A Linguistic History of Arabic
JONATHAN OWENS
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS S 135545
OXJORD UNIVERSITY PRESS Great Clarendon Street, Oxford 0x2 6dp Acknowledgements and Dedication Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York The challenge of developing a critical, coherent interpretation of Arabic Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi linguistic history first confronted me when I began teaching a three-semester Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto course on the subject at Bayreuth University, a course which through the
With offices in (I would like to imagine) enthusiastic participation of students constantly
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece presented new issues and perspectives. Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore A number of individuals contributed to the working and reworking of this South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam book. Two anonymous readers provided stimulating criticism to the entire Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries work, while Orin Gensler set out various challenging objections to Ch. 4, and
Published in the United States for Ch. 6 Janet Watson gave helpful and pertinent criticisms and suggestions by Oxford University Press Inc., New York for new solutions. I would like especially to acknowledge the contribution of © Jonathan Owens 2006 my colleague Pierre Larcher for the incisive critical insights he has provided in The moral rights of the author have been asserted innumerable discussions, beginning many years ago in Benghazi. Database right Oxford University Press (maker) The research on Nigerian Arabic, cited frequently in this book, has been First published 2006 supported for many years through the generosity of the Deutsche Forschungs- All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced stored ma retrieval system, or gemeinschaft (German Research Council). In Nigeria, Dr Jidda Hassan of transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press Maiduguri University provided many native insights into his language, while or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. the university administration has generously supported and encouraged my Enquiries concerning reproductln outside he scope of the above should be sent ,0 the Rights continuing work there. Oxford Department, University Press, at the address above Not least I would like to acknowledge the invaluable support given me at You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover the computer center as and you must impose the Bayreuth University over many years by Klaus Wolf of same condition on any acquirer British Library well as Dr Brigitte John for providing me with map templates. Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available The correspondence with John Davey of OUP was prompt, invigorating, Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data critical, and encouraging. Data available Finally I would like to thank the publishers Harrassowitz Verlag for allowing Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India me to reproduce portions of 'Al-Idghaam al-Kabiyr and the History of Printed in Great Britain (eds.) Sprich on acid-free paper by Arabic', which appeared in W Arnold and Bobzin, H. (2002). Biddies Ltd., King's Lynn ISBN Knechten Aramaisch, wir verstehen es. Festschrift for Otto 0-19-929082-2 978-0-19-929082-6 doch mit deinen University Press for 13579 10 8642 Jastrow (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), 503-20, the Oxford large portions of 'Case and Proto-Arabic', Bulletin of *<*!»? allowing reproduction of , ^OOC-tCi^ the School of Oriental and African Studies 61: 51-73 and 217-27, as well as John Benjamins for allowing reprint from Diachronica 22 of parts of the article \ SAV 'Pre-Diaspora Arabic: Dialects, Statistics and Historical Reconstruction'. "J ^vWsl* I dedicate the book to the memory of my brother Christopher. Contents
Abbreviations and Symbols x
Maps xi
1. Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets 1
1.1. Proto-Arabic, Basic Terms 2
1.2. The Early Sources 5
1.3. The Role of the Modern Dialects in Interpreting Arabic Language History 8
1.4. Scope of Work 13
1.5. Language Change and Language Transmission 15
1.6. A Critical Look at Some Truisms in Arabic Historical Linguistics 20
1.7. Summary of Chapters 30
2. Old Arabic, Neo-Arabic and Comparative Linguistics 34
2.1. A Method vs. a Logical Matrix 34 2.2. Stages in Arabic 38
2.3. Arabic and the Dialects 43 2.4. Neo-Arabic and the Neo-German school 47
2.5. The Past is the Present: A Modern Logical Matrix 74 2.6. The Arabic Tradition 75 2.7. Conclusion 77
3. Case and Proto-Arabic 79
3.1. Introduction 80
3.2. Case in the Afroasiatic Phylum 80
3.3. Classical Arabic 85
3.4. The Modern Dialects 101
3.5. Case and Caseless Arabic 114
4. Al-Idgham al-Kabiyr and Case Endings 119
4.1. Sharh Tayyibat al-Nashr: A Fifteenth-Century Treatise on Koranic Variants 123
4.2. Linguistic Attributes of 'Major Assimilation' 125
4.3. Interpretive Summary 129 viii Contents Contents IX
5. Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora: A Statistical Approach to Appendix 1. List and short summary of dialects included in study 271 Arabic Language History 137 Appendix 2. List offeatures used in comparison, Chapter 5, with 5.1. Introduction 137 brief exemplification 276 5.2. Dialects, Procedure, Initial Results 142 Appendix 3. Imala in Zamaxshari 281 Statistical Appendix 4. Table used in reconstructions 5.3. Results and their Meaning 151 of suffix pronouns Interpretations in Chapter 8 5.4. 157 283 5.5- The Interpretation of Arabic Linguistic History 166 References 285 5.6. Statistics, Reconstruction, Hypothesis Testing 168 Index 301 5.7. Three Caveats 172 5.8. Problems in Coding 173
6. Nigerian Arabic and Reconstruction of the Imperfect Verb 184 6.1. The Basic Imperfect Verb 184 6.2. Historical Significance 189 6.3. Epenthesis 193 6.4. The Old Arabic Evidence 194 6.5. The Reconstructions and the Classical Arabic Verbal Mode Endings 195
