khan and Geoffrey Haig
References
Haig, Geoffrey. 2017. Western Asia: East Anatolia as a transition zone. In Raymond Hickey
(ed.), The Cambridge handbook of areal linguistics, 396–423. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Matras, Yaron. 2010. Contact, convergence, and typology. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The
Handbook of Contact Linguistics, 66–85. Malden & Oxford: Blackwell.
Postgate, John Nicholas (ed.). 2007. Languages of Iraq. Ancient and modern. Cambridge:
British School of Archaeology in Iraq.
3.2. The Arabic dialects of northern Iraq
Stephan Procházka
The region covered by this chapter comprises the Arabic-speaking parts of Iraq
north of the city of Širqāṭ and thus roughly corresponds to those areas of the
current administrative District of Niniveh (Nīnawā) which are situated along and
west of the Tigris River. The focus of the linguistic description lies on the contem-
porary dialect of the district’s capital Mosul (al-Mawṣil), which is a predominantly
Arabic-speaking city.
Vernacular Arabic belongs to the Semitic branch of the Afro-Asiatic language
family. Within the continuum of Arabic dialects, most varieties spoken in northern
Iraq belong to the so-called Tigris branch of the Mesopotamian group. The rural
Bedouin-type dialects (see below) form a distinct subgroup within Mesopotamian
Arabic and exhibit many features in common with the dialects of Arabia. Some
of the Arabic spoken close to the Syrian border constitutes a different layer of
Bedouin Arabic: it is of the Šammar type1 and hence also belongs to the Arabian
dialect group. An overview of the main localities discussed in this chapter is pro-
vided in Fig. 1.
1
Named after the large tribal confederation whose members live in northern Najd, the
Syrian Desert, and parts of the Jazeera.
2
For a detailed description of the Arab presence in pre- and early Islamic Iraq cf. Morony
(2005: 214–253).
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-008
244 Stephan Procházka
affected the mountainous regions east of the Tigris and the Sinjar Mountains west
of Mosul. Today, in both regions Kurdish is the dominant language, with scattered
enclaves of Arabic- and Neo-Aramaic-speaking small towns and villages.3
In Iraq, as well as in northeastern Syria and parts of southeastern Anatolia,
two layers of vernacular Arabic can be differentiated. The older layer consists
of sedentary-type dialects which are usually labeled qǝltu dialects (after the verb
qǝltu ‘I said’) and which are mainly spoken in towns and ancient settlements. The
Bedouin-type dialects (also called gǝlǝt dialects after the same verb) form a more
recent layer because its speakers gradually infiltrated Iraq from the 13th century
onwards.4 Thus, “for a long time the Arabic spoken in the province of Mosul con-
sisted only of qǝltu dialects, spoken along with varieties of Neo-Aramaic” (Abu
Haidar 2004: 2, Fn.5). Until their exodus in 1950–1951, the Jews of some larger
towns in Kurdistan (e. g. Arbil, ʕAqra, and Kirkūk) spoke a distinct qǝltu dialect
which constituted the only autochthonous Arabic vernacular in that region (Jastrow
1990: 5–6). Encouraged by the Arabicization policy of the Baathist regime, during
the 1970s and 1980s Arabic speakers from other parts of Iraq settled in Kurdish
and Turkoman speaking areas of the country. But after 2003 many of them left the
region and today both vernacular and standard Arabic play an ever-decreasing role
in the area controlled by the Kurdistan Regional Government.
1.2. Current size, status, and religious affiliations of the speech community
No up-to-date statistical data regarding population structures of Iraq are available,
but from reliable sources5 the number of Arabic speakers in the region can be esti-
mated to be between 2.5 and 3 million people. As a vernacular of the official lan-
guage of Iraq, the local Arabic possesses a higher status than the other languages
of the region. This is particularly true for the dialect of the city of Mosul, which
can be regarded as the prestige variety of the whole area and which constitutes
without doubt the most important qǝltu dialect with regard to number of speakers
(cf. Jastrow 1979: 36).
The overwhelming majority of the Arabic-speaking population of the governo-
rate are Sunni Muslims; however, some of the speakers of the gǝlǝt and Šammar
dialects belong to Shia Islam (e. g. in the town of Rabīʕa close to the Syrian border).
Christians of different confessions used to constitute as much as 15 per cent of the
area’s population, but their number drastically decreased in the aftermath of the
3
Cf. the detailed map “Languages in the area of al-Mauṣil” of the Tübinger Atlas des
Vorderen Orients (TAVO: A VIII 11).
4
For the underlying historical developments and their impact on the linguistic setting of
Iraq cf. Holes (2007: 130–134).
5
Inter-Agency Information and Analysis Unit, Ninewa Governorate Profile, downloaded
from www.iauiraq.org/gp/print/GP-Ninewa.pdf (accessed 01 April 2013).
The Arabic dialects of northern Iraq
245
2003 war, which brought in its wake hostile attitudes towards non-Muslim com-
munities.6 A few Arabic speakers are Yazidis, who are concentrated in the Arab vil-
lages of Bǝḥzāni and Baʕšīqa, 20 km northeast of Mosul (Jastrow 1978: 24), and
in the town of Tall Kayf.7 The conquest of large parts of northern Iraq, including
Mosul, in the summer of 2014, by the ultra-Islamist forces of the so-called Islamic
State has had a massive impact on the Christian and Yezidi inhabitants. Most if not
all of them were killed or expelled from the regions controlled by the extremists.
2. Linguistic description
As was mentioned, this article mainly covers the Arabic of the city of Mosul,
called Maṣlāwi. But observations will also be made about characteristic features
of related dialects of the region. There are no data available for the northern Iraqi
gǝlǝt and Šammar dialects, so they must be left out of consideration. As was
pointed out by Jastrow (1979: 54–55), Maṣlāwi is a very typical variety of Iraqi
Arabic in general, and of the Tigris group in particular. The city with its approxi-
mately two million inhabitants is situated in the center of the qəltu-speaking area
and is the source of linguistic diffusion into its surroundings. As there are only
6
Most of the area’s Christians left Iraq for Europe and America; but tens of thou-
sands fled to politically stable Iraqi Kurdistan (source: webpage of the German NGO
“Gesellschaft für bedrohte Völker” www.gfbv.de/pressemit.php?id=2958&stayInside
Tree=1 (accessed 26 March 2013).
7
ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8 %AA%D9 %84 %D9 %83 %D9 %8A%D9 %81 (accessed
25 March 2016).
The Arabic dialects of northern Iraq 247
minor differences between Muslim and Christian Maṣlāwi speakers,8 we have not
indicated the religion of the speakers of the examples given below.
2.1. Phonology
2.1.1. Consonants
The following table includes the consonantal phonemes of Mosul Arabic.
A salient feature of Mosul Arabic and of (almost all) other Tigris branch dialects is
that /r/ is only a marginal phoneme since in most words the two Old Arabic (= OA)
phonemes /r/ and /ġ/ have merged into /ġ/9 (Jastrow 1979: 38), e. g. baqaġ ‘cows’
(< baqar), ġǝǧǝl ‘foot’ (< riǧl), daġǝb ‘path’ (< darb).10 In the sequence v̆ġC, /ġ/
8
Cf. Jastrow 2004: 142; this was confirmed by my informants. The dialect of the Jews,
however, significantly deviated from Muslim and Christian Maṣlāwi.
9
The sound /r/ is often found instead of /ġ/ in numerals. It is also heard in some lexical-
ized words like rǝkǝb ‘he mounted (a horse)’ and farraġ ‘he emptied’ (Jastrow 1979:
38).
10
Examples, for which no source is given, are from own research with informants and
unpublished BA/MA-theses from the University of Vienna, particularly by Hiam Wadie
and Lea Bäumler.
248 Stephan Procházka
is frequently elided, resulting in the lengthening of the preceding vowel: e. g. qōṣa
(< qǝġṣa) ‘loaf (of bread)’. The sound shift r > ġ is an ancient Iraqi feature and
discussed in detail by Blanc (1964: 20–25).
In the dialects spoken in the western part of northern Iraq, /r/ and /ġ/ are inde-
pendent phonemes: Rabīʕa rǝḥtu ‘I went’; ʔarnab ‘rabbit’ (Abu Haidar 2004: 5);
al-Baʕʕāǧ11 rǝǧǝl ‘foot’ (Talay 1999: 68). The same was true for all the Jewish
dialects of Kurdistan (Jastrow 1990: 6).
Most dialects of the region possess the three interdental fricatives /ḏ/, /ṯ/, /ḏ/.̣
Exceptions are Bǝḥzāni, where they have shifted to sibilants (Jastrow 1978:
34–38), and Rabīʕa where they have become dental stops: e. g. hāda ‘this’, mǝtǝl
‘like’, ḥaḍḍ ‘luck, fate’ (Abu Haidar 2004: 4). Concerning the sounds /p/, /g/, and
/č/, see below, section 3. A common feature of Mosul Arabic is the devoicing of
consonants in word-final position; this applies particularly to /b/ and /d/, but not
to fricatives such as /ʕ/ and /ġ/ (Jastrow 1979: 41). Abu Haidar (2004: 6) reports
examples in the dialect of Rabīʕa of the elision of /ʕ/: for instance mōrǝf ‘I don’t
know’ (< mā aʕrǝf).
2.1.2. Vowels
Mosul Arabic has two short (/ǝ/ and /a/) and five long (/ā/, /ē/, /ī/, /ō/, /ū/) vowel
phonemes (Jastrow 1979: 39). Diphthongs are monophthongized in Mosul but
occur in Rabīʕa: mawt ‘death’, bayt ‘house’ (Abu Haidar 2004: 9). Frequently
found are the shifts ū > ō and ī > ē when the vowel precedes a velarized or back
consonant: ṣōġa ‘picture’ (< ṣūra); baṭṭēxa ‘sugar melon’ (< baṭṭīxa).
Diachronically seen, in many words an original vowel /ā/ has shifted to /ē/ or
to /ī/ under the influence of /i/ and /ī/, respectively, in the same word. This pho-
nological process (called ʔimāla by the Arab grammarians) is a characteristic of
all qǝltu-dialects. Examples: ǧawēmǝʕ ‘mosques’ (< ǧawāmiʕ); fanīǧīn ‘cups’ (<
fanāǧīn)12 (Jastrow 1979: 40). In Mosul Arabic this sound shift also happens when
a suffix that contains a long or short /i/ is attached to a noun: e. g. bǝstān ‘garden’,
bǝstēn-či ‘gardener’ (Blanc 1964: 47).
The feminine suffix has two allomorphs, -i and -a, which depend on the preced-
ing consonant (Jastrow 1979: 40): The allomorph -a appears after velarized and
back consonants, and -i in all other cases. Examples are: bēḏạ ‘egg’, mēlḥa ‘salty’,
fāġa ‘mouse’, ǧēǧi ‘hen’, lēli ‘night’, and ǧāmūsi ‘female buffalo’.
11
The qəltu Arabic speaking inhabitants of the town are of the Xawētna tribe whose dia-
lect belongs to the Euphrates branch.
12
In Rabīʕa only the shift ā > ē occurs: e. g. dakēkīn ‘shops’ (and not *dakīkīn; Abu Hai-
dar 2004: 9).
The Arabic dialects of northern Iraq 249
2.2.1. Inflection
There are no case markers in northern Iraqi vernacular Arabic. There is masculine
and feminine gender, the latter usually marked by the morpheme -a/-i. Nouns can
generally be inflected according to the three numbers singular, dual, and plural:
the singular is not marked; the suffix of the dual is -ēn; and the plural is formed by
suffixes (in particular -āt) or by the internal reshaping of the word pattern.
In Rabīʕa and Mosul the unit nouns of collectives often have the ending -āyi: e. g.
nǝǧmāyi ‘a star’, kǝbbāyi ‘a patty of crushed wheat and minced lamb’, bayḍāyi ‘an
13
In the former Jewish dialects of Kurdistan an initial CC- was realized as CǝC-. In
certain verbal patterns it also occurred without an epenthetic vowel: e. g. šṛab ‘drink!’
Examples of CǝC are zǝbōʕ ‘week’, šǝrǝbtu ‘I drank’, and nǝnām ‘we sleep’ (Jastrow
1990: 32).
14
If the two consonants are identical, only one is pronounced: C1vC2C2 > C1vC2. Only in
the dialect of the village of Bǝḥzāni syllables ending on -CC# are found (Jastrow 1979:
41).
250 Stephan Procházka
egg’ (Abu Haidar 2004: 10). In Mosul most of these forms are used besides those
ending in -i/-a; thus one also hears nǝǧmi star’ and bēḏạ ‘egg’.
2.2.2. Pronouns
The following table shows the independent and bound personal pronouns of Mosul
Arabic, based on Procházka (2006–2007: 125) and Jastrow (1979: 42–43).
12715
The form hīnu for 3m . sg seems to have become obsolete as only huwwa is heard in
contemporary speech (cf. also Jastrow 1979: 42). The independent forms are used
mainly in the subject position, but they (or shortened variants of them) can also
indicate a second pronominalized direct object: ʕaṭētū-k-uwwa ‘I gave it (masc.) to
you’, ʕaṭētū-k-īya ‘I gave it (fem.) to you’ (Jastrow 1979: 43); mā-nǝʕṭī-ki-hīyǝm
‘we do not give them to you’ (Jastrow 2004: 143/8); sallamtū-lǝm hīyǝm ‘I handed
them over to them’ (Jastrow 2004: 143/7).
2.3.1. Inflection
There is a twofold system for the inflection of finite verbs: the suffix-based conju-
gation for the perfect, and the mostly prefix-based conjugation for the imperfect.
The inflectional affixes are attached to the perfect and imperfect stem, respec-
tively. Two sets of vowel patterns exist for the basic stem (also called Form I):
CaCaC and CǝCǝC for the perfect, and -CCaC and -CCǝC for the imperfect.
15
In Rabīʕa -ǝn is used (as in Anatolia): baytǝn ‘their house’ (Abu Haidar 2004: 11).
The Arabic dialects of northern Iraq 251
1 ǝ
šġəb-tu ǝ
šġəb-na
2 m ǝ
šġəb-ət ǝ
šġəb-təm
2 f ǝ
šġəb-ti
3 m šəġəb
šəġb-u
3 f šəġb-ət
1 ʔa-šġab nə-šġab
2 m tə-šġab
tə-šġab-ūn
2 f tə-šġab-īn
3 m yə-šġab
yə-šġab-ūn
3 f tə-šġab
The final –n of –īn and –ūn is dropped when a pronominal suffix is attached: e. g.
yəqšaʕūn ‘they see’, but yəqšaʕū-k ‘they see you (m . sg )’.
m ǝ
šġab ǝ
šġab-u
f ǝ
šġab-i
2.3.2. Derivation
The derivation of verbs is limited to nine forms for triconsonantal roots and two
for quadriconsonantal roots. Each form has a set of patterns for the perfect and
imperfect base as well as for the active and passive participle.
16
This appears to parallel the use of a clitic particle īš in Iraq-Turkic, which may be added
to finite verbs (including imperatives) to impart a sense of emphasis. In Iraq-Turkic,
it can be plausibly attributed to borrowing of the Kurdish clitic particle =īš / =žī; cf.
Bulut, this volume, chapter 3.5, §3.4.3.
252 Stephan Procházka
2.4. Syntax
17
An exception is the dialect of the Xawētna – probably because of Bedouin influence
(Talay 1999: 178).
18
The prefix goes back to the participle qāʕid ‘sitting’.
19
This modifier is not found in Jastrow’s texts, but in the texts published by Socin 1882–
83 (see also Jastrow 1979: 47, Fn.33). According to my informants it is typical of Chris-
tian Maṣlāwi speakers.
The Arabic dialects of northern Iraq 253
village of Bǝḥzāni and the former Jewish dialects, which also used an enclitic
copula.
(1) Bəḥzāni (for details see Jastrow 1978: 135)
báyt-a-hu
house-3 sg . f - cop .3 sg . m
‘It is her house.’
(2) Kurdistan Jews (Jastrow 1990: 37 f)
b-əl-bēt-nəḥne
in - def -house-cop .1 pl
‘We are at home.’
20
There is evidence for an analogous usage in the Christian Baghdadi dialect (Blanc
1964: 125–126) and in the Jewish dialect of Hīt (Khan 1997: 93).
254 Stephan Procházka
21
The preposition is sometimes omitted (Jastrow 1979: 49).
22
There are many instances of it in the texts which Jastrow 1979 recorded from a Muslim
woman. In Jastrow 2004, recorded from a Christian woman, this construction is much
rarer.
The Arabic dialects of northern Iraq 255
or:7
b. ǝ
mbēḥa qšǝʕ-tu ʔabū-yi
yesterday see-pf .1 sg father-1 sg
‘Yesterday I saw my father.’
2.4.4. Negation
Several particles are used in different situations for negation. They all immediately
precede the word to be negated. The particle mā is the most frequent way to negate
finite verbs, both perfect and imperfect.
(10) Mosul (Abu-Haidar 2002: 6)
ḥamāt-i kǝll ʕǝmġ-a mā dāġ-ǝt-l-i
mother-in-law-1 sg all life-3 sg . f neg turn-pf .3 sg . f -to-1 sg
bēl
attention
‘All her life my mother-in-law didn’t pay any attention to me.’
(11) Mosul (Abu-Haidar 2002: 7)
kaġġt-ēn sallam-tu ʕalayy-a w mā sallam-ǝt ʕalayy-i
time-dual greet-pf .1 sg on-3 sg . f and neg greet-pf .3 sg . f on-1 sg
‘Twice I greeted her and she didn’t greet me.’
(12) Mosul (Abu-Haidar 2002: 7)
mā n-ṭīq nə-dfaʕ əl-īǧāġ
neg ipf .1 pl -can ipf .1 pl -pay def -rent
‘We cannot pay the rent.’
Occasionally mā is also used to negate active or passive participles:
(13) Mosul (Abu-Haidar 2002: 7)
ʔa-šūf mā lēbǝs qāṭ
ipf .1 sg -see neg wear.ap . m . sg suit
‘I see you are not wearing a suit.’
The particle lā negates the imperative, as in (14), and occasionally also an optative
(15). When followed by kān it expresses the speaker’s wish that an event should
not have happened, as in (16).
(14) Mosul (Abu-Haidar 2002: 3)
lā tǝ-nṭǝy-ǝm ahammǝyyi ha-l-qadd!
neg ipf .2. m . sg -give-3 pl attention dem - def -extent
‘Don’t give them so much importance!’
256 Stephan Procházka
(28) Mosul
ʕǝqǝb-mā yǝ-stawi y-qūm-ūn
after-prtcl ipf .3 sg . m -be.cooked ipf .3-stand_up-pl
y-ḥǝṭṭ-ū-l-u ṃāy
ipf .3-put-pl -for-3 sg . m water
‘After it has fully cooked, they put water into it.’
(29) Mosul
qabǝl-mā y-ġōḥ ʕa-l-bēt ə
štaġa təffāḥ
before-prtcl ipf .3 sg . m -go to-def -house buy.pf .3 sg . m apples.coll
‘Before he went home he bought some apples’
(30) Mosul (Jastrow 1979: 68/24)
w tǝ-ǧi s-samak-i w y-ǧǝġġ-ū-ha y-ṣīd-ū-ha
and ipf .3 sg . f -come def -fish-f and ipf .3-pull.out-pl - ipf .3-hunt-
3 sg . f pl -3 sg . f
‘When the fish comes, they pull it out and catch it.’
The following is an example of a causal clause.
(31) Mosul
mā štaġē-tu ṭamāṭa mbūġ kān-ǝt ᵊkṯīġ
neg buy-pf .1 sg tomatoes.coll because be-pf .3 sg . f much
ġālīy-i
expensive-f
‘I did not buy tomatoes because they were too expensive.’
Conditional clauses are introduced either by ʔiḏa (32) or by lō (33).
(32) Mosul (Jastrow 1979: 70/28)
yǝ-tmāsak akṯaġ iḏa ṣṭabar-na ʕalē-nu
ipf .3 sg . m -cohere much.ela if be.patient-pf .1 pl on-3sg.m
šwayya
little
‘It (the dough) coheres better if we are a little bit patient with it.’
(33) Mosul
lō qšəʕ-tī-nu salləm-ī-l-i ʕalē-nu
if see-pf .2. f . sg -3 sg . m greet-imp .2. f . sg -for-1 sg on-3sg . m
‘If you (f . sg ) see him, give him my regards!’
Relative clauses follow the head noun and are introduced by the particle ǝlli if the
head noun is definite.
The Arabic dialects of northern Iraq 259
(34) Mosul
ᵊn-ġōḥ maʿā-hǝm ʿǝnd xālǝt-na ǝlli tǝ-skǝn
ipf .1 pl -go with-3. pl at aunt-1 pl rel ipf .3 sg . f -live
b-ǝmḥall-ǝt ǝl-ǧūlāq
in-quarter-f . constr . st toponym
‘We go with them to our aunt, who lives in the Ǧūlāq neighborhood.’
23
Examples can be found in the texts published by Jastrow 1979 and 2004 as well as in
the dictionary by Bakrī 1972.
24
As can be seen from the examples, these sounds are also found in loanwords taken from
languages from outside the region, particularly English.
25
Jastrow (1990: 13) states that the Turkish of the Ottoman culture had more influence on
the Jewish Arabic dialects than did the local Azeri (also known as Turkoman, see Bulut,
this volume, chapter 3.5).
260 Stephan Procházka
b. Turkish
ne var ne yok
q .what there.is q .what there.is.not
‘What’s the news?’
The influence of Iranian and Turkic languages on the morphology26 and syntax27 of
Northern Iraqi Arabic seems to be marginal or even non-existent. One reason for
this might be that—at least in cities like Mosul—Arabic speakers are rarely bilin-
gual, a fact which prevents far-reaching influence on morphological and syntacti-
cal structures. There are, however, no extended corpora of recordings of unmon-
itored everyday conversations and it is entirely possible that such texts would
reveal a good deal more contact phenomena than has hitherto been discerned.
A possible influence of Kurdish in the dialect of the village of Bǝḥzāni28 is
the shift of the three interdental fricatives /ḏ/, /ṯ/, /ḏ/̣ to the sibilants /z/, /s/, /ẓ/,
which resembles very much the substitution of Arabic loanwords in Kurdish (and
Turkish). Whether or not the analogous shift to dental stops in Rabīʕa is the result
of a contact with Syrian sedentary dialects is hard to say. The town is very close to
the Syrian border, though all adjacent dialects have interdentals. Hence one would
have to assume that this shift has been caused by one of the urban Syrian prestige
varieties (Damascus, Aleppo). This is not impossible as in the very same dialect
the typical Syrian verbal modifier b- is also found: e. g. b-tākǝl ‘you eat’ (Abu
Haidar 2004: 10).
The text was provided by a male speaker of Mosul Arabic, born approximately in
1942. The recording was made by Hiam Wadie in May 2004, who also supplied an
initial rough gloss, later modified for the present purposes.
(36) ǧā š-šēṭān ʕa=l-maṣlāwi
come.pf .3 m . sg def -devil on=def -Maṣlāwi
w=qal=l-u
and=say.pf .3 sg . m = to -3 sg . m
‘The devil came to the Maṣlāwi and said to him,’
26
An example of influence on word formation is the productive use of the Turkish suf-
fixes -li, -lik, -siz, and -çi (cf. Masliyah 1996).
27
For an Aramaic influence on syntax see above, section 4.3.
28
For examples see Jastrow 1978: 36–38.
The Arabic dialects of northern Iraq 261
bǝ=z-zaġǝʕ
in=def -crop
‘“This season I want to share the crop with you.”’
(38) qal=l-u l-maṣlāwi ʔahlan w=sahlan bī-k
‘say.pf .3 sg . m =to-3 sg . m def -Maṣlāwi welcome in-2 sg . m
‘The Maṣlāwi said, “Welcome!”’
(39) wǝ=ttafaq maʕa š-šēṭān ǝz-zaġǝʕ
and=agree.pf .3 sg . m with def -devil def -crop
yǝ-t.wazzaʕ bēn-āt-ǝm
3 sg . m -pass .devide.ipf between-pl -3 pl
‘And he came to an agreement with the devil that the planted crop will be
divided among them (as follows):’
(40) ǝl-fōq-āni mǝn ǝz-zaġǝʕ lǝ=l-maṣlāwi
def -above-nmlz from def -crop to=def -Maṣlāwi
wǝ=t-tǝḥt-ēni lǝ=š-šēṭān
and=def -under-nmlz to=def -devil
‘The upper part of the planted crop for the Maṣlāwi and the lower part for
the devil.’
(41) w=wāfaq ǝš-šēṭān w=ġāḥ zaġaʕ
and=agree.pf .3 sg . m def -devil and=go.pf .3 sg . m plant.pf .3 sg . m
ǝl-maṣlāwi ḥǝnṭa
def -Maṣlāwi wheat
‘The devil agreed and the Maṣlāwi went to plant wheat.’
(42) w=lǝmmǝn ṣāġ ǝl-ḥaṣād ǧā
and=when become.pf .3 sg . m def -harvest come.pf .3 sg . m
š-šēṭān dǝ=y-āxǝḏ ḥǝṣṣǝt-u
def -devil purp =3 sg . m -take.ipf share-3 sg . m
‘When it was (the time) of the harvest, the devil came to take his share.’
(43) ġǝšǝʕ ǝl-maṣlāwi kǝn=axaḏ ǝs-sǝnbǝl
see.pf .3 sg . m def -Maṣlāwi aux =take. pf .3 sg . m def -ears
w=xallā=l-u t-tǝbǝn
and=leave.pf .3 sg . m =to-3 sg . m def -straw
‘He saw that the Maṣlāwi had taken the ears and had left him the straw.’
262 Stephan Procházka
Abbreviations
References
Abu-Haidar, Farida. 2002. Negation in Iraqi Arabic. In Werner Arnold & Hartmut Bobzin
(eds.), Sprich doch mit deinen Knechten aramäisch, wir verstehen es!”. 60 Beiträge zur
Semitistik. Festschrift für Otto Jastrow zum 60. Geburtstag, 1–13. Wiesbaden: Harras-
sowitz.
Abu Haidar, Farida. 2004. The Arabic of Rabīʿa: A qǝltu dialect of north-western Iraq. In
Martine Haak, Rudolf de Jong & Kees Versteegh (eds.), Approaches to Arabic dialects:
A collection of articles presented to Manfred Woidich on the occasion of his sixtieth
birthday, 1–12. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Blanc, Haim. 1964. Communal dialects in Baghdad. Cambridge: Center for Middle Eastern
Studies of Harvard University.
Contini, Riccardo. 1999. Le substrat araméen en néo-arabe libanais : Préliminaires à une
enquête systématique. In Marcello Lamberti & Livia Tonelli (eds.), Afroasiatica Terg-
estina: Papers from the 9th Italian Meeting of Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) Linguis-
tics, Trieste, 23–24 April, 1998, 101–122. Padova: Unipress.
Holes, Clive. 2007. Colloquial Iraqi Arabic. In John Nicholas Postgate (ed.), Languages of
Iraq, ancient and modern, 123–134. British School of Archaeology in Iraq.
264 Stephan Procházka
Additional references
Abu-Haidar, Farida. 1989. Maintenance and shift in the Christian Arabic of Baghdad.
Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik 21. 47–62.
Eksell, Kerstin. 2006. Analytic Genitive. In Kees Versteegh (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Arabic
Language and Linguistics, vol. 1, 82–85. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Holes, Clive. 1995. Community, dialect and urbanization in the Arabic-speaking Middle
East. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 58. 270–287.
Jankowski, Henryk. 1989. Word order in Iraqi Arabic. Lingua Posnaniensis 32–33. 109–
112.
Jastrow, Otto. 1981. Die mesopotamisch-arabischen qǝltu-Dialekte, vol. 2, Volkskundliche
Texte in elf Dialekten. Wiesbaden: Steiner.
Jastrow, Otto. 1983. Tikrit Arabic verb morphology in a comparative perspective. Al-Ab-
hath 31. 99–110.
Jastrow, Otto. 1988. Zum arabischen Dialekt der Juden von Arbīl. Zeitschrift für Arabische
Linguistik 19. 50–59.
Jastrow, Otto. 1989. Notes on Jewish Maṣlāwi. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 12.
282–293.
The Arabic dialects of northern Iraq 265
Jastrow, Otto. 1990. Die arabischen Dialekte der irakischen Juden. In Werner Diem & Ab-
doldjavad Falaturi (eds.), XXIV. Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 26. bis 30. September
1988 in Köln. Ausgewählte Vorträge, 199–205. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Jastrow, Otto. 1991. Brotbacken: Ein Text im arabischen Dialekt der Juden von Mossul in
memoriam Ezra Laniado. Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik 23. 7–13.
Jastrow, Otto. 1992. Der arabische Dialekt der Juden von Kirkuk. Jerusalem Studies in
Arabic and Islam 15. 240–254.
Jastrow, Otto. 1993. Geschichten aus Sǝndōṛ. Zeitschrift Für Arabische Linguistik 25. 161–
177.
Jastrow, Otto. 1994. The qǝltu dialects of Mesopotamian Arabic. In Jorge Aguadé, Federico
Corriente & Marina Marugán (eds.), Actas del congreso internacional sobre interferen-
cias lingüísticas arabo-romances y paralelos extra-iberos, 119–123. Zaragoza.
Jastrow, Otto. 2001. Three anecdotes in Jewish Maslawi. In Judith Rosenhouse & Ami
Elad-Bouskila (eds.), Linguistic and cultural studies on Arabic and Hebrew. Essays
presented to Professor Moshe Piamenta for his eightieth birthday, 61–70. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Jastrow, Otto. 2005. Linsen mit Reis – und doch keine mžaddaṛa! Jüdisch-arabische
Kochrezepte aus Mossul. In Thomas Bauer & Ulrike Stehli-Werbeck. (eds.), Alltag-
sleben und materielle Kultur in der arabischen Sprache und Literatur: Festschrift für
Heinz Grotzfeld zum 70.Geburtstag, 223–232. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Jastrow, Otto. 2006. Where do we stand in the research on the Anatolian qeltu dialects?
Romano-Arabica 6–7. 63–69.
Jastrow, Otto. 2007. Iraq. In Kees Versteegh (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Arabic Language and
Linguistics, vol. 2, 414–424. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Krotkoff, Georg. 1991. Remarks on the Iraqi-Arabic lexicon: problems and characteristics.
In Alan S. Kaye (ed.), Semitic studies in honor of Wolf Leslau on the occasion of his
eighty-fifth birthday, November 14th, 1991, 886–889. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Lecerf, Jean. 1967. Regards sur l’état présent des études sur les dialectes arabes de Bagdad.
In Atti del terzo Congresso di studi arabi e islamici, Ravello 1966, 443–459. Naples:
Istituto Universitario Orientale.
Levin, Aryeh. 1994. The role of the Mesopotamian qǝltu dialects in the history of the Arabic
dialects of Iraq. In Dominique Caubet & Martine Vanhove (eds.), Actes des premières
journées internationales de dialectologie arabe de Paris. Colloque international tenu à
Paris du 27 au 30 janvier 1993, 317–332. Paris: Publications Langues’O.
Levin, Aryeh. 2000. The ʾimāla in the modern qǝltu dialects. In Abderrahim Youssi, Fouzia
Benjelloun, Mohamed Dahbi & Zakia Iraqui-Sinaceur (eds.), Aspects of the dialects of
Arabic today. Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the International Arabic Dialectol-
ogy Association (AIDA), Marrakech, Apr. 1–4, 2000, 98–104. Rabat: Amapatril.
Mansour, Jacob. 1985. The particle baqa in the Judaeo-Arabic dialect of Baghdad. Zeitschrift
für Arabische Linguistik 14. 62–75.
Mansour, Jacob. 2001. The particles ʾaš/ʾeš and ʾášu in the Jewish Arabic of Baghdad.
Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik 39. 84–89.
Masliyah, Sadok. 1997. The diminutive in spoken Iraqi Arabic. Zeitschrift für Arabische
Linguistik 33. 68–88.
Melcer, Ioram. 1995. The analytical genitive in the Jewish-Baghdadi Arabic dialect.
Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik 29. 59–76.
266 Stephan Procházka
Müller-Kessler, Christa. 2003. Aramaic ‘k’, lyk’ and Iraqi Arabic ‘aku, māku: the Mesopo-
tamian particles of existence. Journal of the American Oriental Society 123. 641–646.
Retsö, Jan. 1987. Copula and double pronominal objects in some Semitic Languages.
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 137. 229–236.
Retsö, Jan. 2004. Relative-clause marking in Arabic dialects: a preliminary survey. In Mar-
tine Haak, Rudolf de Jong & Kees Versteegh (eds.), Approaches to Arabic dialects:
a collection of articles presented to Manfred Woidich on the occasion of his sixtieth
birthday, 263–273. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Rubin, Aaron D. 2005. Studies in Semitic grammaticalization. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Salonen, Erkki. 1980. On the Arabic dialect spoken in Širqāṭ (Assur). Helsinki: Suoma-
lainen Tiedeakatemia.
Zemer, Hila. 2008. The copula in the Christian Arabic dialect of Baghdad – possible origins.
In Stephan Procházka & Veronika Ritt-Benmimoun (eds.), Between the Atlantic and
Indian Oceans: Studies on contemporary Arabic dialects. Proceedings of the 7th AIDA
Conference, 505–514. Vienna & Münster: LIT.
3.3. The Iranian languages of northern Iraq
Geoffrey Haig
1. Introduction
The Iranian languages currently spoken in northern Iraq can be assigned to three
main groups: Behdinī, the local name for the varieties of Northern Kurdish (or
Kurmanjî) spoken in Iraq; Sorani Kurdish (used here synonymously with Central
Kurdish), and Gorani.1 The latter subsumes Hawrāmī of the Halabja region,
together with a cluster of other dialects that go under various names. All three
groups are traditionally classified as belonging to the northwestern branch of
Iranian. The approximate locations of Northern and Central Kurdish are provided
in Fig. 1, while Gorani varieties are shown in Fig. 4 below.
Both Behdinī and Sorani are unanimously considered varieties of Kurdish,
while the nature of the relationship between Kurdish and Gorani remains a matter
of controversy. As will become apparent, at least in terms of morphology, the
various varieties of Gorani diverge from Sorani and Behdinī rather systematically,
implying a historically more distant relationship. From the perspective of compar-
ative Iranian philology, then, a distinction is justified. Culturally and in terms of
subjective identity perceptions among the speech communities, on the other hand,
there are reasons for including Gorani within a broader socio-cultural notion of
“Kurdish” (see Haig and Öpengin 2014 on the concept of “Kurdish”).
Among the three groups, the most important in terms of prestige, degree of
standardization, media representation, and number of speakers, is Sorani (Mac-
Kenzie 1961, 1962), spoken by around three million speakers in Iraq, with a further
three million in neighbouring regions of Iran, and further north to the shores of
Lake Urmi (also spelled Urmiye). The least-well documented languages are the
various varieties of Gorani. In particular, very little reliable information is availa-
ble on the fragmented groups of dialects spoken westward of the Hawrāmī region,
variously referred to as Kakaʼī, Šabak, Sarlī, or Bāĵaɫānī (see §5). The majority of
Sorani and Behdinī speakers are Sunnite Muslims, with the exception of the Ezidi
communities among the Behdinī speakers, while Gorani speakers are generally
affiliated with heterodox, or non-Islamic, religious beliefs.
1
There is little agreement with regard to the spelling conventions for language names,
and this overview makes no claims to consistency. Generally the form that is most wide-
ly-used in English publications has been chosen, avoiding diacritics and non-standard
characters, but in the case of lesser-known varieties, a form more closely representing
a transcription is chosen.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-009
268
Geoffrey Haig
Figure 1: Approximate locations of Northern and Central Kurdish varieties mentioned in this chapter
The Iranian languages of northern Iraq 269
This chapter gives a brief overview of the main structural features of each, together
with some comparative notes. Regrettably, since the pioneering work of MacKen-
zie on Kurdish dialects of Iraq, undertaken in the 1950ʼs, and Blauʼs study of
Behdinī (1975), very little research on the vernaculars has been undertaken, and
the coverage here is correspondingly uneven.
communities (see Khan, this volume, chapter 3.4), the region also hosts Northern
Kurdish-speaking Ezidī communities as well as a range of Yaresan-affiliated reli-
gious groups, and others exhibiting what Leezenberg (1994) refers to as “pre- and
non-islamic belief elements”. However, their histories remain shrouded in mystery,
as they “developed outside the major centers of the Islamic world” (Leezenberg
1994), and tend, through necessity, to maintain a low profile. The ravages of the
Islamic State, which effectively occupied the city of Mosul from 2014–2017, but
which had been persecuting non-orthodox religious groups for several years pre-
viously, has now largely obliterated much of the historical diversity of this region.
Sorani and Behd. are both widely spoken in their respective regions, are widely
used in broadcasting and internet media, are acquired by children as a first lan-
guage, and are represented in the education system of the Autonomous Kurdish
Region of Iraq, though to differing degrees. Of the two, Sorani has the highest
prestige, and the best-established written tradition (which uses a modified version
of the Arabic script). Behd., on the other hand, has a more troubled status: it is
the less prestigious variety of Kurdish in Iraq, thus ranges behind both Sorani
and Arabic in terms of overall status, nor does it profit from the emergent stand-
ardisation of Kurmanjî, which is based on a Roman-alphabet writing system and
propagates a standard form that differs quite significantly from Behd. (see Haig
and Mustafa, in press). The Gorani varieties, on the other hand, have virtually no
official status, and must be considered highly endangered.
Sorani, also known as Central Kurdish (CK) refers to a range of dialects spoken in
Iraq and the bordering regions of Iran (see Fig. 1 in Haig, this volume, chapter 2.3).
It has been quite extensively documented and analysed in grammatical descrip-
tions and dictionaries, and has a well-established written standard language, using
a modified version of the Arabic script, based on the dialect of the northern Iraqi
city of Sulemaniyya (see Hassanpour (1992: Ch.8) on the emergence of standard-
ized Sorani). A structural overview of Sorani, based on the Sulemaniyya dialect,
is provided in McCarus (2009), while Öpengin (2016) provides a comprehensive
linguistic analysis of the dialect of Mukri, spoken near the city of Mahabad in
West Iran. The most detailed treatment from the perspective of dialectal variation
remains MacKenzie (1961 and 1962), covering several Central Kurdish dialects
spoken in northern Iraq. This overview focusses on the spoken vernacular, rather
than the standard language, and draws primarily on MacKenzie (1961 and 1962),
McCarus (2009), and Öpengin (2016).
The Iranian languages of northern Iraq 271
3.1. Phonology
3.1.1. Consonants
According to MacKenzie (1961: 1), the Sulemaniyya dialect has 28 consonant
phonemes, shown in Table 1.
Sorani lacks the phonemic three-way stop distinction typical of Northern Kurdish
(voiceless aspirated / voiceless non-aspirated / voiced, see Haig, this volume,
chapter 2.3). Pharyngealized segments outside of the pharyngeal fricatives are not
included as phonemes here, although regularly realized in Arabic loans and in
varying degrees in the inherited lexicon. An important feature of Sulemaniyya
Kurdish is the so-called ‘Zagros dʼ. This refers to a general instability of /d/
when following a sonorant, except /r/. The result may be the lenition of /d/ to a
vocalic segment, or assimilation to a preceding sound, or loss: birīndar [bɾi:nna:ɾ]
‘woundedʼ; bad [baə] ‘badʼ. In other environments, /d/ is preserved: dast [dast]
‘handʼ, kird [kɨrd] ‘didʼ. It is noteworthy that the stem initial /d/ of one of the
most frequent verbs, dān ‘giveʼ, is regularly lenited, even when not preceded by a
sonorant. Presumably this is due to the fact that most inflected forms of this verb
involve a sonorant preceding the stem (e. g. a-y-da-m ind -3s.P-give.prs-1s [ɛ͡i.jɛm]
‘I give itʼ (MacKenzie 1961: 3), and the resulting lenition has generalized to all
forms of this verb. Dialectal variation in phonology affects mostly allophonic real-
ization rather than the underlying phonemic system. Of note is the realization of
/k, g/ as the affricates [ʧ, ʤ] respectively, and the fronting of the original affri-
cates to [tɕ, dʑ] (alveo-palatal affricates), notable in Bingird and Piždar dialects
(MacKenzie 1961: 24–25). In fact palatalization of /k, g/ before front vowels is
widespread across Sorani, and yields affricates in many of the dialects north of
Sulemaniyya (e. g. in Mukri, Öpengin 2016).
272 Geoffrey Haig
3.1.2. Vowels
According to McCarus (2009: 591), Sulemaniyya Central Kurdish has the nine
vowel phonemes provided in Fig. 2.
3.2. Morphosyntax
Although Central Kurdish is regularly considered a ‘dialectʼ of ‘Kurdishʼ, the dif-
ferences between Central and Northern Kurdish in the realm of morphology are
considerable, and heavily impede mutual intelligibility (Öpengin and Haig 2014;
Haig and Öpengin 2018). In contrast to Northern Kurdish, most of Central Kurdish
(i) lacks grammatical gender on nouns; (ii) lacks morphological exponence of
structural case; (iii) has a suffixed marker of definiteness -eke; (iv) has a dis-
tinct paradigm of clitic personal pronouns, not derivable from the free pronouns;
(v) has an affixal passive marker. In the Sulemaniyya dialect, the passive marker
attaches to the present stem of the verb, and then secondarily differentiates tense:
kuštin ‘killʼ (infinitive) > kuž- (present stem) > kuž-rē- (passive, present), kuž-rā-
(passive, past). The realization of passive morphology varies considerably across
Central Kurdish (MacKenzie 1961: 118–119).
From differences (i) and (ii), it follows that the Ezafe particle is undifferen-
tiated for gender; it is also undifferentiated for number. Structural case relations
(S, A, P, and possessive) are carried via word-order (basically SV, AOV, N-pos-
sessor within the NP), rules of agreement morphology that are sensitive to gram-
matical relations, and the clitic pronouns. Other case relations (local, non-core
arguments such as instruments or comitatives etc.) are expressed through a rich
inventory of pre- and circumpositions. As in most of West Iranian, verbs consti-
tute a small lexical class, which is primarily expanded through complex predi-
cate-formation (non-verbal element plus a light verb, for example kirdin ‘doʼ, dān
‘giveʼ, būn ‘be, becomeʼ, birin ‘takeʼ, kewtin ‘fallʼ, hātin ‘comeʼ). The non-verbal
element may be transparently related to a lexical item that occurs in other con-
texts (e. g. teslīm kirdin ‘surrender, hand overʼ, or it may be a particle of uncertain
word-class membership, as in hāɫ wāsīn ‘hang upʼ, with the particle hāɫ indicating
approximately ‘upwardʼ).
This definiteness suffix, with reflexes across Gorani and in Southern Kurdish, is
of considerable interest from a diachronic perspective. Cross-linguistically, defi-
niteness markers (often termed articles) are often the result of grammaticalization
of some earlier independent deictic element (typically a demonstrative, see e. g.
Skrzypek 2010). But for Sorani, no plausible candidate source element for such
a grammaticalization process is available. Rather, it appears the suffix goes back
to a derivational suffix, widely attested in the Western Middle Iranian languages
Middle Persian and Parthian; see Jahani (2015) and Haig (in press) for discus-
sion. It is nevertheless worth noting that the definiteness suffix is not equivalent
to, for example, the definite article in English: it is not used with unique refer-
ents, like the sun. Furthermore, it is not even consistently present on nouns that
have discourse-recoverable referents. The available original texts have numerous
examples of non-suffixed nouns occuring in contexts where one would expect a
definiteness suffix (for example ‘the letter’ in MacKenzie’s narrative text (1962:
10). I would therefore hesitate to refer to this marker as a ‘definite article’. This is
an area requiring much more research.
In combination with demonstratives, NPs take an additional stressed -é. When
demonstratives are used without complements, they too take the demonstrative
marker (the clitic/suffix distinction is not addressed here), as shown in Table 3.
As mentioned, Sorani also has an additional set of clitic personal pronouns. Section
3.2.4 below is dedicated to the morphosyntax of clitic pronouns.
The Iranian languages of northern Iraq 275
Each stem forms the base for a particular set of TAM and negation affixes, con-
stituting a number of distinct paradigms. Very roughly, those based on the past
stem are associated with past time reference, and to some extent with past irrealis
modality, while present stems form indicative present, future, and various kinds of
unrealized (or non-asserted) forms, typically in complement clauses governed by
verbs such as ‘hope’, ‘want’, ‘intend’ etc.
Predicates are obligatorily indexed for person and number of one argument.
Three distinct paradigms can be identified, shown in Table 5. Generally, the
indexed argument is the S or A, but with transitive verbs in the past tense, verbal
affixes may index the P (if it is not otherwise expressed in the clause), or under
specific conditions, an indirect participant, cf. §3.2.4, ex. (18), or may be simply
The Iranian languages of northern Iraq 277
default third person singular if the P is overtly present in the clause; at this point,
details of person marking vary considerably across and even within dialects, see
Öpengin (2016) for detailed discussion. The copular clitics attach to non-verbal
predicates in the present tenses, but are also used with certain verb forms, most
notably participles (see Table 7 below).
2
According to MacKenzie (1961: 90), the “euphonic” -t of the second and third person
singular is realized before vowel-initial clitics, or before a pause, but otherwise left
unrealized.
278 Geoffrey Haig
The form of the present indicative is an important isogloss within Central Kurdish,
with Sulemaniyya and Wārmāwa dialects having e-, but elsewhere de- (the former
is adopted for the standardized written language). The forms of the other TAM/
negation prefixes is fairly consistent across all dialects, and have obvious cognates
throughout most of West Iranian. All TAM/negation prefixes are potential hosts for
pronominal clitics, and may thus be separated from the verb stem:3
(8) e=mān=ewē bi-řō-yn
ind =1 pl =be.desirable.prs .3 sg subj -go.prs -1 pl
‘We want to goʼ (McCarus 2009: 620)
(9) bi=y=gir-in
subj =3 sg =hold.prs -2 pl
‘Hold it!ʼ (MacKenzie 1961: 93)
Indicative forms do not distinguish progressive/immediate from habitual senses.
Unlike Northern Kurdish, Sorani lacks a dedicated future marker, with the present
tense used in future contexts, when a reasonable degree of certainty of fulfillment
is implied. The subjunctive verb forms are used for dependent clauses, particularly
following predicates of desire (as in (8) above), ability, and obligation, and more
generally in independent clauses to express events that are not asserted, but are
portrayed as possible, hypothetical, or desired. These may be introduced by modal
particles such as bā ‘letʼsʼ, or an expression such as ḥāyfe ‘itʼs a pityʼ:
(10) bā mināl=ī tō bi-bīn-im
mod child=ez 2 sg subj -see.prs -1 sg
‘Let me see your childrenʼ (MacKenzie 1961: 106)
(11) hāyf=e bi=y=kuž-īn
pity=cop .3 sg subj =3 sg =kill.prs -1 pl
‘Itʼs a pity that we should kill itʼ (MacKenzie 1961: 77)
3
The ability of TAM and negation prefixes (or perhaps proclitics) to host pronominal
clitics is an important isogloss distinguishing Central Kurdish from Southern Kurdish
and Gorani; in the latter, these prefixes are not possible hosts for pronominal clitics.
The Iranian languages of northern Iraq 279
Table 7: TAM forms based on the past stem, illustrated with the verb hātin ‘come’
I ndicative N on -I ndicative
S imple P st . I mpf . P erf . P luperf . C onditional P erf . S ubj .
1 sg hāt-im e-hāt-im hāt-uw-im hāt-i-bū-m bi-hāt-im-āye hāt-i-bim
2 sg hāt-ī(t) e-hāt-ī(t) hāt-uw-ī(t) hāt-i-bū-ī(t) bi-hāt-ī(t)-āye hāt-i-bī(t)
3 sg hāt e-hāt hāt-uw-a hāt-i-bū bi-hāt-āye hāt-i-bē(t)
1 pl hāt-īn e-hāt-īn hāt-uw-īn hāt-i-bū-īn bi-hāt-īn-āye hāt-i-bīn
2/3 pl hāt-in e-hāt-in hāt-uw-in hāt-i-bū-in bi-hāt-in-āye hāt-i-bin
280 Geoffrey Haig
The uses of the different TAM forms conform approximately to the expectations
conveyed by the traditional labels, but see MacKenzie (1961: 133–140) for more
details.
sg =(i)m =(i)t =ī / =y
pl =mān =tān =yān
The Iranian languages of northern Iraq 281
A
Pronominal possessor, where they attach to the possessed NP:
birā-k-ān=im brother-def - pl -1 sg ‘my brothers’ (MacKenzie 1962: 6)
B
Pronominal complement of adpositions:
legeɫ=tān with=2 pl ‘with you(pl )’ (MacKenzie 1962: 10)
C
Direct object of a verb in the present tense:
attaches to the right edge of the first available stress-bearing constituent of the VP
(often a TAM or negation prefix on the verb, e. g. (11) above):
(15) be kuř-e pāšā=y nā-de-yn
to son-ez king=3 sg neg -give . prs -1 pl
‘We are not giving her to the Pashaʼs sonʼ (MacKenzie 1962: 12)
D
The A of a past-tense transitive verb:
attaches to the first stress-bearing constituent of the VP. Three possible hosts,
including the verb itself, are illustrated in (16a–c):
(16) a. min seg-eke=m ne-kušt
1 sg dog-def =1 sg neg -kill.pst (3 sg )
‘I didn’t kill the dog’
b. min ne=m=kušt
1 sg neg =1 sg =kill.pst (3 sg )
‘I didn’t kill (it)’
c. min kušt=im
1 sg kill.pst (3 sg )=1 sg
‘I killed (it)’ (Haig 2017)
If a direct object is fronted to the left of a subject, e. g. for pragmatic purposes, it
cannot host the A-clitic. Because the subject itself is by definition outside of the
VP, in a clause where the object precedes the subject, neither can host the clitic,
which would then typically go to the verb, as in the following:
282 Geoffrey Haig
E
The Indirect Participant (the human, non-affected, non-agentive, non-core argu-
ment of a transitive or intransitive clause, typically a recipient, a benefactive, a
‘wanterʼ, or an external possessor):
If not linked to an adposition, or blocked by another argument-indexing clitic (see
§3.2.4.1), clitic placement is similar to the rule above (first stress-bearing constit-
uent of the VP) but may include subjects:
(18) a. řāw=im bi-der-ewe
quarry=1 sg subj -give.prs .2 sg = asp
‘Give me back my quarryʼ (MacKenzie 1962: 8)
b. min žin=im nā-wē
1 sg woman=1 sg neg -be.desirable.prs .3 sg
‘I don’t want a wife’ (MacKenzie 1962: 6)
c. heyās ū ḥesen memend=im be hīč le des
Heyas and Hasan Mamand=1 sg for nothing from hand
der-čū-n
prv -go.pst -3 pl
‘Heyas and Hasan Mamand have been lost to me for nothingʼ
(MacKenzie 1962: 36)
It needs to be noted that the so-called clitic pronouns are not merely the reduced
form of the corresponding free pronouns (see Table 4). In fact, only in functions
A–C above can they be substituted by the corresponding form of the free pro-
nouns. In function D, they are agreement markers, rather than pronouns, so the
label is actually misleading in these contexts, though I will continue to use it as a
cover term for members of the paradigm.
4
The constraint on clitic stacking concerns clitics indexing (or bearing) a verbal argu-
ment; in the context of this rule, Indirect Participants act like verbal arguments. How-
ever, an argument indexing clitic can attach to a possessor-indexing clitic. There is also
a general constraint against the repetition of phonetically identical pronominal clitics.
284 Geoffrey Haig
Not all adpositional phrases partake in this kind of construction; it is most wide-
ly-used with those adpositions governing what we have loosely termed an Indirect
Participant, typically a benefactive, recipient, or external possessor.
If the adpositional complement is third person singular, the appropriate verbal
agreement affix in the past tense is zero, so no overt indexing of the Indirect Partic-
ipant occurs, except indirectly, through the absolute form of the preposition itself:
(21) kič […] dergā=y lē kird=uwe
girl door=3 sg .A for.abs do.pst - prf (3 sg )
‘The girl(A) […] opened the door for himʼ (MacKenzie 1962: 30)
The prepositions bō ‘for’ and ɫegel ‘with’ differ from those just discussed in that
they allow the leftward displacement of a pronominal complement, but lack a cor-
responding absolute form:
(22) mesʼele=y eḥme-y _bēɣān=im bō b-ēn-ē
story-ez Ahmed=ez _carefree=1 sg for subj -bring.prs -3 sg
‘(That he may) bring the story of Ahmed the Carefree for meʼ (MacKenzie
1962: 56)
In Bingird and Piždar, non-restrictive relative clauses are introduced by her ke. In
these dialects, the particle agar is used in a variety of clause types as a comple-
mentizer:
(24) de-zān-ē agar kuř=ī N. nī=ye
ind -know.prs -3 sg compl son=ez (proper name) neg =cop .3 sg
‘(when he read it) he knows he is not the son of N.ʼ (Bingird dialect,
MacKenzie 1962: 132)
3.2.6. Alignment
As in many West Iranian languages, in Sorani the morphosyntax associated with
past transitive verbs is distinct from that of other clause types in the language. This
has often been referred to generally as “ergativity”, though it is not particularly
meaningful to characterize an entire language in these terms, particularly Sorani;
see Dabir Moghaddam (2012) for extensive discussion. In what follows, I will
present the main outline of the system, without committing to any particular clas-
sification of the language as a whole.
There is no morphological case in Sorani, so the entire alignment discussion
centres on patterns of agreement (or more neutrally, on indexing). The general
pattern in Sorani is the obligatory indexing of S or A. In all environments except
past transitive clauses, the person indexing is via one of the verbal suffixes shown in
Table 6. In past transitives, however, the A is obligatorily indexed through the appro-
priate pronominal clitics provided in Table 8. In this function, the clitic is best con-
sidered an agreement marker, rather than any kind of pronoun (see Samvelian 2007;
Haig 2008; Öpengin 2016). One argument in favour of this analysis is the presence
of the clitic in constellations where a pronoun would not normally be expected, for
example in sequences of same-subject clauses such as the following (glosses simpli-
fied), where a pronoun would normally be omitted in the second and third conjuncts:
(25) a. Kuř beyānī zū heɫstā
boy morning early rise.pst (3 sg )
b. čūe lāy pāšā wut=ī
went side.of king say.pst (3 sg )=3 s .A
‘The boy rose early in the morning, went to the king, and saidʼ
(MacKenzie 1962: 56)
(26) šew pel=ī kuř=yān girt kird=yān=e
evening arm=ez boy=3 pl .A take.pst do.pst =3 pl .A= drct
perde=we
curtain=asp
‘In the evening they took the boy by the arm and put him behind the
curtainʼ (MacKenzie 1962: 520)
286 Geoffrey Haig
Perhaps even more telling is the presence of the A-clitic in subject relativization,
where we would normally not expect any pronoun, as in the example mentioned
above: selāḥedīn, ke dinye=y girt ‘Saladin, who conquered the worldʼ. Unlike
free pronouns, which are preferably dropped in such contexts (even in a pro-
noun-happy language like English), the clitic pronouns indexing a past-tense A
cannot be omitted, but are required in all past tense transitive clauses. The other
objection to considering them pronouns is that they occur in the presence of a
coreferent subject NP. In short, the clitic pronouns in past-A functions are evi-
dently better analysed as agreement markers, and most contemporary scholarship
converges on this point.
The rules determining placement of the clitics have been discussed in §3.2.4.1
above. With regard to the verbal agreement affixes, with past tense transitive
clauses they may index an object that is otherwise not present in the clause; oth-
erwise the verb carries default third person agreement (zero). Alternatively, the
agreement suffix may be co-opted to index an indirect participant; see (20) above.
The varieties of Northern Kurdish (NK) spoken in northern Iraq are referred to
by their speakers as Behdinī. According to the classification of Öpengin and Haig
(2014), Behdinī is part of the “Southeast” dialect group within Northern Kurdish,
a group that spills over into neighbouring regions of Turkey such as Hakkari, and
eastern Syria. Behdinī shares most of its morphosyntax with the better-known
Northern Kurdish dialects of Turkey, and much of the description of NK found in
Haig (this volume, chapter 2.3) also applies to Behdinī. In order to avoid repetition,
this section focuses on those aspects of Behdinī that distinguish it from the rest of
NK. My account draws largely on MacKenzie (1962) and Blau (1975), supple-
mented with information from a native speaker of Dohuk, currently living in Zakho.
4.1. Phonology
4.1.1. Consonants
Table 9: The consonant phonemes of Behdinī
bilab. lab.- dent. alv. post- pal. vel. uvul. pharyn. glot.
dent. alv.
Plos. ph p b th t ṭ d kh k g q ʔ
Fric. vf sz ṣẓ ʃʒ xɣ ʁ ħʕ 5
h
Affr. ʧ ʧʤ
h
Nas. m n ŋ
Trill r
Flap ɾ
Approx. w j
Lateral l (dialectally also ɫ)
5
As pointed out by Christiane Bulut (p.c.), in Kurdish as well as other languages of the
region, these segments can be considered to be glottal stops produced with a retracted
tongue root, rather than fricatives.
288 Geoffrey Haig
As discussed in Haig (this volume, chapter 2.3) the most notable feature of the
Northern Kurdish consonants is the presence of an aspirated vs. non-aspirated
distinction on the voiceless stops and affricates. However, MacKenzie (1961: 30)
notes that the Akre dialect of Behd., and the varieties spoken by the surround-
ing Zēbārī tribal confederation, lack this additional series, bringing their systems
closer to that of Sorani. MacKenzie does, however, include the pharyngeals /ṭ ṣ
ẓ/ in the consonant system of Behd., stating that they are identical in quality with
the corresponding sounds of Arabic. They are retained in words of Arabic origin,
such as ṣebr ‘patience’, or ṭeyr ‘bird’, but also occur in the native vocabulary of
Behd., e. g. ṣār ‘coldʼ, ṭārī ‘dark(ness)ʼ, where they trigger backing of the follow-
ing vowel (MacKenzie 1961: 36). Minimal pairs, or near-minimal pairs, demon-
strating the phonemic status of the pharyngeals include include tā ‘feverʼ vs. ṭā
‘branchʼ, or bez ‘suetʼ vs. peẓ ‘sheepʼ (MacKenzie 1961: 35–36). Blau (1975: 28)
does not include the pharyngeals in her analysis of the Sinjarī dialect. In general,
the phonemic status of the pharyngeal consonants in Northern Kurdish remains
a matter of debate, and although they are undoubtedly perceptually salient and
constitute a feature of native pronunciation of the language, the functional load of
pharyngeals remains limited in any variety of Northern Kurdish.
In more westerly varieties of NK, an inherited sequence [xw] is retained, or
rendered as a labialized fricative[xʷ], while in Behd. it is generally reduced to a
velar fricative [x] (Haig and Öpengin 2018).
Behd. Standard Kurm. Gloss
xārin xwārin ‘to eat’
xāndin xwāndin ‘to read, studyʼ
xo xwe ‘self’
xē xwē ‘salt’
4.1.2. Vowels
The analysis of the Behd. vowel system is hampered by differences in the tran-
scription conventions across different sources, and in standardized NK orthogra-
phy. This presentation aims for a compromise solution between the widely-used
orthography of NK, and the transcription of MacKenzie (1961, 1962). Table 10
gives an overview of the main differences, and establishes the symbols used in
this description:
The Iranian languages of northern Iraq 289
All varieties of Behd. exhibit basically the same eight-vowel system that charac-
terizes Northern Kurdish generally (see Haig, this volume, chapter 2.3). MacKen-
zie (1961: 33) assumes the system for the Akre dialect shown in Fig. 3.
Vowel length is not by itself distinctive, though [i, y, u, e, ɑ] are generally pro-
nounced longer and tenser than other vowels, particularly in open syllables. The
main difference between Behd. and the rest of NK involve a set of changes, called
here the Behd. Vowel Shift, and originally outlined in Blau (1975: 33). The changes
affect the tense back rounded vowels:
1. The closed back rounded [uː] is fronted to [yː], and in many dialects, deroun-
ded to [iː], thus merging with inherited [iː]. For example, the standard Kurdish
minimal pair [ʃuːr] ‘swordʼ vs. [ʃiːr] ‘milkʼ are both realized as [ʃiːr] in Dohuk
and Zakho.
2. The close-mid back vowel [oː] raises towards [u]. Thus standard Kurmanjî
[mɨroːv] ‘personʼ is [mɨruv], and [goːt] is [gut] ‘saidʼ in Zakho. This latter
process is also noted for Šemzinan Kurmanjî (Haig and Öpengin 2018), but it
does not apply as regularly as the first one.
290 Geoffrey Haig
The full change [uː → iː] appears to be relatively recent. MacKenzie (1961), based
on fieldwork from the 1950ʼs, noted the fronting of [uː→ y] for Akre, and assumed
[yː] to be the norm, but does not mention systematic derounding. He notes (1961:
40) that some speakers of Amediye and Zakho occasionally “confuseˮ [yː] with
unrounded [iː], implying that derounding was at best sporadically attested at that
time. Similarly, Blau (1975) based on fieldwork from the late 1960ʼs, notes only
fronting of [uː] for Amediye, but not derounding. More recently, Haig and Mustafa
(2016) note the systematic shift of original [uː] to [iː] for most of the region sur-
rounding Dohuk. It also occurs in loanwords such as [siːk] ‘marketʼ from Arabic
suq. Zakho has apparently gone further than most other dialects in that deround-
ing also applies to the third person singular past of ‘beʼ, which is [buː] in Stand-
ard Kurdish, but in Zakho [biː]. However, in no dialect is the past tense of ‘goʼ
affected, which generally contains [uː]. This is presumably because the [uː] here is
a secondary development from [oː].
Haig and Mustafa (2016) also oberve that the Ezidi speakers of the town of
Šarya east of Dohuk retain [uː] (e. g. [buːk], as opposed to [biːk] ‘brideʼ of the
Sunnite speakers of Dohuk). This ties in in with Blauʼs (1975) findings on the
Ezidi speakers of Sinjar region, which likewise retain inherited [uː]. In the speech
of an elderly male Ezidi speaker from Ba’adra, a predominantly Ezidi-inhabited
township some 40km. from Dohuk, we also find no evidence of [iː] (e. g. the form
for ‘everyone’ is [hæmuː], rather than Dohuk [hæmiː]). Thus while the Behd.
vowel shift is still only poorly understood, it seems possible that it is utilized as a
marker of religious boundaries; it certainly belongs to the kind of phonetic vari-
ants which Meyerhoff (2011: 26) labels as stereotypes, i. e. those that speakers are
aware of, and can meta-linguistically comment on, hence are good candidates for
markers of identity. However, the absence of the Behd. Vowel Shift among Ezidi
speakers may also reflect distinct origins of the groups concerned; this remains to
be investigated.
Other differences from the dialects of Turkey include the lowering of [æ] towards
[a], e. g. [bas] ‘enoughʼ, and the backing of [a] to [ɑ] as in [bɾɑː] ‘brotherʼ.
The Iranian languages of northern Iraq 291
4.2. Morphosyntax
Most of the features that set Behd. apart from other dialects of Northern Kurdish
concern aspects of the predicate. Nominal morphology, on the other hand, is very
close to Standard, or Botan, Kurmanjî. In the interest of brevity only those points
are discussed where Behd. differs from the rest of Northern Kurdish (Haig, this
volume, chapter 2.3). Some of the points mentioned are illustrated in the short text
excerpt provided in §4.3 below.
6
Geoffrey Khan (p.c.) points out that in NENA dialects in the Behdini area a –ni or –in
augment is often added to verbal endings (of all persons) in pause, e. g. garəš ‘he pulls’
> garəšni (pause), garšet ‘you (ms.) pull) > garšetin (pause). There is no clear Semitic
etymology for this. There may be a link here, but the Behd. -in is restricted to third
persons only.
The Iranian languages of northern Iraq 293
7
In Dohuk, to express ‘hear’ a different construction is used, involving a complex pred-
icate consisting of gūlē combined with the light verb būn. In the present tense, the
subject is treated canonically (i. e. is in the direct case). Thus ‘I (female) hear the sound
of the children’ is: ez a dengē pičīkā gūlē dibim (Baydaa Mustafa, p.c.). Remarkably, in
the past tense the subject goes into the oblique case, indicating that this expression is
treated as overall transitive, despite the intransitive light verb būn ‘be’.
294 Geoffrey Haig
(36) min=ē gū lē
1 sg . obl = ez . m . s ear at.it
‘I hear itʼ (spoken by a male speaker, hence the masc. sg. form of the
Ezafe, MacKenzie (1961: 206), dialect of Akre)
8
The verb is helān ‘leaveʼ, which in other dialects has the infinitive hištin. Note the reg-
ular number agreement withe the object, typical of the canonical ergative construction
in Behd.
The Iranian languages of northern Iraq 295
5.1. Overview
Following Mahmoudveysi et al. (2012), I use Gorani (spelled Gūranī in Bailey
2016, and Gurāni in McKenzie 2002) as a cover term for a group of West Iranian
languages, with a probable historical epicentre in the mountainous Hawromān
region of western Iran. The best-described, and morphologically most complex,
variety of Gorani is Hawrāmī, which has a reasonably well-established written
standard, based on the variety of Pāve in Iran. The historical forerunners of Gorani
spilled westward from their mountainous origins into todayʼs Iraq, and are cur-
rently still spoken by a geographically scattered and socio-culturally diverse group
of speech communities, beginning in the Iraq-Iran border region between Halabja
and Xanaqīn, and extending northwest towards Mosul. According to MacKenzie
(2002), the original speech zone of Gorani in this region was much larger, and
todayʼs scattered Gorani islands thus represent the remnants of what must have
been a more extensive contiguous region.
The most reliable and accessible description of any variety of Hawrāmī remains
MacKenzie (1966). Recently, documentation and analysis of local varieties of
Gorani spoken in Iran have been published as part of language documentation pro-
jects (Mahmoudveysi et al. 2012; Mahmoudveysi and Bailey 2013; Bailey 2016).
The varieties of Gorani spoken in Iraq, on the other hand, remain very poorly doc-
umented. Bailey (2016) summarizes much of the existing scholarship on Gorani,
and this section largely adopts her conventions. Bailey identifies the following
varieties as belonging to Gorani (see the map in Fig. 4 for locations).
296 Geoffrey Haig
Hawrāmī
As mentioned, this is the name given to those varieties spoken in the mountainous
Hawrāmān (Awromān) regions of western Iran and eastern Iraq. It is commonly
differentiated into Hawrāmān-i Taxt, the varieties of the high mountain regions,
and Hawrāmān-i Luhon, the region of valleys. Varieties of Hawrāmī are spoken
in Iraq in and around the city of Halabja, close to the Iranian border. They are not
treated in this chapter; see Mahmoudveysi and Bailey, this volume, chapter 4.5.
Kandūlayī
Kandūlayī refers to the variety of Gorani spoken in a complex of three villages
some 50 km. north of Kermānšāh (see Fig. 4). This variety is close to to Hawrāmī
of Pave.
Zardayāna
The variety spoken in the village of Zarda, spoken in a village about 100 km. north
of Sar Pol-e Zahāb in Iran. It is documented in Mahmoudveysi and Bailey (2013).
Gawřaĵūyī
The variety spoken only in the village of Gawřaĵu, located about 10 km. west of
the township of Gahvāre in West Iran. It has been described in Mahmoudveysi et
al. (2012), and Bailey (2016). The dialect of Gawřaĵu is relatively isolated from
the rest of Gorani, and has been heavily influenced by surrounding varieties of
Southern Kurdish. This may explain why it has lost many of the identifying fea-
tures of Gorani (see below).
Bāĵaɫānī
This is a term loosely identified with the speech of the Bāĵaɫān tribes, spoken
in several locations just east of Mosul, but also villages near Xanaqīn and Koy
Sanjak to the southeast near the Iranian border. The Bāĵaɫān are sometimes sub-
sumed under the Šabak (see below), but I follow Bailey (2016), basically adhering
to MacKenzie (1956), in maintaining a difference between the two groups, which
seems to be more in line with their self-perceptions. Along with the language (here
considered a variety of Gorani), the Bāĵaɫān are known for their religious hetero-
doxy.
Šabakī
The speakers are socially and linguistically closely aligned with the Bāĵaɫān, and
are originally located east of Mosul on the Nineveh plains. The claim that Šabakī
is a mixture of Turkish, Arabic and Kurdish is not substantiated by the available
data, which suggest that it is a variety of Gorani, very close to Bāĵaɫānī (Bailey
2016: 643).
The Iranian languages of northern Iraq 297
Kākayī
The name Kākayī is generally applied to groups belonging to the Yaresan or Ahl-e
Haqq religious community, around the towns of Tōpzāwa near Kirkūk, Xānaqīn
and Arbil (Bailey 2016: 644). The language is often referred to with the term Mačo
(3sg present of the verb ‘sayʼ).
Ř (Řōžbayānī) Ř1: Furqān; Ř2: Čamčamāł; Ř3: Arbīl; Ř4: Kirkūk and Laylān (near
Kirkūk)
Šb (Šabak) Šabak villages near Al-Mawṣil
ŠrB (Šaraf Bayānī) villages around Bamō
Šx (Part of Šēxānī) Šx1: villages near Qādir Karam: Qašqa, Wēła, Šawak, etc.; Šx2: Kānī
Māz, Taqtaq, Sē Girdkān, Qāmīš, (Kōya (Koy Sanǰaq), Dukān)
Z (Zangana) Z1: Qādir Karam; Z2: Bakragařa, Sipasar and many more (in Xānaqīn,
Kalār, Kifrī (between Kalār and Ṭūz Xurmātū), Arbīl and surrounding area and in the sur-
roundings of Al-Mawṣil); Z3: Ṭūz Xurmātū
A number of points of interest emerge from this comparison. First, the syncre-
tism of first and second singular forms in all varieties of Gorani outside of Hawr.
Second, the phonological shape of the person markers in Gorani, which are both
relatively internally consistent, and exhibit obvious differences to the correspond-
ing paradigms from Sorani.
Table 13 below provides a summary of ten morphological features common to
most of Gorani, but lacking in Kurdish. The features are selected from the extensive
comparative tables provided in Bailey (2016: 648–668), and include only those
features that (i) are present in at least three of the varieties identified as Gorani;
and (ii) are lacking in Northern, Central and Southern Kurdish. Thus features such
as the clitic =ewe ‘back, againʼ, which is characteristic of all Iranian languages of
Iraq (and has even spread to non-Iranian languages), are not included. Likewise, a
feature such as a first person plural pronominal clitic with the form =mā(n), with
cognates throughout much of West Iranian, are of little value in distinguishing
Gorani from Kurdish, and are hence not included.
Table 13 is far from exhaustive, and should only be considered as a tenta-
tive and partial set of candidates for morphological innovations that set Gorani
apart from its Kurdish relatives. Not all features are of equal significance. The
presence of a feature such as the -g(i)n- present stem of ‘fallʼ in both Hawrāmi,
and geographically quite distant Bāĵaɫānī, is highly significant; such a feature is
hardly likely to have been independently borrowed, nor does it seem likely that
all intervening languages had this feature, and then dropped it. It would therefore
be more likely to consider it an inheritance from a presumed common ancestor
of these two languages, i. e. some (branch of) proto-Gorani. It will be noted that
Gawřaĵūyī (abbreviated Gawr.) differs from the rest of Gorani on several counts,
mostly exhibiting the corresponding forms from Southern Kurdish. This con-
firms the overall impression that Gawr. is the most heavily Kurdicized variety of
Gorani yet documented. A question mark indicates lack of relevant data; I have
300 Geoffrey Haig
Table 13: Lexical and morphological features of Gorani not attested in Kurdish
Gawr. Haw. Kand. Zard. Kāk. Baj./Šab.
At least one demonstrative – + – + ? +
pronoun stem contains -ēd-
(Bailey 2016: 651, 654)
Reflexive pronoun stem w- (Bailey – (ištān) + + + + hē
2016: 655)9 (<*wē?,
cf. hūn
‘bloodʼ)
3sg present indic. verbal suffix rare + + + + +
with a back rounded vowel (Bailey
2016: 657)
2pl imperative contains a -d- – + + + ? –
(Bailey 2016: 659)
unstressed present indicative + + + + + +
prefix m+unrounded, central/
open, vowel (e. g. m(ɨ)- (Haw.,
MacKenzie 1966: 32), or ma- else-
where (Bailey 2016: 656).10
9
According to Sara Belelli (p.c. 17. 09. 2016), a reflexive pronoun wiž (possible vari-
ant viž) is present in most ‘Laki-Kermānshāhi’ varieties (e. g. Bisotun, Chehr, Harsin,
Pāyravand: see Fattah, 2000: 291 and Belelli, 2016: 65–66). Depending on how one
defines “Southern Kurdish”, this feature may not qualify. It is also attested in varieties
of Lekī.
10
One might conjecture on possible influence of the Persian mī- prefix here. Two facts
militate against this assumption: (i) the considerable differences in vowel quality and
stress patterns (evident in the assimilation of the prefix vowel to stem-initial vowels in
Gorani); (ii) the histories of the speech communities: in order for bound verbal mor-
phology to be affected in this way, there would have to have been prolonged heavy
contact and bilingualism with Persian across the entirety of Gorani. This seems unlikely
given the locations and history of the Gorani speech communities. Sara Belelli (p.c.
17. 09. 2016) notes the presence of m(a)- (normally accompanied by a clitic =a attach-
ing to the element immediately preceding the verbal form) in most ‘Laki-Kermānshāhi’
dialects (e. g. Bisotun, Chehr, Harsin, Pāyravand). This morpheme is also typical of
Laki dialects (see, for instance, Lazard, 1992: 218); see Fattah (2000: 371–372), Belelli
(2016: 99–100). Thus the reservations that apply to the reflexive feature also apply
here.
The Iranian languages of northern Iraq 301
Obviously we are still far short of a true comparative study of Gorani and Kurdish,
but these few facts should suffice to demonstrate that despite the scattered and iso-
lated nature of the Gorani speech communities in northern Iraq, they have retained
a core of common morphological and lexical features that distinguish them from
the Kurdish spoken by the surrounding speech communities.
11
Along with a copula in =ān, Gawr. also has a 3sg copula -ē, which is actually attested
much more frequently than =ān (261 tokens of =ēn versus 15 tokens of =ān in Bailey’s
Gawr. corpus, Denise Bailey p.c.). This could be interpreted as further indication of the
heavy Kurdification of Gawr.
302 Geoffrey Haig
Abbreviations
References
Blau, Joyce. 1975. Le Kurde de ’Amādiya et de Djabal Sindjār: Analyse Linguistique, Tex-
tes Folkloriques, Glossaires. Paris: Klincksieck.
Fattah, Ismaïl Kamandâ. 2000. Les dialectes kurdes méridionaux. Étude linguistique et di-
alectologique. Leuven: Peeters.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2006. Turkish influence on Kurmanji: Evidence from the Tunceli dialect. In
Lars Johanson & Christiane Bulut (eds.), Turkic-Iranian contact areas: Historical and
linguistic aspects, 283–299. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2008. Alignment change in Iranian languages: A Construction Grammar
approach. Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2011. Linker, Relativizer, Nominalizer, Tense-Particle: On the Ezafe in
West Iranian. In Foong Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominaliza-
tion in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives, vol. 1, Sino-Tibetan
and Iranian Languages, 363–392. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2017. Western Asia: East Anatolia as a transition zone. In Raymond Hickey
(ed.), The Cambridge handbook of areal linguistics, 396–423. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Haig, Geoffrey. In press. Debonding of inflectional morphology in Kurdish and beyond. In
Songül Gündoğdu, Ergin Öpengin, Geoffrey Haig & Erik Anonby (eds.), Current issues
in Kurdish linguistics. Bamberg: Bamberg University Press.
Haig, Geoffrey & Baydaa Mustafa. In press. Language choice and patterns of usage among
Kurdish speakers of Dohuk: An empirical intergenerational study. In Songül Gündoğdu,
Ergin Öpengin, Geoffrey Haig & Erik Anonby (eds.), Current issues in Kurdish linguis-
tics. Bamberg: Bamberg University Press.
Haig, Geoffrey & Ergin Öpengin. 2014. Kurdish: A critical research overview. Kurdish
Studies 3. 99–122.
Haig, Geoffrey & Ergin Öpengin. 2018. Kurdish in Turkey: Structure, variety, and status. In
Christiane Bulut (ed.), Linguistic minorities in Turkey and Turkic speaking minorities
of the peripheries, 157-230. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Hassanpour, Amir. 1992. Nationalism and language in Kurdistan 1918–1985. San Fran-
cisco: Mellen Research University Press.
Jahani, Carina. 2015. On the definite marker in Modern Spoken Persian. Paper held at the
Sixth International Conference on Iranian Linguistics (ICIL6), Ilia State University,
G. Tsereteli Institute of Oriental Studies, Tbilisi / Georgia, 23–26 June, 2015.
Lazard, Gilbert. 1992. Le dialecte laki dʼAleshtar (kurde méridional). Studia Iranica 21.
215–245.
Leezenberg, Michael. 1994. The Shabak and the Kakais: Dynamics of ethnicity in Iraqi
Kurdistan. ILLLC Technical Reports Series X. Amsterdam: Institute for Language,
Logic, Language, and Computation.
MacKenzie, David. 1956. Bāĵalānī. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
18(3). 418–435.
MacKenzie, David. 1961. Kurdish dialect studies I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacKenzie, David. 1962. Kurdish dialect studies II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacKenzie, David. 1966. The dialect of Awroman (Hawrāmān-ī Luhōn). Grammatical
sketch, texts, and vocabulary. København: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Sel-
skab.
MacKenzie, David. 2002. Gurāni. Encyclopædia Iranica 6.4, 401–403. New York: Center
for Iranian Studies, Columbia University. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/gurani
(accessed 28 August 2016).
304 Geoffrey Haig
Mahmoudveysi, Parvin, Denise Bailey, Ludwig Paul & Geoffrey Haig. 2012. The Gorani
Language of Gawraĵū, a village of West Iran. Texts, grammar and lexicon. Wiesbaden:
Reichert.
Mahmoudveysi, Parvin & Denise Bailey. 2013. The Gorani Language of Zarda, a village of
West Iran. Texts, grammar and lexicon. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
McCarus, Ernest N. 2009. Kurdish. In Gernot Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian Languages, 587–
633. London & New York: Routledge.
McDowall, David. 2004. A modern history of the Kurds, 3rd edn. London: Tauris.
Öpengin, Ergin. 2016. The Mukri variety of Central Kurdish. Grammar and Texts. Wies-
baden: Reichert.
Öpengin, Ergin. In press. Accounting for the combination of clitic and affix person mark-
ers in Central Kurdish. In Songül Gündoğdu, Ergin Öpengin, Geoffrey Haig & Erik
Anonby (eds.), Current issues in Kurdish linguistics. Bamberg: Bamberg University
Press.
Öpengin, Ergin & Geoffrey Haig. 2014. Regional variation in Kurmanjî: A preliminary
classification of dialects. Kurdish Studies 3. 143–176.
Samvelian, Pollet. 2007. A lexical account of Sorani Kurdish prepositions. In Stefan Muller
(ed.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Struc-
ture Grammar, 235–249. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Skrzypek, Dominika. 2010. Between a demonstrative and an article. The status of -in in Old
Swedish. Folia Scandinavica 11. 145–162.
Unger, Christoph. 2014. Badini Kurdish modal particles dê and da: Procedural semantics
and language variation. Kurdish studies 3. 177–200.
3.4. The Neo-Aramaic dialects of northern Iraq
Geoffrey Khan
1. Genetic affiliation
1
The term was coined by Hobermann (1988: 557).
2
For Christian dialects see Krotkoff (1985) and Khan (2002a: 515, 2017: 262), and for
Jewish dialects Sabar (2002: 12).
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-010
306 Geoffrey Khan
Within Jewish NENA dialects of Iraq two main subgroups are clearly identifi-
able: (1) the so-called lišana deni subgroup, which was spoken in the northwest of
Iraq mainly in Dohuk province in locations to the west of the Great Zab river, such
as Zakho, Dohuk, Amedia, Betanure, and Nerwa. (2) Dialects spoken in locations
east of the Great Zab river in the Arbīl and Sulemaniyya provinces, e. g. Rustaqa,
Ruwanduz, Koy Sanjak, villages of the plain of Arbel (Irbīl),3 the village of Dobe
which is on the western bank of the Great Zab, Ḥalabja and Sulemaniyya to the
east, and as far south as Khanaqin on the Iranian border. This subgroup is generally
referred to as trans-Zab (following Mutzafi 2008b). In addition, there was a small
cluster of dialects in the region of Barzan, located in Iraq between these two areas,
which exhibit a linguistic profile that is transitional between the two main sub-
groups (Mutzafi 2002, 2004b). The Jewish trans-Zab subgroup continues across
the border into Iran (see Khan, this volume, chapters 2.5 and 4.4).
The divisions among the Christian NENA dialects of Iraq on structural and
lexical grounds are not so clear-cut. One may, nevertheless, identify subgroups of
dialects with distinctive features. These include the following: (1) the dialects of
the Mosul plain in Nineveh province (e. g. Qaraqosh, Alqosh, Telkepe, Barətla), (2)
the dialects in the far north close to the Turkish border in Dohuk province mainly
west of the Zab (e. g. Aradhin, Barwar [= Barwari Bala], Nerwa, Derigne) and (3)
the dialects east of the Zab in Arbīl and Sulemaniyya provinces (e. g. Ankawa,
Shaqlawa, Bədyal, Koy Sanjak, Sulemaniyya). As can be seen, subgroups (2) and
(3) correspond broadly to the Jewish lišana deni and trans-Zab subgroups respec-
tively. In southeastern Turkey several dialects were spoken that are closely related
to the dialects of the Iraqi Christian subgroup (2), especially in the Tiyare region
(Khan, this volume, chapter 2.5). Subgroup (3) has one outlying dialect in western
Iran (Sanandaj) (Khan, this volume, chapter 4.4). These three Christian subgroups
in Iraq are distinguished for convenience of presentation,4 but it must be stressed
again that this division is very broad-brush. The subgroups exhibit considerable
internal diversity and the boundaries between them are not always clear. Fig. 1
and Fig. 2 below show the locations of the Jewish NENA dialects and the Chris-
tian NENA dialects respectively. In the following presentation the Iraqi Jewish
subgroups are referred to as IJ1 (=lišana deni) and IJ2 (= trans-Zab), and the Iraqi
Christian subgroups as IC1, IC2 and IC3.
3
The Jews in the town of Arbel itself spoke Arabic (Jastrow 1990).
4
For other classifications see Socin (1882: v), Duval (1896: 125), Maclean (1901: ix–xi)
and Tsereteli (1977; 1978).
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of northern Iraq
converted to Islam. In recent decades in Iraq there has been further displacement
of the Aramaic-speaking Christian communities. In the late 1970s and early 1980s,
for example, many of the numerous Christian villages in northern Iraq and south-
eastern Turkey were destroyed by the Iraqi and Turkish armies during the Kurdish
uprisings. Further displacements of Christian communities from the villages of the
Mosul plain have taken place recently. These recent events have driven many of
the Christian communities to leave Iraq and settle elsewhere, mainly in Europe,
North America and Australia.
As remarked, the NENA subgroup is extremely diverse and the size of the speech
community of individual dialects varies considerably. Some dialects are now
reduced to a handful of final speakers. This applies in particular to the Jewish dia-
lects, all of which are now highly endangered and will not survive much beyond
the next two decades. Several Jewish dialects have recently become extinct, e. g.
Nerwa in 2012, Sandu in 2010, Challa in 2007, Shahe in 2000, Bədyal in 1998
(Mutzafi 2014). Some dialects of small Christian communities in Iraq are also
highly endangered, e. g. the Christian dialect of Bədyal. In general, however,
Christian dialects are generally less endangered than Jewish ones. It is not possible
to give precise statistics for individual dialects, but some of the larger ones have
several thousand speakers, taking into account speakers in migrant communities.
Among Christian Aramaic-speakers from Iraq a particularly widely spoken dialect
is a koine that developed in the towns after the merging of various refugee com-
munities after the First World War (Odisho 1988: 19–38).
The Aramaic-speaking Christians of Iraq belong to various church denomi-
nations, including the Assyrian Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East,
Chaldean, Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic.
Before the disturbances of the First World War the majority of Christians were
agriculturalists living in villages. After the settlement of refugees in the towns
many adopted various urban professions. Most of the Aramaic-speaking Jews were
town-dwellers, who were small traders, goldsmiths, tailors, weavers and dyers.
Some of the traders were shopkeepers while others were pedlars who hawked their
wares around the surrounding countryside. Some of the Jews who remained in
villages down to the twentieth century, such as the communities of the villages of
Betanure, Shukho and Sandu, were agriculturalists (Mutzafi 2008a, 2014).
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of northern Iraq 311
4. Sociolinguistic situation
All speakers of Aramaic who were resident or originated in northern Iraq are bilin-
gual and in many cases trilingual. The Christians of the Mosul plain region speak
Arabic in addition to their local Aramaic dialects. They have been exposed to both
local Arabic vernaculars and to the literary Arabic of the Iraqi education system. In
many cases Arabic has had a major impact on their Aramaic speech, particularly in
peripheral dialects such as Qaraqosh, where code-switching between Aramaic and
Arabic is common. Aramaic-speakers elsewhere are generally fluent in Kurdish,
the language of the majority of the surrounding Muslim population, and those who
have been through the Iraqi education system know Arabic. In some areas Arama-
ic-speakers spoke Turkoman, especially Turkoman converts to Christianity.
Although the spoken NENA dialects have their roots in antiquity, they were
not committed to writing in any systematic way until the seventeenth century, from
which period onwards there are extant texts written by Christians (Mengozzi 2002;
Mengozzi and Braida 2011) and Jews (Sabar 1976).
The literary form of Christian NENA that emerged in the seventeenth century
was used by Chaldean Christians in the region of Mosul down to modern times
(Macuch 1976). Another type of Christian literary NENA emerged in the nineteenth
century in Urmi, in northwestern Iran. This was originally developed by western
missionaries to that region in order to propagate Bible translations in the vernacular,
but subsequently gave rise to a very variegated literature (Murre-van den Berg
1999). This form of written NENA was based on the spoken Christian dialect of
the Urmi region, but came to be used widely by Christians in Iraq. Within the last
few decades there has been an increase in the production of literature written in
this form of Christian literary NENA. Furthermore education through the medium
of the literary language has, in recent years, undergone considerable development
in northern Iraq. All forms of literary NENA written by Christians are influenced
by the classical Syriac language, in its orthography, grammatical structure and
lexicon.
The written form of the Jewish NENA dialects, by contrast, is not influenced
by a classical form of Jewish Aramaic. It has continued to be produced down to
modern times, especially to commit to writing traditions of oral literature (Aloni
2014). No systematic form of education system in Jewish NENA developed in the
communities. Within Israel, in recent decades, however, the communities have
organized various cultural events in an attempt to keep their spoken dialects alive.
These include theatre plays, poetry readings and other types of entertainment.
312 Geoffrey Khan
5. Phonology
The phonology of the NENA dialects of northern Iraq exhibit some historical
developments that are common to the majority of the NENA dialects and some
that are particular to individual dialects. In many cases such developments have
been stimulated by language contact. Dialects differ in the degrees of conserva-
tism in the phonology, the less conservative dialects eliminating a greater degree
of sounds that do not occur in contact languages. In what follows a selection of
cases will be presented from the consonant system. The term ‘earlier Aramaic’ is
used to refer to what can be assumed to be the ultimate historical form of features
attested in NENA.
5
The abbreviations C. and J. are used to denote Christian and Jewish dialects respec-
tively. Unless otherwise indicated, the data in this chapter are taken from the pub-
lished descriptions of NENA dialects. These include Khan (2002a C. Qaraqosh), Khan
(2008 C. Barwar), Khan (1999 J. Arbel), Khan (2004 J. Sulemaniyya), Talay (2001
C. Nerwa), Coghill (2003 C. Alqosh), Greenblatt (2011 J. Amedia), Mutzafi (2004a
J. Koy Sanjak), Mutzafi (2008a J. Betanure), Napiorkowska (2015b C. Diyana-Zari-
waw). Some material is taken from the data of the NENA database project gathered by
G. Khan, E. Coghill and R. Borghero.
6
The velar fricative *[ḡ] was an allophone of /g/ in earlier periods of Aramaic, and so is
written in square brackets. The modern reflexes /ʿ/ and /ʾ/, by contrast, are phonemes.
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of northern Iraq 313
zero (Tsereteli 1990). The reflex /ʾ/ is, accordingly, more archaic than the reflex Ø.
The distribution of /ʾ/ differs across the Iraqi NENA dialects:
C. Qaraqosh (IC1): šraʾa (< *šrāḡā) ‘lamp’, raʾəš (< *rāḡeš) ‘he wakes’,
ləʾma (< *laḡmā) ‘jaw’, paləʾ (< *pāleḡ) ‘he divides’, palʾa (< pālḡā) ‘she
divides’
C. Barwar (IC2): šraya, ṛayəš, pela (< *paḡlā) ‘radish’, păle, păla
C. Diyana-Zariwaw (IC3): šreya, ṛayəš, lama, păle, păla
J. Amedia (IJ1): šraʾa, raʾəš, peʾla, paleʾ, palʾa
J. Koy Sanjak (IJ2): zoʾa (< *zōḡa) ‘pair’, pella, ṛăʾəš, păle, palya
The pharyngeal is preserved in a few words in some Jewish dialects in pharynge-
alized environments, e. g. J. Amedia l-ʿoya, J. Koy Sanjaq loʿa (< *ḷə-ḡawwāyā)
‘inside’.
A considerable diversity is exhibited by the NENA dialects of Iraq in the
reflexes of the interdental fricatives *[ṯ] and *[ḏ]. These are preserved in most of
the Christian dialects of IC1 and IC2, e. g.
C. Qaraqosh (IC1): xaθa (< *ʾaḥāṯā) ‘sister’, ʾiða (< *ʿēḏā) ‘festival’
C. Barwar (IC2): xaθa ‘sister’, ʾeða ‘festival’
In the IC2 dialect of Nerwa the unvoiced /θ/ has merged with the voiced /ð/, e. g.
C. Nerwa (IC2): xaða ‘sister’, ʾeða ‘festival’
Some Christian dialects in the far northwestern periphery of IC1 and IC2 in and
around Zakho and adjacent to the Tigris replace the interdentals with stops or
sibilants, e. g.
C. Bidaro: xata ‘sister’, ʾeda ‘festival’
C. Peshabur: xasa ‘sister’, ʾeza ‘festival’
Dialects on the eastern periphery of IC2 and most dialects in IC3 to the east of the
Zab have replaced the interdentals with stops or sibilants, e. g.
C. Xərpa (IC2): xasa ‘sister’, *ʾiza (< *ʾīḏā) ‘hand’
C. Bədyal (IC3): xata ‘sister’, ʾida ‘hand’
In some Christian dialects the unvoiced interdental is replaced by a sibilant and the
voiced interdental by a stop, but never the reverse, e. g.
C. Sulemaniyya (IC3): xasa ‘sister’, ʾeda ‘festival’
Among the Christian IC3 dialects there are, however, some archaizing dialects that
preserve interdentals, in some cases only the unvoiced one, e. g.
C. Ankawa (IC3): xaθa ‘sister’, ʾida ‘hand’
314 Geoffrey Khan
5.2. Pharyngeals
The pharyngeal consonants *ʿ (voiced pharyngeal fricative) and *ḥ (unvoiced
pharyngeal fricative) generally undergo the following shifts in NENA dialects:
7
Lidia Napiorkowska (pc.).
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of northern Iraq 315
*ʿ > /ʾ/ or Ø
*ḥ > /x/
The development of the voiced pharyngeal *ʿ is parallel to that of *[ḡ] and the
distribution of the reflexes /ʾ/ and Ø in the dialects of Iraq is the same as described
above for the reflexes of *[ḡ], e. g.
C. Qaraqosh (IC1): zraʾa (< *zrāʿā) ‘cultivation’, daʾər (< *dāʿer) ‘he
returns’, bəʾta (< *bēʿtā) ‘egg’, šaməʾ (< *šāmeʿ) ‘he hears’, tarʾa (< tarʿā)
‘door’
C. Barwar (IC2): zraya, dayəṛ, bita, šăme, tăra
C. Diyana-Zariwaw (IC3): zṛaya, ṱayǝr, bita, šăme, taṛa
J. Amedia (IJ1): pqaʾa (< *pqāʿā) ‘explosion’, daʾər, beʾta, šameʾ, tarʾa
J. Koy Sanjak (IJ2): beʾe (< *bēʿē) ‘eggs’, daʾər, beta, šăme, tăra
The development of the unvoiced pharyngeal *ḥ to the velar fricative /x/ is an
innovation of the NENA subgroup and is exhibited by all dialects of Iraq, e. g.
C. Barwar (IC2): xmara (< *ḥmārā) ‘ass’, xaθa (< *ʾaḥāṯā) ‘sister’
In the far northwest close to the Turkish border the secondary shift of /x/ > /ḥ/ is
found in the dialect of Derabun, e. g. ḥata (< *xaθa < *ʾaḥāṯā) ‘sister’. The shift
has also been applied to cases of /x/ that are reflexes of *[ḵ], e. g. baḥe (< *baxe <
*bāḵē) ‘he weeps’. This is a feature of a cluster of NENA dialects in southeastern
Turkey (Khan, this volume, chapter 2.5, §5.1), from where the Derabun commu-
nity originated.
In some of the NENA dialects of Iraq the original voiced and unvoiced pharyn-
geal are preserved in words containing emphatic, i. e. pharyngealized, consonants,
including /q/. This is found predominantly in the groups IC1, IC3, IJ1 and IJ2, but
not in the Christian dialect group IC2, e. g.
C. Qaraqosh (IC1): ṭaʿən (< *ṭāʿen) ‘he lifts’, raḥoqa (< *rāḥōqā) ‘distant’
C. Sulemaniyya (IC3): ṱaʿəl (< *ṭāʿel) ‘he plays’, ḥaruqa (< *rāḥōqā)
‘distant
J. Zakho (IJ1): ʿapṣa (< *ʿapṣā) ‘gallnut’, raḥuqa (< *rāḥōqā) ‘distant’
J. Koy Sanjak (IJ2): təʿna (< *ṭaʿnā) ‘load’, ḥănəq (< *ḥāneq) ‘he chokes’
This preservation has come about by a process of ‘long distance consonant agree-
ment’ (Khan 2013). As can be seen above, in J. Koy Sanjak (IJ2), the preservation
of the pharyngeal /ʿ/ entailed the neutralization of the pharyngealization of the
emphatic *ṭ resulting in plain /t/ (Mutzafi 2004a: 28–33) and in C. Sulemaniyya
the pharyngealization is lost from the *ṭ resulting in an unaspirated plain /ṱ/.
316 Geoffrey Khan
In some of the NENA dialects of Iraq the emphatic pharyngealized consonants *ṭ
and *ṣ of earlier Aramaic have been preserved as pharyngealized segments. This
is found predominantly in dialects in groups IC1, IC2 and IJ1 in the western areas
for the region, e. g.
C. Qaraqosh (IC1): ṭina (< *ṭīnā) ‘mud’, ṭarpa (< *ṭarpa) ‘leaf’, ṣəpra (<
*ṣeprā) ‘sparrow’, ṣliwa (< *ṣlīḇā) ‘cross’
The pharyngealization of the emphatic consonants in such dialects tends to spread
to adjacent segments in ways that are similar to what has been documented in
Arabic dialects. As in some Arabic dialects (Hoberman 1989; Watson 1999), the
spreading tends to be restricted to segments in adjacent syllables and is blocked by
high front vowels (Khan 2013).
In dialects in groups IC3 and IJ2, which were spoken in northeastern areas of
the region, the pharyngealization of the historically emphatic consonants *ṭ and *ṣ
tends to be weakened.
In the Jewish dialects of IJ2 /ṭ/ and /ṣ/ are weakly pharyngealized or lose their
pharyngealization altogether. The pharyngealization is neutralized in particular
when the word contains a pharyngeal consonant, e. g. J. Koy Sanjak (1J2) təʿna
(< *ṭaʿnā) ‘load’. This process of development seems to be due to convergence with
the behaviour of pharyngealization in the Kurdish dialects described by Margaret
Kahn (1976: 49–52). In Kahn’s analysis a pharyngealized consonant in Kurdish is
the result of the presence of an underlying pharyngeal segment in the word. Such
words can also be realized with the pharyngeal on the phonetic surface in place
of the pharyngealized consonant. Kahn found this type of pharyngealization in
Kurmanji Kurdish dialects north of Urmi. It is significant, however, that today it
does not seem to exist in the Sorani dialects of Iraq or Iran. The feature is found
in the Jewish NENA dialects that were in Sorani Kurdish areas (i. e. 1J2 group in
Iraq and the Jewish dialects of western Iran, see Khan, this volume, chapter 4.4).
It is possible, therefore, that this typology existed at an earlier historical period
in Sorani Kurdish and the NENA dialects converged with this typology and pre-
served it whereas it was lost in Sorani Kurdish.
In many of the Christian dialects in the northeastern region of Iraq (IC3) the
pharyngealization of the historical emphatic consonants *ṭ and *ṣ is totally lost
in some words, e. g. C. Diyana-Zariwaw (Napiorkowska 2015a) seda (< *ṣaydā)
‘hunt’. Reflections of the presence of the original emphatic phonemes have,
however, been preserved in a number of features. These include the lack of aspi-
ration of the original *ṭ after loss of emphasis, e. g. xaṱṱe (< *ḥaṭṭē) ‘wheat’, and
backing and/or lowering of adjacent vowels, e. g. xɒsa (< *ḥāṣā) ‘back’, sɔma
[ˈsˁo̱ːma] (< *ṣawmā) ‘fast (noun)’.
Pharyngealization is also associated with a group of non-historical emphatic
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of northern Iraq 317
consonants that includes the sonorants /ṛ/, /ḷ/ and the labials /ḅ/, /ṃ/, /p/,̣ also /ẉ/.
This group developed in certain words, in some cases, it seems, to fulfil the func-
tional need of creating semantic contrasts, e. g.
(1) J. Amedia (IJ1)
ṃḷele ‘he filled’ mlele ‘it sufficed’
ḅaza ‘hawk’ b-aza ‘she will go’
bəṛke ‘pool’ bərke ‘his knee’
The phonemic contrast between the plain and emphatic rhotics /r/ : /ṛ/ is particu-
larly common in the NENA dialects. In a few cases the number of rhotic phonemes
has proliferated to three. In Iraq this is found, for example, in the dialect of C.
Barətla (IC1), which has an emphatic /ṛ/, a plain tap /r/ and a retroflex /ɽ/ (Arnold
2002; Mole 2015):
paɽe < *pārā ‘bran, husks left after sieving’
paṛe < *parre ‘lambs’
pare < *pāre ‘money’ (< Kurd. pāra)
5.4. Vowels
Various shifts have taken place in the quality of vowels across the NENA dialects
of Iraq. These include the following.
*/ē/
An original *ē has shifted to /i/ in word-medial position in a few dialects. These
include C. Qaraqosh (IQ1) on the southwestern periphery and some Christian dia-
lects in the northeastern sector in group IC3, e. g. C. Qaraqosh (IC1), C. Diyana-
Zariwaw (IC3) riša (< *rēšā) ‘head’.
In C. Qaraqosh */ē/ in a final open unstressed syllable undergoes centralization
to /ə/, e. g. xmarə (< *ḥmārē) ‘asses’.
*/e/
The reflex of original short */e/ is generally a centralized /ə/, e. g. C. Qaraqosh
(IC1) šaqəl (< šāqel) ‘he takes’. In many dialects /ə/ is also the reflex of a short-
ened */ī/, e. g. C. Qaraqosh xləmta (< *ḥlīmtā) ‘thick’, but C. Barwar xlimta.