7. Imala 197 7.1. Imala in Old Arabic 197 7.2. Imala in the Modern Dialects 212 7-3- Reconstruction 220 8. Suffix Pronouns and Reconstruction 230 8.1. Pausal and Context Forms and Case Endings 230 8.2. Suffix Pronouns and Case Endings 234 8.3. Pronominal Suffixes, Case Endings and Epenthetic Vowels in Dialects 235 8.4- Syllable Structure 237 8.5. A Data Survey 237 8 6. ^problematic Cases, Some Easy Generalizations 239 8.7. More Difficult Cases 8.8. Case Traces? 245 255 8.9- Harris Birkeland and Old Arabic Object Pronoun Reconstruction 259 9- Summary and Epilogue 266 9.1. Reconstruction and Continuity with Old Arabic 9-2. fcpilogue 266 267 Abbreviations and Symbols Maps
Pre-diasporic reconstructed form 1. Sample points, Middle Eastern dialects 139 Proto-Arabic form Word boundary 2. North African sample points 140
Variant forms 3. Western Sudanic Arabic 141
i First person 4. Reconstruction based on modern dialects of pre-diasporic *-in in 2 Second person participal forms 162 3 Third person ABS Absolutive ACC Accusative C Consonant CA Classical Arabic CB Christian Baghdadi ELA Eastern Libyan Arabic F Feminine G Guttural consonant GEN Genitive H Short high vowel, [i] or [u] IN Intrusive 'in' suffix in participal constructions IND Indicative JB Jewish Baghdadi M Masculine MB Muslim Baghdadi N Noun NA Neo-Arabic NOM Nominative OA Old Arabic PL Plural
Q QurPaan; Koranic citation SA Standard Arabic SG Singular V Vowel WSA Western Sudanic Arabic 1
Introduction: A Language and
Its Secrets
Arabic has always been a puzzle to those who delve into its intricacies. A good
number of medieval Arabic grammar studies include the word 'secret' or
'secrets' in their title, that of the twelfth-century grammarian Al-Anbari, for instance, PAsraar al-SArabiyya, 'The Secrets of Arabic', or Ibn Jinni's (d. 1002), Sirr SinaaSat al-PSraab, 'The Secret of the Craft of Grammar
(or Inflection)'. Others unlock its secrets, such as Sakkaki's Miftaah al-SUluwrn, 'The Key to the Sciences', and some, like the early tenth-century grammarian Ibn Al-Sarraj's Al-Usuwlfiy l-Nahw, 'The Foundations of Gram- mar' describe the core of the language. Secrets abound no less so today than 1,000 years ago when Ibn Al-Sarraj was active. Indeed, as the modern linguis- tic sciences expand, so too do the questions contemporary scholars ask of the language.
It is a source of endless fascination, however, that many issues which press on us today were equally addressed by the founders and early practitioners of Arabic grammar as well. Through their genius arose a core of linguistic thinking which was, in its theoretical underpinnings, significant in its own right, but which also produced a descriptive corpus of great detail. This
corpus entices with its own secrets, one of which I seek to look into in this book. One key in this instance comes from the nineteenth century in the form of the comparative method, the secret, the form of Arabic spoken during and before the Arabic-Islamic diaspora of the early Islamic era. To unravel it, it is not only the early sources of Arabic, or Old Arabic as I term the collective early sources, which are relevant, but also the vast fabric of contemporary spoken Arabic, the Arabic dialects which have a central role to play. Bringing the two sources together in a cooperative, rather than dichotomous, antag- onistic fashion, as has been a tradition in Western Arabic studies, yields new insights into the history of Arabic. ^
Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets
place when the ancestral populations were still together. This is pre-diasporic 1.1. Proto-Arabic, Basic Terms times, the Arabic associated with it, pre-diasporic Arabic.
The study of Arabic language history in the Western scholarly tradition does Pre-diasporic Arabic is chronologically situated. However, the exact limits
not want I for terminology. Old Arabic (Altarabisch), Neo- or New Arabic of its extent are at this point approximate. As an endpoint, propose 790. This (Neuarabisch), significance proto-Neo-Arabic, proto-peripheral Arabic, poetic koine in fact is a date well after the initial Arab-Islamic expansion. The (Dichtersprache), calendar) and Middle Arabic are but some of the terms encountered. of this date is that it is when Sibawaih (d. 177/793, Islamic/Christian To provide an initial results of reconstruction based orientation it is useful to outline my own basic vocabu- was active as a linguist. To the extent that any lary used in describing historical contemporary dialects are comparable to Old Arabic sources, Sibawaih is varieties of Arabic. Note that I characterize a on number of the following terms in comparison, since he is the very earliest source (or, prob- a way different from their current use in the best point of many Arabicist circles. lematically, the variant Koranic reading tradition, which is a generation before eyewitness to the pre-diasporic i. Proto-Arabic. The fundamental Sibawaih). Thus, Sibawaih is taken as an object of any historical linguistics is the fiction. Sibawaih himself, so far reconstruction of a proto-language. varieties. This is, admittedly, a convenient This is a well-known and established concept is traveled personally in the Arabian peninsula and therefore which will be familiar to most as known, never readers, and which is not dependent of Arabic. was a as a concept or as a method was never eyewitness to the pre-diasporic homeland He of application on the circumstances of any individual speaker active in Basra who knew about varieties of Arabic language or language family. native Persian The initial goal of a historical treat- nearly all tribal (e.g. ment of Arabic should be the from individuals in the Basran diaspora. Nonetheless, reconstruction of a proto-language. Curiously, among he many Qays, Banu WaaPil, Tamimi) and areal (e.g. Hijaz, Medina) designations terms in the Western Arabicist tradition, proto Arabic is one relatrvely rarely are situated in the Arabian peninsula, which allows the encountered, though for found in Sibawaih present purposes it is the key object fiction to be associated with pre-diasporic regions.
- For the starting date one can use the initial Arab-Islamic expansion, which Pre diaS ric P° P^ys an important role in this wo'k^Tt ^fif- ^ Basra, for instance, were the first Islamic cities aS f0U began around 630. Kufa and WS ** the - 8 ^ic-Islamic expansion of Tsev A K° respectively. Of course, an niT S f^ founded in southern Iraq, in 16/636 and 17/638 AMbfc SPrCad SPeed th the M die rt ^ *« the Arabian peninsula had begun L t7N t S ™^ Arab expansion into the lands bordering IndkatiVe d3teS °. are for ^ance, Fustat Sm founded ^ ' well before Islamic times (Retso 2003). However, as the summary in the rea " ^d by 64r, Andalusia (Spam) ntld times that the expansion and Tit ^^ previous paragraph makes clear, it is only in Islamic sadd y spoken across moved well outside of this area. P Ur°Pe t0 ? of^^^^™*rChina. Western border pre-diasporic Arabic. Migrations ^ as the era of into I therefore propose the period 630-790 thZ C ed t0 °f ' *«"» to this era in all likelihood i^tyindSS^t^S' ^^ This is a terminus ad quern. A form reconstructed Pen°T°dS " l about century ' P ° seventeenth With a lame S^ a k ^ existed well. Further reconstruction is thereby implied, as will be """* before as sixteenth .nt^ ?** **"* ^>™> moreover, it will be desirable ^S etT" elaborated on below in this section. Eventually, the western " **"** °f *** ^^ers into Sud^eS ^T"™ to relate results of linguistic reconstructions such as undertaken here, more 1*™* CentUries and > into Alicia below. "sou&cJ^^ZS T*-* closely to population movements, as discussed at greater length in 1.4 ) its current '^'^^^iiy nad^ reconstruction of Pre-diasporic Arabic is a variety based on the results of ^^^^T^* *" "*»:*»*«»» paring the linguL, —manes). Com- course leads to pre-diasporic Z utfo, t modern dialects. Not all such reconstruction of 11 and the ^^ 1^^^^ development occurred locally in J^JSZ^^"^^ Arabic. A great deal of historical linguistic common to the * """» ** *-» pre-diasporic can only be two, Pa^ *J£? the post-diaspora era. What can be reconstructed as unusual, are * ** m some sense rare or pre-diasporic explained not Z u established on a case-by-case consideration of data. While common origm^^n <"**— necessarily a unitary variety. To Z ^ * Arabic is a reconstructed variety, it is not ^een the ^ZX™ two exempt postulation of multiple pre-diasporic Seas, S^"^ ."32 the contrary, it will often lead to the suffix is reconstructed as *-kum forms. In Ch. 8, for instance, the 2MPL object *
Introduction: 4 A Language and Its Secrets Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets
~ *-kun *-ku in ~ the pre-diasporic period. This is not unexpected. Pre- tradition, which conceives of Old Arabic as a historical linguistic stage, as will diasponc Arabic reconstructed to a period between 630 and 79o, is roughly of be elaborated in Ch. 2. Peri°d 3re thC " "^tttriou, forms discussed in OldTi ir ^ the 4. Classical Arabic, Modern Standard Arabic. From among these early (SCe nm terminol Point and « on^Lld T °^ sect. ,. 2 below). A sources emerged a most enigmatic of chimeras, Classical Arabic. Whereas a expands and comp,Ms s^sfe** the — characterization, even a definition of Classical Arabic is normally a sine qua non of scholarship on Arabic language history, I consciously avoid giving it any
*** howevw add an inter ret explicit content, even if I refer to the entity at various places in this work. The levd tetwe! ^ « P - !?F^TFC l3ter Varietks In the °del - m Prosed here, reason for this is that, as Corriente (1971, 1973, 1975, 1976; also Rabin 1955) pTS den ^ ^ 011 b3Sed °n ELd^S °ld ^'sources, as emphasized, Classical Arabic is the endpoint of a development within the PpoTt'T^3 reconstru^d ' ^ pre-diasporic Arabic, as complex of varieties of Old Arabic. An adequate consideration of the forces described here which brought Classical Arabic into existence belongs within a broader study of main focus is °n pre- frorthiriis diasp°ric ***• ™« *»"-. historical Arabic sociolinguistics and this in turn requires a far more detailed reading of the early sources, Sibawaih, Farra?, the Koranic reading tradition, the dab°rated u on where. P ln sect- i-3 below and else- early compilations ofArabic poetry, and so on, than is possible or necessary here. However at th,W ' d "0t think It will be necessary for the sake of practical orientation to refer in places to a set, neatly different pt df "T "^ ° * possible to normative variety of Arabic. For this I generally use either the so-called 'Stand- P dlasP «cformcouldturnouttobea wi] Proto-Arabicformas ard Arabic' (or 'Modern Standard Arabic'), a largely standardized form of the
Classical language which is taught in universities in the West, and which is close C° •t^o^J^SlSc^ nCentrate eXplidtIy °n 3 reCOn" to the language of contemporary journalism in the Arabic world. 5 emirety Chs. and "* "' and for the most art 5. Dialect. A final term I use with considerable hesitation and with a touch 2 6 as well Chanter 7 P 1 re Arabic, COnstruction of misgiving, is 'dialect'. Problems accruing to the use of this term in and the deeper ! both of pre-diasporic and this level n n , i latter As far as contemporary treats only ^ " 3 and 4 th°U h the Old Arabic will be elaborated on in sect. 1.3 below. Old ^ ^ ' S Slc s Cha ter diasporic P 8 Arabic goes, I much prefer the designation, spoken Arabic. A modern dialect, and proto-Arabir**** r^T*' «!» presents both pre- the ^"^txons, though mother tongue. However, the well- former. the weight there is on after all, is nothing more than the Arabic known circumstance of diglossia renders a simple equation of mother tongue in the to develop a proto-Arabic and dialect impossible. Contemporary spoken Arabic itself is a mixture of a mention^^^^^^ is learned in schools and used in just one: " "ext cha ter native dialect and the Standard Arabic which the early Arabia * P - Here I would 11 5 S rkh much T. F. Mitchell (1986) aptly termed this variety Pre-emptaneedtothinkindevelon^ ?, "* ° and detailed th* they of the Arabic media. a te S proto-language ^ ^ ™ ' which the Educated Spoken Arabic. entails Arabic reconstruction of sophisticated existent I argue that contemporary Arabic is an essential part of proto-Arabic Arabic tradition m 2^"^ * the hands of a part of spoken Arabic ofearlywittensourcesOldArabic^ CentUry the reconstruction. However, for this purpose it is not any ' * *"" com leX in P below. Mili2ed it which is learned as the mother « This tenninoW ^ ^ work are described which is relevant, but rather that part of i s 3t ^V3nance dialect. tradition, I term this the ^ ^th the reigning Arabicist tongue. In keeping with the Arabicist , ADothtt