*/u/, */ū/
In several dialects in the northeastern sector of the region there is a tendency to
front */u/ and */ū/ to the region of [ʏ] or [ʉ], represented here as /ü/, e. g. C. Diya-
na-Zariwaw ʾürxa (< ʾurḥā) ‘road’, barüza (< *barrūzā) ‘dry’.
318 Geoffrey Khan
*/ō/
In some Christian dialects in the northeast of the region (IC3) *ō is raised to /u/,
e. g. C. Diyana-Zariwaw (IC3) muxa (< *mōḥā) ‘brain’, C. Bədyal (IC3) šạduṛe
(< *šadore) ‘to send’. In such dialects the vowel sometimes undergoes both raising
and fronting, e. g. C. Bədyal xüna (< *ʾaḥōnā) ‘brother’.
*/aw/
The diphthong */aw/ contracts in most dialects to /o/, e. g. C. Qaraqosh (IC1)
moθa (< *mawṯa) ‘death’. In dialects in the northeastern sector of the region this
/o/ may undergo fronting, e. g. C. Diyana-Zariwaw jöza (< gawzā) or raising, e. g.
C. Bədyal muta ‘death’. In some dialects in the northern sector of the region this
diphthong has been preserved, e. g. C. Barwar mawθa ‘death’.
*/ay/
The diphthong */ay/ contracts in most dialects to either /e/ or /ɛ/, e. g. C. Qaraqosh
(IC1) beθa (< *bayṯā) ‘house’, C. Barwar bɛθa. Some dialects in the far northwest
do not monophthongize the diphthong completely, e. g. C. Bidaro beyta ‘house’.
A syllable in principle does not have a vowel as its onset but always begins with at
least the laryngeal /ʾ/, e. g. C. Barwar ʾá.na ‘I’, ʾá.ti ‘you’, ʾi.lána ‘tree’. In some
trans-Zab Jewish dialects (IJ2) an initial /ʾ/ shifts to /h/, e. g. J. Sulemaniyya hīt
‘there is’ (< ʾīt), heka ‘where?’ (< ʾeka).
There are differences across the dialects of Iraq with regard to the presence of
the laryngeal glottal stop /ʾ/ in clusters in the syllable onset. Some dialects, pre-
dominantly in groups IC1 and IJ1, tolerate /ʾ/ as the first or second segment of the
initial cluster, e. g.
C. Qaraqosh (IC1): ʾsi.ra ‘tied’, rʾi.ša ‘awake’
J. Amedia (IJ1): ʾwi.da ‘done’, rʾi.ša ‘awake’
Dialects of other groups tend not to tolerate /ʾ/ in initial clusters and elide them in
these circumstances.
The cluster is sometimes pronounced without being broken by an epenthetic
vowel. This is generally the case if the first or second segment is a sibilant or
sonorant continuant, e. g. C. Barwar šte.li ‘I drank’, pli.ṭɛ.le ‘he has gone out’.
Otherwise clusters tend to be broken by an ultrashort epenthetic vowel, e. g. C.
Barwar kpi.na [kəpiːna] ‘hungry’. An epenthetic prosthetic vowel is sometimes
pronounced before a cluster, especially if the first segment is a sonorant or sibilant,
e. g. C. Qaraqosh nqa.ša [ənqaːʃa] ‘beating’, ski.na [əskiːna] ‘living’. An alterna-
tive strategy of treating a cluster of two stops is to elide the first of them. This is
found in C. Bədyal, e. g. pina (< *kpina) ‘hungry’, tāna (< *ptāna) ‘plough’.
Across the NENA dialects several monosyllabic nouns have been made bisyl-
labic by geminating a consonant after an epenthetic vowel breaking an initial con-
sonantal cluster, e. g.
(3) C. Barwar
šə́m.ma ‘name’ < *šmā
də́m.ma ‘blood’ < *dmā
Monosyllabicity is tolerated to a greater extent in other grammatical categories.
Historical gemination of consonants has been lost after the low vowel /a/ but is
generally preserved after high vowels, especially /ə/, e. g.
(4) C. Barwar
kaka ‘tooth’ < *kakkā
ʾəzza ‘goat’ < *ʿəzzā
The sequence VCCCV in word internal position is found in certain inflections of
verbs. It may be syllabified VCC.CV or VC.CCV. An epenthetic vowel is usually
inserted between the CC cluster in the coda of VCC or the onset of CCV, e. g.
(5) C. Barwar
mapə́l.xa ~ map.lə́xa ‘she uses’ < maplxa
320 Geoffrey Khan
5.6. Stress
The basic position of word stress in most NENA dialects in Iraq is on the penul-
timate syllable, e. g. C. Qaraqosh (IC1) béθa ‘house’, k-šáqəl ‘he takes’. Clitics,
such as the copula, are not taken into account in stress placement, e. g.
(7) C. Qaraqosh
béθan=ilə
house.our=cop .3ms
‘it is our house’
Stress is generally not placed on particles affixed to verbal forms, which can result
in the placement of the stress before the penultimate syllable of the word. This
lack of stressing of affixes is a property of clitics. It is not the case, however, that
the stress is completely unaffected by the affixes, since it moves to the end of the
verbal stem. I shall continue, therefore, to refer to these elements as verbal affixes
rather than clitics, e. g.
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of northern Iraq 321
(8) C. Qaraqosh
k-šaqə́l-wa-lhə
ind -take.prs .3 ms - pst - l .3 pl
‘he used to take them’
In the trans-Zab Jewish dialects of the IJ3 group the basic position of stress is on
the final syllable of the word, e. g. J. Sulemaniyya belá ‘house’. This is likely to
be due to convergence with Kurdish. As in other NENA dialects, stress is not in
principle placed on clitics or verbal affixes, e. g.
(9) J. Sulemaniyya
a. laxxá=ya
here=cop .3 fs
‘she is here’
b. gărə́š-wa-lu
pull.prs .3 ms - pst - l .3 pl
‘he used to pull them’
6. Nominal morphology
6.1. Pronouns
The NENA dialects of Iraq have various series of third person pronoun. A dis-
tinction may be made between deictic pronouns, which point to a referent, and
anaphoric pronouns, which signal that a referent is identifiable in the context (typ-
ically the discourse history) without pointing to its location. A syntagmatic distinc-
tion may be made between independent pronouns and adnominal pronouns that are
combined with a noun. Deictic pronouns typically distinguish between near deixis
and far deixis. With regard to gender and number, third person pronouns distin-
guish masculine singular, feminine singular and common plural.
There are differences across the NENA dialects of Iraq with regard to the
degree to which these various types of third person pronouns are expressed by
separate morphological forms. Some dialects are lacking distinct forms for some
of the slots, as can be seen in the table below, which presents the independent third
person pronouns from a selection of dialects:
322 Geoffrey Khan
In this sample of dialects, J. Arbel (1J2) has a much smaller inventory of morpho-
logical forms than the other dialects. It lacks gender distinctions in the singular
forms and also lacks a formal distinction between far deixis and anaphoric forms
in the singular.
The C. Qaraqosh dialect preserves archaic forms of the singular near deixis
pronouns with an interdental (ʾaða, ʾaði) and so exhibits heterogeneity in the
morphological bases of the singular near deixis and far deixis forms. The other
dialects in the table, by contrast, have lost these archaic forms by forming the
near deixis pronoun base on the analogy of those of far deixis and anaphoric
pronouns.
Some dialects have developed further morphological distinctions to express
various forms of ‘intensive’ deixis, such as ‘very far deixis’ or ‘contrastive deixis’,
e. g.
(10) a. C. Barwar
3 ms . far ʾăwáha, very far ʾăwaʾha
b. C. Peshabur (Coghill 2008: 97–98)
3 ms far ʾăwáḥa, very far ʾăwáaḥa, extremely far ʾăwaʾḥa
c. C. Diyana-Zariwaw
3 ms far ʾawó, contrastive ʾawóha, ʾawóhani
The anaphoric pronouns must in principle always be bound to a referent in the
discourse, and so have not developed into definite articles. The Jewish trans-Zab
dialects (IJ2) have borrowed a definite article suffix from Sorani Kurdish with the
form –ăke, e. g. J. Arbel bela ‘house’, belăke ‘the house’. The form –ăke corre-
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of northern Iraq 323
sponds to the oblique form of the Kurdish definite article (-ăkay) rather than the
nominative form (–ăka).
The first person singular independent pronoun is of common gender and has the
form ʾana across all dialects of Iraq.
Differentiation of gender is expressed by distinct forms of the second person
singular independent pronoun in many dialects in the northwestern sector of Iraq
in the IC1 and IJ1 groups:
IC1: 2ms. ʾahət, 2fs. ʾahat (C. Qaraqosh); 2ms. ʾayət, 2fs. ʾayat (e. g. C. Alqosh,
C. Telkepe, C. Baṭnaya, C. Tisqopa, C. Karamlesh)
IJ1: 2ms. ʾahət, 2fs. ʾahat (J. Betanure, J. Dohuk, J. Nerwa, J. Zakho)
Similar forms are found sporadically in the Christian dialects of northeastern Iraq,
e. g.
IC3: 2ms. ʾayət, 2fs. ʾayat (e. g. C. Ankawa, C. Sulemaniyya)
In other dialects a second person singular form of common gender is used, the
most widespread forms being ʾat and ʾati.
There are no gender distinctions in the independent first and second person
plural pronouns, just as there is no gender distinction in the 3rd person plural
demonstrative pronouns. The most widespread forms of the first person plural
independent pronoun are ʾaxni and ʾaxnan. Some dialects have innovative forms
based on the analogy of the 2pl. pronoun, e. g. ʾatxan on the analogy of 2pl. ʾatxun
(J. Arbel, J. Ruwanduz, J. Rustaqa). The most widespread form of the 2pl. pronoun
is ʾaxtun, with various analogical innovations attested in individual dialects, e. g.
IC1 ʾaxnutən (C. Baṭnaya)
IC2 ʾaxtum (C. Nargezine-Xarjawa, C. Shōsh-u-Sharmə), ʾaxtaxum
(C. Nargezine-Xarjawa), ʾaxtoxum (C. Shōsh-u-Sharmə, C. Xərpa),
ʾaxtutən (C. Tən)
IC3 ʾaxtun (C. Shaqlawa), ʾaxnoxən (C. Sulemaniyya)
IJ1 ʾaxtoxun (J. Betanure, J. Dohuk, J. Zakho)
1J2 ʾatxun (J. Arbel, J. Ruwanduz, J. Rustaqa, J. Ruwanduz); ʾaxnəxun (J. Koy
Sanjak), ʾaxnăxun (J. Sulemaniyya); ʾatoxun (J. Dobe)
Many dialects that have only one set of suffixes generalize the use of forms that
were originally attached to plural nouns. This applies especially to the 3pl. and
2pl., in that they use forms related to –ehən and –exun in the paradigm above, e. g.
3pl. –eyhən (C. Mar-Yaqo), –ehən (C. Baṭnaya, C. Mangesh, C. Umra
d-Shish), -ɛhən (C. Aradhin), -ɛyḥən (C. Peshabur)
2pl. -ɛxu (C. Barwar), -exun (J. Nerwa), -exün (C. Bədyal)
Variation across the NENA dialects of Iraq is found in particular in the 3rd person
suffixes. Examples are given below of a selection of 3ms. forms:
3ms. -eh (C. Baṭnaya, C. Ankawa)
-əḥ (C. Qaraqosh, C. Alqosh, C. Karamlesh, C. Mangesh, C. Peshabur)
-e (C. Telkepe, C. Aradhin, C. Barwar, C. Dere, C. Hamziye, C. Bədyal,
J. Betanure, J. Nerwa, J. Zakho)
-eu (J. Arbel, J. Sulemaniyya)
-u (C. Umra d-Shish, C. Zariwaw)
In C. Sulemaniyya the gender distinction in the 3s has been lost and the original
3ms form -e now is used with common gender reference. This matches the col-
lapse of gender distinction in the demonstrative pronouns in this dialect (e. g. ʾo
goṛa ‘that man’, ʾo baxta ‘that woman’).
Arbel ṣlo-la ‘synagogue’ (< *ṣloθa), šən-da (< *šənθa). Some loanwords are left
without being morphologically adapted and do not have these inflectional endings.
All loanwords, however, are assigned a gender for agreement purposes, even if
they are from languages that do not distinguish gender, such as Sorani Kurdish
(Khan 2004: 177–180, 2009: 180–184).
The plural of nouns is marked by a variety of inflectional endings, which
replace the aforementioned singular endings. The most common ending is –e (or
phonetic variants thereof), which is the unmarked plural marker, as shown by the
fact that loanwords that are inflected with a plural marker are generally given this
ending. It is used on many masculine nouns with singulars in –a, on some feminine
nouns ending in –a or –ta and on loanwords ending in zero in the singular, e. g.
C. Barwar kep-a (masc.) ‘stone’, kep-e ‘stones’, ʾilan-a (fem.), pl. ʾilan-e ‘trees’,
nun-ta (fem.) ‘fish’, nun-e ‘fish (pl.)’, čangəl (fem. sing.) ‘fork’ (< Kurd. çengel),
čangal-e ‘forks’. There is no clear correlation, therefore, between the unmarked
plural ending –e and the gender of the noun.
Nouns ending in –a in the singular may form plurals by various other endings,
which may be categorized as marked plurals, e. g.
(11) C. Barwar
ʾumra (masc.) ‘church’ ʾumrane ‘churches’
ʾaqla (fem.) ‘leg’ ʾaqlaθa ‘legsʼ
xona (masc.) ‘brother’ xonăwaθa ‘brothers’
bɛθa (masc.) ‘house’ bɛθwaθa ‘houses’
Feminine nouns ending in –ta (or variants thereof) form plurals by an assortment
of plural endings, e. g.
(12) C. Barwar
karta ‘load’ karaθa ‘loads’
qalθa ‘basket’ qalaθa ‘baskets’
susta ‘mare’ susyaθa ‘mares’
As can be seen, there is some correlation between these marked plural endings and
the gender of the noun. Some of the marked plural endings are associated, more-
over, with particular semantic classes of nouns. The ending –ăwaθa, for example,
in C. Barwar is commonly used with kinship terms, and the ending –ane is used
predominantly with inanimate nouns.
In dialects on the Mosul plain (IC1) the Arabic plural ending -at is sometimes
added to feminine nouns with singulars ending in –a. Most, but not all, such nouns
are loanwords, e. g.
326 Geoffrey Khan
(13) C. Qaraqosh
fárda (f.) ‘load’ fárdat ‘loads’
hə́nna (f.) ‘thing’ hə́nnat ‘things’
ʾilána (f.) ‘tree’ ʾilánat ‘trees’
Some nouns, mostly those with the bisyllabic pattern CVCCa in the singular,
form plurals by reduplicating the final consonant, e. g. C. Barwar təlpa ‘eyelash’,
təlpape (eyelashes).
Adjectives are inflected for gender in the singular and inflect for the plural
by the unmarked plural ending –e. Unlike nouns, adjectives do not have marked
plural endings e. g.
(14) C. Barwar
basim-a (ms.) ‘pleasant’
basim-ta (fs.)
basim-e (pl.)
J. Sulemaniyya (IJ2): šəmma brona ‘the name of the boy’ (Khan 2004: 192)
The genitive particle d remains prefixed to demonstrative pronouns in the depend-
ent phrase in dialects that normally mark annexation by a -ət suffix on the head
phrase and even in IJ2 dialects like J. Sulemaniyya that do not normally use a gen-
itive particle in annexation. There are grounds for interpreting these as reflecting
the bonding of the particle with the pronoun to form a genitive allomorph of the
pronoun. This is shown by the fact that it may be combined with a head noun with
-ət in dialects that use this suffix:
(15) C. Barwar (IC2) (Khan 2008: 399)
ʾahwalt-ət d-o naša
condition-gen gen -that man
‘the condition of that man’
(16) J. Sulemaniyya (IJ2) (Khan 2004: 192)
bela d-oni
house gen -those
‘the house of those (people)’
In some dialects an analytical type of genitive construction is used in which the
dependent noun is introduced by an independent genitive particle. This is the case,
for example, in J. Arbel (IJ2), which uses the particle ʾot in this function (< ʾo 3s
pronoun + annexation suffix t). The head noun in such constructions may option-
ally have the annexation suffix -ət:
(17) a. J. Arbel (IJ2) (Khan 1999: 224)
bšəlmane ʾot-ʾArbel
Muslims gen -Arbel
‘the Muslims of Arbel’
b. jiran-ət ʾot hulaʾe
neighbours-gen gen -Jews
‘the neighours of the Jews’
In the Jewish trans-Zab dialects an Iranian ezafe particle is occasionally used in
annexation constructions, e. g.
J. Sulemaniyya (IJ2): maktab i hulaye ‘the school of the Jews’ (Khan 2004:
192)
328 Geoffrey Khan
7. Verbal morphology
The NENA dialects exhibit a root and template type of verb morphology, which
is characteristic of Semitic languages. A root is a lexical morpheme consisting
of a non-concatenative sequence of radicals. This sequence of radicals is merged
with non-concatenative templatic patterns consisting of vowels and, in some cases,
additional consonants, that express inflection and derivation of the lexical root.
Verbal roots consist of either three (triliteral) or four radicals (quadriliteral).
Inflections of verbs in NENA are formed from a series of inflectional bases.
Representative examples of these from the C. Qaraqosh dialect are as follows:
The present base is derived historically from the active participle of earlier
Aramaic, and the past base and resultative participle from the erstwhile passive
participle. The finite present and past forms of earlier Aramaic (yiqṭol and qṭal
respectively) have been lost.
NENA preserves some of the derivational verbal morphology of earlier
Aramaic, whereby derived forms of verbs are created by morphologically more
complex sets of inflectional base patterns. The dialects have either one or two
derived sets of inflectional bases. C. Qaraqosh has two derived patterns, which
may be designated stem II and stem III, the simple pattern being stem I:
The main function of the derived verbal stems is to express increases of transitiv-
ity. In earlier Aramaic there were derived stems that expressed a decrease in the
transitivity of the basic stem I, but these have been lost in NENA (Göransson 2015;
Khan 2015). C. Qaraqosh preserves the most archaic forms of the inflectional and
derivational patterns of the verbs, with the greatest morphological heterogeneity.
In most other NENA dialects various degrees of analogical levelling have taken
place within the set of inflectional bases of the derivational stems and across der-
ivational stems. This levelling is most advanced in dialects in the northeast of
Iraq, in the groups IC3 and IJ2. In many Christian dialects of IC3 and all Jewish
dialects of IJ2 the stem II derivation has been lost (Mutzafi 2004c). In some of the
Jewish IJ2 dialects on the northeastern periphery of Iraq the levelling of the vowel
patterns across the two surviving derivational stems is total, e. g.
It can be seen that stem I and stem II have identical vowel patterns. In the present,
imperative and infinitive the vocalism of stem II has been generalized to stem I.
In the past and resultative participle the vocalism of stem II, which is typically
causative transitive in function, has been transferred to transitive verbs of stem I.
Vice-versa, the original vocalism of the past and resultative participle of stem I is
preserved in intransitive verbs and this has been extended also to stem II to express
a detransitivized, anticausative.
The present and past inflectional bases are inflected for person and number by
two sets of suffixes, referred to here as D-suffixes and L-suffixes, which indicate
the grammatical relations of verbal arguments in the clause.
D-suffixes are historically ‘direct’ clitic pronouns agreeing in number, gender
and person with the nominative subject of a clause in the original nominative—
accusative alignment system of Aramaic. L-suffixes are historically prepositional
phrases consisting of the dative preposition l- and a pronominal suffix.
The forms of the suffixes in J. Sulemaniyya are as follows:
The D-suffixes are morphologically less marked than the L-suffixes. Historically
the third person D-suffixes contain an expression only of number and gender, the
person marker of the third person being zero. In the case of the 3ms form, also the
number and gender marking is zero. The first and second person D-suffixes have
developed from a coalescence of number, gender and person markers. The L-suf-
fixes, on the other hand, all contain pronominal elements that syncretize person,
number and gender, as well as a relational element l-, which is historically a dative
preposition.
The /l/ of the L-suffixes assimilates to a stem-final sonorant /n/ or /r/ in most
NENA dialects, e. g. C. Barwar (IC2) kpinne ‘he became hungry’ (< kpin-le). In
some Christian dialects in the northeast of the region this assimlation as been
extended to other consonants, e. g. C. Diyana-Zariway (IC3) ptəxxe ‘he opened’
(< ptəx-le).
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of northern Iraq 331
8
For the arguments in favour of this analysis see Doron and Khan (2012) and Khan
(2016).
9
For more details about ergativity in NENA see Coghill (2016).
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of northern Iraq 333
(21) C. Barwar
3 ms paθəx ‘(that) he open’ (irrealis)
paθəx-wa ‘(that) he opened’ (irrealis past)
ʾi-paθəx ‘he opens’ (indicative habitual)
ʾi-paθəx-wa ‘he used to open’ (indicative habitual past)
bəd-paθəx ‘he will open’ (future)
bəd-paθəx-wa ‘he would open’ (future in the past)
The indicative particles that are used in the dialects of the region include ʾi-, as in
C. Barwar, and k-, e. g. C. Qaraqosh (IC1) k-paθəx. The ʾi- is likely to be a reduced
form of the copula.
Several dialects in Iraq use a particle with the form qam- prefixed to the
present base to express the perfective past.10 In some dialects it has undergone
various degrees of phonetic lenition, e. g. C. Barwar qəm-, C. Qaraqosh kəm-,
C. Sulemaniyya tam-. This construction was used in place of constructions formed
from the past base to avoid using D-suffixes to express pronominal objects on past
perfective verbs formed from the past base. This is the case in particular when the
pronominal object is first or second person.11 The present base allows the use of
L-suffixes to express the direct pronominal object, e. g.
(22) C. Barwar1
a. griš-la
pull.pst - l .3 fs
‘she pulled’
b. qəm-garš-a-li
pst -pull. prs - d .3 fs - l .1 s
‘she pulled me’
Most NENA dialects do not allow the accumulation of two pronominal object
suffixes on ditransitive verbs. If a verb has a pronominal direct object suffix, a
pronominal indirect object must, in many dialects, be expressed by an independent
prepositional phrase:
(23) C. Barwar
yawəl-le ṭlal-i
give. prs .3 ms - l .3 ms to-1 s
‘he gives it to me’
10
For the historical background of this particle see Fassberg (2015).
11
For the motivation for the repair mechanism see Doron and Khan (2012) and Khan
(2016).
334 Geoffrey Khan
In some dialects in the group IC1 on the Mosul plain, such as C. Qaraqosh (Khan
2002a: 143–144) and C. Telkepe (Coghill 2010), and also dialects further east
in the IC3 group, such as C. Shaqlawa, present base verbs may express the indi-
rect pronominal object by an L-suffix and the direct pronominal object by a form
that resembles an enclitic copula (see below) and can be interpreted as a enclitic
pronoun (Khan 2012a). This expression of the pronominal direct object is restricted
to the third person:
(24) C. Qaraqosh
kewi-ləḥ=ina
give. prs .3 pl - l .3 ms = pro .3 pl
‘They give them to him’
The NENA dialects in Iraq have various types of copula. These include deictic
copulas, which draw attention to a referent or to a situation, and neutral copulas
which express simple predication. Paradigms of the deictic and the simple copula
in C. Qaraqosh and C. Barwar are as follows:
Unlike clauses that have past base verb forms, resultative perfect constructions
have nominative–accusative alignment in most dialects, with the copula and par-
ticiple agreeing with the subject in transitive clauses. In (25) J. Sulemaniyya (IJ2)
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of northern Iraq 335
In many NENA dialects of the region the perfect verbal form is used not only to
express the resultative perfect but is also used to express the evidential or an event
in the remote past. In some dialects it is used as a narrative form, especially in
folktales (Khan 2012b).12
The majority of NENA dialects in Iraq express the present progressive by con-
structions containing the copula. Many combine the copula with the infinitive to
perform this function. The original form of this construction contained the locative
preposition b- ‘in’, which is still used in some dialects in some circumstances. This
seems to have arisen under the influence of Eastern Armenian, which exhibits a
similar construction for the progressive (see Martirosyan, this volume, chapter 2.2,
§4.2), e. g.
(27) Eastern Armenian, Ardvin
mnalis im
stay.inf . loc cop .1 s
‘I am staying’
The preposition b- is, however, frequently dropped and this is the regular situation
in many dialects, e. g.
(28) J. Betanure (IJ1)
ʾile bə-graša ~ ʾile graša ‘he is pulling’
ʾila bə-graša ~ ʾila graša ‘she is pulling’
ʾilu bə-graša ~ ʾilu graša ‘they are pulling’
12
The use of one and the same form for resultatives, evidentials, and as a special narrative
form for use in folktales, is clearly reminiscent of the range of functions associated with
the verbal suffix -mIş in Turkish.
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of northern Iraq 337
This construction is not used in some dialects along the southern periphery of the
region. Instead progressive constructions are used in which the copula is combined
with a verb form derived from the present base, e. g.
(29) C. Qaraqosh (IC1)
kilə k-garəš ‘he is pulling’
kila k-garša ‘she is pulling’
kina k-garši ‘they are pulling’
In the eastern sector of the region many dialects use a fossilized uninflected form
of the copula in progressive constructions. In some cases this is combined with a
present base verb form, e. g. J. Arbel lā gărəš ‘he is pulling’, J. Dobe nā gărəš,
C. Xərpa ho k-garəš, Shosh u-Sharmən nə-k-garəš, C. Bədyal ma-k-garəš (Mutzafi
2004c; Coghill 2008). In some dialects the fossilized copula is combined with the
infinitive. Since the infinitive is not inflectable for gender, number or person, these
must be marked by inflected enclitic copulas in all slots of the paradigm beyond
the 3ms, e.g.
Table 12: Progressive constructions with copula, J. Rustaqa (IJ2) (Khan 2002b: 407)
3 ms lā garoša ‘he is pulling’
3 fs lā garoše=la ‘she is pulling’
3 pl lā garoše=lu ‘they are pulling’, etc.
2 ms lā garoša=wet
2 fs lā garoša=wat
2 pl lā garoša=wetu
1 ms lā garoša=wena
1 fs lā garoša=wan
1 pl lā garoša=wex
13
In the examples the intonation group boundary is represented by |, the nuclear stress of
the intonation group by a grave accent (v̀ ) and non-nuclear stresses by acute accents (v́ ).
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of northern Iraq 339
or the information structure of the clause. This applies in particular to the Jewish
dialects in IJ2, e. g.
(33) J. Sulemaniyya
a. šwáwan tujā̀ r=ye.|
neighbour.our merchant=cop .3 ms
‘Our neighbour is a merchant.’
b. šwáwan jəhyà-ye.|
neighbour.our tired=cop .3 ms
‘Our neighbour is tired.’
c. šwàwan tujā́ r-ye.|
‘OUR NEIGHBOUR is a merchant.’
d. šwàwan jəhyá-ye.|
‘OUR NEIGHBOUR is tired.’
The copula is negated by prefixing to it the negative particle la, e. g. C. Barwar lɛle
‘he is not’ (< la + ile), J. Sulemaniyya la-y ‘he is not’ (< la-y). In some cases, the
negative copula has a different stem from the positive copula, e. g. J. Arbel (IJ2)
lewe ‘he is not’ (cf. ile ‘he is’), C. Bədyal (IC3) liwe ‘he is not’ (cf. ile ‘he is’).
In most dialects of the region the negated copula is placed before the predicate:
(34) C. Barwar
bábi lɛ́le làxxa.|
father.my neg . cop .3 ms here
‘My father is not here.’
In the Jewish dialects of the IJ2 group, however, it is placed after the predicate,
e. g.
(35) J. Sulemaniyya
tatí laxxá là-y.|
father.my here neg - cop .3 ms
‘My father is not here.’
J. Sulemaniyya (IJ2)
b. šwawan ləxma k-xəl-Ø
neighbour.our bread ind -eat. prs - d .3 ms
‘Our neighbour will eat bread.’
A prepositional phrase expressing an indirect object or some other complement of
the verb is, however, normally placed after the verb in all dialects:
(37) C. Barwar
a. bəd-tafq-əx b-šwawan
fut -meet. prs - d .1 pl on-neighbour.our
‘We shall meet our neighbour.’
J. Sulemaniyya
b. doq-ex b-šwawan
hold. prs - d .1 pl on-neighbour.our
‘We shall hold onto our neighbour.’
A nominal without a preposition that expresses the goal of a verb of movement is
normally placed after the verb in all dialects, including those of the IJ2 group, e. g.
(38) C. Barwar
a. zil-lan bɛθa
go.pst - l .1 pl home
‘We went home.’
J. Sulemaniyya
b. zil-ex bela
go.pst - d .1 pl home
‘We went home.’
In all dialects the predominant order of clause components may be changed for
pragmatic purposes.
Verbal clauses are negated by the negative particle la, e. g.
(39) C. Barwar (IC2)
šwawan la xil-le laxma
neighbour.our neg -eat. pst -L.3 ms bread
‘Our neighour did not eat bread.’
The future particle is not used when the verb is negated, e. g. C. Barwar bəd-ʾaxəl
‘he will eat’, la-ʾaxəl ~ la-y-axəl ‘he will not eat’. The verb in the second of the
negated alternatives (y-axəl) has the habitual prefix.
In all dialects except some in the southwestern periphery of the region on the
Mosul plain (the IC1 group) the imperative form may be negated, e. g. C. Barwar
(IC2) la pluṭ! ‘Do not go out.’ In C. Qaraqosh (IC1) a prohibition cannot be
expressed by negating an imperative, but rather the negative particle is com-
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of northern Iraq 341
bined with an irrealis verb form, e. g. la palṭət! ‘Do not go out!’ (Khan 2002a:
351).
In dialects that express the progressive or perfect by a prefixed fossilized
copula particle lā, the negator is placed after this particle, e. g.
(40) J. Arbel (Khan 1999: 115)
lā la-ḥqe-li
cop neg -speak.pst - l .1 s
‘I have not spoken.’
In the Jewish on the eastern periphery dialects when la negates a perfect formed
by the combination of a resultative participle and a copula auxiliary, the negator is
placed before the participle rather than the auxiliary, e. g.
(41) J. Sulemaniyya (Khan 2004: 105)
a. la smiqa-y
neg redden.ptc - cop .3 ms
‘It has not become red.’
b. smoqa la-y
red neg - cop .3 ms
‘It is not red.’
thereof (e. g. –iš, all glossed below as top ). This is typically combined with a
clause initial subject, which has an identifiable referent, e. g.
(43) C. Barwar (IC2), (Khan 2008: 920)
zìltɛ-la ṱóṱo| mǝ́r-a màlka| …
go. ptcp .- cop .3 fs old.woman said.pst - l .3 fs king
ʾáp-ʾawwa šaqə́l-Ø-la ðá-kista qa-dày.|
top -he take. prs - d .3 ms - l .3 fs one-purse for-obl .3 fs
‘The old woman went and said “Oh King …” Then, he takes a purse for
her.’
(44) J. Sulemaniyya (IJ2) (Khan 2004: 401)
xól-la hyè-Ø-wa.| bába bràt-ăke-š|
indeed-not come.pst - d .3 ms -back father daughter-the-top
m-ṣálma komùl-ew| mad-hī́ twa-le zbə̀n-ne.|
from-face blackness-his what-exist . pst - l .3 ms sell. pst - l .3 ms
‘He indeed he did not come back. The father of the girl, out of his shame
sold what he had.’
The use of topical prominence particles to mark clausal connection is not used in
C. Qaraqosh and many dialects of IC1 on the western periphery of the region.
In the Jewish IJ2 dialect J. Arbel the particle generally combines with an anaphoric
pronoun rather than being attached directly to the head noun:
(47) J. Arbel (IJ2), (Khan 1999: 388)
kré ʾot-loš-ì-lu
suits dem . rel -wear.prs - d .3 pl - l .3 pl
‘the suits that they wore’
love. prs - d .3 fs
‘They knew that the girl loved the boy.’ (complement clause)
In some dialects a subordinating particle is omitted in various constructions. There
is a greater tendency for this in direct complement clauses of verbs (irrealis and
realis) and relative clauses. There is also a geographical correlation, in that asyn-
detic direct complement constructions are more common in the dialects of the
central and eastern peripheries than the IC1 group.
The original Aramaic conditional particle ʾən is used in the protasis of condi-
tional constructions in many dialects of the region, e. g.
(55) C. Barwar (IC2), (Khan 2008: 1004)
ʾən-pálš-əx mən-dáni qaṭl-ì-lən.|
if-fight. prs -d .1 pl with-obl . dem . pl kill. prs -d .3pl .- l .1pl
‘If we fight with them, they will kill us.’
In the IJ2 dialects the particle is regularly replaced by the Kurdish conditional
particle ʾagar:
(56) J. Sulemaniyya (IJ2), (Khan 2004: 436)
ʾágar šabbát là doq-étun,| xafàd kəxl-í.|
if sabbath neg keep. prs - d .2 pl trouble eat. prs - d .3 pl
‘If you do not keep the Sabbath, they will be in trouble.’
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of northern Iraq 345
In some of the dialects on the Mosul plain, the conditional particle is replaced by
an Arabic conditional particle:
(57) C. Qaraqosh (IC1), (Khan 2002a: 496)
kā́ n k-šaql-í-hə dàha,| ʾəm-madə́r-Ø-hə
if ind -take. prs - d .3 pl - l .3 pl now fut -return. prs - d .3 ms - l .3 pl
m-bàθər.|
from-after
‘If (= Arabic kān) they take them now, he will bring them back.’
In general, the dialects in the IC1 group exhibit greater archaism than other NENA
dialects in Iraq. This applies especially to C. Qaraqosh on the southwestern periph-
ery. This archaism is reflected, for example, in the preservation of interdental con-
sonants and also pharyngeal consonants in some contexts and heterogeneity in the
morphology of paradigms of pronouns and verbal forms. Also some aspects of
syntax in IC1 can be regarded as representing archaic features of NENA, such as
the extended ergative alignment and predominant placement of the direct object
argument after the verb. Dialects of other groups exhibit various degrees of inno-
vation in these features, the most innovative being the trans-Zab Jewish dialects in
group IJ2. One factor in the archaism of the IC1 group may have been the greater
exposure of these dialects to Arabic. In many of the archaic features listed above,
for example, parallels can be found in Arabic dialects, which may have had a con-
servative influence. The innovations of other dialect groups are no doubt due to a
greater exposure to Kurdish rather than to Arabic. In the most innovative group,
IJ2, this convergence with Kurdish included the development of canonical ergative
alignment in dialects in the eastern periphery of Iraq such as J. Sulemaniyya.
The lexicon of the NENA dialects of the region has been extensively influ-
enced by the languages with which they have been in contact. This applies even to
the morphologically and syntactically archaic dialects of the IC1 group. Kurdish is
a major source of loanwords. This applies in particular to the Christian dialects of
the IC2 group and the Jewish dialects. There is an old layer of Kurdish loanwords
also in the IC1 group. In the IC1 group numerous Arabic words are used by speak-
ers. Most of these, however, are recent loans, as demonstrated by the fact that most
have not been morphologically adapted. Many, indeed, are likely to be the result
of code-switching rather than lexical borrowing. The lexicon of all dialects also
has some loanwords of Turkic origin, originating mainly either through contact
with Turkoman or Ottoman Turkish. In the trans-Zab Jewish dialects calques of
Kurdish phrasal verbs containing a noun and a light verb are particularly common,
e. g. J. Arbel bāng ʾol ‘he invites’ (literally: he makes invitation; cf. Kurdish bang
kirdin) (Khan 1999: 109).
346 Geoffrey Khan
Abbreviations
References
Aloni, Oz. 2014. The Neo-Aramaic speaking Jewish community of Zakho: A survey of the
oral culture. Saarbrücken: Lap Lambert.
Arnold, Werner. 2002. Velarisiertes Ṛ und retroflexes Ɽ im neuostaramäischen Dialekt von
Baɽəṭle. Mediterranean Language Review 14. 1–8.
Borghero, Roberta. 2015. The present continuous in the Neo-Aramaic dialect of ʿAnkawa
and its areal and typological parallels. In Geoffrey Khan & Lidia Napiorkowska (eds.),
Neo-Aramaic and its linguistic context, 187–206. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.
Coghill, Eleanor. 2003. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Alqosh. Cambridge: University of
Cambridge dissertation.
Coghill, Eleanor. 2008. Some notable features in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects of
Iraq. In Geoffrey Khan (ed.), Neo-Aramaic Dialect Studies, 91–104. Piscataway, NJ:
Gorgias Press.
Coghill, Eleanor. 2010. Ditransitive constructions in the Neo-Aramaic dialect of Telkepe.
In Andreĭ Lʹvovich Malʹchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Studies
in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbook, 221–42. Berlin & Boston: De
Gruyter Mouton.
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 Uni-
versity Press.
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge studies in linguistics 70. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Doron, Edit & Geoffrey Khan. 2012. The typology of morphological ergativity in Neo-Ar-
amaic. Lingua 122. 225–240.
Duval, Rubens. 1896. Notice sur les dialectes néo-araméens. Mémoires de la Société de
Linguistique de Paris 9. 125–135.
Fassberg, Steven. 2015. The origin of the periphrastic preterite Kəm/qam-Qāṭəlle in
North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic. In Geoffrey Khan & Lidia Napiorkowska (eds.), Neo-Ar-
amaic and its linguistic context, 172–186. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.
Fiey, Jean Maurice. 1965. Assyrie chrétienne: Contribution á l’étude de l’histoire et de
la géographie ecclésiastiques et monastiques du nord de l’Iraq, 2 vols. Recherches
subliées sous la direction de l’Institut de Lettres Orientales de Beyrouth, T. 22–23, 42.
Beyrouth: Imprimerie catholique.
Fox, Samuel E. 2008. North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic and the Middle Aramaic Dialects. In
Geoffrey Khan (ed.), Neo-Aramaic Dialect Studies, 1–18. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.
Gaunt, David. 2006. Massacres, resistance, protectors: Muslim-Christian relations in East-
ern Anatolia during World War I. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.
Göransson, Kathrin. 2015. Causative-inchoative alternation in North-Eastern Neo-Ara-
maic. In Geoffrey Khan & Lidia Napiorkowska (eds.), Neo-Aramaic and its linguistic
context. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.
Greenblatt, Jared R. 2011. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Amadiya. Studies in Semitic
Languages and Linguistics, v. 61. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Hoberman, Robert. 1988. The history of the Modern Aramaic pronouns and pronominal
suffixes. Journal of the American Oriental Society 108. 557–575.
Hoberman, Robert. 1989. Parameters of emphasis: Autosegmental analyses of pharyngeali-
zation in four languages. Journal of Afroasiatic Languages 2(1). 73–98.
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of northern Iraq 351
Jastrow, Otto. 1990. Der arabische Dialekt der Juden von ʿAqra und Arbīl. Semitica Viva
5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Kahn, Margaret. 1976. Borrowing and variation in a phonological description of Kurdish.
Michigan: University of Michigan dissertation.
Khan, Geoffrey. 1999. A Grammar of Neo-Aramaic: The dialect of the Jews of Arbel. Lei-
den & Boston: Brill.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2002a. The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Qaraqosh. Studies in Semitic Lan-
guages and Linguistics 36. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2002b. The Neo-Aramaic dialect of the Jews of Rustaqa. In Werner Arnold
& Hartmut Bobzin (eds.), Sprich doch mit deinen Knechten Aramäisch, Wir verste-
hen es! 60 Beiträge zur Semitistik, Festschrift für Otto Jastrow zum 60. Geburtstag,
395–410. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2004. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Sulemaniyya and Ḥalabja. Stud-
ies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics, 44. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2007. The North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects. Journal of Semitic Studies
52(1): 1–20.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2008. The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Barwar. 3 vols. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2009. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Sanandaj. Piscataway, NJ: Gor-
gias Press.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2012a. Remarks on the historical development of the copula in Neo-Ara-
maic. In Federico Corriente, Gregorio del Olmo Lete, Ángeles Vicente & Juan-Pablo
Vita (eds.), Dialectology of the Semitic languages. Proceedings of the IV meeting on
comparative Semitics Zaragoza 11/6–9/2010, 25–31. Sabadell: AUSA.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2012b. The evidential function of the perfect in North-Eastern Neo-Ara-
maic dialects. In Rebecca Hasselbach & Na’ama Pat-El (eds.), Language and nature.
Papers presented to John Huehnergard on the occasion of his 60th birthday, 219–228.
Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 67. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2013. Phonological emphasis in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic. In Jean Léo
Léonard & Samia Naïm (eds.), Base articulatoire arrière. Backing and backness, 111–
132. Munich: Lincon Europa.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2015. Causative constructions in Neo-Aramaic (Christian Urmi dialect). In
Lutz Edzard (ed.), Arabic and Semitic linguistics contextualized: A Festschrift for Jan
Retsö, 506–530. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2016. Ergativity in Neo-Aramaic. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa
Travis (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, 873–899. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2017. Studies in the lexicon of Neo-Aramaic. In Yağmur Heffron, Adam
Stone & Martin Worthington (eds.), At the dawn of history. Ancient Near Eastern stud-
ies in honour of J.N. Postgate, 255–269. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Krotkoff, Georg. 1985. Studies in Neo-Aramaic lexicology. In Ann Kort & Scott Morschauer
(eds.), Biblical and related studies presented to Samuel Iwry, 123–134. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns.
Maclean, Arthur John. 1901. A dictionary of the dialects of vernacular Syriac as spoken
by the eastern Syrians of Kurdistan, northwest Persia, and the plain of Mosul. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Macuch, Rudolf. 1976. Geschichte der Spät- und Neusyrischen Literatur. Berlin & Boston:
De Gruyter Mouton.
352 Geoffrey Khan
Mann, Jacob. 1931. Texts and studies in Jewish history and literature. The Abraham and
Hannah Oppenheim Memorial Publications. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press.
Mengozzi, Alessandro. 2002. Israel of Alqosh and Joseph of TelKepe. Corpus Scriptorum
Christianorum Orientalium. Louvain: Peeters.
Mengozzi, Alessandro & Emanuela Braida. 2011. Religious poetry in vernacular Syriac
from Northern Iraq (17th–20th centuries): An anthology, vol. v, 627–628. Corpus
Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Louvain: Peeters.
Mole. 2015. The three /r/s of Baṛtəḷḷa. In Geoffrey Khan & Lidia Napiorkowska (eds.),
Neo-Aramaic and its linguistic context, 110–129. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.
Murre-van den Berg, Heleen L. 1999. From a spoken to a written language: The introduc-
tion and development of literary Urmia Aramaic in the nineteenth century. Leiden:
Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
Mutzafi, Hezy. 2002. Barzani Jewish Neo-Aramaic and its dialects. Mediterranean Lan-
guage Review 14. 41–70.
Mutzafi, Hezy. 2004a. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Koy Sanjaq (Iraqi Kurdistan).
Semitica Viva 32. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Mutzafi, Hezy. 2004b. Two Texts in Barzani Jewish Neo-Aramaic. Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies 67(1). 1–13.
Mutzafi, Hezy. 2004c. Features of the verbal system in the Christian Neo-Aramaic dia-
lect of Koy Sanjaq and their areal parallels. Journal of the American Oriental Society
124(2). 249–264.
Mutzafi, Hezy. 2008a. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Betanure (province of Dihok).
Semitica Viva 43. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Mutzafi, Hezy. 2008b. Trans-Zab Jewish Neo-Aramaic. Bulletin of the School of Oriental
and African Studies 71(3). 409–431.
Mutzafi, Hezy. 2014. Jewish Neo-Aramaic. Encyclopedia of the Jews of the Islamic World.
Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Napiorkowska, Lidia. 2015a. A diachronic perspective on emphasis in Christian Diyana-Za-
riwaw. In Geoffrey Khan & Lidia Napiorkowska (eds.), Neo-Aramaic and its linguistic
context, 130–144. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.
Napiorkowska, Lidia. 2015b. A Grammar of the Christian Neo-Aramaic dialect of Diya-
na-Zariwaw. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Odisho, Edward Y. 1988. The sound system of Modern Assyrian (Neo-Aramaic). Semitica
Viva 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Rockwell, William Walker. 1916. The pitiful plight of the Assyrian Christians in Persia and
Kurdistan described from the reports of eye-witnesses. New York: American Committee
for Armenian and Syrian Relief.
Sabar, Yona. 1976. Pəšaṭ Wayəhî BəŠallaḥ. A Neo-Aramaic Midrash on Beshallaḥ (Exodus).
Introduction, Phonetic Transcription, Translation, Notes and Glossary. Wiesbaden: Har-
rassowitz.
Sabar, Yona. 2002. Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dictionary. Semitica Viva 28. Wiesbaden: Har-
rassowitz.
Soane, Ely Bannister. 1912. To Mesopotamia and Kurdistan in disguise; with historical
notices of the Kurdish tribes and the Chaldeans of Kurdistan. London: J. Murray.
Socin, Albert. 1882. Die neu-aramäischen Dialekte von Urmia bis Mosul. Tübingen:
H. Laupp.
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of northern Iraq 353
Talay, Shabo. 2001. Grammatikaliche Anmerkungen und Texte zum neuaramäischen Dia
lekt von Nerwa (Nordirak). Mediterranean Language Review 13. 1–37.
Tsereteli, Konstantin. 1977. Zur Frage der Klassifikation der neuaramäischen Dialekte.
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 127. 244–253.
Tsereteli, Konstantin. 1978. The Modern Assyrian language. Moscow: Nauka.
Tsereteli, Konstantin. 1990. The velar spirant Ġ in Modern East Aramaic dialects. In Wolf-
hart Heinrichs (ed.), Studies in Neo-Aramaic, 35–41. Harvard Semitic Studies. Atlanta:
Scholars Press.
Watson, Janet. 1999. The directionality of emphasis spread in Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry
30(2). 289–300.
3.5. Iraq-Turkic
Christiane Bulut
The Turcophone populations of Iraq call themselves Turkman, and their language
Turkmanja.1 The Turkman and their language Turkmanja, or Iraq-Turkic, must be
distinguished from the Turkmen language, part of the Northern Oghuz group (see
the classification in Table 1 in Bulut, this volume, chapter 4.2, §1), spoken in the
Republic of Turkmenistan, in Northeast Iran and in North Afghanistan. Iraq-Turkic
is spoken by groups sandwiched between the Kurdish regions to the north and east
and Arabic-speaking areas to the south. The speech communities are situated in a
number of separate areas, villages and towns within a belt stretching from Tal‘afer
in the northwest to Ba'adra in the southeast (see Fig. 1).2 Most larger cities, such as
Kirkuk and Arbil, have a mixed, mainly Turkic-Kurdish population. An important
group of Turkman is also found in Baghdad. The migration in recent years, which
was caused by the Arabicization policy of the Baath-Party and subsequent wars
and civil wars, has considerably changed the ethnic map of Iraq. Moreover, many
villages and traditional environments of the Turkman, such as the old quarters
within the citadel of Kirkuk, have been destroyed in recent years.
Established in the aftermath of WWI, Iraq is one of the new nation states of
the Middle East whose borders cut through the traditional areas of settlement of
various ethnic groups, its multi-ethnic and multi-lingual character partly also
reflecting its Ottoman or Iranian heritage. The Turkman of Iraq form the third
largest community in Iraq, after Arabs and Kurds; yet, they have been denied the
official status of a minority. Due to the repressive policy against the minorities
that commenced with the foundation of the new nation state Iraq and was enforced
under the regime of the Baath Party after 1968, it is difficult to give precise popula-
tion figures. In the late 1970s Buluç (1980) estimated that about 750,000 Turkman
were living in Iraq. Based on various statistics from pre-colonial data and the last
official census conducted in Iraq in 1957, Fischer (1993) arrived at an estimated
number of 600,000 for the year 1989, which then amounted to 3.3 % of the total
population of Iraq (18.27 million in 1989). This would imply that of today’s total
1
Like other Turkic-speaking communities of the larger region, the Turks of Iraq pre-
viously used the ethnonym Turk, while referring to their language as Turki; in 1959
the military junta introduced the names Turkman and Turkmanja, which nowadays are
widely accepted among representatives of the speech community.
2
This Turkman belt is sometimes called “Turkman Eli”.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-011
Iraq-Turkic 355
population of 31.13 million, roughly one million and thirty thousand belong to the
Turkman minority.3
Nowadays Iraq is a predominantly Muslim country, with about 65 % Shiites
and 32 % Sunnis, and one may assume roughly the same distribution of confes-
sions among the Turkmans. After the collapse of the Baath regime, though, a
number of religious minorities, Sufi orders or sects began to re-surface, one of
which is the Bektashiyye. Recent sources claim that this Shii-Alevi Sufi order has
between 250,000 to 700,000 followers in the Turkman Belt, with centers in the
cities of Mosul, Tal‘afer, Kirkuk, Tuzkhurmatı and Arbil.4
3
Recent sources from Azerbaijan and Turkey mention much higher figures; Pashayev
(2003: 25) claims that there are about 2.5 to 2.6 million Turkmans living in Iraq, while
Turkish media even talk about 3 to 3.5 million. According to a more recent source, the
population figure must be at least 2,500,000 (Saatçi 2018: 332).
4
Source: the Turkish newspaper ZAMAN, 21 August, 2011.
5
See Marufoğlu (1998: 57).
356
Christiane Bulut
6
Yet Iraq-Turkic ranks higher in prestige than smaller minority languages such as Arme-
nian, Gorani, and Neo-Aramaic (see Haig, this volume, chapter 3.3, and Khan, this
volume, chapter 3.4, for the latter two).
7
For a survey on modern Turkman literature see al-Bayati (1970).
8
Türkmeneli İşbirliği ve Kültür Vakfı. “Declaration of Principles of the Turkman Con-
gress”. http://www.iraqiturkman.org.tr/turkmen27.html (accessed 25 November 2011).
358 Christiane Bulut
has published a small sample text of Iraq-Turkic from the Tal‘afer region. Differ-
ent written versions exist of the most famous folklore text, the romantic novel Arzı
ile Qamber, which the Kirkuk lawyer Ata Terzibashı recorded in the 1960s.
2. Linguistic features
9
I am grateful to Suphi Saatçi, who shared some of his older recordings of Iraqi Turkman
with me.
Iraq-Turkic 359
2.1 Phonology
East-West division of Iraq-Turkic dialects – realisation of velar /ŋ/ > [y] or /ŋ/ >
[w] as an intra-Turkic isophone
Vertically the Iraqi Turkman varieties can be divided into two groups, using the
realization of the old velar /ŋ/ in the possessive suffixes and the possessive type
of the conjugation of the 2nd person singular and plural as a morpho-phonological
indicator. Around Arbil, and basically also in Kirkuk, the old velar nasal /ŋ/ has
developed into [w] or [u]; these varieties belong to the so-called w-group. Most
dialects in the west of the Turkman belt, on the other hand, display a development
of velar /ŋ/ > [j], representing the y-group. Thus, the pronunciation of the posses-
sive of the 2nd person singular is seniy ‘yours’, and qiziy ‘your daughter’ in dialects
of the y-group, and senuw ‘yours’ qizuw ‘your daughter’ in the w-group. Due to
the mixed background of the population in bigger cities such as Kirkuk, both types
of pronunciation may also exist parallel. The speaker from Kirkuk who produced
Text 2, for instance, uses forms pertaining to the w-group, such as [geʃdoʊ] ‘you
(2 sg ) went through’, and [thʊtsaʊ] ‘if you (2sg ) hold’. Tuzkhurmatı belongs to the
y-group, as forms such as [ɑlardij] ‘you should take’ (1/10) or [gøndɛrdij] ‘you
have sent’ demonstrate.
In Iraq-Turkic, some lexical items with irregular distribution also display a
development of old velar nasal /ŋ/ into [w] or [u], see examples such as: soŋra,
sõra ‘later’ <*soŋıra, gewil ‘heart’<*göŋül, yalγuz ‘alone, lonely’ <*yalıŋus, and
[øgʏndɛ] ‘in front of’ (2/9) < ög ‘front’ <*öŋ. Across the varieties of the area some
few items have consequently preserved the velar /ŋ/ as [ŋ] or even [ŋg], see, for
instance, pronunciations of ‘wool’ as [yŋ], [yŋg], [jyŋ], [ıŋ].
10
Stilo (1994) describes this phonological development for Azerbaijan and Transcauca-
sia; see also Haig, this volume, chapter 3.3, and Khan, this volume, chapter 3.4 for
similar phenomena in Kurdish and Neo-Aramaic.
360 Christiane Bulut
In this process, the velar stops /k/ and /g/ are palatalized to [kj] and [gj], or, in the
extreme case, affricated to [ʤ] or [ʧ], while the original affricates /ʤ/ and /ʧ/ may
be fronted to [dz] and [ʦ/tç] etc. Thirdly, the place of the former velar stops /k/ and
/g/ may be taken by the post-velar or uvular stops, which also shift farther to the
front; thus /q/ > [k] and /ɢ/ > [g] also occur.11
Fronting is more predominant in the north-eastern dialects around Arbil, and
less explicit towards the South. In the city of Kirkuk, where populations of different
origins mix, it is present to a lesser extent. The sample Text 2 displays a relatively
strong tendency to fronting, which is characteristic of the neighborhood of Yengi
Tis‘în. While /g/ is mostly palatalized (/g/ > [g, gj, j])—but, to my experience, never
affricated to [ʤ]—, /k/ displays palatalized (/k/ > [kj]) and additional affricated
allophones (/k/ > [kç, ç]) as in [kçɛrkjʏç] ‘Kirkuk’ (2/1), or [kçɛrɛm] ‘instance, time’
(2/6). Consequently the unvoiced affricate /č/ has a fronted allophone [ts] (/č/ > [ts]),
as in [tsoɣ] ‘very, much’ (2/1), [ˈoxʊtsɨ] ‘singer’ (2/6), or [gɛtsɛr] ‘it passes’ (2/7).
The voiced affricate /ĵ/ is pronounced [dz] in most instances (/ĵ/ > [dz]), see exam-
ples such as [gedzɛ] ‘night‘ (2/2). Counterexamples, such as [iʧɛn] ‘drinking’
(2/4), and [ɛglɛnʤɛ] ‘entertainment’ (2/3) obviously reflect the omnipresent influ-
ence of Turkish; note that the same speaker may also produce fronted variants in
connection with the same lexical items, as, for instance, in [æglɛndza] (2/7).
The text from Tuzkhurmatı, on the other hand, does not display fronting—nor
do the adjacent Iran Turkic varieties. Thus, Kirkuk seems to establish the south-
ernmost point of the fronting area. Note also that fronting is a so-called areal phe-
nomenon which occurs in the pronunciation of genetically unrelated languages in
North Iraq, SE-Anatolia and West Iran (see Haig, this volume, chapter 3.3, §3.1.1).
In varieties of Arabic spoken in Iraq, the word for ‘lawyer’ vakil, for instance,
is sometimes pronounced as [wætçil], the Kurdish numerals [ʧɒhɒr] ‘four’ and
[pɛnʤ] ‘five’ appear as [ʦɒːr], and [penʣ] etc. (see Haig, this volume, chapter 3.3,
§3.1.1 on fronting in Iraqi varieties of Kurdish).
Note that back [q] and [ɢ] do not take part in the fronting process, see examples
such as [qɑja] ‘rock’ (1/2), or [qæræ] ‘black’. The velar fricative ġayn [γ], which in
Turkic appears in word-internal/-final position in combination with velar vowels,
is preserved. Word-final /-k/ in some instances becomes [-x]: yemax ‘food’, but
it also has the voiced allophone [γ], in forms such as [jɛmɑγ]. Unvoiced stops in
11
As the phonology of Iraq-Turkic is heavily influenced by the surrounding languages
where /q/, /k/, /γ/ and /g/ are different phonemes, one cannot interpret these elements as
allophones of the Turkic phoneme /k/ (which they would be according to the Turkolog-
ical tradition).
Iraq-Turkic 361
word final position are sometimes pronounced as unaspirated, see [bøjʏg̊] < böyük
‘large’.
Characteristic dialect markers of Iraqi Turkman and Kurdish varieties from Iraq
are copied or contact-induced pronunciations of Semitic phonemes, such as the
retracted tongue root glottal stop ‘ayn [ʕ], the pharyngeal fricative [ħ], the bilabial
[w], and the uvular plosive [q], see examples such as [saʕɑd̥] ‘time’ (2/7) or [jaʕne]
‘that is’ (2/11), [sɑjjɑħ] ‘traveler’ (1/5), [aħmæd] nom. prop. (1/8), or [hær ħalda]
‘usually’ (2/4), [wɑxɪd] ‘time’ (1/10), and [tæqriːßan] ‘roughly, approximately’
(2/8). Text 2 demonstrates that most of these items appear in combination with
lexical items loaned from Arabic, for which speakers from Kirkuk tend to chose
the Arabic pronunciation.
In other varieties of Iraq-Turkic, the distribution of the copied items is not
always true to the original; speakers may pronounce ‘ayn instead of a normal
glottal stop (hamza), while the pharyngeal fricative [ħ] replaces etymological [h].
This also happens in connection with Kurdish or Turkic roots. A special case,
though, is the Turkic lexeme hepsi ‘all’, which speakers from Kirkuk always pro-
nounce as [ħapsi], with word-initial [ħ-].
As the ‘borrowed’ phonetic items do not establish phonemes, the degree of
their realization may vary. In the region around Kirkuk, where the influence of
Arabic is stronger, the pharyngeal fricative [ħ] and the retracted tongue root glottal
stop ‘ayn [ʕ] are more clearly pronounced than in the dialects around Arbil in the
northern parts of the Turkman belt.
12
On word-initial h- in Turkic see Doerfer (1981/1982).
362 Christiane Bulut
word-initial /y-/ before the vowels /ı/, /i/ and /ü/.13 In words such as ilan ‘snake’,
il ‘year’, (corresponding to Turkish yılan, yıl), the word-initial semi-vowel [y]
and the following central-back unrounded vowel /ı/ are replaced by [i-], while igit
‘hero’ (corresponding to Turkish yiğit) has obviously lost its initial /y-/. Similarly,
word-initial /yü-/ may be present as /ü-/, as in üz ‘face’ (but yüz ‘hundred’), üng
‘wool’, üskek ‘high’, or üzük ‘ring’ (compare Turkish yüz, yün, yüksek, yüzük).14
As word-initial sound groups such as yı-, yi-, or yü- are alien to the Iranian
contact languages, the reason for this substitution may again be language contact
influence. On the other hand, some dialects have preserved older forms like yıγla-
max ‘to weep’, which elsewhere became aγlamak. Moreover, prothetic [y-] also
occurs, in forms such as yê:v ‘house’ for ev, or yeriš- ‘to reach’ for eriš- etc.
13
Most of the lemmata quoted here begin with y- in Old or Middle Turkic.
14
Word-initial /u-/ corresponding to /yu-/, on the other hand, is very rare; HSH (1979:
438) lists a single example: ut- ‘to swallow’, corresponding to Turkish yut-.
Iraq-Turkic 363
2.1.2.3. Delabialization of the Turkic front rounded vowels /ü/ and /ö/ as a contact-
induced phenomenon
In the southern varieties of Mandali and Khanaqin, the front rounded vowels /ü/
and /ö/ are substituted by their unrounded counterparts [i] and [e] or [ie], see exam-
ples such as /ü/ > [i, ı] in [sit] < süt ‘milk’, and /ö/ > [Ieː, eː] in [Ieːz] < öz ‘self,
own’ or [dek-] < dök- ‘to pour’. Delabialization of /ü/ and /ö/ is a widespread phe-
nomenon, which points to the influence of neighbouring Semitic and Iranian lan-
guages. Thus, across the Turkman belt, East Anatolia and Iran speakers may also
centralize or delabialize /ü/ > [u] ~ [ı] and /ö/ > [o] ~ [e] due to the interference of
these contact languages.
15
Across the area, an assimilation of the vowel quality to the famous ‘nine consonants’ –
as in Ottoman Turkish – does not occur. These ‘nine (Arabic) consonants’ are: the phar-
yngeal fricative /ḥ/ and the glottal stop ‘ayn /ʕ/, the pharyngealized stops /ḍ/ and /ṭ/, and
the fricatives /ṣ/ and /ẓ/, the uvular plosive /q/ and the fricatives /ġ/ and /ḫ/.
16
The phenomenon obviously is related to the internal structure of the syllable: unvoiced/
fortis consonants, especially when combined with aspiration, are longer than voiced,
that is, in most instances, lenis consonants. To avoid overlong syllables, the fortes seem
to acquire or borrow some of the length of the vowel, which consequently becomes
shorter.
364 Christiane Bulut
2.3. Morphology
in most East Anatolian and Iran-Turkic varieties, has the form {+(y)dan}. In the
equative case {+cA} the pronominal [n] does not appear, e. g. in forms such as
[ardıʤa] ‘following/behind him’ (< back:poss .3 sg . equ , confer the corresponding
Turkish form with -n-: ardınca); an exception is the equative of the demonstrative
pronouns, see [ondza] ‘that much’, Text (2/11).
17
The following examples are provided in a normalized orthography.
366 Christiane Bulut
qal-ır (2/4) ‘remains’ and the 3rd plural oturullar (2/5) (< otur-ur-lar) ‘sit.pl ’ seem
to present forms of the focal present.
The overlaps in the forms, and the fact that the meaning of both present types
is not always kept neatly apart (one may find present were one expects aorist, and
vice versa), creates the impression that either a focal present is not fully devel-
oped, or that the two have merged into one. This may be due to the language
contact situation, as the surrounding languages (Iranian, Semitic) just have one
morphologically simple present. The negative forms of present and aorist, on the
other hand, are morphologically distinct, see, for instance, the negative forms of
the first person singular of the focal present ged{-mıräm} ‘I don‘t go (now)’, vs.
the aorist ged{-mäm} ‘I never go’.
18
According to Bodrogligeti (1968: 30), the complex forms in {-(y)IbDIr} may have
been inspired by the model of the Persian perfect, which—in contrast to the Turkic
zero-morpheme—does apply an explicit morphological element to mark the 3rd person
singular on the surface. Thus, the complex form gälübtur ‘has come’ in the glossary of
the Esfahan anonymous, for instance, would be a structural copy of the Persian âmade
ast (come:passive participle + copula 3sg ).
Iraq-Turkic 367
19
In the northeastern varieties of Iraq-Turkic, the latter has a unique form in {-maγ}.
368 Christiane Bulut
(1) a. (1/9)
para värräm sänä
money give.aor .1 sg 2 sg . dat
b. (1/11)
para värräm bilä-y-ä
money give.aor .1 sg bilä-poss .2 sg - dat
‘I will give you money’
20
See Buluç (1975: 183), on the dialect of Mandali.
Iraq-Turkic 369
2.4.4.3. {-iš}
An element {-iš} can be attached to finite verbs in the Mandali variety. Buluç
(1972=1975: 182) gives various examples for combinations of {-iš} with verb
forms in the imperative, the aorist, the past in {-DI}, and perfect in {-mIš}. The
suffix {-iš} denotes an intensive mode of the respective verb forms, in the sense of
‘to do something with certainty’, e. g. ôxi! ‘read!’, ôxıš! ‘make sure that you read’.
In all probability, {-iš} is a copy of the Kurdish clitic {-iš} ‘also, even’ [Kurmanjî:
jī], which, in Central Kurdish (cf. MacKenzie 1961: 128) may be suffixed to either
a nominal or a verbal form.
21
Modern Persian, on the other hand, expresses ‘to need’ with a formation based on lâzem
‘necessary’ and the verb for ‘to have’, dâran; ‘I need’ would thus be translated as lâzem
dâram, literally ‘I have necessary’.
370 Christiane Bulut
22
I observed these copies of Iranian comparative and superlative morphemes in recent
recordings with bi-lingual Turkic-Kurdish speakers from the Arbil region; as they exist
alongside with the regular Turkic particles daha ‘more’ and en ‘most’, it is difficult to
judge to what extent they are conventionalized.
Iraq-Turkic 371
The same word order rule applies to verbal complexes paraphrasing ‘to begin
to …’. The finite form of the aspect verb bašla- ‘to begin’ combines with a lexical
verb in the form of a non-finite or “nominalized” verb form (the verbal noun in
{-mEK}, glossed as vn 1, in distinction to other verbal nouns, vn 2), which is
marked by case (dative), and, additionally, by its postverbal position, as in (7):
(7) (HSH 1979: 2/33)
ħâmsı bašlâdılar gülmäγä.
all begin.pst .3 pl laugh.vn 1. dat
‘They all began to laugh.’
2.5. Syntax
To express dependent clauses most Turkic languages use non-finite verb forms. As
a rule, adverbial clauses are based on gerunds, while nominalized verb forms such
as verbal nouns and participles are used to express relative clauses or complement
clauses.23 Turkic varieties under strong influence of Indo-European or Iranian (or,
to a lesser extent, also Semitic) languages have abandoned these principles of
Turkic syntax. The dependent clause is based on a finite verb form. It may be con-
nected to the main clause by a conjunction, which expresses the semantic relation
between main clause and dependent clause.
23
See Johanson (1990: 199–200).
372 Christiane Bulut
24
Probably the equative suffix; the postposition deg/değin ‘up to’ would require a dative
on the head.
Iraq-Turkic 373
postposition birlä ‘with’ to form temporal clauses, such as, for instance čal-mâγ-
ı-ydan (set.in.motion-vn 1- poss 3 sg - instr ) ‘as soon as he pressed …’, oyna-mâγ-ı
birlä (play-vn 1- poss 3 sg with) ‘while he was still playing’, or ye-diğ-i-yden (eat-
vn 2- poss 3 sg - instr ) ‘as soon as (they) ate, in example (9) below:
25
Literally: ‘in whose offspring coming from their (‘his‘) own seed is not this much of
respect.’
26
My transcription after the original recording; see also HSH 1979: 17/40.
Iraq-Turkic 375
2.6. Lexicon
27
The distribution of isoglosses is irregular; note that many Azeri isoglosses also appear
in Anatolian dialects.
Iraq-Turkic 377
its western counterpart arka, both of which are found in Iraq. Others have a mark-
edly western flavour, such as the verb sev- ‘love’, and eyi ‘good, nicely’ against
the eastern yaxčı. Yet, Iraq-Turkic shares a large proportion of its lexicon with
more eastern, that is: Iran-Turkic, varieties: adverbs, such as bu tay ‘this side’,
qanšär ‘opposite side’, harda/harada ‘where’, indi ‘now’, bıtov ‘all, completely’,
kimi(n) ‘like, till’; nouns, such as bulaγ ‘spring, well’, bala ‘child’, toy ‘wedding’,
küräkän ‘bridegroom’, nänä ‘mother’, ušaγ ‘child’, ämcäk ‘breast’, and verbs,
such as apar- ‘bring away’, axtar- ‘seek’, tap- ‘find’, and išlä- ‘work’. Pronominal
forms based on the stem bilä- are characteristic of the area of Iraq and West Iran.28
In some instances, the same Turkic root appears with different derivation suf-
fixes, such as suvar- (like in Iran-Turkic), instead of the western sula- ‘irrigate’.
Exceptional is the formation of to ‘to speak together’: While Turkish uses a recip-
rocal form of kon- ‘put’, viz. konuş-, Azeri varieties display the same derivation
based on a different stem, danıš-; in Iraq-Turkic the basic stem is sele-/söyle- ‘to
speak’; seleš- is a typical Iraq-Turkic isogloss. Due to the influence of Standard
Turkish, there are also a number of recent loans of Modern Turkish origin, of
which Bayatlı (1996: 407) has presented a survey. In general, such loans are more
frequent in the written language.
28
On pronominal systems of the area see Bulut (2003).
378 Christiane Bulut
29
Probably Abdülvahid Küzecioğlu (born 1925 in Mousallah, a Turkman quarter inside
the walls of Kirkuk Castle, died 29th of June 2007).
382 Christiane Bulut
Abbreviations
References
al-Bayati, Mehdi. 1970. Die Anfänge der Prosaliteratur bei den Irak-Türkmenen. Mainz:
Mainz University Dissertation.
Bayatlı, Hidayet Kemal. 1996. Irak Türkmen Türkçesi [The Turkmen Turkic of Iraq]. 664.
Ankara: Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları
Bodrogligeti, A. 1968. On the Turkish Vocabulary of the Iṣfahan Anonymous. Acta Orient.
Hung. Tomus XXI. 15–43.
Buluç, Sadettin. 1973/74. Tellafer Türkçesi Üzerine [On Tellafer Turkic]. Türk Dili Araştır-
maları Yıllığı Belleten, 1973–74, 49–57. Ankara: TDK.
Iraq-Turkic 383
Buluç, Sadettin. 1975. Mendeli (Irak) Ağzının Özellikleri [The particularities of the Men-
deli (Iraq) dialect]. I. Türk Dili Bilimsel Kurultayına Sunulan Bildirler 1972, 181–183.
Ankara.
Buluç, Sadettin. 1979. Hanekin (Irak) Türk Ağzı Üzerine [On the Turkic dialect of Hanekin
(Iraq)]. I. Milletler Arası Türkoloji Kongresi, İstanbul 1973, 600–603.
Buluç, Sadettin. 1980. Irak Türk Ağızlarının Bazı Ses Özellikleri [Some phonological par-
ticularities of the Iraq Turkic dialects]. I. Milli Türkoloji Kongresi Tebliğler, İstanbul
1978. 54/1–54/4. İstanbul: Kervan Yayınları.
Bulut, Christiane. 1999. Klassifikatorische Merkmale des Iraktürkischen. Orientalia Sue-
cana, vol. 48. 5–27.
Bulut, Christiane. 2000. Optative constructions in Iraqi-Turkman. In Aslı Göksel & Celia
Kerslake (eds.), Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages. Proceedings of the IXth In-
ternational Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Lincoln College, Oxford, August 12–14,
1998 (Turcologica 46.), 161–169. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Bulut, Christiane. 2003. Pronominal systems in the transitional varieties of eastern Anato-
lia, Iraq and Western Iran. In Sumry Özsoy (ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth International
Conference on Turkish Linguistics, 321–335. Istanbul: Boğaziçi Yayınları.
Bulut, Christiane. 2016. Convergence and variation in the Turkic varieties of Iran: Exam-
ples from Qashqâ’î. In Éva Á. Csató, Lars Johanson, András Róna-Tas, & Bo Utas
(eds.), Turks and Iranians: Interactions in Language and History. Proceedings of the
Gunnar Jarring Conference, Uppsala 2006. (Turcologica 105), 235–282. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Doerfer, Gerhard. 1981. Materialien zu türkisch h- (I). Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher. Neue
Folge. Bd. 1. 93–141.
Doerfer, Gerhard. 1982. Materialien zu türkisch h- (II). Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher. Neue
Folge. Bd. 2: 138–168.
Doerfer, Gerhard. 2006. Irano-Turkic. In Lars Johanson & Christiane Bulut (eds.), Tur-
kic-Iranian Contact Areas. (Turcologica 62), 93–113. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
Fischer, Reinhard. 1993. Die Türkmenen im Irak. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin, unpub-
lished MA Thesis.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2008. Alignment change in Iranian languages: A Construction Grammar
approach. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Hassan, Hussin Shahbaz. 1979. Kerkük Ağzı [The dialect of Kirkuk]. Istanbul: İstanbul
Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Türk Dili ve Edebiyat Bölümü dissertation.
Haydar, Choban Khıdır. 1979. Irak Türkmen Ağızları. Metinler – İnceleme – Sözlük [The
dialects of Iraqi Turkmen. Texts – Investigation – Dictionary]. Istanbul: İstanbul
Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Türk Dili ve Edebiyat Bölümü dissertation.
Johanson, Lars. 1990. Subjektlose Sätze im Türkischen. In Bernt Brendemoen (ed.), Altaica
Osloensia. Proceedings from the 32nd Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic
Conference, 193–218. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
MacKenzie, David Neil. 1961. Kurdish Dialect Studies, vol. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacKenzie, David Neil. 1962. Kurdish Dialect Studies, vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Marufoğlu, Sinan. 1998. Osmanli Döneminde Kuzey Irak [North Iraq in the Ottoman pe-
riod]. İstanbul: Eren Yayınları.
Pashayev, Gazanfar. 2003. Azerbaijanis in Iraq – Little known people. Azerbaijan Interna-
tional. Spring (11.1). 24–25.
384 Christiane Bulut
Saatçi, Suphi. 2018. The Turkman of Iraq. In Christiane Bulut (ed.), Linguistic Minorities in
Turkey and Turkic-speaking Minorities of the Periphery. (Turcologica 111), 331–343.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Sümer, Faruk. 1952. Bayatlar. İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Türk Dili ve Edebi-
yatı Dergisi IV(4). 373–417.
Online resource:
Türkmeneli İşbirliği ve Kültür Vakfı. “Declaration of Principles of the Turkman Congress”.
http://www.iraqiturkman.org.tr/turkmen27.html (accessed 25 November 2011).
4. Western Iran
4.1. Western Iran: overview
Geoffrey Khan
1. Preliminary remarks
This section includes chapters on Turkic, Iranian and Semitic languages of western
Iran. Some of the languages discussed in these chapters are spoken across a wide
geographical area, which extends beyond the confines of western Iran. This applies
in particular to chapter 4.2 on Turkic of Iran and chapter 4.6 on Persian. The lan-
guages described in these last two chapters extend also into the area covered by
section 3 (eastern Anatolia and northwestern Iran). Chapter 4.3 is on Bakhtiari,
an Iranian language spoken in the Zagros mountains of southwestern Iran in the
four provinces of Khuzestan, Chahar Mahal va Bakhtiari, Lorestan and Esfahan.
The description is based for the most part on the documented dialect of Masjed
Soleymān. Chapter 4.5 concerns the Iranian language Hawrami, the heartland of
which is the Hawrāmān region in the northern Zagros mountains in Kermanshah
province. This is a variety of the Iranian language Gorani, the geographical area
of which includes northern Iraq (see Haig, this volume, chapter 3.3 on Gorani in
Iraq). The description of Hawrami presented here is based on the documented
dialects of Pāwa and Nawsūd. Chapter 4.4 concerns the Neo-Aramaic dialects of
the region. These include dialects belonging to the subgroups of North-Eastern
Neo-Aramaic (NENA) and Neo-Mandaic. The NENA dialects were spoken until
the middle of the twentieth century in the Kordestan and Kermanshah provinces
and the Neo-Mandaic dialects were spoken in the towns of Ahvāz and Khorram-
shahr in Khuzestan province. These Neo-Aramaic dialects are now highly endan-
gered and very few speakers are left in western Iran. The descriptions are based
on fieldwork carried out in diaspora communities outside Iran. Chapter 4.7 is a
description of Kumzari, a language exhibiting a mixture of features from Western
Iranian and Semitic spoken in the Musandam governorate of Oman. This profile
of Kumzari has arisen through the mixing of migrant communities from Iran and
South Arabia.
The languages described in this section exhibit a variety of contact-induced
features. These can be classified broadly into features arising through convergence
with Persian, the national standard language of Iran, and those that are shared
areal features across the languages of western Iran arising through the geograph-
ical contiguity of various language communities. Standard Persian has had some
impact on all languages of the region, but this appears to be more superficial on
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-012
386 Geoffrey Khan
2. Phonology
2.1. Zagros d
In several languages of the region a d in post-vocalic position undergoes a process
of lenition. This has a variety of outcomes across the languages. In the variety of
Hawrami described in chapter 4.5 it is realized as an interdental approximant. In
several varieties of Hawrami spoken outside Hawraman the weakened d is real-
ized as a semivowel /y/. In the speech of migrants from Hawraman in Kerman-
shah it is realized as /y/ or as a lateral /l/ (Mahmoudveysi and Bailey, chapter 4.5,
§3.1). In Bakhtiari d after a word-internal vowel or glide is realized as an inter-
dental approximant or in some dialects as a sonorant r (Anonby and Taheri-Ardali,
chapter 4.3, §2.1). In some Turkic varieties in the Zagros area postvocalic d is
weakened to the sonorant /r/ or sometimes /y/ in combination with front vowels
(Bulut, chapter 4.2, §2.1.2.4). In NENA dialects in the Kordestan and Kerman-
shah provinces a postvocalic d has developed into a lateral /l/ (Khan, chapter 4.4,
§5.1.1). The lateral appears both where there is historically a voiced interdental
*ḏ or an unvoiced interdental *ṯ, e. g. Jewish Sanandaj ʾila < *ʾiḏā ‘hand’, bela <
*bayṯā ‘house’. An intermediate stage of development appears to have been *ṯ > d,
*ḏ > d, whereby both interdentals became a voiced stop d. This intermediate stage
is attested in some NENA dialects of northwestern Iran, e. g. Jewish Urmi ida <
*ʾiḏā ‘hand’, ade < *ʾāṯē ‘he comes’. The lateral /l/ would have, therefore, been
the outcome of a lenition of the stop d.
sonants, or at least those that were pharyngealized at some earlier historical period
(Khan, chapter 4.4, §5.2.1). Indeed in both NENA and Neo-Mandaic the original
pharyngealized coronal consonants ṭ [tˁ] and ṣ [sˁ] now tend to be pronounced
without pharyngealization. In the NENA dialects pharyngeals occasionally occur
as a reflex of a historical interdental *ṯ in a pharyngealized environment, e. g.
ʾaḥra < *ʾˤaˤhˤrˤaˤ < *ʾaṯrā ‘town’.
In the NENA dialects there is a pharyngealized lateral phoneme ḷ [lˁ], which is
stable and kept distinct from its plain counterpart l (Khan, chapter 4.4, §5.3.1). The
pharyngealized lateral is an areal feature and found also in Hawrami (Mahmoud-
veysi and Bailey, chapter 4.5, §3.1).
Kumzari has a series of pharyngealized/velarized consonants that have their
origin in Semitic, but have spread to words of Iranian etymology, e. g. pānḍa
‘fifteen’. The language has the unvoiced Semitic pharyngeal ḥ but not the voiced
pharyngeal (van der Wal Anonby, chapter 4.7, §2).
2.3. Laryngeals
In the Turkic varieties of the region a non-etymological laryngeal h has developed
at the beginning of many words that historically began with a vowel, e. g. helämı-
jälär ‘they don’t do’ (< elämiyirlär), or in loanwords that would have begun with
a vowel without the added h, e. g. helbet (< Arabic albatte) ‘naturally’, or häqiq
(< Persian < Arabic ʿaqîq) ‘agate-stone’ (Bulut, chapter 4.2, §2.1.2.3). This phe-
nomenon appears to be related to the development of the word-initial glottal stop
to h- in Jewish NENA dialects in the region, e. g. J. Sanandaj hezəl ‘he goes’ (<
ʾezəl) (Khan, chapter 4.4, §5.2.1).
In Bakhtiari an intervocalic laryngeal stop develops into h in some dialects,
e. g. sāʔat > sāhat ‘hour’ (Anonby and Taheri-Ardali, chapter 4.3, §2.3).
2.4. Realization of q
The realization of the postvelar or uvular q as a fricative, which is characteristic
of Persian (Paul, chapter 4.6, §3.2), has been replicated in a number of other lan-
guages in the area. This is found in Turkic varieties of Iran, not only in Persian
loanwords but also in Turkic lexical forms, mostly in Sandhi assimilations after
voiced consonants or vowels, e. g. bu qayanası [bo ɣejanasɨ] ‘this (was) her moth-
er-in-law’, oqu- [oxu-] ‘to read’ (Bulut, chapter 4.2, §2.1.1). In Neo-Mandaic q is
often realized as a voiced uvular fricative [ʁ] after a vowel in a stressed syllable
(Khan, chapter 4.4, §5.1.2). A similar realization of postvocalic q is found in the
Jewish Urmi dialect of NENA (Khan 2008: 20). In the Jewish NENA dialects of
the region q after a vowel or w, it is occasionally realized as an unvoiced uvular
fricative (Khan, chapter 4.4, §5.1.1), e. g. Jewish Sanandaj qoqé [qoːˈχeː] ‘pots’.
388 Geoffrey Khan
2.5. Palatalization
Turkic varieties in the region exhibit the palatalization of the velar stops k and g to
[kj] and [gj], or, in a more advanced form, affrication to [ʤ] or [ʧ], in which case
the original affricates [ʤ] and [ʧ] are fronted to [dz] and [ʦ/tç]. This is found in par-
ticular in the Turkic spoken in the north of the region in the Azerbaijanian exclave
Nakhichevan, in some regions of Georgia, around Tabriz and Urmi in Iran, and in
northern Iraq (Bulut, chapter 4.2, §2.1.2.4). Similar palatalization of these conso-
nants is found in the Christian NENA dialects of the Urmi region (chapter 2.5, §5.1).
It is also documented in Bakhtiari (Anonby and Taheri-Ardali, chapter 4.3, §2.1).
3. Morphology
strative pronouns of the Neo-Aramaic dialects (Khan, chapter 4.4, §6.1.1). The
NENA singular far deixis demonstrative pronoun ʾo ‘that’ resembles its counterpart
in Turkic o (Bulut, chapter 4.2, §2.3.2). It is also relevant to note that the gender
distinction of this demonstrative has broken down in the NENA dialects. This may
also have been induced by contact with Turkic, which has no gender distinctions.
The NENA near deixis pronoun ʾiya, which is attested in C. Sanandaj and also in
some NENA dialects in Iraq, closely resembles the discontinuous near demonstra-
tive ī … a of Hawrami, e. g. ī hanār=a ‘prox .dem .adj pomegranate=dem . m ’ (‘this
pomegranate’) (Mahmoudveysi and Bailey, chapter 4.5, §4.3.5). Compare also the
Kumzari near demonstrative ya (van der Wal Anonby, chapter 4.7, §4). These are
not loanwords in the NENA dialects but rather the result of the shaping of the
native morphological material in imitation of corresponding forms in languages
in contact.
dēq-ya ‘a sorrow’. Kumzari has an indefinite-marking suffix with the form -ē, e. g.
qiṣr ‘palace’, qiṣr-ē ‘a palace’ (van der Wal Anonby, chapter 4.7, §4).
Turkic (Bulut, chapter 4.2, §2.3.2) and NENA dialects (Khan, chapter 4.4,
§6.3.1) of the region use only the cardinal numeral ‘one’ to express indefiniteness.
Neo-Mandaic borrows the Iranian pattern cardinal numeral + noun + indefinite
suffix along with the Iranian morphemes ya ‘one’ and -i, e. g. ya tājer-i one mer-
chant-indf ‘a merchant’ (Khan, chapter 4.4, §6.3.2).
3.4. Copulas
All languages of the region have enclitic present indicative copulas. There is a
close, and in some cases complete, correspondence between the inflection of such
enclitic copulas and the inflectional endings of present verbs. In some languages
the 3rd person forms of the copula, or at least the 3rd singular forms, are distinct
from the present verbal inflection, e. g. Hawrami (Mahmoudveysi and Bailey,
chapter 4.5, §4.3.5), standard Persian (Paul, chapter 4.6, §6.5), Turkic (Bulut,
chapter 4.2, §2.3.3.1), the Christian NENA dialect of Sanandaj (Khan, chapter 4.4,
§7.1) and neo-Mandaic (Khan, chapter 4.4, §7.1). There is evidence of diachronic
development in some dialectal varieties of these languages resulting in a conver-
gence between the enclitic copula and the present verbal inflection also in the 3rd
person. This applies, for example, to colloquial Persian and the Jewish NENA
dialects of the region. Persian also has an independent stressed form of copula in
addition to an enclitic present copula (Paul, chapter 4.6, §6.5). An independent
copula also exists in Neo-Mandaic, which is more frequently used than the enclitic
copula. It is obligatorily used when the predicate is a nominal (Khan, chapter 4.4,
§7.1). The Neo-Mandaic enclitic copula is restricted to locative or adjectival pred-
icates (Khan, chapter 4.4, §8.1.1).
Persian: be-
Bakhtiari be-
Hawrami: bi-
NENA Ø-
Neo-Mandaic Ø-
Kumzari expresses the realis by a d infix before the inflectional ending. The irrealis
is expressed by the absence of this infix (van der Wal Anonby, chapter 4.7, §5.3).
4. Syntax
(2) garš-en=yen
pull.prs - d .1 ms = cop .1 ms
‘I am pulling’
(6) a. barādar=at
brother=2s
‘your brother’
b. mī-bīnam=at
ind -see.
prs .1 s =2 s
‘I see you’
c. goftam=at
say.pst .1 s =2 s
‘I told you’
In some Iranian languages of the region such as Persian and Bakhtiari there is gen-
eralized accusative alignment and these pronominal clitics express the objects of
both present and past verbs. In other Iranian languages, such as Hawrami, where
there is ergative alignment, the clitics express the object only on present verbs.
The functional range of the pronominal clitics in Turkic varieties in Iran has
been extended from possessive clitics on nouns to clitics expressing benefac-
tive and dative on predicative constructions, e. g. lazım-mız (necessary-poss .1 pl
(is)) ‘we need’, ertebâṭ var-ı (relation existent- poss .3 sg ), literally ‘his contact
(is) existent’, that is: ‘he has contact’ under the influence of Iranian languages
(chapter 5.1, §7.2.3).
Neo-Mandaic, which has accusative alignment with all verbal forms, uses the
series of possessor pronominal clitics to express the pronominal objects of past
verbs and of 1st and 2nd person present verbs. 3rd person present verbs express
the pronominal object by oblique clitics consisting of the oblique, originally
dative, preposition l- and pronominal suffix (Khan, chapter 4.4, §7.2). In Classi-
cal Mandaic the ancestor of the Neo-Mandaic present forms, i. e. active partici-
ples, could express pronominal objects with either possessor suffixes or oblique
l-suffixes also when the subject was 1st or 2nd person (Nöldeke 1875: 391). This
suggests that the Iranian-type of pronominal objects have gained ground in the
Neo-Mandaic present, most likely through convergence with the Iranian model.
The NENA dialects, which have accusative alignment with present verbs, nor-
mally use oblique l-suffixes to express the accusative pronominal object of present
verbs. There is not, therefore, a correspondence between the possessor suffixes on
nouns and those expressing verbal objects as in Iranian languages. In the Jewish
NENA dialects of western Iran, however, unlike NENA dialects elsewhere, the
possessor suffix is used to express the pronominal object of present verbs with 1st
person singular subjects (Khan, chapter 4.4, §7.1), e. g.
(7) Jewish Sanandaj (Khan 2009: 154–155)
gărəš-n-ef
pull.pres -1 s - poss .3 ms
‘I (ms) pull him’
394 Geoffrey Khan
4.6. Alignment
The Iranian language Hawrami has ergative alignment in clauses with past per-
fective and present perfect verbal forms. Ergativity is found in the same construc-
tions also in the Jewish NENA dialects of Kordestan and Kermanshah provinces,
with distinct inflectional endings marking the subject of transitive and intransi-
tive verbs. With the exception of the Jewish dialect of Sulemaniyya and Ḥalabja
Western Iran: overview 395
across the border in Iraq (Khan 2004), in other NENA dialects the subject of tran-
sitive and intransitive past perfective and perfect verbs have the same inflectional
markers. It is likely that the ergativity of the Jewish dialects of western Iran arose
by convergence with the neighbouring ergative Iranian languages.
Persian and Bakhtiari have accusative alignment. Neo-Mandaic is likewise
accusative in its alignment. This is due to the fact that it has been in contact with
Iranian languages with accusative alignment, such as Persian and Bakhtiari, rather
than ergative Iranian languages.
4.8. Evidential
The languages of the region exhibit a certain tendency to extend the use of the
perfect to the expression of the evidential. Kumzari has a more extensive gram-
maticalized system of evidentiality, which classifies the information source as
firsthand sensory, non-firsthand reportive, or non-firsthand inferred (van der Wal
Anonby, chapter 4.7, §8).
396 Geoffrey Khan
Some of the distinctive features of Turkic described in chapter 4.2 have been rep-
licated in NENA dialects of the Urmi region in the West Azerbaijan province in
northwestern Iran, but not in the NENA dialects further south in the Kordestan
and Kermanshah provinces. These include the palatalization of dorsal consonants,
which has already been mentioned in §2.5 above.
Another phonological feature is the development of suprasegmental pharyn-
gealization in the NENA dialects of the Urmi area (chapter 2.5, §5.4), which must
have had a Turkic model. It is important to note that vowel harmony is in the
process of breaking down in the Turkic of Iran, resulting in phenomena such as the
delabialization of front rounded vowels (Bulut, chapter 4.2, §2.1.2.1). The model
of the NENA harmonic systems, therefore, is likely to have been the Turkic of
earlier periods.
A syntactic feature of the NENA of the Urmi region that has developed due to
convergence with Turkic is the frequent use of infinitives and verbal nouns in sub-
ordinate adverbial clauses (Khan 2008: 288–290, 2016, vol. 2: 241–247), which
replicates the syntax of Turkic gerund constructions. Bulut, however, reports
that in the Turkic of Iran today such subordinate gerund constructions have been
largely replaced by subordinate constructions with finite verbs under the influence
of Persian (Bulut, chapter 4.2, §2.5.1.1). Here again, therefore, it appears that the
convergence of the NENA dialects with Turkic must have taken place at an earlier
period when gerunds were still widely used in Turkic. The lexicon of the NENA
dialects of Urmi has a large proportion of Turkic loanwords (Khan 2008: 383–385,
2016, vol. 3: 1–3). In some cases these words are no longer used in the contem-
porary Turkic of Iran, but can be traced to Ottoman Turkish (Khan 2016, vol. 3:
2). In addition to lexical, there are some material borrowings of morphology. The
Jewish Urmi NENA dialect, for example, has borrowed the Turkic instrumental
case ending -inan (for this form of the ending in the Turkic of Iran see chapter 4.2,
§2.3.1.3) as a phrasal coordinating particle (Khan 2008: 234–235).
A feature relating to verbal aspect is the functional levelling of progressive and
non-progressive present in Turkic. Bulut (Bulut, chapter 4.2, §2.3.3.2) describes
how in some varieties of Turkic the distinction between the present progressive
(“the focal present” in her terminology) and the aorist, i. e. the non-progressive
present (habitual, iterative, intention) has been lost. In some varieties this is due to
a formal merger of the aspectual verbal affixes and in some varieties the functional
range of the progressive form has been extended. This phenomenon in Turkic may
have had an impact on the NENA dialects of the Urmi area, in which the originally
progressive verbal form has come to be used with a non-progressive function.
This is found frequently in the Christian Urmi (Khan 2016, vol.2: 185–198) and
Jewish Urmi (Khan 2008: 274–278) dialects. In the Jewish Salamas dialect this is
regularly the case.
Western Iran: overview 397
References
For the varieties of Turkic spoken all over western and central Iran (including
some pockets in eastern Iran) and their close relatives in Azerbaijan, eastern Ana-
tolia and Iraq no fully developed classification or Turcological model exists. The
linguistic map of the region has many blank spots, and a comparative study of the
whole area is still a desideratum — although a number of older and more recent
studies describe the Turkic varieties of individual regions, or inside the borders of
the respective nation states.1 Even terminology is still a matter of debate: Iran-Tur-
kic is called Turkî by most of its speakers, while the Turks of Iraq call themselves
Turkman, and their language Turkmanja. Publications from Azerbaijan use expres-
sions such as, for instance, Azeri (dialects) of Iraq, and Azeri (dialects) of Iran, or
South Azeri — often with political implications. Azerbaijani, on the other hand,
denotes the official language of the Republic of (North-)Azerbaijan. In Turcolog-
ical literature, closely related dialects in Turkey and Iraq generally are referred to
as eastern Anatolian or Iraq-Turkic/-Turkman dialects, respectively.
The Turkic varieties of Azerbaijan, Iran (with the exception of Khalaj and
certain dialects of Turkmen spoken in north-eastern Iran near the border of Turk-
menistan2), Turkey proper, eastern Anatolia and Iraq represent the western or Sal-
juqian branch of the Oghuz language group (see Table 1 below). The members of
this branch are genetically related and have shared major historical and linguistic
developments. During the 11th century, for instance, their speakers followed the
Saljuq’s migration from Central Asia into Iran, Iraq and Anatolia – thus causing
a first Oghuz split; for roughly four hundred years thereafter they formed part of
the tribal confederations dominating the greater area of Azerbaijan, eastern Ana-
tolia, Iran and Iraq, where some predecessor of ‘Turkî’, an Oghuz variety heavily
spiced with Iranian elements, was used as a language of communication.
Due to their common historical background, the Turkic varieties spoken in
present day Iran are very similar to each other and to the adjacent dialects west
1
Intensive research on dialectology has been carried out in North Azerbaijan (Republic
of Azerbaijan), see Širaliev (1983) on North Azerbaijani dialects, and the Dialect Atlas
(İslamov, M. İ, Aghajev, Ä. G., et. al. 1990). For a comprehensive survey of charac-
teristic features of Iran-Turkic varieties and models for their classification see Doerfer
(2006) and a very interesting model developed by Windfuhr (Enc. Iranica 2006).
2
Namely Turkmen (called North Oghuz in Doerfer 2006); Khorâsân-Turkic (or, accord-
ing to Doerfer 2006, East Oghuz) denotes a group of transitional dialects.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-013
The Turkic varieties of Iran 399
of Iran, with characteristic features and isoglosses reaching down into Iraq and
eastern Anatolia. The official or standard language to which these Turkic varie-
ties are most closely related is Azerbaijani of the Republic of Azerbaijan, while
Turkish of Turkey has developed differently for at least 500 years.
All Turkic varieties of this region display different degrees of Iranicization. In
Iran proper, Iranicization of phonology, syntax and lexicon is extremely strong.
This facilitates mutual intelligibility despite some minor regional variation.3
The following survey (Table 1) lists the main representatives of the Oghuz lan-
guage group according to Doerfer’s (2006) classification (marked with an aster-
isk *), which is based on geographical criteria; it also considers the historical
affiliation of different Oghuz groups with the Saljuqs’ movement to the West and
their relation to Turkî, the predecessor of present day Azeri, Iraq and Iran-Turkic.
Figure 1 indicates the locations of the groups mentioned in this chapter.
3
The influence of the mainstream Oghuz varieties is very strong and has even invaded
Khalaj, the only non-Oghuz member of the Turkic languages of central Iran: Nowadays
Khalaj is a strongly Oghuzicized and Iranicized language containing some relics or
fragments of an underlying older Turkic linguistic system.
400 Christiane Bulut
Moreover, most established rulers used to send the tribes all over the country,
locating them in sensitive areas at the frontiers, re-locating unruly elements in
marginal regions, or forming powerful tribal confederations to back up their polit-
ical influence.
Thus, the relocation of populations between the 16th and 18th centuries depicted
in Fig. 2 are highly characteristic of the history of settlement in Iran. Uprisings of
tribes requiring severe measures such as deportation or forced settlement are by
no means a phenomenon of the remote past; they still took place during the first
decades of the 20th century in the region of Iran and Anatolia.
Figure 2: Re-location of nomadic tribes between the 16th and 18th centuries
403
404
Christiane Bulut
4
Assuming that the Khalaj linguistic community has shared the average growth in
population figures, Boeschoten (1998) should be corrected to 35,226 out of a total of
78,868,711 according to the recent official population statistics of Iran (July 2011).
As the basic estimate of 28,000 was made in the late 1960s/early 1970s, at present the
number of Khalaj speakers rather would be over 40,000.
5
CIA World Factbook mentions 68 millions inhabitants, of which 24 % (16,320,000) are
Turcophone.
406 Christiane Bulut
guage, as, for instance, in Azerbaijan proper, and in rural and tribal areas with pre-
dominantly Turcophone populations. And even these mono-lingual women have
some passive command of Persian, acquired through contact with their children
or grandchildren, or with the media. Men with the same social background are
mostly bi- or multilingual, as they have served in the military and are exposed to
other languages through work or in their social networks. Normally, they display
active command of Persian, plus maybe one or two regional languages of commu-
nication.
The social contexts of bi- and multilingualism are very diverse. In Sonqor in
the Province of Kordestan, for instance, everyone has some active command of
Persian, while Turkî is used as a home language and for trade in the city; the regional
language of communication, though receding in recent times, is Kolyâ’î-Kurdish.
Armenians from the Central Province or the Esfahan Province speak Armenian,
Persian and Turkî, but sometimes additionally also varieties of Kurdish. Kalhor
Kurds in the eastern Hamadan Province use Kurdish as a home language, Turkî as
the regional language of communication, and speak Persian perfectly well.
6
After the former term lingua turcica agemica, which Raphael du Mans coined in the 2nd
half of the 17th century, see Johanson (1985: 145).
7
Paragraph §15 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic reads as follows (my transla-
tion): “The common official and literary language of the people of Iran is Fârsî. But the
use of the local or tribal languages (zabân-e maḥallî va qavmî) in printed matters and
in communication of the respective groups, as well as in teaching of their literature in
school, [as a second language] besides Fârsî, is free.”
The Turkic varieties of Iran 407
2. Linguistic features
With the exception of Turkmen and the non-Oghuzic elements in Khalaj, Iran-Tur-
kic varieties are quite similar to one another. They share most of their structural
features and their lexicon, and a considerable proportion of elements copied from
Modern Persian, which additionally contributes to mutual intelligibility. To exem-
plify some of the characteristic developments in the Turkic varieties in context,
the appendix contains two short sample texts. Text 1 from Sonqor displays a
number of individual traces in phonology and morphology, while sample text 2
from Bayâdestân in the Central Province represents main-stream Turkî. Quota-
tions from these texts are marked by a number indicating the text and sentence
number. When referring to texts collected in other regions, I will also indicate the
place of origin in brackets.
2.1. Phonology
With regard to their phonological behaviour, Iran-Turkic varieties are considerably
diverse; consequently, they “sound” different. In most cases, the pronunciation is
heavily influenced by the languages in contact of the neighbouring area. Speakers
from Iraq or Sonqor have a heavy Kurdish “accent”; the Qashqâʾî pronunciation
imitates the local Luri or Shirazi dialects; speakers from the North and the Tabriz
region display heavy “fronting”, which is a typical areal feature. Strangely out of
place appears the so-called Qipchaq isogloss, a morpho-phonological assimila-
tion well-described for North Azerbaijani, which re-surfaces in the varieties of the
Khalaj of Bayâdestân in central Iran (see §5.1.4).
Traditionally phonetic or phonological copying8 seems to have been the result
of convergence in smaller regional units or of the influence of smaller regional
languages of communication, but now it has been widely replaced by replication
from the prestige or standard languages that the media propagate.
8
Based on the code-copying model developed by Johanson (1993), contact-induced lin-
guistic processes are perceived as code-copying.
408 Christiane Bulut
The voiced post-alveolar sibilant ǰ [ʒ] is a foreign element that does not appear in
genuine Turkic lexical items. Moreover, Turkic words do not begin with c- [ʤ], ɣ-,
l-, m-, r-, and z-; the appearance of word-initial n- is restricted to interrogatives such
as, for instance, (nimä) nä ‘what’, niyä ‘why’, näcä ‘how’, and näčä ‘how much’.
Similar h- (< older q-) appears in interrogatives haçan ‘when’, harda ‘where’, and
hangu ‘which’. Word-initial m-, as, for instance, in the personal pronoun 1st singu-
lar män (< bän ‘I’) or the accusative of the demonstrative pronoun (munu < bunu
‘this’:Acc) has originated through regressive assimilation of b- to the following n.
The distribution of initial stops is complicated. According to current theories in
Turcology, Ancient Turkic had t-, k- and b-, with a tendency of the Oghuz branch
to develop lenes variants of t- > d-, and k- > g-; p- rarely occurs word-initially
(Doerfer 2006: 97). In present day varieties of Oghuz Turkic the occurrence of
lenes or fortes allophones of k- or t- varies across different regions, which makes
it unpredictable. Most Azeri or Iran-Turkic dialects prefer word-initial fortes in
Turkic lemmata such as, for instance, tik- (corresponding to Turkish dik-) ‘to
sew’, tök- (instead of Turkish dök-) ‘to pour’, or köč- (for göç-) ‘to nomadize’ (but
mostly gäči for käçi ‘goat’), while degil ‘not’, gör- ‘to see’, or git- ‘to go’ have
lenes in both languages. In combination with back vowels, the old lenes seem
to appear more frequently; the pronunciation of these elements, though, is rather
that of a media lenis (a devoiced d pronounced with strong pressure, resembling
the emphatic (pharygealized) Arabic ḍ), see examples such as dʕuz ‘salt’, or dʕaš
‘stone’. On the other hand Iran-Turkic or Azeri varieties display word-initial b-
in a number of lexical items beginning with p- in Turkish, see examples such as
barmaq (in contrast to Turkish parmak) ‘finger’, or p- in words beginning with
b- in (Standard) Turkish, as in pox (cf. Turkish box) ‘shit’. Other Turkic roots vary
between p- and b-, such as, for instance, piš- ~ biš- ‘to cook’.
Turkic [q] is an allophone of /k/ that appears in +back syllables and occurs in
complementary distribution with [k], compare qul ‘slave’ and kül ‘ashes’. Most
Turkic varieties of the target area have preserved word initial q-, see, for instance
sample text (1/3) [qabər] qabr ‘grave’, and (2/6) [qoɲʃʊsɨnən qızenıñ ] qonšusunun
qızının ‘his neighbour’s daughter’s’; in some regions q- may also be pronounced
as postvelar voiced stop [ɢ], which often happens in instances of Sandhi assimila-
tion. Note that Modern Persian pronunciation does not differentiate between the
voiced velar fricative /ġ/ and the unvoiced postvelar stop /q/, as both have merged
into a unique phoneme pronounced [ɣ]. Copies of this merger can be found across
Iran-Turkic varieties; especially lexical copies from Persian imitate the Persian
pronunciation, see, for instance, qazâ ‘food’, which also appears with initial [ɣ-]
as [ɣæzɒ]. Even word-initial /q-/ in Turkic stems may be pronounced as [ɣ-],
The Turkic varieties of Iran 409
mostly in Sandhi assimilations after voiced consonants or vowels, see the follow-
ing examples from Bayâdestân in central Iran: [xɑlam ɣɨzınıj] < halam qızının ‘my
cousin’s’, [bo ɣejnanasɨ] bu qaynanası ‘this (was) her mother-in-law’, [dɞ ɣojmʏʃ]
de qoymuš ‘and has put’, but also [qojær ͜ əmɨʃ] qoyarmıš ‘one (obviously) used to
put’ (Bayâdestân). In word-internal position [q] quite regularly becomes [x], see
examples such as oqu- [> oxu-] ‘to read’, aqar [> axar] ‘it flows’. Especially in
copies of Persian lexical items word-internal /q/ is often pronounced as [-ɣ-], see,
for instance, the sample text 1 from Sonqor: [mothæɣıd], from Persian (< Arabic)
motaqâʿed ‘convinced’ (1/3), and [bɒːɣı ɣɑlmi] bâqî qalmıš, a mixed copy of the
Persian bâqî mândan ‘to remain’, in (1/4). In word-final position of mono-syllabic
words /q/ mostly becomes –x, as in yoq [> jox] ‘non-existent’, but it also displays
the voiced allophone [ɣ], see forms such as [jɛmɑɣ] ‘food’ (Iraq Turkic) or [ɣɑtɨːɣ
elɛ-] qatıq elä- ‘to prepare dried yogurt’ (Qashqâʾî).
Originally, the members of the pairs of voiced/unvoiced stops p/b, t/d, and
k/g did not form separate phonemes in Turkic. Due to the high percentage of bi-
and multi-lingual speakers in the region, and the fact that a major proportion of
the lexicon has been copied from other languages (such as, for instance, Modern
Persian) where /p/, /b/, /t/, /d/, /k/ and /g/ are distinct phonemes, the situation
has changed in present day Iran-Turkic. There is a practical need to differentiate
between Turkic bul! ‘find!’ and the Persian pul ‘money’, gäč ‘plaster’ and käč
‘crooked’ (< gağ, kağ, both loans from Persian appearing across Iran-Turkic vari-
eties), or Persian kâl ‘unripe’ and Turkic qal! ‘stay!’
The distinctive primary length of older stages of Turkic has been lost, although one
comes across long vowels which coincide with old length (in words such as, for
instance, [ɑːd] ‘name’ or [oːd] ‘fire’, examples from Iraq Turkic).
Delabialization
Another characteristic feature of the so-called Iranization of Turkic vowel systems
is delabialization of the front rounded vowels /ö/ and /ü/. In most instances /ö/
is transformed into its unrounded counterpart [e] (as in öz > [ez] ‘self’, böyük >
[bejek] ‘big, grand’, gör- > [ger-] ‘to see’), while /ü/ becomes [ı], as in süt > [sid
‘milk], or yüŋg > [jıŋg] ‘wool’. Especially in the vicinity of the glide [j] or palatal
[g’] and [k’], [i] < [e] < /ö/ occurs, e. g. böyük > [bijek] ‘big’, or čökäläk > [ʧɪkɛlɪg]
‘fresh cheese’. Delabialization is more or less conventionalized in the southern
varieties of Iraq Turkic (Bulut 1999), in most Qashqâʾî varieties, in Khalaj in
412 Christiane Bulut
central Iran (Doerfer 1988), in the Afshar varieties of Qabul and in the dialect of
ʿAlî Qûrchî south of Arak (see Doerfer and Hesche 1989: 28–29).
In irregular distribution — mostly as spontaneous variants of labialized forms —
delabialized pronunciations appear across the whole region, in south-eastern Ana-
tolian dialects with a strong Kurdish adstratum, or with bilingual Turkic-Persian
speakers.9
9
Doerfer makes similar observations regarding Paradomba (Esfahan province), see
Doerfer and Hesche (1989: 28–29).
The Turkic varieties of Iran 413
Initial h-
Across the Turkic varieties of the region initial h- is problematic. In some lexical
items, such as his ‘soot’ (cf. Turkish: is), hör- ‘knit’ (Turkish: ör), or hürk- ‘shy’
(Turkish: ürk-), it coincides with older Turkic h-, which has been lost in other
Turkic languages. There are also numerous examples of conventionalized prothetic
h- in connection with foreign words, such as helbet (< Arabic albatte) ‘naturally’,
or häqiq (< Persian < Arabic ʿaqîq) ‘agate-stone’. In other instances spontaneous
h-prosthesis occurs, e. g. härwär-äkä ‘the woman’ (< Arabic ʿawrat-spec ) from
Sonqor, or helämıjälär ‘they don’t do’ (< elämiyirlär) from Bayâdestân. Prothetic
h- may have originated under the influence of contact languages such as Arabic
or Kurdish, which do not display word-initial vowels. Turkic varieties in different
language-contact situations completely avoid h-, e. g. äm ‘too, also’ (< Iranian
ham), or är (< Iranian här) in the Urum variety of Georgia.
with back and front vowels, and sometimes [-j-] in combination with front vowels.
This happens in connection with copied lexical items such as âdam [ɑræm]
(< Persian < Arabic), ‘man’, and adaqlı [araxli] ‘fiance’, as well as with genuine
Turkic roots, such as odun [urın] ‘firewood’, or with the copula past 3sg in idi [irı]
‘was’, and present 3sg in {+ri} < {+dir} ‘is’, see sample text (1/2), or verb forms
such as gedärdi [gijærdı] ‘he/she went along’.
To a lesser extent instability of intervocalic /-d-/ also appears in Qashqâʾî in
the southern Zagros area. In connection with the verb stem ged-, for instance,
intervocalic /-d-/ may either be pronounced as [d], or it may be replaced by the
glottal stop [ʔ] or the palatal glide [j], as the following forms based on the verb
root ged- ‘to go’ demonstrate: [geʔıllær], [gejllær], [gejıllär], all three forms being
pronunciations of gedirler ‘they go’; see also Bulut (2016: 250–251).
2.2. Morpho-phonology
2.2.1.1. Assimilation of consonant groups containing the liquids /r/ and /l/
/-nl-/ > [-nn-]: Suffix-initial /l-/ is subject to various types of progressive assimi-
lation on morpheme boundaries. The plural suffix {+lar}, for instance, may assim-
ilate to stem final /-n/ as in [ʤejrɑnnær] < ceyranlar ‘gazelles’ (Iraq), [mɛhmɒn-
The Turkic varieties of Iran 415
10
One of the Oghuz-speaking Turkic tribes in the valley of Bayâdestân between Sâveh
and Hamadan in central Iran also call themselves Khalaj. Their genealogical relation to
the speakers of the archaic Khalaj language is not clear.
11
That {y < * ŋ} is also found in Urfa in eastern Anatolia may be due to the presence of
the Bayat tribe in this region.
The Turkic varieties of Iran 417
2.3. Morphology
Turkic morphology is agglutinative and right-branching; derivation and inflec-
tion rely on suffixes. Postpositions or case markers combined with postpositions
denote location.
12
The basic forms of the Oghuz possessive suffixes are 1sg {+(U)m}/1pl {+(U)mUz}
~{+(I)muz}, 2sg {+(U)ŋ}/2pl {+(U)ŋUz} ~ {+(I)ŋuz}, 3sg {+(s)I}/3pl {+lArI}. Doer-
fer (2006: 102) supposes that the forms of the second persons go back to a mixture of
{+(U)ŋ}/{+(U)ŋUz}, with old /ŋ/ > [n], [ŋ], or [ɲ], and {+(U)G}/{+(U)GUz} (only
in inscriptions, see Gabain 1941: 97), where old /G/ became [v], [y], [g], [ɣ], or [ŋ].
Note that the genitive < *{+nUŋ} shows the same phonological varieties without being
traced back to “old G” < *{+nUG}. Writing /ŋ/ as <G> may have been a graphic con-
vention; see also the representation of /ŋ/ as sağır kaf in Arabic script.
13
According to Tuna’s notation (1984), palatalized [ɲ] seems to be the most frequent
realization of old */ŋ/ in Abivardi.
418 Christiane Bulut
14
Sporadically one also comes across an instrumental case in {+(y)dan} in Iran, as, for
The Turkic varieties of Iran 419
2.3.1.4. Comparison
Comparison of adjectives is expressed analytically by the adverbs daha ‘more’
and lap (restricted to Azerbaijan) or än ‘most’ preceding the adjective. The Turkic
suffix {+rAK} has survived in most regions of Azerbaijan proper and in Sonqorî.
Parallel, many varieties use the Iranian comparative suffix {+tär} and the superla-
tive suffix {+tärin}, e. g. Sonqorî čox-raq and čox-tär ‘more’. In the South, Iranian
comparative suffixes have nearly completely replaced their Turkic counterparts.
2.3.2. Pronouns
The personal pronouns are 1sg män, 2sg sän, 3sg o, 1pl biz, 2pl siz, 3pl olar
(~ ular etc.); the reflexive or emphatic pronoun is based on öz ‘self’. In contrast
to Turkish, there are only two demonstrative pronouns, namely bu, Pl. bular ‘this’
(with an emphatic form ha bu ‘this one here’), and o, Pl. olar ‘that’. While the
indefinite pronoun is mostly bir ‘one’, Sonqorî and Ben use a special form bice
(see 1/1).
Across Turkic varieties of Iraq, and northwestern, central and southern Iran
(including Khalaj, see Doerfer (1988: 107) a defective pronominal paradigm
based on the stem bilä- appears.15 This always combines with possessive suffixes
and case markers, as, for instance, in bilä-mız-ä (bilä + poss .1 pl + dative) ‘for/to
us’, or postpositions, as in bilä-si ’čün (bilä + poss .3 sg + posp ) ‘for him/her’. It
neither appears as an unmarked case or nominative, nor in the function of adjec-
tival öz ‘own’. bilä is restricted to object positions of dative, accusative, ablative
and instrumental, and combinations with the postposition ičin ‘for’; it does not
combine with genitive suffixes to form possessive pronouns (see also Bulut 2003).
instance, in the variety of the city of Ben, in the North-east of Chaharmahal and Bakh-
tiari Province.
15
The lexical meaning of this stem is unclear; the best guess is Soper (1996), who main-
tains that bilä goes back to the adverb belä ‘so’, which indeed may combine with pos-
sessive suffixes.
420 Christiane Bulut
2.3.3.1. Copula
Across the area, the heterogeneous forms of copula and possessive suffixes func-
tion as a distinctive feature of the Turkic varieties, see Table 5 below.16 While the
copula suffixes of the first and second persons derive from the personal pronouns,
the third persons are either unmarked {-Ø}, or take the form of a suffix in {-DIr/-
DUr etc.} that goes back to the verb dur- ‘to stand’. Frequent usage of the copula
of the 3rd person may point to the influence of Iranian languages, where an overt
marking is obligatory. The plural suffix {-lAr} quite regularly displays regressive
assimilation of word-final [-r] to the [l-]; forms like olurlar ‘they become’, are
pronounced [olullar] in most Iranian and Iraq-Turkic dialects.
16
In the tables below, <X> indicates +/- rounded high vowels such as {X = u, ü, ı, i}; <I>
represents unrounded high vowels {I = i, ı}, <U> rounded high vowels {U = ü, u}, and
<A> open unrounded vowels{A = a, ä}.
The Turkic varieties of Iran 421
Especially in the varieties of central and south-western Iran, the personal suffixes
of the possessive and pronominal type have become more similar to each other in
the 1st and 2nd persons and are only differentiated by a high/close (in possessive suf-
fixes) or an open (in pronominal suffixes) vowel. This differentiation has already
collapsed in some of the Central dialects, where — due to internal assimilation to
/y/—the 2nd persons may display identical pronunciations, see Table 6 below.
Table 6: Personal suffixes of the possessive and pronominal type/South and Central
1st singular 2nd singular 1st plural 2nd plural
possessive {-Im}, {-Xm} {-Iŋ} > {-iy} {-Ik}, {-Xk} {-IŋIz} > {-I:z}
type
pronominal type/ {-Am} {-Aŋ} {-Xk}, {-Ak} {-AŋIz}, {-I:z}
copula > {-Ay) > {-ey}
> {-iy}
2.3.3.2. Tense-mood-aspect
Focal present and aorist
Across the region, most present paradigms reflect the Azeri type: The morpheme
of the focal present, i. e. progressive present, is {-Xr}, which differs from the
aorist in {-Ar} only with regard to its high/close vowel. Stem-final vowels are
17
In Kifri, Tuzkhurmati etc.
422 Christiane Bulut
normally deleted; thus, for instance, išlä- ‘to work’ forms a focal present išl-ir(i)
‘he is working’, and an aorist išl-är ‘he (usually) works’.18
Deviations from this model are frequent. In varieties that display a morpholog-
ically different focal present, high vowels such as {X = u, ü, ı, i} may also appear
in the aorist, their distribution being similar to that of Turkish of Turkey.
Sonqorî uses a focal present in {-(X)(y)ou(r)}19, e. g. issyouräm (also con-
tracted: isiyoum) ‘I want’, bılowsä: ‘you know’, iliyou ‘he/she is doing’, issyourax
‘we want’, bılousez ‘you (pl ) know’, and issiyouseːz ‘you (pl ) want’, and issiyou-
lar ‘they want’. Consequently, high/close and open vowels appear in the aorist,
as in the following examples from sample text 1: dɑnɨʃıllɛː speak.aor .3 pl (1/1),
dıˈjɛllɛː say.aor .3 pl (1/2) ılɛllɛː make.aor .3 pl (1/5). In other varieties, relics of a
present construction in {*-Iyori} occur alongside the more frequent forms based
on {-Ir}, e. g. giriyöm (< gör-iyür-äm) ‘I see’, and bilmiyüräm ‘I don’t know’, both
from the Bayat variant of Fars, or qalıyür ‘he stays’ from the Khalaj of Bayâdestân.
Due to a tendency across the region to shorten or delete word-internal sylla-
bles, the distinctive feature of the present or aorist morpheme ({-Xr} vs. {-Ar}) is
often blurred. Moreover, in the 1st person singular and plural the vowel of the aorist
is regularly omitted after stems ending in /-r/ or /-l/, e. g. vur-r-am (< vur-ar-ram)
‘I beat’ or allam (< al-ar-am) ‘I take’; see also Bulut, this volume, chapter 3.5,
§2.1.2.1.
18
An exception to this rule are monosyllabic verb stems ending in vowel, such as ye- ‘to
eat’ and de- ‘to say’, which may, among other possible forms (such as deri, deyiri, diyiri
etc.), have a present tense deyir(i) ‘he says’, and an aorist diyär ‘he (usually) says’.
19
Like the Turkish focal present, this tense marker is based on *{-(X)yori}), consisting of
a gerundial form of the lexical verb plus an auxiliary < *yori- ‘to go’.
20
Contraction of {-siŋiz/-sıŋız} or {-seŋiz/-saŋız}.
The Turkic varieties of Iran 423
In the central and southern varieties of the region, the personal suffixes of the 2nd
person singular and plural go back to an older intermediary form {-Aŋ} or {-AŋIz},
which the Safî Khânî-variety of Fars has obviously preserved, e. g. sän gäl-ır-äŋ
‘you.sg come’ or sız gäl-ır-äŋız ‘you.pl come’. Other varieties from the Îl-e Qash-
qâʾî or from central Iran exhibit different stages of the phonological development
of {-Aŋ} > [-Ej] > [-ej] > [-ıj]. The Begdilli and Bayat variants of Fars, and the
central dialects of the Hamadan Province and the region around Esfahan have gäl-
ır-äy, or rarely also gäl-ır-ıy, in the singular, while the corresponding forms of the
2nd plural are gäl-ır-äyz or gäl-ır-eyz (with an additional variant gäl-ır-ıyz in the
Bayat variety of Fars and some central dialects).
Across the region, the 3rd person singular appears without an agent marker, as,
for instance, in gör-ör ‘he sees’ (2/6); yet, it also may exhibit an additional element
{-I} = [ı, e], as in ölıre ‘he/she dies’ (Iraq), or istıre ‘he/she wants’ (Bayâdestân), or
der-e ‘he says’ in sample text 2/4. The final /-r/ of third person plural often assim-
ilates to the initial /l-/ of the plural suffix, as, for instance, in gäl-il-lär (come.
prs .3 pl ) ‘they come’ (2/4), deʾillär (say.prs .3 pl ) ‘they say’ (Esfahan), de-ʾäl-lär
(say. aor .3 pl ) ‘they (usually) say’ (2/5).
The functional distribution of the aorist (habituality, iterativity, ability, inten-
tion) and present (focality) is not clear-cut. In Standard Azerbaijani and in the
northern varieties, it mostly corresponds to that of Turkish of Turkey. As explained
above (see §2.3.3.2 on Focal present and aorist), the central dialects and Iraq
Turkic sometimes exhibit a formal merger of the positive forms, which makes it
impossible to differentiate between aorist and present. The functional distribution
of different paradigms which may exist in parallel in the same variety — such
as the present in {-Ir} and relics of a present in < {*-Iyori} in the Bayat variety
of Fars — is also unclear. In some Qashqâʾî-varieties the present in {-Ir} has
lost focality, in that its function has been extended to include not only the focal
present but also iterativity or habituality, where one would expect the aorist. Con-
sequently, the function of the aorist is restricted to expressions of modality, such
as predictions of future actions or necessity (see Bulut 2016).
The formal and functional vagueness, and the fact that the distribution of both
present types is blurred (one may find present were one expects aorist, and vice
versa), may create the impression that either the two have merged into one, or that
a focal present is still not fully developed. This may be due to the language contact
situation, as the Iranian languages have just one morphologically simple present.
The negative forms of present and aorist, on the other hand, are morphologically
distinct, see, for instance, the negative forms of the first person singular of the
focal present ged-mır-äm ‘I don’t go (now)’, vs. the aorist ged-mäm/ged-män-äm
‘I never go’, or 1st plural ged-mir-ik ‘we don’t go’, vs. gedmäːk ‘we never go’, see
Table 7 below.
424 Christiane Bulut
A non-evidential perfect
Across the region, the perfect displays three morphologically different types.
Perfect paradigms are based either on the old morpheme {-mXš}, on a mixed
paradigm consisting of {-mXš} and a ‘new’ perfect marker which goes back to
the gerund in {-(y)Xb}, or solely on {-(y)Xb}. The personal suffixes are of the
pronominal type, while the 3rd persons may optionally combine with the copula
{+DXr} < durur.21
The Qashqâʾî-varieties of the Safî Khânî and the Bayat (see Bulut 2016), and
also Sonqorî have preserved the old paradigm in {-mXš} in all persons, see the
examples from sample text 1, with the characteristic /-š/ > [-Ø], such as: gɛlmı
‘come.prf .3 sg ’, ılɛmı ‘make.prf .3 sg ’, and vermı ‘give.prf .3 sg ’ (1/4). Other vari-
eties have completely restructured their perfect. Paradigms on the basis of the
new element {-(y)Xb} are found in Altunköprü in Iraq, in Qalʿä Gözäldärä in the
eastern part of Bayâdestân (bilingual Kalhor Kurds), in the Province of Esfahan,
and in the Begdilli variety of Qashqâʾî. More frequent are mixed paradigms with
{-mXš} for 1st persons and {-Xp} for 2nd and 3rd persons (most varieties of Iraq),
or {-mXš} in the 1st and 2nd persons and {-Xp} for 3rd persons, as in Baku in North
Azerbaijan and in Bayâdestân and other central varieties of Iran. The geographical
distribution of the different perfect paradigms is extremely irregular, and often
varies from one village to the next (see also Širaliev 1983: 115 on North Azerbai-
jani dialects). Moreover individual speakers may use different forms in parallel,
producing third persons in {-(y)Xb} and in {-mXš}, which could be interpreted as
reflecting development in progress.
In contrast to the Turkish perfect in {-mIš}, the perfect occurring in the region
we are concerned with (eastern Anatolia, western Iran, Azerbaijan and Iraq) is
strictly resultative and has no marked inferential or evidential qualities. Inferential
or evidential connotations are expressed by the evidential/inferential copula in
{-ImIš}, as in yatmıš-ımıš ‘she had obviously gone to sleep’ (Khalaj of Bayâdestân);
21
According to Bodrogligeti (1968: 30), the complex forms in {-(y)IbDIr} may have been
inspired by the model of the Persian perfect, which—in contrast to the Turkic zero-mor-
pheme—has an explicit morphological element to mark the 3rd person singular on the
surface. Thus, the complex form gälübtur ‘has come’ in the glossary of the Esfahan
anonymous, for instance, would be a structural copy of the Persian âmade ast (come.
pst . ptcp + copula 3sg ).
The Turkic varieties of Iran 425
see also a contracted form in sample text 1: qejr-ımi (< qeyrmıš-ımıš) ‘has founded
(as they say)’ (1/2), and maɣoly͜ ımı (1/3) ‘was a Mongol (as I infer)’.
22
Whether {-AsI} appears in complementary distribution with the necessitative in
{-mAlI} is a question for further research.
426 Christiane Bulut
sative. Paraphrases for ‘to need’ (both in Iraq-Turkic and Iran-Turkic) and for ‘to
own’ (occurring solely in Iran-Turkic) imply that in the given language contact
situation, Turkic possessive suffixes have copied additional functional properties
of Iranian clitics and may thus also represent the dative or benefactory case (see
below).
interpreted as a variety of the mihi est pattern: ‘X is existent for me’ ≈ ‘X belongs
to me; I have/possess X’—with the Turkic possessive suffix representing the
dative/benefactory case.
23
Note that Turkic languages may make use of similar deviations from the unmarked
SOV word order to put a certain element in focus, which is not the case in constructions
with the postverbal dative in Turkic of Iran and Iraq.
The Turkic varieties of Iran 429
Sonqor) ‘this side of Sonqor’ (1/5), where the Persian ezâfe connects substantives;
and afsar-ân-e Maġol (soldiers-pl - ez Mongol) ‘the Mongol soldiers’ (1/3, with a
Persian plural marker on the first element), or zabân-e Torkî (language-ez Turkic)
‘the Turkic language’ (1/4), where the ezâfe links an adjective to a substantive. For
Iraq Turkic, see Bulut, this volume, chapter 3.5, §2.4.5.2, where the usage of ezâfe
constructions is rather limited.
2.5. Syntax
Turkic languages mainly rely on non-finite verb forms to express the syntactic
equivalents of Indo-European dependent clauses. In principle adverbial action
clauses are based on gerunds, while nominalized verb forms such as verbal nouns
and participles denote agent clauses (relative clauses) or nominalized action
clauses (such as, for instance, complement clauses).24 In Iran-Turkic, and, to a
lesser extent, also in Iraq-Turkic and in the Turkic varieties spoken in Azerbai-
jan proper, these principles of Turkic syntax are largely abandoned. In irregular
distribution one comes across a very limited inventory of surviving gerunds and
nominalized subordinators, examples of which are given under §8.1 below.
2.5.1.1. Gerunds
Temporal clauses based on the complex gerunds in {-(y)AndA} and {-(y)AndAn}
Characteristic of the region (including Iran, Iraq, eastern Anatolia and Azerbai-
jan) are complex gerunds in {-(y)AndA} and {-(y)AndAn}, combinations of the
present participle in {-(y)An} with the case suffixes of the locative or ablative
(+ postposition sonra). The complex gerund in {-(y)AndA} encodes a notion of
simultaneousness (see ex. 1) or anteriority (ex. 2) of the action expressed in the
temporal clause:
24
See Johanson (1990: 199–200).
25
With shorter speech samples, one may get the impression that non-finite subjunctors are
completely extinct across Iran-Turkic. Most of the examples quoted here originate from
Bayâdestân in central Iran, where the present author conducted a large-scale field study
(see Bulut: forthcoming).
430 Christiane Bulut
(1) Kerkuk
asmane attanda obürı dašı qaldırı yerdän…
sky.dat throw.ger other.acc stone.acc takesup.prs .3 sg ground. abl
‘While throwing (the first stone) up to the sky, he lifts up the other one
from the ground, …’
(2) Bayâdestân
čöldän gäländä bilälärä nahar âmad’ elärdik
outskirts.abl come.ger them lunch ready make.aorii .1 pl
‘When they came back from (the fields) outside the village, we would
prepare lunch for them.’
The complex gerund in {-(y)AndAn} stresses anteriority of the action expressed in
the gerundial phrase, as in example (3) below:
(3) Bayâdestân
xarman eliyännän sora o qururdu; qurıyännän
threshing floor come.ger posp that dry. aor . pst .3 sg dry. ger
sora o ökiz aparardılar …
posp that oxen bring. aor . pst .3 pl
‘After they had piled it (=the wheat) up on the threshing floor, it would
dry; after it had dried, they/one would bring the oxen …’
Iraq-Turkic uses complex gerunds based on the verbal nouns in {-DIK} or {-mEK}
in a similar function (see Bulut, this volume, chapter 3.5, §2.5.1.1). In the Safî
Khânî variety of Qashqâʾî, the verbal noun in {-DIK} combines with the loca-
tive in {+DA} and the ablative in {+DAn} to form complex temporal gerunds, as
in köč-dig-dä (migrate.vn . loc ) ‘while migrating’, and är-dig-dän (reach.vn . abl )
‘after having reached’ (see Bulut: 2016).
26
Such as, for instance, the gerunds in {-yE}, {-(y)Ip}, {-EnI (< -ElI)}, {-(y)IncE},
{aorist+ -kEn}, and {-dIKčE}; see also Bulut, this volume, chapter 3.5, §2.1.3.1.
The Turkic varieties of Iran 431
(4) Bayâdestân
Ušaɣiy olar, män gälip sänä
child.poss .2 sg be. aor .3 sg I come. ger you. dat
yetišäbilmäm. Sän gälip burda qalginän!
reach. poss . aor .1 sg You come. ger here stay.imp
‘When your child is born, I won‘t be able to come and wait on you. So come
and stay here!’
In double verb constructions the gerund modifies the action expressed in the finite
verb, as, for instance, in tutup gätir- (< hold.ger bring) ‘to bring along’, or götürüp
ged- (< take_away.ger go) ‘take away/take to another place’; see also durub gäl-
(< get_up.ger come) in example (5) below:
(5) Khalaj of Bayâdestân
Sän Tährannan durub gälmišäy.
you Tehran.abl get_up. ger come. prf .2S g
‘You have come all the way from Tehran.’
27
See also Bulut, this volume, chapter 3.5, §2.4.5.1, example (7).
432 Christiane Bulut
and dependent clause. Consequently, the Turkic varieties of the region exhibit
a reduced inventory of non-finite subordinators, such as gerunds, verbal nouns
and participles. The far-reaching Iranicization of syntax is strongest in the vari-
eties spoken in Iran proper, and nowadays less prominent in the varieties of the
peripheries.
Structural copying in syntax is often accompanied by phonological copying.
Copied syntactic structures may also imitate supra-segmental intonation patterns
of the model. The copied sentence melody or the respective patterns of pitch are
part of the process of syntactic copying. In questions and co-ordinated clauses
formed according to Iranian models, the tone often rises towards the end; addition-
ally, the vowel of the last syllable may be lengthened, with a markedly rising and
afterwards shortly falling tone. Like, for instance, in spoken Persian this so-called
drawl—the rising tone at the end of a clause—signals that the sentence will go on,
or that a semantically connected (main-)clause will follow. See sample text no.
(1/2,3), where a drawl is indicated by .
(11) Bayâdestân
ušaxlar ki taze ʿamele28 gälillär Fârsî
child.pl conj new world.dat come.prs .3pl Persian
danıširlär.
speak.prs .3pl
‘The children who are born now speak Persian.’
Eventually, copies of Iranian markers of specificity may be attached to the head,
such as, for instance, the Persian yâ-ye ešâret in examples (12) from Sonqor and
(13) from the Khalaj of Bayâdestân, or the Kurdish clitic {+Aka}, as in example
(14) from the Abivardi variety of Shiraz (after Tuna 1984: 227):
(12) Bu maḥall-e dafn-e malik-î ri
this place-ez burial-ez king-spec cop .3 sg
ke Sonqor qeyrımi.
conj sonqor found.inf . prf .3 sg
‘This is the place of burial of the king who (they say) has founded the town
of Sonqor.’
(13) Be Xoda, o Xoda-yi kê mäni yaratub,
with God that God.spec conj me create.prf .3 sg
bu yuxardan bu üč tane
this further_up.abl this three quant
qurt hämčin mäni či kâr êlärdilär?
Wolf also me what do.aor . pst .3 pl
‘By God, by the Lord who has created me, what would these three wolves
up there do to me?’
(14) Abivardi29
kitab-eku ke aldem
book. spec conj I bought
‘The book I bought’
28
Metathesis of ‘âlem ‘world’.
29
The example is presented in Tuna’s transcription.
The Turkic varieties of Iran 435
the other hand, the subjunctive is the sole category that indicates mood or marks
dependent verbs. In situations of intensive contact with Iranian languages (or other
Indo-European languages, such as, for instance, Greek), many Turkic varieties have
restructured their means of expressing modality, with the Turkic optative-subjunc-
tive or the imperative spreading into positions of equivalence held by the multi-func-
tional Indo-European subjunctive (Soper 1996: 284–285; Bulut 2000, and 2009:
67–68) — a development which is already reflected in Old Anatolian Turkic texts.
Possibility
In the Turkic varieties of the area the so-called (im)possibility form (‘to be (not)
able to’) exhibits a strongly grammaticalized combination of lexical verb and the
former modal verb (bil- ‘to know, to be able to’)30, e. g.
(20) Kalhor of Bayâdestân
Gördüm daha gidäbilmir.
see.pst .1 sg more go.imposs . prs .3 sg
‘I realized that it couldn’t walk anymore.’
30
To express (im-)possibility or (in-)ability, the Turkic varieties of the region (Azerbai-
jan, Iraq, Iran and some regions in eastern Anatolia) may employ the deverbal verb suf-
fix {-Ebil-} attached to the stem of the lexical verb. As for negated forms, {-Ebilmi-},
as in (2: 30) yıɣ-abilmæz {collect-imposs . aor .3 sg } ‘he will not be able to collect’, or
{-EmE}, as in Turkish of Turkey, appear in irregular distribution, or, in some regions,
even in parallel.
The Turkic varieties of Iran 437
31
Note that in colloquial Persian, the stem-initial /g-/ is deleted; bezâr thus is a short/
contracted form of the imperative of the 2nd person singular begozâr.
438 Christiane Bulut
32
For a more thorough discussion and more examples on Iran-Turkic conditional con-
structions see Bulut (2009).
The Turkic varieties of Iran 439
junctive) now also appears in Turkic conditional clauses. As in the Iranian model,
conditionality is no longer expressed by morphological means, but by the copied
Iranian conjunction ägär ‘if’; see the conditional construction expressing poten-
tial in example (27) and irrealis (signalized by the optative past) in example (28)
below:
(27) Khalaj of Bayâdestân
ägär čörägi tökäy toyuɣä, (…) bäräkätı
if bread.acc pour. opt .2 sg chicken.dat blessings.poss .3 sg
gidär.
go. aor .3 sg
‘If you give the bread to the chickens, […] its barakat, its blessing will go.’
(28) Bayâdestân
Äyän onnan vurmiyaydım, hälnuz qanı durmamıšdı.
if it.abl pour. opt II.1 sg still its blood stop.neg . plu .3 sg
‘If I had not made use of it (medicine), the blood would still be flowing.’
2.6. Lexicon
The Turkic core vocabulary is based mainly on Turkî, that is the South Oghuz or
Central Oghuz (Azeri) lexicon. Characteristic of Iran-Turkic is a high proportion
of Persian vocabulary, the ratio of which varies across the different varieties. At
present most speakers of Turkî have at least a bi-lingual lexicon of Turkic-Persian
synonyms at their disposal. Thus, it is difficult to say to what degree copies of
Persian words are conventionalized in any particular variety, or which copies have
outnumbered their Turkic counterparts. For a good survey of Iran-Turkic lexicon,
see Hacaloğlu (1992).
Copies of the lexicon of smaller regional languages obviously pertain to older
strata of the language. The Turkic tribes of Bayâdestân, for instance, have copied
special terminology pertaining to agriculture and irrigation techniques from the
neighbouring Tati populations. This implies that the nomadic tribes, who came
into the area roughly two centuries ago, adopted techniques of cultivation and the
related lexicon of their close neighbours.
No research exists on idiomatic expressions, many of which use the same
semantic means across the different languages of the greater area.
440 Christiane Bulut
Text 1 (Sonqor)
33
From Persian (< Arabic) motaqâ‘ed ‘convinced’.
The Turkic varieties of Iran 441
Text 2 (Bayâdestân)
34
From Persian ravâğ dâdan ‘to spread, promote’.
35
Contracted form of indicin ‘now.instr ’
36
From Persian bâqî mândan ‘to remain’.
37
For Arabic ka-mâ ‘just, only’.
38
For ta‘rîf elä- to describe, praise, relate etc.
442 Christiane Bulut
39
From Persian (< Arabic) ertebâflṭ ‘relation, contact’.
40
This story is somehow related to the belief of the ta‘bia, a twin everyone (or especially
every woman?) has among the people of the jinn. If a girl gets married, her alter ego
of the demons will hold a wedding on the same day. Therefore, she borrows her human
counterpart’s wedding dress.
The Turkic varieties of Iran 443
Abbreviations
References
Boeschoten, Hendrik. 1998. The speakers of the Turkic languages. In Lars Johanson & Éva
Á. Csató (eds.), The Turkic Languages, 1–15. London & New York: Routledge.
Bulut, Christiane. 1999. Klassifikatorische Merkmale des Iraktürkischen. Orientalia Sue-
cana, vol. 48. 5–27.
Bulut, Christiane. 2000. Optative constructions in Iraqi-Turkman. In Aslı Göksel & Celia
Kerslake (eds.), Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages. Proceedings of the IXth In-
ternational Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Lincoln College, Oxford, 12–14 August,
1998, 161–169. (Turcologica 46). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Bulut, Christiane. 2003. Pronominal systems in the transitional varieties of the Turkic
dialects in East Anatolia, Iraq and Western Iran. In Sumru Özsoy (ed.), Studies in
Turkish Linguistics: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference in Turkish Lin-
guistics, Bogaziçi University, 16–18 August, 2000, 321–335. Istanbul: Bogaziçi Yayın-
ları.
444 Christiane Bulut
Bulut, Christiane. 2009. Conditional clauses in Iran-Turkic. In Éva Á. Csató, Gunvald Ims, Joakim
Parslow, Finn Thiesen & Emel Türker (eds.), Turcological letters to Bernt Brendemoen,
35–75. Oslo: The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture. Novus Press.
Bulut, Christiane. 2016. Convergence and variation in the Turkic varieties of Iran: Ex-
amples from Qashqâ’î. In Éva Á. Csató, Lars Johanson, András Róna-Tas & Bo Utas
(eds.), Turks and Iranians: Interactions in Language and History, 235–282. (Turcolog-
ica 105). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Bulut, Christiane. Forthcoming. On language and culture in the Turkic region of Bayâdestân/
Iran. Habilitation thesis, Mainz 2006.
Islamov, M. I., Aghajev, Ä. G., Behbudov, S. M., Ahmadiv, T. M., Mammadov, N. Ij.,
Tagıyev, B. M. & Z. A. Hasıyev (eds.). 1990. Azärbaycan Dilinin Dialektoloji Atlası
[Dialectological Atlas of the Azerbaijani language]. Baku: Älm.
Doerfer, Gerhard. 1988. Grammatik des Chaladsch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Doerfer, Gerhard. 2006. Irano-Turkic. In Lars Johanson & Christiane Bulut (eds.), Tur-
kic-Iranian Contact Areas, 93–113. (Turcologica 62). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Doerfer, Gerhard & Wolfram Hesche. 1989. Südoghusische Materialien aus Afghanistan
und Iran. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hacaloğlu, Recep Albayrak. 1992. Azeri Türkçesi
Dil Kılavuzu [Azeri Turkish Language Guide]. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.
Gabain, Annemarie von. 1941. Alttürkische Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Hacaloğlu, Recep Albayrak. 1992. Azeri Türkçesi Dil Kılavuzu [Azeri Turkic language
guide]. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.
Johanson, Lars. 1985. Die mittelaserbaidschanischen Transkriptionstexte der Universitäts-
bibliothek Uppsala. In Beşinci Milletler Arası Türkoloji Kongresi. İstanbul 1985. Te-
bligler I. Türk Dili, Cilt 1. 143–147.
Johanson, Lars. 1990. Subjektlose Sätze im Türkischen. In Bernt Brendemoen (ed.), Altaica
Osloensia. Proceedings from the 32nd Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic
Conference, 193–218. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Johanson, Lars. 1993. Code-copying in immigrant Turkish. In Guus Extra & Ludo Ver-
hoeven (eds.), Immigrant languages in Europe, 197–221. Clevedon, Philadelphia &
Adelaide: Multilingual Matters.
Mann, Oskar. 1930. Die Mundarten der Gûrân, besonders der Kändûläî, Auramânî und
Bâdschälânî, (ed. by Karl Hadank). Berlin.
Mansuroğlu, Mecdut. 1959. Das Altosmanische. In Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta I,
161–181. Wiesbaden: Steiner.
Širaliev, M. S. 1983. Dialekty i govory azerbajd¢anskogo jazyka [Dialect and speech of the
Azerbaijani language]. Baku.
Soper, John. 1996. Loan Syntax in Turkic and Iranian. (Rev. and ed. by Andras J.E. Bodro-
gligeti). Bloomington, Indiana: Eurolingua.
Tuna, Osman Nedim. 1984. Ebi Verdi: Iran’da bir Türk diyalekti [Ebi Verdi: A Turkic dia-
lect in Iran]. Türk Dili Arastırmaları Yıllıgı, Belleten, 215–245.
Windfuhr, Gernot. 2006. Linguistic Sketch of Azeri. In Encyclopædia Iranica 8.4, 396–401.
New York: Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University. http://www.iranicaonline.
org/articles/iran-vii7-turkic-languages (accessed 15 February 2018).
4.3. Bakhtiari
Erik Anonby and Mortaza Taheri-Ardali
1. Introduction
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-014
446 Erik Anonby and Mortaza Taheri-Ardali
1919). While Kerimova’s (1982) overview of Bakhtiari brings together and organ-
izes a wide cross-section of data from these prior sources, Windfuhr’s (1988) article
concentrates on historical phonology and key morphological features of the lan-
guage. Sociolinguistic background on the Bakhtiari language community and its
place within the Lori language continuum are explored in Anonby (2003, 2012). A
detailed phonological description, along with a long glossed text, verb paradigms,
and a 1500-word lexicon, was published by Anonby and Asadi (AA 2014). Madadi
(1996) and others have also produced lexicons of Bakhtiari, and Zolfaghari (2017)
has written a multi-faceted study of the language, with a focus on lexicon, from
an anthropological-linguistic perspective. An in-depth study of the geographic
distribution of Bakhtiari in C&B Province has appeared in ALI (the online Atlas
of the Languages of Iran, eds. Anonby and Taheri-Ardali 2015–18, hereafter AT
2015–18), and a dialectology of Bakhtiari dialects spoken there is underway in the
same forum (Taheri-Ardali and Anonby 2017; Taheri-Ardali 2017). Schreiber et
al. (2017) have looked at areal grammatical convergence between Bakhtiari and
Turkic varieties in C&B. Finally, Khosravi (1996) has made extensive notes on the
grammar of Bakhtiari, and E. Tāheri has provided the most complete grammatical
description to date in his (2010) book.
Bakhtiari 447
Bakhtiari has a long and rich tradition of oral literature, including genres such
as folktales, proverbs and sung poetry. There is no standardized orthography,
but in the last century speakers have adapted Persian orthography to Bakhtiari
and have published many volumes of oral literature (some well-known examples
include: Dāvari 1964; Afsar Bakhtiyāri 1965; Forutan 1996; Ra’isi 1996; Kiyāni
Haft Lang 2000; and Shirin Bayān 2007). Other recent publications in Bakhtiari
include a collection of prose writings on language and culture (Be’vār 2000), a
Bakhtiari adaptation of the Shahnameh epic (Khosraviniyā 2010) and a novel enti-
tled Brotherhood (B. gaʋgari) (Khosraviniyā 2011).
As is the case for all languages in Iran, Persian – in its various historical
incarnations and dialectal forms – has exerted a long-standing influence on Bakh-
tiari. Following many centuries where tendencies of divergence and convergence
between Bakhtiari and its south-western sister Persian were more balanced, over
the last century Bakhtiari structures at all levels of the language are increasingly
hybridizing with their Persian counterparts under the influence of universal school-
ing and media: radio, television, and now internet. Perhaps even more signifi-
cantly, parents in many parts of the language area, and especially urban locations,
are teaching their children Persian as a first language in the home (Taheri-Ardali
2015; AT 2015–18). Consequently, despite a large language community, a pattern
of language shift has been set in motion and the future of the language is un-
certain.
The present study provides a linguistic overview of Bakhtiari, with an account
of key elements of phonology §2, morphology §3, and syntax §4. This descrip-
tion is followed by a glossed text §5. The analysis here is based on the Masjed
Soleymān dialect as described in Anonby and Asadi (AA 2014), unless otherwise
noted, but salient points of dialectal variation in the language are addressed, and
the glossed text is from the Ardal dialect of C&B Province.
2. Phonology
(e. g., zēne / zeyne / ziene ‘woman’) (AA 2014: 56–58; Lorimer 1922: 23, 32). The
historically long vowels i, ā and u – and, where they occur, ē and ō – still tend to
be pronounced with greater phonetic length than the vowels e, a and o. This dif-
ference is not consistent in all contexts, though, and consequently vowel quality
rather than length is the primary criterion for distinguishing among vowels (AA
2014: 60–61).
In the Bakhtiari dialect of Sar Āqā Seyyed in northern C&B Province, contrast
between u and its fronted counterpart ü has also been observed, as evidenced by
the minimal pair du ‘yogurt drink’ / dü ‘smoke’ (Taheri-Ardali 2017).
The Bakhtiari consonant inventory contains members from six general places
of articulation, and six manners of articulation. It is more uniform across dialects
than the vowel inventory, with the only significant case of variation being the
absence of a voiceless uvular obstruent q in some eastern dialects; there, it is
replaced by its voiced counterpart ġ (e. g., qalb/ġalb ‘heart’).
Phonetically, vowel-initial words have a glottal stop [ʔ] onset, but this segment is
not contrastive ([ʔ]aʋ ‘water’, [ʔ]eyleʋār ‘jaw’, [ʔ]isā ‘you (pl.)’).
While ʋ and h both have fricative realizations in some contexts, Anonby and
Asadi (2014: 25) categorize them as glides because of their distribution and behav-
iour. The glide ʋ in particular has three allophones [v], [ʋ], [w] ([v]aro ‘high’,
ko[ʋ]ār ‘skeleton’, ša[w] ‘night’).
Bakhtiari 449
and clitics attached to these words can be inherently stressed or unstressed (an
inventory of affixes and clitics, along with their designation for stress, is given in
Anonby and Asadi (AA 2014: 69–71)). Stressed morphemes override the underly-
ing stress of the stem (ˈpā ‘foot’+=ˈke ‘(def.)’ pāˈke ‘foot (def.)’; ˈna- ‘(neg.)’
+ ˈxa ‘s/he ate’ ˈnaxa ‘s/he didn’t eat’), whereas unstressed morphemes have no
effect, even if they are word-final (ˈpā ‘foot’+=ne ‘(obj.)’ ˈpāne ‘foot (obj.)’).
Intonation is marked in all sentence types through the raising of pitch on the
stressed syllables of pragmatically salient words. Declarative sentences, com-
mands, and content questions are marked by a general decline in pitch. In yes/no
questions, the pitch is raised on the first pragmatically salient element of the sen-
tence, and stays high until the end of the sentence, where it is raised even further.
Further discussion of intonation in Bakhtiari, along with pitch traces for example
sentences, is provided in Anonby and Asadi (AA 2014: 66–69).
3. Morphology
Nominals (§3.1) and verbs (§3.3) are open word classes in Bakhtiari. Closed
classes (§3.2) include numerals, prepositions, pronouns, and a heterogeneous set
of particles.
3.1. Nominals
Nominals, which include nouns (§3.1.1), adjectives (§3.1.2) and adverbs (§3.1.3),
share many structural properties but can be distinguished through their combina-
torial possibilities in morphology and their syntactic distribution.
3.1.1. Nouns
Nouns are inflected for number (plurality) and definiteness. Possession and other
types of grammatical association are expressed through use of an ezāfe construc-
tion (§4.1) rather than case marking, but there is an object marker used with nouns
(see in this section below). There is no grammatical gender.
Nominal plurality is marked with addition of the suffix -(h)ā, but its use is
correlated to contexts where the plural noun is definite, or when plurality is being
emphasized. The allomorph -ā is found with consonant-final stems (čel-ā ‘arms’,
merzeng-ā ‘eyelashes’), and -hā is found with most vowel-final stems (kolo-
hā ‘locusts’, hoʋne-hā ‘houses’). When the stem ends with a high vowel, how-
ever, the corresponding glide is inserted before -ā (ti-y-ā ‘eyes’, soru-ʋ-ā ‘songs’).
The plural suffix -oʋn is used in place of -(h)ā with a small set of nouns that
includes handicapped persons (kar-oʋn ‘deaf people’, šal-oʋn ‘lame people’) as
well as certain animals (gusend-oʋn ‘sheep, goats’, pāzen-oʋn ‘ibexes’).
452 Erik Anonby and Mortaza Taheri-Ardali
3.1.2. Adjectives
There are many unitary adjectives in Bakhtiari, and these are structurally similar
to nouns (pati ‘empty’, taynā ‘alone’, zel ‘curious’). Adjectives are productively
derived from nouns using the suffix -i (aʋ ‘water’, aʋ-i ‘aquatic’; taš ‘fire’, taš-i
‘fiery, angry’). Nouns are also productively derived from adjectives using the
same suffix form -i (zende ‘living’, zende-i ‘life’; nā-xoš ‘ill’, nā-xoš-i ‘illness’).
Adjectives are joined to the noun they qualify using an ezāfe construction (see §4.1
below).
3.1.3. Adverbs
Adverbs are also structurally similar to nouns and adjectives. Whereas nouns and
corresponding adjectives are distinct words that can be derived from one another,
there is no formal difference between adjectives and corresponding adverbs (xoʋ
‘good’, ‘well’; tond ‘fast’, ‘quickly’; bahd ‘subsequent’, ‘later’).
3.2.1. Numbers
As in most languages, numbers (yak ‘one’, do ‘two’, se ‘three’, …) form a clear
closed morphological class in Bakhtiari. When a noun is explicitly counted, it
is accompanied by a numeral classifier, most commonly =tā (do=tā gaʋu ‘two
brothers’, se=tā dadu ‘three sisters’). There is no plural marking (cf. §3.1.1) on
nouns accompanied by a number.
454 Erik Anonby and Mortaza Taheri-Ardali
3.2.2. Prepositions
There is a large but closed set of prepositions in Bakhtiari. Many prepositions with
a local sense are derived from body parts (kel ‘side’>‘beside’, ri ‘face’>‘on’, pošt
‘back’>‘behind’), and still function as nouns when used in the appropriate con-
texts. Some prepositions are composed of a simple preposition and another word
(men-jā ‘between (lit. in-place)’, ʋā-ri ‘on top of (lit. with-face/on)’, ʋā-pošt ‘at
the back of (lit. with-back/behind)’. These compound prepositions in particular are
often used with an adverbial function as well:
(4) rah ʋā-pošt
go.pst .3sg behind
‘s/he went backwards’
The ezāfe construction (§4.1) is used to join some prepositions to their comple-
ments:
(5) bahd=e ho ‘after that’
after=ez that
(6) men=e sok ‘in the corner’
in=ez corner
Pronominal complements of prepositions are marked using enclitic pronouns
(§3.2.4).
(7) b=om/be=m ‘to me’
to=1sg
(8) kel=et ‘beside you (2sg.)’
beside=2sg
(9) si=s ‘for him/her’
for=3sg
(10) ze=soʋn ‘from them’
from=3pl
3.2.3. Particles
There is a small set of particles with diverse functions. These items, which are
comprised of single syllable with the historically short vowels e, a and o, can be
pronounced as words on their own, for example as single-word answers. However,
when they are used in a string of free speech they attach phonologically to the
adjacent (usually following) word. Particles include the numbers do ‘two’ and se
‘three’, prepositions be ‘to’ and ze ‘from’, the first part of the discontinuous mor-
phemes used for indefinites and demonstratives (§3.1.1), free pronouns (§3.2.4),
Bakhtiari 455
the interjection na (cf. §3.5), pa ‘then’, the coordinating conjunction (ʋ)o (§4.3.1)
and the subordinating conjunction ke ‘that’ (§4.3.2).
In the table above, the vowels in parentheses are generally dropped when the mor-
phemes accompany a vowel-final stem (see AA 2014: 69–90 for examples).
Reflexive pronouns are constructed using the root xo ‘self’ with enclitic pro-
nouns (xom ‘myself’’, xosoʋn ‘themselves).
3.3. Verbs
Bakhtiari verbs are of several lexical types. Some are simple (e. g., aʋorden ‘to
bring’), but many also contain additional elements such as:
– a pre-verbal prefix dar-/der- (lit. ‘in’), ʋā- (‘with’), or ʋor- (‘on’): der-
aʋorden ‘to remove’, ʋā-biden ‘to become’, ʋor-čarden ‘to crawl’;
– a pre-verbal nominal: gir aʋorden ‘to obtain’, cf. gir ‘hold (n.)’; bālā aʋorden
‘to vomit’, cf. bālā ‘above, up’; or
456 Erik Anonby and Mortaza Taheri-Ardali
Finite verb forms built on the non-past stem include the non-past (or “present”)
indicative, subjunctive, and imperative.
The non-past indicative, which is used for basic present as well as habitual
functions, varies significantly among Bakhtiari dialects. In the dialect of Masjed
Soleyman (AA 2014), which is in focus here, this verb form is usually expressed
with an obligatory imperfective prefix e- on the non-past stem, along with per-
son-marking suffixes.
For a few verbs in the Masjed Soleyman dialect, however, the prefix e- is absent
or uncommon (e. g., daʋn-om ‘I know’, tar-om ‘I am able’, torok-om ‘I walk,
wander’); and for another subset of verbs in the lexicon, the presence of this prefix
appears to be correlated with an unmarked vs. continuous non-past distinction
(e. g., ašn-om/e-y-ašn-om ‘I hear/I am hearing’, daʋn-om~e-daʋn-om ‘I run/I am
running’, heyl-om~e-heyl-om ‘I leave (tr.)/I am leaving (tr.)’), although the seman-
tics of this distinction are neither clear nor consistent.
In some Bakhtiari dialects of C&B Province, the basic non-past indicative
form is expressed using an unprefixed non-past stem, e. g., xor-om ‘I eat/I am
eating’, xor-i ‘you (sg.) eat/you (sg.) are eating’, xor-e ‘s/he eats/s/he is eating’,
etc. In the C&B dialect of Kuhrang, the prefix e- can also be used for the non-past
indicative (Tāheri 2010: 163–164), although its possible semantic contribution –
for example, to mark continuous or progressive aspect – is likewise unclear, as in
Masjed Soleyman. In Ardal, C&B, where no cognate prefix is available for the
non-past indicative, the unmarked vs. continuous/progressive distinction is sig-
nalled through the addition of the particle hay: hay xor-om ‘I am eating (cont./
prog.)’ (Taheri-Ardali, field notes 2017).
As pointed out by van der Wal Anonby (pers. comm. 2017), the glossed text
from Ardal in §5 below shows that the non-past can also be used with a mirative
extension, that is, to mark “new, unexpected, and surprising information” (van
der Wal Anonby 2011), somewhat analogous to the “dramatic present” in English
(Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 129–131). Examples of this usage to mark an excit-
ing episode in a personal account, repeated here (12–14) from the glossed text,
occur in the middle of a string of past verb forms:
458 Erik Anonby and Mortaza Taheri-Ardali
Among Iranic languages, this mirative use of the non-past differs from Persian
and Tajik, where mirativity is an extended function of the perfect (Lazard 1985:
28–29, 2001: 361), and from Kumzari, where a dedicated mirative verb form has
been identified (van der Wal Anonby 2011).
The subjunctive is marked, in Bakhtiari dialects generally, with a prefix be-
and the same person-marking suffixes as are used for the non-past indicative (the
data here is from AA 2014):
Some verbs are incompatible with the basic subjunctive conjugation and instead
use a periphrastic perfect participle + subjunctive ‘be’ construction.
(15) tarest-e bu-m
be_able-pf .part be.sbjnc -1sg
‘that I be able…’
The imperative is formally equivalent to the subjunctive, except that its 2sg. form
is marked with a null affix rather than the 2sg. suffix -i.
Bakhtiari 459
A few common verbs have irregular 2sg. imperative forms (biyaʋ/biyā ‘come!’,
raʋ ‘go!’).
Finite verb forms built on the past stem include the simple past, imperfective past,
and the perfect. Person-marking suffixes on these forms are the same as those
used with the non-past indicative (see above), except that the 3sg. suffix is a null
morpheme.
For the simple past, the person-marking suffixes are simply attached to the
past stem.
When simple past stems end in a vowel+d or glide+d sequence, this final d is
systematically omitted in the third person singular, depending on positional and
discourse-related factors (discussed further in AA 2014:93–94, 127): dā(d) ‘s/he
gave’, di(d) ‘s/he saw’, rah(d) ‘s/he went’, zey(d) ‘s/he hit’.
The imperfective past is formed by adding the prefix e-, which is also used for
the non-past indicative (see above), to the past stem.
The perfect is formed by adding the suffix -e after the person marking on the
past stem (rahd-om-e ‘I have gone’, did-im-e ‘we have seen’). This contrasts with
ketābi (literary) Persian, where the perfect suffix -e is attached directly to the stem
(ketābi P. raft-e-am ‘I have gone’, did-e-im ‘we have seen’), but is matched by
many varieties of Southern Kurdish, which have a similar ordering of morphemes,
as well as in some NENA dialects, which likewise have a person ending followed
by what is presumably a third person form of the copula (Geoffrey Khan, Geoffrey
Haig, p.c.).
In some Bakhtiari varieties, the perfect is formed differently. In Ardal and some
other areas of C&B Province, for example, it is marked in the third person singu-
lar with the suffix -ak (resid-ak ‘s/he has arrived, it has ripened’, cf. resid ‘s/he
arrived, it ripened’), but for other persons there is no dedicated verb form and the
simple past is used (resid-om ‘I have arrived’/‘I arrived’). Interestingly, in these
dialects the perfect participle is formed with -e (not -ak), as is the case elsewhere
in the language area (e. g., resid-e ‘ripe’; see further examples in the discussion of
perfect participles in §3.3.1 above).
Table 10: Attested past progressive constructions in several dialects of C&B Province:
‘I was going’
rahd-om be-r-om (Ardal)
go.pst -1sg sbjnc -go.npst -1sg
hey rahd-om be-r-om (Ardal)
prog go.pst -1sg sbjnc -go.npst -1sg
hey rah-m be-r-am (Lordegān)
prog go.pst -1sg sbjnc -go.npst -1sg
i-rahd-om be-r-om (Ardal, Lordegān)
impfv -go.pst -1sg sbjnc -go.npst -1sg
i-rah-m be-r-om (Dastenā)
impfv -go. pst -1sg sbjnc -go.npst -1sg
dāšt-om i-rah-m (Dastenā)
have.pst -1sg impfv -go.pst -1sg
dāšt-om i-rah-m be-r-om (Dastenā)
have.pst -1sg impfv -go.pst -1sg sbjnc -go.npst -1sg
When the non-past indicative copula is used with a free pronoun (including
demonstrative pronouns) or an interrogative pronoun, n is inserted between the
two parts: mo-n=om ‘it’s me, yo-n=e ‘it’s him/her/it/this one’, isā-n=in ‘it’s you
(pl.)’, hami=ho-n=e ‘it’s that very one’, koye-n=im ‘where are we?’, key-n=in?
‘who are you (pl.), kay-n=e ‘when is it?’. Alternative explanations for this struc-
ture, including a possible historical relation to the differential object marker =ne
(see §3.1.1 above), are discussed in AA 2014: 88–89.
For other verb forms (subjunctive, imperative and past), the verb stem bu-/
bid- (‘be’, non-past/past) is used (zarākāl bid-i ‘you (sg.) were a farmer’, zarākāl
bu-y ‘that you (sg.), be a farmer’, zarākāl bu ‘(you sg.) be a farmer!’). A full con-
jugation of the verbal copula, which shows significant variation depending on the
speaker as well as the discourse context, is as follows:
There are a few common verbs whose initial stem consonant is deleted, however,
sometimes along with other irregular alternations, when na- is attached.
With subjunctive as well as imperative verb forms, na- displaces the subjunctive/
imperative prefix be- (see above).
As shown in Table (16) above, the prefix mah- is used alongside na- in prohibitive
(negative imperative) constructions.
When na- is attached to stems that begin with the non-past indicative prefix e-,
the two morphemes fuse and are realized as ney-.
Table 19: Pronominal object marking with different person values for subject
did-om=et ‘I saw you (sg.)’
did-i=m ‘you (sg.) saw me’
did-im=es ‘we saw him/her/it’
did-im=etoʋn ‘we saw you (pl.)
did-in=esoʋn ‘you (pl.) saw them’
did-en=emoʋn ‘they saw us’
We are not aware of any significant differences between the tenses with regard
to the deployment of object clitic pronouns; that is, the paradigms for clitic pro-
nouns given in Tables 18 and 19 are essentially the same with a non-past verb form
as host. Bakhtiari thus seems to lack tense sensitivity in alignment, resembling
Persian in this regard (Haig 2008), though more research on Bakhtiari syntax is
needed.
When both direct object and indirect object are found as pronouns, there is
a constraint against marking both with enclitic pronouns: typically, one of the
Bakhtiari 465
objects is dropped (17, 18) or the direct object is retained as a full pronoun in
pre-verbal position (19).
(17) dād-om=es
give. pst -1 sg =3 sg
‘I gave [the recipient] it’ or ‘I gave him/her [it]’
(18) dād-om=et
give. pst -1 sg =2 sg
‘I gave you [it]’
(19) ho=ne dād-om=et
3sg . dist = obj give. pst -1 sg =2 sg
‘I gave you it’
In light verb constructions, the enclitic pronouns are attached to the nominal com-
ponent of the construction.
(20) raʋne=s kerd
sending_away=3sg do.pst .3sg
‘s/he sent him/her away’ (AA 2014: 99)
4. Syntax
The present study focuses on three topics central to Bakhtiari syntax: the ezāfe con-
struction (§4.1), clause constituent order (§4.2), and clause linkage (§4.3), which
includes coordination and subordination. Other constructions with importance for
both syntax and morphology have been integrated into the preceding discussion;
for example, noun affixes marking definiteness, demonstrative functions, and dif-
ferential objects are discussed under noun morphology (§3.1.1).
In clauses with a nominal object, the default order is (S)OV (31–33); the direct
object marker =ne is introduced in §3.1.1 above.
(31) piyā hoʋne=ne xeri
man house=obj buy.pst .3sg
‘[the] man bought the house’ (cf. AA 2014: 113)
(32) doʋar=eke siʋe=ka=ne xa
girl=def apple=def =obj eat.pst .3sg
‘the girl ate the apple’ (Ardal dialect)
(33) hoʋne=ne xerid-om
house=obj buy.pst -1sg
‘I bought [the] house’
Nominal subjects and objects that are emphasized, however – for example, in
contrast with another possible noun phrase – may move to post-predicate (i. e.,
post-verbal) position.
(34) siʋe=ka=ne xa doʋar=eke
apple=def =obj eat.pst .3sg girl=def
‘the girl ate the apple’ (Ardal dialect)
(35) doʋar=eke xa siʋe=ka=ne
girl=def eat.pst .3sg apple=def =obj
‘the girl ate the apple’ (Ardal dialect)
(36) xa siʋe=ka=ne doʋar=eke
eat.pst .3sg apple=def =obj girl=def
‘the girl ate the apple’ (Ardal dialect)
Pronominal objects, which are expressed using enclitic pronouns attached to the
predicate, are discussed separately in §3.6.
The indirect object of a verb of transfer usually follows the predicate. The
word das (lit., ‘hand’) optionally introduces the recipient.
(37) setāre čaġu=ne dā (das) Borjali
Setare knife=obj give.pst .3 sg (hand) Borjali
‘Setare gave Borjali the knife’ (Ardal dialect)
As is the case for recipients, goals of motion verbs likewise follow the predicate,
as in the following (see (43) for additional post-predicate goals).
(38) rahd sar=e tu
go.pst .3sg head/on=ez room/house
‘s/he went onto the roof (lit. head of [the] room/on [the] room)’
(AA 2014: 107)
468 Erik Anonby and Mortaza Taheri-Ardali
Addressees, however, precede the verb and are introduced with the preposition ze
‘from’ (ez in some dialects). (Further examples of citations are found in the discus-
sion on subordination in §4.3.2 below.).
(39) setāre ez Borjali ogo unun duš ičo
Setare from Borjali say.pst .3sg 3 pl . dist yesterday here
bi-y-en
be.pst -y-3 pl
‘Setare said to Borjali, “They came here yesterday”.’ (Ardal dialect)
With regard to post-predicate elements, Bakhtiari thus follows the pattern of Vafsi
(Stilo 2010) and the northwesterly dialects of Northern Kurdish (Haig 2017), in
that recipients and goals of verbs of motion follow the predicate, while addressees
precede the predicate.
4.3. Linkage
4.3.1. Coordination
A range of constructions are coordinated with the particle (ʋ)o ‘and’. This particle
(cf. §3.2.3 above), which can attach phonologically to the preceding or the follow-
ing word, is transcribed here separately. When (ʋ)o attaches to a vowel-final word,
it is realized as ʋo (dā ʋo baʋu ‘parents (lit. mother and father)’), and it appears
as o elsewhere.
In the following example (40), (ʋ)o is used to coordinate noun phrases (here
represented by the nouns bamr o pelang ‘tiger and leopard’), verb phrases (gā
gapeyne šekāl kerden o aʋorden ‘hunted and brought a big cow’), and clauses
(bamr o pelang rahden o gā gapeyne šekāl kerden o aʋorden ‘tiger and leopard
went and hunted and brought a big cow’).
(40) bamr o pelang rahd-en o gā gap=ey=ne
tiger and leopard go.pst -3pl and cow big=indef =obj
šekāl kerd-en o aʋord-en
hunting do.pst -3pl and bring.pst -3pl
‘[The] tiger and [the] leopard went and hunted a brought [back] a big cow.’
(AA 2014: 101)
The particle (ʋ)o can also be used to coordinate independent sentences, as the fol-
lowing example (41) shows:
Bakhtiari 469
The following text is from the dialect of Ardal, in C&B Province. Ardal is at the
eastern end of the Bakhtiari language area and, as shown in §2.1 and elsewhere
above, the dialects of this region display some additional features in common
with Persian and other Southwestern dialects of the Iranian Central Plateau. The
text is a personal account told by Homa Asadi-Ardali, a 60 year-old woman, who
describes her experience during an earthquake forty years earlier, in 1977. Here,
she is speaking to her nephew in the context of a larger audience of relatives.
(54) hebdah ruz bahd ez ayd bi baʋ=m,
seventeen day after from festival be.pst .3sg father=1sg
sāat čār bi.
hour four be.pst .3sg
‘It was seventeen days after [the Now Ruz] festival, my dear (lit. my
father), it was four o’clock.
(55) čār bi, di šom=emun=am nād-im –
four be.pst .3sg again dinner=1pl =add put.pst -1pl
It was four, and we had put dinner on [to cook] –
(56) uso doʋre čerā bid=o gāz.kapsuli bi –
then period stove be.pst .3sg =and gas.cylinder be.pst .3sg
back then it was the time of stoves (i. e., burners) and gas cylinders –
(57) nād-im=eš sar čerā.
put.pst -1pl =3sg on stove
we put it on the stove.
(58) gušt=en=am sohr kerd māmā kemutar,
meat=obj =add red make.pst .3sg grandmother Kemutar
xāst berenj bo-kon-e pā=š.
want.pst .3sg rice sbjnc -make.npst -3sg foot=3sg
Grandma Kemutar fried the meat and was going to make rice to go with it.
Bakhtiari 473
(59) di ya takun=i …
again indef shaking=indef
Then a shaking …
(60) hālā ke bin-e hay čerā takun xor-e!
now compl see.npst -3sg prog stove shaking eat.npst -3sg
now she sees that the stove is shaking!
(61) ogod-om dā, hay čerā takun xor-e!
say.pst -1sg mother prog stove shaking eat.npst -3sg
I said, “Mom, the stove is shaking!”,
(62) ogo na! zelzele-ā ġedim=e,
say.pst .3sg no earthquake-pl ancient=3sg
she said, “No! Earthquakes are [something that used to happen] long ago”,
(63) hay ogo barkat.
prog say.pst .3sg blessing
she was saying, “Bless me (lit. blessing)”.
(64) ogod-om hay dā barkat di xelās –
say.pst -1sg prog mother blessing again finished
I said, “Mom, right now that blessing belongs to the past (lit. blessing
finished again) –
(65) yo hay takun ed-e!
3. sg . prox prog shaking give.npst -3sg
it’s shaking!”
(66) tā ʋirist-e dā en-e doʋ
until stand.npst -3sg mother put.npst -3sg running
er-e duʋen,
go.npst -3sg down/outside
So mom stands up, she starts running, she goes down outside,
(67) ogod-om dā!,
say.pst -1sg mother
I said, “Mom!”,
(68) pa harči ogo b-iyaʋ hune
so whatever say.pst .3sg impv -come.impv .2sg house
polof-e!
collapse.npst -3sg
she was saying over and over (lit. so she said whatever), “Come, the house
is collapsing!”
474 Erik Anonby and Mortaza Taheri-Ardali
Abbreviations
References
Abbott, Barbara. 2004. Definiteness and indefiniteness. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory
Ward (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, 122–149. Oxford: Blackwell.
Abdullaeva, Firuza. 2009. Zhukovskiĭ, Valentin Alekseevich. Encyclopædia Iranica. New
York: Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University. http://www.iranicaonline.org/
articles/zhukovskii-valentin-alekseevich (accessed 25 September 2017).
Afsar Bakhtiyāri, Dārāb. 1965/1344. Montakhabāti az aš’ār-e šā’er-e farzāneh Dārāb Af-
sar Bakhtiāri [A selection from the poems of the eminent poet Dārāb Afsar Bakhtiyāri],
ed. by Abd-ol-Hossein Sepantā. Tehran: Mash’al.
Amanollahi, Sekandar. 1991/1370. Qowm-e Lor [The Luri people]. Tehran: Āgāh.
Anonby, Erik. 2003. Update on Luri: How many languages? Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society 13(2). 171–97.
Anonby, Erik. 2012. Sociolinguistic status of Lori. Encyclopædia Iranica. New York:
Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University.
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/lori-language-ii (accessed 25 September 2017).
Anonby, Erik. 2016. Mapping the languages of western Iran’s Zagros Mountains. Network
Meeting of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, University of Freiburg, 5–7 Oc-
tober, 2016.
Anonby, Erik. 2017. The languages of Iran: A working classification. In AT 2015–18.
(AA 2014=) Anonby, Erik & Ashraf Asadi. 2014. Bakhtiari studies: Phonology, text, lexi-
con. Studia Iranica Upsaliensia 24. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
(AA forthcoming=) Anonby, Erik & Ashraf Asadi. (forthcoming). Bakhtiari studies: Bakh-
tiari orthography. Studia Iranica Upsaliensia. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
(AT 2015–18=) Anonby, Erik & Mortaza Taheri-Ardali (eds.). 2015–18. Atlas of the lan-
guages of Iran. Ottawa: GCRC (Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre), Carle-
ton University. http://iranatlas.net (accessed 25 September 2017).
Anonby, Erik & Mortaza Taheri-Ardali. 2017. Chahar Mahal va Bakhtiari Province in the
Atlas of the Languages of Iran. Paper presented at the 1st North American Conference in
Iranian Linguistics (NACIL1), Stony Brook University, New York, 28–30 April, 2017.
Dāvari, Bahrām. 1964/1343. Zarb-ol-masalhā-ye Bakhtiāri [A collection of Bakhtiari prov-
erbs]. Tehran: Tahuri.
Digard, Jean-Pierre. 1988. Baḵtīārī tribe: Ethnography. Encyclopædia Iranica 3(5). 553–
560. New York: Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University. http://www.iranicaon
line.org/articles/baktiari-tribe#pt1 (accessed 25 September 2017).
Digard, Jean-Pierre. 1992. Clothing of the Baḵtīārīs and other Lori speaking tribes. En-
cyclopædia Iranica 5.8, 852–854. New York: Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia
University. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/clothing-xxv (accessed 25 September
2017).
Forutan, Fariborz. 1996/1375. Ganjine-ye masalhā-ye Bakhtiyāri [A treasury of Bakhtiari
proverbs]. Tehran: Enteshārāt-e Khuzestān.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2008. Alignment change in Iranian languages: A Construction Grammar
approach. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2017. Post-predicate arguments in Iranian languages. Paper presented at the
7th International Conference on Iranian Linguistics (ICIL7), Moscow State University,
28–30 August, 2017.
Bakhtiari 479
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.). 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the
English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ittig, Annette. 1988. Baḵtīārī tribe: Baḵtīārī carpets. Encyclopædia Iranica 3(5). 553–560.
New York: Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University. http://www.iranicaonline.
org/articles/baktiari-tribe#pt3 (accessed 25 September 2017).
Kerimova, Aza A. 1982. Lurskie i Bakhtiyarskie dialekty [Luri and Bakhtiari dialects].
In Vera S. Rastorgueva (ed.), Osnovy iranskogo iazykoznaniia iazyki III. Novoiran-
skie iazyki: zapadnaia gruppa, prikaspiiskie iazyki [Fundamentals of Iranian languages
III: New Iranian languages – Western group, Caspian languages], 287–315. Moscow:
Nauka.
Khosravi, Abdol’ali. 1996/1375. Guyesh-e Bakhtiāri: Ketāb-e chahārom [Bakhtiari dialect:
Fourth book]. Esfahan: Nashr-e Ghazal.
Khosraviniyā, Javād. 2010/1389. Shāhnāme Bakhtiyāri [Bakhtiari Shahnameh]. Esfahan:
Shahsavāri.
Khosraviniyā, Javād. 2011/1390. Gowgari [Brotherhood]. Shahr-e Kord: Niyosheh.
Kiyāni Haft Lang, Kiyānush. 2000/1378. Zarb-ol-masalhā-ye Bakhtiāri [Bakhtiari prov-
erbs], 2nd edn. Ahvaz: Enteshārat-e Khuzestān.
Lazard, Gilbert. 1985. L’inférentiel ou passé distancié en persan. Studia Iranica 14(1).
27–42.
Lazard, Gilbert. 2001. On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics
33(3), 359–367.
Lorimer, David L. R. 1922. The phonology of the Bakhtiari, Badakhshani, and Madaglashti
dialects of modern Persian, with vocabularies. London: Royal Asiatic Society.
Lorimer, David L. R. 1930. A Bakhtiari prose text. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,
April 1930, 347–364.
Lorimer, David L. R. 1954/1955/1963. The popular verse of the Bakhtiari of southwestern
Persia I/II/III. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 16/17/26. 542–
555/92–110/55–68.
Lorimer, David L. R. 1964. A Bakhtiari Persian text. In Georges Redard (ed.), Indo-Iranica:
Mélanges présentés à Georg Morgenstierne, 129–133. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Lorimer, David L. R. & E. O. Lorimer. 1919. Persian tales, written down for the first time
in the original Kermani and Bakhtiari. London: Macmillan.
MacKinnon, Colin. 2011. Lori dialects. Encyclopædia Iranica 18. New York: Center for
Iranian Studies, Columbia University.
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/lori-dialects (accessed 25 September 2017).
Madadi, Zohrāb. 1996/1375. Vāzhehnāmeh-ye zabān-e Bakhtiāri [Lexicon of the Bakhtiari
language]. Tehran & Esfahan: Enteshārāt-e Āyāt.
Mann, Oskar. 1910. Die Mundarten der Lur Stämme im südwestlichen Persien, Berlin:
Georg Reimer.
Perry, John R. 1996. Persian in the Safavid period: Sketch for an Etat de langue. In Charles
Melville (ed.), Safavid Persia: The history and politics of an Islamic society, 269–283.
London: I.B. Tauris.
Ra’isi, Dārāb. 1996/1375. Golbāng-e Bakhtiyāri [Cry of the Bakhtiari], 3rd edn. Shahr-e
Kord: Enteshārat-e Il.
Schreiber, Laurentia, Mortaza Taheri-Ardali, Geoffrey Haig & Erik Anonby. 2017. Con-
tact-induced change in Irano-Turkic morphosyntax. Paper presented at the Conference
480 Erik Anonby and Mortaza Taheri-Ardali
on Language Contact and Language Change in Western Asia, Goethe University Frank-
furt, 10–12 March, 2017.
Shirin Bayān, Sa’id. 2007/1386. Yek eyl, yek sedā [One tribe, one voice]. Tehran: Serāj-e
Nur.
Stilo, Donald. 2010. Ditransitive constructions in Vafsi: A corpus-based study. In Andrej
Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Studies in ditransitive con-
structions: A comparative handbook, 243–276. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Tāheri, Esfandyār. 2010/1389. Guyesh-e Bakhtiāri-ye Kuhrang [The Bakhtiari dialect of
Kuhrang]. Tehran: IHCS Press.
Taheri-Ardali, Mortaza. 2017. Salient linguistic features and isoglosses in Chahar Mahal
va Bakhtiari Province, Iran. Paper presented at the 1st North American Conference in
Iranian Linguistics (NACIL1), Stony Brook University, New York, 28–30 April, 2017.
Taheri-Ardali, Mortaza. 2015. Guyesh-e Bakhtiāri: zavāl yā baghā? Negāhi digar be kār-
bord-e guyesh-e Bakhtiāri, guneh-ye Ardal [Bakhtiari dialect: decline or survival? A
re-examination of the usage of the Bakhtiari dialect, Ardal variety]. Paper presented
at the International Conference on Linguistic Heritage, Tehran, 20–21 October, 2015.
Taheri-Ardali, Mortaza & Erik Anonby. 2017. Language distribution in Chahar Mahal va
Bakhtiari Province of Iran. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Lan-
guages, Dialects and Linguistics (ICCILDL1), Pazhoheshgaran Andishmand Institute,
Ahvaz, Iran, 2–3 February, 2017.
Wal Anonby, Christina van der. 2011. Remarks on the remarkable: Mirativity in Kumzari.
Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Iranian Linguistics (ICIL4),
Uppsala University, Uppsala, 17–19 June, 2011.
Windfuhr, Gernot. 1988. Baḵtīārī tribe: The Baḵtīārī dialect. Encyclopædia Iran-
ica 3(5). 553–560. New York: Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University.
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/baktiari-tribe#pt2 (accessed 25 September 2017).
Windfuhr, Gernot. 2009. Dialectology and topics. In Gernot Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian
languages, 5–42. London & New York: Routledge.
Zhukovskij, Valentin A. 1923. Materialy dlya izucheniya persidskikh narechij, pt. 3: Nar-
echie bakhtiyarov chekharleng i kheftleng [Materials for the study of Persian dialects,
part 3: The dialect of the Chahārlang and Haftlang Bakhtiari], ed. by S. F. Ol’denburg.
Petrograd.
Zhukovskij, Valentin A. 1923/2017. Mavāddi barā-ye motāle’eh-ye guyesh-e Bakhtiāri
[Materials for the study of the Bakhtiari dialect], transl. and ed. by Maryam Shafaghi
and Seyyed Mehdi Dadras. Tehran: Allameh Tabataba’i University Press.
Zolfaghari, Sima. 2017. The Bakhtiaris: An anthropological-linguistic lexical study of Haft
Lang nomads of southwest Iran. Leiden: Leiden University dissertation.
4.4. The Neo-Aramaic dialects of western Iran
Geoffrey Khan
1. Genetic affiliation
The Neo-Aramaic dialects that are the subject of this chapter belong to two sub-
groups. They include:
(i) dialects belonging to the North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) subgroup,
which were spoken in the Kordestan and Kermanshah provinces of western
Iran until the middle of the twentieth century.1
(ii) The neo-Mandaic subgroup of dialects, which were spoken further south in
the towns of Ahvāz and Khorramshahr in Khuzestan province of western Iran.
The NENA dialect area includes also the region of northern Iraq (chapter 3.4)
and the region of southeastern Turkey and northwestern Iran (chapter 2.5). The
NENA dialects of these latter two regions exhibit considerable diversity, as has
been shown in the chapters devoted to them. The NENA dialects of the region
described in this chapter, by contrast, exhibit very little diversity. The main split
is between Jewish and Christian varieties of NENA. The Jewish variety consists
of a cluster of dialects spoken by Jewish communities in various localities in an
area that includes Sainqala, Bokan, Săqəz on its northern border, Sanandaj in the
centre, Bijar on the eastern border, and in the south Kerend and Qasr-e Širin. The
Christians variety consists of a single dialect spoken by Christians in the town of
Sanandaj.
The Jewish cluster of dialects is remarkably uniform and only minor differ-
ences are found among the dialects of the aforementioned places where the dialects
were spoken. Most of the data on this variety of NENA for this chapter are taken
from the Jewish dialect of Sanandaj (henceforth referred to as J. Sanandaj),2 which
has been described in detail in Khan (2009). Studies on other Jewish dialects of
this cluster include those by Israeli (1998) on the dialect of Săqəz and by Hopkins
(2002) on Kerend. The Jewish dialects of the region belong to the so-called trans-
Zab subgroup of Jewish NENA. Within trans-Zab they are most closely related
to the Jewish dialect of Sulemaniyya in northeastern Iraq (chapter 3.4 and Khan
2004). Their relationship to the Jewish trans-Zab cluster of dialects of the West
Azerbaijan province of Iran in the Urmi region is more distant to the extent that
1
The term North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic was coined by Hoberman (1988: 557).
2
As in chapters 2.5 and 3.4, Jewish dialects are distinguished from Christian dialects in
this chapter by the prefixing J. and C. respectively to the names of the locations where
they were spoken.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-015
482 Geoffrey Khan
speakers of dialects from the western Iran cluster had difficulties communicating
with Jews from Urmi.
The Christian NENA dialect of Sanandaj (henceforth referred to C. Sanandaj)
is, likewise, very similar to the Christian dialect of Sulemaniyya (chapter 3.4) but
substantially different from the Christian dialects spoken in the Urmi region of
Iran. Grammatical and lexical studies on the C. Sanandaj include Panoussi (1990,
1991), Heinrichs (2002) and Kalin (2014). Short extracts of texts in the dialect
can be found in Panoussi (1990: 120–128) and Macuch and Panoussi (1974: 39).3
These authors refer to the dialect as the Senaya dialect, from the Kurdish name of
the town ‘Sena’. A brief overview of the NENA dialect situation in Iran in general
can be found in Hopkins (1999).
Neo-Mandaic is spoken by Mandaeans in southwestern Iran. This exists in
two known varieties originally spoken in the towns of Ahvāz and Khorramshahr
respectively (Macuch 1965, 1989, 1993; Häberl 2009, 2011; Mutzafi 2014). The
native name of this spoken language is raṭnā, derived from a verbal root meaning
‘to whisper or mutter’.
3
Data on C. Sanandaj cited in this chapter are mainly taken from the publications of
Panoussi or from personal communications from him, which I acknowledge with grati-
tude.
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of western Iran
483
distinctive trait of the realization of /w/ as /v/ under the influence of Persian (Hein-
richs 2002: 238). In the middle of the twentieth century the Chaldean diocese of
Sanandaj moved to Tehran and the Christian Neo-Aramaic speakers moved with it.
Neo-Mandaic is spoken by the Mandaeans, who follow a religion that is a
descendant of a pre-Islamic Gnostic sect. The traditional homeland of the Man-
daean community is the south of Iraq and the adjacent Khuzestān province of south-
west Iran. They are known in Iraq and Iran as ‘Sabians’ (Arabic ṣābiʾūn, colloquial
ṣubba), who are one of the ‘peoples of the book’ (ʾahl al-kitāb) recognized in Islam.
Neo-Mandaic appears to have ceased to be the spoken language of the Man-
daeans of Iraq by the beginning of the 19th century. There are references to a few
speakers in Iraq in the 20th century, but these seem to be of Iranian origin (Häberl
2009: 36–37). After the first Gulf War in 1991 the Iraqi Mandaean community was
displaced from their homes in southern Iraq by the army of Saddam Hussein.
Up until the 19th century Neo-Mandaic was spoken in a variety of localities in
the Khuzestān region. The Mandaeans subsequently came to be concentrated in
Khorramshahr and Ahvāz, where two distinct varieties of the language survived
until modern times. During the Iranian revolution in 1979 and in subsequent con-
flicts with Iraq, Khorramshahr was largely destroyed and abandoned by its inhab-
itants, including the Mandaean community. Within Iran the language seems now
to be spoken only in Ahvāz (Mutzafi 2014: 1–5).
In 1952 many NENA-speaking Jews from the region emigrated to the newly
founded State of Israel. Over the subsequent two decades there was a gradual emi-
gration of the Jews either to Tehran or abroad, mostly to Israel. After the Iranian
Revolution in 1979 most of the remaining Jews left the region, the majority set-
tling in Los Angeles in the USA and the remainder in Israel or Europe. Today only
about half a dozen elderly Jews are reported to be still living in the town.
After the Christian NENA-speaking community moved en masse from
Sanandaj to Tehran, they gradually left Iran and settled abroad. The majority of
the migrants have settled in the Los Angeles area of the USA.
As a result of these migrations and the disintegration of the NENA speech
communities, the NENA dialects that were spoken in western Iran are now highly
endangered.
There are numerous Mandaeans living in the urban centres of Iraq and in com-
munities that have settled outside of the Middle East, especially in Sweden, Australia
and the USA. The vast majority, however, do not speak neo-Mandaic. The number
of competent speakers of the language is rapidly dwindling. Häberl (2009: 8) esti-
mated there to be around 100–200 elderly speakers, most of whom are living in Iran.
Neo-Mandaic, therefore, will inevitably become extinct within the next few years.
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of western Iran 485
4. Sociolinguistic situation
The Muslims in the region speak varieties of Sorani Kurdish. Persian is the official
language in schools and government administration. Most Jews and Christians of
the region were able to communicate fluently in Kurdish and Persian (Farsi) as
well as Neo-Aramaic. This resulted in extensive influence of these contact lan-
guages on the Neo-Aramaic dialects in all levels of the grammar and in the lexicon.
The Mandaeans in the Iranian province of Khuzestān are trilingual. In addi-
tion to neo-Mandaic they speak the local dialects of Arabic, which constitute the
vernacular of much of the Muslim population of the area, and also Persian, which
is the official language and language of education. Some of the speakers use an
adapted form of the Classical Mandaic script to write down the vernacular lan-
guage.
5. Phonology
pharyngeal is preserved in the word loʿá ‘inside’, the development of which can be
reconstructed as loʿa < *l-ʿoya (by metathesis, this being the form of the word in
J. Amedia) < *l-ḡoya. The preservation of the pharyngeal would have been condi-
tioned by a pharyngealized pronunciation of the word, no doubt facilitated by the
/l/, though this has now been lost. The word is still pronounced with suprasegmen-
tal pharyngealization in J. Urmi (+lwa [lˤwˤɑˤ]).
Jewish and Christian NENA of the region differ with regard to the reflexes of
the interdental fricatives *[ḏ] and *[ṯ]. In the Jewish cluster of dialects the reflex
of both is generally the lateral /l/, as in other trans-Zab Jewish dialects:
J. Sanandaj bela (< *bayṯā) ‘house’
qlila (< *qḏila) ‘key’
The lateral /l/ occurs in a number of words where the cluster of Jewish trans-Zab
dialects in northwestern Iran have /d/ rather than the normal reflex /l/:
J. Urmi J. Sanandaj
ida ʾila < *ʾīḏā ‘hand’
od ʾol < *ʿāḇəḏ ‘he does’
In a few words in the Jewish dialects the reflex of the unvoiced interdental *ṯ is the
unvoiced pharyngeal fricative /ḥ/, e. g.
J. Sanandaj ʾaḥra (< *ʾaṯrā) ‘town’
təlḥa (< *tlāṯā) ‘three’
láḥmal (< *lā-ṯimmal) ‘the day before yesterday’
naḥale (< *nāṯāṯā) ‘ears’
In such words the *ṯ was originally weakened to *h and this subsequently shifted
to a pharyngeal /ḥ/. Such words must have been originally pronounced with
suprasegmental pharyngealization, originating no doubt from the consonants r,
l or m. The pharyngealization was subsequently lost as a suprasegmental feature
but left a vestige in the pharyngeal segment /ḥ/: ʾaḥra < *ʾˤaˤhˤrˤaˤ < *ʾaṯrā. The
intermediate stage of development /h/ and pharyngealization is found in J. Urmi:
+
ahra, +nahale.
In some plural forms of nouns in the Jewish dialects the reflex of *ṯ is zero,
e. g.
J. Sanandaj malăwáe (< *māṯawāṯā) ‘villages’
An original /d/ in post-vocalic position in the Jewish dialects sometimes shifts to
the fricative /z/:
J. Sanandaj koza ‘liver’ cf. J. Urmi koda
guza ‘wall’ cf. J. Urmi guda
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of western Iran 487
The articulation of the consonant has been further weakened in a few cases to zero,
e. g.
J. Sanandaj xar ‘He becomes’ cf. J. Urmi xadər
šar ‘He sends cf. J. Urmi šadər
In C. Sanandaj the reflexes of *[ḏ] and *[ṯ] are /d/ and /s/ respectively, as in
C. Sulemaniyya in Iraq, e. g.
C. Sanandaj ʾida (< *ʾīḏā) ‘hand’
besa (< *bayṯā) ‘house’
The /s/ may become pharyngealized in environments that are liable to pharyngeal-
ization, such as words containing the sonorant /r/:
C. Sanandaj baṣra (< *baṯrā) ‘behind’
In the Jewish dialects /q/ is normally realized as an unvoiced uvular stop, e. g.
baqá [bɑːˈqɑ] ‘to’. After a vowel or /w/, it is occasionally realized as an unvoiced
uvular fricative (Khan 2009: 21), e. g.
J. Sanandaj
qoqé [qoːˈχeː] ‘pots’
šəwqá-y [ʃɪfˈχaj] ‘He has left’.
5.1.2. Neo-Mandaic
Neo-Mandaic has preserved all of the fricative bgdkpt consonants except fricative
*ḏ, which has shifted to a stop /d/ (Macuch 1965: 32–40; Häberl 2009: 48–65).
The examples below are taken from Häberl’s description of the Khorramshahr
dialect:
*ḇ [v] gaḇrā [ˈgævrɔ]4 ‘man’, [w] in the environment of back
rounded vowels: əḇod [əˈwod] ‘do! (ms.)’
*ḡ [ɣ] palḡā [ˈpalɣɒ] ‘split’, loḡrā [ˈloɣərɔ] ‘leg’
*ḏ [d] idā [ˈiːdɔ] ‘hand’
*ḵ [χ] əḵal [aˈχɑl] ‘he ate’
*p̄ [f] nəp̄ aq [nəˈfɑq] ‘he went out’
*ṯ [θ] bieṯā [ˈbiɛ̆θɔ] ‘house’, hāṯā [hɔːθɔ] ‘sister’
4
Following the practice of Häberl in his publications, in the section on phonology exam-
ples from Neo-Mandaic are given in a phonemic transcription in italics and in a pho-
netic transcription in IPA characters in roman enclosed in square brackets.
488 Geoffrey Khan
The original pharyngeal has been preserved in some words and verbal roots of
Aramaic stock that contain /q/ or a historical pharyngealized consonant, e. g.
J. Sanandaj ḥănəq ‘he drowns’
C. Sanandaj raḥúqa ‘distant’
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of western Iran 489
5.2.2. Neo-Mandaic
The original Aramaic pharyngeals have been lost in Neo-Mandaic. The normal
reflex of *ḥ is /h/ and that of *ʿ is zero.
hamšā [ˈhæmʃɔ] ‘five’ < *ḥamšā
ālmā [ˈɒlmɔ] ‘world’ < *ʿālmā
ārbin [ɔɹˈbin] ‘forty’ < *ʾarbʿīn
When /h/ closes a syllable in word-medial position, it is often strengthened to [x]
in order to prevent its elision, e. g.
Khorramshahr (Häberl 2009: 59)
qəhazenḵon [qax.ˈzin.χon] ‘I see you’
490 Geoffrey Khan
The speakers of Neo-Mandaic from Khuzestān are today all bilingual in Arabic
and their Neo-Mandaic contains loanwords from Arabic containing the Arabic
pharyngeal consonants. In the pronunciation of these loanwords the pharyngeals
are either retained as they are articulated in Arabic or they are weakened to laryn-
geals, most likely under the influence of Persian (Häberl 2009: 58–59), e. g.
Khorramshahr
ḥākem [ˈħɒːkɛm] ‘governor’ < Arabic ḥākim ‘judge’
ḥašiš [hæːˈʃiʃ] ‘hashish’ < Arabic ḥašīš ‘grass’
ṣunʿa [ˈsˤʌnʕɑ] ‘good’ < Arabic ṣunʿ ‘benefit’
jamiʿa [ʤɛˈmiːʔa] ‘all’ < Arabic jamīʿ ‘all’
5.3.2. Neo-Mandaic
As in the Jewish NENA dialects of the region, in Neo-Mandaic the pharyngeal-
ization of historical *ṭ and *ṣ is often weakened. This weakening is particularly
common when these consonants are in contact with a following non-pharyngeal-
ized consonant (Häberl 2009: 53–54), e. g.
Khorramshahr
ṭāb [tˤɔʊ] ‘good’
baṭluḵtā [bɑtˈlʊχtɔ] ‘misfortune’
ṣəḇyi [ˈsˤɛvjɪ] ‘he baptized him’
miṣrā [ˈmɪsrɑ] ‘boundary’
5.4. Diphthongs
5.4.2. Neo-Mandaic
Also in Neo-Mandaic the original diphthongs *ay and *aw have generally con-
tracted (Häberl 2009: 61, 62,74, 88–89). In unstressed open syllables the reflex of
*ay is /e/, e. g.
Khorramshahr
hemanuṯan [hemaˈnuːθæn] (< *haymānūṯan) ‘our faith’
In stressed open syllables *ay sometimes contracts to /i/, e. g.
Khorramshahr
inā [ˈiːnɔ] (< *ʿaynā) ‘eye’
In some words the process of contraction of this diphthong results in the hiatus
sequence /ie/, which has developed by a breaking of the vowel *e (i. e. *ay > *e
> /ie/), e. g.
Khorramshahr
bieṯā [ˈbɪɛ̆θɔ] (< *bayṯā) ‘house’
492 Geoffrey Khan
This breaking of the diphthong, which has been documented in recent years in both
the Khorramshahr and the Ahvāz dialects, is not found in records of Neo-Mandaic
from earlier in the twentieth century. This suggests that it may be a recent devel-
opment under the influence of languages in contact, such as the Arabic dialect of
Khuzestan, where the phenomenon is also found (Häberl 2009: 38–39, 74; Macuch
1993: 38). The diphthong *aw generally contracts to /o/ or /u/ in open stressed
syllables, e. g.
Khorramshahr
nodā [ˈnoːdɔ] (< nawdā) ‘quake’
yumā [ˈjuːmɔ] (< yawmā) ‘day’
Diphthongs other than *ay and *aw and those resulting from inflectional processes
or in loanwords are generally preserved in the Khorramshahr dialect, but they have
a tendency to contract in the Ahvāz dialect (Häberl 2009: 51, 258, 2011: 728), e. g.
Khorramshahr gāw [gɔʊ] ‘in’
Ahvāz gu [guː]
5.5. Stress
5
The intonation group boundary is indicated by the symbol |. The nuclear stress is repre-
sented by a grave accent and non-nuclear stresses by acute accents.
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of western Iran 493
When short /u/ is devoiced in this way, the lip-rounding gesture of the vowel
remains, resulting in labialized pronunciation of the preceding consonant, e. g.
*duká > [tʰwˈkʰa] ‘place’ (Khan 2009: 43)
5.5.2. Neo-Mandaic
According to Häberl’s description of the Khorramshahr dialect (Häberl 2009:
77–81), in Neo-Mandaic the placement of stress depends on vowel quality and
syllable structure. The stress generally falls on a vowel with the qualities [i], [u],
or [ɔ], which Häberl (2009: 59) calls “tense vowels”, and preferably upon a closed
word-final syllable. If the word-final syllable is not suitable, the stress moves
towards the front of the word until it rests on a suitable syllable. Virtually all words
have the stress on the final, penultimate or antepenultimate syllable.
The stress falls on the final syllable when it is closed and contains a tense
vowel, e. g.
qəmahrəḇā́ t [qə.mæh.rɛ.ˈwɔːt] ‘you destroy’
or when the word-final syllable does not contain a tense vowel but there are no
suitable preceding syllables, e. g.
əḵál [a.ˈχɑl] ‘he ate’
In words containing two syllables, if the final syllable is open or contains a lax
vowel, the stress falls upon the penultimate syllable, if it contains a tense vowel
or is closed, e. g.
bā́ ḇā [ˈbɔː.wɔ] ‘father’
gáḇrā [ˈgæv.rɔ] ‘man’
In words of three or more syllables, if neither the final nor the penultmate syllable
is suitable for the stress placement, it recedes to the antepenultimate syllable, if
this is closed or contains a tense vowel, e. g.
gaṭélnāḵon [ga.ˈtˤɛl.nɒ.χon] ‘I will kill you’
C. Sanandaj
də́ma (< *dəmma) ‘blood’ cf. C. Urmi dəmma
lə́ba (< *ləbba) ‘heart’ cf. C. Urmi ləbba
A consonant that was geminated secondarily due to the assimilation of an adjacent
consonant also loses its gemination in some cases. Such geminaton is, likewise,
preserved in most NENA dialects:
C. Sanandaj
šadrə́te (< *šadrətte) ‘you send him’
ʾə́tan (< *ʾəttan < *ʾītlan) ‘we have’
Within the Jewish cluster of dialects of the region consonant gemination has been
totally lost in J. Sanandaj, as in C. Sanandaj, but it has been retained after /ə/ in
other Jewish dialects of the cluster in conformity with the majority of NENA dia-
lects:
J. Sanandaj J. Săqəz
dəmá dəmmá ‘blood’
ləbá ləbbá ‘heart’
In some contexts a short /ə/ in an open syllable arising from loss of gemination is
eliminated by resyllabification, e. g.
J. Sanandaj
šəqlí ‘I bought’ < *šqəli < *šqəlli
zábna ‘I sell’ < *zăbəna < *zăbə́nna
In J. Sanandaj, but not other Jewish dialects of the region, consonants that are
geminated secondarily due to assimilation of another consonant also lose their
gemination. In this case the vowel in the opened syllable is lengthened:
J. Sanandaj J. Săqəz
garšéte garšə́tte ‘you pull him’ < *garšet–le
Some other features of syllable structure that are distinctive specifically of the
western Iranian Jewish cluster of dialects include the following.
Within a word two vowels may follow one another without an intervening
glottal stop /ʾ/. Such sequences should be analysed as diphthongs rather than two
separate syllable nuclei. In word-final sequences of vowels the existence of the
diphthong is reflected by the fact that stress that would normally be expected to
be put on a final vowel nucleus (§5.5.1.) is retracted to the vowel preceding it,
indicating that the final vowel is treated as non-syllabic, e. g.
J. Sanandaj
huláe [CV.CVV̯ ] ‘Jews’
ʾóa [CVV̯ ] ‘that one’
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of western Iran 495
In cases where stress is put on the second vowel of the sequence in word-final posi-
tion, the diphthong should be interpreted as rising V̯ V. This is found in sequences
where the first of the two vowels is /o/. The non-syllabic status of /o/ is reflected
by the fact that it is often realized as a semi-vowel [w], e. g.
J. Sanandaj
šoá [ʃwa] ‘seven’
ntoá [ntwa] ‘high’
Sequences of three vowels with a medial /o/ occur in some forms. These should
be interpreted as VV̯ V, the medial vowel being the on-glide of a diphthong, the
phonetic realization of which is often the semi-vowel [w], e. g.
J. Sanandaj xăoé [xaˈwe] ‘to see’
Short /ə/ is often devoiced in unstressed syllables. This results in phonetic realiza-
tions such as the following in which the /ə/ vowel is inaudible:
J. Sanandaj qəṭmá [qhə̥thˈma] ‘ash’
šəmšá [ʃə̥mˈša] ‘sun’
5.6.2. Neo-Mandaic
The gemination of consonants is widely attested in Neo-Mandaic. A distinction
should be made between lexical gemination and phonological gemination, accord-
ing to the terminology proposed by Häberl (2009: 75–77).
Lexical gemination includes geminated consonants inherited from earlier
stages of the language, those formed through the total assimilation of one conso-
nant to another, and gemination in loanwords, e. g.
lébbā [ˈlɛbbɔ] ‘heart’ < *libbā
moqaddás [moqɑdˈdɑs] ‘holy’ < Arabic muqaddas
Phonological gemination depends on vowel quality and stress. It occurs only after
a stressed lax vowel, i. e. [e], [o] or [a]. The most common context where it is
found is where an inflectional morpheme beginning with a vowel (typically a pro-
nominal suffix) is added to a closed stressed syllable containing a lax vowel, e. g.
həzon [hə.ˈzon] + a [a] > həzónna [hə.ˈzon.na]
see.pst .3 pl + obj .3 fs see.pst .3 pl . obj .3 fs
‘They saw her’
496 Geoffrey Khan
All consonants can undergo phonological gemination in this way, with the excep-
tion of the interdental fricative /θ/. In a context where the phonological gemination
of /θ/ is expected, the cluster [χt] occurs instead of [θθ], e. g.
eṯ [ˈɛθ] + aḵ [aχ] > éḵtaḵ [ˈɛχ.taχ]
cop + 2 ms cop .2 ms
‘You are’
6. Nominal morphology
6.1. Pronouns
Far deixis
3ms. ʾo, ʾóa, ʾóxa ʾo, ʾóya ʾo, ʾáwa ʾo, ʾáwa, ʾawánān
3fs. ʾo, ʾóa, ʾóxa ʾo, ʾóya ʾo, ʾáwa ʾo, ʾóya, ʾoyánān
3pl. ʾóni, ʾonyé, ʾóni, ʾonyé ʾóni, ʾonyé ʾōn, ʾóni, ʾonínān
ʾonyexáe
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of western Iran 497
As can be seen, most of the demonstrative pronouns in the dialects have short and
long forms. The long forms tend to be used only when the pronoun is independent
and not combined with a noun. Only singular forms can be used in combination
with a noun. These are the shortest forms in the list presented above. These singu-
lar adnominal forms are used also with plural nouns, e. g.