< ;^^i^^S na,d <— ^whereitrefers ^^SE5^North S° C° 1.2. The Sources related A"** M™U °ld Arabic "M» «^r Early languages aUo S (2000 T\ I * North ^ ArabTant * 8™P "f diverse but doseiy £in Aet ^»*oJ^^" of early material, in terms of Macdonald e d d Arabic is blessed by a relatively large quantity does no, ^te 8 °' from Ancient ^dilt wPl' '° ^deTs «^, ^u" ^^ linguae "* ld "*,** latter is too much. The plenitude of construct " is to " *- ^ this artide, the history of Western scholarship, perhaps oft" rt oe^ ' *"» to ^ re' n *" «e that i, atiVe,0Classi is distin« frol ^ Arabicorother early detracted from the need to incorporate later ?( material I suspect 6 Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets a systematic history of Arabic ' a po,nt l daborate on in 2 ZZ^. *" are explored in minute detail. Sibawaih's importance in an interpretation of language history will be apparent at many places in this book. A second great < ™tanporw pmainin to earfas^tfoinh J "^ S °ld Arabic exists as contribution to early Arabic linguistic thought was the work of the Koranic e materia s rdativeiy rare and mc°mpiete s commentator Farra? (d. 207/822). In over 1,000 pages, Farra? commented on i^:^:zx Very ^' earheStv materials are inscriptions JSfr T six epigraphic many linguistic aspects of the QurPaan in a work bearing the title 'The Meanings of the QurPaan'. ""cnption of 328, located southeast of Damascus in s^ri, These two works set the stage for a spate of philological activity on grammar and lexicography by other linguists, a number of whom will be h3rd t0 intCrpret said to coX"tZT^r^ *" 4«n hardly be introduced in subsequent chapters. Since, quite obviously, these earliest "2 " ? """ for the ^rpretation (see sect. bd I ' of early Arabic grammarians had no preconceived model of a standard variety of Arabic, ] there is found especially in their work a great number of observations on th3t S° A^S^^ T ^ UrCeS °f *** «**» ^ abound, various grammatical and phonological constructions and vocabulary. These *%«*«** history called JJafiZi of the Koranic text, the so- earliest sources themselves at times report on such an early diversity that even IT d°CUment by nic codex). HvZJZ 652 at ** *« (the Uthma- in the Classical era the comparative method needs to be applied to reconstruct with * ** bareSt co a imala). no short ^T*? ^ ^nantal skeleton plausible source (see e.g. Ch. 7 on Zl n consonants. An ' ^ ° diacritical Points to distinguish With an increasing standardization later grammarians, beginning around initial V and ^f Moreover, formally the early fourth/tenth centuries, had little new to offer as far as variational extant Korans from"* "^f^' ^ ^distinguishable, P early ones "^ at best excer ts from data goes, except for those with a penchant for gathering anecdotes and (see Puin 1996 on J^ 1° ^ P It agments) - fifteenth-century grammar- was not until observations from earlier sources (e.g. the tireless the ei hh 7 (QiraaPaat), ** comPlete Koranic renditions ian Suyuti). I leave these later sources largely untouched, as by and large they with all contL Y^'f in 3 the tradition of 'p ^^ SpeUed °ut became available repeat the variational observations of the earliest grammarians. Koranic reT > atized and h°WeVer are " There are two further early sources with which I do not deal. One is so-called written ' not *>% s stem down until rtw T^ y ^d so it is not by Ibn Mu Middle Arabic, discussed in greater detail in the next chapter (sect. 2.3.3). Midd- until id d - 3*4/936), this date that STd COm^7 ^ ( «» general Plete ver«ons of le Arabic texts begin to be relatively numerous in the tenth century. As I, accessible to us ihn m : the QurPaan are version, but m°re°Ver set along with other scholars today (see summary in Larcher 2001), rather seven ^ > °« not one fixed many Z-i, «"*, with basis, with various dialectal pi. qMrraa?) whQ JWted an eponymous reader view these as having a literary Arabic as their J*J" C Jazari) Centur intrusions, it is very difficult to integrate them casually into a consideration of £* compUed versions " ^^ y- °ther ^lars Ch. "7h f ^ 4 for details). ""^ reco Arabic language history. The time will probably come when use will be made A further unceTi u gn^d readers (see always clear to "^ the what Ok"*** that it is not extent So^T fadmon or on are based a ^WogUrftSTfT on an oral recitation ^on from a written °n inter 2 Arabic was not the text^che Tn ^ ^ Preting P»"»»- Contrary to popular belief among some Arabicists (e.g. Mol 2003: 15). Koranic the fact that most important variety serving as a basis for Sibawaih's analysis. This follows alone from being fixed the linguistic form of the QurPaan was itself during Sibawaih's lifetime still in the process of "y source tor interpreting Old according to the various parameters of the QiraaPaat tradition. An adequate linguistic summary of ^^tablishmentoffir^ linguistic methodology that it is an , • what sources were used by Sibawaih is so inextricably tied to his e separate work. To give one concrete cent issue which, as an independent variable, needs to be treated in a grammar, in the fifteen pages ^cants* ^ ^rP^ indication of the relative unimportance of the Koranic text for Sibawaih's development/name part of a more (see particularly Table 7.1), the y7 * ^ " -en devoted to Pimaala (= imala), discussed in detail in Ch. 7 below m a ZT^ 0n of ^ "^atea Arabic grammar. This QurPaan and the Koranic readers are hardly mentioned. hK^? , fno ^? 3 in this regard is a separate study in and of itself; see e.g. Ch. 7 Correlating later with earlier works ***** C^e ^ *« Iand of linguistic In BoJ) ™*° assumption is substantiated on the basis of a Sv** rf^ n. 13. In App. 3 I give one indication for how my densely Zamaxshari, who lived three and a half —o ^p^*2~«d,£* comparison between Sibawaih's treatment of imala and that of <- hooks and syntactic crannies centuries after Sibawaih. *