J. Sanandaj
ʾay gora ‘this man’
ʾay naše ‘these people’
Table 2: First and second person pronouns in Jewish and Christian Sanandaj
J. Sanandaj C. Sanandaj
2ms. ʾāt ʾayət
2fs. ʾāt ʾayat
2pl. ʾaxtu ʾaxtoxən
1s ʾana ʾana
1pl. ʾaxni ʾaxni
C. Sanandaj expresses gender distinction in the 2nd singular with innovative forms,
found widely elsewhere in NENA, formed by the attachment of suffixes taken
from the paradigm of D-suffixes that are used in verbal inflection.
6.1.2. Neo-Mandaic
Neo-Mandaic has two series of demonstrative pronouns in the singular, expressing
near and far deixis (Häberl 2009: 161–163). There is only one plural demonstra-
tive pronoun, which is historically a far deixis form, but now is neutral as to dis-
tance. The singular pronouns are neutral as to gender and occur in an independent
and an adnominal dependent form, which are shown in Table 3.
498 Geoffrey Khan
The contextual forms, the final vowel of which has been elided, are subject pro-
nouns before a verb that do not carry the nuclear stress of the utterance (a). The
lexical form of the pronoun is typically used when it takes the nuclear stress of the
utterance and has a contrastive function (b):
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of western Iran 499
The 3rd person singular suffixes in the Jewish dialects have an augment –f, which
derives historically from –u; cf. the forms –eu 3ms. and –aw, which occur in
several NENA dialects in other regions (chapter 3.4, §6.1). In C. Sanandaj the
orginal 3ms form –e has been extended to refer also the 3fs.
The variant form of the 3pl. suffix in J. Sanandaj –un, which preserves the
original final /n/ of the pronoun (< *-hun), is used only before the co-ordinative
enclitic –u, e. g. xa-dana mənun-u ‘one of them and …’ (Khan 2009: 61).
500 Geoffrey Khan
6.2.2. Neo-Mandaic
The pronominal suffixes attached to nouns and prepositions and also to verbs,
when expressing the object, are given in Table 6.
6.3.2. Neo-Mandaic
In Neo-Mandaic the original Aramaic nominal inflection -ā, is retained, but the
various Aramaic plural morphemes have been mostly replaced by the morpheme
-ān-, which may be identified with the Persian plural morpheme of the same form
(Häberl 2011: 730). This plural morpheme is placed before the nominal inflection
-ā. It is used with nouns of both masculine and feminine gender, e. g.
Gender Singular Plural
m. kədāḇ-ā ‘book’ kədāḇ-ān-ā ‘books’
f. id-ā ‘hand’ id-ān-ā ‘hands’
The Aramaic plural morpheme -āṯ- (sometimes augmented by the glides /w/ or /y/)
has been preserved in some nouns. It regularly occurs in feminine nouns that have
retained the Aramaic feminine singular morphme -t- in the singular, e. g.
Gender Singular Plural
f. tur-t-ā ‘cow’ tur-āṯ-ā ‘cows’
502 Geoffrey Khan
6.4.2. Neo-Mandaic
In Neo-Mandaic nominal annexation is expressed by the elision of the nominal
ending -ā. This occurs when a noun is immediately followed by another noun or
adjective expressing a genitive or attributive relationship (Häberl 2009: 91, 132,
2011: 730), e. g.
bieṯā ‘house’ bieṯ bābe ‘the house of my father’
bieṯā ‘house’ bieṯ baʿid ‘the distant house’
If a phrase containing an adjective is indefinite, the indefinite suffix -i may be
attached to the adjective at the end of the phrase, e. g.
qazġān honin-i ‘a small cooking pot’ (Häberl 2009: 147)
The distribution of such shortened noun forms replicates the pattern of distribu-
tion of Persian ezafe constructions. The Persian ezafe particle itself may be used,
e. g.
kol dukkān=e Amrik-ān
all shop=ez American-pl
‘all the American shops’
This is sporadically found in the Khorramshahr dialect of Neo-Mandaic (Häberl
2009: 133–134) but is more frequent in the Ahvāz dialect (Macuch 1993: 60–61).
The shortened ‘contextual’ forms, to use Häberl’s terminology, are analogous to
the shortened ‘contextual’ forms of pronouns (§6.1.2.).
A genitive relationship between nouns may also be expressed by the particle
d-. In such cases the head noun is in its lexical form with the ending -ā, e. g.
qanāyā d=kaspā
smith of=silver
‘silver smith’ (Häberl 2009, 231)
7. Verbal morphology
I, whereas the past base has the form of that of stem III. The only base that is dis-
tinctive to stem II is the imperative.
As in other NENA dialects (chapter 3.4, §7), the present and past inflectional
bases are inflected for person and number by two sets of suffixes, termed D-suf-
fixes (i. e. direct suffixes) and L-suffixes (i. e. oblique suffixes deriving historically
from prepositional phrases containing the dative/agentive preposition l-). These
suffixes indicate the grammatical relations of verbal arguments in the clause. In
C. Sanandaj D-suffixes mark the subject of the present base and L-suffixes the
subject of the past base, as shown in Table 7.
The morphology of the verbal derivative stems of the Jewish cluster of dialects
has undergone considerable development. The main surviving stems of the orig-
inal three-stem system of NENA are Stem-I (derived from the peʿal of earlier
Aramaic) and Stem-III (derived from the causative ʾap̄ʿel of earlier Aramaic). As
in C. Sanandaj, stem II has virtually completely merged in form with Stem-I, but a
distinction in the imperative form justifies identifying it as a separate stem. Another
development has taken place that is not found elsewhere in NENA, with the excep-
tion of the closely related dialect of J. Sulemaniyya. In each stem the vocalic
pattern of the bases differs according to whether the verb is used transitively or
intransitively. Broadly speaking the original vocalic patterns of the bases of the
causative Stem-III have been extended to transitive Stem-I verbs. Conversely the
intransitive Stem-I verbs preserves the original vocalic patterns of Stem-I and this
has been extended to intransitive verbs in Stem-III. Similar vocalic patterns are
found in the transitive and intransitive verbs of Stem-II. The subject of all present
bases is expressed by D-suffixes. There is, however, a split in the inflection of past
506 Geoffrey Khan
bases. Transitive past bases are inflected by L-suffixes but intransitive past bases
are inflected by D-suffixes, as shown in Table 8, while Table 9 shows the forms of
the suffixes themselves.
It is a common feature of the NENA dialects that the subject of present base verbs
is expressed by D-suffixes and the pronominal object by oblique L-suffixes. The
Jewish NENA dialects of western Iran, however, deviate from this pattern in one
detail, in that the pronominal object of 1st person singular present base verbs are
expressed by suffixes from the series that are attached to nouns to express posses-
sors (see §6.2.1), e. g.
J. Sanandaj (Khan 2009: 154–155)
gărəš-Ø-le
pull.prs - d .3 ms - l .3 ms
‘he pulls him’
garš-a-le
pul.prs - d .3 fs - l .3 ms
‘she pulls him’
garš-i-le
pull. prs - d .3 pl - l .3 ms
‘they pull him’
gărəš-n-ef
pull. prs - d .1 ms - poss .3 ms
‘I (ms) pull him’
garš-ăn-ef
pull. prs - d .1 fs - poss .3 ms
‘I (fs) pull him’
In the Jewish dialects of the region the D-suffixes are used also to mark the object
of transitive verbs, at least when the object is 3rd person. The alignment of clauses
with verbs constructed on past bases in these dialects, therefore, is ergative. If the
subject or object are specified by noun phrases in the clause, these are cross-refer-
enced by the verbal suffixes. This is illustrated in the following examples, which
show how the subject of an intransitive verb (1a) aligns with the object of a tran-
sitive verb (1b). In each case the common marker is the 3fs D-suffix on the verb:
(1) J. Sanandaj
a. brat-i smix-a.
daughter-my stand.pst -d .3fs
‘My daughter (S) stood up.’
b. baruxăwal-i brat-i gərš-a-lu.
friends-my daughter-my pull.pst - d .3 fs - l .3 pl
‘My friends (A) pulled my daughter (O).’
Unergative intransitive verbs, with agentive subjects, take L-suffixes on the past
base. The dialects, therefore, should be characterized as Split-S, according to the
508 Geoffrey Khan
terminology of Dixon (1994: 71), rather than canonically ergative. This applies,
for example, to verbs expressing the emission of sounds:
(2) J. Sanandaj
kalba nwəx-le.
dog bark.pst - l .3 ms
‘The dog barked.’
Intransitive verbs with D-suffixes may be termed unaccusative since they undergo
a change of state and are typically not agentive. They include verbs of movement,
which express a change in locational state rather than change in configurational
state, e. g.
(3) J. Sanandaj
brat-i zil-a.
daughter-my go.pst -d .3fs
‘My daughter went.’
The division between unergative and unaccusative in verbs of emission of sound
is lexicalized slightly differently across the various dialects of Jewish NENA of
the region, e. g.
Unergative (L-suffix) Unaccusative (D-suffix)
‘She coughed J. Sanandaj (šəh-la) J. Qar Hasan (šhil-a)
J. Tikab (šhəl-la) J. Bokan (šhil-a)
J. Kerend (šhəl-la)
‘He sneezed’ J. Sanandaj (təp-la) J. Bokan (tpil-a)
J. Tikab (tpəl-la) J. Qar Hasan (tpil-a)
J. Kerend (tpəl-la)
In the Jewish dialects the D-suffixes on the past base of transitive verbs can express
only the 3rd person object. A 1st or 2nd person object of a past base verb must be
expressed by an independent object phrase outside of the verbal complex:
(4) J. Sanandaj
a. grəš-le ʾəl-i.
pull. pst -l .3 ms obl -1 s
‘He pulled me.’
b. grəš-le ʾəl-ox.
pull. pst -l .3 ms obl -2 ms
‘He pulled you.’
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of western Iran 509
In C. Sanandaj past base verb forms cannot express any pronominal objects by
D-suffixes. Another construction must be used consisting of a past converter prefix
təm- and the present base, which expresses the pronominal object by L-suffixes:
(5) C. Sanandaj
a. təm-garš-i-le.
pst -pull.prs - d .3 pl - l .3 ms
‘They pulled him.’
b. təm-garš-a-le.
pst -pull.prs - d .3 fs - l .3 ms
‘She pulled him.’
In both the Jewish dialects and C. Sanandaj ditransitive verbs cannot take two pro-
nominal object suffixes. In cases where there is a direct and an indirect pronom-
inal object, the indirect one must be expressed by an independent prepositional
phrase:
(6) J. Sanandaj
kwi-le ʾəl-ef.
give.prs .3 pl - l .3 ms to-3 ms
‘They give it (m.) to him.’
(7) C. Sanandaj
kewi-le tlas-e.
give.prs .3 pl - l .3 ms to-3 ms
‘They give it (m.) to him.’
Calques of phrasal verbs in the languages in contact containing a light verb and
noun are common in both the Jewish and Christian dialects, e. g.
(8) J. Sanandaj (Khan 2009: 153)
ḥāz ʾol ‘he desires’ (literally: he makes desire; cf. Kurdish haz kirdin)
komak ʾol ‘he helps’ (literally: he does help; cf. Persian komak kardan).
The inflection of the enclitic copula in the Jewish dialects of the region corre-
sponds to that of the irrealis verb h-w-y ‘to be’ throughout the paradigm. This
represents a more advanced state of assimilation of the enclitic copula to verbal
inflection than is found in other NENA dialects. C. Sanandaj exhibits a par-
adigm of the enclitic copula that is more usual in NENA whereby the 1st and
2nd person forms of the copula correspond to verbal endings, but the 3rd person
forms have not undergone levelling and they remain distinct in form from verbal
inflection:
510 Geoffrey Khan
Most of the Split-S Jewish dialects of the region express perfects by combining
the resultative participle with the copula. The morphological form of the participle
differs according to whether the verb is transitive or intransitive unaccusative.
This distinction in the form of participle is found in the J. Sulemaniyya dialect of
eastern Iraq but not in the vast majority of NENA dialects that form resultative
perfects with a participle and copula construction (chapters 2.5, §7. and 3.4, §7).
The cluster of Jewish dialects in western Iran differ from all other NENA dialects,
including J. Sulemaniyya, in that the participle and the copula in transitive clauses
agree with the object and not with the subject (Khan 2009: 90–92, 323–326), e. g.
(9) J. Sanandaj
a. baxt-ăke qimta=ya
woman-the rise.ptcp . fs - cop .3 fs
‘The woman has risen.’
b. ʾo-gora baxt-ăke grəšta=ya
that-man woman-the pull.ptcp . fs - cop .3 fs
‘The man has pulled the woman.’
It can be seen that the transitive subject argument in the transitive construction
in (9b) has no explicit agreement marking on the verb in the form of an ergative
L-suffix. When there is no transitive subject argument nominal in the clause, the
subject can be interpreted as 3rd person of any gender or number:
(10) J. Sanandaj
baxt-ăke grəšta=ya
woman-the pull. ptcp . fs - cop .3 fs
‘He/she/they has/have pulled the woman.’
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of western Iran 511
Such transitive perfect constructions with zero subject can be used only when the
subject is 3rd person. By contrast, the perfect construction with a copula is availa-
ble for subjects of all persons in intransitive unaccusative clauses:
J. Sanandaj
3ms smixá=ye ‘He has stood up’
3fs smixtá=ya ‘She has stood up’
2ms smixá=yet ‘You (ms.) have stood up’
2fs smixtá=yat ‘You (fs.) have stood up’
1ms smixá=yena ‘I (ms.) have stood up’
1fs smixtá=yan ‘I (fs.) have stood up’
An irrealis perfect may be formed by replacing the copula by the paradigm of the
irrealis form of the verb h-w-y ‘to be’. In the irrealis perfect construction in tran-
sitive clauses the participle and copula agree with the object, as in the indicative
perfect, but, unlike in the indicative perfect, the subject is marked by an ergative
L-suffix. Since there is explicit subject marking, the construction can be used with
subjects of all persons (Khan 2009: 92–94):
(11) J. Sanandaj
a. ʾo-gora baxt-ăke grəšta-hawya-le
that-man woman-the pull. ptcp . fs -be.irrealis .3 fs - l .3 ms
‘That man may have pulled the woman.’
b. ʾāt baxt-ăke grəšta-hawya-lox
you (ms.) woman-the pull. ptcp . fs -be.irrealis .3 fs - l .2 ms
‘You (ms.) may have pulled the woman’
c. ʾana baxt-ăke grəšta-hawya-li
I woman-the pull. ptcp . fs -be.irrealis .3 fs - l .1 s
‘I may have pulled the woman’
In C. Sanandaj the perfect is not expressed by a resultative participle but rather by
a construction in which the particle gi- is prefixed to a past base verb, e. g.
C. Sanandaj
grəš-le gi-grəš-le
‘he pulled’ ‘he has pulled’
This particle gi- is likely to be a reduced form of the copula with an indicative
prefix < *k-i.
Perfects denote the resultative and also can have an evidential function used
to express reported events or events in the remote past (Khan 2009: 296, 2012).
Neither Jewish nor Christian NENA have prefixed particles to mark future
tense. In Jewish NENA the basic present base serves to cover general present,
progressive present and future:
512 Geoffrey Khan
7.2. Neo-Mandaic
Neo-Mandaic has preserved the suffix conjugation of earlier Aramaic to express
the perfective past. The historical active participle expresses both the imperfective
realis and irrealis. The realis is distinguished from the irrealis by a prefixed indica-
tive particle, which has the form qə- in Khorramshahr (Häberl 2009: 180) and qa-
in Ahvāz (Macuch 1993: 69). This is analogous, both in form and function, to the
indicative particles k- and g- of the NENA dialects, though it may be of a different
etymology. The general profile of the Neo-Mandaic and NENA verbal systems in
relation to Middle Aramaic, the term generally used to refer to the historical stage
of Aramaic before that of the modern dialects, is as follows (shading indicates
continuity of Middle Aramaic forms in the Neo-Aramaic dialects):
Middle Aramaic Neo-Mandaic NENA
Perfective past qṭal gəṭal qṭil-le
Imperfective realis qāṭel qə-gāṭel k-qaṭəl
Imperfective irrealis yiqṭul gāṭel qaṭəl
Imperative qṭul gəṭol qṭol
Neo-Mandaic has lost the Middle Aramaic imperfective irrealis form (yiqṭul), but
its verbal system is still more archaic than that of the NENA dialects, which have
lost both the Middle Aramaic imperfective irrealis (yiqṭul) and the perfective past
(qṭal).
The verbal stems include the historical peʿal (also know as the G-stem), paʿʿel
(agentive or denominal D-stem), ʾap̄ ʿel (causative C-stem) forms as well as the
T-stems (expressing middle and passive voices) ʾeṯpeʿel (tG stem), ʾeṯpaʿʿal (tD
stem) and ʾettap̄ ʿal (tC stem). This is a further aspect of the verbal system that is
more conservative than NENA, in which the T-stems have been lost. The prefixed
t morpheme of the historical T-stems has, however, been assimilated in all verbal
roots except those that have a sibiliant as initial radical, with which it has been
metathesized, e. g. eṣtəḇā ‘to be baptized’ (< ṣ-ḇ-w/y). An overview of the basic
forms (3ms perfective and imperfective, ms. imperative) across the various deriv-
ative stems is provided in Table 11 (based on Häberl 2011: 733).
Macuch (1993: 68) reports the occurrence of distinct suffixes of the prefective for
the 2fs, 3fpl and 2fpl in the Ahvāz dialect, but these do not occur in the material
gathered by Häberl (2009: 180), who gives the paradigm above.
Pronominal objects on perfective and imperative verbs are expressed by the
pronominal suffixes listed in §6.2.2. The addition of these suffixes in many forms
results in resyllabification of the base of the verb. The paradigm of the perfective
form of the verb ‘to kill’ (gəṭal) with the 3ms. (-i) and the 2pl. (-ḵon) object suf-
fixes is given in Table 13 (after Häberl 2009: 181). In this paradigm there is pho-
nological gemination (§5.6.2.) of the /n/ before the 3ms. object suffixes attached
to 3pl. and 2pl. verbs.
The 1st and 2nd person imperfective forms of the verb express pronominal objects
by object suffixes, but 3rd person imperfective forms express pronominal objects
by oblique suffixes consisting of an originally dative preposition l- and pronomi-
nal suffixes, analogous to the L-suffixes of NENA. The paradigm of the imperfec-
tive realis form of the verb ‘to kill’ (qə-gāṭel) ‘he kills’ with the 3ms. (-i, -l-i) and
the 2pl. (-ḵon, lə-ḵon) object suffixes is given in Table 14 (after Häberl 2009: 182).
In this paradigm there is phonological gemination (§5.6.2.) of the /n/ before the
3ms. object suffixes attached to 1pl. and 2pl. verbs. The /n/ of the 3pl. plural
subject inflection -en assimilates totally the /l/ of the oblique suffix.
Unlike most NENA dialects, Neo-Mandaic has not developed innovative verbal
forms to express the present perfect, but rather uses the suffix conjugation form
with this function in addition to the function of expressing the past perfective. The
present perfect function includes resultative and stative (Häberl 2009: 240), e. g.
(12) Khorramshahr
meḵt-at əšta
die.pst -3 fs . now
‘Now she is dead.’
The imperfective form expresses a variety of subtypes of imperfectivity, including
progressive, habitual and narrative present. It also expresses the future (Häberl
2009: 241–243).
The Neo-Mandaic indicative copula has a short and a long form. The short
form consists of clitics which are in origin light clitic forms of personal pronouns.
Häberl (2009: 230) found the paradigm of this to be defective in the Khorramshahr
dialect, with no short forms being in use for the 1st and 2nd plural forms, and no
distinctions in gender made in any person:
3s. =ye 2pl. —
3pl. =non 1s. =nā
2s. =yāt 1pl —
516 Geoffrey Khan
Macuch (1993: 53) presents a slightly fuller paradigm for the Ahvāz dialect:
3ms. =ye ~ =ya 2s. =yāt ~ =yet
3fs. =i 2pl. —
3mpl. =nɔn, =non 1s. =nɔn
3fpl. =nen 1pl. —
The long copula, which bears its own stress, is formed by combining the pro-
nominal suffixes listed in §6.2.2 with the base of the existential particle eṯ-. This
results in phonological gemination of the interdental /ṯ/, which, by the process
discussed above in §5.6.2., has the outcome /ḵt/. The paradigm of the long copula
is complete, with 1pl. and 2pl. forms and with gender distinctions in the 2nd and 3rd
persons singular (Häberl 2009: 231):
3ms. eḵt-i 2fs. eḵt-eḵ
3fs. eḵt-a 2pl. eḵt-əḵon
3pl. eḵt-u 1s. eḵt-e
2ms. eḵt-aḵ 1pl. eḵt-an
In addition to the preverbal particle qə-, which is used productively to express the
realis of the imperfective, the non-productive preverbal particle d- can be identi-
fied in the imperative form of the verb aṯā ‘to come’, viz. doṯi! ‘come!’ (Häberl
2009: 191; Macuch 1965: 306). This appears to be the same particle that is used
before imperatives in various NENA dialects to express intensity.
6
Intonation group boundaries are expressed by the symbol | and nuclear stress by a grave
accent.
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of western Iran 517
8.1.2. Neo-Mandaic
The enclitic short copula of Neo-Mandaic is most commonly used in clauses in
which the predicate is an adjective (15), a resultative participle (16), a locative
expression (17) or interrogative expression (18) (Häberl 2009: 230, 253):
(15) Khorramshahr
šəbir=nā
good=cop .1 s
‘I am well’
(16) Khorramshahr
yehəm=ye
sit.ptcp = cop .3 s
‘He is seated’
(17) Khorramshahr
ahni barra əm-belāṯ=non
they outside from-city=cop .3 pl
‘They are outside the city’
(18) Khorramshahr
man=ye?
who=cop .3 s
‘Who is he?’
518 Geoffrey Khan
A clause with a short enclitic copula is negated by the part lu placed before the
predicate:
(19) Khorramshahr (Häberl 2009: 291, IX.10)
bāb-e lu-hnā=ye
father-my neg -here=cop .3 s
‘My father is not here’
The long copula is regularly placed after the predicate. It may be used with the
types of predicate exemplified in (15)–(18) and also with predicates containing a
nominal, where it is the norm (Häberl 2009: 231), e. g.
(20) Khorramshahr
an qanāyā d-kaspā eḵt-e
1sg smith of-silver cop -1 sg
‘I am a silver smith’
The long copula is negated by prefixing the negative particle la to the base of the
copula, the vowel of which is elide, e. g.
(21) Khorramshahr
šəbir l-eḵt-e
good neg - cop -1 s
‘I am not well’
Copula clauses that are not indicative present are constructed with a form of the
copula verb həwā, i. e. həwā past, hāwi irrealis, qə-hawi imperfective progressive/
future.
8.2.2. Neo-Mandaic
In Neo-Mandaic the position of the direct object constituent depends to a large
extent on its specificity (Häberl 2009: 135–137). Objects that refer to generic
classes or indefinite objects, marked with the indefinite suffix -i, with non-specific
referents are generally placed before the verb:
(27) Khorramshahr (Häberl 2009: 135)
šamʿ qə-masriḵ-en
candle ind -kindle. ipfv -3 pl
‘They light candles.’
520 Geoffrey Khan
Unlike the NENA dialects of the region, imperative forms cannot be negated in
Neo-Mandaic. Negative commands and prohibitions are expressed by combining
the negative particle la with the irrealis imperfective, e. g.
(34) Khorramshahr (Häberl 2009: 247)
l-all-etton ġer welāt
neg -go.irr -2 pl outside city
‘Do not go outside the city.’
9.1.2. Neo-Mandaic
Coordinating linkage in Neo-Mandaic may be marked by the coordinating particle
u (37) or it may be asyndetic (38):
(37) Khorramshahr (Häberl 2009: 280, IV.19)
inšānā aṯon u qāren əlāw mienā
women come.pst .3 pl and recite.ipfv .3 pl to water
‘Women came and enchanted the water.’
(38) Khorramshahr (Häberl 2009: 290, VIII.6)
Hafté horettā aṯā daš
week other come.pst .3 ms enter.pst .3 ms
‘He came another week and entered.’
When the head noun is definite the relative clause is generally introduced by the
Iranian particles ya or ke:
(42) J. Sanandaj (Khan 2009: 377–378)
ʾo-naše ya-daʿwat kol-i-wa-lu
the-people rel -invitation make.prs - d .3 pl - pst - l .3 pl
‘the people whom they invited’
(43) J. Sanandaj (Khan 2009: 377–378)
xa-məndix=ye ke pərče koma ko-lu.
a-thing=cop .3 ms rel hair.pl black make.prs - l .3 pl
‘It is a thing that makes hair black.’
Factive and irrealis content clauses that are direct complements of verbs are some-
times introduced by the Iranian particle ke:
(44) J. Sanandaj (Khan 2009: 386–388)
hămər-Ø ke ʾay-brona həl-day brata gb-e.
say.irr - d .3 ms comp that-boy obj - dem . obl girl love.prs - d .3 ms
‘[in order that] he say that the boy loves the girl’
(45) J. Sanandaj
ʾijaza hulmu ke-ʾaxni xlula hol-ex
permission give.imper . pl comp -we wedding make.irr - d .2 pl
‘Give permission for us to hold the wedding.’
(46) C. Sanandaj
sfareš kewəl-Ø ke ʾana gi-se-li
message give.prs - d .3ms comp I perf -come.pst - l .1 s
‘He gives a message that “I have come.”’
Nouns functioning as adverbials at the head of a subordinate clause are often
linked to the clause by the Iranian ezafe particle:
(47) J. Sanandaj (Khan 2009: 394)
waxt-e xlula wi-li
time-ezafe wedding do.pst - l .1 s
‘when I married’
(48) C. Sanandaj
waxt-e ḥak-i
time-ezafe speak.prs - d .3 pl
‘when they speak’
The Aramaic conditional particle has been completely replaced by the Iranian par-
ticle ʾăgar:
524 Geoffrey Khan
9.2.2. Neo-Mandaic
In Neo-Mandaic the Aramaic subordinating particle d is still used in noun phrases
to introduce genitive attributes, but it is no longer used to introduce subordinate
clauses.
Relative clauses use relative particles that have been borrowed from contact
languages, viz. ke ‘that’ from Persian and illi ‘which’ from Arabic. The particle ke
is used to introduce restrictive relative clauses, e. g.
(51) Khorramshahr (Häberl 2009: 166)
aṯṯ-on barnaš-ānā ke šiḇih-ānā kāḇš-el-l-u
bring.imp - pl person-pl rel demon-pl subdue.ipfv -3 pl - obj -3 pl
‘Bring the people who will subdue the demons.’
In some cases the head noun has the Persian ‘specifying’ -i suffix, which is bor-
rowed from Persian relative clause constructions. This is seen in (52), which also
exemplifies the use of an object resumptive pronoun to express the object function
of the referent of the head noun in the relative clause:
(52) Khorramshahr (Häberl 2009: 263)
ezg-it dukk-ān-i ke həz-it-u awwál
go.pst -1 sg place-pl -i rel see.pst -1 sg -3 pl before
‘I went to the places which I saw before.’
In the Khorramshahr dialect the particle illi introduces non-restrictive relative
clauses with a definite head noun, e. g.
(53) Khorromshahr (Häberl 2009: 165)
q-abi-n amər-Ø genz farwāh Profesər Buckley
ind -want.ipfv -1 sg say.irr -1 sg many thanks Professor Buckley
illi genz əḇād aḇd-at qam Manday-ānā
rel much work do.pst -3 fs for mandaean-pl
‘I want to give many thanks to Professor Buckley, who has done so much
work for the Mandaeans.’
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of western Iran 525
In the Ahvāz dialect the Persian relative particle ke is used in such non-restrictive
relative constructions (Häberl 2009: 260).
When the head noun of a non-restrictive relative clause is indefinite with a
specific referent, there is no relative particle, e. g.
(54) Khorramshahr (Häberl 2009: 164)
gāw Aḥwāz həwā tarmid-i ešm-i šiex ʿAbdalla
in Ahvāz be.pst .3 ms tarmida name-3ms sheikh Abdallah
‘In Ahvāz there was a tarmida,7 whose name was Sheikh Abdallah.’
Adverbial clauses are introduced by a preposition or are asyndetic. The verb is in
the irrealis or realis form according to whether the event has been realized or not,
e. g.
(55) Temporal clause, Khorramshahr (Häberl 2009: 248)
qamāy malp̄ -āt-i ana gaṭel-nā-ḵon geš
before teach.irr -2 sg -3 ms 1sg kill.irr -1 sg - obj .2 pl all
‘Before you teach him, I will kill you all!’
(56) Causal clause, Khorramshahr (Häberl 2009: 249)
aṯ-on gāw Irān qə-beyy-en komak
come.pst -3 pl in Iran ind -want.ipfv -3 pl help
aḇd-əl-l-Ø əl-Rusya
do.irr -3 pl - obj -3 fs obj -Russia
‘They came to Iran (because) they wanted to help Russia.’
In conditional constructions the Persian conditional particle agar is used (Macuch
1965: 432; Häberl 2009: 250), e. g.
(57) agar pərāhā eh-l-e turt-i qə-zaḇen-nā
if money cop -to-1 sg cow-indf ind -buy. ipfv -1 sg
‘If I have money, I shall buy a cow.’
The NENA dialects of western Iran represent the far eastern periphery of the
NENA dialect area. They exhibit a number of features that are not characteristic
of the vast majority of NENA dialects in other regions. This applies in particular
to the cluster of Jewish dialects. One of the most conspicuous differences between
the Jewish dialects and the rest of NENA is their split-S alignment in clauses with
verbs formed from past bases. In Khan (2017) I have argued that this develop-
ment is likely to be an innovation within NENA, triggered by a greater degree of
7
The first grade of the Mandaean priesthood.
526 Geoffrey Khan
convergence to the ergative alignment of Kurdish. The use of D-suffixes with the
past base is likely to have begun as a means of expressing the stative-type resul-
tative perfects in maximally stative unaccusative verbs, as is found in some other
peripheral NENA dialects, such as J. Urmi and C. Hertevin (chapter 2.5, §7). In
the Jewish dialects of western Iran this would have developed further and spread
to the expression of the perfective. The development of intransitive verbal forms
in Ṭuroyo and Mlaḥso with the inflection of D-suffixes on past bases should be
considered to be an independent development.
The lexicon of the Jewish dialects and C. Sanandaj contains many loanwords
from Kurdish and Persian. The available material on C. Sanandaj dialect also
exhibits a number of loanwords from Arabic. The core vocabulary remains pre-
dominantly Aramaic in origin, but even this exhibits some loanwords (Khan 2009:
401–409).
Neo-Mandaic, which is a separate subgroup of Neo-Aramaic, exhibits numer-
ous differences from the NENA dialects of Western Iran in phonology, morphol-
ogy, syntax and lexicon. In a variety of features Neo-Mandaic is more archaic than
NENA.
The morphology of the pronouns in Neo-Mandaic, for example, is more con-
servative in some respects than the NENA dialects of the region, such as its pres-
ervation of distinct forms for anaphoric third person personal pronouns (§6.2.2.).
The morphology of the verb in Neo-Mandaic (§7.2.) is more archaic in its
profile than the verbal systems of NENA dialects, preserving, for example, the
original perfective suffix conjugation and a wider range of derivative verbal forms
and lacking innovations such as distinct forms for the present perfect. Verbal
clauses in Neo-Mandaic, moreover, exhibit uniformly accusative alignment.
The form of the Neo-Mandaic copula appears to be more archaic than NENA.
Parts of the paradigm of the short copula still have the resemblance of a clitic
pronoun, the historical origin of the copula. The long copula, formed by the com-
bination of the existential particle and pronominal suffixes, is a common feature
of earlier Aramaic dialects, but does not exist in NENA.
The expression of prohibitions by negation of the irrealis imperfective rather
than the imperative (§8.2.2.) is also more in line with earlier Aramaic dialects than
with the NENA dialects of the region, which negate the imperative.
The core vocabulary of Neo-Mandaic is predominantly of Aramaic origin.
Neo-Mandaic and NENA share a number of lexical items that are not found in
other Neo-Aramaic subgroups (Mutzafi 2014: 117–143). Although the Neo-Man-
daic communities in south-western Iran are now not in contact with NENA speak-
ers further north, some lexical isoglosses between the two dialect groups may
have spread at an earlier period by areal diffusion. This applies in particular to
the common NENA word məndi, which appears to be of Mandaic origin (§6.3.2.).
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of western Iran 527
8
Literally: close to winter.
528 Geoffrey Khan
9
Hebrew.
The Neo-Aramaic dialects of western Iran 529
11.2. Neo-Mandaic
Khorramshahr dialect
10
Brackets enclose suffixes that have been elided in sandhi.
530 Geoffrey Khan
Abbreviations
References
Borghero, Roberta. 2004. Some linguistic features of a Mandaean manuscript from the sev-
enteenth century’. Aram 16. 61–83.
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 70. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Häberl, Charles. 2009. The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr. Semitica Viva 45.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Häberl, Charles. 2011. Neo-Mandaic. In Stefan Weninger, Geoffrey Khan, Michael Streck
& Janet Watson (eds.), The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, 725–737.
Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Heinrichs, Wolfhart. 2002. Peculiarities of the verbal system of Senaya within the frame-
work of North Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA). In Werner Arnold & Hartmut Bobzin
(eds.), “Sprich doch mit deinen Knechten Aramäisch, wir verstehen es!” 60 Beiträge
uur Semitistik. Festschrift für Otto Jastrow zum 60. Geburtstag, 238–268. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
532 Geoffrey Khan
Hoberman, Robert. 1988. The history of the Modern Aramaic pronouns and pronominal
suffixes. Journal of the American Oriental Society 108. 557–575.
Hopkins, Simon. 1999. The Neo-Aramaic Dialects of Iran. In Shaul Shaked & Amnon Net-
zer (eds.), Irano-Judaica IV, 311–327. Jerusalem: Magnes.
Hopkins, Simon. 2002. Preterite and perfect in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic of Kerend. In Wer-
ner Arnold & Hartmut Bobzin“Sprich doch mit deinen Knechten Aramäisch, wir ver-
stehen es!” 60 Beiträge zur Semitistik. Festschrift für Otto Jastrow zum 60. Geburtstag,
281–298. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Israeli, Yaffa. 1998. Ha-Aramit ha-ḥadashah shebe-fi Yehude Saḳiz (derom Kurdisṭan). Je-
rusalem: Hebrew University dissertation.
Kahn, Margaret. 1976. Borrowing and variation in a phonological description of Kurdish.
Michigan: University of Michigan dissertation.
Kalin, Laura M. 2014. Aspect and argument licensing in Neo-Aramaic’. Los Angeles: Uni-
versity of California dissertation.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2004. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Sulemaniyya and Ḥalabja. Stud-
ies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 44. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2009. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Sanandaj. Piscataway, NJ: Gor-
gias Press.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2012. The evidential function of the perfect in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic
dialects. In Rebecca Hasselbach & Na’ama Pat-El (eds.), Language and Nature. Papers
presented to John Huehnergard on the occasion of his 60th Birthday, 219–228. Studies
in Ancient Oriental Civilization 67. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2017. Ergativity in Neo-Aramaic. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa
Travis (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, 873–899. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Macuch, Rudolf. 1965. Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic. Berlin & Boston: De
Gruyter Mouton.
Macuch, Rudolf. 1989. Neumandäische Chrestomathie: Mit grammatischer Skizze, kom-
mentierter Übersetzung und Glossar. Porta Linguarum Orientalium. Neue Serie 18.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Macuch, Rudolf. 1993. Neumandäische Texte im Dialekt von Ahwāz. Semitica Viva 12.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Macuch, Rudolf & Estiphan Panoussi. 1974. Neusyrische Chrestomathie. Porta Linguarum
Orientalium. Neue Serie 13. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Mutzafi, Hezy. 2014. Comparative lexical studies in Neo-Mandaic. Studies in Semitic Lan-
guages and Linguistics 73. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Panoussi, Estiphan. 1990. On the Senaya Dialect. In Wolfhart Heinrichs (ed.), Studies in
Neo-Aramaic, 107–129. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Panoussi, Estiphan. 1991. Ein vorläufiges Verbglossar zum aussterbenden Neuaramäischen
Senaya-Dialekt. Rivista Degli Studi Orientali 65(3/4). 165–183.
Tsereteli, Konstantin. 1990. The velar spirant ġ in Modern East Aramaic dialects. In Wolf-
hart Heinrichs (ed.), Studies in Neo-Aramaic, 35–41. Harvard Semitic Studies. Atlanta:
Scholars Press.
4.5. Hawrāmī of western Iran
Parvin Mahmoudveysi and Denise Bailey
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
Hawrāmī is spoken in the Hawrāmān (Persian: Ourāmān) region located in the
northern Zagros mountains in northwestern Iran and northeastern Iraq. Hawrāmī
is a variety of the language that is identified by the historical name of Gorani (or
Gūrānī), traditionally classified as Northwestern Iranian. Gorani, in turn, can be
described as a continuum of closely related varieties, which nonetheless forms
what is essentially a single language. In Iran, Hawrāmī shares this continuum with
the endangered varieties of Kandūlayī, Zardayāna, and Gawraǰūyī, as well as with
others no longer in active use, such as Riǰābī, Gahwāraī, and Bēwanīǰī.1 In Iraq,
Hawrāmī shares this continuum with Bāǰaɫānī, which is historically spoken near
Sar Pol-e Zohāb but also spoken northwest of Mosul, as well as with the varie-
ties identified as Šabakī, Kākayī, Šēxānī, Zangana, and Rožbayānī (see Haig, this
volume, p. 297, for a map).2 In comparison to the other Gorani varieties, Hawrāmī
is considered to be a “more archaic variant in many ways” (MacKenzie 2002: n.p.)
and “probably […] the best preserved of the group” (MacKenzie 1966: 4). Mac-
Kenzie’s characterization is supported by the relatively complex morphology of
Hawrāmī, which includes extensive use of grammatical gender, regular oblique
case marking, the Imperfect, and two forms of the ezāfe particle.3
Much of known Gorani history has been in close association with Kurdish.
Gorani had a highly significant role as the literary and court language of the
Kurdish Ardalān dynasty from the fourteenth to nineteenth centuries (MacKenzie
1
See Mahmoudveysi (2016: 3).
2
Actual names for Gorani and varieties can differ, depending on speaker and location
(see Leezenberg 1993: 7). In this study, we use the name ‘Gorani’ to refer to the gen-
eral northwestern language and ‘Hawrāmī’ to refer to the specific cluster of varieties
spoken in the Hawrāmān area (for more discussion of the identification of Gorani, see
Mahmoudveysi, Bailey, Paul, and Haig 2012: 2–4).
3
Gorani has been the focus of scholarly research since at least the early 1800s, with
Hawrāmī figuring in many studies, including Benedictsen and Christensen (1921),
Mann and Hadank (1930), Christensen (1936), and MacKenzie (1961, 1966, 1987b,
2002), Blau (1989), Naqšbandī (1996), Paul (2007), Holmberg and Odden (2008),
Mahmudweyssi and Haig (2009), Zolfaqari (2010), and Bistoon, Gheitury, and Kazzazi
(2013).
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-016
534 Parvin Mahmoudveysi and Denise Bailey
2002: n.p.). They share many linguistic features that serve as evidence of contact
and convergence from centuries of proximity.
Hawrāmī is mainly found within the national boundaries of Iran. It is used
in the Hawrāmān region, which is located in Kermanšāh and Kurdistan prov-
inces and situated between the cities of Marīvān, Sanandaǰ, and Pāwa (Persian:
Pāveh). There are more speakers of Hawrāmī than of the other Gorani varieties
in Iran, such as those in Zarda, Gawraǰū, and Kandūla.4 Hawrāmī is also spoken
in Iraq, where the western part of Hawrāmān includes the settlements of Tawēɫa
and Bīyāra. Hawrāmī speakers live in Xurmāl and in larger Kurdish cities as well,
including Halabǰa.5
The Hawrāmān region is constituted of four main parts: 1) Hawrāmān-i Luhōn;
2) Hawrāmān-i Taxt; 3) Šāmyān and Dizlī; and 4) Hawrāmān Řazāw-u Kamara.6
There are also two other parts: 5) Hawrāmān Gāwaro; and 6) Hawrāmān Žāwaro
(these might be a part of Řazāw-u Kamara).7 The first part, Hawrāmān-i Luhōn,
has about thirty-four settlements in Iran, nine of which are populated by speak-
ers of Jāfī, a dialect of Central Kurdish. The settlements in Hawrāmān-i Luhōn
include the historical center, Nawsūd, and also the city of Pāwa and villages
such as Hāna Garmaɫa, Kaymna, Dizāwar, Nodša (Notša), Haǰīǰ, Narwē, Šošmē,
Qaɫāgā, Darmūr, Xānagā, Girāɫ, Šēxān, and Naysāna. Settlements in Iraq include
Darē Mař, Sargat, Guɫp, Baxa Kon, Dagā Šēxān, Sosakān, Bīyāra, and Tawēɫa.
The second part, Hawrāmān-i Taxt, consists of the center, Šār-i Hawrāmān, and the
villages of Waysīā, Kamāɫa, Sar-u Pīrī, Silēn, Biɫbar, Žīwār, Kalǰī, Nāwa, Nwēn,
Daɫ, Daɫamarz, Zom, and Asparēz, as well as Bānī Binok in Iraq. The third part,
Dizlī (Dezlī) (and Šāmyān and Dizlī), includes the center, Dezlī, and the villages
in Iran of Bārāmāwā, Zalka, Qaɫaǰē, Qaɫāgā, Tifɫīya, Tāzāwā, Gořgayī, Tēžtēž,
Tāɫawān, Xošāw, Xirosa, and Dara, and in Iraq, as Hāna, Quɫē, Zaɫm, and Aħmađ
Āwā. The fourth part, Hawrāmān Řazāw-u Kamara, consists of the center, Řazāw,
with the villages of Kařāwa, Dēwaznāw, Dagāgā, Xānagā, and Nāwa. The fifth and
sixth parts, included by Hawrāmānī (2001), are Hawrāmān Gāwaro, with villages
of Darwēšān, Galēn, Dē Moɫē, Hašamēz, Tawrēbar, Wasē, and Tāw Doɫaw; and
the area of Hawrāmān Žāwaro, with the villages of Māzībin, Borīdar, Čamšīdar,
4
For Gorani of Gawraǰū, see Mahmoudveysi, Bailey, Paul, and Haig (2012); for Gorani
of Zarda, see Mahmoudveysi and Bailey (2013); and for Gorani of Kandūla, see Mann
and Hadank (1930).
5
For the locations of these varieties, see Haig (this volume, chapter 3.3, Fig. 4). Fur-
ther information on locations is found in Mahmoudveysi (2016: 6–7) and MacKenzie
(1966: 5). In Iraq, Gorani and its varieties are sometimes referred to collectively as
‘Māčo’ (or also ‘Hawrāmī’, as noted by Leezenberg 1993: 7).
6
See also MacKenzie (1987a), MacKenzie (1966: 5), Paul (2007: 287), and Zolfaqari
(2010: 324) for parts.
7
See Hawrāmānī (2001: 617–619) for these areas and names of villages.
Hawrāmī of western Iran
535
Bēsārān, Žanīn, Tangībar, Pālingān, Žirēža, Hāna-w Ħisayan Bagī, Sūra Tifē, Dēr
Moɫē, Kēɫāna, and Takya.8
1.2. Names
The name Hawrāmī is used by people of the region to designate in general the
speech of the settlements in Hawrāmān. More specific names include Pāwayī,
used by people from Pāwa to refer to their own speech, in which case Hawrāmī is
then used as a reference to the speech of Nawsūd.9
1.3. Literature
Gorani is used for most of the sacred literature of the Yārsān (Ahl-e Haqq) com-
munity. Gorani is especially known for its literature produced from the fourteenth
to the nineteenth centuries, with its golden age from the seventeenth to nineteenth
centuries. It was the literary language for all Kurdish and Gorani speakers in the
entire area from Ilam to Kirkuk. The most prestigious of the Gorani poets, Sayyed
Abdul Karim Tawgozī, also known as Mawlawī Kurd (1806–1882), was in fact
primarily a Kurdish speaker who composed all of his poetry in Gorani.
Gorani literature developed and flourished during the Ardalan dynasty (1169–
1867). After the downfall of the Ardalan rulers, Gorani declined in its position
as the language of poetry, and Sorani Kurdish poetry gradually took on this role
and gained prestige through the support of the rulers of Sulaymaniya. Gorani
poets include Mullā Mustāfā Besārānī (1642–1701), Xānāy Qubādī (1700–1759),
Saydī Hawrāmī (1784–1852), Ranǰūrī (1750–1809), Ghulam Razā Arkawāzī
(1775–1840), Mirzā Šafīʕ Jāmarēzī (1776–1836), Aħmad Bag Komāsī (1798–
1878), Malā-y Jabbārī (1806–1876), and Sayyed Abdul Karīm Tawgozī, known as
Mawlawī Kurd (1806–1882). There are many other Gorani poets; these names are
only a selection of them.
8
A new administrative division of cities and villages in the Kurdistan province in Iran
includes Sarvābād, consisting of Sarvābād and Hawrāmān Taxt. This also means that
the Hawrāmān region is divided into two parts: 1) Hawrāmān Taxt (villages: Hawrāmān
Taxt with Sar-u Pīrī, as a unit, Kamāɫa, Řēwar, and Wīsīan); and 2) Šālyār (villages:
Silēn, Biɫbar, Žīwār, Wargawīr, Nwēn, Kalǰī, Nāw, ʕabāsābād, and Asparēz) (according
to Sadeqi, n.d.).
9
Other local names for Hawrāmī spoken near Pāwa may be derived from the village
name, for example, Xānagāyī, spoken in Xānagā, or Dišayī, spoken in Diša.
Hawrāmī of western Iran 537
The city of Pāwa (Persian: Pāveh) belongs to the county (šahrestān) of Pāveh in
Kermānšāh province. It is located approximately 120 kilometers northwest of Ker-
mānšāh. Pāwa is the capital; other towns include Nawsūd, Nodša, Bānawřē, and
Bayangan. Hawrāmī is spoken in Pāwa and Nawsūd, while Jāfī Kurdish is spoken
in Bānawřē and Bayangān. Jāfī is also spoken in most of the villages between
Bānawřē and Pāwa, as well as in about four villages between Pāwa and Nawsūd.
Hawrāmī is used in the remainder of the villages.
Recent estimates of Gorani speakers range from 200,000–300,000 (Paul
2007: 285) up to perhaps more than 500,000 (Mahmoudveysi 2016: 8). The ‘whole
Avromani ethnic continuum’ is estimated at 80–90,000, with about 50,000 in Iran
and about 30–40,000 in Iraq (Zolfaqari 2010: 238). The population of Pāwa and
villages is estimated to be around 56,000; that of Nawsūd is estimated at 7,984;
and that of Nodša as 3,547 (as of the 2006 census). The population of Sarvābād is
about 70,000 people.10
Traditional daily life involved animal husbandry of sheep, goats, and cattle, with
production of milk, yogurt, butter, and cheese. This work, however, has become
less common in modern life. Most people tend gardens and orchards, growing
walnuts, figs, apples, pomegranates, and grapes, as well as tomatoes and okra,
which are ingredients in traditional Hawrāmī dishes such as Doyna and Šalamīna.
Most people in Pāwa are well educated, with an estimated literacy rate of 99
percent of the population between 10 and 49 years of age.11 Men and women are
trained in many types of professions and work in schools, clinics, and offices.
People in the Hawrāmān area primarily follow traditions of Sunni Islam. Haw-
rāmān is an important location for two Sufi (mystical Islamic) orders. Pāwa is one
of the main locations for both orders, while the village of Neǰar, close to Pāwa, is an
important location for the Qāderīya order. The region also exhibits historical influ-
ence of other religions. One of the largest ancient fire temples of Zoroastrianism is
found in Pāwa (Shahbazi, n.d.).12 It is on a high mountain of the same name, Ātašgā.
10
See Mahmoudveysi (2016: 7–8).
11
See Paveh Press (2013), with this percentage estimated by Eqbal Zomorodi, Director of
the Office for the Abatement of Illiteracy.
12
In Gawraǰū and Zarda villages, located south of Hawrāmān, Gorani speakers are of
Yārsān (Yārī, Ahl-e Haqq) background. In Kandūla, the community is Twelver Shiʿite
(as noted by Paul 2007: 285).
538 Parvin Mahmoudveysi and Denise Bailey
13
The authors would like to offer sincere appreciation to Jahangir Mahmoudveysi for his
Hawrāmī of western Iran 539
3. Phonology
The Hawrāmī material in this study is written with a mostly phonemic orthog-
raphy.14 Material in this section on phonology is also transcribed in IPA (Inter-
national Phonetic Alphabet; International Phonetics Association 2015/2005). The
table below shows the correspondence of the orthographic symbols to the IPA
symbols.15
contribution to this study and to Nicholas Bailey for his technical assistance and review
of the grammatical description. Special thanks is also due to Laurentia Schreiber for her
helpful editorial work.
14
Where relevant, Hawrāmī material from other sources (including MacKenzie 1966) is
adapted to this orthography to facilitate comparison. The orthography also includes the
symbol <đ>, which, as an allophone, does not have full phonemic status, but it is still
regarded here as important to signify.
15
Phonetic material is enclosed in square brackets, […], phoneme symbols are enclosed
by slash marks, /…/, and orthographic symbols are enclosed by brackets, <…>. Primary
stress is marked with [ˈ] before the syllable. Language material in the prose sections is
in italic font.
540 Parvin Mahmoudveysi and Denise Bailey
3.1. Consonants
Table 2: Consonant phonemes (IPA)
Bi- Labio- Alveolar Post- Palatal Velar Uvular Pharyn- Glottal
labial dental alveolar geal
Plosive pʰ b tʰ d kʰ g q
Affricate tʃʰ dʒ
Fricative f sz ʃʒ x (Pāwa: ħʕ h
loan ʁ)
Nasal m n
Trill r
Tap ɾ
Lateral l
Lat. ɫ
velarized
Semivowel w y
The voiceless plosives /p, t, k, q/ [pʰ, tʰ, kʰ, qʰ] have non-contrastive aspiration. A
non-phonemic glottal plosive [ʔ] is slightly audible before a word-initial vowel.
The voiced plosives /b/ and /g/ maintain obstruent articulation in various environ-
ments.
The voiced plosive /d/ is of particular interest on account of the ways it is real-
ized within the varieties in the Hawrāmān region and in the wider area. In Pāwa,
/d/ maintains obstruent articulation in word-initial and post-consonantal posi-
tions, such as following /ɾ/: wirdī [ˈwɪɾdi] ‘small’ [M&B 2004: P85]. In post-vo-
calic environments, however, /d/ undergoes lenition. It is realized as what might
be described as “a half-close central continuant caused by the tip of the tongue
approaching the upper teeth without making contact” (MacKenzie 1966: 7–8).
This sound in the Pāwa material seems to involve a slight quality of tongue-back-
ing and with the lips slightly spread. It is symbolized here with đ [ð]. Examples
include: ađā [ʔəˈða] ‘mother’ [M&B 2004: P31]; bađan [bəˈðən] ‘body’ [M&B
2004: P135]; diđān [dɪˈðan] ‘tooth’ [M&B 2004: P19] (also [dɪˈɹa]) [P.M. 2017];
and ēđ [ʔeð] ‘prox .3 sg ’ [M&B 2004: P3]. It seems to be close to that which is
described as the alveolar approximant [ɹ] by Naqšbandī (1996: 125), who also
notes devoicing at the end of a word, thus [ɹ̥ ], as in [maħˈmʷuɹ̥ ] ‘Mahmoud’ (our
stress transcription).
This phoneme maintains an obstruent articulation following /ɾ/ not only in
Pāwa, but also in the speech of the villages between Kāmyārān and Sanandaǰ.
Moreover, it is found further south in the Gorani variety of Zardayāna, as illus-
Hawrāmī of western Iran 541
trated by bardan [bæɾˈdæn] ‘has taken’ (Mahmoudveysi and Bailey 2013: 150)
and in the variety of Gawraǰūyī, as illustrated by wardē [wæɾˈde] ‘has eaten’
(Mahmoudveysi, Bailey, Paul, and Haig 2012: 94; with possible reduction or dele-
tion word-finally or preceding a pause). In the village of Nawsūd, however, as well
as in the villages between Pāwa and Nawsūd, extending to Marīvān, the sequence
/ɾd/ is found as an approximant. For example, /ɾd/ in Pāwa karday ‘to do’ and
marday ‘to die’ is found as /ɹ/ in the corresponding words in the Nawsūd area.
The phoneme /d/ also undergoes lenition in the post-vocalic environment in
Zardayāna, where it can be realized as [ð] or [j], for example, mido [mɪˈðo] ‘gives’
and ād [ʔaj] ‘dist .3 sg ’, or in vowel length, as in ādam [ʔaːm] ‘human being’
(Mahmoudveysi and Bailey 2013: 13). The realization as [j] is also found in the
speech of Hawrāmī speakers outside of the Hawrāmān region, as illustrated by ayā
[ʔæˈja] ‘mother’, by speakers living in the city of Kermānšāh and in other cities
outside of Hawrāmān, such as Karaj and Tehran.
The sound can also be found as a lateral approximant. Thus, the word pro-
nounced by speakers in Pāwa as [χwoˈɹɑ] ‘God’ is pronounced by speakers outside
of Hawrāmān in the city of Kermānšāh as [χwoˈɾɑ]/[χwoˈlɑ], as described by
Naqšbandī (1996: 286, his transcription, our stress placement).
MacKenzie (1966: 8) mentions that /t/ in the second singular clitic pronoun
=it can be realized as a ‘continuant’ in word-final position. This realization is also
possible in Pāwa. The sound is provisionally symbolized a t̪ . (See (14), (20), (37)
in our glossed text at the end of this study.)
The fricative series exhibits some complexities. The sound /x/ only has a
voiced counterpart in loanwords, /ʁ/. The phoneme /f/ also has irregular instances
of a voiced counterpart. In Nawsūd and Nodša, /v/ is an alternative for /w/ in
word-initial position. In Pāwa, there is a sound that might be interpreted as [vʷ], as
in warwa [ˈvʷəɾwə] ‘snow’ [M&B 2004: P68]), or as this sound in free variation
with [w]: waratāw [wəɾəˈtʰaw] or [vʷəɾəˈtʰaw] ‘sun at noon’ [M&B 2004: P55];
winī [ˈwɪni] or [ˈvʷɪni] ‘blood’ [M&B 2004: P21]; and wirdī [wɪɾˈdi] or [vʷɪɾˈdi]
‘small’ [M&B 2004: P85]. Some words beginning with /w/, however, are more
consistently realized as such: wārān [waˈɾan] ‘rain’ [M&B 2004: P67].
There are distinctions between a glottal fricative /h/ hašt [həʃtʰ] ‘eight’ [M&B
2004: P107] and a voiceless pharyngeal fricative: ħaft [ħəftʰ] ‘seven’ [M&B
2004: P106]; between a velarized lateral approximant /ɫ/ and simple /l/ (Pāwa):
guɫ ‘flower’ and gul ‘dirty’; kaɫ ‘mountain goat’ and kal ‘partially broken’; and
between a trill /r/ and flap /ɾ/: hařa [həˈrə] ‘mud’ and hara [ˈhəɾə] ‘donkey’ [P.M.
2017].16 Neither /ɫ/ nor /ɾ/ occur in word-initial position. The voiced pharyngeal
fricative /ʕ/ is found mainly in loanwords from Arabic.
Preceding a pause (word-finally), /n/ and /g/ occur as a velar nasal [ŋ]: māng
16
The general term for ‘flower’ in Hawrāmī is wilī, while guɫ is also found in literary
Hawrāmī.
542 Parvin Mahmoudveysi and Denise Bailey
[maŋ] ‘moon’ [M&B 2004: P57]. A velar nasal can precede a velar plosive in
word-medial position: řangat [rəŋgət] ‘your color’ (14).
There are only a few instances of gemination. In our Pāwa text, an example
appears in enna ‘so much’ (22). Paul (2007: 289–290) also describes a particular
type of nasal gemination developing from a combination of /n/ and /d/ in intervo-
calic environments.
3.2. Vowels
Table 3: Vowel phonemes (IPA)
Front Central Back
Close i u
ɨ (P: ɪ-ɨ) ʊ
Close-mid e o
ɛ
Open-mid N: æ (æ-ɛ), P: ə (ɛ-ə) N: ɔ
Open a
As noted for Nawsūd by MacKenzie (1966: 8–9) and also found in Pāwa, the
phoneme /ɨ/ (MacKenzie’s transcription: ɪ, our orthography: i) is often elided
between consonants in syllables that do not bear the primary stress of the word:
wit ‘he slept’ and ˈnawt ‘he did not sleep’ [D.M. 1966: 9, his gloss corrected here].
MacKenzie also notes that the phonemes /ɨ/ and /ʊ/ tend to be reduced in initial
syllables in some contexts.
The vowel /ɔ/ in Nawsūd, but not Pāwa, has limited distribution, only occur-
ring in the postposition =(a)wa after a consonant or vowels /i/ and /u/ (MacKenzie
1966: 10). This vowel /ɔ/ appears to correspond to the sequence /aw/.
In Nawsūd, /æ/ (MacKenzie’s transcription: a, also our orthography) is described
as ranging from “an open front [a], normally” (that is, assumed here as IPA: [æ])
“to near half-open [ɛ]” (MacKenzie 1966: 9). In the Pāwa material, this vowel
can also be described as having a range of phonetic realizations from [ɛ] to [ə].17
3.3. Stress
Stress is not entirely predictable, though it tends to occur on the final syllable of
stems.18 It occurs regularly on morphemes marking plural, the demonstrative par-
ticles =ˈa and =ˈē, subjunctive ˈbi-, and negation markers. It occurs on the final
17
Our analysis of vowel phonemes and the ranges of realization is provisional.
18
For discussion of stress in Hawrāmī, see Mahmoudveysi (2016: 76–80).
Hawrāmī of western Iran 543
syllable of the definiteness markers. The position of word stress can mark a change
in meaning, which can be illustrated by the shift to the first syllable of multisyl-
labic proper nouns to indicate vocative case (see also MacKenzie 1966: 21). For
example: Paˈrī is realized as ˈParī in vocative case, similarly Rēˈbīn as ˈRēbīn
[P.M. 2017].
4. Morphosyntax
19
The categories of gender, case, and number are also marked on adjectives in agreement
with nouns they modify (MacKenzie 1966: 13). Due to space limits, this topic is not
discussed in our study.
544 Parvin Mahmoudveysi and Denise Bailey
ēwa ‘wolf-indf ’ [P.M. 2017] (Pāwa); and yān-ēw ‘house-indf . m ’ [D.M. 1966: 16]
(stem is yāna); yān-ēwa ‘house-indf ’ [P.M. 2017] (Pāwa). There is another indef-
inite marker, -ya, for example: dēq-ya ‘sorrow-indf _2’ (22).
Nouns marked for plural (with case), but which show no additional marking of
definiteness/indefiniteness, can express a sense of indefinite plural, as ‘some’ (see
MacKenzie 1966: 15). For example: yān-ē ‘house-dir .pl ’ (i. e., ‘some houses’)
[P.M. 2017].
Nouns are marked for definiteness, or rather identifiability, by -aˈka (masculine
nouns) and -aˈkē (feminine nouns), identical to -aˈkē (plural) (following certain
stem-final vowels, the initial vowel of the morpheme is assimilated). For example:
warg-aka ‘wolf-def . m ’ [P.M. 2017]; yānaka ‘house.def . m ’ [D.M. 1966: 16];
ađā-kē ‘mother-def .f ’ [D.M. 1966: 16]; palawar-akē ‘bird-def .pl ’ [P.M. 2017];
and ađe-kē ‘mother-def .pl ’ [D.M. 1966: 16].20
20
The segmentation between the stem-final vowel of yāna and the initial vowel of -aka is
not clear.
546 Parvin Mahmoudveysi and Denise Bailey
Another linking particle is the “compound marker” =a. The compound marker
has a particular use in definite noun phrases (discussed in relationship to =ī ‘ez _1’
below).
The ezāfe construction with =ī is exemplified here: z(i)msān=ī čapaɫ ‘win-
ter=ez _1 dirty’ (‘dirty winter’) (2); kitēb=ī sīāw ‘book=ez _1 black’ (‘black book’)
[D.M. 1966: 17]; and yān-ēw=ī gawra ‘house-indf . m =ez _1 big’ (‘a big house’)
[D.M. 1966: 17] (stem is yāna).
The ezāfe construction with =ī can be found on a head noun that is unmarked
or marked for indefiniteness (the ezāfe then follows that marker; see preced-
ing example, yān-ēw=ī gawra). When a head noun is specified for definiteness
(marked with either a definiteness marker, or modified by a demonstrative), the
ezāfe =ī is not used. Instead, the compound marker =a is employed in what is
termed the “open” compound construction (see MacKenzie 1966: 18). Examples
include: kitēb=a sīāw-aka ‘book=compd black-def . m (‘the black book’) [D.M.
1966: 18]; and ā kināč=a zarīf=ē ‘dist .dem .adj girl=compd beautiful=dem .f ’
(‘that beautiful girl’) [D.M. 1966: 18] (stem is kināčē).
The ezāfe construction with =ū is illustrated here: yāna=w xuđā-y ‘house=ez _2
God-obl .sg . m ’ (‘the house of God’) (46). It can also link several elements: sar=ū
bān=ū mizgī=wa ‘on=ez _2 roof=ez _2 mosque=postp #_1’ (‘on the roof of the
mosque’) (57).
There are two sets of demonstrative pronouns. Those of the first set can be used
pronominally in third person reference and also as demonstratives distinguished
for distance, as proximal and distal. Forms of the second set are noted as “purely
Hawrāmī of western Iran 547
demonstrative” (MacKenzie 1966: 24). The sets are shown here (some forms are
not segmented further):
Clitic pronouns are used in functions that typically require oblique case. Most of
the functions occur in our glossed text at the end of this study: 1) possessor in a
noun phrase (14), (25), (34); 2) complement of adpositional phrase (26), (48); 3)
direct object (O) argument of present tense clause (2), (13); 4) agent (A) argument
of past tense clause (11), (24), (36), (41), (54); 5) specifying referent on reflexive
wē (4), (62); 6) experiencer or possessor in a copula clause (5), (34), (51); and 7)
indirect object argument (32).
4.2.3. Reflexive
The form of the reflexive is wē. It is always followed by a clitic pronoun that
specifies the person and number of the referent. It is used to express a referent that
is identical to that of an antecedent within the clause as agent or subject (or in an
imperative, the addressee, see example in MacKenzie 1966: 27). Uses of the reflex-
548 Parvin Mahmoudveysi and Denise Bailey
ive are (with examples from our glossed text): 1) to express possessor in possessive
constructions (53); 2) as complement of an adpositional phrase (43); 3) to express
a type of emphasis involving the referent (4); and 4) to express direct object (O) in
transitive clauses when the referent is the same as the agent (A), for example, wē=š
fārā ‘refl =3 sg disguise.pst ’ (‘she/he disguised her/himself’) [D.M. 1966: 27].
4.3.1. Stems
A typical verb has two stems: past and present. These form the basis for finite verb
constructions. The past stem forms the basis for the non-finite verb constructions
of the participle and the “infinitive verbal noun”. The participle is formed from
the past stem and the ending -ˈa (unmarked or masculine), -ˈē (feminine), or -ˈē
(plural) (MacKenzie 1966: 36). The infinitive verbal noun is built with the ending
-ˈ(a)y (MacKenzie 1966: 28).
The form of a verb stem can be simple or complex. Examples of simple verb
stems include: kar- ‘do.prs ’ and kard- ‘do.pst ’; zān- ‘know.prs ’ and zānā- ‘know.
pst ’; (w)āč- ‘say.prs ’ and wāt- ‘say.pst ’; and ār ‘bring.prs ’ and āwrd ‘bring.pst ’
(see glossed text in Section 5).
Complex forms can be of three types: 1) a “light verb” construction; 2) a “post-
verbal” construction; and 3) a “preverbal” construction. The light verb construction
is formed with a nominal, an adjective, or an adverb as a first element and a “light
verb” as the second element. For example: tamāša kar- ‘looking (noun) do.prs’ (‘to
look at’) [D.M. 1966: 110]; and bar šī- ‘out (adverb) go.pst _2’ (‘go out’) (9).
The postverbal construction involves a simple stem combined with a particle
anˈa, arˈa, or awˈa (Pāwa) (Nawsūd: ɔ following ī, ū, or a consonant). These parti-
cles also occur in other contexts as postpositions (MacKenzie 1966: 31). They can
occur on a verb and give it a different lexical sense. For example: nīšt- ‘sit.pst ’ >
nīštara- ‘sit.down.pst ’; kard- ‘do.pst ’ > karđana- ‘put.on.pst ’; and ward- ‘eat.pst ’
> warđēwa- ‘drink.pst ’ [D.M. 1966: 31].
The preverbal construction is built with a simple verb stem and a preverb, hur
‘up’ (Pāwa hor), which also gives the stem a new sense. For example: gēr- ‘keep.
prs ’ > hor gēr ‘lift up.prs ’ (20).
As noted by MacKenzie (1966: 48–49), the present causative stem is formed
by adding -n added to a present stem, while the past causative stem is formed
by adding -ˈnā to a present stem: giraw- ‘weep > girawn- ‘make.weep.prs ’ and
girawnā- ‘make.weep.pst ’ [D.M. 1966: 49]. MacKenzie also notes that the present
passive stem is built with the addition of -īa, while the past passive stem is formed
by adding -īa to a present transitive stem, while the past passive stem is formed by
adding -īˈā- to a present transitive stem. For example: wān- ‘read’ > wānīa- ‘be.
read.prs ’ and wānīā- ‘be.read.pst ’ [D.M. 1966: 48].
Hawrāmī of western Iran 549
4.3.2. Prefixes
The following prefixes indicate mood, aspect, and negation (see MacKenzie
1966: 32):
The Imperfect is unusual in that even though it is formed from a present stem, it
is used to denote situations occurring in past time, with imperfective aspect. The
550 Parvin Mahmoudveysi and Denise Bailey
suffixes mark the person-number of the subject (S) and agent (A) argument in
Imperfect constructions.
The copula forms the basis for constructions with a noun phrase complement (16),
(čarma is a feminine noun) probably an adpositional complement (no example
available), and an adjectival complement (12), (61). The copula also is used in
possessive constructions (34) and experiencer constructions (5), (15).
There is another third person singular form of the copula, mawo, only attested
once in our text (22), and also a further unanalyzed copula, nā (5), (22).
21
This construction is noted by MacKenzie (1966: 50) as a “Continuous” tense formed
from the stem-based adverb and either the Present Indicative or Imperfect.
552 Parvin Mahmoudveysi and Denise Bailey
The Present and Past Perfect constructions, formed from a combination of finite
and non-finite verb forms, are summarized here:22
22
Note that the participle in the Present and Past Perfect constructions can be marked
for masculine or feminine gender, or for plural number. It is also noteworthy that the
copula in the Past Perfect construction is a special form of the Imperfect copula in
which gender is distinguished in all singular person forms. In contrast, the independent
form of the Imperfect copula does not have gender distinctions (see next table with the
Imperfect copula).
Hawrāmī of western Iran 553
23
See MacKenzie (1966: 51).
24
For helpful comments on several aspects of our translation and morphemic glossing
of the text, we would like to thank the participants of the Hawrāmī course taught by
Parvin Mahmoudveysi at the 2017 Kurdish Language Autumn School at the University
of Bamberg, Germany.
554 Parvin Mahmoudveysi and Denise Bailey
25
The form of the feminine oblique -y is an allomorph of -āy, as found in Pāwa Hawrāmī;
Nawsūd is -e.
26
The word xuđā follows Pāwa pronunciation. The speaker originally pronounced it as
xwā here and elsewhere.
27
The gloss as ‘obl .sg . f /dem .ptcl . f ’ is provisional. Both endings would be expected in
this context, but only one form appears. The oblique is a suffix and the demonstrative
particle is a clitic, but otherwise these two endings are phonologically identical. A sim-
ilar issue is found below in (7).
Hawrāmī of western Iran 555
28
The word čarma ‘white (color)’ is a feminine noun.
29
The form of the demonstrative particle as =a (normally masculine) can agree with a
head noun of either gender when other morphemes occur between the head noun and
the particle (see MacKenzie 1966: 16).
556 Parvin Mahmoudveysi and Denise Bailey
30
This realization of the second person singular clitic pronoun as = t̪ is a variant of =t,
allomorph of =it (see also 20, 37). The different realization as =it in the subsequent
instance could be due to the influence of other languages.
Hawrāmī of western Iran 557
31
The participle in the Past Perfect in Pāwa (here: kēšyā=bē) may be marked in certain
instances for gender (masculine/unmarked or feminine) or for plural number. In most
of the text occurrences here and elsewhere, the marking is assumed to be assimilated
to the final -ā vowel or it may be identical as -a to an unmarked form, and it is thus left
unglossed.
558 Parvin Mahmoudveysi and Denise Bailey
32
The idiom basazwān, literally ‘bound/closed tongue’, is normally used to refer to an
animal, which does not speak, but it can also refer to a person who is quiet and without
fault.
33
The ‘big stone of the Arabs’ refers to the stone in a ritual practiced by pilgrims to
Mecca. In the ritual, pilgrims throw pebbles at the stone, which is believed to represent
the devil.
Hawrāmī of western Iran 559
34
The word ghazab, literally, ‘rage’, is used here with bag as a proper name to express the
referent’s lack of honor and fairness. A figure from earlier times, the bag of a village
had a role similar to that of a mayor. A bag was often unfair in dealings with the village
people.
560 Parvin Mahmoudveysi and Denise Bailey
35
The Present Perfect is used in reported speech introduced with a verb in Past Indicative.
Hawrāmī of western Iran 561
36
The Kurdish form of this name is Ħama. The speaker sometimes uses this name but
here he uses Ħamađ.
562 Parvin Mahmoudveysi and Denise Bailey
37
The form zā ‘know.prs ’ here is a variant of the verb zān.
564 Parvin Mahmoudveysi and Denise Bailey
bi-šēwy-o
sbjv -destroy.prs -3 sg .prs
He did not let it ruin their enjoyable (i. e., pleasant) time.”
Hawrāmī of western Iran 565
38
Most of these abbreviations and symbols follow the Leipzig Glossing Rules (revised
version 2008, updated May 2015).
566 Parvin Mahmoudveysi and Denise Bailey
Symbols
= (Equals sign) indicates an enclitic boundary in examples and glosses.
- (Hyphen) separates the segmentable morphemes in examples and glosses.
. (Period) separates multiple metalanguage elements that correspond to a single
object language element.
_ (Underscore) separates multiple object language elements that correspond to
a single metalanguage element or to a unity of multiple metalanguage ele-
ments.
# (Number sign) refers to a form glossed by word class category.
References
Benedictsen, Åge Meyer & Arthur Christensen. 1921. Les dialectes d‘Awromān et de Pāwä,
textes recueillis par Åge Meyer Benedictsen, revus et publiés avec des notes et une
esquisse de grammaire par Arthur Christensen. København: Det Kgl. Danske Vidensk-
abernes Selskab. Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser. VI, 2.
Bistoon, Abbasi, Amer Gheitury & Kerstin Kazzazi. 2013. Semantics of Hawrami kinship
terms. The International Journal of Humanities of the Islamic Republic of Iran 20(4).
1–21.
Blau, Joyce. 1989. Gurânî et zâzâ. In Rüdiger Schmitt (ed.), Compendium Linguarum Iran-
icarum, 336–340. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Christensen, Arthur. 1936. Some new Awromānī material prepared from the collections of
Åge Meyer Benedictsen. Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies 8(2/3). 467–476.
Hawrāmānī, Muħamad Amīn. 2001. Mēzhūy Hawrāmān, (617–619). Tehran: Balx. http://
www.hawraman.org/sites/default/files/article/%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%B3%D9%8A
%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AA%20%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%8A
%20%D9%87%D9%88%D8%B1%D8 %A7%D9%85 %D8%A7%D9%86.pdf
(accessed 04 October 2017).
Holmberg, Anders & David Odden. 2008. The noun phrase in Hawrami. In Simin Karimi,
Vida Samiian & Donald Stilo (eds.), Aspects of Iranian linguistics, 129–151. Newcas-
tle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~odden/The%20Noun%20Phrase%20in%20Hawrami.
pdf (accessed 04 October 2017).
International Phonetics Association. 2015/2005. Reproduction of the International Phonetic
Alphabet.
https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/content/full-ipa-chart (accessed 07
October 2017).
Leezenberg, Michiel. 1993. Gorani influence on Central Kurdish: Substratum or prestige
borrowing? ILLC Prepublication Series, X-93-03. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Lan-
guage & Computation (ILLC), University of Amsterdam.
Leipzig Glossing Rules. (Revised version of February 2008, updated May 2015). https://
www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/pdf/Glossing-Rules.pdf (accessed 04 October 2017).
MacKenzie, David Neil. 1961. The origins of Kurdish. Transactions of the Philological
Society 1961. 68–86.
Hawrāmī of western Iran 567
(D.M. 1966=) MacKenzie, David Neil. 1966. The dialect of Awroman (Hawrāmān-ī Lu-
hōn). Grammatical sketch, texts, and vocabulary. København: Det Kongelige Danske
Videnskabernes Selskab.
MacKenzie, David Neil. 1987a. Avroman. Encyclopaedia Iranica 3.1, 110–111. New York:
Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University.
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/avroman-hawraman-persian-owraman-a-moun
tainous-region-on-the-western-frontier-of-persian-kurdistan (accessed 03 January 2015).
MacKenzie, David Neil. 1987b. Avromani. Encyclopaedia Iranica 3.1, 111–112. New York:
Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University.
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/avromani-the-dialect-of-avroman-q (accessed 05
December 2014).
MacKenzie, David Neil. 2002. Gurāni. Encyclopaedia Iranica 6.4, 401–403. New York:
Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University.
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/gurani (accessed 14 March 2012).
Mahmoudveysi, Parvin. 2016. The meter and the literary language of Gūrānī poetry. Ham-
burg: Universität Hamburg dissertation. http://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2016/
7935/pdf/Dissertation.pdf (accessed 22 June 2017).
(P.M. 2017=) Mahmoudveysi, Parvin. 2017. Unpublished notes for Hawrāmī (Pāwa).
(M&B 2004=) Mahmoudveysi, Parvin & Denise Bailey. 2004. Unpublished field notes:
Word list and grammar notes for Hawrāmī (Pāwa).
Mahmoudveysi, Parvin & Denise Bailey. 2013. The Gorani language of Zarda, a village of
West Iran. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Mahmoudveysi, Parvin, Denise Bailey, Ludwig Paul & Geoffrey Haig. 2012. The Gorani
language of Gawraǰū, a village of West Iran. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Mahmudweyssi, Parwin [=Mahmoudveysi, Parvin] & Geoffrey Haig. 2009. The typology
of modality in some West Iranian languages. In Christine Allison, Anke Joisten-Prusch-
ke & Antje Wendtland (eds.), From Daēnā to Dîn: Religion, Kultur und Sprache in der
iranischen Welt. Festschrift für Philip Kreyenbroek zum 60. Geburtstag, 41–52. Wies-
baden: Harrossowitz.
Mann, Oskar & Karl Hadank. 1930. Mundarten der Gûrân, besonders das Kändûläî, Au-
ramânî und Bâdschälânî, bearbeitet von Karl Hadank. Berlin: Verlag der Preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften in Kommission bei Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Naqšbandī, Šahrām. 1996. Nezām-e āvāyī guyeš-e Hawrāmī (guneye Pāveh) az dīdgāh-e
vāǰ-šenāsī-ye zāyešī va vāj-šenāsī-ye ǰozʔ-e mostaqel [The phonology of Hawrāmī
(Pāveh variety), a Generative and Autosegmental perspective]. Tehran: Allameh Tabat-
aba’l University, unpublished MA thesis.
Paul, Ludwig. 2007. Zur Lage der Gōrānī-Dialekte im Iran und ihrer Erforschung. In Ma-
ria Macuch, Mauro Maggi & Werner Sundermann (eds.), Iranian languages and texts
from Iran and Turan. Ronald E. Emmerick Memorial Volume, 285–296. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Pāveh Press. 2013. Bištarin mizān-e bāsawādi dar satħ-e ostan, marbut be šahrestān-e Pāveh
[The highest rate of literacy in the province belongs to the county of Pāveh]. Online
article, 29 December, 2013. http://www.pavehpress.ir/ (accessed 10 August 2017).
Sadeqi, Amir. No date. Fasl-e avval: moqeʕiat va taqsimāt-e siyasi va moʕarefi-ye baxš-e
Horāmān [First capital: The situation and political division and introduction to part of
Horaman]. Website of Sāzmān-e Mirās-e Farhangi, sanāyeʕ-e dasti u gardešgari [Or-
ganization of Cultural Heritage, Handiworks, and Tourism].
568 Parvin Mahmoudveysi and Denise Bailey
http://www.hawraman.org/sites/default/files/article/%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%B3%D
9%8A%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AA%20%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9
%8A%20%D9%87%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86.pdf
(accessed 10 October 2017).
Shahbazi, Shapur. No date. Iranian geography: Pâveh, the city of a thousand mausoleums.
The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS). http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Geog
raphy/paveh.htm (accessed 28 June 2017).
Zolfaqari, Ardashir. 2010. The Avromani-speaking area in Iran. Iran and the Caucasus 14.
323–330.
4.6. Persian
Ludwig Paul1
1. General remarks
1
I would like to thank Ramin Shaghaghi, Pejman Firoozbakhsh and Maximilian Kinzler
for the inspiring discussions I had with them, and for the many helpful remarks on a
draft of this article.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-017
570 Ludwig Paul
hand, naturalized immigrants no longer show up in the statistics but may still be
native speakers. Besides, the Iranian community living in Turkey consists largely
of Iranian (Azeri) Turks, some of whom would not qualify as native speakers of
Persian.
The official status of Persian has been laid down for the Islamic Republic of
Iran in the Constitution of 1979 (§15: “Fārsī is the … official language of Iran”)
and for Afghanistan in the Constitution of 2004 (§16: “Pashto and Darī shall be
the official languages of the State”). While the status of Fārsī as the official and
national language of Iran has not been seriously challenged in the recent history
of the country, the status of Darī has been more disputed in modern Afghanistan.
Pashto, the native language of the Afghan majority population (of 50–55 %), was
given political preference over Darī since the 1930s, and was called the “national
language” of Afghanistan in the Constitution of 1964 (§3). It lost this privilege
after the 1978 communist coup d’état, and has since been only one of the two
official languages alongside Darī. Darī has consequently consolidated its de facto
dominant position in administration and inter-ethnic communication, but the Pash-
to-Tajik ethnic and cultural antagonism continues to permeate Afghan politics
until today (see Nawid 2012).
The Tajik Constitution of 1994 specified Tajik as the state language and Russian
as the language of inter-ethnic communication, but in 2009 a law was passed in
parliament that confirmed Tajik as the sole official language, thus restricting the
use of Russian (Landau and Kellner-Heinkele 2012: 177–179). The politics of
linguistic Tajikization had been pursued systematically after independence in
1991, similar to “Uzbekization” in neighbouring Uzbekistan, etc. (Landau and
Kellner-Heinkele 2012: 179–182). The Tajiks’ attitude towards Russian seems to
be pragmatic nowadays, in that it remains an important language of education and
academia, and is likewise important for those Tajiks who go to Russia as guest
workers. The real challenge is for the Uzbek minority of about 15 % that is increas-
ingly being marginalized, and perceived as the domestic agents of Uzbekization in
Tajikistan (Landau and Kellner-Heinkele 2012: 184).
While the unity of Persian as one language in three Iranophone countries can
be asserted on linguistic grounds and would be upheld by most speakers in the
three countries (especially in Iran and Afghanistan), a tendency to develop a dis-
tinct linguistic identity may be postulated for Tajik. This is mainly based on the use
of the Cyrillic script (as against the Arabic script used for Fārsī and Darī), on the
strong lexical influence of Russian during the 20th century, and on the long-stand-
ing influence of Uzbek on the grammar of Tajik (especially on its northern dia-
lects). While a counter-tendency to bring Tajik again closer to Fārsī has also been
at work after the demise of the Soviet Union in the 1990s (see Landau and Kell-
ner-Heinkele 2012: 182–184), it remains uncertain where Tajik-speakers will look
for their linguistic affiliation and identity in the future.
Persian 571
took over all official functions in the Caliphate and Persian only started regaining
its old strength and literary, administrative etc. functions more than 200 years later,
from the late 9th century onwards, in the course of a cultural reawakening under the
Samanid dynasty that ruled NE-Iran.
A closer look, however, shows a different, and less simple, picture. Although
Middle Persian ceased to be used as the official language of an empire around
650 C.E., it continued to be used on coins and in local administration well into the
8th century; for the 8th century MP documents from Tabaristan, see recently, e. g.,
Gyselen (2012). In the countryside of the vast area, many local strongholds of
Zoroastrianism remained more or less intact for some time, where Middle Persian
continued to be used as a Zoroastrian “church language”. The 8th/9th centuries saw
a period of thriving Zoroastrian Middle Persian literature. This is likely to have
been due also to the interaction of parts of the Zoroastrian clergy with other reli-
gions in the relatively “open-minded” atmosphere of the Caliphate during this
period, when Muʿtazilism had a strong influence. The rise of Sunni orthodoxy in
the late 9th century may have ended this.
A Jewish Iranian religious minority had lived in Iran since Achaemenid times,
and wrote Persian already before the Muslim Persians did. The oldest Judaeo-Per-
sian texts, two letters written in Hebrew script, were found in Dandan Uiliq
(W-China) and are assumed to be from the 8th century C.E., which would make
them the oldest extant New Persian texts. There is a flow of further Judaeo-Persian
texts and documents from the late 10th century onwards. Since most of these texts
are from SW-Iran, close to the still thriving centres of Zoroastrianism, they share
certain dialectal features with Zoroastrian Middle Persian of S(W)-Iran (e. g., the
use of the ezafe to introduce relative clauses), as against the new form of (Muslim)
New Persian that was emerging in NE Iran at about the same time. The Zoroastri-
ans and Jews referred to their languages with two historical versions of the same
glottonym, MP Pārsīg / JP Pārsī, while the new Muslim form of New Persian
in the NE was originally called Darī by its speakers (later the two glottonyms
merged into Pārsī-ye Darī, or Pārsī). The use of these and other glottonyms (e. g.,
Pahlavī, which was the name of dwindling Parthian at the time) in early Arabic
sources contributes to our understanding of the linguistic situation of the time, and
the development of Persian (see the pioneering article by Lazard 1971, and a more
recent account in Paul 2013b).
advanced into these territories, and vernacular (especially Indian and Turkic) lan-
guages rose to literary and national languages, though not without being deeply
influenced by Persian.
The manner, intensity, and functions in which Persian was used over such a
long period, varied greatly from region to region and from time to time. It was
most prominent in India, where Persian had already gained a foothold as a court
and literary language under the Delhi Sultanate (1206–1555). It saw its heyday
under the Mughal dynasty (1526–1858), whose ruler Akbar the Great made
Persian the official language of the Empire in 1582. Through the 17th–19th centu-
ries, India is likely to have hosted far more (literate) readers of Persian than Iran
itself (Cole 2002: 18). Persian was extensively studied and used also by Hindus
who aspired to a career in state administration, and who produced excellent phil-
ological works on Persian, e. g. dictionaries (Alam 1998: 328–330). India was at
that time actually not only hosting a Persophone diaspora, it was a centre of Per-
sophony, on equal terms with Iran proper. Even under British rule, India retained
its exceptional role for publications in Persian well into the 20th century; e. g., out
of twenty-four known Šāhnāme lithographs from between 1846 and 1900, twen-
ty-one are from India, and only three from Iran (Marzolph 2011: 70–71).
In the Ottoman Empire, Persian was highly esteemed as a language of learn-
ing, culture and poetry, and was part of the didactical “canon” of languages to be
taught to Islamic students in madrasas, besides Arabic and Ottoman Turkic, up
to the early 20th century (Kreiser 1993). That Persian was used as a language of
trade and inter-ethnic communication also in regions north of the Ottoman Empire,
on the Black Sea coast east of the Crimea, is shown by the Codex Cumanicus, a
manuscript from about the 13th century that was probably composed by Christian
missionaries and contains a Low Latin-Persian-Cuman Turkish dictionary (Mac-
Kenzie 1992).
In China, Persian never had the same prestige, or number of speakers or users,
as it did in India or the Ottoman Empire, but in the administration of the (Mongol)
Yuan Empire (1271–1368), it was the third official language (after Mongolian and
Chinese), and remained an important language of study for the Chinese Muslims
well into the Ming period (1368–1644) (Liu 2010: 89). The Mongols considered
it as the language of the peoples living beyond China’s western borders, it thus
became an important language of international diplomacy, see, e. g., already the
letter of the Mongol Khan Göyük to Pope Innocence IV in 1246, written in Latin
and Persian (Spuler 1985: 377). It was in 17th century China that the first Persian
grammar was written in Persian (Kauz 2009).
The use of Persian over such vast areas and long periods was not uniform;
although it declined in certain areas where vernacular languages rose to languages
of administration and literature (e. g., in the Ottoman Empire after the 16th, or in
India after the 18th century), it kept its high prestige as a language of classical
Islamic culture and literature, in all areas, up to the early 20th century and beyond.
Persian 575
In the late 19th century, the Albanian poet Naim Frashëri (1846–1900) still wrote
poetry in Persian, as did the Indian Muslim poet and philosopher Muhammad Iqbal
(1873–1938), who by so doing aimed at a greater international dissemination of
his ideas in the Muslim World than would have been possible through the medium
of Hindustani/Urdu (Rypka 1968: 371).
Although the expansion and development of Persian as a lingua franca was
always closely aligned to developments in Iran proper, it must be noted that it
was generally independent of any political, financial, or other institutional support
from Iran’s ruling dynasties. A concrete measure like the introduction of Persian
as a language of administration in the Mughal Empire (in 1582) was, of course, a
deliberate political decision, but it was not an ideological measure to promote a
language in the modern sense. Rather, it was a practical decision: Persian was con-
sidered the language available and most suitable for meeting the requirements of
administering a large empire, and its high prestige as a language of court, admin-
istration, literature, learning and Islamic culture further recommended it for this
role.
Interestingly, almost none of the many dynasties that used Persian as an official
language throughout the 11th–19th centuries, including the dynasties ruling Iran
proper, were of Iranian origin. Most (like the Mughals) were of Turkic extraction,
and assimilated to the Persian that they regarded as more suitable for adminis-
tration, or more prestigious, than their own vernacular language. Paradoxically,
while the rulers of dynasties outside Iran like the Mughals, often spoke Persian,
the Safawid rulers of Iran proper often talked Turkish at court. The Shia-Sunna
antagonism that emerged in the region through the rise to power of the Safawid
dynasty in 1500 and the following Shiization of Iran, had no effect on the cultural
and literary exchange between Iran and the Persianate world: Persian was already
too well-established to be affected adversely by this.
Russia, and in 1857, it finally had to waive its claims to the province of Herat
that became integrated into the new Afghan “buffer” state between Russia and
British India. Some members of the Iranian ruling elite realized that in order to
survive, Iran was in dire need of reform and modernisation. In the cultural sphere,
certain Iranian literati started criticizing the bombastic and verbose “Indian” style
of poetry that had held sway at the Safawid and Mughal courts through the 16th-
18th centuries, and advocated the simpler “Khorāsānī” and “Iraqī” styles of clas-
sical authors. This movement was called bāzgašt-e adabī “literary return”. Its
most important protagonist, in poetry and prose, was the writer, poet, vizier, and
reformer Qāʾem Maqām Farāhānī (1779–1835; see Rypka 1968: 335–336). One
of the best-known samples of the new, simpler Qajar prose works composed in
the late 19th century are Šāh Nāṣeroddīn’s diaries on his three journeys to Europe
between 1873 and 1889.
In the 20th century, Iranian prose writers started including passages of collo-
quial Persian in written form for the first time, e. g. Moḥammad ʿAlī Ǧamālzāde
in his collection of short stories Yekī būd, yekī nabūd (1921). With the adoption
of European genres like short story or romantic novel, “realistic” writing became
the dominant paradigm in Iranian prose literature. The rapid changes in style and
grammar of 20th century written Persian, however, were due rather to a sudden
breakup of literary conservatisms, than to an actual change of the language struc-
ture; a closer look at the grammar of Persian will show that many innovations
and colloquialisms could be found in written Persian already well before the
19th century, and that the structure of Persian changed steadily over time rather
than rapidly in response to new genres.
There is no universally accepted periodization of the history of Persian.
National Iranian philology prefers a subdivision into styles (sabk) that are identi-
fied with certain regions where these styles developed, or flourished most prom-
inently. Although one can identify “classical” periods of these styles (Khorasani
9th–11th centuries, Iraqi 12th/13th centuries, Indian 16th–18th centuries, followed by
the Return [bāzgašt] movement), they are in principle independent of time, and
any poet could, and can, write poetry in any of these styles at any time (on this and
alternative subdivisions, Rypka 1968: 112–119). Western linguists have proposed
various subdivisions. The one advocated here follows Lazard (1963: 24, shared
also by Khanlari), into Early (8th–12th centuries), Standard (13th–19thcenturies), and
Modern High New Persian (19th century—). It should be noted that “classical” is
a literary term covering classical authors of various times (Ferdousī, Saʿdī, Ḥāfeẓ,
Jāmī etc.), and is, therefore, of limited linguistic value, since the language of these
authors is by no means uniform (see Paul 2002). In terms like: “Early New Persian
and Classical Persian”, the latter may, however, be used to denote the earliest stage
of Standard Persian, i.e. the language of the classical authors of the 13th–15th
centuries.
Persian 577
1.4.1. Bilingualism
The ethnic and linguistic communities’ command of their own language(s),
dialects, and of Persian, and thus the grades of bilingualism, vary greatly from
case to case. While the predominantly Sunni minorities of Iran, the Kurds and
Baloch, adhere to their ethnic languages quite firmly, reinforced by their distinct
religious identity, the large Shia linguistic minorities of northern Iran (Gilan and
Mazandaran), who number approximately 3–4 million, have already been largely
assimilated to Persian, rendering the future demise of the languages very likely
(Shahidi 2008: 295). The same is true of many other smaller language or dialect
communities of NE and Central Iran like Semnānī, Vafsī, etc. Among Shii Kurds
of SW Iran, e. g. in the city of Kermanshah, Kurdish is still strong but has been
more mixed with Persian, and with local idioms like Lakī or Kalhorī, than the
“Sunni” Kurdish of Sanandaj.
Idioms like Gīlakī, Māzandarānī or Semnānī that are clearly languages in their
own right linguistically, are not granted the status of a “language” in the Iranian
world-view. They do not possess a written literature, or literary tradition, com-
parable to that of Persian, are mainly used orally and in informal situations, and
are, therefore, called “dialects” (gūyeš). This does not do justice to Māzandarānī,
which can boast of a rich and relatively old written literature, going back at least to
the early 19th century, and possibly as far back as the 11th century, if Māzandarānī
is to be identified with “New Ṭabarī” (Borjian 2009). But the knowledge about
this remains restricted to specialists and folklorists. It also attests to the unique
status and extraordinary prestige of Persian, which is perceived as the national
and literary language par excellence, and in comparison to which no other lan-
guage is even granted the name of “language”. The Kurds and Baloch, whose
distinct (Sunni) ethnic-religious identities are accepted by Shii Iranians, are,
however, exempted from this practice and their idioms are usually referred to as
“languages”.
578 Ludwig Paul
The case of Azeri Turkic is exceptional and contradictory. Although the Azeri
Turks of Iran are Shiites and firmly grounded in the Iranian-Shii cultural and national
identity, and although they still seem to take for granted the “superiority” of Persian
over Turkic as a language of literature and culture, the position of Azeri Turkic is
very strong in the official Turkophone provinces (W- and E-Azerbaijan, Ardabil),
and Persian is less well-known and used there than in all other Shii regions of Iran.
Azeri Turkic even seems to be advancing geographically and demographically in
various provinces like Zanjan, Qazvin, Hamadan or Gilan, at the cost of minority
languages like Tālešī (most Tāleš, especially the majority who are Shii, seem now
to be Turkicized), Tātī and Gīlakī, but also of Persian. For the large Azeri commu-
nity of Tehran, a study says that although there is an ongoing shift from Azeri-Per-
sian bilingualism towards Persian, the vitality of the Azeri language is not in danger
(Bani-Shoraka 2005: 197–202). Dialects of Azeri Turkic are the undisputed “L1”
in all Turkophone provinces and beyond, while in Gilan and Mazandaran, but also
in Kermanshah and other regions of Iran, part of the local (ethnically non-Persian)
population would probably call Persian their first mother tongue.
From the “horizontal” (or geographical) bilingualism, a “vertical” one may be
distinguished, indicating the coexistence of various historical forms and styles like
classical literary Persian (of various [sub-]forms), modern literary high Persian,
and modern colloquial Persian. Each native speaker can, depending upon his edu-
cation, switch more or less freely between these styles, according to situation,
addressee, place, time, and other factors; mixed or intermediary forms, like high
Persian with elements of colloquial influence, are also possible (see Paul, forth-
coming). The mixture of styles and registers, especially the continuous normative
influence of Classical Persian on the modern written language, makes it difficult to
define a fixed or homogeneous standard of contemporary Persian. SNP may rather
be defined as a flexible system of rules that fall more or less within the limits of
a standard.
While the social status of many Iranians may be guessed from their accent, or
from the way and extent they use colloquial style, another, totally different system
of rules determines and permeates Iranian social interaction, and thus also linguis-
tic behaviour, namely the system of politeness called taʿārof. It determines the
way that any Iranian talks to or about a person of equal or superior social position,
requiring the use of certain forms, words or expressions which are different from
those he would use if talking to a child, or a person of (visibly) inferior social
position. Taʿārof is variously described as—neutrally—the “system of politeness
specific to Iran”, or—negatively—as the “most hypocritical exaggeration and dis-
tortion of a system of politeness”. It affects mostly the lexicon (e. g., using verbal
constructions like tašrīf āvardan “to come”, literally “to bring honouring”, or the
noun bande “slave”, for the 1 sg pronoun “I”), but also the grammar (3 pl , instead
of 3 sg , for talking about a “superior” person, e. g. īšān hastand “he is present”,
literally “he/they are present” (see Beeman 1986: 151–162 for an overview).
Persian 579
tional philology. Lazard 1957 (English translation 1992) is the standard reference
grammar up to the present. It describes modern standard Persian, but takes into
account also colloquial registers, and important rules of Classical literary Persian.
In his 1989 sketch grammar, Lazard provides an updated, condensed version of his
views, shifting the emphasis in certain details.
All other grammars of Persian lag behind Lazard in comprehensiveness, pre-
cision, and method. Phillott (1919) remains a rich collection of linguistic mate-
rial, but lacks linguistic method. Jensen (1931) offers a remarkable coverage of
syntax, uncommon for its time. Windfuhr (1979) is still a valuable research report,
with a comprehensive bibliography. A reliable and detailed recent Persian ref-
erence work on Persian grammar is the dictionary, alphabetically arranged, by
Ṭabāṭabāyī (2016).
The first comprehensive grammar of Tajik in a “Western” language is
Perry 2005, published almost 50 years after Lazard’s very useful study of 1956.
The first systematic comparative grammar of Fārsī and Tajik was given by Wind-
fuhr and Perry (2009). Methodologically, this study includes many ad hoc exam-
ples from both idioms to illustrate the grammatical rules, rather than authentic
examples from actual linguistic corpora. Besides the titles mentioned, only works
on specific periods or variants of Persian, or on specific parts of its grammar, exist,
three important ones of these being Lazard’s seminal study on Early New Persian
(1963), Paul’s grammar of Early Judaeo-Persian (2013a), and Pisowicz’s compre-
hensive historical phonology of Persian (1985).
3. Phonology
3.2. Remarks
The phonemic status of some of these sounds, particularly those in brackets, is
controversial. The glottal stop [ʾ], whose phonemicity is disregarded by some
scholars, is considered phonemic here, following Pisowicz (1985: 47–51). The
voiced fricative [γ] is understood as a positional allophone of uvular [q] (both
sounds constitute one phoneme, but there is a discussion about which is its main
representative, see Pisowicz 1985: 42–44). The glide w occurs only in limited pho-
netic contexts, like in the diphthong [ow] (Pisowicz 1985: 24–26). The nasal [n]
has an allophone [ŋ] before the velar or uvular stops [g, k, q] (Pisowicz 1985: 18).
It should be noted that the above system represents modern standard Persian
(SNP) in current Tehran “standard” pronounciation. Different styles, or regional
varieties of Persian outside Tehran, may affect the above system in details. For
582 Ludwig Paul
example in certain registers the glottal stop may be dropped in some phonetic
contexts, without, however, giving up its phonemicity (see below). On the other
hand, in careful and slow Tehrani pronounciation, and in certain regions of Iran
(e. g., Fārs) generally, the [γ] retains its phonemic character, being pronounced
differently from [q] in all positions.
Fārsī today e ī a å ū o
Figure 1: The historical development of the Early New Persian vowel system
This again describes only the two main vowel systems of Tehrani SNP and Literary
Tajik. There are regional variants with divergent developments. In Afghanistan,
and in most variants of Khorasan Fārsī, ENP [ē] is preserved as such (instead of
SNP [ī]); in certain N-Tajik dialects, [ū/u] has developed into front closed rounded
[ü] (instead of u), and [ō] into a stable, short [u] (Lazard 1956: 128).
Persian 583
3.7. Geminates
In New Persian, geminate consonants are phonemic, but most distinctions are
imported from Arabic through the many Arabic loanwords with geminate conso-
nants, e. g. NP māde ‘female’: mādde (< Ar.) ‘matter; material’; or with a geminate
in the Persian word, see NP kore (< Ar.) ‘globe’: korre ‘foal’.
in initial position, the glottal stop may be understood not as a distinctive, but only
as a delimitative feature.
NP syllable structure does not allow initial consonant clusters. Zoroastrian
Middle Persian had initial clusters (ZMP stārag ‘star’, fradāg ‘tomorrow’), but in
Manichaean MP, a prothetic [i-] preceded clusters with s-/š- (MMP istārag ‘star’;
but ‘tomorrow’, MMP fradāg). Early New Persian exhibits variation between pro-
thesis and epenthesis to break the cluster (e. g., ENP sitāra/istāra ‘star’, Lazard
1963: §105; EJP istāra ‘star’, Paul 2013: §47.d). Clusters with consonants other
than s-/š- mostly took an epenthetic vowel (EJP firdā ‘tomorrow’, Paul 2013a: §40).
In later Persian, epenthesis prevailed in all clusters (NP setāre, fardā). In modern
NP, loanwords with s-/š-clusters again receive a prothetic vowel (e. g., estekān
‘glass’ < Russ. stakan ‘glass’, eslāyd ‘slide’), while those without s-/š- show epen-
thesis (kelās ‘class’, terāmvāy ‘tramway’); see also Lenepveu-Hotz 2011.
3.9. Hiatus
If a word ending in vowel takes an ending or clitic that also starts with a vowel,
a hiatus is normally avoided through a glide, mostly -y-, e. g. xāne-y-e man “my
house” (-e ezafe), pā-y-am “my foot” (-am possessive suffix), more seldom -v-,
e. g. karre v-o nān “butter and bread” (o “and”). The clitic copula, however, allows
either hiatus or -y-: īnjā-(y-)am “I am here” (the form with -y- being rather collo-
quial).
A hiatus after -a or -ā may alternatively be avoided by contraction, e. g. pā-m
“my foot”, īnjā-m “I am here”. After other vowels, only the possessive suffix
allows contraction, hence the distinction between pahlū-m “beside me” vs. pahlū-
y-am, meaning either “beside me” or “I am beside”.
3.10. Stress
Stress generally falls on the final syllable of each stem, e. g. ketā́ b ‘book’, ketābī́
‘bookish’, but ráft-am ‘I went’. In the last word, -am is a verbal suffix that remains
unstressed. The extent to which grammatical suffixes and clitics attract stress varies
considerably (see Kahnemuyipour 2003 for a comprehensive theoretical analysis).
In general, clearly inflectional items do not bear stress, for example person and
number agreement suffixes on verbs, or clitics such as the indefiniteness suffix -ī,
ezafe, clitic pronouns, postposition =rā, the short copula, etc. Derivational affixes,
as -ī in ketābī ‘bookish’, on the other hand, are stress-bearing items. The nominal
plural suffixes -ān and –hā, the comparative suffix -tar and the superlative suffix
-tarīn are also stress-bearing items (e. g., ketābhā́ ‘books’, bozorgtár ‘bigger’).
The verbal prefixes mī- (present indicative, durative), be- and na-/ne- (negation)
are also always stressed, e. g. mī́ -raft-am ‘I used to go’, ná-raft-am ‘I didn’t go’
Persian 585
(Pisowicz 1985: 55–56). If negation and mī- occur together, the former takes the
stress: né-mī-raft-am ‘I did not go’.
Stress can be distinctive, see ketābī́ ‘bookish’: ketā́ b-ī ‘a book’ (with the indef-
initeness suffix -ī, §4.5.); see also the distinction between simple past and present
perfect (§6.8.).
4. Nominal morphology
4.1. Nouns
New Persian nouns distinguish number and definiteness, but there is no morpho-
logical case system, nor a distinction of animacy or gender; in Arabic loanwords,
however, the Arabic gender distinction (m /f ) has been imported into New Persian
to some extent. The NP bare noun is generally neutral with respect to definiteness
and number:
ketāb ‘book, a book, the book, books’
4.3. Number
A NP simple noun may be understood generically, and be used instead of an
English plural:
(1) īnjā sīb ziyād ast
here apple.sg much cop .3 sg
‘Here there are many apples’
(2) man ketāb mī-xaram
I book.sg dur -buy.prs .1 sg
‘I buy books’
(3) az peste xoš-am mī-y-āyad
from pistachio.sg good-my dur - glide -come.prs .3 sg
‘I like pistachios’
586 Ludwig Paul
The simple form of the noun is also used for plural nominal predicates:
(4) ānhā kārgar-and
they worker. sg - cop .3 pl
‘They are workers’
In most other cases, the plural is marked by one of the stressed suffixes -ān or -hā,
by an imported Arabic suffix (-āt, -īn, etc., §4.4.), or by an Arabic ‘broken’ plural
form. The distribution and functions of these distinct plural formatives may be
summarized in the following way.
The stressed plural suffix -ān goes back to a MP plural oblique ending -ān. In
Classical and modern Standard Persian, it is used for animate human nouns (e. g.,
zanān ‘women’), and for a small number of other nouns (e. g., deraxtān ‘trees’,
dastān ‘hands’). Stressed -hā goes back to the MP adverbial ending -īhā (the EJP
plural suffix is still -ihā in most texts) and denotes the plural of inanimate, and of
animate non-human nouns (e. g., saghā ‘dogs’).
In modern colloquial Persian, -hā has almost completely replaced -ān, also for
human nouns, e. g. mardhā ‘men’ (-hā with human nouns appears in prose litera-
ture already in the 16th century, see Paul 2002: 31). Certain nouns have developed
different meanings in SNP, depending on the use of -ān and -hā, e. g. sarān ‘heads,
leaders’ vs. sarhā ‘heads (i. e., the body part)’. In some cases, the use of -ān and
-hā is idiomatic, e. g. xānomhā va āqāyān ‘ladies and gentlemen’ (*āqāhā is not
possible).
Unlike English, Persian plural forms can be used with mass nouns and infinitives,
to denote large quantities or repeated actions:
(5) īn pūl-hā
dem money-pl
‘these lots of money’
(6) īn raftan-hā
dem going-pl
‘this going and going’
In certain contexts, -hā may make a noun phrase definite:
(7) čahār (tā) doxtar
four num daughter (for numerals, see §4.6.)
‘four daughters’ (ordinal numbers occur regularly with the singular, §4.7.)
(8) čahār tā doxtar-hā
four num daughter-pl
‘the four daughters’
Persian 587
The SNP verb obligatorily agrees in number with a plural subject of a sentence
only if this denotes an animate being. With inanimate subjects, the verb often
remains in the singular:
(9) čerāγ-hā xāmūš šod
lamp-pl extinguished become.pst .3 sg
‘The lamps went out’ (Lazard 1992: §170, p. 179)
The use of the plural ending -āt, and of the broken plurals, has been extended
from Arabic loanwords to originally Persian words, and become productive to
some extent in SNP, e. g. in: deh-āt ‘villages’, kārxāne-jāt ‘factories’, sabzī-jāt
‘vegetables’; the additional -j- goes back to a MP g that developed into j in MP
loanwords in Arabic. The broken plural is found in (originally Persian) ethnonyms
like Akrād ‘Kurds’ (sg. Kord), or in darāvīš ‘dervishes’ (sg. darvīš). Arabic plurals
sometimes receive an additional, “pleonastic” Persian or Arabic pl. ending, e. g.:
taẓāhorāt-hā “demonstrations”, javāher-āt “jewels” (taẓāhor-āt pl , javāher broken
pl )
In modern colloquial Persian, all Arabic plural forms have (like Persian -ān)
been largely replaced by -hā, e. g. mosāferhā ‘travellers’, touẓīḥhā ‘explanations’,
kārxānehā ‘factories’. In those registers where both plural options (Arabic and
Persian) are possible, this may cause a semantic distinction, with the Arabic plural
form often taking a more collective, abstract, or specialized meaning, e. g., fekrhā
‘thoughts’, but afkār-e ʿomūmī ‘public opinion’; or moqaddamehā ‘(printed) fore-
words’ against moqaddamāt ‘(abstract) preliminaries, first steps’ (from sg. fekr
‘thought’, moqaddame ‘foreword’). For a comprehensive study of Arabic loan-
words in Persian that end in –a(t), see Perry (1991).
588 Ludwig Paul
The mixture of Arabic nouns with Persian endings, and vice versa, shows that
although most Arabic loanwords can still be easily distinguished from originally
Persian words in the Persian lexicon today, they have been firmly integrated into
the latter; together with them, the Arabic plural forms and rules have also found
their place, with adjustments and simplifications, within Persian nominal mor-
phology.
The Arabic Dual (gen - acc ) ending -eyn has been borrowed into Persian
together with a limited number of nouns denoting pairs, e. g. vāledeyn ‘parents’.
This ending has not become productive in Persian.
4.5. (In)definiteness
An unstressed -ī (< CP/ENP -ē) may be suffixed to a NP noun, giving it the
meaning of indefiniteness and singularity: ketāb-ī ‘a book, some book, any book;
one book’. Although both aspects of this morpheme are given separate names by
Persian grammar (yā-ye vaḥdat ‘ī of one-ness’ / yā-ye nakere ‘ī of indefiniteness’),
they cannot really be separated in modern Persian.
The singular component of the meaning of this suffix is evidently overwritten
when the -ī follows a plural noun to yield the meaning of indefinite quantity, e. g.:
zanhā-(y)ī ‘some/certain women’. The -ī of indefiniteness/unit can be replaced by
yek ‘one’ (zan-ī = yek zan ‘a woman, one woman’); in modern colloquial Persian,
both occur often together: yek mard-ī ‘some man, a man; one man’. Yek may also
occur together with the plural and -ī, e. g.: yek mardhā-(y)ī ‘some/certain men’.
Definite é
Neither Classical nor Standard Persian have a definite article. In modern colloquial
Persian, there is a stressed suffix -é that makes a noun definite, e. g.: pesar-é ‘the
boy (in question)’. It occurs only with singular nouns, and together with demon-
stratives (e. g., īn pesaré ‘this boy’, Lazard 1992: 73–74). It may be followed by
=rā. It does not occur together with indefinite -ī, but with specifying -ī, e. g. ān
pesaré’ī ke dīdam ‘that boy whom I saw’.
Persian 589
4.6. Adjectives
SNP adjectives, if they qualify a noun, follow it with the ezafe (but see §7.1.3.)
and are always in their basic (sg.) form, even when the noun is in the plural, e. g.:
(10) xānehā-ye bozorg
house.pl - ez big.sg
‘(the) big houses’
A comparison is expressed with the comparative suffix -tar and the preposition az
‘from’:
(11) az man bozorg-tar ast
from me big-comp cop . prs .3 sg
‘(he) is bigger than me’
4.8. Pronouns
The full paradigm of pronouns of Standard Persian are given in Table 3. Pronouns
do not inflect for case.
When followed by the direct object marker =rā, man ‘I’ may lose the final nasal
(ma=rā ‘me’); alternatively, in colloquial Persian, where =rā is shortened to -o,
the -n is preserved (man-o ‘me’). The 2 sg polite address is 2 pl šomā. In modern
polite language, a 3 sg polite form īšān has developed, which goes back to the
former ENP 3 pl pronoun ēšān ‘they’ (that was replaced by ānhā, which was orig-
inally the pl. of the demonstrative pronoun ān ‘this’). Polite 3 sg īšān takes a pl.
verbal form (e. g., īšān hastand [he.pl cop .3 pl ] ‘he is here’). There is also a form
of “halfway/reduced” politeness, by using īšān with a sg. verb, e. g. īšān goft ‘he
said’. The noun bande ‘slave’ is used as a polite form for the 1 sg pronoun (as it
is considered polite to belittle oneself). This occurs with 1 sg verbal forms (e. g.
bande raft-am [slave go.pst -1 sg ] ‘I went’). In CP, bande in the sense of “I” was
still used with a 3 sg verb in the 13th century, while polite ēšān occurs at least since
the 16th century (Paul 2002: 31–32).
In colloquial Persian, the pl. pronouns mā and šomā may take the pl. ending
-hā (māhā ‘we’, šomāhā ‘you [pl ]’), probably by analogy to 3 pl ānhā, or in the
case of šomā, to distinguish it from the polite form šomā, which is used for sg.
address.
4.9. Pro-drop
New Persian is a pro-drop language, in which not only a subject may be dropped,
e. g. raftam [go.pst .1 sg ] ‘I went’, but—in appropriate contexts—also a direct
object pronoun:
(12) mašq=at=rā neveštī? bale, neveštam
exercise=your=obj write.pst .2 sg yes write.pst .1 sg
‘Did you write your exercise? Yes, I wrote (it)’
(13) CollP
vaqtīke āmad, be=h=eš mī-gam
when come.pst .3 sg to=him dur -say.prs .1 sg
‘as soon as he comes, I will tell (it) him’
(14) CollP
dīdī goftam?
see.pst .2 sg say.pst .1 sg
‘Have you seen (it) I told (you)’ (= What did I tell you!)
Persian 591
When they follow a word that ends in vowel, the pronominal clitics may take a
glide, or lose their initial vowel, to avoid a hiatus, see §3.9. Throughout the history
of Persian, the pronoun clitics may be suffixed to verbs, prepositions and nouns,
and serve the same grammatical functions as the full pronouns, with the exception
of sentence subject (but see below), e. g.:
direct object
(15) mībīnam=et
see. prs .1 sg =2 sg
‘I see you’
indirect object
(16) nešān=et dādam (or, less often: nešān dādam=et)
sign=2 sg give.pst .1 sg
‘I showed (it) you’
prepositional complement
(17) be=h=et goftam
to=2 sg say.pst .1 sg
‘I told (it) to you’
possessive complement
(18) barādar=at
brother=2 sg
‘your brother’
A pronoun clitic may even be infixed between a preverb and a verbal stem, e. g.
bar-aš dār! ‘remove it!’ (< bar-dāštan ‘remove’). It is also worth noting the condi-
tions where clitic pronoun and full pronoun are not interchangeable, e. g.:
(19) ketāb=am=rā na-dīd-am
book=1 sg = obj neg -see.pst -1 sg
‘I have not seen my book’
but not:
592 Ludwig Paul
Combinations of more than one personal clitic are not possible in NP, i. e. in dit-
ransitive constructions like *dādam=ešān=at ‘I gave them to you’ (/ ‘I gave you to
them’). Instead, one of them must be expressed separately (be-h=at dādam=ešān).
In modern SNP, the preference for a clitic direct or indirect object depends largely
on the verb. E. g., with dādan “give”, both clitics are possible (i. e., dādam=eš
can mean both: “I gave it” and, although less familiar, “I gave (it) to him”). As for
goftan “say”, however, forms like goftam=et “I told (it) you” are theoretically pos-
sible but hardly used; be=h=et goftam is clearly preferred. Forms like goftam=at
are, however, frequent in Classical Persian literature.
4.11. Demonstratives
The SNP demonstrative pronouns are īn ‘this’ and ān ‘that’, pl. īnhā, ānhā (in CP,
there was also īnān, ānān). When they qualify nouns as demonstrative adjectives,
they precede the noun and remain always in the sg., e. g.: īn mard ‘this man’, ān
mardhā ‘those men’.
Persian 593
4.12. Reflexivity
nouns, hence no marking of person and number; and they were still necessary to
mark reflexive possession, e. g.:
(28) ENP/CP
Aḥmad xwēštan(=rā) mī-bīnad
Ahmad refl (= obj ) dur -see.prs .3 sg
‘Ahmad sees himself’
(29) Aḥmad bā xwad ḥarf mī-zanad
Ahmad with refl word dur -strike.prs .3 sg
‘Ahmad talks to himself’
(30) mā dūstān-e xwēš(=rā) mī-bīnīm
we friends-ez refl (= obj ) dur -see.prs .1 pl
‘We see our friends’
Constructions like X. xod=rā mī-bīnad ‘X. sees himself’, without personal clitic,
are possible also in modern SNP, but they would represent a formal register of
SNP, one that is actually emulating CP.
5. Adpositions
5.1. Prepositions
SNP Adpositions fall into four categories: simple prepositions (used without an
ezafe); a large set of prepositions that are linked to their complement through an
ezafe; prepositional expressions, i. e. combinations of adverbs or adjectives with
simple prepositions; the postposition, or clitic, =rā (on which, see §5.5. below);
and circumpositions (§5.6.).
meaning, most of which go back to nouns or adverbs, e. g.: bālā-ye ‘over, above’,
beyn-e ‘between’, dāxel-e ‘inside’, pīš-e ‘to(wards)’ (someone, +animate), pošt-e
‘behind’, zīr-e ‘under’. Most of these prepositions were formerly combined, as
nouns, with a simple preposition, and can still be used in such a way in formal
language; the simple preposition can then serve to distinguish various meanings,
etc.: dar dāxel-e ‘inside’ (position), be dāxel-e ‘inside’ (direction), from the noun
dāxel ‘interior, inside’. In less formal language, the simple prepositions be and dar
can be dropped in such expressions (see also §5.4.).
5.5.4. Topicalization
Lazard (1982) had already shown that besides marking a definite direct object, =rā
can be used also to “topicalize” an important “pole” of a sentence. Recent studies
like Dabir Moghaddam (1992) or Meunier and Samvelian (1997) also focused on
pragmatic factors like topicalization, thematization etc. See the following example
of topicalisation by =rā:
(45) otāq=o, dar-eš=o bastam (colloquial)
room=rā door-his=rā close.pst .1 sg
‘as for the room, I closed its door’ (Dabir-Moqaddam 1992: 553)
2
I owe this important point to a discussion with Maximilian Kinzler and Ramin Shagh-
aghi.
600 Ludwig Paul
But they may take =rā when they are in contrastive opposition:
(53) emrūz Fārsī=rā tadrīs mī-konam, fardā
today Persian=rā teaching dur -do.prs .1 sg tomorrow
adabiyāt=rā
literature=rā
‘Today I teach Persian, tomorrow literature’
A science that takes a nominal complement with the ezafe, becomes definite and
takes =rā:
(54) tārīx-e Čīn=rā dūst dāram
history-ez China=rā friend have.prs .1 sg
‘I love Chinese history (lit., the history of China)’,
unless the whole noun phrase corresponds to the name of a subject that is regularly
taught at academic institutions:
(55) tārīx-e Čīn tadrīs mī-konam
history-ez China teaching dur -do.prs .1 sg
‘I teach (the subject:) “Chinese history”’
In this example, tārīx-e Čīn represents the conventional name of an academic
subject. The exceptional absence of =rā in such cases may be due to the verb
tadrīs kardan, which occurs typically with names of academic subjects.
5.6. Circumpositions
Besides the prepositions and the postposition =rā, a small number of circum-
positions are attested in ENP, and in some CP texts, though no longer in use in
SNP. They can be divided into two groups (other West Iranian languages such as
Kurdish continue to make extensive use of circumpositions, see Haig, this volume,
chapters 2.3 and 3.3):
a) Combinations of (mostly simple) prepositions with =rā, see Lazard (1963:
§539–552), e. g. ba …=ra ‘to, towards’, az …=rā ‘because of’, in EJP also
‘concerning’ (Paul 2013a: §184.a); azmar-i …=rā ‘for’ occurs only in EJP
(Paul 2013a); mar …=rā, which has the same meaning as plain =rā, is a
special case, because mar without =rā is not a well-established preposition of
ENP (Lazard 1963: §752–756).
b) Combinations of various simple prepositions with each other. In ENP, it was
quite common for ba to be combined with other simple prepositions in post-
positional use, e. g. ba … (an)dar ‘in’ (Lazard 1963: §619–621), or a “dou-
bling” of prepositions like (an)dar … (an)dar ‘in’ (Lazard 1963, §623).
602 Ludwig Paul
6. Verbal morphology
6.1. Generalities
Verbal forms of all varieties of NP are based on two stems, present and past, from
which a system of tenses and moods is built with the help of endings, verbal par-
ticles, and auxiliaries. The tense systems of the modern varieties of Persian, espe-
cially the written standard forms, are structurally similar and share certain parallel
developments, but they are quite different formally. Tajik dialects have developed
modal categories such as “presumptive” or “dubitative” that do not exist in Fārsī.
In ENP the basic verbal forms of later SNP and Tajik were already in use, but
the various verbal particles (see below) became fully grammaticalized only in the
course of later centuries. The tense system of ENP was thus structurally very dif-
ferent from SNP. This was also because it was less standardized and allowed for
many regional varieties. A recent account of the evolution of the NP verbal system
has been given by Lenepveu-Hotz (2014).
Politeness is expressed with the 2nd person plural. For impersonal ‘one’, the 3rd
person plural is used, e. g. mī-gūyand [dur -say.prs .3 pl ] ‘they say, one says’.
604 Ludwig Paul
Negative na- can be combined with mī-/me- (always preceding it, e. g. SNP
ne-mī-ravam ‘I don’t go’), but not with be-, which it replaces. In ENP, many par-
ticle combinations were still possible that fell out of use later, e. g. (ha)mē + bi-
(Lazard 1963: §357) or bi- + na- (Lazard 1963, §443), e. g. bi-na-y-āmaδ [sbjv -
neg - glide -come.pst .3 sg ] ‘He did not come’. For verbs with preverbs, in SNP a
prefix is always inserted between the preverb and the verbal stem, while in Tajik
and (partly) Darī (e. g., Kabuli), it regularly precedes the prefix, e. g.:
(59) SNP
bar-mī-āyad
out-dur -come.prs .3 sg
‘he comes out, appears’
(60) Taj.
me-bar-oyad
dur -out-come.prs .3 sg
‘he comes out, appears’
The present tense also serves to express the future in SNP and CollNP, e. g.:
(61) fardā man mī-ravam bāzār
tomorrow I dur -go. prs .1 sg bazaar
‘Tomorrow, I shall go to the bazaar’
The imperative is expressed by be-/bo- (etc.) and the bare present stem for the sg.,
and with an additional 2 pl ending for the plural, e. g.: bo-xor ‘eat!’ / bo-xorīd ‘eat
(pl )!’
In CollNP (Fārsī and Tajik), a small number of verbs that are of high frequency
exhibit shortened forms of the present stem, e. g.: mī-r-am ‘I go’, mī-g-am ‘I say’,
mī-d-am ‘I give’ (SNP mī-rav-am, mī-gū-y-am, mī-dah-am; Tajik coll. mē-r-am,
etc.).
The full form of the copula can be used with a stress on the verbal stem in the
emphatic sense of: man hástam ‘I am here’, but also as a normal substantive verb,
like the enclitic form, cf.
(62) man Ālmānī-y-am / man Ālmānī hastam
I German-glide - cop .1 sg / I German cop .1 sg
‘I am German’.
The copula is necessary in sentences stating identity or quality. It is not used in
exclamations and other elliptic expressions, e. g.:
(63) xodā=rā šokr
God=rā thanks
‘Thanks (be) to God’ (also in ENP, Lazard 1963: §779)
606 Ludwig Paul
6.7. Future
Besides the present tense, which may express the future, especially in CollNP
(§6.4.), there is a morphological future tense formed with the present stem of the
verb ‘to want’, the appropriate personal endings and the shortened infinitive, e. g.:
xwāham raft ‘I shall go’.
This tense did not yet exist in ENP, in which xwāham raft would still mean ‘I
want to go’ (also expressed by xwāham raftan with the full infinitive). Of course
the development of future meanings from a desiderative ‘want’ is a well-attested
grammaticalization pathway, but it was only with the development of modal con-
structions with the subjunctive in CP (§6.15.) that the future developed as a sepa-
rate tense.
A presumptive exists also in the Darī dialect of Kabul, but it is built in a different
way, with the adverb xāt (< xwāhad ‘he wants’, Lazard 1956: 160). The presump-
tive can be considered a sub-type of evidential, or indirect source. Turkic (Uzbek)
influence may have played a role in this development.
Forms in -agī are not found in ENP in Arabic script, but they occur in certain
EJP exegetical texts (tafsir) (Paul 2013: §161), e. g. kardagī [correct for: kardagē]
‘he has done’, often with a resultative meaning.
608 Ludwig Paul
6.11. ENP
The verbal system of ENP is difficult to describe, since it is not uniform or stand-
ardized and has a lot of regional/dialectal varieties. The earliest stage of Standard
Persian, the language of the classical authors of the 13th–15th centuries, repre-
sents a transitory stage of the language, in which many ENP grammatical features
are still found, dialectal standardisation has been attained, and the rules of modern
Standard Persian are gradually evolving. Some important features in which the
ENP verbal system diverges from the later SNP one include:
a) In some of the earliest EJP documents, the present perfect with the past part-
ciple in -a (SNP -e) had not yet been fully developed as a tense, participles
like nibišta had still an adjectival-static (passive) meaning, e. g., in expres-
sions like: nibišta hest ‘it is written’ (Paul 2013: §165.b). In most ENP texts,
the present perfect with -a had already been fully developed, but there are
still examples of passive-adjectival past participles (e. g., man kušta am ‘I
am killed’, Lazard 1963: §487; in modern SNP examples of lexicalized past
participle, e. g. baste ‘closed, tied; package’).
b) The EJP present perfect can still be built with the plain past stem, e. g., nibišt
hest ‘he has written’ (Paul 2013a: §164.b). In ENP, this is very rare and is
practically restricted to one manuscript (Lazard 1963: §485).
c) In ENP, there is a variety of auxiliaries used for compound past tenses that no
longer exist in SNP, like hast-, buv-, b-, etc. (e. g., dīda hastē ‘have you (pl )
seen …?’, Lazard 1963: §482–483).
d) In some ENP texts from northeastern Iran (e. g., in the national epic Šāhnāme)
there is the “present perfect II” of the kardastam (1 sg ), kardastī (2 sg ) etc.
type, probably of dialectal origin, which is used besides the “normal” present
perfect, in the same sense. It occurs occasionally also in later Classical poetry,
but has vanished from SNP.
e) (ha)mē and bi- were still prosodically independent particles in ENP and would
be grammaticalized only in the course of Classical literature. In early CP, bi-
was often used also with the simple past (e. g., bi-raft ‘he went’).
f) In ENP and (early) CP (but no longer in SNP) there was a suffix -ē(δ) (EJP
-ē(h)), deriving historically from a MP optative particle, which had the mean-
ings of irrealis (conditional, potential, etc.) and habitual, e. g. (conditional):
(68) agar man ānjā būdam-ē
if I there be.pst .1 sg - irr
‘if I had been there’ (Lazard 1963: §456)
Persian 609
6.12. Progressive
Both Fārsī, Kabuli Darī and Tajik have developed a progressive verbal mode,
present and past, with a similar function but a completely different structure, see
Table 9 (Lazard 1956: 160, 165–166):
It is worth noting that the progressive mode does not allow negativization, i. e.
there is no *nadāram mīravam or *dāram nemīravam. Typologically, this may
reflect a universal tendency: it does not make much sense to point to an ongoing
action or process in progress, if it does not take place. Besides indicating that an
action is still in progress, there is an “intentional” use of the progressive mode
in CollP., referring to intended actions in the future, e. g.: dāram fardā mī-ravam
Ālmān ‘I am about to go to Germany tomorrow’.
6.13. Passive
A SNP passive is built with the past participle and the auxiliary verb šodan
‘become’, e. g. xarīde šod ‘(it) was bought’. The passive is mainly employed when
the agent is unknown; in formal language an agent may be added with compound
prepositions like az ṭaraf-e … ‘by, from … side’. In ENP, there was also a passive
with āmadan ‘come’, e. g. gufta āmad ‘it was said’.
A present verb may be used to express a persistent situation where English uses
the present perfect, e. g.:
(69) čand sāl ast īnjā zendegī mī-konī?
how.many year cop .3 sg here living dur -do. prs .2 sg
‘For how many years have you been living here?
610 Ludwig Paul
Table 10: Overview of the most important developments of the NP tense system
SNP ENP Tajik
Present: mīravam ([ha]mē) rawam meravam
Subjunctive: beravam (bi) rawam ravam
(be-: lexicalized)
Future: xwāham raft — xoham raft
Simple past: raftam (bi) raftam raftam
Imperfect past: mīraftam ([ha]mē) raftam meraftam
Present perfect (I): rafte-am rafta-am, rafta buvam etc. rafta-am
(EJP) raft hem
Present perfect (II): — raftastam —
Durative present mīrafte-am ([ha]mē) rafta-am (rare) merafta-am
perfect: (resultative)
Irrealis: — ([ha]mē/bi) raftam-ē —
Resultative: — (EJP) raftagī raftagī
Modal construction: mītavānad tavānad raft(an) rafta metavonad
beravad
This section on syntax presents only the basic constructions, and highlights, very
selectively, a small number of noteworthy phenomena. This applies especially to
the syntax of complex sentences. An excellent comprehensive description of SNP
syntax can be found in Lazard (1992: 177–257).
Demonstrative, quantifying and indefinite adjectives always precede the noun and
remain in the singular, e. g., īn xāne ‘this house’, čand xāne ‘some (/ how many)
houses’.
In Tajik dialects, and in the Darī of Kabul, a construction with an inverted
ordering of elements has developed, e. g.:
(77) muallim-a kitob-aš
teacher-to book-his
‘the teacher’s book’ (Lazard 1956: 182, 184; Windfuhr and Perry 2009:
443)
This is most conspicuous in the northern Tajik dialects that have been under heavy
Uzbek influence. In these Tajik dialects, adjectives also exhibit a tendency to
precede the modifier without ezafe (Lazard 1956: 182). A similar construction
without -a is widespread also in colloquial registers of modern Fārsī, e. g.:
(78) Aḥmad zan-aš kojā-st? (for SNP: zan-e Aḥmad kojā-st?)
Aḥmad wife-his where-cop . prs .3 sg
‘Where is Aḥmad’s wife?’
In ENP, the word order of noun phrases was still less strict than in SNP, and
certain high-frequency adjectives like ‘big, small, good, bad’ could precede the
head without the ezafe (Lazard 1963, §165–172, e. g. baδ mardān ‘the bad men’,
Lazard 1963, §167; similarly in EJP, Paul 2013a: §189.b). Less often, modifying
nouns could precede the head, e. g.:
(79) jihān šahriyār
world ruler
‘the ruler of the world’ (Lazard 1963: §163).
In ENP and CP, an -ē that marked the head noun of a noun phrase as indefinite
(§4.5.) replaced the ezafe before the descriptive adjective, e. g.:
(80) mard-ē bozorg
man-indef big
‘a great man’
In SNP, and in high registers of spoken Fārsī, this construction still exists as an
emulation of classical style. In “normal” spoken Fārsī, the indefinite noun phrase
retains the ezafe, and the -ī (< ENP/CP -ē) is attached at the end of the noun phrase
(mard-e bozorg-ī).
Persian 613
7.2.1. SNP
For the word order of a simple SNP sentence, the following rules apply:
a. The subject (S), if overtly expressed at all (see §4.8. on pro-drop), precedes
the predicate (Pred). The predicate may be a full verb or a copula.
b. Direct or indirect objects (Od, Oi), goals of verbs of motion (Dir), and predi-
cate complements (CoPr) are inserted between S and Pred. With regard to the
relative ordering of Od and Oi in SNP, see Faghiri et al (2014) for a recent
corpus-based study.
c. In ditransitive sentences, a definite Od precedes the Oi, an indefinite Od
follows it.
7.2.2. ENP
In ENP, word order is said to be much freer than it is in SNP (Lazard 1963: §788,
who however does not distinguish between Od and Oi). The study of EJP, which
may be taken to represent ENP, has identified word order rules that are not as strict
as in SNP, but already quite similar to them.
ENP exhibits a preference for S–O–Pred, but where constituents are given
emphasis, many exceptions are possible, e. g. Pred–S (Lazard 1963: §796, §799),
or even O–Pred–S, possibly reflecting colloquial style (Lazard 1963: §801). In
EJP, Oi usually follows the Od, but can also follow the Pred, as in modern collo-
quial Persian. The two preferred possibilities for the main constituents’ position
would be S–Od–Oi/Dir–Pred and S–Od–Pred–Oi/Dir (Paul 2013a: §193). Excep-
tions occur, e. g. Od follows Oi (S–Oi–Od–Pred,Paul 2013a: §199), or it follows
even the Pred (Paul 2013a: §195.c):
(86) pa čē bi-šināsī (Pred) durustīh i-ēn tis (Od)
by what sbjv -know. prs .2 sg truth ez -this matter
‘How do you know the correctness of this matter?’
Persian 615
8.1.1. SNP
SNP clauses that are dependent on verbs of belief, speaking, wishing, etc., regularly
follow the main clause, are introduced by the particle ke ‘that’, and always have a
finite verb form. Direct speech is preferred. The tense of the dependent clause is
independent of that of the main clause, e. g. future (dependent) following past (main
clause). Indirect speech is also possible, in which case only the personal suffix
changes, as seen in the following examples (taken from Lazard 1992: §203–204):
(88) Aḥmad goft ke pedar-am xwāhad āmad
Ahmad say.pst .3 sg that father-my will come. inf
‘Ahmad said that his father would come’ (dir. speech)
(89) Aḥmad goft ke pedar-aš xwāhad āmad
Ahmad say.pst .3 sg that father-his will come.inf
‘Ahmad said that his father would come’ (indir. speech)
After verbs meaning ‘want, wish, tell (to do), hope’ etc., the verb in the dependent
clause is in the present subjunctive:
(90) meyl dāštam ke be Tehrān be-ravam
inclination have.pst .1 sg that to Tehran sbjv -go. prs .1 sg
‘I wanted to go to Tehran’
(91) moʾallem be šāgerdhā goft ke ketābhā-y-etān=rā
teacher to pupils said that books-glide -your=rā
be-gīrīd
sbjv -take.2pl
‘The teacher told the pupils to take their exercise-books’
616 Ludwig Paul
8.1.2. ENP
The few examples in EJP (Paul 2013a: §204) and the remarks in Lazard (1963: §810)
show that also in ENP direct speech was possible in these types of sentence.
8.1.3. Tajik
In Tajik (Windfuhr and Perry 2009: 513), direct speech seems to be impossible,
or unusual, in these types of sentence. Sentences of the indirect speech type (v.s.)
are possible, but in literary Tajik and Tajik dialects, Uzbek-type nominal clauses
that precede the main clause have become widespread, e. g. (Windfuhr and Perry
2009: 514):
(96) xud-i ū ki-st? gufta man az Rahim Qand
refl -3 sg he who-cop .3 sg say.ptcp I from Rahim Qand
pursidam
ask.pst .1 sg
‘Who is he, actually? I asked Rahim Qand’ (literally: ‘Who is he? – [that]
having said, I asked from Rahim Qand’)
Persian 617
The data in Windfuhr and Perry (2009) suggest that the SNP strategies for con-
structing relative clauses are possible in literary Tajik. In Tajik, however, there
is also a broad range of nominalized and pre-nominal relative clauses that corre-
spond partly to the Uzbek model, e. g. (Windfuhr and Perry 2009: 509):
(98) ob-e ki mo az hawz ovardem
water-e rel we from pool bring.pst .1 pl
‘the water that we brought from the pool’
(99) ob-i mo az hawz ovardagi
water-i we from pool bring. ptcp
‘the water that we brought from the pool’
(100) az hawz ovardagi-mon ob
from pool bring.ptcp -1 pl water
‘the water that we brought from the pool’
Future temporal clauses, on the other hand, usually require a past verb (but see
§8.4.), even if the action lies in the future, e. g.:
(102) baʿd az ānke raftī Ālmān, mī-bīnī
after from comp go.ps t.2 sg Germany dur .see.2 sg
ke …
that
‘After you (will) go to Germany, you (will) see that …’
Concomitant temporal clauses are often introduced by the conjunction vaqtīke
‘when’:
(103) vaqtīke Aḥmad ānjā raft, dīd kasī
when Aḥmad there go.pst .3 sg see.pst .3 sg nobody
nīst
neg . cop .3 sg
‘When Aḥmad went there, he saw (that) there was nobody’
Vaqtīke may be replaced by ke moving forward through the sentence:
Aḥmad ke ānjā raft, dīd kasī nīst
Aḥmad ānjā ke raft, dīd kasī nīst
Aḥmad ānjā raft ke dīd kasī nīst
The first two versions express practically the same meaning as the sentence above
with vaqtīke. In the 3rd version, with ke following the verb, the general meaning
of the whole sentence remains similar, but a “subordinator switch” (Windfuhr and
Perry 2009: 522) takes place and the second part of the sentence is syntactically
focused: ‘Aḥmad went there and saw: there is nobody’.
simple past and present subjunctive are equally employed in the protasis, the sub-
junctive introducing a doubt/condition into the temporal clause, e. g.:
(111) baʿd az ānke raftī / be-ravī Ālmān,
after from comp go.pst .2 sg / sbjv -go.prs .2 sg Germany
mī-bīnī ke…
dur .see.2 sg that
‘After you (will / were to) go to Germany, you (will) see that …’
Abbreviations
References
Cole, Juan R. 2002. Iranian culture and South Asia, 1500–1900. In Nikki R. Keddie & Rudi
Matthee (eds.), Iran and the surrounding world: Interactions in culture and cultural
politics, 15–35. Seattle & London: University of Washington Press.
Dabir Moghaddam, Mohammad. 1992. On the (in)dependence of syntax and pragmatics:
Evidence from the postposition -rā in Persian. In Dieter Stein (ed.), Cooperating with
written texts: The pragmatics and comprehension of written texts, 549–573. Berlin &
Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Durkin-Meisterernst, Desmond. 2014. Grammatik des Westmitteliranischen (Parthisch und
Mittelpersisch). Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Faghiri, Pegah, Pollet Samvelian & Barbara Hemforth. 2014. Accessibility and word order:
The case of ditransitive constructions in Persian. In Stefan Müller (ed.), Proceedings of
the 21st International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Univer-
sity at Buffalo, 27–29 August 2014, 217–237. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Fragner, Bert. 1999. Die “Persophonie”: Regionalität, Identität und Sprachkontakt in der
Geschichte Asiens. Berlin: Das Arabische Buch.
Gippert, Jost. 2007/08. Zur dialektalen Stellung des Zazaki. Die Sprache 47. 77–107.
Gyselen, Rika. 2012. Scellements dans lʾarchive post-sassanide du Tabaristan (1). In Rika
Gyselen (ed.), Objets et documents inscrits en pârsîg, 97–108. Bures-sur-Yvette:
Groupe pour l’Étude de la Civilisation du Moyen-Orient.
Jazayery, Mohammad Ali. 2000. Farhangestān. In Ehsan Yarshater (ed.) Encyclopædia
Iranica 9, 273–279. New York: Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University.
Jensen, Hans. 1931. Neupersische Grammatik. Heidelberg: C. Winter.
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2003. Syntactic categories and Persian stress. Natural Language
& Linguistic Theory 21. 333–379.
Kauz, Ralph. 2009. Chang Zimei und der Islam in Shandong im 17. Jahrhundert: Akkultur-
ation oder Abgrenzung? Zur Geschichte einer persischen Grammatik. Saeculum 60(1).
91–113.
Khānlarī, Parvīz Nātel. 1979. A history of the Persian language, vols. 1, 2. New Delhi:
Sterling Publishers et al.
Khānlarī, Parvīz Nātel. 1365 [1986]. Tārīx-e zabān-e Fārsī [A history of Persian], 3 vols,
(revised ed.). Tehrān: Našr-e nou.
Kreiser, Klaus. 1993. Persisch als Schulsprache bei den osmanischen Türken: Von der
Tanzîmât-Zeit zur frühen Republik. In Jens Peter Laut & Klaus Röhrborn (eds.),
Sprach- und Kulturkontakte der türkischen Völker: Materialien der zweiten Deutschen
Turkologen-Konferenz, Rauischholzhausen, 13.-16. Juli 1990, 123–131. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Landau, Jacob M. & Barbara Kellner-Heinkele. 2012. Language politics in contemporary
Central Asia: National and ethnic identity and the Soviet legacy. London: Tauris.
Lazard, Gilbert. 1956. Caractères distinctifs de la langue tadjik. Bulletin de la Societé Lin-
guistique 52(1). 117–186.
Lazard, Gilbert. 1957. Grammaire du persan contemporain. Paris: Librairie C. Klinck-
sieck. [Nouvelle édition: Téhéran: Institut Français de Recherche en Iran, 2006]
Lazard, Gilbert. 1963. La langue des plus anciens monuments de la prose persane. Paris:
Librairie C. Klincksieck.
Lazard, Gilbert. 1966. L’enclitique nominal -i en persan: un ou deux morphèmes? Bulletin
de la Societé Linguistique 61(1). 249–264.
Persian 623
Paul, Ludwig. 2002. A Linguist’s Fresh View on “Classical Persian”. In Maria Szuppe (ed.),
Iran. Questions et connaissances. Actes du IVe Congrès Européen …, vol. 2, Périodes
médiévale et modern, 21–34. Paris: Peeters.
Paul, Ludwig. 2008. Some remarks on the Persian suffix =rā as a general and historical lin-
guistic issue. In Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Donald Stilo (eds.), Aspects of Iranian
Linguistics, 329–337. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Paul, Ludwig. 2013a. A Grammar of Early Judaeo-Persian. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Paul, Ludwig. 2013b. Persian Language i. Early New Persian. Encyclopædia Iranica. New
York: Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University. http://www.iranicaonline.org/
articles/persian-language-1-early-new-persian (accessed on 22September 2017).
Paul, Ludwig. (forthcoming). “Be nice to each other!” – Moral precepts at Tehran Metro
walls as examples of written colloquial Persian. In Pavel Lurije (ed.), Proceedings of
the SIE conference held in St. Petersburg, 15–19 September 2015.
Perry, John. 1991. Form and meaning in Persian vocabulary: The Arabic feminine ending.
Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers.
Perry, John. 2005. A Tajik Persian Reference Grammar. Leiden: Brill.
Phillott, Douglas C. 1919. Higher Persian Grammar. Calcutta: University.
Pisowicz, Andrzej. 1985. Origins of the New and Middle Persian Phonological Systems.
Kraków: Nakł. Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
Rāsex Mahand, Moḥammad. 1386 [2007]. Touṣīf-e afʿāl-e morakkab-e peybastī dar zabān-e
Fārsī va šīve-ye ẓabṭ-e ānhā dar farhanghā [The study of Persian enclitic compound
verbs and their presentation in general dictionaries]. Farhangnevīsī 1(1). 236–252.
Rypka, Jan. 1968. History of Iranian Literature. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publisher.
Ṣādeqī, ʿAlī Ašraf. 1363 [1984]. Tabdīl-e ‘ān’ va ‘ām’ be ‘ūn’ va ‘ūm’ dar Fārsī-ye goftārī
[The replacement of ‘ān’ and ‘ām’ by ‘ūn’ and ‘ūm’ in spoken Persian]. Majalle-ye
Zabānšenāsī 1(1). 52–71.
Ṣādeqī, ʿAlī Ašraf. 1385 [2006–07]. Taḥavvol-e ṣāmet-e ‘q’-ye ʿArabī dar zabān-e Fārsī
[The development of the Arabic consonant ‘q’ in Persian]. Majalle-ye Zabānšenāsī
21(1–2). 3–32.
Ṣādeqī, ʿAlī Ašraf. 1395 [2016]. Kasre-ye eẓāfe be jā-ye ‘ke’-ye mouṣūl [A short i instead
of relative ‘ke’]. Farhangnevīsī 11. 3–7.
Samvelian, Pollet. 2012. Grammaire des prédicats complexes: Les constructions nom-
verbe. Paris: Hermes Science Publications.
Shahidi, Minoo. 2008. A Sociolinguistic Study of language shift in Mazandarani. Uppsala:
Uppsala Universitet dissertation.
Spuler, Bertold. 1985. Die Mongolen in Iran. Politik, Verwaltung und Kultur der Ilchanzeit
1220–1350, 4. edn. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Ṭabāṭabāyī, ʿAlāʾeddīn. 1395 [2016]. Farhang-e touṣīfī-ye dastūr-e zabān-e Fārsī [De-
scriptive dictionary of Persian grammar]. Tehrān: Farhang-e moʿāṣer.
Tedesco, Paul. 1921. Dialektologie der westiranischen Turfantexte. Monde Oriental 15.
184–258.
Windfuhr, Gernot Ludwig. 1979. Persian Grammar: History and State of its Study. Den
Haag: Mouton Publishers.
Windfuhr, Gernot & John R. Perry. 2009. Persian and Tajik. In Gernot Windfuhr (ed.), The
Iranian Languages, 416–544. London: Routledge.
4.7. Kumzari
Christina van der Wal Anonby
1. Introduction
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-018
626
Christina van der Wal Anonby
Persian and Azd rebels battling the North Arabians were defeated, killed, or chased
from Dibba. The refugees settled in Musandam’s mountains and remote coasts.
Over the following centuries, they gained a reputation both as aloof bedouins and
fierce guardians of the Strait between Arabia and Persia.
Linguistically, Kumzari resembles both the descendants of Middle Persian
isolated from its modern counterpart in Iran, and the indigenous languages of
southern Arabia. Core vocabulary comprises items of Semitic and Indo-Iranian
sources, with both represented as well in the lexicon as a whole. Kumzari pho-
nology maintains the complexity of Persian and Arabian inventories, including
a full set of Semitic emphatic phonemes, even in lexical items of Iranian origin.
The South Arabian retroflex approximant [ɻ], but also Iranian-specific sounds like
the voiceless bilabial stop [p], the voiceless palato-alveolar affricate [tʃ], and the
voiced uvular stop [g], are attested in the language. The verb system in Kumzari
is fundamentally mixed, with both Arabian triliteral roots and Persian-origin finite
verbs. Like South Arabian languages but unlike Iranian, Kumzari has post-constit-
uent and multiply-marked negation. It has a split system of nouns, adjectives, and
adverbs derived from Semitic verbs.
Kumzari has SOV constituent order similar to Iranian languages, but verb
phrase syntax more closely aligned with South Arabian varieties. Within the
Kumzari three-term system of evidentials, the firsthand sensory information source
marker resembles particles with similar functions in Iranian Balochi dialects and
South Arabian Mehri and Shihhi Arabic. Kumzari discourse incorporates features
found in languages on east and west sides of the Gulf. Kumzari’s mixed ancestry
is reflected in the language as it is currently spoken.
Today the Kumzari consider themselves to be Arabs of the Shihhuh con-
federacy, with the identification of their unique language. Most Kumzaris lead
a nomadic lifestyle. In the village of Kumzar, people subsist on fishing. They
live in stone houses with central courtyards, with dwellings tightly wedged in the
wadi, adjoined only by narrow paths. In summer months they travel by boat to
the Kumzari quarter of the city of Khasab, where many have date palm planta-
tions. They are there to harvest dates and trade goods and hold weddings. Kumzari
are generally endogamous, but some intermarry with the Arabic-speaking Shihuh
whose people make up the majority of the population on Musandam. The Kumzari
are distinguished in lineage as part of a clan: Aqelī, Ghōšbanī, and Bō’īnī. By reli-
gion, the Kumzari follow the Sunni branch of Islam, and each of the two main clans
has a mosque in Kumzar. Some religiously oriented oral traditions are adopted
from Arabic, while Kumzari’s own oral traditions include poetry, folktales, fishing
and other work songs, lullabies, and qawals.
Kumzari is an unwritten language, but there is improvised use of the Arabic
alphabet, such as to convey Kumzari text messages on mobile telephones. Kumzari
local authorities approved an orthography developed by linguist Erik Anonby
for use by Kumzari speakers in 2010, and there is some movement toward its
628 Christina van der Wal Anonby
implementation in primary education. All but a few families teach their children
Kumzari exclusively until school age. However, all media is in Arabic, and for
schooling past primary grades children must move to Khasab for the full year. This
presents a mixed prognosis for the future vitality of Kumzari: people are proud
of speaking their own language, but it is in danger of being engulfed by Arabic
in many domains of use. Most Kumzari speakers have some degree of fluency in
Arabic, and those who remain in Khasab throughout the year are surrounded by
speakers of the Shihhi dialect of Arabic.
Studies of Kumzari based on fieldwork are Jayakar (1902), Lorimer (1915),
Thomas (1930), Dostal (1972), Najmabadi (1988), and Skjærvø (1989). The
present author has written a Kumzari reference grammar, including discourse,
texts, and lexicon (van der Wal Anonby 2015). Along with the author’s collection,
collaboration with a Kumzari speaker who has gathered several thousand words
will form the basis of a dictionary.
2. Phonology
Kumzari has three short vowels /i/ /u/ /a/, which have a mid-centralised quality in
comparison to its five long vowels /ī/ /ū/ /ē/ /ō/ /ā/. Vowels are always separated
by a glide or glottal stop, even with clitics, and there are no vowel sequences. All
vowel-initial words begin with a glottal stop.
Kumzari distinguishes twenty-eight consonants. Its inventory draws both from its
Persian heritage, in the phonemes /p/, /č/, and /g/, and from its Arabian heritage, as
in its emphatic consonants: pharyngeal /ḥ/, uvular /q/, and velarised alveolars /ṭ/, /ḍ/,
/ṣ/, /ẓ/, and /ḷ/. Emphatics occur even in words not of Arabian origin, e. g. ṣirx ‘red’,
pānḍa ‘fifteen’, čāẓ ‘lunch’. All emphatic consonants in Kumzari have non-em-
phatic counterparts, with the notable exception of /ẓ/, which is always velarised.
Like Shihhi Arabic (Bernabela 2011: 26) and some South Arabian lan-
guages (Simeone-Senelle 1997: 381–382), Kumzari lacks certain phonemes from
north-central peninsular Arabic varieties: the voiced pharyngeal fricative [ʕ] and
Kumzari 629
interdental fricatives [θ], [ð], and [đ]. In common with the western Iranian lan-
guages Bakhtiari and southern Luri, Kumzari has a bilabial approximant /w/, in
place of the Persian labiodental fricative /v/. Unlike Gulf Arabic and Persian but
similar to the South Arabian languages Mehri and Hobyot and Shihhi Arabic, the
Kumzari /r/ is a retroflex approximant; in some cases it can be realised as an alve-
olar or retroflex flap or trill (Bernabela 2011: 23–25; Simeone-Senelle 1997: 383).
Kumzari lacks sonority restrictions in its consonant clusters. Thus there are many
words that violate the sonority sequencing principle (i. e. nasals, liquids, and
approximants are found at the edges of a syllable, even outside a less sonorous con-
sonant): mṣaww ‘barnacle’, faql ‘porcupine fish’, rkāḥ ‘sandal’, ntōr ‘treats’. This
may be due to vowel elision in a reduced syllable, similar to the process in other
Bedouin Arabic dialects that allow initial consonant clusters (Watson 2012: 901).
All non-marginal consonants1 are found in both first and second positions in
initial and coda clusters. There are also no restrictions on word-internal consonant
sequences across syllable boundaries. Most consonants in Kumzari form gemi-
nates, and consonant clusters separate at syllable boundaries.
The minimal syllable structure in Kumzari is CV. The following syllable shapes
occur in monomorphemic words:
CV pi ‘from’
CVV čō ‘well’
CVC kaf ‘palm, sole’
CVVC xōx ‘peach’
CVCC bukr ‘firstborn’
CVVCC qāpṭ ‘white fish sp.’
CCVV xwā ‘salt’
CCVVC qbīb ‘narrow’
CCVCC mṣarr ‘men’s headdress (turban)’
CCVVCC stārg ‘star’
1
I. e. all consonants except glottals, semi-vowels, and /ḷ/.
630 Christina van der Wal Anonby
Words of a single syllable and a short vowel must be closed; with a long vowel
they may be open or closed syllables. Kumzari has penultimate syllable stress.
Words with more than three syllables are rare.
Phonological processes that facilitate conformity to syllable limitations in
Kumzari include assimilation, insertion, deletion, and resyllabification.
Word-final vowels ū and ī assimilate to w and y with the addition of a suffix:
gēdū ‘water-pipe’, gēdw-ē ‘a water-pipe’; qrādī ‘bull shark’, qrādy-ē ‘a bull shark’.
When the the definite suffix –ō is added, i may be lowered to ē or backed to u and a
raised and u lowered to ō: battil ‘dhow’, battēl-ō ‘the dhow’; rikd ‘corner’, rukd-ō
‘the corner’; langal ‘anchor’, langōl-ō ‘the anchor’; ğambur ‘niche’, ğambōr-ō
‘the niche’.
Verb suffixes Realis –d and Perfect–s prompt the insertion of an epenthetic
vowel u for verb roots ending in a single consonant and ī for verb roots with a final
consonant cluster: gnūn ‘believe’, real gnūnud, perf gnūnus; gird ‘go around’,
real girdīd, perf girdīs. The same verb suffixes may affect the deletion of r in
verb roots ending in that phoneme: ēnar ‘hide’, real ēnid, perf ēnis, or the r may
be retained as a flap (lenition) in the place of Realis –d: ōdur ‘hold on’, real ōdur,
perf ōdus.
Other cases of deletion in Kumzari are Imperfect prefix t- before alveolar-ini-
tial verb roots and the replacement of initial w with the Imperfect prefix: jōr ‘ask’,
imperf jōr; wāt ‘want’, imperf tāt, as well as elision of initial y in an unstressed
word following a short vowel-final word: inda yē ‘inside it’ > indē.
When a morpheme is added to a word ending with a consonant cluster, the final
consonant joins the affixed syllable: bukr ‘firstborn’ CVCC, buk.r-ō ‘the firstborn’
CVC.CVV. Resyllabification also occurs with the Semitic prefix mu- on a syllable
with a long vowel or a geminated coda; the u is deleted and the m becomes part of
an initial consonant cluster in Kumzari: mḥāfiḍ ‘governor’, mrād ‘reason’.
Multiple phonological processes may occur to adhere to phonotactic constraints
when suffixes are added, particularly in maintaining penultimate syllable stress.
In the word tarqit ‘wedding poem’ with the definite suffix tēruqt-ō ‘the wedding
poem’, a is raised and fronted to ē, i is deleted, and an epenthetic u is inserted.
3. Word Classes
Word classes include noun, pronoun, verb, deverb, adjective, demonstrative, quan-
tifier, numeral, adverb, evidential, preposition, and clitics or particles functioning
in negation, subordination, interrogative, existential, and discourse roles.
Kumzari 631
Nouns in Kumzari have no case or gender, but are inflected with definite (–ō),
indefinite (-ē), or plural (–an) suffixes, being generic by default: qiṣr ‘palace’,
qiṣr-ō ‘the palace’, qiṣr-ē ‘a palace’, qiṣr-an ‘palaces’. Counted items take no
plural suffix; instead the count suffix -ta is on the number: gōsin ‘goat’, di-ta
gōsin ‘two goats’; its equivalent for counting humans is kas. The exception is inal-
ienable nouns, which take both the count suffix -ta on the number and the plural
suffix -an: kōrk- ‘son’, af-ta kōrk-an ‘seven sons’. Certain nouns can be abstract
plurals, implying a state of affairs or a period of time, and similar semantics:
šartağ ‘storm’, šartağ-an ‘season of stormy weather’; aqil ‘mountain’, aqil-an
‘mountainous region’.
Kumzari has a derivational suffix -īn- that turns a noun into an agent of that
nominal property: ‘the one who (uses n.)’: jāmal ‘camel’, jāmalīnō ‘the cam-
el-rider’. The resulting noun is obligatorily inflected with a definite, indefinite, or
plural suffix. Another derivational suffix is –ī. It makes a noun into an adjective or
abstraction of that nominal property: indur ‘inside’, indurī ‘inner’. A derivational
suffix –ītī forms an adverb when appended to a noun, deverb, or adjective: wuxr-ītī
‘instantly’.
Pronouns follow a noun phrase to modify it, or can stand as independent pro-
nouns. There are three personal pronouns, each with a singular and a plural form,
indicated in the table below. The same forms are used as possessive pronouns
following the noun: xistar yē ‘her fiancé’. Singular personal pronouns also have
emphatic forms as shown in the following table.
The reflexive pronoun xō is obligatory for an argument that agrees with the subject
of the verb. Kumzari has a proximal demonstrative pronoun yā, a distal demon-
strative pronoun yē, and a relative pronoun ar, as well as seven interrogative pro-
nouns: kē ‘who’, čē ‘what’, giya ‘where’, kāy ‘when’, čāb ‘how’, kārim ‘which’,
and čanta ‘how many’. In the absence of an interrogative pronoun, the clause-final
interrogative enclitic =ā indicates a yes-no question.
Nouns can function as subjects, objects, or adverbial complements of move-
ment verbs such as ‘go’, ‘come’, and ‘arrive’:
632 Christina van der Wal Anonby
Kumzari has both verbs and deverbs, deriving from its dual heritage languages.
Verbs are of Indo-European origin. Deverbs are of Semitic origin, usually in the
form CaCaCa2. Properties of deverbs are listed in the table below. Deverbs can
form predicates with the existential enclitic or in a compound with a light verb.
2
Detailed information on Kumzari deverbs can be found in van der Wal Anonby 2015.
Kumzari 633
through stem alternation determines word class. Adverbs are derived from deverbs
through the addition of a Kumzari suffix. Derived forms can be inflected accord-
ing to their new word class.
Deverbs derive to nouns with deletion of the second vowel (or raising in quad-
riliteral roots) and addition of the suffix –it to the form CaCCit.
baraẓa (dv.) ‘appeared, appearing’
barẓit (n.) ‘appearance’
Deverbs derive to adjectives in the form CaCC.
qayama (dv.) ‘stood, standing’
qaym (adj.) ‘upright’
Deverbs derive to adverbs by adding the suffix –iti (dropping the final a is mor-
phophonemic).
čaraxa (dv.) ‘straddled, straddling’
čaraxītī (adv.) [e. g. sitting] ‘astride’
Verbs with simple morphology have one stem serving all verb forms. Verbs of
more complex morphological type, namely -ft and –št verbs and b- and w- verbs,
have one root to build the Realis and Perfect forms and a second simpler root as
the basis of the Imperfect, Imperative, Irrealis, and Mirative forms.
Examples of simple and complex verb paradigms are given in the tables below.
In addition to these, Kumzari has a large number of irregular finite verbs with idi-
osyncratic inflection paradigms. The most common irregular verbs are ām ‘come’;
dār, dōʾ ‘give’; gid, ka ‘do’; gid, gir ‘take’; jīr, mēš ‘see’; raft, čō, rō ‘go’; wābur,
tōʾ ‘become’.
Some Arabic varieties of Oman and the UAE have a similar distinction; that is, an
object as a noun or a pronoun determines morphological marking on their verbal
participles (Holes 1990: 48).
Each verbal complement is negated and subordinated separately in addition to
the verb. Elements in a compound verb share negation and subordination.
Kumzari has several auxiliary verbs. Generally these occur with another verb
to indicate modality. They precede the verb or compound, and the verb phrase
syntax functions the same as a verb without an auxiliary.
Verb goal arguments are clause-final and take no preposition. They encompass
locative, benefactive, and instrumental complements. Factive verb phrases have
the same syntax, with the entity that is “coming into existence” at the end of the
clause. Factive syntax is used in the narrative exposition formula to introduce a
character.
(6) raft mardk-ē wa ẓank-ē
go:3s.real man-a and woman-a
‘There was a man and a woman’ (U9)
(7) sīd-in šan madrēsit-ō.
put:real -3 p 3 p school–the
‘They put them in the school.’ (B175)
(8) gardīd-iš xō ṭēr–ē.
turn_into:real -3s refl bird–a
‘He turned himself into a bird.’ (B231)
Kumzari has truncated verbal marking in subordinated clauses, serial verb con-
structions, and clause chains, where the full form marked with aspect, modality,
mirativity, person, and number is in the main clause or final verb. Verbs in such
multi-verb constructions generally share a subject.
Kumzari 637
6. Existentials
The existential enclitic is uninflected for tense, aspect, mood, voice, and mirativ-
ity properties, distinguishing only the person and number. It is clause-final and
requires a complement in its function as a predicate in a clause. It is not compatible
with another verb, suggesting that it may have emerged historically by dropping
the *h-verb stem, then broadening the pronominal endings’ scope to accommodate
all non-verbal predicates, at some point before Middle Persian adopted the istad
forms. Existential enclitics are formally different from both pronominal verbal
suffixes and possessive pronouns.
Existentials cliticise to the end of any word class or phrase other than verbs; in
doing so they undergo morphophonemic alternation, e. g. with an epenthetic glottal
stop following a vowel.
Existentials can take existential, ascriptive, and identificational predicates
(Pustet 2003). The three semantic types of predicates with an existential are given
below.
(9) [existential predicate]
ka pi yē si-ta=in ā, ka pi yē bātar!
if from 3s three-count =ex :3 p sub if from 3s better
‘If there were three of them, it would have been even better!’ (K597)
(10) [ascriptive predicate]
ammū šan ẓank-an=in yaʾnī.
all 3p woman-pl =ex :3 p that_is_to_say
‘That is to say, all of them were women.’ (S419)
(11) [identificational predicate]
tō aḥmad=ī? mē aḥmad tka=um.
2 s ahmad=ex :2 s 1s ahmad “does-it”=ex :1s
‘You are Ahmad?’ ‘I am Ahmad-Does-It.’ (A110)
638 Christina van der Wal Anonby
7. Negation
The particle of negation in Kumzari is na. The negative follows the constituent
being negated. Post-constituent negation is not found in Iranian languages or
Arabic. However, it is a “remarkable” distinguishing feature of the South Arabian
languages of Oman (Waltisberg 2011: 319), and is possibly an innovation in these
languages (Watson and Eades 2012: 3).
The negative is marked on the verb and on each post-verbal complement.
(12) mēy-ō fōšnīs-um ba šmā, jōʾar-ō fōšnīs-um na ba
fish–the sell:perf -1s to 2 p pearl–the sell:perf -1s neg to
šmā na.
2p neg
‘I sold the fish to you; I did not sell the pearl to you.’ (K117)
Direct objects and deverbs in a compound are not negated separately.
(13) skafya k–ē na pi mē na.
concealing do:imper -2 p neg from 1s neg
‘Don’t conceal from me.’ (S339)
An object in the form of a full noun precedes the verb, and thus does not take the
negative. When the object is a pronoun, it follows the verb, and the negative parti-
cle then follows the object pronoun. The contrasting syntax between full noun and
pronoun objects is shown in the following pair of examples:
(14) dar-ō twākš-um na.
door–the open:impf -1s neg
‘I will not open the door.’ (S771)
(15) twākš-um yē na.
open:impf -1s 3s neg
‘I will not open it.’ (S775)
The South Arabian language Mehri also varies negation syntax depending on
whether a noun or pronoun is used (Rubin 2010: 265).
Prohibitive and negation of existential enclitics follow the same syntax: na
follows the verb and each complement thereafter. In rejection, however, the nega-
tive particle precedes its referent.
(16) na baẓẓā wa na bīdar!
neg beggar and neg peasant
‘Neither beggar nor peasant!’ (B851)
Kumzari 639
8. Evidentials
9. Discourse particles
10. Prepositions
11. Adjectives
12. Demonstratives
Kumzari has two demonstratives: proximal yā and distal yē. Unlike possessive
pronouns, they precede the noun they modify, and must accompany it; they cannot
stand alone. The noun they modify takes the definite suffix –ō.
(31) yē čāb kin, yē ṣāḥar-ō ā? gardīdiš
3s how do:mir dem sorcerer-the interr turn_into:3s.real
xō ṭēr–ē.
refl bird-a
‘How did he do it, that sorcerer? He turned himself into a bird.’ (B228)
644 Christina van der Wal Anonby
13. Quantifiers
14. Adverbs
15. Clauses
15.1.1. Coordination
Coordinated clauses in Kumzari are linked by conjunction, disjunction, adversa-
tive coordination, or causal coordination. Each has its own set of linking forms.
Conjunction uses wa ‘and’ or ka ‘also’ between clauses, with their subjects
having coreferential or disjoint reference.
(41) ḥubbō-ō xaṭṭ-ē kataba gid-iš.
grandmother-the message-a writing do:real -3s
‘The grandmother wrote a message.’
(42) wāqā gid-in wa fānd-in yē.
signature do:real -3 p and send:real -3 p 3s
They signed and they sent it.’ (P348)
The consecutive conjunction ka preceding each phrase marks listing parallelism
with multiple coordinands (Haspelmath 2007: 15).
(43) šaw ā, ka maylat gid-in, wa ka ammū
night sub list wedding.poetry do:real -3 p and list all
‘At night, also they did the Maylad [poetry], and also
čī gid-in wa ka srō kēšid-in
thing do:real -3 p and list sung_poetry pull:real -3 p
they did everything, and also they sang the Sro [poetry],
wa ṭiya būr-in.
and finished become:real -3 p
and they finished.’ (S632)
Causal coordination uses ka alone.
(44) xalaqa ba yē ka tāt-um dig-um yē
(good)_looks to 3s so want:impf -1s take:impf -1s 3s
šū-ī.
husband-advr
‘He is handsome, so I want to take him as a husband.’ (B773)
Disjunction uses waḷa ‘or’ between the two elements, or the emphatic form wana
‘either, or’ preceding each clause for multiple coordinands (Haspelmath 2007: 15).
(45) kam ğāẓ dō-um ba yē waḷa ṣirx tāt-a
how_much money give:impf -1s to 3s or gold want:irr -3s
ā,
sub
‘I will give her however much money, or if she wants gold,
Kumzari 647
15.2. Subordination
Subordination in Kumzari uses four types of multiple verb constructions: rela-
tive clauses, clause chains, adverbial clauses, and complement clauses. All signal
clause relationships through the subordinating enclitic =ā, which occurs clause-fi-
nally and has allomorphs =ō, =wā, and =yā.
(48) bard–in yā jitt-ō ō, dakka yē gid-in
carry:real -3 p this corps -the sub burying 3s do:real -3 p
inda maqbart-ō.
in grave-the
‘Carrying this corpse, they buried it in the grave.’ (A290)
In a subordinated clause, the subordinator is obligatorily marked on every comple-
ment of the verb. The enclitic ā follows both the verb and the verbal complement.
(49) wa āmad-in ā ba xwā ā, bang-an.
if/when come:real -3 p sub for salt sub dusk-pl
‘When they came for the salt, it was nightfall.’ (B649)
Adverbial clauses and complement clauses take the subordinating enclitic ā clause-
finally.
(50) tē ba rēs-a ba y’=ā, grab-ō pōrid.
before to arrive:irr -3s to 3s =sub crow-the fly:3s.real
‘Before he reached it, the crow flew away.’ (G221)
(51) mār, aqrab inda yē ā, dām na.
snake scorpion in 3s sub know:1 s . impf neg
‘I don’t know [whether] there was snake or scorpion in it.’ (P110)
648 Christina van der Wal Anonby
16. Discourse
Kumzari discourse uses particles, formulae, verb forms, and other means to struc-
ture a text and achieve coherence.
16.1. Formulae
There are two kinds of formula in Kumzari: narrative and thematic. Narrative for-
mulae have conventional wording and occur obligatorily once in every narrative
text. Thematic formulae recur throughout the text but are idiosyncratic for each
narrative.
There are only four narrative formulae: two in the exposition (qiṣṣitē wa ḥakāy-
itē ‘a story and a telling’, raft yēkē ‘there went someone’), and two in the conclu-
sion (tō raftī wa mi āmadum ‘you went and I came’, xalaṣ ‘the end’). Thematic
formulae are closely linked to content in a narrative (Kossmann 2000: 75), and
may resemble proverbs. A single thematic formula specific to a particular narrative
is repeated at several points in the text.
16.3.1. Exposition
The aperture contains one or both of the narrative formulae opening the tale. The
introduction gives background information in the form of characters and setting. It
is generally verbless, with much lexical repetition and paraphrase.
The nodus extends the setting before any pivot in the tale, by presenting the the-
matic problem, complication, or conflict; it usually focuses on wealth or lineage.
The nodus is generally speechless and verbless and contains much repetition and
parallelism.
16.3.2. Body
The inciting incident is the initial event that directs the course of the narrative. It
begins immediately with Realis verb forms and the text’s first instance of direct
speech and culminates in the main character leaving home (see “absentation”
Propp 1968: 26). The intentus is a series of ascending pivots, with straightfor-
ward description of action and little repetition. Grounding develops tension in this
narreme.
Pivots are initiated with the discourse particles tamna and bīyō and conclude
with lumrād. The accalmie provides a lull in the action, containing backgrounded
information that draws out tension to highlight the peak. There is much repetition,
lists, embedded poems, and the low-prominence discourse particles sā and ‘čāb
kin?.
The peak represents the high point of the plot, with the opening of conflict pre-
sented in the nodus. Speech is replaced by action and there is the “crowded stage”
Kumzari 653
effect with all characters present. The evidential tamna and Mirative verb forms
are used along with foregrounding discourse particles ka, amū, and sā sā. After
the peak, the dénouement cools the conflict. It still has Mirative and Realis verb
forms, but features quoted speech prominently and uses backgrounding discourse
particles lumrād and filhal to summarise information.
16.3.3. Conclusion
The coda resolves the nodus, with the central character returning home in success.
It uses Realis verbs, no speech, and often includes an explanation directed to the
audience. The coda is followed immediately by the finis formulae, and then an
interactive epilogue that summarises the narrative theme (cf. Utas 2006: 227).
Abbreviations
References
Eades, Domenyk. 2009. The Arabic dialect of a Šawāwī community of northern Oman. In
Enam Al-Wer & Rudolf de Jong (eds.), Arabic Dialectology: In honour of Clive Holes
on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, 77–98. Leiden: Brill.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Coordination. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Complex Constructions
(Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 2), 1–51. New York: Cambridge
University.
Hawley, Donald. 1970. The Trucial States. London: Allen & Unwin.
Holes, Clive D. 1990. Gulf Arabic (Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars). London: Rout-
ledge.
Hopper, Paul J. 1979. Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Dis-
course and syntax (Syntax and Semantics, vol. 12), 213–241. London: Academic Press.
Jayakar, A. S. G. 1902. The Shahee dialect of Arabic. Journal of the Bombay Branch of the
Royal Asiatic Society 4. 246–277.
Johanson, Lars & Bo Utas (eds.). 2000. Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring
languages (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 24). Berlin & Boston: De
Gruyter Mouton.
King, Geoffrey R. 2001. The coming of Islam and the Islamic period in the UAE. In Ibra-
him al Abed & Peter Hellyer (eds.), United Arab Emirates: A new perspective, 70–97.
London: Trident Press.
Kossmann, Maarten. 2000. A Study of eastern Moroccan fairy tales (Folklore Fellows’
Communications 274). Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia Academia Scientiarum
Fennica.
Lancaster, William O. & Fidelity C. Lancaster. 2011. Honour is in contentment: Life before
oil in Ras al-Khaimah (UAE) and some neighbouring regions. Berlin & Boston: De
Gruyter.
Lorimer, John G. 1915. Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf, Oman, and Central Arabia. Calcutta:
Superintendent Government Printing.
McWhorter, John H. 2007. Language interrupted: Signs of non-native acquisition in stand-
ard language grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miles, Samuel B. 1994. The countries and tribes of the Persian Gulf. Reading, UK: Garnet
Publishing.
Nadjmabadi, Shahnaz. 1988. Identité ethnique contre nationalité: Le cas de l’île Larak
(Golfe Persique). In Jean-Pierre Digard (ed.), Le fait ethnique en Iran et en Afghanistan,
65–74. Paris: Editions du CNRS.
Neale, John Mason. 1873. A History of the Holy Eastern Church. London: Rivingtons.
Palgrave, William Gifford. 1866. Narrative of a Year’s Journey through Central and East-
ern Arabia (1862–63), vol. 2, 3rd edn. London: MacMillan.
Payne, Thomas Edward. 1997. Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Potts, Daniel. 2012. In the land of the Emirates: The archaeology and history of the UAE.
Abu Dhabi: Trident Press and Sultan bin Zayed’s Culture and Media Centre.
Propp, Vladimir. 1968. Morfologiia skazki [The morphology of the folktale]. Austin,
U.S. A.: American Folklore Society.
Pustet, Regina. 2003. Copulas: Universals in the categorization of the lexicon. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
al-Rawas, Isam. 2000. Oman in early Islamic history. Reading, UK: Garnet & Ithaca Press.
658 Christina van der Wal Anonby
Ross, Edward C. 1874. Annals of Oman. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 43. 111–
196.
Rubin, Aaron D. 2010. The Mehri language of Oman. Leiden: Brill.
Simeone-Senelle, Marie-Claude. 1997. Modern South Arabian languages. In Robert Hetz-
ron (ed.), The Semitic languages, 378–423. London: Routledge.
Skjærvø, Prods Oktor. 1989. Languages of southeast Iran: Lārestānī, Kumzārī, Baškardī.
In Rüdiger Schmitt (ed.), Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, 363–369. Wiesbaden:
Reichart.
Stilo, Donald. 2004. Coordination in three Western Iranian languages: Vafsi, Persian and
Gilaki. In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Coordinating constructions, 269–330. Amsterdam
& Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Thomas, Bertram. 1930. The Kumzari dialect of the Shihuh tribe (Musandam), Arabia, and
a vocabulary. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 62(4). 785–854.
Ulrich, Brian John. 2008. Constructing Al-Azd: Tribal identity and society in the Early
Islamic centuries. Ann Arbor, U.S. A.: ProQuest.
Utas, Bo. 2006. ‘Genres’ in Persian literature 900–1900. In Gunilla Lindberg-Wada (ed.),
Literary history: Towards a global perspective, vol. 2, 199–241. Berlin & Boston: De
Gruyter.
Waltisberg, Michael. 2011. Syntactic typology of Semitic. In Stefan Weninger (ed.), The
Semitic languages: An international handbook, 303–329. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter
Mouton.
Watson, Janet C.E. & Domenyk Eades. 2012. Documentation and ethnolinguistic analy-
sis of the Modern South Arabian languages. Leverhulme Trust Project Grant outline.
http://www.salford.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/173010/MSALProjectInforma
tion.pdf (accessed 16 February 2013).
Watson, Janet C.E. 2012. Dialects of the Arabian Peninsula. In Stefan Weninger (ed.), The
Semitic Languages: An international handbook, 897–908. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter
Mouton.
Zwemer, Samuel Marinus. 1902. Three journeys in northern Oman. The Geographical
Journal 19(1). 54–64.
5. The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan:
Caspian and Tatic
Donald L. Stilo
1. Introduction
This chapter focuses on two Northwest Iranian (NWI) families to the south and
west of the Caspian Sea, Caspian and Tatic. The internal relationships of these
languages remains a topic of controversy; the presentation adopted here follows
Stilo (1981). Much of the data stems from fieldwork undertaken in the region in the
1970’s, but supplemented by more recent published data. The Caspian group rep-
resents one long, unbroken dialect chain extending some 500 km from the Mazan-
derani (Māzanderāni) dialects of the Gorgān area in the east to the Gilaki dialects
of Anzali in the west. Within Caspian, a major division occurs between Eastern
Gilaki (EG) and Western Gilaki (WG), whose boundary is formed by the Sefidrud
river. WG includes the dialects of Rasht, Fuman, Anzali, and EG includes Lāhijāni,
Langerudi, Māchiāni, among others. In addition, I consider the transitional dialects
roughly of the area from Chālus to Rāmsar to be a third “Central Caspian” language.
The Tatic family consists of: A) highly diverse Tati (Tāti) dialects that are
sparsely spread over a discontinuous area extending from Vafsi in the south near
Saveh to Kilit (now extinct) of Nakhichevan/Naxjavān province of the Republic
of Azerbaijan north of the Araxes; B) Talyshi (Ṭāleshi/Taleshi in Iranian sources),
ranging from the northernmost dialect of the Masally area of Azerbaijan to the
Rudbār valley in Iran; and C) “Tatoid”, two Tati-like offshoots, Rudbāri and Tāle-
qāni/Alamuti, as discussed below. Also note the usage of “Talysh people”/”the
Talysh” vs. “the Talyshi language”.
These sub-groups and varieties are summarized in the following list. The
numbers in parentheses refer to the numbering in Fig. 1 below:
Caspian
Mazanderani (1)
Central Caspian (2)
Ramsar, Tonekabon, Kelardasht
Eastern Gilaki (3)
Lahijan, Langerud, Machian
Western Gilaki (4)
Rasht, Fuman, Anzali
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-019
660 Donald L. Stilo
Tatic
Tati
S. Tati (7)
C. Tati (8)
N. Tati (9)
Talyshi
S. Talyshi (10)
C. Talyshi (11)
C.-N. transitional (12)
N. Talyshi (13)
Tatoid
Taleqāni-Alamut Tatoid (5)
Rudbār Tatoid (6)
In this chapter, I have singled out four varieties to represent the four main groups
discussed here for more detailed treatment: Sāravi (Mazanderani), Lāhijāni (Gila-
ki), Leriki (N. Talyshi), and Vafsi (Tati), but other, especially undocumented,
varieties will be introduced when space permits.
the Araxes in the north and southwards to Saveh and Arak, and are sparsely dis-
tributed among villages that generally only support small populations. Notable
exceptions are the Tākestān area, Kolur, and Vafs. At least half of the populations
speaking the latter two are located in Tehran, although they retain regular contact
with their villages.
It should also be noted that in the last 40–50 years, the major cities along the
Caspian coast in the Talyshi language zone, especially in Iran, have become pre-
dominately Azerbaijani Turkish speaking (due to in-migration). Today we find the
majority of Talyshi speakers in villages outside the major cities.
Talyshi-speaking groups
Charozh is a type of Central Talyshi (< čarāj ‘a Talyshi tribe of Iran’ (‘Abdoli
Koluri 1992: 43)), spoken by some 100–200 people in Sarak and Degadi in the
Astara Talyshi-speaking area in the Republic of Azerbaijan. As Sunnis who felt
some persecution in Shiite Iran, they were invited by Tsarist Russia to resettle
north of the border soon after the 1828 Treaty of Turkmanchay. While Charozh has
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic 665
Tati-speaking groups
Dikin, a village of 850 inhabitants at the time of my visit in 1976, located to
the northeast of Qazvin city in the Alamut valley (Stilo 2018b), has three dif-
ferent groups reflecting a divide between: A) adherents of a secret sect found in
the Alamut area who call themselves “Marāqei” or “Kalle-bozi (Goathead)”, who
speak Dikin-Marāqei (ca. 500 people), and the regular Shiite villagers (called
“Pashei (Mosquito)” by the Marāqeis), who speak either B) Dikin-Pashei, a typical
Alamuti (Tatoid) dialect of the area, or C) standard Tehrani Persian as a first lan-
guage. Marāqei groups are found in some 16 villages in the area where they only
coexist with non-Marāqei Shiites and have no villages exclusively of their own.
Marāqei dialects are generally of a highly conservative Tati type (§4.2), very dif-
ferent and unintelligible to the Tatoid “Pashei”.
Vafsi (Stilo 2004a), spoken in four villages (the Vafs-Chehreqān-Fark cluster
and Gurchān, somewhat removed), has a seemingly very complex history. It is often
classified with either Tati (Stilo 1981), the Central Dialect group (Lecoq 1989),
or as transitional between them (Redard 1970). In my opinion, it reflects a Tatic
admixture from farther north overlaying a Central Dialect substratum, as seen in
certain shared innovations typical of N. Tati, not found in Southern Tati. There is
an additional stratum of a Kurdish-speaking group, yet to be determined. This area
has attracted many different groups, as it is a highly fertile, high mountainous plain
endowed with a wide variety of orchards that extend for kilometers around the
villages and is especially attractive for its cooler weather in the summer months.
My views on this complex layering in the history of Vafsi is a topic for future
publication.
Kafteji and Kelāsi, spoken in Kafti and Kelās (Pers. Kabate and Kalās), are
located just within Rudbār district of Gilan province and are the easternmost of
the Tāromi cluster. In the early 1970s the villages, located some 12 km apart with
no intervening villages, consisted of about 350 inhabitants each. With the socio-
economic upheavals of the 1970s, however, almost all the villagers left for larger
cities and industrial centers.
Table 2A: Some common lexemes across the Caspian continuum
666
FEATURE Rashti Lāhijāni Galeshi Langerudi Rāmsari Tonkāboni Kelārdašti1 Kandelusi2 Sāravi Velātrui Urei Elāšti Xatirabadi
crow kəlač, kəlaj kəlaj, kəlač kelač kelač kelač, kælač kelaj, kælač kelaq
kəlaq qæla kelaq
throw, i-/ to-da gent, də- (r) tæ-væ-d ingæt enget ængen d-i(n)gu engess ængæn* d-engo
drop-pt də-gad, əgəne, gəne, (pres.)
ta-vəda tua-da tua-da
Donald L. Stilo
boy re(y), rikə pəsər rikə væčæ, væče rika rika rika ri:kɔ rika rika væče
re(e)k reka
sister xaxur xaxor xaxor xaxor xaxor xaxor xaxor xaxer xaxer xɔxɛr xaxer xaxɛr
buy-pr hin hen hin hi(n) hin xær xærin xær xrin xær
burn-pr suj suj suj suj suj suj suj suz suj
cook-pr pəz, pəč pəč puč puč pač, poč poč pæč pæjon pæj, pej, pæj
pej peč
louse səbəj subuj subuj subuj səbəj, espej esbij esbij esbij
osboj
nose vini dəmaγ vini vini vini fini veni feni vɛni veni feni dɛmaγ
*Forms unavailable for Elāšti (Pahlavān 2003) were supplied by Yuši data (Tāhbāz 1963), another mountainous dialect
1
Kelārdašti material is from Kalbāsi 1376/1997
2
Kandelusi material is from Jahāngiri, ’AliAsghar 1367/1988
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic 667
Rashti Lāhijan Galeši Langrudi Māč3 Rāmsar Tonkab Kelrdšt Sāravi Urei Elašti Kordxl Xatirb
down jir jir jir jir jir jir jir jir zir jer zɛr
(jir)
hungry višta gušnə vəšnə gursənəy vešna vešna væšna vešna væšna vešna vešna gašnI
kidney fək væk γolve qolve qolbe qolve
Donald L. Stilo
pull out, birun avər kən kən kən kæn kæn boj kæn
take off (clothes)
seed tuxm tuxm tuxm, tum tuxm toxm, tum toxm, tum tim tim tim tim, toxm
sew-pr duz duz duj duj duj, duz duj duj duj duj, duz
snow berf, vərf berf, vərf vərf bərf, vərf værf værf, bærf bærf værf, bærf bærf værf varf værf
son-in-law damad damad zomə damad zoma zoma zama zoma domad damad domad damad
tear (drop) ašk ašk osïru osure æseri æsli æsli
up (jor) jor jor jəwr jor jor (bu)jor jar, jor jor bala yor bala
weave, knit baf baf vaj aj vaf b~vof
wolf gurg gurg gurg vərg verg verg verg verg verg verg vɛrg
3
Māčiāni material is from Farzpur-Māčiāni 1964, 1965
Table 2C: Intra-Caspian lexical isoglosses
Item Rashti Lāhijāni Galeshi Langrud Māčiān Rāmsari Tonkbn Kelārdš Kandlus Sāravi Velātrui Ure Elašti Xatirbd
1 3
1 sparrow čičini čušnək məljə čiš(ə)nək meljæ milje melje mička mička, mička~ mi:ška mička jika
(1, 5) məlijə miška mijka
2 child zay, zaak zak, zaak zæk/zak væčæ væčə væčče væč(č)e væčæ væče væčæ væče væče væče
kočtay kulə/-tə
3 large, pile, pila, pillə pile, pillə pilla, gætə gæt gæt, kæl gætæ, gæt gæt gæt gæt gæt
big (4, pil(l)ə pildanI pilæči gæt
12)
4 throw, ta-vəda, to-da gent, tua-da, ægent1 tæ-væ-d ingæt enget ængen d-i(n)gu engess d-ingu d-engo
drop-pt i-/də-gad tua-da, də- (r) ‘put’
əgəne gəne
5 sparrow čičini čušnək məljə čiš(ə)nək meljæ1 milje melje mička mička, mička~ mi:ška mička1 jika
(1, 5) məlijə miška mijka
6 ant (6, mur(čə), pitar pitar pitar potor putar mælije mejilæ melije mɛjile melije melijI
14) putur
7 cat (7, piča pičə pičə pičə püča puča/ə piča piča bameši bameši bæmši bamši bamši
17)
8 hole surax, sulax luk, luk, sulax luka, luka veher, le:x, sulax li selax
xulə sulaγ surəx loxar, ve:he:r
lex
9 spider labdon labdon labdon kartælæm karton kartæn vænnali bænd kartænæk2
10 lip ləb ləb, məč məčí tok tok tek, loše tek, lo: tek, lo, lu:šæ tek, læb
məččə luče luš(ɛ)
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic
669
Item Rashti Lāhijāni Galeshi Langrud Māčiān Rāmsari Tonkbn Kelārdš Kandlus Sāravi Velātrui Ure Elašti Xatirbd
670
11 girl kor(ta) laku laku laku kija kija kija kija kija kija kija kija kija dɛtɛr
12 large, pile, pila, pillə pile/ə, pilla, gætə gæt gæt, kæl gætæ, gæt gæt gæt gæt, gæt
big (4, pil(l)ə pildanI pilowtI pilæči gæt gæti
12)
13 broom ja:ru jaru jaru jaru taru toru saje saje sajæ saze sɔ:jɛ sazæ2
Donald L. Stilo
14 ant (6, mur(čə), pitar pitar pitar potor putar mælije mejilæ melije mɛjile mejile melije melijI
14) putur
15 come! bía be biæ bíæ boro (y)a beru bɛru~bɔro beru bía
1
16 self xu~xo, xu xu xo, xu, xoštə(rə) xoštɛrɛ, šer še: še, xod xæ, xɛ, še, še xaš,
xud- xud xod- xod- xɔd- xed- xad-
17 cat (7, piča pičə pičə pičə püča puča/ə piča piča bameši bameši bæmši bamši bamši
17)
1) Forms unavailable for Māčiāni were supplied by Vājārgāhi data (Amirzādeh-Vājārgāh 1375/1996), some 10 km to the east of Māčiān.
2) Forms unavailable for Elāšti were supplied by Yuši data, another mountainous dialect.
3) Forms unavailable for Velātrui were filled in by Shahpoli in the same region.
Table 2D
Gloss Northern Tati Northern Talyshi C. Talyshi Southern Talyshi Central Tati
4 5
Harzani Keringān Kalāsuri N.Talyshi Viznei Jowkand Asālemi Māsāli Māsulei Kajali Koluri Karani Nowkiāni Kafteji
1 lip lev löbüt löbüd lïpüt, lïv lev lev liv ləb, lev læv bik
læfe
5 break- sisd sist sist si, pe-si e-(š)ši iši (a-)čækəst čækæ čækæ iškist čækis škes škes
pt/intr
6 laugh- sər, sir ser ser sïr sər xur xændæ xænnæ k xor xur
pres k
8 small, vede(k) güdæ güdæ gædæ, gəč, geč ruk ruk villæ velle, velleg xordæ
little rük geč
9 laugh- sər, sir ser ser sïr ser xur xændæ xænnæ k xænnæ k xor xor xur
pres k
10 frog qərbaqa bæzæzuq væzæx værzæk væzzæk værzæk guzga guzuka guzga guza bïzγaz
12 stomach gæd qædæ qædæ lævæ lævæ lævæ ternæ lævær ternæ škæm
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic
4
Harzani material is from Zoka 1336/1957
5
Keringāni materal is from Zoka 1332/1954
Pan-Tatic lexicon
672
The following is a small sampling of lexical items that all (or almost all) Tatic languages, not including Tatoid, share (also
found outside Tatic):
Table 2E
Item N.Talyši Asālemi Māsulei Harzani Kalāsur Kajali Koluri Karani Gandomāb Hezārrud Kafteji Dik.-Marāq Chāli Alviri Vafsi
Donald L. Stilo
daughter kinæ keɫæ kellæ kinæ kinæ détæ det détæ kina détæ détæ kina tétæ tetæ kelje
girl kinæ keɫæ kellæ kinæ kinæ killig kille kéllæ kelleg kilégæ kelékæ killig teti kenækǽ kelle
dog sïpæ esbæ esbæ əsba esbæ esbe espæ sebǽ sebæ sbæ esba æsbæ æsbæ æsbæ
flower vïl vəɫ gəl vel vel vel vel vélæ vəl* vélæ velæ vélæ
hole hïl xəɫ xəl henæ helæ xel xol líæ xöliyæ, holle
kidney vek vek verek qolba vek væk væk vék(k)æ vékæ vǽk(æ) vékkæ
shovel hi(y)æ xeyæ, xiæ xeyæ hiyæ xeyæ xeyǽ, xiǽ xuyǽ xuyǽ xeǽ xoyyæ xöyæ fíæ
burn-pr væš væš væš væš væš væš væš væši de-rgesen væš veš
jump-pr vašt væz væz næv dæ-væz væz de-væz* vaz k. væz væz, (j)jæ ö-væz væz
jump-pt vašt væšt væšt nævest dæ-væšt væšt de-væšt* væšt vašt væšt ö-væšt væsd
stand-pr ïndïn mon vənden* vendæ vendær vendær išt endar is a-vendær har-
vender
Rudbār city in the south to the northernmost Oskulak. The fertile Rudbār valley is
known for its olive groves and rice paddies. The dialects that I was able to identify
and record during multiple trips to the area in 1976 consist of: (west bank, Sefid-
rud) Rudbāri; Lakei; the Juban cluster (Jubani, Sarāmarzi, Bāboni, and others);
Rostamābādi (formerly Kalurazi); Jamshidābādi; Oskulaki; (east bank) Shahrāni,
Tutkāboni. To this list we can add the dialect of Dogowharân as presented in
Lazard (1990).
The other Tatoid group, Tāleqāni-Alamuti, consists of a dialect continuum
spoken in an extensive area more densely populated than most plateau village
areas. Its North-South extension extends from the highest Alborz villages to
the Karaj-Abyek areas south of the local highway. Its East-West breadth ranges
between the two major routes leading from the plateau through the Chālus and
Rudbār passes to the Caspian. The western dialects, along the Shāhrud river, to my
knowledge, have never been documented and it is not clear exactly how far they
extend and where Rudbāri and Gilaki take over. The area is also interspersed with
numerous Azeri and Kurmanji-speaking villages.
The only groups identified with labels until now are Tāleqāni and Alamuti,
spoken along the parallel and adjacent Tāleqān and Alamut rivers northeast of
Qazvin. The confluence of these two rivers forms the larger Shahrud river which in
turn helps form the Sefidrud. For convenience sake, I shall refer to this linguistic
continuum henceforth in this chapter as Tāleqāni with the understanding that it
also includes Alamuti.
Tāleqāni and Rudbāri merit a special status that I have called “Tatoid”. Both
groups, in my opinion, were originally Tati languages that lost all the structural
hallmarks of Tati under heavy Caspian and Persian influence. The only traces,
albeit not many, that hint at Tati origins are in the lexical domain, as seen in the
brief sample in Table 2F. Table 2F also hints at a larger study of lexical items
connecting Tāleqāni and Rudbāri to the Tatic and Caspian languages that are geo-
graphically closest to each of them — Kelārdashti and Chāli for Tāleqāni-Alamuti;
Kafteji/Kelāsi and Rashti for Rudbāri.
Table 2F: Lexical similarities between Tatoid groups and the Caspian families
674
cook-pr pəč pəč pæč pæč pej, peč pæč pæj pæč
crow kəlač qælač kelač kelač qolač qolač kelač
cry-pr gəryə (N) bəræm* gerye (N) (be)rmæm goræ (N) borme (N) berme (N)
down jir jir, jer jir jer jær, jæra jir jir jir jir
fall-pr dæ-kəf gen dæ-k(ah) gæn gen k- ki kow (dæ-)kæf
fall-pt dæ-kəft kæt dæ-kæt kæt de-kæt ke(t) kkæt kæt (dæ-)kæt
fox ruba los rubah luas luas luas luos ruba
girl kor kelékæ kilka(y) kelka teti dutær dotær kija
kidney fək* vǽkæ væk væk* væk,vurdu væk qolve
large pile pillæ pila pile pil(l)æ gæt* pil(o) gæt gæt
louse səbəj sbəj isbij šepeš espéjæ, f. espej osbəj esbij
mince-pr de-rjen ar-injin ænjin ænjæn enji (pt )* (æ)njæn dær-enj
sell-pr foruš xruš fruš ruš ruš (h)ruš ruš ruš
sell-pt foruxt xrut fruxt rut rut -yrut rut rut
sickle daz dáræ, f. dære dære
6
Gāzarxāni material is from Ivanow 1931.
G ilaki C. T ati R udbāri (T atoid ) S. T ati T āleqāni (T atoid ) C.C asp .
Alamut area6 Tāleqān
Rashti Kafteji-(Kelāsi) Tutkāboni Jubani Chāli Kelārdašti
L exeme Dikin-Pašei Gāzarxān Gurāni
son-in-law damad zama zama zama zo:ma zama zæma zeyma zoma
sparrow čičini mærgijə mælije mælije veškénjæ čuček melujæ čičok miška
wolf gurg værg gorg gorg vǽrgæ, f. verg verk verg
Alternates *Gāleši *Māsāli *Tākestāni *Owrāzāni
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic
675
676 Donald L. Stilo
3. Phonology
3.1. Consonants
The general consonant inventory for most of the languages presented here is:
Table 3A
Dental/
Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Uvular Laryngeal
voiceless p t č k (ʔ)
voiced b d j g q [g ]
voiceless f s š x [ʁ̥]
voiced v z h [ɦ]
m n
r
l
y
General observations:
• In all the languages of these groups, voiceless stops, except for /ʔ/, are aspi-
rated.
• In most languages /k/and /g/ are palatalized before front vowels and word-fi-
nally. In the Vafsi of Vafs, velars are not heavily palatalized but they are so in
Gurchān Vafsi. In Gilaki, most of Talyshi, and a few neighboring Tati languages,
these consonants are always unpalatalized. Palatalization has gone so far in
Sagzābādi that most velars have merged with the palatals before front as well
as back vowels, but not consistently: Front (voiceless) čærd ‘did’, mæmlečæt
‘country’, čöštæ ‘killed’, mömčen ‘possible’; (voiced) u-jir ‘pick up!’, vǽljæ
‘leaf’; Back (voiceless) čar ‘work’, ču(h) ‘mountain’, šečar ‘hunt(ing)’, čuæst
‘pounded’, (voiced) jow ‘want’ (< *gæv-); Unpalatalized veškenj ‘sparrow’,
mekæšest ‘pulled’, væk ‘kidney’; čærgæ ‘hen’, a-gærdæst ‘he returned’, gow
‘cow’ (see also Stilo 1994).
In Harzani, as in the local Azeri dialect, the palatalization of /k/ in final position
yields a subphonemic mid-palatal voiceless fricative [ç]; /čök/ [čöç] ‘good’.
Sokolova (1953: 113–114) lists non-palatalized vs. palatalized velars (/k/ vs.
/ḱ/, /g/ vs. /ǵ/) as separate phonemes in N. Talyshi. Neither Miller nor Pirejko
list them separately and there is no accommodation for them in the Latin or
Cyrillic alphabets used for Talyshi. In my own observations —although I never
singled this issue out for investigation— I have found that palatalized velars
exist independently in place names and in Azeri loans that are only partially
integrated into the Talyshi lexicon. Hence these phones should probably be
classified as marginal phonemes with a very low functional yield of the pala-
talized variants.
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic 677
• In Mazanderani and the languages of the plateau, the uvular /q/ (always voiced)
has 1) a stop phone [g ] in initial position or when geminated, 2) a fricative
phone [ʁ] (henceforth γ) in intervocalic position, and 3) either variant in final
position. I know of no contrasting examples of [g ] vs. [γ] in the languages of
this area.
In Gilaki and Talyshi, except in cases of heavy bilingualism with Persian, there
is no uvular stop variant and the phoneme only has the variant /γ/ throughout:
Rashti: γurbán [γurbǽ>n]7 ‘sacrifice’; Lāhijāni: γələ́m [γεlέm] ‘pen’; Māsulei:
γævi ‘strong’. This feature is a hallmark of a Gilaki or Talyshi accent in Persian.
• My observation is that /h/ is voiced [ɦ] throughout the area.
• The glottal stop is highly marginal and rare. It occurs in words of Arabic origin
and is a feature of erudite (and bilingual) speech and is generally elided.
• When an original syllable-final /h/ or /ʔ/ is elided, compensatory lengthening
in the neighboring vowel occurs: Sāravi šæ:r (~ šæhr) ‘city’, mæ:n (~ mænʔ)
‘obstacle’; Lāhijāni ma:kəmə (~ mahkəmə) ‘tribunal’; ta:rif (~ taʔrif) ‘defini-
tion’, Vafsi qæ:r (~ qæhr) ‘anger’, mæ:ni (~ mæʔni) ‘meaning’.
7
The superscript symbols > and < denote retracted and advanced vowel qualities respec-
tively.
678 Donald L. Stilo
to awa: ærvazom > báwazom ‘I say (present > Subjunctive)’ < *bǽvazom; yæv
‘barley’ vs. yawá ‘threshed barley’, but note the feminine morpheme in áwæ
‘water’. It seems, however, that the word vávæ ‘almond’ (*váwæ) contrasts
with áwæ, thus conferring phonemic status to both /v/ and /w/, but a fuller
statement must remain for future investigation. When only front vowels are
present, the [w] phone is not used: bǽvæ ‘take!’, dív/e ‘face/s’. The [v] allo-
phone is also retained in sequences of -iva-, e.g., ivan ‘threshing floor’, but not
-avi- > -ewi-.
Table 3B
Vafsi, Hezārrudi Razajerdi, Alviri, Chāli Koluri, Māsulei
Gandomābi, Nowkiāni Dikin-Marāqei, Kajali Kafteji-Kelāsi
F B F B F C B
i u i u i u
e o e ö o e ə o
æ a [ɒ] æ a [ɒ] æ a [ɒ]
One unclear issue for Mazanderani in general is the distinction of two front vowels
/e/ and /ε/. The two main grammars of Sāravi, Shokri (1995) and Yoshie (1996),
make no mention of this distinction, but it is made for other dialects in Rastorgueva
and Edel’man (1982), Borjian and Borjian (2007b), Lambton (1938), and in my
own field notes for Bābolsari.
Minimal (or near-minimal) pairs in various dialects: Kordkheyli (Borjian) tε
‘you’ vs. te ‘your’; me ‘my’ vs. mε ‘I (subject)’; vénε ‘must, should’ vs. vέne ‘his,
her, its’; ære ‘yes’ vs. kærε ‘butter’; Bābolsari (Stilo field notes) te ‘your(s)’ vs.
tε ‘you’; se ‘apple’ vs. sε ‘three’; me ‘my’ vs. mεn ‘I’; šεmé ‘your (pl.)’ vs. jεmέ
‘shirt’; vésse ‘for’ vs. vέssene ‘it tears’; Velātrui (Lambton) véni ‘must’ vs. vεní
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic 679
‘nose’; (Rastorgueva & Edel’man) dε ‘two’ vs. de(h) ‘village’ vs. dæ ‘ten’; ser
‘sated’ vs. sεrx ‘red’. Shokri, however, does occasionally show a type of contrast:
se ‘three’ vs. se: ‘apple’; ser ‘secret’/serx ‘red’ vs. se:r ‘sated’. Contrasts are rare
but a token count of a portion of Borjian’s corpus shows the low functional load of
/e/: ε 2228, a 971, e 730, æ 494.
In Leriki /æ/ can be as far front as in Persian or Azeri but both /æ/ and /a/ are
mostly articulated slightly more centrally while still retaining their distinction: da
‘ten’ vs. dæ ‘valley’; ha ‘each’ vs. hæ ‘donkey’; hani ‘sleep (oblq.)’ vs. hæni ‘still,
yet’.
General observations on Gilaki vowels:
• /e/ and /o/ have a rather low functional load in Gilaki, slightly higher in Lāhi-
jāni.
• An expected /ə/ changes to /a/ in contact with /h/ (which may then be elided
in postvocalic position yielding compensatory lengthening: Lāhijāni hasən
‘Hasan’, ma:kəmə ‘tribunal’ (NJ:35).
• As Figure 2 shows, the /a/ and /ə/ phonemes have a wide range of free-varying
allophones; the phone [æ] is much more common in Lāhijāni than in Rashti.
The allophones of /a/ and /ə/ are often difficult to distinguish, e. g., hæsə́n=a
(Objective) and hæsə́n=ə (Possessive) often sounded the same.
• For interest’s sake, the vowels of the Lāhijāni text in §10.1 are left in allo-
phonic transcription.