8 Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets
of them, but before that happens the Middle Arabic texts themselves will need As I will argue throughout this book, there is little serious application of the greater scrutiny and analysis. comparative method in an account of the historical development of contem- The other is early Arabic poetry (pre-Islamic, early Islamic). There are porary spoken Arabic. I think three reasons play a role in this failure, all considerable difficulties in gauging the authenticity and status of this ceuvre of which have more to do with the sociopolitical status of the modern (Blachere 1980: ch. 2 is a good summary of issues, complemented by Zwettler dialects and the history of their treatment in the West than with linguistic 1978 for the orality factor). Not least is the fact that the collection and methodology. systematize of the pre-Islamic and early Islamic poetry was part and The first concerns the relationship between Classical Arabic and the mod- parcel of the same intellectual milieu that saw the systematization of grammar ern dialects, in particular the fact that the modern dialects have no official and the canonization of Koranic variants, namely the eighth and ninth legitimization in the Arabic world. To set the two on an equivalent basis, m°St °f t0day's collerti°ns i"/^ «n be traced most directly which is what a dispassionate comparativist account must do, could be ST in 8 genmti0n after Sibawaih such as Asma 21 lT^t ei u u - Shth centur Alter y is again in place, which veils a direct (Ferguson 1959a) between the high Classical (or Modern Standard) variety nsi ht n n i 0611 Nonethe1 ?^- or perhaps because of this and the low dialect. a th Lnl ""I T ^ s uniform convenience. The Classical and is *^ A second reason I believe is simply one of ^ztzlx&zztSChi °larS ec history r lUate Classical Arabic with language offers ready-made starting point for the summary of the thelaneua^nftr f a T(Brod Mnn discussed in the next chapter (sect. "°* 2* *** *** Bellamy 198 ). It of Arabic. Fuck's prestigious Arabiya, m^fS that heT f 5 rePreSentS zur arabischen coI^^^ZZf^ °nC °r "** 2.3.2), offers a history of Arabic (subtitle, Untersuchungen ^ - emphasis]) which starts with the literary Sprach und StU geschichte [my material language and makes little serious attempt to incorporate dialect (however defined, see Spitaler's review of 1953). While the title speaks both takes the lion's of language and stylistic history, it is in fact the latter which up share of the work. ndiSP " able r0k in a A third reason combines two perspectives. The oldest detailed accounts of L r " «««* 0^ Arabic "^Z^Z 11 some 1,000 years, than any lA^cS^^T, * ** of tbe comparative method. Classical Arabic are undeniably older, by a range of detailed of the modern dialects. Coupled with this is an assumed - daughters. ThHl "^ * P«^«
io Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets n
is tantamount to a statement of cultural and political equality between the dialect is 'older' (in relative terms), 'younger' or 'equivalent' to a comparable dialects and the Classical language. Logically, however, linguistic reconstruc- trait in the Classical language. tion is independent of cultural and political considerations. Because it is so important, it is relevant here to consider three further Considering the second point, convenience is no substitute for consistent aspects of the term 'Arabic dialect'. application of a well-tested methodology.? Just why few serious attempts have First, there is the issue ofwhat constitutes information on an Arabic dialect. been made to reconstruct proto-Arabic uncontroversial that the dialect is is ultimately a question for the In the contemporary era, I believe it fairly historian of Arabic and Semitic studies. simply the Li of native speakers. These native varieties may be differentiated One reason, I suspect, is the (under- standable) preference among philologists using bundles of isoglosses to define for the written word (Classical by classical dialectological methods, Arabic) over the spoken (dialects). is dialect the previous discussion, it is far more What not written is not fully legitimate. areas. As may be gleaned from "1 1 difficult constitutes a 'dialect' in the classical era. A basic *™ Studi£S °f hk and generally to agree on what tZTJiT™^ ™ ^ > ™»e *" ** ** hdf °f the *«>** problem in my view is that from the perspective of the on-site observers in the tended t K ^ «A^ ^ Uo In late eighth and early ninth centuries, linguists such as Sibawaih and Farra?, * ^ ^' more -cent years, since about "^there h T the dialect-Classical Arabic distinction did not exist as it came to be under- * ^^ " interest in m°d<™ dialectal nd so^Hn, t""C rtS ^ f AMWC (SCe stood later such as Sarraj (d. 316/928) in the early tenth or by ° ** Part 2 of the journal by linguists, A- Ur ST? T > ** "' h3Ve bCen modern (or fairly observers such as Brockelmann or Fischer. Thus, a tctdZor^l largdy rCStricted to des-pt!ve and modern) ** CXClusion feature which by modern, or even by tenth-century standards such as the T^nzZ^T^ ^ comparative perspective, clearly 'dialectal' was not * " ** ** rektive time d^°™ 2FSG object suffix -fi, as in inna-fi 'that-you.F' is recoct n is ^ ^ * Tt below; Owens 2004). rather than Solute conceived of as such by Sibawaih (II: 322; see sect. 8.7.4 tTeoThe orit fTT*" ^^ ** ^ sketched here. The issue of ^esour^f^ This point is a very large issue which can only be with systematically. SCVenth Arabic historical sociolinguistics has yet to be dealt °r hth centuries - These are far younger ^ thanT, r detail, the position taken sou for Without having the space to argue the point in ^25ooscZil*Z?l ****** datin* from Z" it is necessary to distinguish between linguistic r here is that methodologically must be "^ "»* ***«"» therefore assumed t ^ ^ n of interpreting Arabic tTT *"* °f and sociolinguistic aspects of Arabic for purposes is criterial Smitic 1 What is the re aZ tim" t^f ^ »8«»8«. linguistic material, whether that ****• fr° linguistic history. Linguistically I put all comparative meAodH™" ^ m the aPP^L of the which became canonized in the classical language (the fustaa), or that terms) ^ ** *e younger (in absolute ^uT^^Z^T" potentially9 on a par for which may popularly be understood as dialectal, (e-g. a complete of phonological elements se^f differ ^^^ ntiatS the language history. Sociolinguistically all var- 198o: 0,TeSp0ndences purposes of reconstructing 24) Ln does ' Mos^ et al. Sociolinguistic ^S^T'^^ ieties are not equal, as many recent studies have shown. logical inventory "• t0 Ur- Semitic hono " one cL sav f^A ^ P language ^ prestige should not, however, imply precedence in interpreting preserved oldeMraiL)^ '? '^ (i ° the *™ ** * has history. point, for reasons given in the next paragraph, I ^ S As a terminological Principle to any comparison argUment appUeS * between than 'dialect' of Old Arabic when language: let^T,e dldects use the term 'varieties' of Old Arabic, rather a priori (i ™ and *e Classical e prior t« A , -d/or speaking of variants attested in old sources. interna, reconstruction * ?""^ ne aoes not ^ put material from Old Arabic on a par with ^ Secondly, possible to S^Sknow ^ it is not whether a given trait in a varieties go, while modern ones for basic descriptive reasons. As far as old of sources exist (e.g. tantalizing bits and pieces of odd material from a variety lnde 19° is nowhere near enough to ^dent Semitic ( 8/l982: 6) """""ion that in Sibawaih, the Koranic reading tradition), there ^tmg^herfit , f l~eTu ^ UblyL ** °'deSt °"e attested fa a relatively complete opS to^iH^^^^^P^gZTtrollth construct an old dialectology in the sense of having
H) assumes a ^"mes). On comparative which would J*. V Rectal differenti^^Tf dialect cannot be used to ' innovation found in a modern °r ot Arablc This caveat is important. A demonstrable to have arisen, paraUel to reconstruct proto-Arabic. 12 Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets 13
10 phonological and morphological account of discrete dialects. This is one negative one at that. This aspect of the term 'Arabic dialect' falls outside the reason I prefer the term 'varieties' of Old Arabic. scope of the present book. illustrate To this point an example from Rabin (1951) may be adduced. Rabin's is the most detailed attempt to describe an Old Arabic dialect, which he 1.4. Scope of Work terms 'ancient West Arabian'. It is clear, however, that his description,
admirable though it is, is not a comparative dialectology in a modern sense, The book falls within the broad domain of historical linguistics. The essential nor can it be as the sources for such an undertaking are simply not available. element in historical linguistics is an application of the comparative method, What Rabin did was to sift through many Old Arabic sources, covering the without which historical linguistics as we know it would not exist. This is one region from Medina into Yemen, and identify local variants distinct from of the great advances in the history of language studies, in theory allowing one Classical Arabic. In Yemen, Medina, ?Azd, Bakr, and Qays there is informa- to trace a branching differentiation of languages or dialects back to a common tion about the variant Santa for differ- 'give' (30, CA Pcfitaa), among Hudhail (east ancestor. This is effected via reconstructing unitary proto-forms from of Mecca) and Taghlib (Iraq) example from about the weakening of an initial hamza entiated daughter varieties, via rules of change. To take a simple (glottal stop) to or pidgin M /y/ (82), in the Hijaz about the disappearance of the the current work, all varieties of Arabic (aside from Creole and glottal stop (131). There is not a single perfect verb with -t. feature, however, which is systematic- varieties) minimally mark the first person singular of the ally descnbed in the old literature in the form of a modern isogloss. The critical (1) Cairene Iraqi qultu Najdi Nigerian Arabic perspective here is the same as the general one for application of the katab-t katab-tu kitab-t katab ~ katab-t-x comparative method: just as an historical linguistics requires at least the attempt to apply the comparative unusual variation method, so too does a dialectology require Nigerian Arabic, and west Sudanic Arabic in general, has an systematic application of dialectological suffix (to simplify matters). Even sampling methods. I should empha- in this respect. The -f appears only before a size that these critical remarks are not is felt by the stress directed against the remarkable obser- where the -f does not appear, however, its presence