Vafsi consonants:
p: pilæ ‘pod’, hápærs ‘ask!’, s: seza ‘voice’, ræsænǽ ‘rope’, luas
čærp ‘fatty’ ‘fox’
b: bæbǽkæ ‘pupil (eye)’, z: zellé ‘woman’, azan ‘this way’,
qærb ‘grave’ æz ‘I’
t: tútæ ‘mulberry (f.)’, š: šišæk ‘2-year-old lamb’, qeyš
kirfit ‘match(es)’ ‘belt’
d: dade ‘older sister’, gæsd ‘bad’ x: xerxelle ‘esophagus’, feráx
‘wide’
č: či ‘fodder’, gerǽč ‘chalk’ h: hólæ ‘ash’, ahén ‘iron’, dæh ‘ten’
j: jujíæ ‘chick’, qolenj ‘cramp m: mama ‘midwife’, čæmm ‘eye’
k: kokk ‘fat’, tik ‘thorn’ n: nošoáni ‘evening’, ætén ‘now’
g: gælǽgæ ‘basket’, værg ‘wolf’ r: rékkæ ‘line’, širíšæ ‘leek’, ayr
‘fire’
q: qereq ‘frost’, aqáte [aγáte] ř: ařé ‘mill’
‘speech’
f: fǽrfæ ‘snow’, saf ‘smooth’ l: leylǽ ‘boy’, bol ‘tarantula’
v: vávæ ‘almond’, gændev ‘wheat’ y: yúæ ‘heifer’, xeyar ‘cucumber’
Māsulei vowels and glides:
æ: æmæ ‘we’, šæm ‘we go’ u: uškám ‘I split open’, pučú ‘cat’
e: emé ‘this (obl.)’, xelék ‘spade’ ey: veyv ‘bride’, šey ‘shirt’
ə: əštə́ ‘your’, bəz ‘goat’ æy: æy ‘him (oblq.)’, pæydo
‘apparent’
a: adoa ‘had given’, xam ‘I want’ uy: uy ‘he would come’, xuyš ‘you
wanted’
i: íllæ ‘one, a’, vieri ‘he would oy: paltóy ~ paltói ‘a coat’
take’
o: ošan ‘tonight’, zonó ‘knee’ ay: aynæ ‘mirror’, xay ‘you want’
Māsulei consonants:
p: pierə́m ‘I pick up’, veprazəm z: zonə́m ‘I know’, væzə́m ‘I jump’,
‘I lean’ æz ‘I’
b: bərá ‘brother’, lablab ‘barking’ š: šen ‘to go’, xorošə́m ‘I sell’,
bə́nəš ‘sit!’
t: taxt ‘galloping’, šə́təmæ ž: žænə́ ‘hits’, bə́žænəm ‘(that) I hit’
‘I was able’
d: darə́m ‘I have’, šædid ‘intense’ x: xər ‘fog’, dǽxon ‘call!’, bə́čærx
‘turn!’
č: čem ‘eye’, əčə́ra ‘why?’, hič γ: γaz ‘goose’, dæγóštəmæ ‘I drew
‘none’ water’,
682 Donald L. Stilo
Leriki consonants
p: piyo ‘over’, bǽpe ‘must’, z: zínæ ‘yesterday’, væzǽx ‘frog’,
bip ‘quince’ az ‘I’
b: barz ‘high’, sïbḯž ‘louse’, lïmb š: šïndḯ ‘ladder’, éfešïn ‘sneeze!’,
‘snot’ meš ‘bee’
t: tæγærs ‘hail’, kütlæ ‘puppy’, ž: žiǽ ‘rope’, bæží ‘alive’, nimǽž
lïpǘt ‘lip’ ‘noon’
d: di ‘late’, pédïr ‘rip!’, péšand x: xun ‘blood’, oxo ‘end’, væzæx
‘pour!’ ‘frog’
č: čóknæ ‘how?’, nečï ‘wolf’, γ: γandé ‘to send’, æγḯl ‘child’, sïγ
hič ‘none ‘stone’
j: jæv ‘barley’, penjo ‘fifty’, h:; havz ‘green’, éhašt ‘hang!’
bevæj ‘bad’
k: kæ ‘house’, ókæ ‘open!’, ak m: mæsé ‘to hear’, æmæ ‘we’, yem
‘sweat’ ‘fodder’
g: gæv ‘mouth’, égïn ‘fall!’, kag n: neči ‘wolf’, zonḯ ‘knee’, bḯndïn
‘hen’ ‘stand!’
f: fik ‘thought’, gofe ‘cradle’, r: rïvós ‘fox’, morǽ ‘mouse’, bḯsïr
lef ‘quilt’ ‘laugh!’
v: voš ‘rain’, ævon ‘they’, ov l: kælæ ‘bull’, bḯlïv ‘move!’, hïl
‘water’ ‘hole’
s: sük ‘rooster’, osḯn ‘iron’, ars y: yol ‘big’, væyǽ ‘wedding’
‘tear’
3.3. Stress
When no inflectional morphology is involved, including feminine forms, lexical
stress is word-final in most word classes: nouns, pronouns, adjectives, numerals,
and non-finite verb forms, e. g., infinitives and participles. Conjunctions (e. g.,
ǽge ‘if’) and sometimes adverbs (e. g., bǽlke ‘perhaps’) allow for final or non-fi-
nal stress.
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic 685
Languages with feminine gender in nouns (and in some languages, adjectives mod-
ifying them) place the stress routinely on the penultimate. This does not include
the Vafsi Feminine II type (§5.2.1), which takes final-stress in the Direct singular.
Since the punctual marker bV- often occurs in both the Preterit and the Past Parti-
ciple, the former (a finite form) is stressed differently from the latter (a non-finite
form). In Vafsi the stress pattern in the Present Perfect (see §6.5.9) generally con-
trasts with the feminine form of the Past Participle. In addition, the stress patterns
for the Imperfect and the Past Subjunctive are different in Leriki Northern Talyshi.
686 Donald L. Stilo
3.5. Gemination
While gemination is in principle possible across the whole area, it is often seen as
a feature of erudite speech, esp. when occurring in Arabic loanwords. And indeed
the gemination is usually retained in highly erudite words. Original geminated
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic 687
consonants in most words are for the most part degeminated. There are significant
exceptions.
Gemination in Sāravi tends to be less frequent than in other varieties: hæsseka
‘bone’. Geminated nasals created in the Present tense via morphology tend to
undergo dissimilation in Sāravi but in other dialects are retained, e. g., Bābolsari
dun-n-i = Sāravi dundi ‘you know’, *kæfenme > Bābolsari kæfemme = Sāravi
kæfembe ‘I fall’.
Gemination seems to be more frequent in some forms of Tati. It is fairly fre-
quent in Vafsi: koppel ‘tiny’, hottiǽni ‘bedtime’, rékkæ ‘line’, méssæ ‘fly’, esbezze
‘spleen’, ušša ‘pimple’, æjjene ‘s/he hits’, ænnie ‘s/he puts’, holle ‘hole’, zarru
‘child’ and final gemination is usually only retained when followed by another
vowel in a suffix, enclitic, or even another word: rott ‘place’, čæmm/čǽmme
‘eye/s’, verr ‘crazy’. Koluri has mæččæ ‘lip’, killə́ ‘girl’, assen ‘anvil’, fett ‘full’.
Chāli (Yarshater 1969: 55) has béttæj ‘run!’, xæssǽ ‘bone’, xöyyǽ ‘wooden
shovel’. Dikin Marāqei has killégæ ‘girl’, ænnán ‘I put’, néggion ‘I am not’, zollég
‘boy’. Kelāsi has bə́mmæ ‘s/he died’, bə́zzæ ‘hit’, pillæ ‘big’ but very few other
examples appear in my field notes. Gemination is not as common in Leriki as in
other languages but seems to be retained in certain words where it occurs: bællædo
‘oak’. Note also mækǽ ‘corn, maize’ vs. mækkǽ ‘Mecca’.
3.6. Intonation
Due to space limitations, I refer the reader to the claim made in Stilo (2004b: 274–
277) that languages of western Iran have five basic intonational contours requiring
the recognition of five levels of pitch. Four of these pitch levels are contrastive on
the clause level only and come only following the obligatory highest Level 5 pitch
(usually the only one per clause), which is borne by the word in focus according
to the information structure of the clause. In §8.2, points 4 and 5, I discuss two
highly distinctive contours used for 1) sentence-initial adverbial clauses and rela-
tive clauses, which I mark with (,,) in my transcription system, and 2) right-shifted
adverbial clauses. The latter forms a (less common) sixth contrastive intonational
contour and a sixth (extra-low) pitch level.
4. Grammatical isoglosses
resisted Persian influence, including important isoglosses that help define the
Caspian group. Certain of these features are shared by some Talyshi-Tati-Tatoid
dialects (#3–5) or most forms of Tatic (#1, 2):
1. Caspian languages generally retain left-branching word order: Adjective-
HEAD (§5.5.1), Possessor-HEAD (§5.4.1), and Postpositions (§5.7). Due to
recent heavy influence from Tehrani Persian, these word order domains are
now in flux as well.
2. Dedicated preposed Possessive forms of pronouns (§5.1.2)
3. Set2 possessive enclitics on nouns are lacking (see next Point)
4. No Set2 (encoding A, P) in verb paradigms; as opposed to Tatic (for the most
part), the Patient is never encoded in the verb.
5. Restructuring of verbal paradigms did not include the Persian TAM me-/
mi-. By contrast, Caspian and Tatic languages have a wide range of TAMs
(see §6.5.1).
Other isoglosses reflect divisions within Caspian. The base for comparison here is
EG (Lāhijāni). Some of these isoglosses are shared areally between EG and other
Caspian, Tati and/or the Semnan area group (1–9) or between WG and Tati (8–10):
Tatic Innovations:
11. The Ezafe may exist sporadically, seemingly a borrowing from Persian.
12. Postpositions are usual, but some languages have a mixed typology (§5.7.1).
13. Preposed Genitive case of pronouns and the interrogative ki ‘who’ formed
with a prefix čə- ~ əš- (< *hača ‘from’), quite regular across Tatic, (§5.2.2).
14. Set2 possessive enclitics (§7.3) are highly restricted or are lacking in most of
Talyshi and some neighboring Tati varieties (Taromi group, Nowkiani).
15. Present TAMs have wide variation, areally distributed (see §6.5.1)
16. Imperfect TAMs have wide variation, areally distributed (see §6.5.7)
17. Alignments in the Past range from Ergative to Nominative-Accusative, to
complete loss of case (Neutral alignment).
18. Some languages have Double Oblique marking, in which both A and P are
Oblique-marked, either as the sole alignment or as an alternate (§7.1.3.2).
19. Differential Object Marking (DOM): Oblique case-marking only for salient
Ps.
690 Donald L. Stilo
Synchronic Morphology
11. Plural Direct/Oblique cases merged in N. Talyshi but distinguished in others.
12. Augment formant æ- for the Imperfect tense, common in all of Northern and
Central Talyshi dialects but lacking in Southern Talyshi (and in Tati).
13. Leftward mobility of Set1 PAMs in analytically-formed tenses (§7.4.3).
14. Many Present and Past verb stems merge in N. Talyshi, esp. those ending in d/t
(Leriki: bḯhand ‘read!’), but there is a small subset with very distinct forms,
e. g., žæn/žæ ‘hit’, and a subset with an i formant (čini) ‘pick’ that ‘… includes
all verbs bearing the causative suffixes -n- and -ovn-…’ (Kaye 2013: 201).
Kaye also makes an insightful point on past a stems, never before directly
addressed in the literature: the Preterit of mand-é (inf ) is mándim ‘I stayed’,
and nïšt-é (inf) is nḯštim ‘I sat’, but the ‘1 sg preterit of rasé is not *rásim, but
rasáym [‘I arrived’].’ (Kaye 2013: 205).
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic 691
5.1.1. Case
The status of case in Caspian languages is a thorny issue. There are two opposing
views, one supporting, and one disclaiming, the existence of formal cases. My own
opinion favors the non-case analysis, especially based on points 5, 6, and 8.
The Lāhijāni long forms (in, un) appear when a following suffix or enclitic begins
with a vowel. The short forms (i, u) also function as demonstrative adjectives:
(01) tin-i i kar=a me=bə bú-kon-i? i ti pəsér=ə?
can-2 s this work-ra I=for pu -do-2 s this your son=cop :3 s
‘Can you do this thing for me?’ ‘Is this/he your son?’
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic 693
In Mazanderani and most of Central Caspian we find the only languages in a vast
area of Iran to have 3rd person pronouns that are not synchronic demonstratives
(ve/vešún, etc.) These forms are used for both animates and inanimates. Kelārdašti
and Tonekāboni have both types, while Rāmsari is outside the isogloss and seems
to have only synchronic demonstratives as 3rd person pronouns.
(02) Sāravi
ve še zen-á=re kúš-en-e. ve gusfén-e gušt=e.
he own wife-pl = ra kill-pr -3 s it sheep-rez meat=cop :3 s
‘He kills his wives.’ (SY: 54) ‘It is mutton.’ (SY: 68)
Table 5E: Vafsi SAP pronouns and ‘who’; Set1 and Set2
Set1a Set1b Set2A Set2B
Direct Oblique (Direct) (Copula) (Oblique) (Prefixes)
1 sg æz tæ-men -om(e) =im(e) =om im-
2 sg tæ es-dæ -i =i =i i-
3 sg . prox in t-in-í* -e ~ Ø =e =es is-
3 sg . dist an t-an-í*
1 pl awan ta-wan -am(e) =am(e) =oan oan-
2 pl soan Ø-soan -a =a =ian ian-
3 pl . prox ín-e t-in-án* -énd(e) =énd(e) =esan isan-
3 pl . dist án-e t-an-án*
‘who’ ki t-e-g-é
Table 5F: Leriki SAP pronouns and ‘who’; Set1 and Set2
Set1A Set1B Set2
Direct Obliq. Accus. Genitive (Direct) (Copula) (Oblique)
1 sg az mï(n) mï-ní čï-mïn -ïm =im =ïm
2 sg tï tï tï-ní ïš-tï -ïš~ïž =iš~iž =e
3 sg æv æy (æy-í?) č-æy -ï =e =ïš~ïž
1 pl æmæ æmæ-ní č-æmæ -ïmon =imon =ïmon
2 pl šïmæ šïmæ-ní šïmæ -ïšon~ïžon =išon~ižon =on
3 pl ævon ævon-í č-ævon -ïn =in =ïšon~ïžon
‘who’ ki ki čï-ki
5.3. The uses of the cases and Set1/Set2 PAMs in Tatic languages
Two-term case systems typically exhibit rather high polyfunctionality (Arka-
diev 2008). Tati dialects are a typical example of this phenomenon. Table 5J
demonstrates the major functions of the Direct and Oblique cases. Various minor
usages, e. g., Oblique marking of temporals (see ex. 109), have been omitted.
1. occasional pattern; 2. for most lgs; 3. for some lgs; 4. minor pattern
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic 697
Rashti
(05) Animate Possessors: Reverse Ezafe (Possessor-HEAD)
məryə́m-ə per iskəndə́r-ə harf-án=a gúš kun-è.
P.N.-rez father P.N.-rez speech-pl = ra ear lv -3 s
‘Maryam’s father listens to Iskandar’s words.’ (RR: 273, 118)
(06) Inanimate Possessors: Ezafe (HEAD-possessor)
abul púl-ə nuγrə az xu refeγ akbər fa-gíft-ə.
P.N. money-ez silver from self friend P.N. pvb -take:pt -3 s
‘Abul took silver coins from his friend Akbar.’ (RR: 264, 21)
(07) Inanimate Possessors: Reverse Ezafe (Possessor-HEAD)
nə́-tanəst-i-Ø xu díl-ə gə́b=a iskəndə́r=a bə́-g-ə.
neg -can:pt - imf -3 s self heart-rez speech=ra P.N.=ra pu -say-3 s
‘She couldn’t tell Iskandar her heart’s desires (lit: words)’ (RR: 277, 219)
(08) Lāhijāni
Animate Adjunct (REZ) Inanimate Adjunct (REZ)
i asp-ə sum tu istidad-ə zabon=æ da-n-i.
this horse-rez hoof you talent-rez language=ra have-pr -2 s
‘this horse’s hooves’ (NJ,47) ‘You have language talent.’
698 Donald L. Stilo
(09) Sāravi
ša-e xæzun-e bar=e Ø-værd-e.
shah-rez treasure-rez load= ra imf -take:pt -3 s
‘He would take the load of the Shah’s treasure (to the bazaar).’ (SY: 68)
dæ-ket-e gol-e báγ-e dele.
pvb -fell-3 s flower-rez garden-rez in
‘She fell into a bed of roses (lit: a flower garden).’ (SY: 58)
Vafsi
The adjective in Vafsi is simply juxtaposed after the head noun. In the Direct sin-
gular, the adjective agrees in gender with the noun, but plurality and other cases
are only marked once, on the adjective, while the head noun remains invariable:
(25) Masculine: ‘new broom’
Direct Sg. Oblique Sg. Direct Pl. Oblique Pl.
sizdæ nu sizdæ nú-i sizdæ nú-e sizdæ nu-án
broom new broom new-om broom new-dp broom new-op
702 Donald L. Stilo
(30) Māsulei
rùk-æ berá pìll-æ berá
small-link brother big-link brother
‘younger brother’ ‘older brother’
ræzìn-æ galəš bə̀rz-æ kis-on
rubber-link galosh rice-link sack-pl
‘rubber galoshes’ ‘rice sacks’
(31) Kalāsuri Kelāsi Gurāni
kòy-æ usmún miòn-æ xó jòwz-æ dár
blue-link sky middle-link sister walnut-link tree
‘blue sky’ (KL: 272) ‘middle sister’ ‘walnut tree’
Razajerdi
æsìf-æ derǽxt
apple-link tree
‘apple tree’
Vafsi also has this linker but it is no longer productive and is only found in frozen
forms: dèlæ-dǽrd ‘stomach ache’, nèræ xǽr ‘male donkey’.
5.7. Adpositions
Caspian and most Tatic languages basically have left-branching NPs, including
a predominance of postpositions. Given the heavy bilingualism with Persian and
the socio-economic impact from Tehran throughout the Caspian, however, many
right-branching patterns, such as prepositions, are entering these languages and
are clearly becoming integrated into their grammars.
(37) Postpositions in Lāhijāni
hasən baγ-ə mien ísa-Ø. ali deraxt-ə sər ísa-Ø.
P.N. garden-ez inside be 3-3 s P.N. tree-EZ on be 3-3 s
‘Hassan is in the garden.’ ‘Ali is up in (lit: on) the tree.’
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic 705
(51) Leriki
ïm kæ kærpič=ædæ=y.
this house brick-ædæ =cop :3 s 2
‘This house is (made) of bricks.’
ïm kæ čï kærpič=o=y.
this house from brick=from=cop :3 s 2
‘This house is (made) of bricks.’
Numeral Classifiers are generally optional in most of the languages under dis-
cussion. In Caspian languages and probably most of Talyshi, however, the use of
the unc seems to be obligatory, even with human nouns. The numeral ‘one’ also
functions as the indefinite article and the UNC is also commonly used with ‘one’
in this function.
(52) Lāhijāni: UNC ta
do=ta čere-ye jædid íyn-əm. yek=ta lako bə́-ma-Ø.
two=unc face-ez new see-1 s one-unc girl pu -come:pt -3 s
‘I see two new faces.’ ‘A girl came (here).’ (NJ: 52)
(53) Sāravi: UNC ta
in se-ta se*. æt-ta mærdi bi-ye bez dašt-e.
this 3-unc apple one-unc man was-3 s goat had-3 s
‘These three apples’ ‘There was a man (who) had a goat.’
(SH: 72) *(See §3.2 for (SH: 72)
phonology of vowels)
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic 709
5.9. Reflexives
In Gilaki and nearby Tati, reflexive pronouns are only used in the 3rd person.
SAP persons use the corresponding case forms of these pronouns (cf. Romance,
German).
(57) Lāhijāni
mu m-a bə i kar adə́t bə̀-da-m.
I I-ra to this work habit pu -give:pt -1 s
‘I’ve accustomed myself to this.’ (NJ: 98)
(58) tu t-a niga nú-kun! xú=š=a bú-kušt-ə.
you you-ra look neg -do self-3 s 2= ra pu -kill:pt -3 s
‘Don’t look at yourself!’ (NJ: 118) ‘He killed himself.’ (NJ: 117)
Mazanderani (še), C. Caspian (xoštə), and most Tatic (VštVn) exhibit one reflex-
ive pronoun for all persons. Tatic varieties that have Set2 possessive enclitics,
e. g., Vafsi, optionally attach them to the reflexive pronoun (cf. Eng. my-self, Pers.
xod-æm).
(59) Sāravi Rāmsari (Central Caspian)
še=re bæzek há-kan! čeræ xoštə=rə zæn-e?
self= ra adorn pvb -do why self-ra hit-2 s
‘Make yourself up!’ (SY: 56) ‘Why are you hitting yourself?’
710 Donald L. Stilo
(60) Leriki
ïštæn-í čï tók=o ayïrmiš bḯ-kæ-m,
self-ob abl current=abl separated sbj -do-1 s 1
‘…in order to separate myself from the (electric) current, …’
Keringāni and Harzani
K: mun hišton yæ=me.
H: mæn ištæn yær=mæ.
I self hit:pt =1 s 2
‘I hit myself.’ (AAK: 85, 107, resp.)
(61) Vafsi
(with Set2) (without Set2)
n-ím-æsdæ ešdén-i=s bǽ-zæn-e. æz ešdén-i r-vin-om.
neg -1 s 2-let:pt self-om =3 s 2 pu -hit-3 s 1 I self-om dur -see-1 s 1
‘I didn’t let him hit himself.’ ‘I see myself.’
Māsulei has mixed typology using both of the above patterns for different functions:
• Direct Objects, all persons: dedicated Reflexive (no Set2 enclitics)
• Adpositions, Possessive, 3rd sg /pl : dedicated Reflexive (no Set2 enclitics)
• Adpositions, Possessive, 1st/2nd sg / pl : Genitive case of SAP Pronouns
This section introduces Present vs. Past verb stems, lexical preverbs, negation, and
the formation, diachrony, and usages of the various tenses.
members in each vary by language, e. g., the Talyshi Imperfect belongs to the
Present system.
This division into two systems of tenses is purely morphological and is irrele-
vant for Caspian and Tatoid, but for Tatic it establishes a tense-based split in Intran-
sitive and Transitive conjugations. This split affects the choice of PAMs (§7.3)
and ultimately the alignment of core arguments (§7.1.3.1): Leriki æv vít-e (he:dir
run:pt -3s1) ‘s/he ran’ vs. æy vít=ïž=e (he:obl sift:pt =3s2=aux ) ‘s/he sifted’. The
Present alignment in Tatic is Nominative-Accusative and the Past system may
have Ergative alignment or some vestige of original Ergativity.
Table 6A: Present and past verb stems in Caspian and Tatic
Lexeme
Harzan
Kafteji
Kering
Koluri
Asālm
Sāravi
Tonkb
Māsāl
Kajal
Chāli
Alvir
Rašti
Vafsi
bring avər hær (y)ar var æ(r) er vær ar or ar or ar
past avərd (y)ærd ard vard ord vard aværd værd ard ord ard ord ard
fall kəf kæ kæf gen gen gin gən læk gen gen gen gen
past kəft kæt kæt/ket geness genesd ginest kkæt gənəst læki kæt kæt kæt kætt
sleep xus xas xas xesa hes fes, het hös xəs xəs xos u-xos xös hoss
past xuft xat xat xet het fesi,het höt xət xət xott u-xott xöt hott
hit zən zæn zæn zæn yæn yæn žæn žæn žæn zæn zæn zæn zen
past ze zæ zu zi yær yi, žiæ že že žænd zzə zæ(n)d zind zæ
say g gu ga vaj ös vuž,vož vaj vaj va vaj (v)aj vaj vaz
past guft gut gut/gat vat öt vut/vot h/vat vat vat vat (v)at vat vatt
take gir gir (g)ir gir ge-n gi(r) gi(r) ger ger gir u-ger gir gir
past gift git (g)it gæt got get(i) gæt gæt get gæ(rt) geræt giræt girætt
In N. Talyshi and some N. Tati there is a merger of many Present and Past stems.
Progressing away from the “epicentre” of this isogloss (N. Talyshi-Kalāsuri/Khoy-
narudi) westward through Keringani to Harzani and southward along the Talyshi
dialect chain, one gradually finds more distinct present vs. past verb roots until we
reach C. and S. Talyshi which fully retain these distinctions. Examples:
712 Donald L. Stilo
Even the dialects at the center of this isogloss keep the distinction in a few verbs:
(Leriki/Anbarani/Viznei) žæn/žæ ‘hit’; (Leriki/Sayyādlar/Viznei) hæ/hard ‘eat’;
stæn/sæ ‘buy, take’; (Jowkandāni) stun/stæ ‘buy, take’; (Kalāsuri) estæ/estær
‘buy, take’, hær/hard ‘eat’; (Keringāni) ta/ti ‘buy, take’, fa(r)/hard ‘eat’, yæn/yi
‘hit’; (Harzani) asda(n)/astar ‘buy, take’, hæn/hord ‘eat’, yæn/yær ‘hit’. (See also
§4.2.1, point 14)
the AUX in Keringani) leftward and it also suppresses the Present bə- (cf. Leriki
Future):
(66) Asālemi
b-æ-gærdest=im > o=m-æ-gærdest.
pr - dur -wander:pt =1 s 1 pvb =1 s 1- dur -wander:pt
‘I go around’ ‘I return’
Keringāni
be-kard=eš=e > u=š=e-kard.
pr do:pt =2 s 1= aux pvb =2 s 1= aux do:pt
‘you do’ ‘you open’
Preverbs with motion verbs usually yield quite transparent lexical results. In the
case of verbs that have no intrinsic directional sense, however, either the preverb,
the verb root, or both may become somewhat semantically bleached:
Vafsi: nešin/nešd (This verb root does not occur without a preverb).
(70) há-nešesde-ym ó-nešesde-ym dǽ-nešesdæ-Ø
pvb -sit:pt -1 s 1 pvb -sit:pt -1 s 1 pvb -sit:pt -3 s 1
‘I sat down’ ‘I mounted (a horse)’‘it alit (of birds); settled’
Vafsi: gir-/girætt-
(71) b-ís-girætt. (Preterit affirmative) ór=es-girætt.
pu =3 s 2-take:pt pvb =3 s 2-take:pt
‘S/he caught, grabbed.’ ‘S/he picked up, lifted.’
(72) hár=es-girætt. dǽr=es-girætt
pvb =3 s 2-take:pt pvb =3 s 2-take:pt
‘S/he bought, got (from someone), ‘It started (to rain), (the fire) took;
peeled (fruit, bark), closed (door)’ (the current) got blocked up’
In the Present and the Imperfect and in all negative forms, the preverbs of these
verbs are deleted and the one resulting verb form will have all the above meanings:
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic 715
In the Asālemi Present negative, the Allative bə- drops leaving the durative -æ
and the negator attracts the aux forward. The parallel N. Talyshi Future has two
forms: 1) the negator is simply prefixed; 2) æ- + (Pres.) stem + Negative:aux
(Miller 1953: 157).
716 Donald L. Stilo
Asālemi Present
Affirmative Negative
No Preverb b-æ-znost=ím nə́=m-æ-znost ‘I know’
Preverb dǽ=m-æ-pærsəst dæ-nə́=m-æ-pærsəst ‘I ask’
Lerik Future
Affirm. b-æ-dó=m ‘I will give’ bæ-sé=m ‘I will get, buy’
Neg. I ní-bæ-do=m ‘I won’t give’ ní-bæ-se=m ‘I won’t get, buy’
Neg. II æ-dǽ=ni-m ‘I won’t give’ æ-stǽ(n)=ni-m ‘I won’t get, buy’
In Talyshi and neighboring Tati, the analytic tenses usually place the negative aux
after the verb stem, an unusual situation within Iranian (see also Lerik Neg. II
above):
(77) Leriki
ički=æn pe-šom-dæ ni-š?
spirits=also pvb -drink-loc neg : aux -2 s 1
‘And you don’t drink?’
geymæt=ïm sæ ni-Ø.
grade-1 s 2 take:ppl aux : neg -3 s 1
‘I haven’t gotten (my) grades.’
(78) Māsulei
æ mærdek-é vat-ǽ ni-æ.
that man-ob say-ppl aux : neg -3 s 1
‘That man hasn’t said (it).’
Koluri
híči=m hærd-ǽ ni-Ø.
nothing-1 s 2 eat-ppl aux : neg -3 s 1
‘I haven’t eaten anything.’
the main features distinguishing Western Gilaki from Eastern Gilaki. Tonekāboni
and Khoini also exhibit this typology (and both have two Present tenses) but lie
slightly outside the area of this isogloss.:
Contiguous languages belonging to this isogloss
Khoini Tonekāboni
Rashti Māsulei Koluri Tutkāboni Present I Present I
(Gilaki) (S. Talyshi) (C. Tati) (Rudbāri) (C. Tati) (C. Casp.)
1 sg Ø-dan-ə́m Ø-zon-ə́m Ø-zan-ə́m Ø-dan-óm Ø-tæj-em Ø-xár-om
2 sg Ø-dan-í Ø-zon-é Ø-zan-í Ø-dan-í Ø-tæj-i Ø-xár-i
3 sg Ø-dan-ə́ Ø-zon-ə́ Ø-zan-é Ø-dan-é Ø-tæj-ek Ø-xár-e
‘know’ ‘know’ ‘know’ ‘know’ ‘run ‘eat’
Amini (2003) gives two Present tenses for Tonekāboni, one with the -en- suffix
and one with the Ø marking presented above. It seems, however, that these two
Present tenses are quite blurred in usage and often interchangeable:
(79) in či ke Ø-kár-im Ø-xár-im – ye číz-e
this what sub plant-pr 1-1 p eat-pr 1-1 p one thing-ez
ziádi=æm ruš-en-im.
much=also sell-pr 2-1 p
‘That which we plant, we eat—a lot of it we also sell.’ (Amini: 112)
The Mazanderani variant of -Vn-, simply -n- after roots in a single r or l, is lost in
consonant clusters (*xornme), and is -εn- after roots in other consonants. When the
nasal of the Present formant is followed by another nasal, there may be assimila-
tion of the first nasal and dissimilation of the second: *xa-n-me > xa-m-be ‘I want’.
Sāravi Bābolsari
1sg kæfembe <*kæfenme xorme <*xornme darme <*darnme
2sg kæfeni < *kæfeni xorni < *xorni darni < *darni
3sg kæfene < *kæfenε xorne < *xornε darnε < *darnε
‘eat’ ‘have’
Bābolsari (and others) generalizes resulting geminated nasals, Sāravi changes
them to nasal + homorganic stop, while Āmoli (etc.) reduces the gemination:
underlying Bābolsari Āmoli Sāravi Sāravi
Present stems ending in Vowel Stem in final -n
1sg *dεnmε dεmmε demə dembe dumbe < *dun-n-me
2sg *dεni dεnni deni deni dundi < *dun-n-i
3sg *dεnε dεnnε denə dene dunde < *dun-n-e
‘give’ ‘know’
Examples of Present tenses:
(80) Lāhijāni Sāravi
čan saət xós-ən-i? ve unta=re xa-n-e.
how.many hours sleep-pr -1 s s/he that.one=ra want-pr -3 s
‘How many hours do you sleep?’ ‘S/he wants that one.’ (SH: 129)
(81) Leriki Vafsi
gofe lok-n-é-dæ-Ø. tæ če r-kær-i?
cradle rock-caus - inf - loc - aux :3 s 1 you what dur -do-2s1
‘S/he is rocking the cradle.’ ‘What are you doing?’
720 Donald L. Stilo
Additional Comments:
1) Some languages have small differences in Present tense vs. Subjunctive
PAMs, Rashti 3sg . xuré/búxurə ‘eats’; Kelārdashti 2sg . bærné/bǽberi ‘you
carry off’.
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic 721
6.5.3. Optative
The Optative, lacking in Caspian, is quite robust in Tatic. It is formed by inserting
the marker -a- into the Subjunctive after the Present stem. It expresses a wish
or hope, as in blessings, curses, etc. The Optative form (Yarshater: Conditional
Present) in Asālemi, Koluri, Gandomābi, Karani, and Kajali also has many Sub-
junctive uses (although there is an independent Subjunctive), esp. in conditional
clauses (exs. 88–90). In Northern Talyshi, the Optative marker is raised to o. Within
Tatic, the Optative is lacking in Vafsi, Khoini, the Tāromi group, and Māsulei,
among others.
(92) Rashti
ha rå=ya xa-ídi šo-on.
this.very road=ra want-3 p go-inf
‘They will take (lit: go) this same road’ (RR: 240, 28)
Lāhijāni
guya xa bərf b-a-Ø.
supposedly want snow pu -come-3 s
‘It seems it is going to rain.’ (NJ: 170)
(93) Kalāsuri
em ešte pül-i hard-æni=æ.
this your money-ob eat-fut =3s1
‘He will embezzle (lit: eat) your money.’ (KL: 279)
Alviri
mella dærs-e nu be-vat-ænin-i.
mullah lesson-ez new all -say- fut -3 s 2
‘The teacher will teach (lit: say) a new lesson’ (HA: 173)
(94) Keringāni (Type E) (YSFN)
te sæba če kur kard-e-y-šæ? mun sæba
you tomorrow what work do-inf - fut -2 s 1 I tomorrow
ši-e-y-ne šəkar.
go-inf - fut -1 s 1 hunt
‘What will you do tomorrow?’
‘I’ll go hunting tomorrow.’
For examples of the Leriki Future, see exs. (45), (64), (237), (239), (270), (281),
(317).
6.5.6.1. Languages that take the punctual morpheme bV- in the preterit
Lāhijāni: + Preverbs
1 sg bó-xord-əm bú-šo-m də́-kət-əm há-da-m ví-t-əm < *ví-(g)it-əm
2 sg bó-xord-i bú-šo-i də́-kət-i há-da-y ví-t-i
3 sg bó-xord-ə bú-šo-Ø də́-kət-ə há-da-Ø ví-t-ə
‘eat’ ‘go’ ‘fall’ ‘give’ ‘pick up’
Rashti + Preverbs Tonekāboni + Preverbs Sāravi
1 sg bə-kə́ft-əm vi-ríšt-əm bé-git-om vé-git-om bǽ-merd-eme
2 sg bə-kə́ft-i vi-ríšt-i bé-git-i vé-git-i bǽ-merd-i
3 sg bə-kə́ft-ə vi-ríšt-ə bé-git-e vé-git-e bǽ-merd-e
‘fall’ ‘get up, rise’ ‘get, catch’ ‘pick up’ ‘die’
Sāravi + Preverbs
dǽ-væss-eme
dǽ-væss-i
dǽ-væss-e
‘close, tie’
728 Donald L. Stilo
Vafsi
Intransitive Preverb Transitive Preverb
1 sg bǽ-ræsa-ym dǽ-kætte-ym b=ím-vattæ har=om-pærsa
2 sg bǽ-ræsa-y dǽ-kætte-y b=í-vattæ har=i-pærsa
3 sg bǽ-ræsa-Ø dǽ-kættæ-Ø b=ís-vattæ har=es-pærsa
neg nǽ-ræsa-ym nǽ-kætte-ym n=ím-vattæ n=ím-pærsa
‘arrive’ ‘fall’ ‘say’ ‘ask’
Central Tati N. Talyshi
(transitional)
Nowkiāni transitive Kafteji Koluri Jowkandāni
1 sg be-xót-im be-vǽt=em bə-kǽt-im be-vǽšt-im bə-ræs-ím
2 sg be-xót-iš be-vǽt=er bə-kǽt-iš be-vǽšt-iš bə-ræs-íš
3 sg be-xót-Ø be-vǽt=eš bə-kǽt-Ø be-vǽšt-Ø bə-ræs-í=e
3f be-xót-æ bə-kǽt-æ
‘sleep’ ‘weave’ ‘fall’ ‘jump’ ‘arrive’
Tatoid: Tutkāboni (Rudbāri) Gurāni (Tāleqāni)
Intrans. Past Trans. Past Intrans. Past Trans. Past Past
1s bə-mórd-om bə-pǽt-om bá-xot-om bá-xord-om há-git-om
2s bə-mórd-i bə-pǽt-i bá-xot-i bá-xord-i há-git-i
3s bə-mórd-Ø bə-pǽt-Ø bá-xot-Ø bá-xord-Ø há-git-Ø
6.5.6.2. Languages that do not take the Punctual morpheme bV- in the preterit
Comments:
1) The Ø Imperfect marker based on the Past stem is found across the whole
Caspian family, excluding WG and Kelārdashti. These languages generally do
not coincide with those that have a Ø marker in the Present tense.
2) When a verb has a lexical preverb in languages with a Ø Imperfect marker, the
Preterit and the Imperfect are indistinguishable since the preverb suppresses
the punctual bV: Lāhijāni: há-da-m ‘I gave; used to give’.
3) In Central Caspian (except for Kelārdashti) there are two Imperfect types, Ø
and enV; the latter has both irrealis and habitual or even progressive senses
but in EG it is exclusively a conditional marker (see §6.5.11–§6.5.12).
4) WG is the only Caspian variety that has the -i- Imperfect marker; WG also
lacks the conditional marker -enV-.
730 Donald L. Stilo
5) The -i- marker is also used with the past aux (verb + b-i-Ø, etc.) in irrealis
paradigms (§6.5.11–§6.5.12).
6) The Imperfect in some languages is formed on the Present stem: Talyshi,
Koluri, Kelārdashti (-imi-), and partly -ena- in Rāmsari and Tonekāboni.
7) The æy suffix of some C. Tati (and mobile clitic of Keringāni Past Subjunctive,
§6.5.11) is the same as -i- of Points 4–5: æy > ē > i. It may derive from hait,
the Old Iranian 3rd sg. optative of ‘be’ (Windfuhr 1987: 393).
6.5.7.2. Durative markers shared with present: æt- ~ ær- and me- ~ eN-
While Leriki uses IA typology for the Present tense and has no independent Present
Progressive, it does have a Past Progressive of this type (Pirejko: “Past Dura-
tive II”; Miller: “Compound Imperfect II”) that formally contrasts with the Imper-
fect (§6.5.7.3), but is often interchangeable with it. Pirejko (1976: 337) states that
this “…tense form denotes any durative action in the past.”
Full form -V Full form -t/d Short Form -t/d
stem +infinitive + locative + stem (stressed)+ locative +copula : pt
copula : pt
1sg š-é-dæ=bi-m vot-é-dæ=bi-m vót-dæ=bi-m
2sg om-é-dæ=bi-š mand-é-dæ=bi-š mánd-dæ=bi-š
‘go, come’ ‘say, stay’ ‘say, stay’
(102) Leriki
aγïl vít-dæ=b-e bæ di mašin-í.
child run- loc =aux : pt -3 s 1 to after car-ob
‘The child was running after the car.’
penj sor vaxt do-y-dæ=b-in.
five year time give-inf - loc =aux : pt -3 p 1
‘They used to give five years leeway.’
Type IC (only Caspian and Rudbāri): instead of a postposition, the copula is a
Locative Be-verb (BE4, §6.8). The infinitive is: a full form (Rashti); a short form,
identical to the past stem (Tonekāboni); or the -n of the infinitive is lost (Lāhijāni):
Lāhijāni, Progressive I
Present Past
1sg xord-é dər-əm xord-é də-bu-m
eat:pt - inf be 4-1 s eat:pt - inf be 4- aux : pt -1 s
1neg xord-e dǽn-ny-em xord-e də́-nye bu-m
‘eat
Present Past
1sg ha-dá dər-əm ha-dá də-bu-m
pvb -give:pt be 4-1 s pvb -give:pt be 4- aux : pt -1 s
1neg ha-da dǽn-ny-em ha-da də́-nye bu-m
‘give’
Rashti Prog. I Langerudi Rāmsari Tonekāboni Tutkāboni
Prog. I Prog. I (Rudbāri)
guft-ə́n dər-əm gut-é dær-əm za dær-əm xárd dǽr-om xard-en dǽr-om
‘say’ ‘say’ ‘hit’ ‘eat’ ‘eat’
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic 735
(103) Lāhijāni
Present Progressive I
mu γeza xord-é dər-əm.
I food eat-inf be 4-1 s
‘I am eating.’
Past Progressive I
hava rošen=a bo də-bu-Ø
weather bright=cs become:inf be 4- aux : pt -1 s
‘The weather was clearing up.’
(104) Rāmsari (SR: 146) Langerudi
kemi ra ša dær-e? adæm æmá dær-e.
which road go:inf be 4-3 s person come:inf be 4-3 s
‘Which road are you taking?’ ‘Someone is coming.’
Type ID: In Kelārdashti and Gurāni (Tatoid) fully conjugated Present and Past
forms of the Locative Be-verb (Be4) precede the Present and Imperfect:
Kelārdashti: ‘to carry off, take away’
Present Progressive Past Progressive
1sg dær-eme bær-eme dæ-bi-yæme bær-imi-yæme
be 4- aux :1 s take-1 s be 4- aux : pt -1 s take- imf -1 s
Gurāni: ‘to close; bake’
Present Progressive
der-im dé-m-bænd-im
be 4-1 p pvb - dur -bake-1 p
(105) Sāravi
bǽ-di-ye zena dær e-n-e.
pu -see:pt woman be 4:pr come-pr -3 s
‘He saw that (his) wife is coming.’ (SY: 66)
at-ta zena at-ta mærdi dæy ši-ne.
1-unc woman 1-unc man be 4:pt go:imf -3 p
‘A man and a woman were going (along).’ (SH: 155)
(106) vešun dær-ene šu-n-ene sere.
they be 4-3 p go-pr -3 p house
‘They are going home.’ (SH: 149)
Māsulei form indicates both senses. In Type IIB (Kajali) ko(re) follows Main Verb
and in Type IIC (Kafteji) kǽrdæ, a locative form, precedes the verb.
Type IIB Type IIC
Kajali Kafteji
1sg me-vræm-em kore. kǽrdæ me-š-ə́m.
‘I am crying/weeping’ ‘I am going’
IID: In Type IID the Asālemi Present Progressive II is formed with the particle kar
preceding the verb in the infinitive form and a mobile copular element, usually
encliticized to kar or even farther leftward. There is also a shortened form of kar
>ka:
Present Short form Past Short form
Progressive Progressive
1sg kár=im vat-è ká=m vat-è kár=b-im vat-è ká=b-im vat-è ‘say’
Charozh, the Central Talyshi enclave in the N. Talyshi zone (§2.2.1), has shifted
this short-form progressive (with N. Talyshi vowel raising: ka > ko) to the sole
Present tense. The Allative-marked C. Talyshi Present is the Charozh Future, as in
N. Talyshi:
(107) Charozh
čo sahat dærs ko=mun do-y.
four hour lesson prog =1 p 1 give-inf
‘We teach for four hours.’
tikæ æmæ zü=mun ko š-e.
bit we early=1 p 1 prog go-inf
‘We go a little early.’
IIE: Lāhijāni Progressive II inserts the particle ka (< kar) between a short infini-
tive of a simplex verb and the Be4. Type IIE is especially common with compound
verbs formed with the light verb kun/gud- ‘do’, in which case kun/gud- is deleted
and the cognate ka takes its place between the NVE and Be4:
IIC: Lāhijāni II (Simplex Verb)
Pres. Progressive Past Progressive
1sg gut-è=ká=dər-əm gut-è=ká=də=bu-m
‘I am saying’
738 Donald L. Stilo
IIG: In Eštehārdi the fully conjugated Present/Imperfect form of the main verb is
followed by kar/kær plus a conjugated form of Be4:
IID: Karani/Karnaqi Prog. II IIE: Eštehārdi
Pres. Progressive Past Progressive Pres. Progressive
1sg mærd-æ kær-em mærd-æ kærd-i-m mi-væz-em kar/kær=dær-imæ
‘I am/was dying’ (YSFN) ‘I am running’ (ST: 225)
1) the -ž in all PAMs can always alternate with -š; 2) these forms are avoided for
phonological reasons (kárd-e < kárd=ï=e) but this is not a problem since the Set2
PAMs are commonly fronted (§7.4.1);
(108) Leriki
ve saγ be ki tï omǽ=ž.
very healthy be sub you come:pt =2 s 1
‘Thank you very much for having come (lit: that you have come).’
gæst=o=žon=e vot-ǽ.
spite=from=3 p 2= aux say:pt - ppl
‘They have said (it) out of spite.’
In a slightly different pattern, the stress in Vafsi and possibly Sagzābādi falls on the
Punctual marker in the Preterit and on the verb stem in all Perfect forms. In Vafsi
the Past Participial -ǽ is replaced in the Present Perfect by the Perfect formant -e,
which is only apparent in the 3sg / pl of Intransitives and all persons of the Tran-
sitives. The -e formant is not used in other Perfect paradigms (§6.5.10). With past
stems ending in -a in Vafsi, the stress is the only way to distinguish the Preterit
(bǽ-resa-ym) from the Perfect (bæ-resá-ym), as in (109).
Vafsi: Preterit vs. Present Perfect
Intransitive Transitive
Preterit Pres. Perf. Preterit Pres. Perf.
1sg bǽ-mærd-e-ym bæ-mǽrd-e-ym b-ím-rutt-æ-Ø b-im-rútt-e
2sg bǽ-mærd-e-y bæ-mǽrd-e-y b-í-rutt-æ-Ø b-i-rútt-e
3sg bǽ-mærd-æ-Ø bæ-mǽrd-e b-ís-rutt-æ-Ø b-is-rútt-e
1pl bǽ-mærd-e-yam bæ-mǽrd-e-yam b-óan-rutt-æ-Ø b-oan-rútt-e
2pl bǽ-mærd-e-ya bæ-mǽrd-e-ya b-ían-rutt-æ-Ø b-ian-rútt-e
3pl bǽ-mærd-æ-nde bæ-mǽrd-e-nde b-ísan-rutt-æ-Ø b-isan-rútt-e
1neg nǽ-mærde-ym n-ím-rutt-æ-Ø n-ím-rutt-e
3neg nǽ-mærdæ-Ø nǽ-mærd-e n-ís-rutt-æ-Ø n-ís-rutt-e
‘die’ ‘sell’
(109) Vafsi
yawa soay in váxt-i, æz bæ-ræsá-yme.
until tmw this time-om I pu -arrive:pt -1 s 1
‘By tomorrow this time, I will have arrived.’
As mentioned above, all Perfect paradigms in Vafsi take the punctual marker bV-
in addition to placing the word stress on the past root of the verb.
Vafsi: Intransitive
Past Perfect Subjunct. Perfect
1sg bæ-mǽrd-æ v-im bæ-mǽrd-æ vue-ym
2sg bæ-mǽrd-æ v-i bæ-mǽrd-æ vue-y
3sg bæ-mǽrd-æ v-e bæ-mǽrd-æ vuæ-Ø
1 neg nǽ-mærd-æ v-im nǽ-mærd-æ vue-ym
‘die’
Transitive
Past Perfect Subjunct. Perfect
b-im-rútt-æ v-e b-im-rútt-æ vuæ-Ø
b-i-rútt-æ v-e b-i-rútt-æ vuæ-Ø
b-is-rútt-æ v-e b-is-rútt-æ vuæ-Ø
n-ís-rutt-æ v-e n-ís-rutt-æ vuæ-Ø
‘sell’
Examples of the Past Perfect
(110) Lāhijāni (LTXT)
mualləm n-áma bu-Ø, bú-šo-im futbol bazí
teacher neg -come:pt aux : pt -3 s pu -go:pt -1 p soccer play
bù-kon-im.
pu -do-1 p
‘The teacher had not come (so) we went (out) to play football.’
(111) Sāravi (SY: 66)
čæn=ta dez ke šeter-a=re bæ-dezi bi-ne,
a.few=unc thief sub camel-pl = ra pu -steal:pt aux : pt -3 p
b-urd bi-ne sere dele
pu -gone aux : pt -3 p house in
‘A few thieves who had stolen the camels had gone into the house.’
The Subjunctive Perfect is triggered when a subjunctivizing factor (a modal,
a conditional clause, ‘perhaps’, ‘I hope’, etc.) acts on a Present Perfect: ‘it has
ended’ > ‘it must have ended’, ‘if it has ended’, ‘perhaps it has ended’, ‘I hope it
has ended’, etc.
(112) Sāravi
vε-n-e ve=re ba-ut bu-e.
must-pr -3 s he-ra pu -say:pt aux : sbj -3 s
‘He must have told him.’
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic 743
elicitation materials on Lāhijāni show only personal forms, e. g., (116) vs. (117)
or (135) vs. (134).
What unites these various paradigms is their use in some or all of the follow-
ing:
1. With past necessity when the Present vs. Past of ‘must’ is only a morphological
but not a semantic distinction, e. g., bayæd/bayésti, used only tense-neutrally;
2. After the Desiderative particle kaš ~ kaške/ki ‘would that, if only, I wish’;
3. In the protasis of counterfactual conditional sentences: ‘if I knew/had known’;
4. In a restricted zone, past modals and main verbs with control features gen-
erally require a Past Subjunctive in the subordinate verb (exs. 127, 128, see
also §6.6);
5. Miscellaneous: ‘it would have been better to’; ‘I almost = it was close that I
would (do)’; ‘I would have preferred/liked to have gone’; ‘as if it were’; etc.
The range of irrealis situations is a rather complex topic that has only been mea-
gerly addressed in the literature. The present analyses must be taken as preliminary
and provisory until our knowledge on these issues is furthered. In the case of mul-
tiple paradigms, for example, the exact use of each needs to be fully investigated.
6.5.11.2. The various irrealis usages: conditional, past subjunctive and others
Now each of the five situations listed above that require the Past Subjunctives and
other irrealis forms are examined individually here and in §6.5.12, Conditionals:
1) Past Necessity
While the modal ‘must’ has Present and Past forms, both are often devoid of any
real sense of tense. Time is encoded by the Present Subjunctive (§6.6) or Past Sub-
junctive (or Imperfect, Conditional, etc.) in the subordinate verb. Some languages,
e. g., Leriki, Māsulei, only have one tense-invariable form of the modal ‘must’.
(116) Lāhijāni (NJ: 175)
parsal xasi qənat=a larubi b-ud-i b-i-Ø.
last.year must:pt qænat-ra dredging pu -do:pt - irr aux : pt - irr -3 s
‘We should have dredged the qanat (underground canal) last year.’
One speaker of Lāhijāni offered five alternate forms in example (117). In the short
time I worked with him, however, he never produced a Past Subjunctive form
as introduced above. I only discovered this tense when going through Jahāngi-
ri’s (2003) sentences, and then working with speakers of Langerudi and Ramsari.
746 Donald L. Stilo
(121) Razajerdi
m-o gu-m. m-os gu-m.
dur -want say-1 s 1 dur -want:pt say-1 s 1
‘I am supposed to say.’ ‘I was supposed to say.’
(122) Kordkheyli Mazanderani
yεk mεn dunε vé-n-ε há-d-i.
one man rice must-pr -3 s pvb -give-2 s
‘You have to give (us) one man (6 kilos) of rice.’ (Borjian: M2,10e)
véss-e pεla bǽ-xεr-εn.
must:pt -3 s rice pu -eat-3 p
‘They were supposed to eat pilaff.’ (Borjian: M2,14d)
In Sāravi, if the tense of the modal is neutralized (123), the Imperfect is used rather
than the Past Subjunctive (so far as is known) in the subordinate verb:
(123) vé-n-e b-ur-e. véss-e Ø-ši-ye.
must-pr -3 s pu -go-3 s must:pt -3 s imf -go:dur -3 s
‘He has to go.’ (SH: 118) ‘He had to go.’ (SH: 118)
2) The Desiderative particle kaš(ke ~ ki) ‘would that, if only, I wish’
With kaški the Past Subjunctive and the Past Perfect are both common:
(124) Lāhijāni
kaški mu b-út-ə bu-m.
if.only I pu -say:pt - ppl aux : pt -1s1
‘I wish I had said (something).’
Verb: Past Perfect
kaški bə-mərd-ə b-i-Ø.
if.only pu -die:pt - ppl aux : pt - irr -3s1
‘I wish I had died.’ (NJ: 173)
Verb: Past Subjunctive
(125) Māsulei
kaški omæ bi-b-i-Ø.
if.only come:ppl sbj - aux : pt - irr -3s 1
‘I wish he had come.’
Verb: Past Subjunctive II
Rāmsari
kaš tə́=ra bó-gut-i b-i-Ø.
if.only you=ra sbj -say:pt - ppl aux : pt - irr -3s
‘I wish I had told you’
Verb: Past Subjunctive I
748 Donald L. Stilo
(126) Leriki
kaški inglisjæ zïnæ=m b-ǽ-b-i-Ø.
if.only English know:pt =1 s 2 sbj - dur - aux : pt - irr -3s1
‘I wish I knew English.’
3) Protasis of past counterfactual conditional sentences
For the protasis in past counterfactual sentences, see §6.5.12, Conditionals.
Conditional I Conditional II
1sg Ø-gút-ena=bu-m b-út-ena=bu-m
2sg Ø-gút-ena=b-i b-út-ena=b-i
3sg Ø-gút-ena=bu-Ø b-út-ena=bu-Ø
Langerudi Harzani (MH:79)
Conditional I, (II) Condit. (ex. 139)
gút(-en)-enæ=bu-m bæ-b-e ber-in
gút(-en)-enæ=b-i bæ-b-e ber-i
gút(-en)-enæ=bu-Ø bæ-b-e ber-æ
Tonekāboni* Tonekāboni Tonekāboni
Rāmsari Conditional I Conditional II Conditional III
1s xord-enæ ba-m xár-e ba-m xár-en-e ba-m bó-xard-ene ba-m
Tonekāboni Tonekāboni
Tonekāboni
Conditional IV Conditional V
1s xárd-e ba-m xárd-en-e ba-m (cf. Past Perfect:
bó-xard-e ba-m)
*Note that Tonekāboni I, II are built on the present stem, the others on the past stem. All
Tonekāboni forms from Amini: 80-84.
Since various languages allow some variation in both the protasis and the apodo-
sis, it is not uncommon to find conditional sentences with the same tense in both
clauses.
(133) Lāhijāni (Protasis: Conditional I/Apodosis: Conditional I)
ægər mašin rošen bo-na bu-Ø,, amo
if car lit become:pt - cond aux : pt -3 s we
šo-na b-im.
go:pt - cond aux : pt -1 p
‘If the car would start, we would go.’
(134) agə Ø-donəst-əm,, t-æ Ø-gutt-am.
if imf -know:pt -1 s you-ra imf -say:pt -1 s
‘If I knew, I would tell you’
Pro: Imperfect/Apo: Imperfect
aga Ø-gutt-i,, či bo-na bu-Ø?
if imf -said-2 s what be:pt - cond aux -3 s
‘If you told me, what would happen?’
Pro: Imperf/Apo: Cond I
(135) agə duz=a nə́-šənaxt-ə b-i-Ø, či Ø-gud-i?
if thief=ra neg -know:pt - ppl aux : pt - irr -3 s what imf -do:pt -2 s
‘If you hadn’t recognized the thief, what would you do/would you have
done?’ (NJ: 138) Protasis: Past Subjunctive/Apo: Imperfect
(136) agə bə́-xast-ə bu-m,, xórd-ena bu-m ~
if pu -want:pt - ppl aux : pt -1 s eat:pt - cond aux : pt -1 s
‘If I had wanted to, I would have eaten (it).’(Pro: Past Perf./Apo: Condit. I ),
alternatively:
have no available information or no analyses have ever been made for them. See,
however, Paul (2011: 149–151) for a discussion of Past Counterfactuals in Talyshi
dialects.
xass-am bú-šu-m.
want:pt -1 s pu -go-1 s
‘I wanted to go.’
(147) Sāravi
xa-n-e telafi há-kan-e.
want-pr -3 s retaliation pvb -do-3 s
‘He wants to get even.’ (SY: 62)
Ø-xas-e b-úr-e sæfer.
imf -want:pt -3 s pu -go-3 s trip
‘He wanted to go on a trip.’ (SY: 64)
(148) šema beter bæled=eni bǽ-res-in.
you:pl better capable-2 p pu -spin(thread)-2 p
‘You know how to spin better.’ (SY: 64)
vé-n-e emsal ærusi há-kan-e.
must-pr -3 s this.year marriage pvb -do-3 s
‘He must marry this year.’ (SY: 58)
(149) Leriki
Subjunctive
pi-dæ=m ni tï-ni bḯ-voγand-ïm.
want-pr =1 s 2 aux : neg you-acc sbj -send-1 s 1
‘I don’t want to send you.’
Optative (§6.5.3)
az bæ-p-e mæktub bḯ-nïvïšt-o-m.
I fut -want-3 s 1 letter sbj -write- opt -1 s 1
‘I have to write a letter.’
(150) Vafsi
is-ær-go kay so-Ø?
3 s 2- dur -want where go:sbj -3 s 1
‘Where does he want to go?’
tæmen ær-goa henra=s bǽ-sso-m
I:ob dur -want:pt with=3 s 2 pu -go-1 s 1
‘I wanted to go with him.’
(151) Khoini (YX: 179)
pist-ær=im bé-šu-m. pist-æ bi-m sbj -šu-m.
want:pt - loc =1 s 1 sbj -go-1 s 1 want:pt - loc aux : pt -1 s 1 pu -go-1 s 1
‘I want to go.’ ‘I wanted to go.’
754 Donald L. Stilo
With ‘want/love’, Set2 is generally fronted to the Source noun or other element in
the predicate. In Leriki, the dependent verb may be an infinitive:
(160) Leriki
Fronted Set2
dï tï =ž =æn om-e pi-dæ ?
with you=3 s 2=also come:inf want-pr
‘Does he want to come with you, too?’
Unfronted Set2
piæso pi-dæ=ž=e š-e?
P.N. want-pr =3 s 2 go-inf
‘Does he want to go to Pirasora?’
(161) Kafteji
Fronted Set2 Unfronted Set2
čiči=šon me-go? čiči me-go=šon?
what=3 p 2 dur -want what dur -want=3 p 2
Oblique case, no Set2
jon čiči me-go?
they:op what dur -want
‘What do they want?’
The Experiencer structure of the verb ‘love’ mirrors the Ergative PAM set-up. It
should be noted that this alignment is found in all tenses in the Experiencer struc-
ture, but the Ergative is found only in the Past system:
(162) im-ær-góe-y; im-ær-gó-a-y ( exp .) im-æ-resd-a-y ( ergative )
1 s 2- dur -want-2 s 1 1 s 2- dur -want-pt -2 s 1 1 s 2- dur -send:pt - ppl -2 s 1
‘I love you; I loved you’ ‘I would send you’
The Set2 encoding the Experiencer in the Light Verb type is obligatorily fronted to
the NVE. Fronting farther to the left is not licensed:
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic 757
(163) Vafsi
riš-isbi-an dìv=esan nǽ-tt-a-Ø æzin aqáte
beard-white-pl face=3 p 2 neg - dur -come-3 s 1 thus word
bæ̀ -kær-ende.
dur -do-3 p 1
‘The elders don’t dare talk like this.’
Caspian languages generally do not coreference an overt exp in the verb complex
since the Set2 PAMs we find in Tatic are not native to these languages. The EXP is
instead marked with the (Direct/Indirect) Objective marker =ra.
(164) Lāhijāni
sada=ji m-a xoš n-á-n-ə. m-a xow a-n-e.
plain=from I-ra nice neg -come-pr -3 s I-ra sleep come-pr -3 s
‘I don’t like the plain one.’ (NJ: 116) ‘I am sleepy.’
(165) Sāravi
xæle me=re xoš e-n-e. šema=re gærm=e?
much I=ra nice come-pr -3 s you:pl =ra hot=cop :3 s
‘I like it very much.’ (SH: 150) ‘Are you hot?’ (SH: 156)
On the other hand, depending on the given dialect or even speaker, these Set2 PAMs
“not licensed” for Caspian languages are clearly being borrowed from Persian, but
so far only in peripheral domains, such as Experiencers and Reflexives (§5.9):
(166) Lāhijāni
amu xow=emun a-n-e. but: in=a xow Ø-ama-Ø.
we sleep=1p2 come-pr -3 s he=ra sleep imf -come:pt -3 s
‘We are sleepy.’ ‘He was (Imperfect) sleepy’ (NJ: 176)
Be1 is the Copular enclitic (Set1 PAMs) corresponding to Present PAM suffixes of
main verbs (here: ‘to sleep’), sometimes with a slight variation in vowels:
Lāhijāni Bābolsari Leriki
Present Copula Neg. Present Copula Subjunctive Copula
1sg xósən-əm =əm neəm xəs-eme =eme bḯxït-ïm =im
2sg xósən-i =i ni xəsen-i =i bḯxït-ïš =iš/ž
3sg xósən-ə =ə ne xəsen-e =e bḯxït-ï =e
758 Donald L. Stilo
Māsulei
Pres Past
éss-em-æ éss-em=a
éss-eš-æ éss-eš=a
éss-æ éss=a
Be2 Usage: Be2 has three main uses: 1) general existence; 2) replaces Present of Be1
(but not in N. Talyshi) in situations where the enclitic cannot occur: when stressed
for focus or as a single, independent word. It may also replace Be1 in unstressed
uses; 3) languages with no ‘have’-verb use Be2 in predicative possession (§6.9).
Existence
(170) Lāhijāni Gandomābi
yə gúrg-i ís-ə har šow a-n-ə. xoda éss-e
one wolf-indf be2-3 s each night come-pr -3 s God be2-3 s
‘There is a wolf (that) comes (around) every night.’ ‘God is./God
(NJ: 127) exists.’ (YSFN)
(171) Sāravi Leriki
æ-tta mærdi bi-ye. tæbbi dïšmen-on hïst-in.
one-unc man be1:pt -3 s natural enemy-pl be2-3 p 1
‘There was a man.’ (SY: 64) ‘There are natural enemies.’
Standing independently, stressed (in the B examples only)
(172) Lāhijāni Vafsi
(A: tu mariz n-i.) B: čére, ís-əm. (A: vəwsi ke n-e.) B: číra, h-e.
you sick be1:neg -2 s why be2-1 s Vafsi empf be1-3 s 1 why* be2-3 s
‘A: You aren’t sick. B: Yes, I am.’ A: He’s not a Vafsi. B: Yes, he is
*(‘why’ is the affirmative response to a negative question or statement.)
Simply replacing Be1, without any triggering by information structure:
(173) Lāhijāni
ki gú-n-ə u divonə ís-ə?
who say-pr -3 s he crazy be2-3 s
‘Who says he’s crazy?’
Vafsi
vəws æzin qæssæbé-i h-e.
P.N. thus village-indf be2-3 s 1
‘Vafs is this kind of village.’
Be2 is replaced by Be1 in negatives and all other tenses lacking in Be2 (also ex. 171):
760 Donald L. Stilo
Lāhijāni Māsulei
Present Negative Past Present Negative Past
1sg də́rəm də́nnyəm də́bum dərím=æ dəryǽ nim=æ dərím=a
2sg də́ri də́nni də́bi dəríš=æ dəryǽ niš=æ dəríš=a
3sg də́rə də́nnyə də́bu dərí=æ dəryǽ ni=æ dərí=a
Be4 Usage: Be4 functions as location/existence-at/in for non-humans; uses with
humans are quite complex and are not included here due to space limitations:
(177) Lāhijāni
Location-in Existence-in
čai γuri mien də́r=ə. γuri mien čai də́r=ə?
tea teapot in be4=3 s teapot in tea be4-3 s
‘The tea is in the teapot.’ ‘Is there (any) tea in the teapot?’
(178) Māsulei
Location-in
pul če jiv-é delæ derí=æ.
money his pocket-ob in be4-3 s 1
‘The money is in his pocket.’
Existence-in
deg-é dəlæ pəla derí=æ?
pot-ob in rice be4-3 s 1
‘Is there any rice in the pot?’
Be5 is based on the past participle of ‘put’ + Be1 in various corresponding tenses.
Be5 only refers to inanimates, and thus only occurs in the 3rd person.
Lāhijāni Māsulei
Present Negative Past Present Negative Past
3sg hánna-Ø n-ə́nnæ-Ø hánnæ-bu-Ø noǽ-Ø noǽ niæ no-a-Ø
Be5 Usage: Be5 indicates existence and location of inanimates.
(179) Lāhijāni
ja:be* mien va-n-e pul hə́nna bu-n.
box:rez in must-pr -3 s money be5 aux : pt -3 p
‘There must be money in the box.’ *(< ja:bə́-ə)
pul ko hánna-Ø?
money where be5-3 s
‘Where is the money?’
762 Donald L. Stilo
(191) Lāhijāni
Intransitive Base Verb
bu-šo-Ø ta bə-rəs-e arbáb-ə xonə.
pu -go:pt -3 s till pu -arrive-3 s boss-rez house
‘She went until she arrived at the boss’s house.’ (NJ: 143)
Transitivized Equivalent
tu i nam-á un=a rəs-ən-en-i?
you this letter-ra he=ra arrive-caus - pr -2 s
‘Will you deliver this letter to him?’ (NJ: 95)
(192) bə-da amə rahat bú-xus-im. zak-on=a bú-xus-on.
pu -give we comfortable pu -sleep-1 p child-pl = ra pu -sleep-caus
‘Let us sleep peacefully.’ (NJ: 156) ‘Put the children to sleep.’
(NJ: 149)
(193) Sāravi
taze hemdige=jem bǽ-resi-ne.
new one.other-je pu -arrive:pt -3 p
‘They just ran into each other.’ (SH: 149)
me selam=re še berar=jem bǽ-res-en.
my hello-ra self brother=je pu -arrive-caus
‘Send my greetings to your brother.’ (SH: 156)
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic 767
(194) Leriki
institut-í iminji kurs oræxæ-y.
institute-ob first course end-pt -3 s 1
‘The institute’s first course ended.’
johil-í medinstitut=ïš orox-n-i-yæ.
youth-ob med.school=3 s 2 end-caus - pt - ppl
‘The young man finished med school.’
(195) Māsulei
kərə Ø-si-ə́m. kərə Ø-su-in-ə́m.
prog pr -burn-1 s prog pr -burn-caus -1 s
‘I am burning up (e. g., with fever).’ ‘I am burning (something).’
(196) Vafsi
gá-ye píš-ær-gerd-énde. ga-an píš-gerd-en!
cow-pl pvb - dur -return-3 p 1 cow-op pvb -return-caus
‘The cows are coming back.’ ‘Take/bring the cows back.’
These voice paradigms incorporate a much wider range than the traditional label
of “Passive” in these languages, such as unaccusative or inchoative, e. g., ‘the bud
opened’, ‘the wall collapsed’, ‘the cup broke’, etc. As the examples below show,
“Passive” is at times appropriate (‘be/get eaten/sold/thrown’), while in other cases
no passive sense is implied at all (‘spills out’, ‘tears’). (See also exs. 15, 84, 142,
330.)
768 Donald L. Stilo
(197) Vafsi
ǽgær vəws há-wešaz-uæ-Ø,,… xun bǽ-riz-i-a-Ø.
if P.N. pvb -open-pass -3 s 1 blood pu -pour-pass - pt -3 s 1
‘If Vafs (village) opens up …’ ‘The blood spilled out.’
(198) Hezārrudi (YT:465)
hærči mi-kær-em, æm ní-mi-zær-ax-e.
whatever dur -do-1 s 1 this neg - dur -tear-pass -3 s 1
‘No matter what I do, this will not tear.’
ču a-škæj-ax-est-Ø.
wood pvb -split-pass - pt -3 s 1
‘The wood split open.’
(199) Kajali (KJ: 283)
divar a-škaj-is-t-Ø tænaf æd-ruj-is-t-Ø.
wall pvb -split-pass - pt -3 s 1 rope pvb -throw-pass - pt -3 s 1
‘The wall split open (and) a rope was thrown down.’
N. Talyshi, N. Tati and all of the Caspian family form the Passive analytically.
(200) Lāhijāni (NJ: 89)
tumóm-ə γəza bú-xord-e bu-bo-Ø.
all-ez food pu -eat:pt - ppl pu - aux : pt -3 s
‘All of the food was eaten.’ (see also ex. 135)
Sāravi (SY: 40)
parče-a bæ-rut-e bæ-i-ye.
fabric-pl pu -sell:pt aux - pt -3 s
‘The fabrics were sold.’
(201) Kalāsuri (KL: 279)
em izem onjar-e ber-ondæ ni-Ø.
this firewood mince-ppl be:inf - loc . pr ? aux : neg -3 s 1
‘This firewood won’t get cut/will just not cut.’
(fat-make) ‘fatten’ vs. kok b- (fat-become) ‘get fat’; (Lāhijāni) sefid ‘white’ > sefid
gud- (white-make) ‘whitewash (wall), bleach (clothes)’ vs. sefid bo- (white-become)
‘blench/pale (of face), turn white (hair)’. Various lesser verb pairs of this type use
other sets of Light Verbs, e. g., Sāravi: šekes he-da- (defeat-give) ‘defeat’ vs. šekes
xord- (defeat-eat) ‘be defeated’; Vafsi: ra veyn- (road-throw) ‘send off’, ra gen-
(road-fall) ‘start off (going, -TR)’; Leriki: bæ æmæl vard- (to-action-bring) ‘realize,
implement, execute’, bæ æmæl omæ- (to-action-come) ‘materialize, be realized’.
Change of State: In an isogloss that includes Gilaki, Central Caspian, S. Talyshi
and all areas as far south as Vafsi, those Causative/Passive pairs formed with the
LVs ‘do’ and ‘become’ (but not other LVs) use the “Change of State” (CS) mor-
pheme =a, encliticized to the NVE (usually an adjective, occasionally a noun). In
punctual tenses either the punctual morpheme bV- or, less commonly, the =a may
be deleted, but both may also occasionally occur together. In most cases, the CS or
the punctual bV- is the only way to distinguish ‘be’ from ‘become’, (since ‘be’ does
not take the bV-: Lah. bu ‘he was’ vs. bú-bu ‘he became’), e. g., (205A) in Māsulei.
Languages marked with an asterisk in this section are outside this isogloss and
lack this morpheme.
(205) Māsulei
eštæ pa čel=a bæ-Ø. reč=a kærd-əm=æ.
your foot muddy=cs be:pt -3 s 1 straight=cs do:pt =1 s 2=aux
‘Your feet got muddy.’ (Unacc.) ‘I fixed it.’ (Trans.)
(206) Vafsi
kar soay támb=a r-bù-Ø.
work tomorrow finished=cs dur -become-3 s 1
‘The work will be finished tomorrow.’ (Unacc.)
kár=om zu támb=a r-kær-om.
work=1 s 2 early finished-cs dur -do-1 s 1
‘I’ll finish my work early.’ (Trans.)
Note that the adjective plus ‘be’ is the base from which the equipollent Causa-
tive-Passive pairs are derived. Since ‘be’ has no Change of State sense, =a is not
licensed.
(207) Vafsi
Stative Unaccusative
čera rušen be. čera rušen=a we.
lamp lit was lamp lit=cs became
‘The lamp was on.’ ‘The lamp went on.’
Transitive
čera rušen=om=a kærd.
lamp lit=1 s 2=cs did
‘I turned the lamp on.’
NP PAM NP PAM
Agent Patient A P Agent Patient A P
m f p m f p m f p m f p
dir + + + + + + + [3]
ob + + + + + + + +
Dikin Marāqei, Vafsi III Kajali
NP PAM NP PAM
Agent Patient A P Agent Patient A P
m f p m f p m f p m f p
dir (+) (+) + + [3] +
+ +
ob + + (+) (+) + + +
Khoynarudi Leriki
Chāli has both Ergative and Double Oblique alignment with nominal arguments in
the Past system, but the Ergative construction has no co-indexing of Ps in the verb:
(224) Oblique-Direct (Ergative)
æmir ærselán-e kæmær=eš de-bæst.
P.N. P.N.-om belt=3 s 2 pvb -tie:pt
‘Amir Arselan fastened his belt.’ (ST: 105, 161)
Double Oblique (+ DOM)
værziær-o bærr-on=ešo b-ašind.
farmer-op spade-op =3 p 2 pu -throw:pt
‘The farmers threw down (their) spades.’ (ST: 76, 106)
Māsulei seems to have exclusively Double Oblique Alignment (with DOM):
(225) æ mərdæk-ón əštə p-ær venn=a.
that man-op your father-ob see:pt = aux : pt
‘Those men had seen your father.’
mən əm-é tə́=ræ voǽrd=əm=æ.
I-ob this-ob you=for bring:pt =1 s 2= aux
‘I brought this for you.’
The Past in Vafsi has three different Alignments for marking core arguments:
1) The most common alignment by far is the Double Oblique I. Various strat-
egies help to disambiguate the two Oblique-marked arguments as discussed
below.
2) Vafsi III (Ergative), requiring OSV order, has become rather marginalized.
3) Also rare is the Double Oblique II (Vafsi II), also obligatorily OSV.
As in Dikin-Marāqei, only 1sg . and 3sg /pl have Oblique case forms in Māsulei
and Asālemi, thus determining Double Oblique and Neutral alignment in Māsulei
with the addition of the Ergative in Asālemi. In Vafsi all persons except 2pl have
Oblique forms. Only in Vafsi and Eštehārdi does the Direct case of the 1sg (æz)
serve as Past Patient in a purely Ergative pattern:
(236) Eštehārdi (ST: 149) Vafsi Ergative (Vafsi III, OSV)
æz=eš bë-rësta-ym. æz tani bǽ-resda-ym
I:dir =3 s 2 send:pt -1 s 1 ‘He sent me.’ I:dir he:ob send:pt -1 s 1
Total:169 1sg 3sg 1sg 3sg 2sg 1pl 2pl 3pl 1sg 2sg 3sg * 1pl 2pl 3pl
Pres S/A 28 12 21 9 5 3
Past S 6 3 5
Past A 8 2 4 2
Pres P 12 1 14 7 – 2 3
Past P 8 1 3 6 3 1
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic 781
Total:275 1sg 3sg 1sg 3sg 2sg 1pl 2pl 3pl 1sg 2sg 3sg * 1pl 2pl 3pl
Pres S/A 15 39 4 7 24 6 9
Past S 4 28 21 16 1 2
Past A 1 18 7 2 6 5
Pres P 13 8 1 – 5 9
Past P 11 8 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
The small number of tokens for this survey could be problematic and comparison
of additional Leriki as well as other dialects from Miller’s 1930 texts (collected
in 1902) vs. Stilo’s 2000’s Northern Talyshi texts will be needed to reach firmer con-
clusions—clearly a goal for future investigation. The points below on pronominal
alignment are derived from Table 7B and thus show the more current (2002, 2004
fieldwork) status of Leriki:
The Direct case forms of the pronouns in the 2000’s texts are used for:
1) Subject of transitives in the Present and all intransitive tenses (but see Point 7
below) as well as, very occasionally, the A of Past transitives (237b).
(237) az kitob-í o-bæ-gïrd-ïn-é=m.
I book-ob pvb - all -turn-caus - inf = aux :1 s 1
‘I will return the book.’
ïm diæ sæ b=æy.
this look take-pt to=he:ob
‘It (the wolf) looked at him (boy).’
2) Patient in the Past system for 3rd singular pronouns:
(238) æv=ïžon maγarǽ=dæ pæydo kard=e.
he=3 p 2 cave=in manifest do:pt = aux
‘They found her in a cave.’
ïm=ïm d=ïštæ čaš-í víndæ.
this=1 s 2 with=self eye-ob see:pt
‘I saw this with my own eyes.’
The Accusative case in the 2000’s texts is used for:
3) the Patient in the Present system. SAP pronouns and 3rd plural show 23 tokens
of the Accusative, and Ø tokens of Oblique or Common cases. The 3rd singular
show 13 tokens of the Oblique case as the only alternative in the Present.
782 Donald L. Stilo
A. Dikin Marāqei: Set2 Past A; Set2 Pres P, Set1 Past P (all persons); Set2 Possessive
(245) Set2 Possessive P Encoding, Pres. Set1 P Encoding, Past
čašm=em, čašm=et dæ-m-fa-n=eš. vínd=im-ian.
eye=1 s 2 eye=2 s 2 pvb - dur -throw-1 s 1=3 s 2 see:pt =1 s 2-3 sf 1.
‘my eye, your eye’ ‘I throw it.’ ‘I saw her.’
B. Vafsi: Set2 Past A; Set2 Pres P, Set1 Past P (all persons); Set2 Possessive
(246) Set2 Possessive P Encoding, Pres. Set1 P Encoding, Past
čostǽk=es, čostǽk=esan is-ær-vin-óm b-ísan-die-ym
shoe=3 s 2 shoe=3 p 2 3 s 2 - dur -see-1 s 1 pu -3 p 2-see:pt -1 s 1.
‘his/her, their shoes’ ‘I see him/her’ ‘They saw me’
C. Khoynarudi: Set2 past A; Set2 Pres P, Set1 Past P (sparingly, restricted to 3sg /pl ),
Set2 Possessive; (all: YSFN)
(247) Set2 Possessive P Encoding, Pres. Set1 P Encoding, Past
baju=m, zurǽ=r b-ím-kešt-an! em-e=šun kešt-ind.
sister=1 s 2 son=2 s 2 pu -1 s 2 -kill-2 p 1 this-dp =3 p 2 kill- 3 p 1.
‘my sister, your son’ ‘Kill me!’ ‘They killed these ones.’
D. Nowkiāni: Set2 past A; Set2 Pres P; Set1 Past P (restricted); no Set2 Possessive;
Patient Encoding, Present System: Set1 A (suffixed)/Set2 P (encliticized)
(248) P Encoding, Pres. Set1 P Encoding, Past
Ø-xeruš-ém=ešan. béz-i-æ i-gæt=em-a.
dur -sell-1 s 1= 3 p 2 goat-indf - df pvb -take:pt =1 s 2- 3 sf 1.
‘I sell them.’ (YSFN) I bought a goat (f.).’ (YSFN)
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic 785
E. Asālemi: Set2 past A; no Set2 Pres P; Set1 Past P (restricted to 3sg / pl ); Set2
Possessive
(249) Set1 Past P Encoding,
Set2 Possessive Past A marking omitted
šæví=m, zuǽ=r mən æ merd-e vind-in.
shirt=1 s 2 son=2 s 2 I:ob that man-dp see:pt -3 p 1.
‘my shirt, your son’ ‘I saw those men.’
Set2 A fronted
tə æy-é=r vind-in?
you that-dp =2 s 2 see:pt -3 p 1.
‘Did you see them?’
F. Hezārrudi: Set2 past A; no Set2 Pres P; Set1 Past P (restricted to 3sg /pl ); no Set2
Possessive
(250) Set2 A unfronted/Set1 P(YT: 458)
be-na=m-ende æmbar.
pu -put:pt =1 s 2- 3 p 1. storage.room
‘I put them in the storage room.’
Past A marking omitted/Set1 P (YT: 458)
æd-orund-ende otaq.
pvb -throw:pt - 3 p 1. room
‘X threw them into the room.’
G. Leriki: Set2 A Past; no Set2 Pres P; no Set1 Past P; (Set2 Possessive very mar-
ginal);
Past System: Set2 A (encliticized); Patient Encoding not licensed in any tense
(251) še-m mol-on=ïm dušæ=y.
go:pt -1 s 1 cattle-pl =1 s 2 milk:pt = aux
‘I went (and) milked the animals.’
omæ maštævo niyæ=m o-šánd=e.
come:ppl morning churn-1 s 2 pvb -shake-aux
‘The next morning I churned (it).’
H. Sagzābādi: Set2 A Past; no Set2 Pres P; no Set1 Past P; Set2 Possessive
(252) Possessive Enclitics (AA2: 103) Past system: Set2 = A (AA2: 103)
xwačær=i, dæst=eš ǽsb-e=šun dǽ-bæst dar.
sister=2 s 2 hand=3 s 2 horse-dp =3 p 2 pvb -tie:pt tree
‘your sister (Obliq.), his hand’ ‘They tied the horses up to a tree.’
786 Donald L. Stilo
J. Razajerdi: no Set2 past A; Set2 Pres P; no Set1 Past P; Set2 Possessive; Set2 Past P
(253) Set2 Possessive P Encoding, Pres. P Encoding, Past
bil=em, sær=et (not available) bil bijæ zí-em=eš.
spade=1 s 2 son=2 s 2 spade with hit:pt -1 s 1= 3 s 2.
‘my spade, your son’ ‘I hit it with the spade.’
(265) Vafsi
Unfronted
b-ímresda koleng b -ísan-ard
pu -1 s 2-send:pt pick pu -3 p 2-bring:pt
‘I sent them to bring a pick.’
One-place fronting (to object)
yey aynæ =s b-ard.
one mirror=3 s 2 pu -bring:pt
‘She brought (him) a mirror.’
(266) Vafsi
One-place fronting (to non-object)
parama ke æz bén =es úgiræ.
a.few emf from root=3 s 2 pvb -take:pt
‘(The flood) even picked up a few(trees) by the roots.’
Distance fronting (to object)
dàre si-é =s æz ben o.bær árd
tree-ez apple-of =3 s 2 from root out brought
‘It ripped apple trees out by the roots.’
(267) Vafsi
Distance fronting (to non-object) Set2 deleted
hæzíri =m tani bǽ-diæ. zarru-an injuri yá-watt-e.
yesterday=1 s 2 he:ob pu -see:pt child-op thus pu -say:pt - perf
‘I saw him yesterday.’ ‘The guys have said this (lit: thus).’
Set2 fronting placement may help to identify the P in the Double Oblique I (§7.1.3.3).
(270) Leriki
Present Future (see also ex. 45)
čič=e vót-dæ? čï kovra=ž b-æ-va?
what=aux :3 s 1 say-loc from where=aux :2 s 1 fut - dur -bring
‘What is he saying?’ Where will you bring (it) from?’
(271) Leriki
Past Progressive
tï čič=b-iž vot-é-dæ?
you what=aux : pt -2 s 1 say-inf -loc
‘What were you saying?’
Past Perfect
tožæ=b-im az omæ kæ.
new=aux : pt -1 s 1 I come:pt house
‘I had just come home.’
(272) Viznei
Present Past Progressive
tə čič=iš kárd-æ? tə čič=b-iš kard-æ?
you what=aux :2 s 1 do-loc you what=aux : pt -2 s 1 do-loc
‘What are you doing?’ (YSFN) ‘What were you doing?’ (YSFN)
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic 791
(273) Asālemi
Present
æz æ otaq-í=ka=m b-æ-xət.
I that room-ob = ka = aux :1 s 2 pr - dur -sleep:pt
‘I sleep in that room.’
(274) Keringāni
Present Present Perfect
hæsæn=en pül get. nun=em=en pæt-a.
P.N.=aux :3 s 1 money take:pt bread=1 s 2=aux :3 s 1 bake:pt - perf
‘Hassan gets money.’ ‘I have baked bread’ (YSFN)
Addressee
qeziye=re še hæmsaye=re bæ-ut-e.
issue=ra self neighbor=ra pu -said-3 s
‘He told the situation to his neighbor.’ (SY: 62)
(280) Harzani
Recipient Addressee
en jöb=e te=re ü-müt=mæ. merd=e öt=mæ.
this word=ra I=ra pvb -teach=1 s 2 man=ra say:pt =1 s 2
‘I taught you this word.’ (MH: 466) ‘I said to the man.’ (AAK: 78)
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic 793
Northern Talyshi flags the Recipient and the Addressee exclusively with the adpo-
sition bæ ‘to’, while Asālemi appears to use both Oblique case and bæ strategies,
and Māsulei seems to use only the case-marking strategy, as do most Tatic varieties.
(281) Leriki
Recipients
b-æ-do=n æy bæ mï?
fut - dur -give=3 p 1 that:ob to I:ob
‘Will they give that to me?’
Addressees
æv-on bæ mï ní-bæ-vot-e=n.
that-pl to I:ob neg - fut - dur -say-inf =3 p 1
‘They won’t tell me.’
(282) Asālemi
sif-í b-æ-da=m æ:mæd-í.
apple-ob fut - dur -give=1 s 1 p.N.-ob
‘I’ll give Ahmad the apple.’
ræis-í bæ mən vat-æ ki…
chief-ob to I:ob say:pt - aux sub
‘The chief told me that…’ (Paul: 191)
(283) Māsulei
pul-e a-do=š-æ mən.
money-ob pvb -give:pt =3s 2 I:ob
‘He gave me the money.’
æ mærdæk-é əčə=y vat=æ?
that man-ob what=2 s 1 say=aux
‘What did you say to that man?’
The DOC, by far the most common ditransitive construction in Vafsi, typically
(but not obligatorily) places the R argument in postverbal position:
794 Donald L. Stilo
8. Subordination
Subordination types all share the feature of being introduced by the Universal Sub-
ordinator ki/ke (sub ) in their underlying structures. This survey of Subordination
briefly covers Adverbial (‘when, if, since’), Relative, Complement, and Purposive
clauses.
Examples marked with * below indicate that both the adverbial subordinate con-
junction and the Universal Subordinator ki/ke are present.
8.2.1. Temporals
(292) Lāhijāni
və́xti mu ún=a bə-dye-m,, u xott-í du-bu-Ø.
when I he=ra pu -see:past -1 s he sleep:inf be 4- aux : pt -3 s
‘When I saw him, he was sleeping.’
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic 797
æz bǽ-tærsa-yme.
I pu -fear:pt -1 s 1
‘When they said a flood came at the winter camp, I got scared.’
(297) Sāravi
æger te bé-xa-i,, xærim-be*,...
if you pu -want-2 s
‘If you want, I’ll buy (it).’ (< *xærin-me) (SH:143)
(302) Māsulei
čon hæva gærmtær=a bo-Ø, mosafer hey
since weather hotter=cs become:pt -3 s 1 traveler keep.on
æræγ kær-ə.
sweat do-3 s 1
‘Since it got hotter, the traveler keeps sweating.’
(303) Vafsi
čun næf ’e xosusi man beyn=dæ nǽ-v-e,, tæmam
since gain-ez private in middle=in neg - cop : pt -3 s 1 all
esteqbal=esan kærd
welcome=3 p 2 do:pt
‘Since there wasn’t any private gain involved, they all welcomed it.’
(314) Lāhijāni
šom xord-ə=də b-im,, nahid b-ə́ma-Ø ame xonə.
dinner eat-inf = be 4 aux : pt -1 p P.N. pu -come:pt -3 s our house
‘When/while we were eating dinner, Nahid came to our house.’ (NJ,134)
(315) Sāravi (SY: 58)
e-tta tim karess-ene,, sæt-ta tim æmel
one-unc seed plant:pt -3 p 100-unc seed produced
Ø-yæmu-Ø.
imf -come:pt -3 s
‘If they planted one seed, a hundred seeds would grow.’
(316) Leriki
æy bḯ-vind-o-ž, bæ-zn-e=ž?
he:ob sbj -see-opt -2 s 1 fut -know-inf =2 s 1
‘If you see him, will you recognize him?’
(317) Vafsi
in pæs=dæ tt-á-nde,, æz rótt=i m-eyz.
this time=in dur -come-3 p 1 from place=2 s 2 neg : imper -rise
‘This time when they come, you don’t get up from your spot.
(318) Vafsi
šuraw bǽ-zen-ende,, áwæ obǽr ætt-à-Ø.
P.N. pu -hit-3 p 1 water to-out dur -come-3 s 1
‘If they drill in Shuraw, the water will come out.’ (i. e., they’ll strike
water)
802 Donald L. Stilo
(319) Lāhijāni
mu n-ə́mə-na bu-m agə bú-donsə
I neg -come:pt - cond aux : pt -1 s if pu -know:pt
b-i-m itorə=y.
aux : pt - irr -1 s this.way=cop :3 s
‘I wouldn’t have come if I had known that it was this way.’
(320) Lāhijāni (NJ: 71)
mu bu-šo bu-m ki u b-ə́ma-Ø.
I pu -go:pt aux : pt -1 s sub he pu -come:pt -3 s
‘I had (already) left when he came.’
Leriki
bærk=imon še-dæ ki társ-dæ=mon
strong=1 p 1 go:inf - pr sub fear-pr - pr =1 p 1
‘We are walking fast because we are scared.’
(321) Vafsi
molla-y bawæ ǽ-veš-e ke hoqqæ=s o tawan zæ.
P.N.-om father pu -burn-3 s 1 sub trick=3 s 2 to we:ob hit:pt
‘May Molla’s father burn (in hell) because he has played a trick on us.’
(323) Lāhijāni
ama bə́-d-im ki mi pier=əm b-áma-Ø.
we pu -see:pt -1 p sub my father=also pu -come:pt -3 s
‘We saw that my father came in.’
(324) Leriki
vínd=ïž=e ki ïm še-Ø jali.
see=3 s 2= aux sub this go:pt -3 s alone
‘(The wolf) saw that this one went off (from the pack) alone.’
ve saγ be ki tï omǽ=ž.
very healthy be:imper sub you come:pt =2 s 1
‘Thank you very much for having come. (lit: that you have come).’
(325) Khoynarudi (YSFN)
vin=čun=æ1 asb-ün bær an=æ2 qefel.
see:pt =3 p 2=aux horse-op door be dem= cop :3 s locked
1
(< vind=šun=æ)
2
(for copula type see at §6.5.8.1)
‘They saw that the horses’ (stable) door is locked.’
(326) Vafsi
esdæ ná-watt-æ ke an čiz b-e.
you:ob neg -say:pt - ppl sub that what aux : pt -3 s 1
‘You didn’t say what that was.’
b-ísdi ke nǽ-r-buæ-Ø.
pu -3 s 2-see:pt sub neg -be:3 s 1
‘He saw that it isn’t possible.’
(332) Sāravi
un merdi=re ke vin-d-i me piyer=e.
that man=ra sub see-pr -2 s my father=cop :3 s
‘The man that you see is my father.’
Vafsi
kelje ke mákk=a w-è, indi=e.
girl sub lost=cs be:pt -3 s here=cop :3 s 1
‘The girl who got lost is here.’
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic 805
Relative clauses modifying an object are often extraposed to the right, particularly if
they are longer than the verb of the main clause (cf. a similar situation in German).
(333) Lāhijāni
xatire-i bu-Ø ki mu dašt-əm.
memory- restr cop : pt -3 s sub I have:pt -1 s
‘It was a reminiscence that I had.’
ja-ha-yi hanna ki mu nú-šo-m.
place-pl - restr be 5 sub I neg -go:pt -1 s
‘There are places I haven’t gone to’
(334) Lāhijāni (NJ: 130)
mu xəyli čiz-on=a don-əm ki gut-ə mənne-m.
I many thing-pl = ra know-1 s sub say-inf can:neg -1 s
‘I know a lot of things that I can’t say.’
Since the subordinator ke is invariable, NPs that have a non-core argument role in
the relative clause (‘whose, with whom’, etc.) are generally replaced by a resump-
tive pronoun, either full form or Set2, encoded in the same role as the underlying
NP:
(335) Vafsi
an merde-y ke nawǽ=s i-r-pærsa, ke ve-Ø?
that man-restr sub name=3 s 2 2 s 2-dur -ask:pt who cop : pt -3 s 1
(nawǽ=s ~ tani nawǽ)
(name=3s2 his name
‘Who was that man whose name you were asking about?’
Temporal
(336) čoštæ hard-í=ædæ ov=ïm hárd=e.
breakfast eat-inf = loc water=1 s 2 eat:pt = aux
While eating breakfast, I drank water.”
tï væy b-i=ædæ, bárd=e?
you there be:inf =in take:pt =2 s 2
‘When you were there, did you take (him/her with you)?’
806 Donald L. Stilo
Purposive clauses
(337) penj dæγiγæ íyo mánd-imon bo hærækæt kard-e ïštæn
five minute there stay-1 p 1 for movement do-inf self
tosp-ïn-e.
warm-caus - inf
‘We stayed there for five minutes to move around (and) warm ourselves.’
In addition, it is interesting to see just how many non-core arguments are preverbal
in a language such as Vafsi. While frequency counts for postverbal objects have
not yet be done for Vafsi, the following table shows just how common other post-
verbal elements are.
The most striking observation about this pull chain is the predominant postverbal
nature of Goals vs. the predominant preverbal position of the cluster of Address-
ees, Temporals, Ablatives, Locatives, and Comitative/Instrumentals. Note that the
Locative at 88.9 % preverbal is almost the mirror-image of the Goal at 86.2 % post-
verbal. It is my opinion that the Goals have initiated this pull chain and since
Recipients often share many features with Goals cross-linguistically, as do Bene-
factives with Rs, these arguments followed in the chain as seen in the table. There
is still a rather large gap between the three arguments on the right and all five
others to the left in the table.
The following are four short texts as examples of naturalistic speech in Lāhijāni,
Sāravi, Leriki, and Vafsi.
10.3. Lerik text: encounters with a Bear, Xanbala Musayev, Pirasora village
Abbreviations
References
(AF=) ‘Abdoli, ‘Ali. 2001/1380. Farhang-e tatbiqi-e tāleši, tāti, āzari [translation missing].
Tehran: šerkat-e sahāmi-e entešār.
‘Abdoli Koluri, ‘Ali. 1992/1371. Nazari be jāme‘e-ye ‘ašāyeri-e tāleš [A glimpse into the
tribal community of the Talesh]. Tehran:Etelā‘āt Publishers.
(AA2=) Al-e Ahmad, Jalal. 1958/1337. Tātnešinhā-ye boluk-e Zahrā [The Tat population of
Zahrā District]. Dāneš: Tehran.
(AA1=) Al-e Ahmad, Jalal. 1973/1352. Owrāzān, 4th edn. Māziār: Tehran.
Amini, Tanja J. 2003. Das Tonekābonī von Šīrūd: Materialien und Untersuchungen zur An-
näherung an einen kaspischen Dialekt. Hamburg: University of Hamburg, unpublished
MA thesis.
Amirzādeh-Vājārgāh, Asghar. 1996/1375. Ārus dāmāt səng-ə siyā bobon (Arus va dāmād
sang-e siāh šodand) [The bride and groom turned into a black stone]. Rašt:Našr-e
Gilakān.
Arkadiev, Peter M. 2008. Poor (Two-term) case systems: Limits of neutralization. In Andrej
Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook on case, 686–99. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Asatrian, Garnik & Habib Borjian. 2005. Talish and the Talishis (The state of research).
Iran and the Caucasus 9(1). 43–72.
Bazin, Marcel. 1981. Quelques échantillons de variations dialectales du Tâleši. Studia Iran-
ica 10. 111–124, 269–277.
820 Donald L. Stilo
Borjian, Habib & Maryam Borjian. 2007. Marriage rites in South Caspian villages. Archiv
orientální, vol. 75(2), 191–214.
Borjian, Maryam & Habib Borjian. 2007. Ethno-linguistic materials from rural Mazandaran:
Mysterious memories of a woman. Iran and the Caucasus 11(2). 226–254.
Borjian, Habib & Maryam Borjian. 2008. The last Galesh herdsman: Ethno-linguistic mate-
rials from South Caspian Rainforests. Iranian Studies 41(3). 365–402.
Diessel, Holger. 2001. The ordering distribution of main and adverbial clauses: A typologi-
cal study. Language 77. 433–455.
Grjunberg, Aleksandr L. 1963. Jazyk Severoazerbajdžanskix Tatov [The language of the
northern Azerbaijanian Tat]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.
Guizzo, Daniele. 2004. Due dialetti Taleshi di Talesh (Hashtpar). Naples: University of
Naples dissertation.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2008. Alignment change in Iranian languages: A construction grammar
approach. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
(HA=) Hāšemi, Jahāngir. 1974/1353. Guyeš-e Alviri [The Alviri dialect]. Tehran: Univer-
sity of Tehran dissertation.
Ivanow, Wladimir. 1931. The dialect of Gozärkhon in Alamut. Acta Orientalia 9. 352–369.
Jahāngiri, ’AliAsghar. 1988/1367. Kandelus. Tehran: Mo’assese-ye farhangi-e Jahāngiri.
(NJ=) Jahāngiri, Nāder. 2003. Guyeš-e Gilaki-e Lāhijān, Vol I, vižegihā-ye āvāyi va sāxt-
vāžei [The Gilaki dialect of Lāhijān, Vol. I. The phonological and morphological char-
acteristics]. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Kalbāsi, Irān. 1997/1376. Guyeš-e Kelārdašt (Rudbārak) [The dialect of Kelārdašt (Rud-
bārak)]. Tehran: Pažuhešgāh-e ‘olum-e ensāni va motale‘āt-e farhangi.
(AAK=) Kārang, ‘Abdol-‘Ali. 1954/1333. Tāti va Harzani. Tabriz:Esma’il Va’ezpur.
Kaye, Stephen. 2013. Morphomic stems in the northern Talyshi verb: Diachrony and syn-
chrony. In Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden & John Charles Smith (eds.), The bound-
aries of pure morphology: Diachronic and synchronic perspectives, 181–208. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lambton, Anne K. S. 1938. Three Persian dialects. James G. Forlong Fund, 18, London:
Royal Asiatic Society.
(LM=) Lazard, Gilbert. 1979. Textes en tâleši de Mâsule. Studia Iranica 8(2). 33–66.
Lazard, Gilbert. 1990. Le dialecte de Rudbâr (Gilân). In Dina Amin & Manouchehr Kasheff
(eds.), Iranica Varia: Papers in honor of Professor Ehsan Yarshater, 110–123. (Acta
Iranica 30. Troisième Série, vol. XVI. Textes et Mémoires). Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Lecoq, Pierre. 1989. Les dialectes du centre de l’Iran. In Rüdiger Schmitt (ed.), Compen-
dium Linguarum Iranicarum, 313–326. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Farzpur-Māčiāni, M. 1964, 1965. Zabān-o farhang-e Māčiān [The language and lexicon of
the Mačiān], Našriyya-ye Daneškada-ye Adabiyyāt-e Tabriz 16, 1964/1343: 277–296,
451–470; 17, 1965/1344: 109–128, 261–284.
(MT2=) Miller, Boris Vsevolodovič. 1930. Talyšskie teksty [Talyshi texts]. Moscow:
Naučno-issledovatl’skij institut nacional’nyx i e’tničeskix kul’tur narodov vostoka
SSSR.
Miller, Boris Vsevolodovič. 1953. Talyšskij Jazyk [The Talyshi language]. Akademiya
Nauk: Moscow.
(MH=) Mortazavi, Manuchehr. 1954/1333. Noktei cand az zabān-e harzani [Some points on
the Harzani language]. NDATabriz 6. 304–314.
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic 821
(MH=) Mortazavi, Manuchehr. 1962/1341. Fe‘l dar zabān-e harzani [The verb in the
Harzani language]. NDATabriz 14. 453–488.
(MH=) Mortazavi, Manuchehr. 1963/1342. Fe‘l dar zabān-e harzani [The verb in the
Harzani language]. NDATabriz 15. 61–97.
Nawata, Tatsuo. 1982. The Masal dialect of Talishi. Acta Iranica 22. 93–117.
Pahlavān, Keyvān. 2003/1382. Farhang-e mardom-e Elāšt (zādgāh-e Rezā šāh) va Savād-
kuh [The culture of the people of Elāsht (the birthplace of Rezā Shāh) and Savādkuh].
Tehran: Ārvan/Xāvarzamin.
Paul, Daniel. 2011. A comparative dialectal description of Iranian Taleshi. Manchester:
University of Manchester dissertation.
Pāyandeh, Mahmud. 1973/1352. Masalhā va estelāhāt-e Gil va Deylam [Dictionary of
proverbs and expressions of Gilan and Deylam]. Tehran: Bonyād-e farhang-e Iran.
Pāyandeh, Mahmud. 1987/1366. Farhang-e Gil va Deylam, Fārsi be Gilaki [Dictionary of
Gil and Deylam, Farsi to Gilaki]. Tehran: Amirkabir.
Pirejko, L. A. 1976. Talyšsko-russkij i russko-talyšskij slovar [Talyshi-Russian, Rus-
sian-Talyshi dictionary]. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Russkij jazyk.