°f thC An ' Wc present in an underlying ^^ Sramm™s but rather at the unstated attraction, explicable if it is assumed that -t is 1— 1 am°n8 S° me C°ntemp0rar ka'tab 'I wrote'. Clearly y *»«*»» *at an old dialectology representation, hence the contrast, 'katab 'he wrote' vs. is poSk! is an innovation the 'loss' of the final -tin certain contexts in Nigerian Arabic fortUnately varieties maintain a -f, and a 3 rdatiVe Surfdt of in Arabic. This is apparent in two ways: all other rJS^Z^ T^' ' information on mp° lack of -r in Nigerian M method^gical consequences specific historical rule can be ascertained 'explaining' the in the TresenTsS k l* C ParatiVe order is unnecessarily complicated *** temporary dialects Arabic. Looking at the matter in a reverse ^d work mv ^ lTt S T original, would rathCT SOin Arabic situation were the one WetZcZ ' ^ S » ** r—se direction, and unrealistic: if the Nigerian in all other varieties of a^t^^ have to explain how a -r came to appear in all contexts reconstructed for the 1SG perfect Arabic. On this basis a *-t (or *-tu) can be ^ term * the forward in most dialects, but in Nigerian 00™^:!"°^ ^ *** ^ition ofArabic suffix. This proto-form is carried context. Arabic it splits according to morpho-phonological lc the - ™y latter is the 'real' Arabic so far as official recoil ^"tm Old ^-d^arlytospeakof Ar^S^ to" ^r"" opposed to '-^ 5"™10 ^Z^cS^TZ^^- "** t~0 not so .T «, dialect' in these terms is much a spatial linguaUna, delation as a sociopolitical one, and a the rule for the Roughly and glossing over many details (see (1) in sect. 5.2.4), split -* (see Ch. 6 n. 2 for discussion). odern dialects <^8:i for is that -f before # which rougWy i^J 38) instance states tha, there are no ea of finding aCCOUnt °f ld (2) t-»0 # detailed correlations ^ ° *** dialectology to entertain the 14 Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets 15
It can be seen that via the comparative method contemporary variation can anything like a one-to-one relation between dialect and tribe. In contempor- often be explained as arising from a more uniform proto-variety. Chapters 7 ary times, there is relatively little linguistic import attached to the identically and parts of in 8 particular exemplify this perspective of the comparative named Banu Hassan of Mauritania and Beneesan (< Banu Hassan) of Borno method in greater detail. in Nigeria, even if it is plausible that both had a common ancestral origin in However, in recent years limits to the application of the comparative the Nile valley. An association between pre-Islamic Arabic dialectology and method have been pointed out or re-emphasized." Some components of pre-Islamic tribal affiliation is an even riskier proposition. Names of groups grammar probably do not lend themselves to an application of the method change in different ways from the dialects they speak. Nonetheless, leaving all to any considerable time depth (Owens 1996), while effects of intensive lan- caveats aside, it may be suggested that if a comparative linguistic history of guage contact will often make an application of the method impossible (Durie Arabic working from pre-Islamic times up to the present is attempted, the andRoss 1996).In the present data as well, phenomena will be highlighted both question can also be addressed of the extent to which the historically attested n contemporary dialects and in the Old Arabic sources which do not neces- tribal migrations correlate with historical linguistic reconstructions. The Una 18U°US roto - fo ofliS t P ™. or which clearly point to the existence current situation with Arabic comparative linguistic history, characterized as it is by a few simple dichotomies (see below, sect. 1.6.7 and Ch. 2), can only P V"6 3nd Mo^r ^ °f 8 muStrate this P-P-tive. be improved on. I would suggest here that a far more detailed and systematic oTt1 °Tf 3 Un8UiStk treatment f Arabic i. a truism that linguistic reconstruction of Arabic will eventually allow one to countenance the ^ ° > * hTtl „ f 1S intimately I^TT* bound up ** the historv of the closer correlations with historical movements and events documented in ^X f " ° this truism elds an written sources. iZnam source f t -Tf ^ ^^P ^ In summarizing and interpreting the ^ ^^ " S°deties lackil lo term short, scholars are further along in Xn recoX t * V method appiied - written historical than the linguistic. I therefore concentrate exclu- ^:z^T,Zu to contempora^ p°puia sources construct population movements. The sively on the latter, emphasizing the direct and systematic links that can be relation between L \ °PUlati P °n m°Vement *>r -stance, an drawn between contemporary spoken Arabic and Old Arabic sources. important StST ' was f m the J, and early i97os (see Guthrie ^;*z?Z«?z KC°rds Texist ' the mirror use of language as a for certain hJ-y 1.5. Language Language Transmission 15 Change and cenainly met t0 be «*«* ™S * "witraScr ^ is T The relation history sketched in the previous section tively " Unfortu^e. There is, between language and y speakingP a welh^f ^ compara- ""*" closely related to another theme which has gained or regained the attention of spreadofSi'c ^^ the distribution and itl^" conditions under which language is (Bladl linguists in recent years, namely the -03 for summed " *»" *re «** * Retso 2 ^"T* transmitted from generation to generation. This issue figured prominendy Already D er in the p ^ ^ ^^ <«* °™ »*>• e^Tc T' Vements as and Kaufman (1988), who assume peninsula the southwest an assumption in the work of Thomason towards the nor*!! r ^ Arabian of 'language' from reported. Syria the unmarked situation to be a complete transmission a Arabs ' and the Eu hrates are had also setfL TI^ P (de one generation to another. division was between J°ng 2000: A ma or the som 72 ^ *> J This central to an understanding of the history of mously identified "" tribeS SOmetimes question is obviously as Qantaan ,^T* ^ ' W in the course of its spread over a large Arabic, since it is a language which, SAdnaan (also "^ C3St *""*" apings of identified!a lb ^ T* *ows, Mud geographical expanse, has acquired many speakers via shift. At the outset I will tribal affliationb ^ ^ *« (4: Vu») LSS/^ general theme of the relation of contemporary * make clear that this is also a question, as with the politicaI **"* ^ subject ^J^ ^T"^T previous section, which will not would between sketched in the therefore be naive to expect history and language of be dealt with in this book. There are two main reasons for this, both which derive from the observation that an automatic link between language change established. One reason is and the way language is transmitted has not been linguistic, the other extra-linguistic. 16 Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets 17