(RR=) Rastorgueva, Vera S., Aza A. Kerimova, Ahmed K. Mamedzade, L. A. Pirejko &
D. I. Èdel’man. 1971. Giljanskij jazyk [The Gilaki language]. Moscow: Nauka.
Rastorgueva, Vera S. & D. I. Èdel’man. 1982. Giljankskij, mazanderanskij (s dialektami
šamerzadi i velatru) [Gilaki, Mazanderani (including the dialects of Shahmirzad and
Velatru)]. In Vera S. Rastorgueva (ed.), Osnovy iranskogo jazykoznanija, Novoiranskie
jazyki:Zapadnaja gruppa, Prikaspijskie jazyki, 447–554. Moscow: Nauka.
Redard, Georges. 1970. Other Iranian languages. In Thomas Sebeok (ed.), Current trends in
linguistics, vol. 6, Linguistics in South West Asia and North Africa, 97–135. The Hague
& Paris: Mouton.
(SH=) Shokri, Guiti. 1995/1374. Guyeš-e Sāri (Māzanderāni) [The dialect of Sāri
(Māzanderāni)]. Tehran: Pažuhešgāh-e ‘olum-e ensāni va motale‘āt-e farhangi.
(SR=) Shokri, Guiti. 2006/1385. Guyeš-e Rāmsari [The Rāsari dialect]. Tehran: Pažu-
hešgāh-e ‘olum-e ensāni va motale‘āt-e farhangi.
Sokolova, Vera. 1953. Očerki po fonetike iranskix jazykov [Sketches of Iranian Phonetics].
Moscow: Izdatl’stvo Akademii Nauk.
Stassen, Leon. 2005. Predicative possession. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer,
David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Stilo, Donald L. 1981. The Tati language group in the sociolinguistic context of northwest-
ern Iran and Transcaucasia. Iranian Studies 14. 137–187.
Stilo, Donald L. 1994. Phonological systems in contact in Iran and Transcaucasia. In Mehdi
Marashi (ed.), Persian studies in North America: studies in honor of Mohammad Ali
Jazayery, 75–94. Bethesda, Maryland: Iranbooks.
Stilo, Donald L. 2001. Gilan, x. Languages. In Ehsan Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopædia Iranica
10.6, 660–668. New York: Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University.
(VF=) Stilo, Donald L. 2004a. Vafsi folk tales. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Stilo, Donald L. 2004b. Coordination in three Western Iranian languages: Vafsi, Persian
and Gilaki. In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Coordination, 269–330. Amsterdam & Phila-
delphia: Benjamins.
Stilo, Donald L. 2005. Iranian as buffer zone between the universal typologies of Turkic
and Semitic. In Éva Ágnes Csató, Bo Isaksson & Carina Jahani (eds.), Linguistic con-
822 Donald L. Stilo
vergence and areal diffusion: Case studies from Iranian, Semitic and Turkic, 35–63.
London & New York: Routledge Curzon.
Stilo, Donald L. 2007a. Isfahan, xxi. provincial dialects. In E. Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopædia
Iranica 14.1, 93–112. New York: Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University.
Stilo, Donald L. 2007b. Isfahan, xix. Jewish dialect. In E. Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopædia
Iranica 14.1, 77–84. New York: Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University.
Stilo, Donald L. 2007c. Isfahan, xxii. Gazi dialect. In E. Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopædia
Iranica 14.1, 112–119. New York: Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University.
Stilo, Donald L. 2008a. Two sets of mobile verbal person agreement markers in the North-
ern Talyshi language. In Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Donald Stilo (eds.), Aspects
of Iranian linguistics: Papers in honor of Mohammad Reza Bateni, 363–390. Newcas-
tle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Stilo, Donald L. 2008b. Case in Iranian: From reduction and loss to innovation and re-
newal. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook on case,
363–390. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stilo, Donald L. 2009. Circumpositions as an areal response: The case study of the Iranian
zone. In Lars Johanson (ed.), Turkic Languages, 3–33. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Stilo, Donald L. 2010. Ditransitive constructions in Vafsi: A corpus-based study. In An-
drej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Studies in ditransitive
constructions: A comparative handbook, 243–76. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter
Mouton.
Stilo, Donald L. 2012. Intersection zones, overlapping isoglosses, and ‘fade- out/fade-in’
phenomena in central Iran. In Behrad Aghaei & Mohammad R. Ghanoonparvar (eds.),
Iranian languages and culture: Essays in honor of Gernot Ludwig Windfuhr, 3–33.
Costa Mesa: Mazda.
Stilo, Donald L. 2014. Further Notes on the Iranian Substratum of Azerbaijani Turkish. In
Heidi Stein (ed.), Turkic Language in Iran – Past and Present, 271–293. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Stilo, Donald L. 2015. The polygenetic origins of the Talyshi language. In Uwe Bläsing,
Victoria Arakelova & Matthias Weinreich (eds.), Studies on Iran and the Caucasus: In
honour of Garnik Asatrian, 411–453. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Stilo, Donald L. 2016. On the Non-Persian Iranian Substratum of Azerbaijan. In Éva Á.
Csató, Lars Johanson, András Róna-Tas & Bo Utas (eds.), Turks and Iranians: Interac-
tions in Language and History, 185–234. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Stilo, Donald L. 2018a. Numeral classifier systems in the Araxes Iran linguistic area. In
William B. McGregor & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The diachrony of classification sys-
tems. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stilo, Donald L. 2018b. Dikin Marāqei Tati of Alamut: an undocumented conservative Tati
language. In Salome Gholami (ed.), Endangered Iranian languages.
Stilo, Donald L. forthcoming a. Mazanderani. Encyclopædia Iranica. New York: Center for
Iranian Studies, Columbia University.
Stilo, Donald L. forthcoming b. Loss vs. expansion of gender in Tatic languages: Kafteji
(Kabatei) and Kelasi.
Stilo, Donald L. to appear. A grammar of Vafsi.
Tāhbāz, Sirus. 1963/1342. Yuš. Dāneškadaye Adabiyyāt, Entešārāte Mo’assesaye Moṭāle’āt
va Taḥqiqāte Ejtemā’i, No. 9, Daftarhāye Monogrāfi 2, University of Tehran.
Windfuhr, Gernot L. 1987. Convergence: Iranian Talyshi and Turkic Azari. In Elena Bashir,
The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic 823
Madhav M. Deshpande & Peter E. Hook (eds.), Selected papers from SALA-7. South
Asian Roundtable Conference, Bloomington, Indiana, 385–405.
Windfuhr, Gernot L. 1989. New West Iranian. In Rüdiger Schmitt (ed.), Compendium Lin-
guarum Iranicarum, 251–62. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Windfuhr, Gernot L. 1992. Cases. In E. Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopædia Iranica, 5.1, 25–37.
New York: Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University.
Yarshater, Ehsan. 1959. The Dialect of Shāhrud (Khalkhāl). BSOAS 22. 52–68.
(KJ=) Yarshater, Ehsan. 1960. The Tāti Dialect of Kajal. BSOAS 23. 275–286.
(YA=) Yarshater, Ehsan. 1964. The dialects of Alvir and Vidar. In Georges Redard (ed.),
Indo-Iranica: Mélanges présentés à Georg Morgenstierne, 177–187. Wiesbaden: Har-
rassowitz.
(ST=) Yarshater, Ehsan. 1969. A grammar of southern Tati dialects. The Hague & Paris:
Mouton.
(YT=) Yarshater, Ehsan. 1970. The Tati dialect of Ṭārom. In Mary Boyce & Ilya Gershe-
vitch (eds.), W. B. Henning memorial volume, 451–467. London: Lund Humphries.
(ASA=) Yarshater, Ehsan. 1996. The Tāleshi of Asālem. Studia Iranica 25(1). 83–113.
(YX=) Yarshater, Ehsan. 2003. The Xo’ini Dialect. Persica XIX, Louvain: Peeters. 165–
182.
(KL=) Yarshater, Ehsan. 2005. Tāti Dialect of Kalāsuri. In Dieter Weber (ed.), Languages of
Iran: Past and present. Iranica 8, 269–284. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Yarshater, Ehsan. to appear b. Karingāni Dialect. (February 18, 2003 draft).
Yarshater, Ehsan. to appear c. Karani Dialect. (May 18, 2003 draft).
(SY=) Yoshie, Satako. 1996. The Sāri dialect. Tokyo: Institute for Languages and Cultures
of Asia and Africa.
Zoka, Yahyā. 1954/1332. Guyeš-e Keringān [The dialect of Keringān]. Tehran: Daneš.
Zoka, Yahyā. 1957/1336. Guyeš-e Galinqaya ya Harzandi [The dialect of Galinqaya]. Far-
hang-e Irānzamin 5, 51–92. Tehran.
824 Donald L. Stilo
In addition to the above sources Dr. Ehsan Yarshater generously provided the author
access to his handwritten field notes on Anbarāni, Dizi, Gandomābi, Jowkandāni,
Karani, Kalāsuri, Karani, Karnaqi, Khoini, Khoynarudi, Lerdi, Nowkiāni, Qal’ei,
Razajerdi, Sayyādlari, Viznei, (Northern Talyshi, Iran), Asālemi, Koluri, Kajali,
Gandomābi, Nowkiāni, Karani Gandomābi, Karnaqi, Dizi for the preparation of
this article.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-020
826 Geoffrey Haig and Geoffrey Khan
in Central Kurdish in the present tense (2a), the subject and object are indexed
through a verbal suffix and a pronominal clitic respectively (glossed in (2b) as
Set I and Set II), while in the past tense (3b), this is reversed:
(2) Central Kurdish
a. nā-yān-bīn-īn b. na-mān-dī-n
neg -3 pl (II)-see. prs -1 pl (I) neg -1 pl (II)-see.pst -3 pl (I)
‘We don’t see them’ ‘We didn’t see them’
However, while a contact scenario for the Kurdish and Neo-Aramaic similarities
appears to be plausible (in view of the close stuctural parallels, and our knowledge
of the histories of the respective speech communities), to what extent contact can
be invoked in the Kartvelian developments remains conjectural. Ossetic, on the
other hand, has lost all trace the ergativity that is presumed to have characterized
middle Iranian (Haig 2017a). The rich case-marking system is entirely accusative,
and is not sensitive to verbal tense or aspect. The Ossetic case system has been
claimed to reflect “Caucasian” influence, but Erschler (2009) points to the diffi-
culty of identifying the source language. However, Erschler (2009) does identify
West Caucasian influence in the development of possessive marking in Ossetic.
Likewise, influence from Kartvelian, or from Slavic, or from both, has been sug-
gested for the system of aspectual preverbs in Ossetic (see also chapter 6.3, §6).
Turning to the traditional features of word order typology, we find that all
languages have pre-nominal genitives and adjectives, in line with Turkic and the
languages of the Caspian region (Stilo, this volume, chapter 5). In this respect,
the languages of this section are distinct from all other Iranian languages consid-
ered in this volume, and from the Semitic languages. With regard to the order of
verb and direct object, both Laz and Ossetic are fairly consistently OV, while the
status of Romeyka in this respect remains somewhat unclear. It seems reasonable
to assume that Romeyka inherited VO word order, but under Turkish influence
may now permit OV, though the conditions for this, and its dialectal distribution
within Romeyka itself, remain to be established. Where we do find consistency,
however, is in the placement of the copula, which in all three languages is clause
final, at least as the unmarked option. Overt, clause-final copulas is a feature that
is common to the entirety of East Anatolia (Haig 2017b), and even extends to
those Arabic dialects of northern Iraq spoken “east of the Tigrisˮ (Prochàzka, this
volume, chapter 3.2, §2.4.1). Position of the copula is not a feature that is consid-
ered in traditional word order typology, but from an areal linguistic perspective, it
may be more sensitive to contact influence than, for example, the order of object
and verb.
One of the striking features of the Iranian and Semitic languages of the Meso-
potamian region is the predominance of finite verb forms in dependent clauses. In
the extreme case, languages of Mesopotamia have virtually no non-finite syntax,
so that even modals such as ‘be able’, ‘want’, or ‘need’, or same-subject phasal
828 Geoffrey Haig and Geoffrey Khan
verbs such as ‘begin’ or ‘finish’, require a finite dependent clauses (see Haig and
Khan, this volume, chapter 1). Although the languages of the Caucasian rim do
make extensive use of finite forms in dependent clauses, there is a greater tendency
towards non-finite verb forms. For example in Ossetic, “the infinitive in -ən […] is
used with phasal, modal, emotive, mental, causation, speech and evaluative pred-
icates ˮ (Serdobolskaya 2016: 304). Laz also uses non-finite forms (verbal nouns,
chapter 6.2, §4.6) for the verbs ‘forget’ and ‘want’. Similarly, in Romeyka non-fi-
nite forms are found with certain types of dependent clauses (chapter 6.4, §6.5.2).
Thus the broad generalization is that the strong tendency towards finiteness in
dependent clauses of all types is significantly weaker outside of the Mesopotamian
region.
Finally, we consider a type of dependent clause known to be sensitive to areal
influence, namely relative clauses. The general pattern for all the languages in
the other sections of this volume is for post-nominal, finite relative clauses, at
least for non-subject relativization. This holds even in the Turkic languages of
western Iran and northern Iraq (Bulut, this volume, chapters 3.5 and 4.2), even
though standard Turkish has pre-nominal, participial relative clauses. But in the
languages of the Caucasian rim, the dominance of post-nominal relative clauses
is absent. Ossetic uses a correlative strategy (chapter 6.3, §5.4), which involves
a head noun internal to the relative clause, but additionally represented by some
pronominal element external to the relative clause. In Laz, the dominant strategy is
prenominal (chapter 6.2, §6), and in Romeyka, both prenominal and postnominal
relative clauses appear to be possible (chapter 6.4, §6.5.1). While all three lan-
guages evidently differ in detail in their relativization strategies, common to all is
the possibility of placing the relative clause before the head noun, and in this point,
they clearly differ from the languages south of the Caucasian Rim, where post-
nominal relativization is preferred, and in several languages represents the sole
option.
References
Blevins, Juliette. 2017. Areal sound patterns: From perceptual magnets to stone soup. In
Raymond Hickey (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics, 88–121. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coghill, Eleanor. 2016. The Rise and Fall of Ergativity in Aramaic. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press
Erschler, David. 2009. Possession marking in Ossetic: Arguing for Caucasian influences.
Linguistic Typology 13(3). 417–450.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2017a. Deconstructing Iranian ergativity. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam
& Lisa Travis (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, 465–500. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2017b. Western Asia: East Anatolia as a transition zone. In Raymond
Caucasian rim and southern Black Sea coast: overview 829
1. Introduction
Laz belongs to the South Caucasian language family, also known as Kartvelian.
The other three members are Mingrelian, Georgian and Svan. The genetic rela-
tionships between these languages are displayed in Figure 1. Laz and Mingrelian,
which are closely related, were once considered as two varieties of the same lan-
guage, called Zan.
Common Kartvelian
Georgian-Zan
Zan
Svan Georgian Laz Mingrelian
Figure 1: Genetic relationships between the South Caucasian languages
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-021
Laz
In Turkey, virtually all speakers are bilingual with Turkish. Nowadays, almost
all children acquire at best a passive knowledge of the language.1 Only among
older adults does one frequently find fluent speakers. Code-switching with Turkish
is widespread, especially among men. Even the speech of Laz who do not code-
switch is interspersed with Turkish elements. Laz is thus a highly endangered lan-
guage.
Laz was never used in school. In 2012, however, the Turkish government made
the decision to offer elective Laz lessons at school, provided enough pupils ask
for it.
Laz is not a written language. However, magazines written partly in Laz have
been published for many years. Furthermore, the recent efforts of some Laz has led
to the publication of novels in this language.
Laz has been partly described and is documented by several collections of
texts (see references in Lacroix 2009a: section 1.2). In addition, a documentation
project funded by HRELP (London) has been undertaken by the author.2 Laz is
divided into three main dialectal areas (see map). Each area is in turn divided
into a number of subdialects. Mutual intelligibility between certain dialects is not
straightforward, but it is not problematic between subdialects of the same area.
This paper describes the Arhavi dialect.
The following sections give basic information on the phonology (§2), the noun
phrase (§3), the verb (§4), simple clauses (§5) and complex clauses (§6). As it
proved impossible to give even the most elementary information on many aspects
of Laz in so few pages, most of the topics touched upon here where chosen either
because of their typological or areal bearing.
2. Phonology
1
During his one-year stay in the Laz community in 2011, the author met children who
were able to speak Laz in the village of Dikkaya (North-East of Turkey) and teenag-
ers in the village of Kabalak (West of Turkey). İrfan Çağatay (September 2012, p.c.)
reports that he heard children from the village of Topluca (North-East of Turkey) speak
Laz. These are exceptional cases.
2
https://elar.soas.ac.uk/Collection/MPI546814 (accessed 20 November 2017).
Laz 833
2.2. Stress
Words other than finite verb forms are normally stressed on the penultimate sylla-
ble: bózo ‘girl’, k’ap’úla ‘back’, okosále ‘broom’, ok’átʃxe ‘then’, héya ‘this one’.
The position of the stress shifts when the word is inflected: bozó-ʃi ‘girl-gen ’,
bozo-pé-ʃi ‘girl-pl - gen ’. Certain final vowels may drop as a result of free varia-
tion, which leads to stress falling on the last syllable: dal-épe ~ dal-ép ‘sisters’.
Stress assignment rules in finite verb forms depend on morphological and
lexical properties. The details will not be given here. Suffice it to say that stress
may fall on any syllable except the final one. Some examples are given in (1–3).
834 René Lacroix
(1) b-i-gzál-are
i 1- mid -leave- fut . i 1/2 sg
‘I’ll leave’
(2) b-o-p’aamit-áp-am
i 1- caus -talk-caus - th
‘I have him talk’
(3) kó-dol-i-kun-es-doe
pv - pv - mid -put_on-aor . i 3. pl - evd
‘they put it on’
Negation is marked by va(r), which precedes the verb immediately and forms one
accentual unit with it:
(4) vá ge-b-ul-u
neg pv - i 1-go_down-th
‘I don’t go down’
not only to nouns, but also to adjectives, postpositions (6) and finite verb forms
(7). The latter situation occurs in free (headless) relative clauses (see §6.1).
(6) tʃkimi ster-epe i-ster-t’es
1 sg . gen like-pl mid -play-impft . i 3. pl
‘The ones like me [i. e. the children my age] used to play.’ (own data)
(7) si-na tʃk’om-i-pe-k
2 sg - sub eat-aor - pl - erg
‘those you ate’ (K72.137)
Table 2 gives the possessive determiners. Here as elsewhere in Laz, there is no
grammaticalized gender distinction. Three examples for possessive determiners
are provided in (8); note that they do not carry stress.
Table 3: Cases
absolutive −
ergative -k
dative -s
genitive -ʃi
allative -ʃe ~ -ʃa
ablative -ʃen
instrumental -ten
Cases have both affixal and clitical characteristics. As regards affixal characteris-
tics, cases belong to the domain of stress assignment, as already illustrated above:
bózo ‘girl’, bozó-ʃi ‘girl-gen ’. On the morphological level, the genitive, allative
and ablative cases trigger a special form of the base of 1st and 2nd person pronouns
(see below).
As regards clitical characteristics, cases are generally not repeated in conjunc-
tions:
836 René Lacroix
ha bere-k-ti k’aj-a
prox . dem child-erg -add good-rs
The young man said: ‘Good’.’ (Ž.95)
Here again, the element at stake has both affixal and clitical characteristics. As
far as affixal characteristics are concerned, -ti belongs to the domain on which the
stress-assigning rule obtains: túti-k ‘bear-erg ’, tutí-k-ti ‘bear-erg - add ’, tut-epé-
k-ti ‘bear-pl - erg - add ’. On the morphological level, -ti triggers a special singular
absolutive form of the demonstrative pronouns, as shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Partial paradigm of the demonstrative pronouns with and without -ti
proximal demonstrative pronoun distal demonstrative pronoun
singular without -ti with -ti without -ti with -ti
absolutive haja ha-ti heja he-ti
ergative hamu-k hamu-k-ti hemu-k hemu-k-ti
dative hamu-s hamu-s-ti hemu-s hemu-s-ti
Laz has proximal and distal deictics. Only the demonstrative pronouns and deter-
miners are considered here. The demonstrative pronouns have two bases: one in
the absolutive (proximal haja, distal heja), the other in all remaining cases (proxi-
mal hamu-, distal hemu-). The demonstrative pronouns take the same case suffixes
as nouns (see the partial paradigms in Table 4). Proximal and distal demonstratives
are used as 3rd person pronouns, as can be seen in examples (13) and (14), respec-
tively.
(13) ma-ja hamu-s a muntxa b-u-ts’v-a-ja
1 sg - rs prox . dem - dat one something i 1- ii 3. appl -tell-opt - rs
[A man, a jackal and a snake are talking to each other. Referring to the
man, the jackal says to the snake:] ‘I’ll say something to him.’ (own data)
(14) hemtepe k’ala avi-ʃe b-id-i ʃavʃati-ʃe
dist . dem . pl with hunting-all i 1-go-aor Şavşat-all
‘[Last year, six men came, six Europeans.] I went hunting with them in
Şavşat.’ (own data)
The demonstrative determiners are ha ~ ham (proximal) and he ~ hem (distal).
They do not inflect. Examples can be found in (12) and (54).
Table 6 gives a list of interrogative proforms.
Mi ‘who’ and mu ‘what’ decline as nouns and can be pluralized (mipe, mupe).
Interrogative proforms generally occur in focus position, i. e. in front of the verb
(see §5.1), as in example (15).
(15) ma mundes b-ɣur-are
1 sg when i 1-die-fut . i 1/2 sg
‘When will I die?’ (D67.XXVIII)
3.3. Adjective
Laz adjectives do not inflect. They occur on the left of the noun they determine
(see §5.1). Some underived adjectives are given in Table 7.
3.4. Echoic
Laz has a productive derivational mechanism which consists of reduplicating a
word and modifying the reduplicant according to the following rule: when the
word begins with a vowel, /m/ is added in front of it (16); when it begins with one
or several consonants, these are replaced by /m/ (17). The resulting compound
means ‘x and other things related to x’ (18).
(16) ejer ‘saddle’ (Turkish loan) → ejer-mejer
optʃk’omi ‘I ate’ → optʃk’omi-moptʃk’omi
(elicited example)
(17) dadzi ‘thorns’ → dadzi-madzi
tsxeni ‘horse’ → tsxeni-meni
840 René Lacroix
4. The verb
The morphology of Laz finite verbs encodes tense, aspect, mood, evidentiality,
person, valency and locative distinctions. Four prefixes, called “affirmative pre-
verbs”, have a range of additional functions (see below). Table 8 shows the order
of the verbal morphemes.
Morphologically, Laz verbs may be divided into two broad classes, on the basis of
the suffix realizing the feature “Set I, 3sg” in the present tense: Class 1 verbs have
-s, while Class 2 verbs have -n. Thematic suffixes as well differ. These suffixes,
glossed “th ”, occur in certain tenses only, like the present (see 19–20) and the
imperfect (see 27); in other tenses, like the aorist and the imperative, no thematic
suffix appears (see 22 and 63, respectively). Class 1 verbs have either no thematic
suffix or one of the thematic suffixes -am, -em, -im, -om, -um and -mer; Class 2
Laz 841
verbs have one of the thematic suffixes -er, -ir or -ur3. These morphological dis-
tinctions correlate with syntactic and semantic distinctions. In particular, all Class
2 verbs are intransitive.
The following sections present person marking, preverbs, tenses, valen-
cy-changing derivations and non-finite verb forms.
3
These thematic suffixes are realized as -e, -i and -u, respectively, when followed by a
person suffix beginning with /n/.
4
Lacroix (2014) puts forward a historical scenario explaining the origin of the distri-
bution of person-number suffixes in Table 10, the organization of which is difficult to
account for in synchrony.
842 René Lacroix
In a clause containing a 3rd person Set I argument and a 3rd person Set II argument,
only one of them can trigger plural agreement. In the transitive construction, the
Set I argument has this ability (see bozopek ‘girls’ and the plural suffix -an in 21a),
while the Set II argument does not (see bitʃ’epe ‘boys’ in 21b).
(21) a. bozo-pe-k bitʃ’i dzi-om-an
girl-pl - erg boy see-th - i 3. pl
‘The girls see the boy.’ (own data)
b. bozo-k bitʃ’-epe dzi-om-s
girl-erg boy-pl see-th - i 3 sg
‘The girl sees the boys.’ (own data)
Consider now examples (22a–c), which illustrate the potential derivation.5 The
argument referring to the participant who can do the action triggers agreement by
Set II features (cf. m- “Set II 1st person” in 22a); it is marked by the dative case (cf.
k’otʃepes ‘men’ in 22b and k’otʃis ‘man’ in 22c). This argument has the ability to
trigger plural agreement (see the suffix -es in 22b), while the Set I argument does
not (see tʃxomepe ‘fish’ in 22c).
5
This derivation is called after its most frequent reading; it has other uses as well (see
§4.4).
Laz 843
4.2. Preverbs
There are two types of preverbs in Laz: affirmative and locative. Affirmative pre-
verbs appear in slots -4 and -3. They are related to several characteristics of the
clause. In particular, they never occur in clauses negated with the standard nega-
tion var (hence their name), nor in relative clauses. When several clauses are coor-
dinated, affirmative preverbs tend to occur only on the verb of the last conjunct
(cf. d- in 23).
844 René Lacroix
adding both an affirmative preverb and the evidential suffix to the imperfect. This
is illustrated in (27). The construction of verbs in the perfect, pluperfect II and
evidential pluperfect II tenses is inverse (see §4.1).
ability to trigger plural agreement is typed in bold. The Class of the verb is given
in parentheses.
The first example, (31), contains a plain transitive verb; its valency marker
(slot -1) is o-. The presence of o- in plain transitive verbs is not predictable and
is specified in the lexicon (the verb ‘see’, for instance, doesn’t take this prefix
(see 19)).
(31) plain transitive ‘<erg I> tips <abs II>’ (Class 1)
Xalili-k uʃkui dol-o-bɣ-am-s
Halil-erg apple pv - tr -tip-th - i 3 sg
‘Halil tips the apples.’ (own data)
The following two examples illustrate the middle derivation. Middle verbs are
marked by i- in slot -1. They may belong to Class 1 or Class 2. The verb in example
(32) is transitive and belongs to Class 1. It indicates that the subject is directly
affected or concerned by the event described by the verb (in this case, the subject
is the possessor of the adjunct dʒebis ‘pocket’ and is thus both the initiator and the
goal of the event). Class 1 middle verbs may have other readings.
(32) transitive middle ‘<erg I> tips <abs II> into his <adjunct>’ (Class 1)
Xalili-k uʃkui dʒebi-s dol-i-bɣ-am-s
Halil-erg apple pocket-dat pv - mid -tip-th - i 3 sg
‘Halil tips the apples in his pocket.’ (own data)
The middle verb in (33) belongs to Class 2. The reading of this intransitive verb
is anticausative, but here again, other readings exist. As can be seen, the thematic
suffix (-e) and the Set I 3sg suffix (-n) differ from those of the Class 1 verb in (32).
Middle voice in Laz is presented in more details in Lacroix (2012a).
(33) intransitive middle ‘<abs I> tips’ (Class 2)
uʃkui dol-i-bɣ-e-n
apple pv - mid -tip-th - i 3 sg
‘The apples scatter.’ (own data)
While the middle derivation illustrated in (33) is valency-decreasing, the applica-
tive, of which (34) is an example, adds one argument to the valency of the corre-
sponding plain transitive, making it ditransitive. The applicative argument ( Xalili-s
in this example) is in the dative and triggers Set II agreement.6 It has the seman-
tic role of beneficiary. Other possible semantic roles are maleficiary, possessor,
location, goal and addressee. The valency prefix of this derivation is i- when the
applicative argument is 1st or 2nd person and u- when it is 3rd person.
6
Case marking of the applicative argument is not the same as that of the object, which
is in the absolutive. In consequence, this derivation should better be analyzed as a
‘non-canonical’ applicative.
848 René Lacroix
(34) transitive applicative ‘<erg I> tips <abs> for <dat II>’ (Class 1)
Xalili-s uʃkui dolo-b-u-bɣ-am
Halil-dat apple pv - i 1- ii 3. appl -tip-th
‘I’m tipping apples for Halil.’ (own data)
The benefactive derivation, illustrated in (35), is marked by a in the preroot slot.
The construction includes two arguments, one in the dative and one in the abso-
lutive. The dative argument may have the semantic role of beneficiary, possessor
or maleficiary. It shares many properties with an applicative argument, but differs
from it in one important respect: it has the ability to trigger plural agreement. The
dative argument here is a non-canonical subject.
(35) benefactive ‘<dat II>’s <abs I> tips’ (Class 2)
Xalili-s uʃkui dol-a-bɣ-e-n
Halil-dat apple pv - mid . appl -tip-th - i 3 sg
‘Halil’s apples scatter.’ (own data)
The same prefix a appears in the potential derivation (36), already discussed above.
As mentioned there, this derivation has other readings. In particular, it is used to
indicate that the subject acts accidentally and involuntarily (37).7
(36) potential ‘<dat II> is able to tip <abs I>’ (Class 2)
Xalili-s uʃkui dol-a-bɣ-e-n
Halil-dat apple pv - pot -tip-th - i 3 sg
‘Halil is able to tip the apples.’ (own data)
(37) deagentive ‘<dat II> tips <abs I> accidentally’ (Class 2)
Xalili-s uʃkui ko-dol-a-bɣ-u
Halil-dat apple pv - pv - pot -tip-aor . i 3 sg
‘Halil tipped the apples inadvertently.’ (own data)
The benefactive derivation (35) and the potential/deagentive derivation (36–37)
can be distinguished from one another on the basis of semantic and syntactic
properties. In the benefactive derivation, the referent of the dative argument is
affected by the event described by the verb, but is not its instigator. It cannot be
the addressee of a command. By contrast, the referent of the dative argument in
the potential/deagentive derivation is the instigator or source of the process. In the
case of the deagentive, the dative argument can be the addressee of an order (38).
(38) tabaɣ-epe mo me-g-a-tk’otʃ-ap-u-t’a-s
plate-pl proh pv - ii 2- pot -throw-caus - th - subj - i 3 sg
‘[Throw away everything, but watch out!] Don’t throw away the plates!’
(own data)
7
This “deagentive” reading seems more natural in the aorist tense than in the present.
Laz 849
8
As is clear by now, the prefix o- in slot -1 has a range of functions: it appears in certain
transitive verbs (31), in all causative verbs (39), and in locative applicative verbs (40).
850 René Lacroix
4.5. Negation
As we saw in section 2.2, negation is expressed by var, which is stressed and
precedes the verb. All pre-root slots can be filled in negative verbs except slot 4,
which hosts the affirmative preverb ko- (see §4.2); this is illustrated in (42). The
additive suffix -ti can be added to the negation, yielding the meaning ‘even not’
(43), which suggests that var is not completely bound to the verb.
(42) var do-m-i-dʒox-i
neg pv - ii 1- appl -call-aor
‘you didn’t call me’ (D37.V)
(43) var-ti ox-a-nk’an-es-doren
neg - add pv - pot -wobble-aor . i 3. pl - evd
‘They could even not manage to wobble him.’ (D67.I)
There is some variation in the choice of the derivational suffix in slot 1. The future
participle of the verb ‘see’, for instance, can be u-dzir-am-u (52) or u-dzir-ap-u
(53).
The verbal noun inflects like a noun and can appear in the same positions as
nouns. The internal structure of verbal noun constructions involves some varia-
tion: the object of the corresponding transitive finite verb may appear in the geni-
tive or in the absolutive. Both cases are illustrated in sentence (44), where k’andɣu
‘strawberry’ is in the absolutive, while oda ‘room’ is in the genitive.
(44) ma k’andɣu o-gor-u ʃeni mo-p-t-i
1 sg strawberry pv -look_for-vn for pv - i 1-come-aor
oda-ʃi o-kos-u ʃeni var mo-p-t-i
room-gen pv -wipe-vn for neg pv - i 1-come-aor
‘I came here to get strawberries, not to clean a room.’ (D67.IX)
Laz 851
9
The suffix -ej in example (47) is a free variant of -eri.
852 René Lacroix
5. Simple clauses
5.2. Alignment
The subject of an intransitive verb may be in the absolutive, ergative or dative
case. Ergative intransitive subjects are animate and in many cases have control
over the event described by the verb. Dative intransitive subjects occur in inverse
constructions (see §4.1). Absolutive subject intransitive verbs constitute the larger
class. The alignment of these verbs is mixed: case marking follows an ergative
pattern (O and S are in the absolutive and A is in the ergative) while verb agree-
ment follows an accusative pattern (A and S trigger Set I features, while O triggers
10
Relative clauses are discussed in the next section.
Laz 853
5.3. Adjuncts
Adjuncts may be in any case except the ergative. Only the dative, which has a
wide range of functions, will be illustrated here. This case marks different spatial
roles (location (41), goal (56) and source (57)), different time roles (location (58),
duration (59), frequency (60) and time necessary for the fulfillment of an action
(61)) as well as price (62).11
(56) lazi-ʃi oxori-s ar k’intʃi mo-xt-u
Laz-gen house-dat one bird pv -come-aor . i 3 sg
‘A bird came to the Laz’ house.’ (Ž.30)
(57) Axmet’ jemluɣi-s ko-gama-xt-u
Ahmet manger-dat pv - pv -go_out-aor . i 3 sg
‘Ahmet went out of the manger.’ (D37.XII)
(58) k’iʃi-s termoni b-i-kom-t’i-t
winter-dat termoni i 1- mid -do-impft - pl
‘In winter we cooked termoni [a dish].’ (own data)
(59) sum dɣa do sum seri-s tʃ’anda t’u
three day and three night-dat reception be.impft . i 3 sg
‘The reception lasted three days and three nights.’ (Ž.35)
(60) k’at’a ts’ana-s mtvii mt-um-s
each year-dat snow snow-th - i 3 sg
‘It snows every year.’ (own data)
(61) sum dek’ik’e-s aʒlija-ʃ saraji-ʃe ko-mo-xt-u-doren
three minute-dat dragon-gen palace-all pv - pv -come-aor . i 3 sg - evd
‘He came to the dragon’s palace in three minutes.’ (D67.I)
(62) haa xut lia-s e-p-tʃ’op-i
prox . dem five lira-dat pv - i 1-buy-aor
‘I bought it for five liras.’ (own data)
11
In addition to these uses, the dative marks indirect objects (as in the applicative der-
ivation – §4.4), non-canonical subjects (in the inverse construction – §4.1), and the
complement of certain postpositions.
854 René Lacroix
6. Complex clauses
12
The corpus of published Arhavi Laz texts includes a few occurrences of another relativ-
ization strategy, where the relative is postnominal (see Lacroix 2009a, section 12.2.6).
Laz 855
thus differs from those found in the other South Caucasian languages and in other
neighboring languages (Lacroix 2009b).
The following text is taken from Lacroix (2009a, text 9). Elements in bold are
Turkish loans.
(74) ar k’otʃi hapisane-ʃe ama-xt-u-don ama deli jen
one man prison-all pv -go_in-aor . i 3 sg - evd but mad be.i 3 sg
‘A man went to prison. He is mad.
(75) hek-na i-tʃaliʃ-am-s görevli k’otʃi-k deli-s
there-sub mid -work-th - i 3 sg in_charge man-erg mad-dat
u-ts’u-me-s
ii 3. appl -tell-th - i 3 sg
An employee who works there says to the madman:
858 René Lacroix
Abbreviations
References
Other references
Andrews, Peter A. 1989. Ethnic Groups in the Republic of Turkey. Compiled and edited
with the assistance of Rüdiger Benninghaus. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Dumézil, Georges. 1937. Contes Lazes. Paris: Institut d’Ethnologie.
Dumézil, Georges. 1967. Documents anatoliens sur les langues et les traditions du Cau-
case, IV. Récits lazes (dialecte d’Arhavi). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Feurstein, Wolfgang. 1983. Untersuchungen zur materiellen Kultur der Lazen. Freiburg:
Albert-Ludwigs Universität, unpublished MA thesis.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2001. Linguistic diffusion in modern East Anatolia: From top to bottom.
In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic in-
heritance: Problems in comparative linguistics, 195–224. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Holisky, Dee Ann. 1991. Laz. In Alice C. Harris (ed.), The Indigenous Languages of the
Caucasus, vol. 3, 395–472. Delmar & New York: Caravan Books.
K’art’ozia, Guram. 1972. Lazuri t’ekst’ebi [Laz texts]. Tbilisi: Mecniereba.
K’art’ozia, Guram. 1993. Lazuri t’ekst’ebi II [Laz texts 2]. Tbilisi: Mecniereba.
Kutscher, Silvia. 2008. The language of the Laz in Turkey: Contact-induced change or grad-
ual language loss? Turkic Languages 12(1). 82–102.
Lacroix, René. 2009a. Description du dialecte laze d’Arhavi (caucasique du sud, Turquie).
Grammaire et textes. Lyon: Université Lyon 2 dissertation. http://theses.univ-lyon2.fr/
documents/lyon2/2009/lacroix_r (accessed 12 July 2016).
Lacroix, René. 2009b. Laz relative clauses in a typological and areal perspective. In Peter
K. Austin, Oliver Bond, Monik Charette, David Nathan & Peter Sells (eds.), Language
Documentation and Linguistic Theory 2, 205–210. London: SOAS.
Lacroix, René. 2011. Ditransitive constructions in Laz. Linguistic Discovery 9(2). 78–103.
Lacroix, René. 2012a. Laz middle voice. In Gilles Authier & Katharina Haude (eds.), Erga-
tivity, Valency and Voice, 165–198. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Lacroix, René. 2012b. The multi-purpose subordinator na in Laz. In Holger Diessel &
Volker Gast (eds.), Clause Linkage in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Data-Driven Ap-
proaches to Cross-Clausal Syntax, 77–103. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Lacroix, René. 2014. Origin of Sets I-II suffixes in South Caucasian through reanalysis.
In Nino Amiridze, Tamar Reseck & Manana Topadze Gäumann (eds.), Advances in
Kartvelian Morphology and Syntax (Studia Typologica 14), 47–78. Berlin: Akademie
Verlag.
Q’ipšidze, Ioseb. 1939. Č’anuri t’ekst’ebi [Laz texts]. Tbilisi: SSRK’ Mecnierebata
Ak’ademiis Sakartvelos Pilialis Gamomcemloba.
Toumarkine, Alexandre. 1995. Les Lazes en Turquie (XIXe-XXe siècles). Istanbul: Isis.
Žɣent’i, Sergi. 1938. Č’anuri t’ekst’ebi, arkabuli k’ilok’avi [Laz texts (dialect of Arhavi)].
Tbilisi: SSRK’ Mecnierebata Ak’ademiis Sakartvelos Pilialis Gamomcemloba.
6.3. Ossetic
David Erschler
1. Introduction
Ossetic is a cover term for two closely related, but not mutually intelligible Eastern
Iranian languages, often called dialects, Iron and Digor1. Ossetic is spoken in
North Ossetia-Alania, an autonomous republic within Russia, and South Ossetia,
a breakaway part of Georgia.
In earlier work, Ossetic was considered a member of the Northeastern Iranian
subbranch of the Iranian (along with Yaghnobi, Sogdian, and a number of other
extinct languages), however, recently doubt has been cast upon the validity of this
subgroup. Moreover, Eastern Iranian languages probably do not form a genetic
unit either, Sims-Williams (1996).
Systematic research on Ossetic started with Sjögren (1844) and Rosen (1846).
Miller (1903) was the first diachronically oriented comprehensive description
of Ossetic morphology. Miller (1881) and Miller and Stackelberg (1891) col-
lected and published Ossetic texts with Russian and German translations. The
grammar sketch Stackelberg (1886) is based on these texts. Other editions of
Ossetic texts with translations into European languages are Christensen (1921)
and Munkácsi (1932). Most of later synchronic research on Ossetic was pub-
lished2 in Russian (e. g., Iron Ossetic grammars Axvlediani 1963/1969 and
Bagaev 1965/1982; monographic treatments Gabaraev (1977) on word formation;
Tekhov (1970) on modality; Kudzoeva (2003) on word order; Tedeev (1989) and
Dzodzikova (2009) on verb structure. Digor is addressed in the grammar sketches
Isaev (1966); Takazov (2009), and the Digor-Russian dictionary Takazov (2003).
Perhaps more accessible to the English-reading audience are Abaev (1964)
(although all language data are presented in the Cyrillic-based orthography), a brief
general sketch in Thordarson (1989); an overview of phonology by Testen (1997),
an overview of word formation Erschler (2015); and a posthumously published
1
For reasons of space, I do not always provide examples from both languages. When
Iron and Digor forms are given simultaneously, they are shown in the following order
and separated by a slash: gɐdə / tikis ‘cat’; otherwise examples are marked with (I) and
(D) respectively. Data for this chapter were collected in the course of my fieldwork
in North Ossetia in 2007–2013. I am grateful to all my consultants for their generous
helpfulness. I have worked particularly much with Arbilana Abaeva, Tsara Dzhanaev,
and Elizaveta Kochieva (Iron); and with Sveta Gatieva, Marina Khamitsaeva, Khasan
Maliev†, Chermen Takazov, Fedar Takazov, and Vera Takazova (Digor).
2
Unpublished dissertations are not listed here, as they are virtually inaccessible even in
Russia.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-022
862 David Erschler
2. Phonology
In this chapter, I will not be using the IPA symbols in parentheses in Table 1.
In standard Iron, /c/ only survives in certain clusters. Glottal consonants are
marginal; the glottal stop /ʔ/ is automatically epenthesized before word-initial /a/,
/ɐ/, and /ə/, and sometimes between vowels. The glottal fricative /h/ is present in
very few words: ho ‘yes’, henər/henur ‘now’, maha ‘I don’t know’, haj-haj ‘cer-
tainly, of course’ and some others.
All consonants are phonetically palatalized before front vowels, in Digor the
palatalization leads to changes in the primary articulation for the sibilants and
affricates: /s/ becomes /š/, /z/ becomes /ž/, and /c/ becomes /č/. If a front vowel
follows a cluster, then all the consonants in the cluster are palatalized: D. kust
‘work’ > kušt-itɐ work-pl . This happens also when an enclitic with a front vowel is
attached to a word: k’os=mi > k’oš=mi cup=abl .1 sg . In Iron, the velar stops, /k/
and /g/, become /č/ and /ʤ/, respectively, before the oblique case marker -ə.
2.3. Phonotactics
Minimal lexical words have CVC structure. The 2 sg pronoun də/du and some
wh-words are CV (e. g. D. ka ‘who.nom ’; či ‘what.nom / acc ’). Wh-words can
function as non-clitics in fragment questions, but normally they are procliticized
to a verb. The rest of CV and VC entities are either clitics or bound morphemes.
There is no reliable evidence that the notion of syllable as such is relevant
for Ossetic grammar. Bailey (1950) claimed that syllable weight is relevant for
Digor stress, but his stress data appear to be wrong. Initial clusters contain no
more than two consonants št’alə/st’alu ‘star’. In some Iron dialects, initial clusters
are resolved by the prosthetic ə: əšt’alə. In Digor, the prosthetic vowel is ɐ. Final
clusters3 of the form nC, lC, and rC, where C is a non-labial stop, are relatively
common. Other types of cluster are very rare except for a large number of clusters
with the final d/t that appear in past participles. Historically, the -d/-t was the past
participle exponent. In these participles, any consonant except the stops and the
affricates may precede the d/t. Three-consonant clusters are attested only in such
participles; the penultimate consonant then is always s: Digor ɐχst ‘shot’.
3
Due to the limitations of space, I only describe Digor clusters here.
Ossetic 867
3. Morphology
For an overview of word formation in Ossetic, see Erschler (2016) and the refer-
ences therein. Open word classes are verbs and nouns.
4
The regular form bon-tɐ exists as well.
868 David Erschler
Personal names may carry the associative plural marker -i-/-e-: Ir. Aslan-i-tɐ
Aslan-ass - pl ‘Aslan and others with him’.
Case is usually marked on the right edge of the word form. The only exceptions
are certain indefinites, in which the case marker either precedes the indefinite
suffix (e. g. the Digor superessive form of či-dɐr what-idf ‘something’ is cɐbɐl-dɐr
what.sup - idf ) or, for plural marked indefinites, occurs several times in the word
form (e. g. the Digor ablative form of ka-dɐr-tɐ who-idf - pl ‘someone-pl ’ is kɐmɐj-
dɐr-t-i / kɐmɐj-dɐr-t-ɐj who.abl - idf - pl - obl / abl .) For nouns, numerals, and quan-
tifiers the case marking is nearly agglutinative, only minor morphonological alter-
nations occur. Pronominal stems show suppletion, see paradigms below. In Digor,
numerals require dedicated numeral declension suffixes inserted between the stem
and the regular case marker, for example duw-e-j ‘two-num - obl ’. Remarkably,
numeral phrases join the numeral class: bɐχ-i horse-obl , but duwɐ bɐχ-e-j two
horse-num - obl .
Case markers differ from postpositions in the following respects: a) case
markers attach to bare noun stems, whereas postpositions require case marking on
nouns (usually the oblique); b) case-marked nouns, unlike postposition comple-
ments, may bind clause-mate reflexives and reciprocals, and control depictives,
Erschler (2012b).
Ossetic does not allow Suffixaufnahme, i. e. stacking of several case suffixes
on a single noun phrase: *NP-case 1- case 2. Case affixes may be suspended, i. e.
one case affix may mark two conjoined noun phrases, Erschler (2012b).
(2) kʷəz ɐmɐ gɐdə-mɐ (I)
dog and cat-all
‘to a cat and a dog’
When a pronoun is coordinated with a noun, suspended affixation works slightly
differently: the first conjunct receives the oblique case, while the second takes the
case relevant to the entire phrase (see paradigms below), as in (3). When two pro-
nouns are coordinated, suspended affixation is ungrammatical.
(3) dɐw/*?də ɐmɐ aslan-ɐn (I)
you.obl /you.nom and Aslan-dat
‘to you and to Aslan’
The Ossetic case system consists of the nominative; accusative/genitive/ines-
sive; dative; ablative; allative; superessive; equative. Iron also has the comitative.
The accusative, genitive and inessive coincide for lexical nouns. The accusative
and the genitive only differ for clitics: (second position) enclitics correspond
to direct objects, whereas proclitics to noun phrases correspond to possessors
(Erschler 2009). The inessive differs from the genitive and accusative for enclitics,
and, in Digor, for numerals and numeral phrases. In this chapter, I gloss the syn-
cretic marker of the accusative, genitive, and inessive as the oblique.
Ossetic 869
5
For the 1st and the 2nd persons, localization “in” can only be expressed with a postpo-
sition.
6
The distal deictics je/jetɐ also serve as the 3rd person pronouns.
870 David Erschler
7
In Iron, numerals are declined identically to nouns. In numeral phrases in the nomi-
native, the oblique marking surfaces on the nouns: ɐrtɐ qaž-ə three goose-obl ‘three
geese’. In other cases, the oblique is replaced by the respective case marker: ɐrtɐ qaž-ɐn
three goose-dat .
8
The # sign marks morphologically possible but pragmatically improbable forms.
Ossetic 871
A finite verb only agrees with the nominative argument irrespective of the seman-
tic role of the latter. The agreement is in person and number; collective nouns may
trigger plural agreement, whereas plural noun phrases may agree in the singular.
Details of the phenomenon have not been systematically studied.
Only about 300 verbs are simplex (i. e. attach the agreement markers directly
to the stem), the rest are a combination of a nominal part with a light verb, usually
‘to do’ or ‘to be’: Ir. aχʷər kɐn- learning do ‘to study’. Simplex verbs have two
stems, the past and the present, the relationship between which is irregular (e. g.
Ir. sɐw-/səd- ‘go’ vs. lɐw-/lɐwəd- ‘stand’), and they both have to be listed in the
lexicon.
For simplex finite verbs, the maximal structure is preverb-conative suffix-
stem-tense.mood.agreement, of which the preverb is optional, and the conative
suffix may be inserted only in the presence of a preverb. For complex verbs, pre-
verbs, and, possibly, the conative suffix attach to the nominal part, whereas tense-
mood-agreement suffixes are carried by the light verb.
If a verb occurs sentence-initially, then, in Iron, the preverb with the conative
suffix -sɐj- can be separated from the root by a pronominal clitic, as in (6a). In
Digor, this is possible for bare preverbs, (6b). In (6b), ra-jevʁud un ‘to pass (about
time)’ is a complex verb, whose nominal part carries the prefix ra-.
(6) a. fɐ-sɐj=šɐm χɐccɐ kod-ton (I)
prv - con = all .3 pl near do.pst - pst .1 sg
‘I was approaching them.’
(Bedzhyzaty 1995: 55)
b. ra=mɐbɐl jevʁud ɐj fɐzzɐg (D)
prv = sup .1 sg passed be.prs .3 sg autumn
‘I spent the fall.’ (Lit. ‘The fall passed on me.’)
(Aghuzarti 2008)
Verbs fall into two conjugation classes, the difference between which only shows in
past indicative forms: Ir. kod-toj do.pst .3 pl vs. səd-əštə go.pst .3 pl . They are often
called transitive and intransitive in the literature, presumably because the majority
of verbs in each class are transitive and intransitive respectively. However, class
assignment is lexically determined, and there are exceptions. For example, in Iron,
the verbs žar- ‘to sing’ and kɐš- ‘to read’ are morphologically intransitive: žarəd-
əštə sing.pst - pst .3 pl ‘they sang’, kašt-əštə read.pst - pst .3 pl ‘they read’, whereas
rɐj- ‘to bark’ and fɐlzɐʁd- ‘to snow heavily, especially during a blizzard’ are transi-
tive: rɐjd-toj bark.pst - pst .3 pl ‘they barked’; mit fɐlzɐʁ-ta snow snow.pst - pst .3 sg
‘It snowed heavily.’
In Iron, iterativity/habituality in the past is usually marked by the second posi-
tion clitic -ju (in some environments pronounced -iw), whereas Digor mostly uses
the past and present subjunctive forms for this. The habituality in the present is
expressed by preverbs, (7). In the following example, the preverbs and the present
Ossetic 873
Table 7: Indicative
Present Past Future
1 dɐn an adtɐn adtan woʣan(ɐn) woʤ(in)an
2 dɐ ajtɐ adtɐ adtajtɐ woʣɐnɐ woʤ(in)ajtɐ
3 ɐj / jes10 ɐncɐ adtɐj adtɐncɐ woʣɐ(nɐ)j woʣ(ɐn)ɐncɐ
9
(http://allingvo.ru/DIGOR/bagharati_sozur.htm, accessed 08 July 2017).
10
In prs .3 sg , the final -s may be dropped, and the existential copula is often pronounced
je.
874 David Erschler
Table 8: Imperative
sg pl
2 wo wotɐ
3 wɐd wɐntɐ
Table 9: Subjunctive
Present Past Future
sg pl sg pl sg pl
Paradigms of simplex verbs, Digor. (Unless indicated otherwise, illustrated for ‘to
do’)
11
wi- and wa- forms of the present subjunctive appear to be completely equivalent, but
wi- forms are much more frequent. Some younger speakers do not recognize the variant
with wa-.
12
The “long” and “short” forms of the future suffix are completely equivalent, in careful
speech and writing it is mostly the longer form that is used.
13
The final -s of prs .2 sg is usually dropped in colloquial speech.
14
-e- is optional here only for this verb.
Ossetic 875
15
Except təχχɐj/tuχχɐj ‘because of, about’, which only allows non-clitic complements.
876 David Erschler
‘above me’. For postpositions assigning other cases, their complements cannot be
replaced by clitics.
4.5. Clitics
Enclitic pronouns (together with some other enclitics) form a cluster that obligato-
rily occupies (an appropriately defined) second position in Iron.
(13) nɐ=ta=jən=ɐj radta (I)
neg =again=dat .3 sg = acc .3 sg give.pst .3 sg
‘S/he again didn’t give it to her/him.’
In Digor, the placement of a clitic cluster is somewhat less restricted, although the
acceptability of a sentence decreases when the cluster is shifted rightwards. Clitics
in a cluster are subject to certain restrictions on case-person combinations. The
cluster is normally rigidly ordered, but some speakers allow reordering to improve
certain combinations of case and person. Modern Ossetic does not allow clitic
doubling, unless the doubled noun phrase is on the right edge of the clause. Clitics
may be hosted by non-finite clauses as well, (14).
878 David Erschler
4.6. Questions
The word order in yes-no and alternative questions does not differ from that in
declarative clauses. In wh-questions, all wh-phrases are obligatorily preverbal
with only second position clitics, negative indefinites, negation markers, and
certain adverbials being able to intervene between the wh-complex and the verb,
see details in Erschler (2012a).
4.7. Negation
Sentential negation is marked by mood-dependent proclitics to the verb. Nega-
tive indefinites are all placed in the immediately preverbal position. They cannot
co-occur with sentential negation markers, see details in Erschler and Volk (2011).
Unlike in other Ossetic varieties, the South Ossetian Kudar dialect, obviously
under recent influences from Georgian, optionally allows for negative indefinites
to co-occur with sentential negation:
(15) nišə (næ) fed-ton16 (Kudar Iron)
nothing neg see.pst - pst .1 sg
‘I saw nothing.’
4.8. Binding
Reflexives and reciprocals can in principle be bound by any clause-mate NP,
although the subject is the preferred binder. Pronominal enclitics are free in the
minimal clause. Possessive proclitics are free from binding restrictions. Full pro-
nouns, including full possessive pronouns, are by default free in the sentence,
(16a). However, if the full pronoun is focused or topicalized, it can have an ante-
cedent within the same sentence, (16b).
(16) a. soslan-mɐi wotɐ kɐs-uj cuma jej/?i(D)
Soslan-all so look-prs .3 sg comp (s)he
mɐ=zɐrdɐ-mɐ cɐw-uj
poss .1 sg =heart-all go-prs .3 sg
‘Soslani thinks that I like himj/?i’
16
The transcription represents the Kudar pronunciation.
Ossetic 879
5. Clause linkage
5.1. Coordination
The conjunctions ɐmɐ/ɐma ‘and’ and fɐlɐ/fal ‘but’ are clause-initial, second posi-
tion clitics then attach to conjunctions, like the Iron jɐm all .3 sg in (17b):
(17) a. nər ɐndɐr ran ba-lχɐd-ta bigʷəz χɐzar
now other place prv -buy.pst - pst .3 sg Bigwyz house
ɐmɐ adon wɐj kɐn-ə (I)
and these_ones.nom sale do-prs .3 sg
‘Now, Bigwyz has bought a house in a different place and is selling
these ones.’
(K’æbysty 1977)
b. mɐn=dɐr jɐ=χi-mɐ ragɐj ždɐχta
I.obl =too poss .3 sg = refl - all since.long attract.pst .3 sg
fantastikɐ fɐlɐ=jɐm mɐ=nəfš nɐ
sci-fi but=all .3 sg poss .1 sg =certainty neg
χašton (I)
carry.pst .1 sg
‘The (genre) of science fiction has long attracted me too, but I did
not dare to approach it.’
(K’æbysty 1977)
Noun phrases (but not clauses) can also be coordinated by encliticizing dɐr to
each one of them, (18a). The usual conjunction ‘and’ can also be used in the pres-
ence of dɐr, (18b).
(18) a. χʷarz-ɐj=dɐr cud-ɐj=dɐr či fɐ-wwid-ton (D)
good-abl =and bad-abl =and what prv -see.pst - pst .1 sg
‘What I have seen of good and of bad’
(Aghuzarti 2008)
b. č’ifɐ=dɐr ɐma wazal=dɐr (D)
dampness=and and cold=and
‘dampness and cold’
(Aghuzarti 2008)
880 David Erschler
There are two conjunctions for ‘or’: kɐnɐ/kenɐ is used when the two conjuncts are
not mutually exclusive, and ɐvi in all other situations. They are placed clause-ini-
tially (or constituent-initially, if constituents smaller than clauses are coordinated):
(19) a. ɐz kiwunugɐ fins-un nɐ=ʁav-un kenɐ ɐndɐr
I.nom book write-inf neg =intend-inf or other
ješti woj χuzɐn (D)
something it.obl similar
‘I am not going to write a book or anything like that.’
(Aghuzarti 2008)
b. də=mɐm ɐsɐg zur-əš ɐvi=mɐ mɐ=quš-tɐ
you=all .2 sg real talk-prs .2 sg or=acc .1 sg poss .1 sg =ear-pl
šaj-ənc? (I)
deceive-prs .3 pl
‘Are you really speaking to me or do my ears deceive me?’
(K’æbysty 1977)
5.2. Subordination
All subordinate clauses allow or even require a proleptic noun phrase in the main
clause. The conditions under which proleptics are obligatory are not yet well
understood. In (20), proleptics are marked with boldface.
(20) a. [sɐmɐj žonənad ba-nk’ar-aj] wəj təχχɐj
in_order_that science prv -feel-sub . fut .2 sg it because
ra-jdaj iwwəl ɐnson-dɐr-ɐj (I)
prv -begin.imp .2 sg it.sup easy-comp - abl
‘In order to internalize the knowledge, you should start from the
easiest.’
(K’æbysty 1977)
b. ɐž nisə ažəmʤən dɐn [zur-ən kɐj
I nothing guilty be.prs .1 sg talk-inf comp
žon-ən ɐmɐ matematikɐ aftɐ χorž kɐj š-aχʷər
know-prs .1 sg and mathematics so good comp prv -learn
kod-ton] wəm (I)
do.pst - pst .1 sg it.ines
‘I am not at all guilty that I can speak and have learned mathematics so
well.’
(K’æbysty 1977)
Ossetic 881
Complex clauses do not show any consequence of tense effects, whereby the tense
of the verb in the main clause would impose restrictions on the tense marking in
the dependent clause. In (21), the past tense of the main verb does not block the
future marking in the dependent clause.
(21) šošlan-mɐ aftɐ kɐš-ə kašt-iš ɐmɐ mɐdinɐ
Soslan-all so look-prs .3 sg look.pst - pst .3 sg and Madina
kɐj ɐrba-sɐwu-zɐniš (I)
comp prv -go-fut .3 sg
‘Soslan thinks/thought that Madina will/would come.’
5.3. Complementation
Complementizers are either strictly preverbal with same qualifications as for
wh-phrases as described in §4.6, (22a), or float between the left edge of the clause
and the verb, Erschler (2012a), (22b). The complement clause usually follows
the matrix verb, but may precede it as well. A finite dependent clause is typically
accompanied by a proleptic in the main one.
(22) a. ragɐj χat-ə [artur ɐmɐ gertrud ɐnɐ
since.long notice-prs .3 sg Arthur and Gertrude without
kɐrɐzi kɐj nɐ=fɐ-raž-ənc] wəj (I)
each_other comp neg =prv -withstand-prs .3 pl it
‘Since long, she’s noticed that Arthur and Gertrude cannot live without
each other.’
(K’æbysty 1977)
b. fɐlɐ dɐ=žardɐ kɐd ɐndɐr-ɐn wa
but poss .2 sg =heart if other-dat be.sub . fut .3 sg
lɐvɐrd (I)
give.prt . pst
‘But if your heart would be given to someone other’
(K’æbysty 1977)
Some verbs allow a null complementizer, as illustrated in (23); wəj it.nom / obl
serves here as a proleptic:
(23) [cpa-izɐr=ma šeri-jə fen-zɐn] [MatrixSwəj ɐnqɐl
this-evening=more Seri-obl see-fut .3 sg it.nom / obl hope
nal wədi] (I)
no_more be.pst .3 sg
‘She already did not think that she would see Seri tonight.’
(Bic’oty 2003)
882 David Erschler
The coordinating conjunction ɐmɐ /ɐma ‘and’ has grammaticalized into a subor-
dinator:
(24) a. bazel-ə qʷədə-tɐ aftɐ nə-ššuj-tɐ štə
Bazel-obl thought-pl so prv -gut-pl be.prs .3 pl
ɐmɐ=zə rajdajɐn-kɐron bɐrɐg nal wəd
and=abl .3 beginning-end sign no_more be.pst .3 sg
‘Bazel’s thoughts got so entangled that it was not possible to find their
beginning or end.’
(K’æbysty 1977)
b. ɐnqɐl dɐn ɐmɐ mɐ=qəʤ-ə
thought be.prs .1 sg and poss .1 sg =grief-obl
nɐ=ba-sɐw-zənɐ
neg =prv -go-fut .2 sg
‘I think/hope that you won’t be angry with me?’
(K’æbysty 1977)
Non-finite verb forms may head subordinate clauses as well, for instance, purpose
clauses are headed by infinitives:
(25) doχtur-tɐ=min barɐ ra-vardt-oncɐ [kust-mɐ
doctor-pl = dat .1 sg right prv -give.pst - pst .3 pl work-all
cɐw-un]-mɐ (D)
go-inf - all
‘Doctors permitted me to go to work.’
(Aghuzarti 2008)
17
(http://www.iriston.com/nogbon/news.php?newsid=543, accessed 08 July 2017).
884 David Erschler
The typological profile of Ossetic, as it has been described in this chapter, is fairly
different from those of other modern Iranian languages. It is natural to conjecture
that at least some of these properties arose due to language contact. It should be
kept in mind, however, that Ossetians and their ancestors have long been isolated
from the rest of Iranian speakers. The latter occupy a more or less contiguous
territory and have been significantly influenced by Persian language and culture.
Some of the differences could have emerged, therefore, just as independent devel-
opments.
One instance of Caucasian influence is fairly obvious: this is the most natural
way to explain the emergence of ejectives in Ossetic. While virtually ubiquitous
in the Caucasus, where their presence is essentially the only shared areal feature,
Tuite (1999), ejective consonants are fairly uncommon in the rest of Eurasia and
are completely absent from other Iranian languages.
The fact that Ossetic extensively borrowed vocabulary from the neighboring
languages is also well-documented, see Abaev (1958–1995), Bielmeier (1977),
and Thordarson (1999), to name a few.
Contact influences in the realm of morphosyntax are admittedly harder to argue
for. Given that data on earlier stages of Ossetic are virtually absent, the only way to
prove that a given grammatical feature is a result of borrowing or influence from a
specific source is to show that (a) the feature in question is present in Ossetic and
in the source language(s); (b) that the given feature is rare cross-linguistically, or,
at least in the relevant area ‒ i. e. northern Eurasia including the Caucasus.
One grammatical feature often claimed to be an outcome of usually unspeci-
18
It should be emphasized that respective single relatives are fully grammatical, as illus-
trated in (26).
Ossetic 885
fied Caucasian influences is the relatively large Ossetic case system, (Vogt 1945;
Abaev 1949: 99). Sometimes, specifically South Caucasian influences are postu-
lated, Johanson (2008: 500). It is certainly likely that the emergence of the case
system, abnormally large for a Modern Iranian language, was an outcome of some
influence(s). However, neither the size, nor the case inventory are particularly
unusual for northern Eurasia, Erschler (2009: 423), Thordarson (2009: 170). The
fact of Caucasian influences on this system is not implausible, but hardly demon-
strable with any degree of certainty. Moreover, one salient feature of many Cauca-
sian languages ‒ namely, the presence of ergative marking, is entirely absent from
Ossetic.
It seems more promising to conjecture that possessive proclitics, the structure
of wh-questions, and the morphosyntax of negative indefinites were influenced by
neighboring autochthonous languages. Possessive proclitics, unique for Iranian
languages and in general very rare in Eurasia, have been argued to be a result of
West Caucasian influences, Erschler (2009). Obligatory preverbal placement of
wh-phrases is likely to be a South Caucasian influence, Erschler (2012). Finally,
the morphology of negative indefinites and their incompatibility with sentential
negation is likely to be due to South Caucasian influences as well, Erschler (2010).
Interestingly, no instances of potential grammatical influences from Northeast
Caucasian languages have been discovered so far. However, there is one putative
influence in the opposite direction: emergence of phonemic /f/ in Ingush was attrib-
uted to Ossetic influence already by Uslar (1888: 6). Uslar himself, to support this
conjecture, only observes that Chechen lacks /f/ and states that “their (i. e. Ingush)
vernacular was formed under a strong influence of Ossetic language”. The sup-
porting argument is that the phonemic /f/ is absent from almost all the Northeast
Caucasian languages, and from the South Caucasian languages. This is the only
known instance of a plausible Ossetic influence on a neighboring language.
Another potential instance of contact induced development is a two-term
deictic system present in Ossetic, Svan, Mingrelian, and Karachay-Balkar ‒ a fact
noticed by Thordarson (2009). However, another Eastern Iranian language, Yaz-
ghulami, has developed a two-term system without obvious external influences.
Preverbs with spatial sematics are present in virtually all autochthonous lan-
guages of the Caucasus, but it is only in the modern SC languages and in Ossetic
that they (almost) always have a perfectivizing function. It is so in Georgian
(Boeder 2005: 33), as well as for most preverbs in Mingrelian, Harris (1991),
and in Svan, Tuite (1997: 30). Such systems of perfectivizing preverbs strikingly
resemble the Slavic one. Furthermore, Abaev (1965: 60–62) argued that it is the
ancestors of Ossetians came in contact with the Slavs and brought the innova-
tion to the Caucasus. However, Thordarson (1982: 252–253) convincingly argues
against this conjecture. See also the discussion in Tomelleri (2009).
Finally, Mingrelian has an imperfectivizing affix placed in a verb between the
prefixes and the root (Harris 1991), a phenomenon similar to the Ossetic conative
886 David Erschler
suffix -sɐj-/-cɐj-, but this parallel might well be due to chance: for one thing, direct
contacts between Ossetians and Mingrelians are not documented nor are they very
likely for geographical reasons.
For the last 150 years, Ossetic has been under strong Russian influence. Code-
switching is very frequent and virtually any Russian word can be occasionally
used in Ossetic speech.
A sample glossed Digor oral text. Recorded 20 July, 2008 in Sheker, Iraf district,
North Ossetia from Mimonat Gogaeva. Transcribed in the summer of 2009 with
help of Aza Sasieva.
(30) mɐn-ɐn ɐncon-dɐr woʣɐj digoron-aw ʣor-un
I.obl - dat easy-comp be.fut .3 sg Digor-equ speak-inf
‘It will be easier for me to speak in Digor
(31) ɐz lešken-i ra-jgurd-tɐn mijn farast
I Lesken-obl prv -born.pst - pst .1 sg 1000 9
sɐdɐ duwin ɐrtikkag anž-i
100 20 third year-obl
I was born in Lesken, in the year 1923. [A decimal numeral.]
(32) ɐma lešken-i adtɐj hewɐχɐn ɐʁdɐwu-ttɐ
and Lesken-obl be.pst .3 sg such custom-pl
And in Lesken there were the following customs. [Note the singular verb
with the plural of ‘custom’.]
(33) ficcagi-dɐr χestɐr-ɐn kadɐ lɐvard-toncɐ χestɐr ku
first-comp senior-dat respect give.pst - pst .3 pl senior when
fe-štidɐ wɐd ʁɐwamɐ kɐstɐr-tɐ
prv -stand_up. pst - sub . pst .3 sg then needs junior-pl
jewugur-ɐj=dɐr iš-istad-ajoncɐ
together-abl = emp prv -stand_up. pst - sub . pst .3 pl
First of all, they respected seniors, if an elder would stand up, then all the
juniors would have to stand up as well.
(34) χestɐr-ɐn ʁɐwamɐ ɐʁdaw lɐvard-tajoncɐ
elder-dat needs etiquette give.pst -sub . pst .3 pl
(The juniors) would have to behave courteously (according to the etiquette)
towards the seniors.
Ossetic 887
Abbreviations
References
Other references
Abaev, Vasilij. 1949. Osetinskij jazyk i fol’klor [Ossetic language and folklore]. Moscow &
Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR.
Abaev, Vasilij. 1958/1973/1979/1989/1995. Istoriko-etimologiˇceskij slovar’ osetinskogo
jazyka [Historical etymological dictionary of Ossetic]. 5 vols. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo
Akademii Nauk SSSR.
Abaev, Vasilij. 1964. A grammatical sketch of Ossetic. Den Haag: Mouton.
Ossetic 889
Thordarson, Fridrik. 1999. Linguistic contacts between the Ossetes and Kartvelians: A few
remarks. In Helma van den Berg (ed.), Studies in Caucasus linguistics: Selected papers
of the Eighth Caucasian Colloquium, Research School of Asian, African and Amerin-
dian Studies (CNWS), 279–285. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden.
Thordarsson, Fridrik. 2009. Ossetic grammatical studies (Sitzungsberichte der philoso-
phisch-historischen Klasse, Bd. 788, Veröffentlichungen zur Iranistik, Nr. 48). Wien:
Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Tomelleri, Vittorio. 2009. The Category of Aspect in Georgian, Ossetic and Russian. Some
areal and typological observations. Faits de langues 2009(1). 245–272.
Tuite, Kevin. 1997. Svan (Languages of the World/Materials 139). München: LINCOM
Europa.
Tuite, Kevin. 1999. The myth of the Caucasian Sprachbund: The case of ergativity. Lingua
108. 1–29.
Uslar, Petr. 1888. Čečenskij jazyk [Chechen]. Tiflis: Izdanie Upravlenija Kavkazskago
Učebnago Okruga.
Vogt, Hans. 1945. Substrat et convergence dans l’évolution linguistique. Remarques sur
l’évolution et la structure de l’armenien, du géorgien, de l’osséte et du turc. Studia
Septentrionalia 2. 213–228.
Volkova, Natalya. 1974. Etničeskij sostav naselenija Severnogo Kavkaza v XVIII – načale
XX veka [The ethnic composition of the population of the North Caucasus in the 18th –
early 19th centuries]. Moscow: Nauka.
6.4. Romeyka
Laurentia Schreiber
1. Introduction
1
I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Dr Hakan Özkan for sharing his data from
Romeyka of Sürmene. I thank Prof Geoffrey Haig for his rich feedback and insightful
discussion of this chapter. Moreover, I am deeply indebted to the Istanbulite Rumca
speaker who generously and patiently provided me an insight into her language. I ded-
icate this chapter to her. Furthermore, I thank Dr Kilu von Prince for her support in the
early stage of this chapter. I acknowledge that all errors are my own.
2
Cf. in particular work undertaken in the British Academy Project ‘Description and Doc-
umentation of the Romeyka varieties in Pontus; Continuity, Contact and Change’, PI:
Dr Ioanna Sitaridou, and consequent publications; www.romeyka.org.
3
For variation in spelling see http://www.romeyka.org/the-romeyka-project/rediscover-
ing-romeyka (accessed 07 August 2017).
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-023
Romeyka 893
Greek, the following terms are used: the term “Pontic Greek” without any sup-
plement denotes the language of Christian Pontic Greek speakers in Greece after
1923; “Christian Pontic Greek” is used for the Christian Pontic Greek speakers in
Pontus until 1923.
the Sürmene area similar to that of RSür. ROf is argued to be the most archaic
variety of Romeyka (Mackridge 1987).
The Romeyka varieties spoken in Pontus in turn are more conservative than
Pontic Greek (henceforth PG) due to contact of the latter with Standard Modern
Greek (henceforth SMG) after 1932, but also due the fact that Christian Pontic
Greek in Pontus is assumed to have been in contact with other modern Greek vari-
eties prior to 1923.
4
For an investigation of mutual influences of Pontic Greek in Pontus and regional
Turkish varieties, especially with regard to the phonological domain, see Brendemoen
(2002).
896
Laurentia Schreiber
2. Phonology
2.1. Segments
2.1.1. Vowels
Romeyka exhibits, in addition to the five vowels also present in SMG, /a/, /e/,
/i/, /o/, /u/, also the vowels /æ/ and, more rarely, /œ/ (Mackridge 1987; Özkan
2013). The sub-dialect ROf as spoken in Uzungöl (Sarachos) seems to be the
only variety lacking the latter two vowels (Mackridge 1987: 131). According to
Mackridge (1987: 121), the vowels /ɯ/ and /y/ are used in Turkish loans, whereby
Özkan (2013: 142) points out that these vowels often figure differently in the
Trabzon-Turkish dialect, possibly due to contact with Greek (Brendemoen 2002).
5
Given the fact that Romeyka lacks any orthography and that its phonemic inventory has
not been adequately described yet (Mackridge 1987), Romeyka examples are presented
in a provisional broad phonemic transcription; word accent is not indicated.
898 Laurentia Schreiber
Unlike in SMG and other Greek varieties, initial unstressed vowels are retained
in Romeyka verbs, e. g. epero ‘take.1sg ’, SMG παίρνω, and nouns, see (1a) and
(1c) (Mackridge 1987; Bortone 2009). In some varieties of the language, also post-
tonic /i/ and /u/ are retained whereas they are dropped in others (1a–b, see also
§2.2) (Mackridge 1987; Özkan 2013).
(1) a. /ospiti/ ROf as spoken in Uzungöl (Sarachos)
b. /ospit/ RSür as spoken in Beşköy
c. σπίτι, /spiti/ SMG
‘house’
In ROf, vowels are lengthened at the end of words and, particular when they are
phrase final (Özkan 2013: 139). At present I assume that there is no phonemic
length distinction, but more detailed analysis would be necessary to demonstrate
this assumption conclusively.
2.1.2. Consonants
The consonantal system of Romeyka is presented in Table 1.
6
No example of this phoneme (apart from the consonant cluster /dž/) found in the mate-
rial available to me.
Romeyka 899
In essence, the consonant system is Greek with few additional phonemes, i. e. in
particular the palatal fricatives and affricates which exist in Turkish loans and
occur as conditioned variants of palatalized /x/, /g/, and /k/ though not all palatal-
ized velars become palato-alveolars (Mackridge 1987). Özkan (2013: 140–141)
reports for RSür as spoken in Beşköy allophonic variation regarding the place of
articulation of the voiceless fricatives, e. g. /x/ → /χ/, /x/. Romeyka exhibits at
least three affricates /ts/, /tʃ/, and/dʒ/.
The voice distinction is weakened for plosives, with underlying voiceless stops
often realized as voiced, though, according to my own fieldwork, that seems to
hold true to a lesser extent for the velar plosive /k/. Mackridge (1987: 123) claims
for PG that there is, apart from loan words, no distinction of voice in the stops.
Stops are generally considered voiced with fortis articulation and become lenis
after a nasal (Mackridge 1987; Özkan 2013). The lack of a clear distinction with
regard to voicing is reflected in the phonology of the regional Turkish variety
(Brendemoen 2002). The velar stops undergo certain phonetic processes: Unlike in
SMG, palatalized /k/ before a front vowel becomes /tʃ/ and palatalized /g/ becomes
/dʒ/. This process is prevented by a preceding /s/ which becomes /ʃ/, like in škilos
‘dog’ (Mackridge 1999, 1987).
7
Note that this section is merely based on a 113-item word list from my own fieldwork.
900 Laurentia Schreiber
3. Nominal inflection
Number, gender and case are the main categories of nominal inflection. Nouns
were historically assigned to declensional classes, though the analysis of this
system (or its remnants) in Romeyka remains incomplete. Within the noun phrase,
articles, adjectives, and some numerals agree with the nominal head in gender,
case, and number, although there is variation especially with regard to gender.
3.1. Number
The feature of number in Romeyka has the values singular and plural. The plural
is formed by adding a plural suffix, originally selected according to (grammatical)
gender (see §3.2): neuter nouns inflect with -æ or -a, e. g. ta raši-a ‘the moun-
tains’; and feminines and masculines by -ðæs or -ðes, e. g. i patsi-ðæs ‘the girls’
(see Table 2 for the paradigm).
Romeyka 901
An older masculine ending -and (Mackridge 1987; Drettas 1999) seems to have
been superseded by the -ðæs ending, as evident in a double set of plural forms,
e. g. babugand /babugaðæs ‘grandfathers’ (Özkan 2013: 144). The plural in -and is
only used for some nouns often denoting peoples, families, relatives, professions,
and some animals (Özkan 2013: 144), e. g. i turkand ‘the Turks’ but cf. i turtš ‘the
Turks’ in Deffner (1878: 212). A /k/ in the word-final syllable of masculines or fem-
inines may yield a /tš/ plural ending – at least in some varieties, e. g. turtš ‘Turks’;
ineka – inetš ‘women’, presumably reflecting a palatal quality of an underlying
plural marker, perhaps -s. Another plural suffix is -ini, e. g. aurini ‘men’.
The original declension classes have increasingly become difficult to iden-
tify (Drettas 1997) because of the following factors: (i) masculines and femi-
nines have often come to share the same endings (Özkan 2013); (ii) there has
been a tendency to assign masculine and feminine endings only to animate nouns,
whereas all inanimate nouns are, irrespective of their grammatical gender, treated
as neuter (Dawkins 1931; Drettas 1997; see also Karatsareas 2011 for neuterisa-
tion in Cappadocian Greek); (iii) a more general spread of plural neuter forms to
masculine and feminine nouns; (iv) some nouns have two plural declensions, e. g.
mana ‘mother’ in (Table 2). Janse (2002) mentions a possible areal influence of
the neighbouring languages not exhibiting gender distinction on the instability of
Romeyka nominal inflection.
3.2. Gender
For agreement purposes, Romeyka distinguishes three genders: masculine, feminine,
and neuter. Originally, gender was assigned morphologically but shifted toward a
more semantically-oriented assignment based on animacy (see Karatsareas 2014;
see also §4.1.1). This development, starting in Ancient Greek (henceforth AG) and
going further in Romeyka than, for example, in SMG, includes the spread of neuter
forms to masculine and feminine paradigms in both singular and plural declension
of nouns, determiners, and adjectives (2) (Mackridge 1987; Özkan 2013).
(2) (Özkan 2013: 144; RSür as spoken in Beşköy)
o vuðias.m . sg – ta vuðia.n . pl ‘the ox(en)’
The spread of neuter applies especially to the plural of [– hum ] feminine nouns
and inanimate masculines, and it may even extend to [+ hum ] masculine/feminine
902 Laurentia Schreiber
nouns. Female proper nouns may be assigned the singular neuter article to (Özkan
2013: 145).
In [– hum ] feminine nouns, also mixed declensions occur consisting of a female
determiner and neuter adjective (Mackridge 1987).
Gender inflection is also a means to integrate Turkish loans: [+ hum ] masculine
nouns add -is (-s following a vowel), while [– hum ] nouns add the neuter suffix -i
(or -in following a consonant), and inanimate nouns ending in a vowel are treated
as feminines without suffix, e. g. i para ‘money’ (Tr. para ‘money’) (Mackridge
1987).
3.3. Case
Romeyka has morphological exponence of nominative, accusative, and genitive
cases, expressed on articles and nouns, and other NP constituents. Note that mor-
phological case distinctions on nouns seem to be entirely neutralized in the plural,
yielding uniform case-neutral plural endings (cf. Table 3). With the articles, case
distinctions are partially retained in the plural, but there seems to be syncretism of
plural accusative and plural genitive forms (see Table 4), though there is dialectal
variation here. The accusative is used for both the direct and the indirect object,
unlike in other Greek dialects where the genitive is used to mark the indirect object
(Mackridge 1987). The genitive expresses nominal determination and possession
(Drettas 1999). It is not yet known how AG declension classes figure in Romeyka
case inflection. Furthermore, there appears to be considerable variation, e. g. ta
peðiði.gen . pl ‘boy.gen . pl ’ instead of ta peðia.gen . pl (Özkan 2013).
Table 3: Nominal declension of RSür as spoken in Beşköy (based on Özkan 2013: 143–144)
sg pl
8
A word-final /n/ originally occurring in the accusative singular of all genders (in nouns
of certain declension classes) is subject to sub-variation and may appear in some nouns,
e. g. ton tširin ‘the father.acc ’ (Mackridge 1987: 124).
9
Only in ROf as spoken in Sarachos (Mackridge 1999) and RSür (Dawkins 1937), other
varieties use tsi.
Romeyka 903
The declension of some masculine nominative singular nouns (those of the second
declension; in any case only animates) is sensitive to definiteness: the original -os
ending becomes -o(n) when the noun is definite, e. g. škilos, o škilo ‘(the) dog’
(Mackridge 1987: 124; Dawkins 1931: 394, also for other Asia Minor Greek vari-
eties). According to Dawkins (1931), this phenomenon is caused by the merger
of the second and third declension class whereby the nominative of the second
declension in -os is used for indefinite and the nominative of the third declension
in -o(n) for definite nouns. Note that the -o(n) nominative used for definite nouns
coincides with the accusative declension (Dawkins 1937: 31).
Proper nouns denoting male persons are treated like masculine singular nouns:
they take the masculine definite article o, and the -is ending for nominative, e. g.
o Mehmet-is m . sg . nom , although there may be a contact-induced tendency to drop
the article in the nominative in clause-initial position (for an example for the lack
of the article on a clause-initial subject NP see ex. 23 below); this requires more
research. Note, however, that Janse (2008: 23) claims for Cappadocian that the
nominative became associated with indefiniteness due to syncretism with indef-
inite animate object NPs and that therefore even definite masc./fem. subject NPs
do not take a definite article.
According to Table 3, we would expect a proper noun in direct object function
to drop the nominative -s. However, in (3) the ending is also dropped for a proper
noun in subject function. This suggests that the nominative form only occurs if
the constituent concerned is subject, and in sentence-initial position (cf. ex. 41),
though this requires further confirmation (cf., for example, Janse (2004: 14) who
claims for Cappadocian that due to syncretism of the nominative and indefinite
accusative of masc. animate nouns the nominative marker -s has been reanalysed
as an indefiniteness marker).
(3) (Michelioudakis and Sitaridou 2012b: 219; ROf, glosses modified)
Eðotšen=eme(n) o Mehmet-Ø ato(n).
gave.3 sg =me.acc . cl the Mehmet-nom him/it.acc
‘Mehmet gave me this/it.’
culine accusative plural article in ROf as spoken in Uzungöl is tus which appears
elsewhere in the form tsi/tsu/ti/tin/tis. Especially in the masculine and feminine
plural the articles in Romeyka present an array of different forms (Özkan 2013).
m nom o i
acc to(n) tsi/tus
gen tsi/tu tsi
f nom i i
acc ti(n) tsi
gen tsi tsi
n nom t(o) t(a)
acc t(o) t(a)
gen tsi/tu t(a)
10
The data stem from Özkan (n.d.), from Michelioudakis and Sitaridou (2012b), Sitaridou
(2014b) as well as from own fieldwork.
11
Also etšinos ‘this one’ which is actually a demonstrative pronoun.
906 Laurentia Schreiber
varies according to whether they are used in transitive or ditransitive verbs, i. e. as
to whether clitic clusters occur (but cf. Michelioudakis and Sitaridou 2012b: 237,
who argue that there are no clitic clusters in Romeyka, as they question the clitic
nature of first and second person object pronouns, the only ones that occur in
clusters).
As Michelioudakis and Sitaridou (2012b: 218) argue, if two object suffixes
occur together, (weak) Person-Case-Constraint (PCC)-like restrictions apply, such
that the third person clitic -æ cannot combine with any other clitic to form a cluster,
see (5a). However, the combination of a first- and a second-person pronoun (strong
PCC) is, unlike in SMG, acceptable (5b).
(5) (Michelioudakis and Sitaridou 2012b: 218; RSür, glosses modified)
a. *O Mehmetis eðotše=m=æ
the Mehmet gave.3sg =me.acc . cl =it.acc . cl
‘Mehmet gave it to me.’
(Michelioudakis and Sitaridou 2012b: 238; RSür, glosses modified)
b. Eðiksane=m=ese. / *eðiksane=s=eme
showed.3pl =me.acc . cl =you.acc / showed.3pl =you.acc . cl =me.acc
‘They showed me to you.’
Furthermore, first- and second-person accusative pronouns cannot be interpreted
as direct objects in combination with third-person pronouns irrespective of their
order (6).
(6) (Michelioudakis and Sitaridou 2012b: 238; RSür, ROf)
Eðiksan(e) æ/aton(a) emenan
showed.3pl him.acc . cl /him.acc me.acc
‘They showed him to me/ *They showed me to him.’
Özkan (2013: 146) notes, though, that the third person neuter pronominal suffix
can be combined with the neuter definite articles to and ta.pl used as direct object
pronouns after imperative forms like in ipe-na-to ‘say it’ when referring to some-
thing previously introduced to the context. For a more detailed discussion of con-
straints of clitic stacking in Romeyka see Michelioudakis and Sitaridou (2012b).
4.2.2. Demonstratives
Demonstratives have yet to be researched in any detail for Romeyka. Demonstra-
tive pronouns in Romeyka such as etšinos ‘this one’ inflect in general for number,
gender, and case. Özkan (n.d.) assumes that the demonstrative pronoun avudos or
afto ‘this’ (cf. Trabzon dialectal habu ‘this’ which has arisen due to Greek influ-
ence, Brendemoen 2002) can only be used as anaphoric pronouns referring to a
previously introduced antecedent, although deictic use seems to be possible, too
(7).
Romeyka 907
4.2.3. Possessives
Possessive pronouns in Romeyka are either enclitics, or independent possessive
pronouns (Table 6), which originate from AG possessives (Mackridge 1987;
Bortone 2009; Sitaridou 2014b). The third person possessives derive from demon-
stratives and therefore inflect (in the singular) in accordance with the gender of the
possessor (cf. Drettas 1997).
The initial vowel of the clitic pronouns may change according to the phonological
shape of the noun they are attached to. Prepositions indicating direction, such as s
‘to’, fuse with the possessive pronoun, like in s=temetero > semetero to xorio ‘to
our village’.
12
Drettas (1997) also mentions for Pontic Greek tetšinu.m / n , tetšines.f as 3rd person sin-
gular and tetšinon as 3rd person plural possessives for distant possessors.
908 Laurentia Schreiber
13
Janse (2002: 221) notes that in some cases the possessor of a genitive phrase occurs
without overt genitive marking, presumably modelled on the Turkish compound-type
of possessive construction.
14
Özkan (2013) reports the form nto in RSür.
Romeyka 909
nouns (Özkan, n.d.) and for the relativization of objects (13), spatial complements,
subjects, and as a free relativizer. Note that this kind of relativization is post-nom-
inal, as opposed to the dominant prenominal strategy discussed in §6.5.1.1 below.
(13) (Gandon 2016: 221; Romeyka, glosses modified)
Eɣrapses et͡ ʃinon do ipamen
record.pst .2 sg that.acc rel say. pst .1 pl
‘Did you record what we have said?’
Variable relativizers are those derived from the interrogative pronouns, e. g. opios
and otinan only used for animates/humans (Özkan, n.d.). Furthermore, Sitaridou
(2014b: 30) notes the use of itina, an ancient relativizer.
4.2.5. Interrogatives
The information in this section stem from Michelioudakis and Sitaridou (2012a)
on wh-fronting in PG and Romeyka. Wh-words in Romeyka are presented in
Table 7. Sitaridou (2014b: 30) mentions furthermore retention of AG hoθen < ὅθεν
‘wherefore’.
15
Note that this source is difficult to interpret at this point.
16
In ROf only (Michelioudakis and Sitaridou 2012a: 358).
910 Laurentia Schreiber
Romeyka numerals exist only for the numbers ‘one’ to ‘five’, the rest is Turkish
(Mackridge 1987). The numeral ena ‘one’ can occur determined, e. g. to ena ‘the
one’. Furthermore, pronominal clitics can be attached to numerals, though the
personal suffix in (20) resembles the Turkish first plural suffix -Iz. Similarly, Tr.
tek ‘one, only’ may be used emphatically, e. g. ena tek ɣarðel ‘just one child’, cf.
Turkish bir tek çocuk.
(20) (Own fieldwork; ROf)
na troɣume i ði-jiz
fut eat.1pl the two-1pl
‘The two of us will eat.’
5. Verbal morphology
Romeyka finite verbs encode person, TAM, and voice. Some functions are
expressed periphrastically by the use of particles, such as the future marking parti-
cle na, and others by enclitic affixes and/or stem alternation. The verbal system of
Romeyka contains many archaisms absent in other Modern Greek dialects such as
the AG aorist infinitive (see Mackridge 1987; Sitaridou 2014b).
5.2. Tense
Romeyka has three morphologically marked tenses: present, imperfect, and aorist.
Other tenses such as the future are formed periphrastically. Remarkably, there
is no periphrastic perfect tense, e. g. with ‘have’ (Mackridge 1987: 127).17 Note,
however, periphrastic present progressives which are discussed in §5.3.
5.2.1. Present
The present tense expresses an imperfective aspect and is used for habitual actions
(21). It is formed on the basis of the imperfective stem. For the paradigm see
Table 8.
(21) (Own fieldwork; ROf)
Her sabaχtan so mektep paɣo
every morning to.the school go.1sg
‘Every morning I go to school.’
17
See Sitaridou (2014a: 122) for the discussion of a complex predicate consisting of
the verb ‘have’ in past tense followed by an infinitive which resembles a past perfect
though only functioning as a counterfactual.
Romeyka 913
5.2.2. Imperfect
The imperfect expresses an action which happened continuously or habitually in
the past. Like the aorist, it is formed by the vocalic augment /e/ (Bortone 2009),
like in emaireva ‘I used to cook.ipfv ’ vs. emairepsa ‘I cooked.aor ’. As in the
other tenses, the inflectional paradigm depends on the verb class (cf. Drettas 1997
for PG). In the speech of the Istanbulite ROf consultant, however, no imperfect
forms were attested. Instead, the speaker used an aorist in the relevant context, as
in (22):
(22) (Own fieldwork; ROf)
Mikrina anda=emunest-ten emist-pal so mektep epixame
small(?) time.in=our-? we-foc to.the school go.aor .1 pl
‘When we were small, we used to go to school.’
5.2.3. Aorist
The aorist is used for perfective actions in the past (23). It can be combined with
temporal adverbs or inchoative verbs to mark the beginning of an action carrying
on to the present. Furthermore, it can be used (together with the future particle
na) for imminent actions happening in the near future (24). It is formed on the
basis of perfective aspect, i. e. the aorist stem with the ancient temporal augment
/e/ (Table 9), its forms matching largely with the AG aorist endings (Sitaridou
2014b: 53).
(23) (Own fieldwork; ROf)
ɵretmenis aso χorio erθe
teacher.nom from.the village come.aor .3 sg
‘The teacher came from the village.’
(24) (Own fieldwork; ROf)
t=akšam n=arde
the=evening fut =come.aor .3 sg
‘She will come this evening.’
914 Laurentia Schreiber
5.2.4. Future
There is no morphological future tense in Romeyka. Future is expressed peri-
phrastically by means of the particle na (25a) and the present stem, like in Medie-
val Greek and unlike in SMG, which uses the particle θa. Na is, apart from being
a future marker, also used as a subordinating conjunction after volitives and other
verbs (Sitaridou 2014a; see §6.5.1.3). We nevertheless gloss it with fut through-
out, although this is not always an accurate reflection of the function. For RSür as
spoken in Beşköy, Özkan (2013: 147) also mentions a preverbal particle ha used
to form future in negated sentences (cf. 25b) and interrogatives.
(25) (Own fieldwork; ROf)
a. Sabahle na pame so dyɣun.
tomorrow fut go.1pl to.the wedding
‘Tomorrow we will go to the wedding.’
b. Utše na pa(ɣ)o
not fut go.1sg
‘I will not go.’
5.3. Aspect
Perfective and imperfective aspect are in Romeyka only realized in the past tense
indicative, i. e. by the aorist and the imperfect respectively (Mackridge 1987;
Sitaridou 2014a). Present and future have no morphological aspectual distinctions
(cf. 26).
(26) (Özkan, n.d.; RSür as spoken in Beşköy, glosses mine)
t=ospi tamir na inete
the=house repair fut become.3sg
‘the house will have been repaired’
18
Not attested in my data.
Romeyka 915
Table 10: Periphrastic progressive forms with kahome ‘sit’ and steko/stekume ‘stand’ on
the example of tšimume ‘sleep’19
kahome ‘sit’ steko/stekume ‘stand’
‘sleep’ + ‘and’ + ‘sit’ ‘sleep’ + ‘and’ + ‘stand’
1 sg tšimume tše kahome tšimume tše steko/stekume
2 sg tšimase tše kahese ?
3 sg tšimate tše kahete tšimate tše stitš
1 pl tšimumist tše kahomist ?
2 pl tšimaste tše kahesten ?
3 pl tšimun tše kahontane tšimun tše stekontane/stekune
In the past, both verbs are in the imperfective stem (Özkan 2013); cf. Istanbulite
ROf in (28) which uses the aorist with the present form of the auxiliary steko.
According to Özkan (2013: 148), the construction is used especially for
“longer lasting” progressive actions (see ex. 29) and possibly replicates a Turkish
periphrastic progressive -Ip + dur-, like in çalışıp duruyorum ‘I keep working’ (see
19
For the forms of tše steko/stekume marked by a question mark no information was
available in my data.
916 Laurentia Schreiber
also Dawkins 1916: 199 who reports the same construction with ‘stop’ and ‘lie’ in
other AMG varieties).
(28) (Own fieldwork; ROf)
to vakit erθe (tše stitš) n=efta
the time come.aor .3 sg (and stand.prs .1sg ) fut =make.1sg
to faji
the food
‘The time has come, I will prepare the food.’
(29) (Own fieldwork; ROf)
So mutfak tšališevo tše steko.
in.the kitchen work.1sg and stand.1sg
‘I am working in the kitchen.’
According to Sitaridou (2014b: 44), the construction with steko bears inchoative
aspect though without a progressive function (cf. Drettas 1997: 336).
5.3.1. Voice
The details of passive morphology in contemporary Romeyka are yet to be estab-
lished. Historically, the categorization of verbs in two classes approximately cor-
responds to a voice distinction: verbs in -o are called actives whereas verbs in -me
are called (medio)passives (Drettas 1997: 205). Whereas ROf seems to lack pas-
sives in general, RSür allows passives (Michelioudakis and Sitaridou 2012b: 236).
The syntax of datives under passivization in RSür has been investigated by Miche-
lioudakis and Sitaridou (2012b). They note that a theme argument can be a regular
subject of a passive verb (30–31a), while a benefactive or recipient cannot advance
to subject under passivization (31b):
(30) (Michelioudakis and Sitaridou 2012b: 236; RSür, glosses modified)
To harti eɣrafte tin Aiše
the.nom letter.nom written.pass .3 sg the.acc Aise.acc
‘The letter was written for Aise.’
(31) (Michelioudakis and Sitaridou 2012b: 236; RSür, glosses modified)
a. I para tin Aiše eðoste.
the.nom money.nom the.acc Aise.acc given.pass .3 sg
‘The money was given to Aise.’
b. *I Aiše eðoste tin paran
the.nom Aise.nom given.pass .3 sg the.acc money.acc
‘Aise was given the money.’
Romeyka 917
5.3.2. Mood
Romeyka exhibits four moods: Indicative (tros ‘you eat’) and imperative (fa
‘Eat!’) are morphologically marked on the verb whereas subjunctive (na troɣo ‘I
should eat’) and optative (as troɣo ‘let me eat’) are formed by the particles na and
as, respectively, followed by the finite verb (Sitaridou 2014a).
The imperative covers the second persons and differs according to verb class:
verbs in -o such as tro(ɣ)o ‘eat’, fa ‘eat.imp .2 sg ’, fate ‘eat.imp .2 pl ’; verbs in -me
such as tšimume ‘sleep’, tšimeθ ‘sleep.imp .2 sg ’, tšimeθisten ‘sleep.imp .2 pl ’ (see
Drettas 1997: 227–232). Negation is formed by the negation particle mi and – at
least in Istanbulite ROf – the present indicative of the second persons, e. g. mi tros
‘neg eat.prs .2 sg ’. Thus ROf neutralizes the imperative/indicative distinction under
negation. Some verbs in Romeyka retain the ancient imperative ending (-s)on,
e. g. akuso(n) ‘listen’ (Bortone 2009: 84), but also other archaic imperatives such
as ipe ‘say’(Mackridge 1987: 125). On the syntax of modality see §6.3.
5.4. Finiteness
Mackridge (1987: 127, Fn. 17) considers that Romeyka lacks non-finite forms of
the verb, based on the assumption that finiteness equates to “indexing person”.
However, the infinitive found in certain varieties of Romeyka seems to run counter
to this (32) (see Sitaridou 2014b and the discussion in §6.5.2.1). Although there
appears to be no gerund in Romeyka (Sitaridou 2014a), Özkan (n.d.) provides exam-
ples from RSür resembling adverbial past participles which are formed by the suffix
-ta appended to the perfective stem, e. g. ɣelax-ta erθame ‘we came l aughing’.
(32) (Sitaridou 2014a: 122; ROf, glosses modified)
Utš eporesa tšimiθini.
not can.pst .1 sg sleep.inf
‘I could not sleep.’
This range of functions matches very closely the and suffix of Kurmanji Kurdish,
discussed in Haig (this volume, chapter 2.3). Another frequent suffix used for inte-
grating Turkish loans is -evo, e. g. tšališevo ‘to work’ from Tr. çalış- ‘to work’.
6. Syntax
Utš is derived from the ancient pre-verbal negative particle ούκ. Its phonologically
conditioned allomorphic forms are presented in Table 12.
Contact with Turkish affected the responsive particles used in ROf as spoken in
Uzungöl (Sarachos): whereas Greek ne is used for ‘yes’, ‘no’ is expressed by the
Turkish yok (Mackridge 1987: 134).
The periphrastic subjunctive formed by the particle na and the present stem
of the verb (or the imperfect in a na-clause governed by an aorist verb, Sitaridou
2014a) is used for a variety of constructions, such as volitionals (discussed in
§6.5.1.3 on na-clauses) and conditionals (discussed in §6.8). There is no aorist
subjunctive (but cf. Dawkins 1937 who claims the aorist subjunctive survived in
the PG of Christians from Samsun). Na as a future marker often also seems to
imply a modal meaning (38).
(38) (Own fieldwork; ROf)
ðo=me nero, na pino.
give.imp .2 sg =1 sg water fut drink.1 sg
‘Give me water, (that) I may drink.’
Optative mood is formed by the particle as and the verb in present tense. It is used
in voluntatives (39) and counterfactuals (40).
(39) (Own fieldwork; ROf)
Elate, as troɣume!
come.imp .2 pl opt eat.1pl
‘Come, let us eat.’
20
Sitaridou (2014a: 130).
21
Chatzopoulou and Sitaridou (2014, ex. 7).
Romeyka 921
22
Gandon (2016: 223, Fn. 130) notes the possibly nominalizing function of the free rela-
tivizers. If analysed as a nominalization, the gloss should indicate nmlz . acc .
Romeyka 923
23
I interpret (47) as shown, but Gandon’s translation is slightly different.
924 Laurentia Schreiber
6.5.1.3. na-Clauses
This description of na-clauses is based on Sitaridou (2014a: 123–126). Apart from
its function as a future marker, na is used as a subordinating conjunction (Mack-
ridge 1987: 130). In comparison to SMG, its use in Romeyka is more restricted:
na occurs in nonveridical predicates such as volitionals (58a) and negated present
tense modals (58b), as well as in causatives (see ex. 45), mental perception verbs
such as enespala ‘I forgot’ (58c) and erte so tšefali=m ‘it came to my mind’, and
emotive verbs (58d) (Sitaridou 2014a).
(58) (Examples from Sitaridou 2014a: 123–126; ROf, glosses modified)
a. Utš eθelna n’ emaireva
not want.ipfv .1 sg fut cook.ipfv .1 sg
‘I didn’t want to cook.’
b. U poro n’ almeɣo.
not can.1sg fut milk.1sg
‘I cannot milk (the cows).’
c. Enespala na leɣo ti mami
forget.pst .1 sg fut say.1sg the grandmother.acc
ta xaberæ.
the.acc news.acc
‘I forgot to tell the news to the grandmother.’
926 Laurentia Schreiber
d. Exara na mairevo.
be_happy.pst .1 sg fut cook.1sg
‘I was happy I had cooked.’
Note in (58a) that volitional θelo only requires a na-clause as complement when
negated. This does not hold true for the volitional aɣapo ‘I love/like’ which always
requires a na-clause (59) (Sitaridou 2014a: 124).
(59) (Own fieldwork; ROf)
Eɣo esena eɣabo ne lepo.
I you like.1 sg fut see.1sg
‘I want you to see (that).’
The examples in (73) and (74) show some of the micro-variation in Romeyka
conditionals. In RSür as spoken in Beşköy, the irrealis construction requires an
inflected infinitive with an uninflected auxiliary. Sitaridou (2014a: 55) notes the
possible emergence of a new invariant modality marker ixe from a former auxil-
iary.
(72) (Sitaridou 2014a: 141; ROf)
An eporo, mairevo
if can.1sg cook.1sg
‘If I can, I cook.’
(73) (Sitaridou 2014b: 45; ROf, glosses modified)
An ixa mairepsini, n‘ etroɣame
if had.1sg cook.inf fut eat.ipfv .1 pl
‘If I had cooked, we would have eaten.’
Romeyka 931
Abbreviations
References
Andrews, Peter A. 1989. Ethnic groups in the Republic of Turkey. Compiled and edited with
the assistance of Rüdiger Benninghaus. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Bilici, Faruk. 2011. Que reste-t-il de la langue et de la culture grecques sur les côtes turques
de la mer Noire? Cahiers Balkaniques 38–39. 325–342.
Bortone, Pietro. 2009. Greek with no history, no standard, no models: Muslim Pontic
Greek. In Alexandra Georgakopoulou & Michael Silk (eds.), Standard Languages and
Language Standards: Greek, Past and Present, 67–89. London: Ashgate.
Brendemoen, Bernt. 2002. The Turkish dialects of Trabzon: Their phonology and historical
development. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Brendemoen, Bernt. 2006. Aspects of Greek-Turkish language contact in Trabzon. In Hen-
drik Boeschoten & Lars Johanson (eds.), Turkic Languages in Contact, 63–73. Wies-
baden: Harrassowitz.
Chatzopoulou, Katerina & Ioanna Sitaridou. 2014. Jespersen’s cycle for NEG2 and condi-
tional inversion in the history of Greek: Evidence from Romeyka conditionals. Paper
presented at the 16th Diachronic Generative Syntax Conference, Research Institute for
Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, 3–5 July, 2014. http://www.ny-
tud.hu/digs16/absz/chatzopoulou_sitaridou_abstract.pdf (accessed 13 November 2017).
932 Laurentia Schreiber
Michelioudakis, Dimitris & Ioanna Sitaridou. 2012b. Syntactic microvariation: Dative con-
structions in Greek. In Ricardo Etxepare & Beatriz Fernández (eds.), Datives in vari-
ation: A micro-comparative perspective, 212–255. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moseley, Christopher. 2007. Encyclopedia of the World’s Endangered Languages. London:
Routledge.
Moseley, Christopher. 2010. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger, 3rd edn. Paris: UN-
ESCO Publishing. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/
access-to-knowledge/linguistic-diversity-and-multilingualism-on-internet/atlas-of-lan
guages-in-danger/ (accessed 17 November 2017).
Neocleous, Nicolaos. 2017. The reconstruction of VO and OV alternation in Romeyka. Pa-
per presented at the Conference on Language Contact and Language Change in Western
Asia, Goethe University Frankfurt, 10–12 March, 2017.
Neocleous, Nicolaos. In preparation. Headedness in Romeyka: Continuity, contact and
change in the Hellenic varieties of Pontus. Cambride: University of Cambridge disser-
tation.
Oikonomidis, Demosthenes E. 1908. Lautlehre des Pontischen. Leipzig: A. Deichert’sche
Verlagsbuchhandlung Nachf.
Özkan, Hakan. 2013. The Pontic Greek spoken by Muslims in the villages of Beşköy in the
province of present-day Trabzon. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 37(1). 130–150.
Özkan, Hakan. n.d. Grammar sketch of Romeyka. Unpublished draft.
Parcharidis, Ioannis. 1880. Γραμματική της διαλέκτου Τραπεζουντος: Περί επιθέτων,
αντωνυμιών και βαρυτόνων ρημάτων. [Grammar of the dialect of Trabzon]. Χειρόγραφο
335, Κέντρο Ερεύνης των Νεοελληνικών Διαλέκτων και Ιδιωμάτων, Ακαδημία Αθηνών.
Parcharidis, Ioannis. 1888. Συλλoγή ζώντων μνημείων της αρχαίας ελληνικής γλώσσας εν
Όφει. [Collection of living documents of the Ancient Greek language in Ophis] O εν
Kωνσταντινoυπόλει Eλληνικός Φιλoλoγικός Σύλλoγoς 18 (1883–1884). 120–178.
“Pontic”. Catalogue of Endangered Languages. 2017. University of Hawaii at Manoa.
http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/lang/3265 (accessed 17 November 2017).
Schreiber, Laurentia. 2016. Assessing sociolinguistic vitality: An attitudinal study of Rumca
(Romeyka). In Heike Wiese, Heiko F. Marten & Oliver Bunk (eds.), Arbeitspapiere
“Sprache, Variation und Migration”: Studentische Arbeiten, Papier Nr. 4. Potsdam:
Universität Potsdam.
https://www.unipotsdam.de/fileadmin01/projects/svm/Arbeitspapiere/MA_Schreiber_
May.pdf (accessed 17 November 2017).
Schreiber, Laurentia & Ioanna Sitaridou. 2017. Assessing the sociolinguistic vi-
tality of Istanbulite Romeyka: An attitudinal study. Journal of Multilingual
and Multicultural Development 39(1). 1–16. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/
abs/10.1080/01434632.2017.1301944?journalCode=rmmm20 (accessed 17 November
2017).
Sitaridou, Ioanna. 2013. Greek-speaking enclaves in Pontus today: The documentation and
revitalization of Romeyka. In Mari Jones & Sarah Ogilvie (eds.), Keeping languages
alive: Documentation, pedagogy, and revitalization, 98–112. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sitaridou, Ioanna. 2014a. Modality, antiveridicality, and complementation: The Romeyka
infinitive as a negative polarity item. Lingua 148. 118–146.
Sitaridou, Ioanna. 2014b. The Romeyka infinitive: Continuity, contact and change in the
Hellenic varieties of Pontus. Diachronica 31(1). 23–73.
7. Appendix: Basic lexical items in selected
languages of Western Asia
Geoffrey Haig, Geoffrey Khan and Laurentia Schreiber
7.1. Background
The list of items is based on a list of 40 meanings (a sub-set of the Swadesh-100
list), that is used by the Automated Similarity Judgement Program (ASJP), devel-
oped by Søren Wichmann and associates (Wichmann et al. 2016). The program is
designed for automatically classifying languages according to their origins, and
for inferring dates of divergences of different groups (see Holman et al. 2011,
and accompanying peer commentaries for critical assessment of the method). The
compilation includes lists from several chapters in this volume (provided by the
respective authors), as well as lists provided from other sources. In §7.5 below, we
provide a list of sources with accompanying notes on transcriptions etc.
For some meanings, no forms were provided due to e. g. lack of a reliable
response for the item concerned. The relevant cells in the Tables have been left
empty. The list of meanings is arranged alphabetically, except for the personal
pronouns, which are grouped together at the end of the table. Following a sugges-
tion by Don Stilo, an additional four items were added to the Wichmann-list (‘cat’,
‘water-melon’, ‘frog’, ‘why?’) which are known to provide interesting lexical
isoglosses in the languages of the region.
Please note that this is primarily a compilation of lexical items, for use in e. g.
recognizing cognates, or borrowings. It does not claim phonetic accuracy or con-
sistency in the way these items are rendered in the different lists. Given the very
heterogenous nature of the sources, and the differing traditions in the different
disciplines represented in this compilation, imposing a standardized transcription
would have not have been practicable, and we have therefore left the transcriptions
in the manner they were provided to us. For further information on the sources and
conventions for the individual lists, please refer to the accompanying notes under
§7.5 below.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-024
Behd. Gor.I Gor.II Hawr. S. Kurd. Bakht.I Bakht.II
936
w w
blood xīn xīn χ ün winī x eːn hin xin
bone hestī pēša soqan pēša soqan hast, ostoxoʋn estexun
breast sīng sinæ sīna sinæ pestoʋn, mame pestun, mame
cat pišîk pəʃi kitē pəʃi gorbe gorbe
come dihēt mayo miyo āmāy æyeː, æteː oʋeyden oʋeydan
ə
die dimirīt mamro mim ru marday æmreː morden mordan
dog se sipa sɨpæ, ɢæmal tūta sæw say sag
w
drink vedixot moro mɨ ɨru wārday æxwa xarden xardan
7.2. Iranian languages
water av ā aw āwī aw aʋ aʋ
937
Behd. Gor.I Gor.II Hawr. S. Kurd. Bakht.I Bakht.II
938
1
See §7.5 below for selected Kumzari etymologies.
Kumz.1 Oss. Casp.I Casp.II Tal.I Tal.II Tat.I Tat.II
eye čum sɐšt/cɐst čušm češ čaš čem čæšm čæmm
fire ātiš art atəš tæš otæš atæš atæš ayr
fish may kɐšag, kɐf/kɐsalgɐ mayi mayi moy moy may mahi
frog šufrāqō χɐfš/χɐpsɐ γurbaγə væk væzæx guzga guzga qurbaγe
full palla zag/iʣag pər per pur pər fet perr
hand dist k’uχ, ‘arm’/k’oχ dəs dæs dast dæs dæs dæsd
hear šnuft/šnawd/šnaws/ quš-/iʁos- ištowsən šnuss mæs/æ mæs/ə mæss æšnæv
šnēw
horn qarn šək’a/šik’a šax šax šox šaγ# šax šax
knee rukbit wɐrag/zɐngɐ zonə zanu zonï, zïng zonu, zəngə zeng ærzane
leaf warq šəf/šifɐ bəlg, vəlg vælg livæ lev liv vælg
liver jōğur jigɐr jigər jiger jigær jigær jigær
louse qar’a šəšt/šistɐ subuj espič sïbïž əspəj esbej esbézæ
mountain aql χoχ/χʷɐnχ ku ku band ku ku ku
name nām nom nom es nom nom, esm nam nawæ
new nō nog/nɐwɐg tazə nu, taze tožæ tazæ nu
night šaw ɐχšɐv/ɐχsɐvɐ šow šu šæv šæv šæv šo
nose nuxrit fənz/fij dəmaγ feni vəni vini veni viníæ
one tā iw/jew yek, i yek i i i yey
Appendix: Basic lexical items in selected languages of Western Asia
(see notes)
I mē ɐž/ɐz ( nom ), mu men az, mï(n) æz, mən æz, mæn æz
mɐn ( obl )
we mā maχ ( nom , obl ) amo ama, ema æmæ æmæ æmæ awan
you ( sg ) tō də/du ( nom ), tə te tï tə te tæ
dɐw ( obl )
you ( pl ) šmā šəmaχ/sumaχ šemo, šema šïmæ šemæ šemæ soan
( nom , obl ) šəmə
Arab.I Arab.II Arab.III Arab.IV CNA NENA.I NENA.II NENA.III NM
blood damm damm damm dam ʾadmo dəmma dəmma dəma dəmā
bone ʕaḏǝ̣ m ʕaḏị m ʕaḏǝ̣ m ʕaḏum garmo ɟarma gɛrma garma germā
+
breast sǝdǝr ṣadir; ṣadǝġ sadur ṣadro sadra; ṣadra; sənga kappā;
female ~ṣǝdǝġ; female female (Kurd.); female
breast: female breast: breast: female breast:
ṯadi breast: bəzza čəčča breast: nannā
dēs mămona
+
cat sannōṛa bisse bazzūni bazzūna qaṭən k̭aṱu qaṭu qaṭu šənārā
come pfv ǧā/ipfv ǧī (pfv ) ǧā (pfv ) Ɂiyya ʾoθe ʾatə ʾaθe (prs ) he (prs ) āṯi (prs )
7.3. Semitic languages
frog ʕaqṛōqa ʕuguṛṛuga ʕaqōqa ʕagruga baqqe p̂ ək̭k̭a pəqqa, qurbaqa paqeṯṯā
(<*ʕaqġōqa) pəqqe (Pers.)
full mǝtli malyān mʕabba matrūs malyo məlya ṃəḷya zmaṭa məli
hand ʔīd ʔīd ʔīd Ɂīd ʾiðo ʾida ʾiða ʾila idā
+
hear sǝmǝʕ (pfv )/ smiʕ sǝmǝʕ (pfv )/ simaʕ šoməʿ šammə šăməʾ(prs ) šăme (prs ) ṣāyeṯ (prs )
yǝsmaʕ (ipfv ) (pfv )/ yǝsmaʕ (pfv ) (prs ) (prs )
yismaʕ (ipfv )
(ipfv )
horn qǝrn ǧarin qǝġǝn girin qarno k̭ana qana šaxa qarn
(Kurd.) (Arab.)
knee rǝgbe rukba rǝkbi rəkba barko bərca bərka bərka burkā
+
leaf waraqa wruga waġqa wirga ṭarfo ṱarpa ṭarəpθa gaḷa par (Pers.)
(Kurd.)
liver qaṣabe (for čabde kǝbǝd čabda kăzăbe jiɟar kawda koza kabdā
dish also the (as a dish kamto cumta
Turkish loan ǧīgar)
Geoffrey Haig, Geoffrey Khan and Laurentia Schreiber
ǧīgar is used)
louse qamla gamla qamli gamla qalmo k̭alma qalma qăləmta qamṯā
+
moun - ǧabal ǧbile ǧabal yibal ṭuro ṱuyra ṭura ṭura ṭurā
tain
name ʔǝsǝm ʔisim ʔǝsǝm Ɂisim ʾəšmo šəmma šəmma šəma ešmā
ǝ
new ǧdīd ǧidīd ǧdīd yidīd ḥaθo xata xaθa xala haṯṯā
night layl lēl lēl liəl lalyo lelə lɛle lele lilyā
Arab.I Arab.II Arab.III Arab.IV CNA NENA.I NENA.II NENA.III NM
nose ʔǝnf xušše xašǝm darub nḥire naxira naxira poqa nəhirā
one wēḥǝd wāḥad wēḥǝd wāћid ḥa (m ), xa xa xa ehdā
ḥðo (f )
path dǝrb darib daġǝb darob darbo ʾurxa ʾurxa ʾorxa ohrā
(~ṭarīq)
person šaqṣ šaxaṣ šaxǝṣ nafar zlā́ m naša naša naša barnāšā
see ʔaṛa (pfv )/ šāf (pfv )/ qǝšǝʕ (pfv )/ ʃāf (pfv ) ḥoze xazə xaze (prs ) xăe (prs ) hāzi (prs )
yǝṛa (ipfv ) yšūf (ipfv ) yǝqšaʕ (prs ) (prs )
(ipfv )
(~ġǝšǝʕ
(pfv )/yǝġšaʕ
(ipfv ))
skin ǧǝld ǧilid ǧǝlǝd yilid galdo ɟəlda gəlda məška meškā
star nǝǧme naǧme naǧmi nayma kəkwo cuxva kəxwa kxəwla koḵḇā
stone ḥaǧaṛ ḥǧaṛa ḥaǧaġ ṣaxra kefo cipa kepa kepa gəlaltā
(~ḥǧāġa)
sun šams šamis šamǝs ʃaməs šəmšo šəmša šəmša šəmša šāmeš
ǝ
tongue lsēn lsān lsēn ʔilsān lišono lišana lišana lišana lešānā
tooth ḍǝrs sinn sǝnn (~snēn) ðərəs ʿaršo cica kaka kaka šennā
tree sǝǧara šǧaṛa sǝǧġa ʃijra dawmo ʾilana ʾilana ʾilana dəraxt
(Pers.)
ǝ
Appendix: Basic lexical items in selected languages of Western Asia
two ṯnayn ʔiṯnēne ṯnēn θniən tre tre tre tre tren
water ṃayy mayye ṃāy māy maye miyya miya mae mienā
943
Arab.I Arab.II Arab.III Arab.IV CNA NENA.I NENA.II NENA.III NM
944
water - ǧǝbse dibše šǝmzi rajjiya žabaš šəptiyya šəftiyya šwətya qarambā
melon (Kurd.) (Kurd.) (Kurd.)
why ? layš ʕalēš lēš liəʃ qay k̭a-mu qa-mo ta-ma qamu
I ʔana ʔāni ʔana Ɂāna ʾono ʾana ʾana ʾana anā
we nǝḥne ʔiḥna nǝḥna Ɂiћna ʾaḥna ʾaxnan ʾaxni ʾaxni ani
you ( sg ) ʔǝnt ( m ) ʔinte ( m ) ʔǝnta ( m ) Ɂinta ( m ) hat ʾat, ʾatən ʾati ʾāt āt
ʔǝnti (f ) ʔinti (f ) ʔǝnti (f ) Ɂinti (f )
you ( pl ) ʔǝntǝn ʔintu ( m ) ʔǝntǝn Ɂintum hatu ʾ axtun, ʾ ʾaxtu ʾaxtu atton
ʔintin (f ) (m) axtoxun,
Ɂintan (f ) ʾaxnoxun
Geoffrey Haig, Geoffrey Khan and Laurentia Schreiber
Appendix: Basic lexical items in selected languages of Western Asia 945
References
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-025
954 Index of language names
Azeri Turkic 12, 33, 196, 200, 228, 229, 259, 200–209, 211–213, 215, 219, 227, 228, 234,
355, 364, 365, 367, 376, 377, 398–400, 406, 941–944, 949
408, 412, 421, 439, 444, 570, 577, 578, 673, Chāli 664, 672–675, 678, 685, 687, 694, 696,
676, 679, 763, 806, see also Azerbaijani 711, 715, 721, 733, 739, 767, 775
Charazei 664
B Charozh 664, 716, 737, 824
Bābolsari 678, 686, 687, 719, 757, 824 Chenār Rudxāni 664
Bāĵaɫānī [Bāǰāɫānī, Bāĵalānī, Bāǰalānī] 297, Chikolen-Lesken [Chikola-Lesken] dialect of
303 Digor Ossetic 862
Bakhtiari [Bakhtiāri] 12, 25, 385–389, 391–393, Chinese 574, 601
395, 419, 445–480, 629, 947, 951 Cudi cluster of Christian NENA 191, 198, 204,
Bākoluri 664 205, 210, 224
Balochi [Baluchi] 6, 25, 627
Barwar, Christian NENA 16, 20, 45, 157, 238– D
240, 306, 312–315, 317–320, 322, 324–327, Darī [Dari] 569, 570, 572, 579, 603–605, 607,
330, 332–334, 337–340, 342–344, 346, 351, 609, 610, 612, 623
500, 501, 949, 951 Derabun, Christian NENA 315
Barətla, Christian NENA 306, 317 Dere, Christian NENA 324
Baṭnaya, Christian NENA 323, 324 Digor Ossetic 861–863, 865–874, 876, 877, 886,
Bayat (variety of Qashqâʾî) 416, 422–425, 430 887, 889, 890, 948, 951
Baz, Christian NENA 199, 204, 205, 209, 210, Dikin-Marāqei 665, 678, 717, 727, 735, 780, 782,
212, 638 824
Baz, Aruntus, Christian NENA 205, 210 Dikin-Pashei [Dikin-Pašei] 665, 674, 675, 824
Baz, Maha Xtaya, Christian NENA 204, 209, Diyana-Zariwaw [Diyana-Zariway] 312, 313–
210, 212 318, 322, 330, 352
Begdilli [Begdili] (variety of Qashqâʾî) 423–425 Dīz, Christian NENA 203
Behdinī [Bahdini, Badini, Badinî, Bahdinī, Dizi 664, 730, 731, 824
Behdini], Northern Kurdish 13, 24, 34, 40, 41, Dobe, Jewish NENA 323, 337
43, 44, 106, 108, 114, 119, 121, 125–127, 129, Dohuk, Jewish NENA of 306, 314, 323
132, 134, 137, 138, 145, 267, 269, 272, 280, Dohuk, Kurmanjî of 138, 290, 291, 303
287, 292, 294, 304, 377, 388, 947 Domari 3, 28, 29
Bēṣpən, Christian NENA 198
Betanure, Jewish NENA 306, 310, 312, 314, 323, E
324, 336, 352 Elāšti [Elašti] 666, 668–670
Bēwyānī (variety of Gorani) 297 Elazığ [Elaziğ], Kurmanjî of 127
Bidaro, Christian NENA 313, 318 Elbistan, Kurmanjî of 121, 127, 136, 139, 141,
Bingird, Sorani of 271, 285 149
Bohtan, cluster of Christian NENA 14, 16, 32, 34, Erzurum, Kurmanjî of 127
35, 40–42, 191, 194, 198–205, 207, 210, 211, Eštehārdi [Eshtehārdi] 724, 738, 780
216–218, 220, 221, 224, 225, 228, 233, 234
Bokan, Jewish NENA 481, 496, 508 F
Bədyal, Christian NENA 310, 313, 314, 318, 319, Fârsî [Farsi, Fārsi] 405, 406, 434, 485, 569, 570,
324, 335, 337, 339 573, 579, 580, 582, 589, 600–602, 605, 607,
609, 610, 612, 616, 620–624, 821
C Fumani 659
Cappadocian 893, 901, 903, 932
Caucasian, South 9, 830, 843, 846, 854, 855, 860, G
885, 889 Galeshi [Galeši, Gāleši] 663, 666, 668–670, 675
Caucasian Tat 659, 664, 691, 819, 820, 823, 578, Gandomābi 664, 678, 723, 724, 730, 731, 736,
938–940, 948 738, 759, 772, 778, 824
Central Neo-Aramaic (CNA) 6, 10, 14, 16, 17, Gawraǰūyī [Gawřajūyī] (variety of Gorani) 296,
20, 31, 32, 34–37, 41, 42, 190, 194, 197, 198, 533, 541
Index of language names 955
Gāzarxāni (Tatoid) 674, 675 369, 370, 371, 374, 376, 383, 385, 386, 387,
Georgian 9, 10, 196, 748, 763, 825, 826, 830, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 398,
833, 840, 855, 862, 878, 885, 891, 895 400, 401, 411, 413, 414, 415, 416, 419, 420,
Geylavāni 664 423, 426, 427, 428, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436,
Gīlakī [Gilaki] 18, 19, 577, 578, 658–660, 665, 437, 438, 439, 444, 445, 447, 458, 460, 472,
673–677, 679, 688, 691, 692, 697, 709, 716– 473, 478, 479, 480, 484, 485, 494, 503, 522,
718, 729, 769, 820, 821, 948 523, 533, 538, 566, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571,
Gorani [Gūrānī, Gūranī, Gurānī, Gurāni] 7, 13, 572, 573, 575, 576, 577, 578, 579, 601, 621,
15, 237, 267, 269, 270, 274, 278, 281, 295– 622, 623, 624, 625, 627, 629, 638, 639, 657,
302–304, 357, 368, 385, 410, 413, 426, 533, 658, 659, 660, 664, 667, 708, 711, 716, 720,
534, 536, 537, 540, 566, 567, 947, 949 730, 731, 763, 778, 790, 820, 821, 822, 823,
Gulf Arabic 629, 657 825, 826, 827, 828, 829, 861, 884, 885, 889,
Gullī, Kurmanjî of 291 890, 936, 948, 951
Gulpašan, Christian NENA 200 Iranian, Western 124, 385, 494, 623–625, 629,
Gurāni (variety of Tatoid) 674, 675, 700, 703, 639, 658, 821
714, 728, 735, 771, 824 Iranic → Iranian
Gurchāni (Vafsi) 665, 676 Iraq Turkic → Turkic, Iraq
Iron Ossetic 861, 862, 865, 889
H Iron Ossetic, Kudar dialect 863, 878
Hakkari cluster of Christian NENA 191, 199,
201, 203–206, 209, 210, 212 J
Halmun, Christian NENA 204, 224 Jāfī 534, 537, 538
Hamziye, Christian NENA 324 Jamshidābādi 673
Harbole,Christian NENA 205 Jilu, Christian NENA 11, 199, 203, 206, 233, 234
Harzani [Harzandi] 40, 664, 671, 672, 676, 689, Jowkandāni 712, 727, 728, 824
698, 710–712, 718, 720, 728, 731, 733, 739, Jubani 673–675, 700, 739, 824
744, 749–751, 764, 770, 771, 791–793, 820,
821, 823 K
Hashtpari 660, 820 Kabatei [Kafteji] 664, 665, 671–675, 678, 685,
Hassana, Christian NENA 198, 210 694, 696, 705, 711, 712, 717, 727, 728, 737,
Hawrami [Hawrāmi, Hawrāmī] 10, 15, 18, 755–757, 778, 779, 822, 824
25, 267, 295, 296, 298, 299, 301, 385–394, Kābolī [Kaboli] 610
533–539, 541–543, 546, 553, 554, 566, 567, Kajali 664, 671, 672, 678, 717, 723, 737, 738,
763, 947 764, 767–769, 773, 774, 797, 824
Hertevin, Christian NENA 14, 16, 34, 35, 198, Kakaʼī [Kākayī] (variety of Gorani) 297, 533
200, 201, 203, 205, 210, 211, 216–218, 221, Kalāsari [Kalāsuri] 40, 664, 671, 685, 694, 703,
234, 526 712, 718, 721, 725–728, 731, 733, 764, 768,
Hezārrudi 664, 678, 695, 717, 730, 731, 736, 769, 823, 824
767–769, 778, 779, 785, 800, 801 Kalhor of Bayâdestân 424, 435, 436
Hobyot 629 Kalhorī 577
Kandelusi 666
I Kandūlayī [Kändûläî] (variety of Gorani) 296,
Indo-Aryan 639 444, 533, 5, 567
Indo-European 53–60, 104 Karamlesh, Christian NENA 323, 324
Indo-Iranian 625, 627 Karani 664, 671, 672, 707, 723–725, 736, 738,
Iranian languages 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 823, 824
16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 40, 45, Kargānrudi [Karganrudi] 764, 766
94, 106, 108, 118, 124, 130, 151, 156, 157, Karnaqi 664, 730, 731, 738, 824
158, 189, 195, 214, 227, 229, 237, 238, 239, Kartvelian 5, 8, 10, 21, 29, 241, 401, 825–827,
240, 241, 260, 267, 269, 272, 273, 274, 276, 830, 860, 949
278, 280, 285, 287, 295, 296, 298, 299, 303, Kelārdašti [Kelārdashti] 660, 666, 673, 674, 675,
304, 306, 327, 354, 362, 363, 364, 366, 368, 692, 693, 718, 720, 721, 729–731, 735
956 Index of language names
Kelāsi [Kelasi] 664, 665, 673–675, 678, 685, 687, Kurdish, Central (Sorani) 10, 11, 18, 25, 41,
694, 703, 715, 727, 736, 738, 752, 754, 757, 137, 139, 143, 213, 237–241, 267, 269–274,
822, 824 276–278, 280–285, 287, 288, 291–293, 298,
Kerend, Jewish NENA 481, 496, 497, 503, 508, 299, 302, 304, 316, 322, 325, 358, 369, 370,
512, 532 485, 501, 534, 536, 537, 566, 826, 827, 947
Keringāni [Keringani] 664, 671, 710–713, 718, Kurdish, Southern 3, 15, 106, 274, 278, 281,
720, 721, 725–727, 730, 731, 744, 751, 758, 296, 298–300, 368, 460, 947, 949
764, 791 Kurmanjî [Kurmanji, Kurmandji, Kurmanci,
Khalaj 19, 398, 399, 405, 407, 411, 415, 416, Kurmandjî Kurmānğí] 10, 29, 31, 34–37,
419, 422, 424, 430, 431, 433, 434, 438, 39–45, 106–111, 113, 115, 117, 118, 120–122,
439 124, 126, 127, 130, 131, 133–139, 141, 144,
Khalaj of Bayâdestân 19, 407, 415, 422, 424, 145, 147–152, 156–158, 184, 189, 237–240,
430, 431, 433, 434, 438, 439 267, 270, 281, 287, 289, 291, 303, 314, 316,
Khatirābādi 824 369, 427, 673, 699, 837, 840, 918, see also
Khoini [Xo’ini] 694, 698, 717, 723, 727, 728, Kurdish, Northern
730, 731, 733, 739, 753, 823, 824 Kurmanjî, Southeastern (SEK) 40, 42–44,
Khorâsân-Turkic (East Oghuz) 398 133–137, 139, 140, 142–146, 148, 150, 151
Khoynarudi 664, 711, 712, 733, 774, 784, 787, Kurmanjî, Southern (SK) 133–136, 139, 144,
788, 800, 801, 803, 824 148, 149
Kilit 659, 664 Kurmanjî, Western (WK) 108, 126, 127, 131,
Koluri 664, 671, 672, 677, 678, 685, 687, 691, 133–136, 138, 139, 141, 145–151
698, 711, 715–717, 720, 723, 724, 727, 728,
730, 731, 736, 748, 819, 824, 948 L
Kordkheyli 678, 686, 697, 747, 808, 809 Lāhijāni [Lahijāni, Lāhijani] 19, 659, 660, 666,
Koy Sanjak [Koy Sanjaq, Koy Sanǰaq], Jewish 667, 669, 670, 677–679, 682, 685, 686, 688,
NENA 296–298, 305, 306, 312, 313, 315, 316, 691–693, 697, 701, 703–705, 708, 709, 713,
323, 352 715, 718, 719, 720, 721, 723, 725–727, 729–
Kumzari [Kumzārī, Komzari, Kamazara] 1, 7, 15, 732, 734, 735, 737, 738, 741–745, 747, 749–
22, 24, 25, 385, 387, 389, 390, 395, 458, 480, 752, 754, 757–763, 765, 766, 768, 769, 771,
571, 625, 627–636, 638–651, 653, 656, 658, 792, 793, 795–803, 805, 808, 809, 824, 948
947, 948 Lākei [Lakei] 673
Kurdish 3, 6–18, 20, 24, 25, 28, 31–35, 37–39, Laki [Lakī] 300, 303, 577
41, 44, 45, 106–110, 113, 115–119, 121, Langerudi 659, 666, 734, 735, 743, 745, 749, 824
122, 126, 129–131, 134, 135, 137, 139, 143, Lārestānī 658
148, 150–152, 156–158, 160, 162, 163, 177, Latin 46, 163, 357, 574, 676
181–184, 188, 189, 194, 196, 200, 204, 213, Latin, Low 574
226–228, 237–240, 243, 244, 246, 251, 259, Laz 8, 10, 13, 16, 19, 21, 24–26, 241, 825–828,
260, 267, 269–274, 276, 278, 280, 281, 284, 830, 832, 833, 835, 837–841, 843, 844, 846,
287–291, 293, 294, 296, 298–304, 310, 311, 847, 850, 852–854, 856, 860, 895, 923, 945,
314, 316, 321–323, 325, 332, 337, 341, 344, 946, 949
345, 351, 352, 354, 355, 357–361, 368–370, Laz, dialect of Arhavi-Fındıklı 832, 833, 835,
374, 375, 377, 383, 388, 389, 392, 400, 406, 844, 852, 854, 860, 949
407, 410, 412, 413, 426–428, 434, 437, 441, Laz, dialect of Hopa 72
445, 460, 468, 482, 485, 490, 501, 509, 526, Lerdi 664, 733, 824
532–534, 536–538, 553, 561, 566, 571, 577, Leriki 660, 663, 677–679, 683–687, 690, 694,
601, 665, 699, 705, 826, 827, 837, 840, 843, 695, 698, 702–704, 706, 708–714, 716, 719,
895, 918, 947, 949 722–728, 731, 732, 734, 739–741, 743–746,
Kurdish, Northern (Kurmanjî) 8, 10, 13, 16, 748, 751–760, 763–769, 772, 774, 780, 781,
17, 24, 25, 106, 131, 150, 156, 238, 267, 785, 786, 790, 791, 793, 797–799, 801–809,
270, 271, 273, 278, 280, 284, 287–289, 814, 824, 948
291, 298, 370, 388, 468, 705, 947, see also Levandavili 663
Kurmanjî lišana deni Jewish NENA 191, 306
Index of language names 957
Lorī [Luri, Lori] 407, 445, 446, 452, 478, 479, Nerwa, Christian NENA 11, 306, 312, 313, 353
571, 629 Nerwar, Jewish NENA 310, 314, 323, 324
Lori, Northern 445 North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) 6, 8–17,
Lori [Luri], Southern 445, 452, 629 19–23, 26–28, 31–44, 157, 190, 191, 194–207,
Lənkəran [Lenkoran] dialect 660, 663, 824 209–228, 230, 235, 238, 241, 269, 292,
305–307, 309–317, 319–322, 324, 328–334,
M 336, 345, 350, 351, 385–397, 460, 481–486,
Māčiāni 670 488–494, 496–505, 507–513, 515, 516, 518,
Mačo [Māčo] (variety of Gorani) 297–299, 301, 521, 522, 525–527, 531, 532, 826, 941–944,
534 946, 948, 949
Mandaic 305, 393, 397, 485, 488, 502, 526, 532 NENA, Christian (dialects) 9, 13, 191, 194,
→ Neo-Mandaic 196, 198, 203, 206, 215, 222, 223, 306, 308,
Mandaic, Classical 393, 485 311, 388, 390–392, 482, 484, 486, 488, 489,
Mangesh, Christian NENA 324 491
Maraš [Maraş], Kurmanjî of 52, 156 NENA, Jewish (dialects) 194, 199, 241, 269,
Mardin, Kurmanjî of 34, 116, 139, 141, 145, 152, 306, 307, 311, 316, 387, 388, 390–394, 481,
159, 160 488, 491, 507, 508, 511, 512, see also trans-
Mar-Yaqo, Christian NENA 324 Zab Jewish NENA
Māsāli 671, 672, 675, 685, 824, 948 Nowkiāni [Nowkiani] 664, 671, 678, 689, 720,
Masally 659, 660, 663 721, 725, 727, 728, 778, 784, 788, 824
Maṣlāwi Arabic → Moṣul, Arabic of
Māsulei 660, 671, 672, 677, 678, 681, 685, 694, O
703, 710, 715–717, 720, 721, 723, 725, 731, Oghuz, Central (Turkic) 358, 399, 439
736, 737, 739, 741, 744–748, 756, 758–763, Oghuz, South (Turkic) 399, 405
765–767, 769, 770, 772, 773, 775, 780, 793, Ophitic 894, 932
795, 799, 807, 809, 824, 948 Oskulaki 665, 673
+
Mawana, Christian NENA 13, 34, 202, 204, 213 Ossetic 8, 12, 16, 24–26, 825–829, 861–863,
Māzandarānī [Mazanderani, Māzanderānī, 865–868, 871, 873, 876–878, 883–891, 948,
Mazandarani] 577, 624, 659, 660, 677, 678, 951
691–693, 697, 709, 714, 715, 719, 735, 741,
747, 762, 821, 822, 948 P
Mazṛa, Christian NENA 218 Pahlavī [Pahlavi] 572, 623
Mehri 627, 629, 638, 658, 948, 951 Pārsī [Parsi, Pārsīg] 572, 622, 623
Middle Persian → Persian, Middle Parthian 274, 571, 572
Midyat, Kurmanjî of 107, 133, 144, 148, 152 Pashto 6, 570, 577, 579
Mingrelian 830, 885, 890 Pāwayī 536
Mlaḥsô [Mlaḥso] 32, 41, 42, 45, 190, 195, 197, Persian 3, 18, 22, 24, 25, 27, 65, 77, 85, 87,
198, 204–207, 209, 213, 220, 221, 234, 526 118, 176, 196, 228, 229, 234, 243, 274, 300,
Mongolian 4, 574 303, 362, 366, 368–370, 375, 377, 385–387,
Moṣul, Arabic of 23, 240, 246, 247, 248, 250, 389–393, 395, 396, 401, 405–409, 411–415,
252, 260–265, 949 418, 424–426, 428, 429, 433, 434, 436–442,
Mukri, Sorani of 12, 34, 270–272, 282, 304 445, 447, 449, 450, 458, 460, 464, 472, 473,
Muš [Muş], Kurmanjî of 8, 132, 159 477, 479, 480, 484, 485, 490, 501, 502, 504,
509, 514, 520, 524–526, 533, 534, 537, 538,
N 569–593, 595–597, 600–604, 607, 608, 614,
Nargezine-Xarjawa, Christian NENA 323 617, 621–625, 627–629, 637, 657, 658, 664,
Nāvrudi 663 665, 667, 668, 673, 677, 679, 687–689, 691,
NENA → North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic 692, 697, 702, 704, 717, 735, 738, 756, 757,
Neo-Mandaic 19, 21, 22, 385–388, 390, 393–395, 763, 786, 796, 798, 799, 806, 820, 821,
481–485, 487–493, 495, 497, 498, 500–502, 840, 855, 884, 885, 915, 948, 949, see also
504, 513–515, 517, 519, 521, 522, 524, 526, Fārsī
529, 531, 532, 949, 951 Persian, Classical 576, 578, 582, 592, 623
958 Index of language names
Persian, Colloquial 24, 27, 370, 389, 390, 437, Rumca → Romeyka
538, 576, 578, 583, 586–588, 590, 592, 596, Rumdža → Romeyka
614, 616, 620, 621, 624 Rumta, Christian NENA 201
Persian, Early Judaeo- 392, 580, 624 Russian 45, 100, 194, 196, 570, 575, 861, 863,
Persian, Early New 576, 580, 582, 584, 624 886, 887, 891
Persian, Judaeo- 392, 572, 580, 624 Rustaqa, Jewish NENA 306, 323, 335–337, 351
Persian, Middle (MP) 274, 571–573, 584, 624,
627, 637 S
Persian, Middle, Manichaean 584 Šabakī (variety of Gorani) 296, 298–300, 533,
Persian, Middle, Zoroastrian 572, 584 947
Persian, Modern 368–370, 401, 405, 407, 408, Safî Khânî (variety of Qashqâʾî) 416, 417,
409, 411, 413, 436, 479, 588, 593, 604 423–425, 430
Persian, New (NP) 571–573, 576, 580, 582– Sagzābādi 664, 676, 740, 785, 788, 801, 804
585, 590, 596, 602, 624 Saljuqian Turkic (historical form) 398–400
Persian, Old 571 Šammar dialects 243, 244, 246
Persian, Standard 385, 390, 538, 576, 580, Šamməsdin-Gawar cluster of Christian
581, 583, 586, 588, 589, 608 NENA 191, 202–204, 213
Peshabur, Christian NENA 313, 322, 324 Sanandaj, Christian NENA 389–392, 482, 484,
Piždar, Sorani of 271, 285 485, 487–494, 497, 497, 499, 501, 503–505,
Pontic Greek 893–895, 897, 903, 907, 932, 933 509–512, 516–519, 521–526
Pontic Greek, Muslim → Romeyka Sanandaj, Jewish NENA 10, 15, 19–21, 23,
351, 386, 387, 389, 393, 394, 397, 481, 482,
Q 485–492, 494–497, 499–501, 503, 506–512,
Qal’ei 824 517–519, 521–524, 527, 532, 949, 951
Qar Hasan, Jewish NENA 508 Sangesari 280
Qaraqosh, Christian NENA 10, 11, 240, 306, 309, Săqəz, Jewish NENA 481, 494, 497
311–313, 315–324, 326, 328, 329, 333, 334, Sāravi 660, 666, 668–670, 677, 678, 683,
337, 340–345, 351 685–687, 692, 693, 697, 698, 701, 703–705,
Qashqâʾî (South Oghuz) 368, 383, 399, 405, 407, 707–709, 711, 715, 719, 721, 727, 730–732,
409–414, 416–418, 421, 423–426, 430, 444 735, 736, 741–743, 745, 747, 749–751, 753,
Qočanəṣ, Christian NENA 201 757–759, 762, 763, 765, 766, 768, 769, 771,
792–795, 797–799, 801, 804, 808, 809, 812,
R 948
Rāmsari [Ramsari] 659, 666, 669, 670, 688, 692, Sarlī 267
693, 709, 721, 730–732, 734, 735, 743, 745, Sayyādlari 824
747–749, 757, 821, 824 Semitic 3–7, 10, 14, 20, 21, 25, 27, 29, 31, 32,
Rashti [Rašti] 666, 668–670, 673–675, 677–679, 42, 113, 150, 159, 189, 234–241, 243, 254,
685, 688, 697, 711, 717, 720, 725–727, 730, 264–266, 272, 292, 305, 328, 350, 351, 353,
731, 734, 736, 738, 741, 751, 762, 765, 824 361–363, 366, 371, 385, 387, 388, 397, 401,
Razajerdi 664, 678, 689, 694, 700, 703, 720, 727, 410, 411, 531, 532, 625, 627, 630, 632, 635,
729, 739, 747, 770, 771, 786, 791, 824 643, 658, 763, 821, 822, 825–827, 829, 941,
Rewandiz, Sorani of 292 948, 951
Romeyka 12, 13, 16, 20, 21, 825–828, 892–895, Semitic, South 625
897–907, 909–912, 914–927, 929–931, 933, Semnānī [Semnani] 571, 577
950 Šēxānī [Şēxānī] (variety of Gorani) 298, 533
Rostamābādi 673, 824 Šēx Bizini 106
Rōžbayānī [Rožbayānī] (variety of Gorani) 533 Shahrāni 673
Rudbāri 659, 665, 667, 673–675, 700, 716, 717, Shāli 664
720, 727, 728, 730, 731, 734, 739, 762, 771, Shāndermeni 664
824 Shihhi [Shihhuh, Shihuh] 627–629, 656, 658, 948
Ruma, Christian NENA 14, 34, 42, 191, 203, 207, Shōsh-u-Sharmə, Christian NENA 323
216–218, 228 Siāvarudi 664
Index of language names 959
Sinjar, Kurmanjî of [Sinjarī] 288, 290 Turkic, Iraq 14, 18, 383, 400, 409–411, 416,
Sorani → Kurdish, Central 418, 422, 423, 429, 434
Sulemaniyya, Christian NENA 305, 313, 315, Turkish 3, 7, 8, 10, 13, 18, 20, 28, 40, 65, 72, 74,
323, 324, 333, 487 77, 92, 95, 109, 121, 122, 138, 148–152, 156,
Sulemaniyya, Jewish NENA 15, 241, 312, 319, 160, 162, 163, 176, 177, 181–184, 186, 188,
321, 323, 324, 327, 329–332, 334, 335, 339– 189, 195, 196, 228, 229, 235, 240, 259, 260,
342, 344, 345, 482, 505, 510 264, 296, 303, 306, 309, 310, 315, 336, 345,
Sulemaniyya, Sorani of 270–273, 277–279 355, 357, 358, 360–366, 368, 371–374, 376,
Sumerian 237 377, 382, 383, 396, 399, 400, 406, 408, 413,
Surči [Surčī], Kurmanjî of 281, 291 416, 418, 419, 421–425, 427, 431, 432, 436,
Svan 830, 885, 891 443, 444, 574, 575, 663, 822, 825, 827, 828,
Syriac 196, 208, 219, 305, 310, 311, 351, 352, 830, 832, 833, 837, 839, 840, 855, 857, 892–
489 895, 897, 899, 902, 908–911, 915, 917, 918,
Šəno, Jewish NENA 191, 213 920, 921, 923, 927, 929, 931, 942, 949
Turkish, Ottoman (South Oghuz Turkic) 259,
T 345, 355, 363, 396, 400, 574, 895
Ṭabarī (New Tabarī) 572, 621 Turkish of Turkey (West Oghuz) 357, 399,
Tahāromi 664 400, 406, 418, 422, 423, 425, 436
Tajik [Tojiki Tājīkī] 458, 569, 570, 579, 580, 582, Turkmanja [Turkman] 237, 354, 355, 357–359,
593, 596, 597, 602–607, 609–612, 614, 616, 361, 363, 367, 374, 375, 377, 381, 383, 384,
617, 624 398, 400, see also Turkic, Iraq
Tākestāni 664, 675 Turkmen [Türkmen] 108, 354, 368, 382, 383,
Tāleš-Dolabi 664 398, 399, 405, 407
Tālešī [Tāleshi, Taleshi] 571, 578, 659, 819–821, Ṭūrōyō [Turoyo] 234–236, 305, 312
821, 823, 951 Tutkāboni 673–675, 700, 717, 728, 730, 731,
Telkepe, Christian NENA 318, 323, 324, 334, 734, 762, 771, 824
350, 352 Txuma cluster of Christian NENA 191, 198, 218
Tikab, Jewish NENA 508 Tən, Christian NENA 232, 323
Tisqopa, Christian NENA 323
Tiyare cluster of Christian NENA 191, 197–199, U
201–206, 210, 213, 215, 224, 226–228, 306 Umra d-Shish, Christian NENA 224, 234, 324
Tiyare, Lower, Christian NENA 191, 198 Urei 666, 668, 824
Tiyare, Upper, Christian NENA 191, 199, 218 Urmi, Christian NENA 17, 37–39, 191, 200–207,
Tonekābonī [Tonekāboni] 677, 688, 692, 693, 210–215, 218, 222, 224–227, 229, 230, 494
717–719, 721, 727, 730–732, 734, 743, 745, Urmi, Jewish NENA 191, 199, 202, 206, 210,
749, 757, 762, 807, 819, 824 216, 218, 222–225, 227, 228, 486, 487, 526
trans-Zab Jewish NENA 21, 26, 191, 199, 213, Uzbek 108, 570, 577, 607, 612, 616, 617
222, 223, 235, 238, 239, 241, 306, 314, 319,
321, 322, 326, 327, 339, 345, 352, 481, 486, V
492, 516, 518, see also NENA, Jewish Vafsī [Vafsi] 25, 29, 468, 480, 577, 658–660, 665,
Tur Abdin [Ṭūr ʿAbdīn, Tur ‘Abdîn], Kurmanjî 672, 676–678, 680, 681, 685–687, 691, 694,
of 31, 129 695, 698–703, 705, 709–711, 713–715, 717,
Turkî [Turki] (Iran-Turkic) 354, 398–401, 405– 719–723, 725, 728, 730–732, 738, 740, 742,
407, 412, 439, 441 743, 746, 751–755, 757–760, 763, 765–770,
Turkic languages 3, 5, 7, 8, 11–16, 18–21, 24–26, 772, 773, 775–778, 780, 784, 789, 793–795,
28, 29, 31, 33, 40, 157, 237–241, 260, 286, 797–805, 807–809, 815, 821, 822, 824, 948
337, 345, 354, 355, 357, 358, 360–371, 374, Vājārgāhi 670, 743, 766
376, 377, 382, 383, 385–390, 392–396, 398– Velātrui 660, 666, 669, 670, 678
401, 405–430, 432–439, 441, 443, 444, 446, Vidari 717
574, 575, 577, 578, 607, 610, 657, 821, 822, Viznei 671, 690, 694, 712, 790, 824
825, 827–829, 854, 860, 931, 949
Turkic, Iran 18, 24, 26, 360, 367, 371, 949
960 Index of language names
W Z
Wārmāwa, Sorani of 278, 286 Zakho, Jewish NENA 306, 313–315, 323, 324,
350
X Zakho, Kurmanjî of 137, 287, 289–291
Xatirābādi [Khatirābādi, Xatirabadi] 666, Zardayāna (variety of Gorani) 296, 298, 533, 540,
824 541
Xošābari 664 Zazaki 3, 106, 109, 149, 157, 158, 280, 281, 622,
Xərpa, Christian NENA 313, 323, 337 623, 763, 837, 840
Zincirli, Kurmanjî of 151
Index of place names
A Arbīl [Arbel, Arbil] (Iraq) 187, 237, 238, 240,
Adana (Turkey) 133 244, 264, 292, 297, 298, 306, 312, 314,
Adhaim (Iraq) 245, 297, 308 322–327, 335, 337, 339, 341, 343, 345, 351,
Adiyaman-Urfa (Turkey) 126 354, 355, 359–361, 370, 427, 947
Afghanistan 354, 399, 444, 569, 570, 577, 579, Ardabil (Iran) 578, 664
582, 623, 657 Ardal (Iran) 447, 457, 460, 461, 467, 468,
Ağrı (Turkey) 133 471–473, 480, 947
Aħmađ Āwā (Iraq) 534 Ardon (Russia) 864
Ahwaz [Ahvāz, Ahwāz, Aḥwāz] (Iran) 305, 385, Arhavi (Turkey) 832, 833, 835, 844, 852, 854,
481, 482, 484, 492, 504, 513, 514, 516, 525, 860, 949
532, 949 Armenia 31, 33, 65, 79, 80, 85, 87, 89, 93, 97, 98,
Akbudak (Turkey) 133 108, 123, 195, 196, 201
Akre [Aqra, ʕAqra] (Iraq) 187, 264, 244, Arpačī (Iraq) 298
288–291, 294, 351 Artvin (Turkey) 831
al-Qamishli (Syria) → Qamishli Asālem (Iran) 660, 663, 823
Alagir (Russia) 864 Asia Minor 13, 27, 52, 573, 893, 903, 932
Alazani river 864 Asparēz 534, 536
al-Baʿʿāj [al-Baʕʕāǧ] (Iraq) 245, 259 As-Sulaymāniyya (Iraq) → Sulemaniyya
Aleppo (Syria) 3, 28, 184, 189, 260 Astara (Azerbaijan) 660, 664
al-Hasakah (Syria) → Hasakah Australia 195, 310, 484, 569
ʿAlī Bāpīr (Iraq) 297 Awbar (Iraq) → Ambar
ʿAlî Qûrchî (south of Arak) (Iran) 412 Awroman [Awromān] (Iran) 296, 303, 566, 567
ʿAlī Sarāy (Iraq) 297 Azerbaijan 40, 190, 234, 355, 359, 362, 363, 365,
Aligudarz (Iran) 445 366, 383, 396, 398–400, 405, 406, 410, 412,
Almaty (Kazakhstan) 195, 196 413, 416, 419, 424, 428, 429, 436, 481, 659,
al-Mawṣil [al-Mauṣil] → Mosul (Iraq) 660, 663, 664, 724, 791, 822
Alqosh (Iraq) 306, 312, 323, 324, 350, 352 Āzex [İdil] (Turkey) 189
Alvir (Iran) 711, 823
Amadiye [Amêdi, Amedia, Amediye] (Iraq) 16, B
36, 37, 137, 290, 291, 306, 312–315, 317–319, Baʾadra [Badr] (Iraq) 290, 294, 354
322, 486 Ba'ashiqah (Iraq) 245
Ambar 82, 297 Badinan (Iraq) 116, 120
Āmol (Iran) 661 Baghdad [Bagdad] (Iraq) 194, 263–266, 354, 355
Anatolia 3, 5, 8, 12, 13, 16, 25, 27, 28, 31, 34, Bahzani (Iraq) 245
39, 41, 100, 106–109, 115, 123, 132, 134, 135, Bakragar (Iraq) 298
150, 156, 159, 162, 170, 181, 182, 188, 190, Baksan (Russia) 864
242, 244, 250, 303, 350, 355, 358, 361–363, Bamō (Iraq) 298
366, 367, 372, 383, 385, 386, 388, 398, 399, Bāne (Iran) 297
401, 410, 413, 416, 421, 424, 428, 429, 436, Bānī Binok (Iraq) 534
444, 825, 827, 828, 860 Baʿqūba (Iraq) 297
Anbarān (Iran) 663 Bārāmāwā (Iran) 534
Ankara (Turkey) 382, 444, 893 Bārānī Xwārū (Iran) 297
Ankawa (Iraq) 11, 239, 306, 313, 323, 324, 337, Bardī ʿAlī Xwārū (Iraq) 297
350 Barətla (Iraq) 306, 317
Antep-Adiyaman (Turkey) 117 Barwar (Iraq) 16, 20, 45, 157, 238–240, 306,
Anzali (Iran) 659 312–315, 317–320, 322, 324–327, 330, 332–
Aqra [ʕAqra] (Iraq) → Akre 334, 337–340, 342–344, 346, 351, 500, 501,
Arab Emirates 569, 625, 657 949, 951
Aradhin (Iraq) 306, 324 Barwari Bala (Iraq) 306
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-026
962 Index of place names
331–334, 336, 342, 345, 350, 352, 354, 355, Kermanshah Province (Iran) 10, 27, 302, 385,
357, 358, 360–364, 366, 367, 369, 372, 377, 386, 394, 396, 481, 537
382, 383, 385, 388, 389, 395, 398–401, 407, Khabur river 194
409–416, 418, 419, 421–429, 434–436, 444, Khanaqin → Xanaqīn
481, 482, 484, 487, 504, 510, 516, 518, 521, Khasab (Oman) 625, 627, 628, 947
533, 534, 537, 563, 569, 825, 827, 828, 837, Khazhnidon (Russia) 862
947, 949 Khoin [Xo’in] (Iran) 661
Isfahan [Esfahan] (Iran) 366, 385, 399–401, 406, Khorasan [Khorâsân] (Iran) 108, 157, 400, 405,
412, 415, 416, 423, 424, 438, 439, 445, 479, 582
762, 822 Khorramshahr (Iran) 19, 21, 481, 482, 484, 487,
Israel 195, 196, 246, 309, 311, 352, 484, 569 489–493, 504, 513–515, 517–522, 524, 525,
Istanbul (Turkey) 157, 187, 195, 357, 383, 444, 529, 531, 949, 951
860, 893, 910, 911, 915, 924 Khoynarud (Azerbaijan) 661
Izeh (Iran) 445 Khuzestan [Khuzestān] Province (Iran) 385, 445,
478, 479, 481, 484, 485, 490, 492, 947
J Kifrī [Kifri] (Iraq) 298, 421
Jamshidābād (Iran) 662 Kilit, Ordubad (Azerbaijan) 659, 664
Jazira → Cizre Kinderib [Söğütlü] (Turkey) 188
Jowkandān (Iran) 663 Kirkuk [Kirkūk] (Iraq) 194, 265, 354, 355,
JubʿAdin (Syria) 305 358–361, 380, 381, 383, 536
Juban (Iran) 673 Kolur [Qolur] (Iran) 663
Kordestan Province (Iran) 10, 385, 386, 394, 396,
K 406, 481
Kabarlū (Iraq) 297 Kordxeyl [Kordkheyl] (Iran) 668
Kabate [Kafti] (Iran) 665 Koy Sanjak [Koy Sanjaq, Koy Sanǰaq]
Kabul (Afghanistan) 399, 412, 531, 607, 612 (Iraq) 296–298, 305, 306, 312, 313, 315, 316,
Kajal (Iran) 711, 823 323, 352
Kalār (Iraq) 297, 298 Kōya (Iraq) 297, 298
Kalāsur (Iran) 661, 672 Kozluk (Turkey) 13
Kalǰī 534 Krosnodar (Russia) 194
Kamāɫa 534 Kūhdašt (Iran) 297
Kandelus (Iran) 669, 670, 820 Kuhrang (Iran) 457, 480
Kandūla [Kandūle] (Iran) 297, 534, 537 Kumzar [Komzar, Kamzar] (Oman) 625, 627,
Kānī Māz (Iraq) 297, 298 947
Kānī Sīrna (Iraq) 297 Kur river 864
Karakoçan (Turkey) 122, 123
Karan (Iran) 662 L
Kařāwa (Iran) 534 Lāhijan [Lahijan, Lāhijān] (Iran) 659, 668, 820
Kargānrud (Iran) 663 Lake Urmi [Urmī, Lake Urmia, Lake Urmiye]
Karnaq (Iran) 662 (Iran) 85, 190, 267, see also Urmi
Kars (Turkey) 120, 399 Lake Van (Turkey) 16, 108, 191
Kaymna (Iran) 534 Langerud (Iran) 659
Kayseri (Turkey) 133 Larak Island (Iran) 625
Kelārdašt [Kelardasht] (Iran) 659, 820 Laylān (Iraq) 298
Kelās [Kalās] (Iran) 584, 665 Lenkoran [Lənkəran] (Azerbaijan) 660, 663, 824
Kerend (Iran) 481, 496, 497, 503, 508, 512, 532 Lerd (Iran) 662
Keringān (Iran) 671, 823 Lerik (Azerbaijan) 663, 716, 807, 814, 824
Kerman (Iran) 399 Lesken (Russia) 862, 886, 887
Kermanshah [Kermanšāh, Kermānšāh, Levandavil (Iran) 663
Kermānshāh] (Iran) 10, 27, 296, 302, 374, Little Zab river (Iraq) 245, 268
385, 386, 394, 396, 416, 481, 534, 537, 541, Lordegān (Iran) 461
577, 578, 623 Lotf-âbâd (Azeri exclave) (Iran) 399, 405
Index of place names 965
Qarṭmīn (Yavantepe) (Turkey) 36, 37, 43, 44, Sargat (Iraq) 534
173, 180, 181 Sāri (Iran) 821, 823
Qašqa (Iraq) 298 Šār-i Hawrāmān (Iran) 534
Qasr-e Širin [Qaşr-e Şīrīn] (Iran) 481 Sarqałā (Iran) 297
Qazvīn [Qazvin, Qazvîn] (Iran) 399, 400, 410, Sarqizil (Iraq) 297
482, 485, 578, 664, 665, 673 Sar-u Pīrī 534
Qolur → Kolur Šarya (Iraq) 290
Qom (Iran) 406 Sason (Turkey) 13
Qorve [Qorveh] (Iran) 945–947, 949 Šawak (Iraq) 298
Qorveh (Iran) 945–947, 949 Say Miṣafā (Iraq) 297
Quetta (Pakistan) 569 Šāy Tōtyā (Iran) 297
Quɫē (Iraq) 534 Sayyādlar [Sayyadlar] (Iran) 663, 712
Sē Girdkān (Iraq) 297, 298
R Şemzinan [Şemdinli, Şemzînan] (Turkey) 13,
Řamazān (Iraq) 297 33–35, 41, 108, 120–122, 125, 132, 135,
Rāmsar (Iran) 659, 668 137–139, 144–146, 148
Rasht (Iran) 659 Senna (Iran) → Sanandaj
Razajerd (Iran) 661 Šəno (official name Ushnuye) (Iran) 191, 213
Řazāw (Iran) 534 Sərək [Sarak] (Azerbaijan) 661
Rewandiz [Ruwanduz] (Iraq) 292, 306, 323 Šēxān (Iran) 534
Rezvānshahr (Iran) 662 Shahe (Iraq) 310
Rostamābād (Iran) 662 Shahrān (Iran) 662
Rudbār [Rudbâr] (Iran) 659, 660, 664, 665, 667, Shahr-e Kord (Iran) 445, 479
673, 820 Shāl (Iran) 662
Ruma (Turkey) 14, 34, 42, 191, 203, 207, 216– Shāndermen (Iran) 664
218, 228 Shapat (Turkey) 314
Rustaqa (Iraq) 306, 323, 335–337, 351 Shaqlawa (Iraq) 306, 323, 334
Sheker (Russia) 862, 886, 887
S Shino (Iran) 107
Sablagh → Mahabad Shiraz [Shirâz] (Iran) 400, 434
Sagzābād (Iran) 661 Shirqat (Iraq) 245
Sainqala (Iran) 481 Shwata (Turkey) 191
Salamas [Salmâs] (Iran) 13, 34, 40, 191, 195, Siāvarud (Iran) 662
204, 235, 396 Siirt (Turkey) 13, 35, 159, 162, 165, 170–172,
Samarkand (Uzbekistan) 569 187, 191, 234
Šamməsdin (Turkey) 191, 202–204, 213 Silēn (Iran) 534
Šāmyān (Iran) 534 Sinjar (Iraq) 244, 290
Sanandaj [Sanandaǰ] (Iran) 10, 15, 19–21, Sinjar mountains (Iraq) 244
23, 269, 306, 351, 386, 387, 389–394, 397, Sipasar (Iraq) 298
481, 482, 484–497, 499–501, 503–512, Şırnak (Turkey) 187, 191
516–519, 521–524, 526, 527, 532, 534, ' Sivas (Turkey) 106
577, 949, 951 Siverek (Turkey) 173, 188
Sandu (Iraq) 310 Solduz (official name Naghade) (Iran) 191
Şanlıurfa [Urfa, Edessa] (Turkey) 159, 162–165, Sonqor (Province of Kordestan) (Iran) 368, 399,
173, 182, 184, 188, 264, 416, 949 406, 407, 409, 412, 413, 415, 416, 421, 422,
Săqəz [Saqqez] (Iran) 481, 494, 497 428, 429, 434, 437–441, 949
Sarachos (Turkey) 897, 898, 900, 902–904, Soran [Diyana] (Iraq) 133
920 Sosakān (Iraq) 534
Sar Āqā Seyyed (Iran) 448, 449 Šošmē (Iran) 534
Sar Pol-e Zahāb (Iran) 296, 297, 533 Soviet Union 195, 570
Sarak [Sərək] (Azerbaijan) 664 Sufaya (Iraq) 297
Sardasht (Iran) 107 Sulak river 864
Index of place names 967
Sulemaniyya (Iraq) 15, 107, 270–273, 277– Tur Abdin [Ṭūr ʿAbdīn, Tur ‘Abdîn] (Turkey)
279, 297,305, 306, 312, 313, 315, 319, 321, 129, 162, 181
323, 324, 327, 330–335, 339–342, 344, 345, Turkey 1, 10, 14, 31, 40, 65, 72, 95, 102, 104,
351, 394, 397, 481, 482, 487, 505, 510, 532, 106–109, 114, 116, 122, 137, 145, 156, 157,
535 159, 162, 187, 188, 190, 191, 193–196, 198,
Surči [Surčī] (Iraq) 281, 291 204, 218, 228, 264, 287, 290, 291, 303, 305,
Sürmene (Turkey) 892–895 306, 309, 310, 312, 314, 315, 355, 357, 383,
Sweden 195, 196, 484 398–400, 406, 418, 422, 423, 425, 436, 481,
482, 569, 570, 825, 830, 832, 860, 862, 892,
T 893, 931, 932, 949, 950
Tabaristan (Iran) 572, 622 Tutkābon (Iran) 662
Tabriz (Iran) 12, 388, 400, 406, 407, 413, 416, Tūz Xurmātū [Tuzkhurmatı, Tuzkhurmati, Tuz
820 Khurmatu] (Iraq) 355, 358–360, 376, 378, 421
Tahārom (Iran) 662 Tuzlagözü (Turkey) 170
Tajikistan 569, 570, 577, 579, 582
Tākestān (Iran) 663, 664 U
Tal’afer [Talafer, Telafer, Tel’afer] (Iraq) 354, United Arab Emirates 625, 657
355, 358 Ure (Iran) 660, 669, 670
Tāɫawān (Iran) 534 Urfa → Şanlıurfa
Tāleš-Dolab (Iran) 664 Urmi [Urmia] (Iran) 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 28, 33,
Tallkayf [Tall Kayf] (Iraq) 246 34, 37–40, 42, 45, 59, 64, 81, 82, 85, 86, 94,
Tangī Ḥamām (Iran) 297 190, 191, 194–196, 198–207, 210–216, 218,
Tapa Čarmē (Iraq) 297 222–230, 235, 267, 309, 311, 316, 351, 352,
Taqtaq (Iran) 297, 298 386–388, 395–397, 413, 481, 482, 486, 487,
Tāw Doɫaw (Iran) 534 494, 526, 949, 951, see also Lake Urmi
Tawēɫa (Iraq) 534 Ursdon-Sindziqaw (Russia) 863
Tawrēbar (Iran) 534 USA (United States of America) 195, 484, 569
Tāzāwā (Iran) 534 Usarāʾ al-Mafqūdīn (Iraq) 297
Tbilisi (Georgia) 45, 195, 303, 860, 890 Uzbekistan 569, 570
Tehran (Iran) 195, 401, 431, 478–480, 484, 541, Uzungöl → Sarachos
566, 567, 578, 581, 596, 613, 615, 621, 624,
663, 704, 819–823 V
Telkepe (Iraq) 306, 318, 323, 324, 334, 350, Vafs (Iran) 663, 676, 699, 703, 759, 768, 769,
352 794, 809
Terek River 864 Vājārgāh (Iran) 670
Tergawar (Iran) 191 Van (Turkey) 1, 7, 15, 16, 22, 24, 33, 51, 52, 59,
Tēžtēž, (Iran) 534 64, 80–85, 90, 93, 97, 98, 102–104, 106–108,
Tifɫīya (Iran) 534 117, 191, 387, 389–391, 395, 421, 457, 458,
Tigris 1, 10, 19, 23, 31, 103, 190, 194, 228, 237, 480, 625, 628, 632, 639, 649, 656, 891, 948
243, 244, 246, 247, 252, 305, 313, 827 Varto (Turkey) 133
Tikrit [Tikrīt] (Iraq) 264, 309 Varzob (Tajikistan) 607
Tillo (Turkey) 160, 162–164, 177, 178, 180–183 Velatru [Velātru] (Azerbaijan) 821
Toldzgun (Russia) 862 Vidar (Iran) 823
Tonekabon (Shahsavār) (Iran) 659 Viranşehir (Turkey) 164
Tonya (Turkey) 893, 894 Vizne (Iran) 663
Topzawa [Tōpzāwa] (Iraq) 298, 301 Vladikavkaz (Russia) 863, 889, 890
Trabzon (Turkey) 72, 893, 897, 906, 931, 933,
950 W
Tskhinval (South Ossetia, Georgia) 864 Wallagkom valley (Russia) 862
Tūlaban (Iraq) 297 Wardak (Iraq) 297
Tuləguvan [Tulaguvan] (Azerbaijan) 661 Wārmāwa (Iraq) 278, 286
Tunceli → Dersim Wasē (Iran) 534
968 Index of place names
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421682-027
970 Index of subjects
584, 603, 605–607, 613, 614, 621, 695, 718, 243, 244, 247–249, 252–254, 259, 260, 263–
725, 733, 734, 757, 758, 783, 790, 803, 818, 266, 270–273, 281, 285–290, 294, 296, 303,
827, 873, 888 306, 310, 311, 313–315, 317, 320, 322–324,
copying 8, 182, 368, 433, see also borrowing, 328, 335, 339, 343, 345, 346, 350–352, 361,
copied 368, 382, 383, 385, 387, 390–392, 394, 396–
counterfactuals 743, 751, 919, 920, 926 398, 412, 413, 444, 445, 447–449, 457, 467,
468, 471–473, 479–482, 487, 492, 493, 504,
D 505, 510, 514–516, 521, 524–527, 529, 531,
dative (case) 18, 68, 83, 92, 330, 332, 364, 367, 532, 534, 567, 577, 607, 628, 656–659, 663–
368, 370–372, 382, 393, 394, 418, 419, 426– 667, 670, 673, 676, 711, 724, 757, 820–824,
428, 431, 443, 505, 515, 795, 826, 835, 837, 832, 860, 862, 863, 878, 889, 890, 897, 932,
838, 842, 843, 847–849, 852, 853, 859, 868, 933, 949, 951
873, 876, 888, 933, 948 dialect continuum 107, 134, 673
definite article 17, 35, 92, 172–174, 179, 180, diaspora 106, 109, 157, 234, 237, 246, 385, 574,
182, 186, 207, 209, 212, 213, 263, 274, 322, 892, 893
323, 368, 389, 426, 452, 501, 502, 588, 900, differential object marking (DOM) 302, 462, 689,
903, 904, 906–908, 918, 919, 931 6693, 770–773, 775–777, 867, 876
definiteness 15, 16, 21, 114, 239, 273–275, 284, diphthong 13, 34, 62–64, 204, 210, 318, 491, 492,
389, 451, 452, 465, 478, 543, 545, 546, 585, 494, 495, 497, 581
588, 642, 703, 775, 903, 932 direct case 115, 116, 120, 131–133, 147, 293,
deictic copula 39, 41, 43, 209, 211, 334 544, 696, 755, 774, 780, 781, 818
deixis 16, 35, 39, 208, 210, 211, 321, 322, 388, direct object 5, 18, 21–26, 130–132, 169, 176,
389, 496–498 221, 223, 240, 241, 250, 254, 280, 281, 283,
delabialization (of rounded vowels) 363, 396, 411 301, 302, 333, 334, 345, 368, 373, 394, 426,
demonstrative 16, 17, 35–39, 116–118, 120, 122, 435, 452, 464, 465, 467, 518–520, 547, 548,
139, 141, 155, 184, 186, 214, 234, 263, 274, 588, 590, 591, 595, 597–600, 614, 635, 638,
275, 284, 300, 302, 304, 323, 324, 327, 364, 693, 710, 827, 854, 868, 876, 877, 903, 906,
365, 374, 375, 382, 388, 389, 394, 408, 419, 921
443, 452, 454, 455, 462, 465, 496–498, 503, direct object marking 467, 590, 595, 597
542, 543, 545–547, 554, 555, 565, 588, 590, ditransitive 791, 793, 921
592, 612, 616, 621, 630, 631, 643, 656, 692, documentation 295, 658, 832, 860, 892, 894, 933
693, 733, 818, 837, 838, 852, 859, 882, 883, double oblique alignment 689, 773, 775–780,
905–907, 918, 931 782, 789
demonstrative pronoun 16, 17, 35, 38, 214, drawl (suprasegmental intonation pattern) 367,
234, 300, 323, 324, 327, 364, 365, 374, 375, 426, 433
388, 389, 394, 408, 419, 455, 462, 496, 497, dual number 166, 174, 186, 249, 263, 588, 632
503, 546, 547, 5590, 592, 631, 837, 838, durative 252, 584, 606, 611, 621, 712, 715–718,
905, 906 729–731, 734, 736, 818
derivational verbal stem 215, 219, 220, 328, 329
determiner 116, 284, 902 E
deverb 632, 633, 635, 638, 642, 643, 645, 648 echoic 839, 840, 859
devoicing 61–64, 90, 112, 127, 165, 248, 492, ejective 10, 825, 865, 884, 885
540, 543, 866, 900 emphatic 315–317, 367, 408, 419, 452, 583, 593,
devoicing of consonants 248 605, 621, 627, 628, 631, 646, 818, 888
dialect 8–10, 12, 13, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 28, enclitic indefinite marker 182
32–35, 40, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 51–53, 62–66, endangered language 3, 163, 246, 270, 310, 385,
69, 70, 72, 73, 75, 77, 79–81, 85–89, 92–105, 484, 533, 822, 825, 832, 892, 893, 933
107–109, 116, 121, 122, 125, 129, 132–134, equative (case) 338, 365, 372, 418, 419, 868, 888
137–139, 141, 145–147, 149, 152, 156, 157, ergative 6, 44, 131, 132, 156, 241, 294, 331, 332,
159, 160, 163, 164, 169, 170, 172, 173, 177, 345, 393–395, 507, 508, 510, 511, 526, 689,
179, 181–183, 187, 188, 190, 191, 195–201, 711, 756, 773–780, 826, 835, 837, 838, 852,
203, 210, 217, 220, 224, 230, 233–235, 241, 853, 859, 885
972 Index of subjects
ergative agreement 241 518, 570, 577, 598, 603, 605, 606, 609–611,
ergative alignment 44, 331, 332, 345, 393, 615–619, 621, 628, 633, 665, 678, 688, 712,
394, 526, 711, 773, 774 713, 715, 716, 718, 724–727, 737, 781, 790,
ergativity 6, 108, 131, 132, 156, 157, 235, 241, 818, 845, 850, 851, 859, 871, 873–875, 881,
285, 332, 350, 351, 394, 395, 531, 532, 689, 888, 911–914, 920, 925, 930, 931
711, 773, 774, 778, 827, 828, 891
evidentiality 183, 395, 479, 639, 656, 840, 844, G
871 geminate 583
evidential/inferential copula in {-ImIš} 366, gender 15, 16, 35, 108, 114, 117–120, 139–142,
424 146, 147, 157, 167, 180, 207, 208, 210, 239,
experiencer 150, 220, 286, 287, 547, 551, 603, 249, 254, 273, 291, 293, 301, 321–326, 330,
693, 696, 755, 756, 790, 843, 876 335, 337, 389, 451, 497, 501, 502, 510, 515,
experiencer verbs 755, 790 516, 533, 543–545, 550, 552, 555, 557, 571,
ezāfe [ezafe, ezâfe, izafe] 17, 37, 38, 40, 42–44, 585, 631, 685, 687, 689, 690, 692, 694, 699,
114, 115, 117–121, 133, 137, 139–142, 145– 701, 773, 777, 822, 825, 835, 867, 900–902,
147, 149, 150, 152, 155, 156, 214, 239, 240, 904–907, 909, 918, 932
273, 275, 284, 291, 293, 294, 302, 303, 327, gender, grammatical 114, 273, 451, 533, 543,
371, 382, 394, 428, 429, 443, 451, 453, 454, 544, 689, 692, 867, 900, 901, 904
465, 466, 477, 503, 504, 523, 531, 533, 544– gender, biological 114
546, 565, 572, 584, 589, 594–596, 601, 602, genitive (case) 17, 36–38, 44, 51, 68, 73, 74,
611, 612, 617, 621, 624, 689, 691, 697–702, 83, 92, 186, 187, 189, 212, 214, 239, 253,
806, 818, 819 263–265, 327, 364, 373, 382, 394, 416–419,
ezâfe construction 44, 115, 117–120, 133, 139, 426, 443, 500, 503, 504, 524, 544, 689, 691,
239, 275, 371, 418, 428, 504, 697, 699, 701 694–696, 699, 710, 755, 764, 779, 818, 835,
838, 850, 851, 859, 868, 902, 903, 908, 931
F glottalization 8–10, 825, 826, 833
feminine (gender) 16, 114, 115, 119, 141, 155, goal 5, 23–26, 115, 122, 130, 131, 241, 280, 283,
167, 172, 174, 179, 180, 186, 213, 214, 248, 340, 370, 394, 467, 468, 518, 520, 595, 613,
249, 253, 263, 321, 324, 325, 500–502, 544, 636, 645, 696, 781, 806–808, 847, 853
545, 548, 551, 552, 554, 555, 557, 565, 624, goal of motion verb 23, 25, 130, 241, 280,
678, 684, 685, 689, 702, 818, 819, 899–904, 467, 468, 595, 613
918, 931
finite 18, 50, 125, 140, 168, 171, 241, 250, 251, H
255, 277, 328, 369, 371, 374–376, 396, 431– habitual 40, 41, 171, 218, 221, 223, 224, 239,
433, 435, 438, 439, 456, 457, 459, 548, 549, 252, 278, 292, 333, 340, 365, 396, 457, 515,
551, 552, 607, 615, 617, 627, 635, 685, 725, 604, 608, 633, 636, 729, 732, 888, 912
827, 828, 833, 835–837, 840, 843, 845, 850, head 17, 36–38, 44, 118–120, 172–174, 179,
851, 854, 856, 871–873, 876, 881, 911, 915, 180, 212–214, 226, 227, 239, 253, 254, 258,
917, 922–924 275, 284, 326, 327, 342, 343, 368, 371, 372,
focal present 365, 366, 396, 421–423 374, 426, 428, 432–434, 465, 466, 503, 504,
focus 3, 4, 20, 151, 164, 186, 209, 219, 237, 243, 522–525, 545, 546, 555, 611, 612, 617, 691,
338, 428, 446, 457, 516, 533, 600, 663, 687, 697–702, 708, 796, 802, 828, 834, 852, 854,
759, 839, 889, 897, 921 875, 882, 900, 904, 922–924
fronting (of vowels) 13, 15, 34, 61, 81, 90, 137, head-marking 691, 697
204, 238, 290, 318, 410, 413, 614, 756, 764,
777, 786–791, 921 I
fronting (of stops and affricates) 271, 359, 360, imperative 39, 125, 127, 155, 169, 176, 183, 186,
407 215, 216, 218, 223, 224, 239, 240, 251, 255,
future 4, 26, 41, 50, 99, 109, 125, 126, 128, 129, 277, 300, 302, 328–330, 337, 340, 366, 369,
147, 149, 155, 170, 183, 186, 218, 221, 223, 376, 382, 425, 435–439, 443, 455–459, 462,
224, 239, 252, 276, 278, 292, 295, 302, 332, 463, 477, 505, 506, 513, 514, 516, 521, 526,
333, 340, 367, 423, 425, 435, 447, 511, 515, 547, 549–551, 565, 604–606, 621, 633–635,
Index of subjects 973
656, 710, 715, 720–722, 818, 840, 845, 859, Iranicization (of vowel inventory) 363, 399, 411,
871, 874, 875, 888, 906, 917, 921, 931 428, 433
imperfective 92, 126, 144, 148, 155, 186, 241, irrealis verb form 40, 127, 218, 223, 224, 226,
279, 382, 457, 459, 477, 513–516, 518, 520, 227, 276, 291, 293, 332, 333, 341, 343, 344,
521, 526, 549, 851, 871, 912, 914, 915, 931 390, 391, 439, 509, 511–513, 518, 521, 523,
impossibility (Turkic verbal suffix) 366, 376, 525, 526, 604, 608, 611, 621, 633–635, 648–
425 650, 656, 729–731, 743–745, 749, 751, 818,
inalienable possession 212, 214, 326, 631, 635 930, see also realis
inchoative 767, 913, 916 isophone (Intra-Turkic, areal) 359, 360, 416
incorporation 7, 125, 144, 145, 156
indefinite 21, 68, 73, 115, 116, 119, 139, 141, J
142, 152, 155, 174, 179, 182, 186, 253, 254, Jews 162, 183, 194, 195, 244, 247, 252, 253, 264,
274, 275, 302, 382, 390, 418, 419, 452, 477, 305, 306, 309–311, 327, 351, 352, 482, 484,
502, 504, 519, 522, 525, 545, 565, 588, 598, 485, 494, 572
599, 612, 613, 621, 631, 642, 703, 704, 708,
709, 723, 770, 776, 777, 818, 862, 868, 888, K
890, 903, 905 ki (complementizer, particle, of Iranian origin)
indefinite pronoun 418, 419, 862 148–150, 226, 368, 374, 375, 418, 433–435,
indefinite marker 119, 174, 182, 502, 709 617, 724, 740, 744, 747, 795–805, 809–811,
indefinite suffix 152, 275, 504, 519 924, 925
indefiniteness 114–116, 137, 152, 273–275, 389, kinship (terms) 212, 214, 325, 326, 418, 689
390, 452, 478, 501, 502, 543–546, 584, 585,
588, 903 L
index 18, 45, 163, 187, 241, 276, 286, 302, 369 labialization 288, 362, 411, 412, 493
indexing 18, 125, 283–286, 552, 794, 917 language academy (National Iranian) 577,
indirect object 23, 221, 333, 340, 370, 392, 464, 579
467, 547, 553, 591, 592, 596, 597, 613, 693, language change 4, 480, 933
696, 793, 853, 854, 902, 921 language choice 303, 621, 623
infinitive 40, 50, 51, 74, 111, 112, 124, 144, 215, language contact 3–8, 9, 11–13, 14, 16, 18, 20–
216, 218, 220, 273, 276, 284, 294, 328–330, 22, 25, 26, 31, 32, 42, 108, 121, 150, 181–184,
336, 337, 382, 506, 512, 548, 565, 606, 610, 196–198, 214, 226, 228, 237, 240, 259, 260,
621, 688, 714, 718, 725, 733, 734, 737, 752, 298, 300, 312, 344, 345, 358, 361–363, 366,
754, 756, 805, 818, 828, 873, 888, 911, 912, 368, 370, 377, 385, 386, 388, 389, 395, 407,
917, 926–928, 930–933, 950 410–413, 423, 426, 427, 436, 442, 485, 492,
inflection 7, 15, 42, 44, 166–168, 210, 212, 509, 524, 526, 534, 639, 663, 667, 679, 806,
215, 216, 240, 249, 250, 275, 324, 328, 335, 825–827, 884–886, 895–897, 903, 920, 921,
390, 417, 497, 500–502, 504, 505, 509, 514, 923
515, 526, 633–635, 642, 648, 869, 870, 897, language documentation 295, 860
900–902, 904, 917 language endangerment → endangered language
instrumental 68, 122, 364, 372, 382, 396, 418, language loss 860, 862
419, 443, 594, 596, 636, 835, 865, 919 language shift 447, 624
interrogative 116, 301, 462, 517, 630, 631, 689, laryngeal 9, 33, 198, 200, 201, 238, 312, 314,
694, 838, 839, 909–911, 921 319, 387, 488, 489, 676
intonation 222, 230, 338, 346, 367, 426, 433, 450, laryngeal settings 200
451, 492, 516, 521, 527, 647, 687, 796 lenition 12, 138, 238, 271, 333, 386, 540, 541,
intransitivity 125, 131, 132, 144, 216, 217, 220, 630
282, 286, 293, 301, 329, 330, 331, 332, 335, lexicon 10, 15, 27, 48, 100, 150, 151, 181, 184,
336, 339, 394, 395, 505, 506, 507, 508, 510, 196, 199, 202, 228, 259, 265, 271, 298, 302,
511, 526, 549, 550, 552, 632, 687, 689, 690, 304, 305, 311, 345, 351, 358, 359, 376, 377,
711, 727, 728, 729, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743, 396, 399, 407, 409, 414, 439, 446, 457, 478,
765, 766, 768, 769, 773, 778, 781, 818, 841, 479, 485, 526, 578, 588, 627, 628, 657, 667,
847, 849, 851, 852, 853, 872, 874 672, 676, 820, 847, 872, 894, 951
974 Index of subjects
light verb 22, 125, 130, 145, 148, 229, 273, 293, Mughal (Empire) 574–576, 621
345, 377, 464, 465, 509, 514, 520, 548, 602, multilingualism 3, 21, 196, 237, 354, 401, 405,
632, 635, 737, 755, 756, 765, 768, 769, 818, 406, 409, 444, 538, 933, see also bilingualism
872, see also complex predicate multiple relativization 882, 883
light verb construction 125, 130, 145, 464, multi-purpose subordinator 857, 859, 860
465, 514, 548, 602, 765, 768, 769, 818
lingua franca 573, 575, 623, 625 N
linguistic area 4, 27, 28, 822, 840, see also nasal 66, 72, 164, 247, 271, 359, 364, 409, 415,
Sprachbund, convergence zone 418, 448, 540–542, 581, 583, 590, 629, 719,
loanwords 10, 92, 100, 114, 138, 151, 181, 182, 833, 865, 898, 899
196, 228, 238, 259, 260, 290, 314, 325, 345, nasalization 449
361, 362, 386, 387, 389, 396, 409, 490, 492, national language 570, 574, 577, 579
495, 500, 502, 526, 541, 581, 583–585, 587, negation 7, 92, 125–127, 129, 138, 142, 144, 145,
588, 668, 686 148, 155, 175, 186, 224, 255, 263, 276–278,
locative 40, 43, 50, 79, 336, 364, 372, 377, 382, 281, 302, 366, 382, 425, 443, 462, 463, 526,
390, 391, 415, 418, 429, 430, 443, 517, 636, 542, 549, 551, 565, 584, 585, 604, 621, 627,
696, 705–707, 716, 718, 733–735, 737, 760, 630, 636, 638, 650, 710, 715, 834, 837, 843,
805–808, 818, 840, 843, 844, 846, 849, 919, 850, 859, 878, 885, 889, 897, 917, 919, 931,
929 951
neuter (gender) 900–904, 906–908, 918, 931
M nominalization 371, 432, 922, 923, 927, 929, 931
macro-areas 4, 5, 28 nominative (case) 15, 68, 73, 92, 217, 218, 233,
majhul (long mid) vowels 447 240, 323, 330, 349, 389, 394, 419, 501, 531,
masculine (gender) 16, 92, 114–116, 119, 137, 692, 826, 868, 870, 872, 876, 888, 902, 903,
141, 155, 167, 180, 186, 249, 263, 291, 302, 919, 926, 931, 948
321, 324, 325, 501, 544, 545, 548, 550, 552, noun class 502, 589, 903
555, 557, 565, 587, 689, 701, 818, 819, 826, noun phrase (NP) 17, 22, 36, 37, 116–118, 120,
900–904, 918, 931, 947 121, 139, 147, 239, 273, 275, 280, 281, 286,
metathesis 143, 364, 412, 434, 486 292, 394, 428, 452, 453, 465, 467, 468, 507,
middle voice 847, 859, 860 518, 524, 545–547, 551, 553, 566, 586, 601,
migration 65, 150, 160, 194, 195, 354, 398, 482, 611, 612, 614, 631, 639, 642, 648, 690, 691,
863, 893, 895, 933 763, 773–777, 805, 806, 818, 832, 834, 849,
minority language 3, 163, 303, 357, 401, 406 578, 854, 856, 859, 867, 868, 872, 875–880, 882,
579, 825 883, 897, 900, 902–904, 907, 908, 918, 929
mirative 457, 458, 633–635, 653, 656, 846 number 15, 116, 118, 120, 125, 139, 141, 207,
mixed language 625 239, 249, 254, 273, 274, 276, 291, 293, 294,
modality 149, 155, 276, 375, 423, 435, 436, 567, 321, 330, 335, 337, 389, 451, 505, 510, 543,
604, 633, 636, 861, 890, 897, 917, 919, 930, 544, 546, 547, 552, 557, 584, 585, 587, 594,
933 603, 623, 631, 632, 634, 636, 637, 642, 694,
mood 127, 138, 218, 420, 425, 436, 438, 439, 743, 777, 859, 867, 871, 872, 900, 901, 904,
456, 514, 549, 632, 637, 642, 648, 840, 871, 906, 909, 911, 924
872, 917, 920 number agreement 116, 291, 294, 584, 603
morphology 7, 15–17, 29, 35, 51, 68, 69, 72, 74,
77–80, 83–86, 88, 90, 91, 99, 108, 114, 124, O
143, 145, 150, 166, 168, 187, 196, 207, 215, object 5, 18, 21–24, 26, 43, 44, 115, 125, 131,
228, 235, 249, 250, 264, 267, 273, 276, 291, 132, 168, 169, 209, 221, 223, 240, 241, 250,
300, 303, 321, 328, 345, 358, 359, 364, 365, 254, 264, 280, 281, 283, 286, 294, 301, 331,
368, 377, 388, 396, 407, 417, 418, 420, 447, 333–335, 340, 345, 368, 370, 393–395, 419,
451, 452, 455, 465, 496, 504, 505, 526, 533, 426, 435, 451, 452, 455, 462, 464, 465, 467,
543, 585, 588, 602, 632, 634, 656, 657, 684– 477, 500, 507–511, 514, 515, 518–520, 524,
687, 690–692, 694, 820, 840, 846, 860, 861, 544, 547, 548, 550, 553, 566, 590–593, 595,
867, 871, 873, 876, 885, 897, 911, 916, 932 597–599, 602, 613, 614, 621, 632, 635, 636,
Index of subjects 975
638, 650, 689, 691–693, 696, 733, 770, 786– 293, 547, 552, 553, 603, 606, 608, 621, 727,
789, 791, 793, 805, 826, 827, 841, 844, 847, 773, 827, 881, 912, 914, 926, 927
850, 851, 867, 876, 877, 902, 903, 905, 906, patient 258, 688, 689, 696, 721, 727, 773–782,
921, see also direct object, indirect object 784, 785, 791
object agreement 520, 727 perfect 41, 42, 44, 92, 140, 145, 148, 149, 155,
oblique 15, 17, 37, 44, 114–117, 119, 120, 131, 167–169, 171, 175, 183, 216, 217, 220, 221,
132, 135, 137, 147, 148, 155, 233, 239, 291, 240, 250–252, 255, 279, 302, 334–336, 341,
293, 301, 302, 323, 349, 370, 382, 389, 393, 351, 366, 367, 369, 392, 394, 395, 424, 456,
394, 426, 427, 501, 503, 505, 507, 515, 531, 458–460, 477, 511, 515, 519, 526, 532, 552,
533, 544, 547, 553, 554, 565, 586, 650, 689– 557, 560, 565, 585, 606–609, 611, 633–635,
691, 694–702, 727, 755, 756, 763, 764, 770, 645, 648, 650, 656, 663, 685, 710, 738–743,
772–783, 789, 791, 793, 794, 806, 818, 819, 747, 749–751, 763, 790, 791, 819, 826, 843,
866, 868, 870, 875, 876, 888, 948 845, 912, 931
oblique case 17, 37, 44, 114–116, 119, 120, perfective 6, 41, 42, 44, 186, 216, 217, 220, 240,
131, 132, 135, 137, 147, 239, 291, 293, 301, 241, 263, 331, 333, 335, 336, 382, 394, 395,
370, 394, 426, 533, 544, 547, 553, 689–691, 443, 455, 513–515, 520, 526, 552, 851, 859,
696–700, 755, 756, 763, 764, 770, 772, 774, 871, 912–914, 917
778, 780–782, 791, 793, 794, 795, 866, 868 personal pronoun → pronoun, personal
official language 3, 162, 196, 237, 244, 357, 398, person marking 42, 125, 126, 129, 145–147, 241,
405, 485, 538, 570, 572, 574, 575, 579 277–279, 299, 304, 330, 335, 455, 457–461,
onset, syllable 112, 272, 318, 319, 341, 361, 448, 466, 840, 841, 843
449, 833, 899 Persophonie 622
optative 176, 255, 376, 382, 383, 436–439, 443, pharyngeal 10, 11, 32, 33, 113, 114, 139, 156,
608, 689, 721, 723–725, 730, 731, 753, 819, 198–201, 271, 288, 312–316, 345, 361, 363,
845, 859, 917, 920, 931 386, 387, 410, 485, 486, 488–490, 540, 541,
orthography 109–111, 121, 152, 288, 289, 311, 583, 628, 629
365, 447, 478, 539, 542, 627, 861, 863, 894, pharyngealization 9, 11, 33, 113, 114, 150, 201,
897 202, 315, 316, 386, 387, 486, 490, 826
Ottoman (Empire) 1, 383, 574 phoneme 9, 11, 32, 33, 109, 110, 113, 139,
Ottoman culture 259 164, 165, 182, 197, 198, 235, 247, 248, 271,
Ottoman government 309, 355 272, 287, 312, 316, 316–318, 360–362, 387,
OV (word order, including SOV) 5, 21–24, 130, 408–411, 539, 540–542, 581–583, 627–630,
241, 273, 281, 339, 428, 467, 614, 627, 776– 676–679, 809, 833, 898, 899
779, 807, 827, 852, 876, 921, 933 phonemicized allophones 197, 312, 539, see
also allophone
P phrasal verbs 182, 229, 345, 509, 602
palatalization 12, 33, 200, 238, 271, 314, 388, pluperfect 155, 279, 460, 552, 607, 618, 843, 845
396, 413, 417, 676, 717, 866 plural 11, 15, 16, 35, 73, 74, 83, 85, 92, 114,
participle 40–42, 50, 69, 78, 86, 92, 137, 155, 116, 117, 119, 131, 139, 141, 142, 147, 155,
168–171, 183, 186, 215–217, 220, 240, 251, 166–169, 186, 213, 214, 239, 249, 263, 291,
252, 263, 278, 279, 328–330, 332, 334, 335, 299, 302, 321, 323–326, 359, 361, 364–366,
341, 366, 367, 372–374, 382, 392, 429, 432, 369, 382, 414, 416, 417, 420–423, 429, 443,
435, 458, 460, 477, 506, 510, 511, 513, 517, 451–453, 455, 477, 486, 497, 498, 501, 502,
519, 548, 552, 557, 565, 602, 606–610, 621, 515, 542, 544–550, 552, 557, 565, 584–589,
648, 650, 685, 718, 738, 741, 743, 760, 761, 603, 605, 621, 631, 633, 637, 642, 645, 656,
767, 806, 819, 850, 851, 859, 866, 873, 888 688–692, 700, 703, 721, 774, 781, 818, 819,
passive 169, 219, 220, 251, 255, 263, 273, 328, 834, 842, 843, 846–848, 854, 859, 867, 868,
332, 366, 405, 406, 513, 548, 603, 608–610, 872, 875, 886–888, 900–902, 904, 907, 911,
632, 689, 767–769, 819, 832, 873, 916, 926, 931
931 politeness, system of 578, 590, 603
past (tense) 7, 115, 125–127, 131, 135, 146–148, possessive 11, 14, 18, 40, 85, 87, 151, 211, 212,
171, 241, 252, 276, 281, 283, 284, 286, 290, 239, 273, 287, 302, 323, 324, 359, 364, 367,
976 Index of subjects
subject 51, 74, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119, 120, 125, 150–152, 172, 176, 187, 222, 225, 236, 241,
128, 131, 132, 137, 141, 146–148, 151, 166, 252, 256, 260, 282, 284, 298, 301, 326, 338,
172, 179, 182, 217, 218, 241, 250, 281, 286, 341, 345, 358, 367, 371, 391, 392, 394, 396,
292, 293, 330–332, 334, 335, 338, 342, 368, 399, 429, 430, 433, 444, 447, 464, 465, 516,
374, 393–395, 414, 417, 464, 466, 477, 481, 521, 526, 580, 602, 611, 615, 621, 622, 627,
498, 505, 507, 510, 511, 515, 520, 521, 547, 636, 638, 642, 657, 827, 860, 890, 895, 897,
549, 550, 552, 587, 590–592, 601, 613, 614, 916–918, 931
631, 632, 636, 645, 649, 650, 678, 695, 696,
752, 755, 757, 779, 781, 783, 790, 826, 827, T
841, 843, 847–849, 851–853, 863, 876–878, topic 275, 282, 452, 466, 543, 659, 665, 744, 836,
902, 903, 905, 911, 916, 922–924, 926 837, 888, 900
subject marking 149, 464, 511 topicalization 599
subject, non-canonical 132, 150, 286, 287, transitional zone 5, 355, 400, 807
293, 843, 848, 853 transitive 44, 115, 125, 131, 132, 135, 216–218,
subject relativization 286, 828 220, 221, 241, 276, 281–283, 285, 286, 293,
subjunctive 40, 41, 50, 51, 69, 70, 74, 112, 125– 302, 329–332, 334, 336, 339, 394, 395,
129, 155, 239, 277–279, 284, 291, 292, 302, 477, 505–508, 510, 511, 544, 548–550, 552,
376, 390, 436–439, 456–458, 462, 463, 477, 553, 595, 599, 632, 687, 689, 690, 711, 721,
542, 549, 551, 552, 565, 604, 606, 610, 611, 727–731, 739–743, 763, 765, 768–770, 778,
615, 617, 619–621, 678, 685, 688, 710, 718, 791, 826, 841, 842, 847–851, 853, 859, 872,
720–725, 727, 730–732, 741–753, 757, 758, 874, 906
762, 803, 819, 845, 859, 871, 872, 874, 875, transitivity 126, 220, 329, 331, 552, 826,
888, 917, 920 917
subordination 25, 26, 241, 429, 465, 468, 607, Turkoman (of Iraq) 244, 246, 259, 311, 345
620, 630, 636, 647, 648, 795, 796, 805, 807,
880, 922, 923, 926 U
suffix 7, 8, 11, 14–17, 35, 44, 87, 114, 116, 118, unaccusative 144, 220, 508, 510, 511, 526, 767,
124, 137, 139, 147, 148, 152, 166–168, 174, 769, 770
179–181, 183, 210, 212–214, 226, 227, 233, unergative 507, 508
239, 240, 248, 249, 251, 252, 274, 275, 279,
283, 284, 286, 291, 292, 300, 322, 326, 327, V
330, 333, 336, 349, 364, 366, 369, 372, 373, valency 765, 840, 843, 846, 847, 849, 860
376, 377, 389, 390, 393, 414, 416, 418–420, valency-changing 846
422, 423, 425, 427, 428, 436, 451–453, 456, verb 6, 7, 13, 18–26, 40, 41, 50, 51, 70, 74–76,
458–460, 495, 499, 501, 502, 504, 513, 515, 80, 84, 86, 91, 112, 115, 116, 122, 125–132,
519, 520, 524, 526, 531, 543, 550–554, 134–136, 139, 144, 145, 148, 149, 159, 166,
584–586, 588, 589, 608, 615, 624, 630–633, 170–172, 175, 176, 181, 182, 223, 226, 227,
643, 644, 656, 687, 690–692, 699, 716, 719, 229, 234, 240, 241, 244, 249, 252, 264, 271,
729–731, 733, 765, 826, 827, 834, 836, 837, 273, 276–281, 283, 286, 292–294, 297–299,
840–842, 844, 845, 847, 849–851, 859, 868, 328, 331–335, 337, 340, 341, 345, 363, 365,
872, 874, 886, 887, 900–902, 906, 907, 911, 366, 368–371, 373–377, 390–392, 394, 395,
917, 918, 929 414, 420, 422, 425–433, 435–439, 446, 450,
superlative (adjective) 370, 419, 426, 584, 930 455–470, 477, 498, 505–512, 514–516, 518–
SVO (word order) → VO 520, 525, 526, 548–553, 560, 563, 587, 590,
syllable 48, 90, 108, 111–113, 143, 165, 202, 203, 592, 595, 599, 601–603, 605–607, 609, 610,
205, 249, 272, 317–321, 361, 363, 365, 367, 613, 615, 617, 618, 627, 630–638, 642, 644,
387, 397, 410, 412, 426, 433, 449, 450, 454, 645, 647–653, 656, 684, 687–690, 710–714,
477, 488, 489, 492–495, 539, 542, 543, 549, 716, 718, 720, 723, 725, 727, 729–731, 735–
573, 583, 584, 629, 630, 686, 720, 733, 796, 738, 740, 742–748, 750–752, 754–757, 759,
833, 866, 867, 899–901 762, 763, 765–769, 773–778, 786, 787, 789,
syntax 7, 16, 22, 24, 26, 27, 38, 44, 71, 76, 794, 803, 805, 818, 820, 821, 826–828, 832–
78, 80, 84, 87, 89, 91, 120, 130, 131, 148, 837, 839–841, 843–852, 854–856, 861, 866,
978 Index of subjects
871–874, 876, 878, 881, 882, 885–887, 890, 326, 328–330, 360–363, 365, 386–388, 396,
905, 911–913, 915–917, 920–924, 947, 949 408–414, 417, 420–422, 433, 447–452, 454,
verbal modifier 170, 183, 252, 257, 260 455, 459, 465, 468, 477, 485, 487, 488, 491–
verb phrase (VP) 139, 281–283, 302, 468, 469, 495, 498, 500, 518, 539–545, 547, 549, 550,
602, 627, 635, 636, 645, 787, 876 557, 580–584, 591, 605, 628–630, 633, 637,
verb stem 7, 112, 114, 278, 279, 363, 365, 414, 643, 656, 676–683, 687, 690, 692, 708, 715,
422, 462, 505, 506, 548, 633, 637, 648, 690, 717–721, 733, 737, 739, 757, 832, 833, 839,
710, 711, 716, 740, 911 865–867, 869, 898–900, 902, 904, 907, 910,
VO (word order, including SVO) 5, 21–23, 28, 911, 947, 949
244, 339, 807, 827, 921, 933 vowel harmony 8, 363, 396, 715, 910, 911
voice (verbal) 220, 632, 637, 767, 847, 859, 860,
899, 911, 916, see also middle voice W
voice, voiced (phonation) 10–12, 50, 61, 66, 77, Wackernagel rule 787
79, 81, 88, 90, 96, 98, 103, 113, 137, 164, 165, wh-word 910, 911
200, 201, 238, 247, 271, 312–315, 360, 363, word order 5, 21–24, 27–29, 130, 134, 156, 176,
386, 387, 407–410, 412, 414, 448, 449, 488, 187, 223, 241, 264, 273, 280, 370, 371, 428,
489, 540, 541, 543, 564, 581, 582, 627, 628, 518, 612–614, 622, 688, 777, 792, 793, 795,
676, 677, 833, 866, 898, 899, 947, 949 796, 802, 806–808, 827, 852, 861, 876, 878,
voiceless (phonation) 10, 50, 79, 108, 113, 150, 890, 897, 921
164, 238, 247, 271, 288, 407, 448, 449, 488,
540, 541, 581, 583, 627, 676, 677, 825, 833, Y
898–900 Yezidi 140, 237, 246
volitive/volitional 41, 218, 926
vowel 12–15, 33, 34, 39, 41, 61, 74, 81, 83, 85, Z
90, 109–112, 115, 122, 126, 129, 137–139, Zagros-d 413
143, 150, 165–168, 182, 197, 199, 200,
202–206, 218, 219, 238, 248–250, 1, 272, ʔ
277, 279, 288–290, 300, 312, 314, 316–320, ʔimāla 165, 248