Beginning with the first, there have been no attempts to establish constants to a dominant lingua franca whose speakers, in any case, are of a higher and ot change for languages as a whole. To be sure, there have been suggestions for largely inaccessible social status, and from this mix evolves a lingua franca of specific subcomponents of language, most notably lexical change in the well- the dominated multilingual population, the creole. A number of careful known theory of lexicostatistics developed by Morris Swadesh. As the articles sociohistorical studies, beginning with Chaudenson (1979), have documented m the two volumes of Renfrew et al. (2000) indicate, however, there is no this relationship, and have shown that altering certain variables, for instance consensus as to whether lexicostatistics is at all possible, some rejecting it increasing the number of speakers of the dominant language, will affect the outnght (e.g Mat.soff.ooo), while others (e.g. Ehret 2000) claim validity for creolization outcome. bey°nd thC b3nal Nation that languages or Arabic is among the languages with a contemporary creole variety, and the carts L °f ?', f' C°m lex or -main relatively history of its formation in the southern Sudan of the nineteenth century unchan/ed / ™T "T ^^ ^ P ' 7 l0n8 Peri°dS f ° time> n° Predictive u«-rsals exhibits classic elements of creole formation. The language itself, mutually av^bl Itn u, « indkate f°r a ^ g% Period of time, what sort unintelligible with Arabic, is simplified relative to any variety of Arabic (see olltot changese! a language ^u *™ will be expected to " undergo sect. 1.6.4), and this simplification occurred in an environment of great social faCt° rS C° 13 rn^T^reT^^T nStitUtive °f the —ept of trans- upheaval. The resulting creole Arabic which evolved was a symbol of a social m ymV°1Ved ThC nUmber iTnZtv vrll - of *«*-, degree of multi- class midway between the dominant northern Egyptian/Sudanese and Euro- T ng lan Z^7!Vt 1 r° ^es/sPeakers of the languages in peans on the one hand, and dominated tribal societies on the other (Owens variout an *"? ?*"* "»»* the ^ 1997)- 1 u^lT;: » « rdeVant Variabks ^ At extra-linguistic components of transmission Gi one extreme, therefore, the ^onn.J^ZZ^^^ - ™ «o^ clearly and radically impinge on the form of language which is transmitted, or
which evolves. Creole Arabic, however, is a small chapter in the history of
^n^X^ its history (see Owens Arabic, which hardly is transferrable to other periods of
1989, 2002; Fischer 1995; Holes 1995: 19-24, vs. Versteegh 1984a). Interpretive Haltn^u^ problems emerge when one looks at Arabic more broadly and when a further beginnin attempt is establish either language or socio-historical setting as an linguistic effects """^ S «* the made to themselves Tnd mo f ' I make this perspective § t0 ** SodaL This independent variable to determine universals of language change. was fr^Zki L ^ ^ Kaufman " the WOrk of Thomason and point with a simple example. In Arabic dialects are basically found three ( 1988) who s S T^™ paradigms The most complete paradigm is instances of language ^^ffTT^ °' ** -U-documented of suffix pronominal marking. ^^cZZ^Z^^f the broad «*!»*** defined by the intersection of features, person, number (SG vs. PL) and gC ten contrastive hints that documented- While this work gender (M vs. F), as in Nigerian Arabic (3a). This gives robust historical cnrX IOnSmay Cairene), gender is specific links ofthe * recoverable. it offers few forms. In a number of dialects (the current example is type- riven soclolsort tic ^ *™ »W,c configuration eight (3b). In some North change 1. c, expect linguis- neutralized in the plural, reducing the forms to contrast African dialects (e.g. Djidjelli, Tunis, Susa) and in Maltese the gender °f I have chosen AMbk> b innin at an is also neutralized in the 2SG, reducing the forms to seven (3c). «^^aS^nt^rLl^ ^ ^ 8 the < distinguish all of these formation of a OM °f lan ua e namel the suffix pronouns as illustrative forms in order to creole. The * S 8 > y hi*S^ T altogether (see m most instances, 7 """^ kngUageS shows <** varieties of Arabic from Creole Arabic, which has lost suffixes extremes of sod,, T formation. 8' are a rere in Multilingualguai population! P q"isite for creole (5) sect. 1.6.4). populations areTthrown together, have limited access
often * made ab- wh- ^^^*^^^S^^mmUnity 13 historical descriptions of the '- r as bmad ^° *«« 8'** infonnation about the The works by Collins (1962, 1971, 1983) can be recommended conationad°nS (»^Sta „It?"^' U fr°m McWhorter (e.g. 1998, 2001) has re- "^ "^c change and 2Z££** "**• * Arabic, suggests tumultuous years of the southern Sudan up to independence. emphasized the role of simplification in creole genesis. a $AV \* '
18 Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets 19
(3a) Nigerian Arabic (3b) Cairene (3c) Susa (Tunisia) forms. Clearly, however, there is none. Nigerian Arabic maintains a maximally SG PL SG PL SG PL contrastive paradigm, whereas Susa, illustrative of much of North Africa, is 1 'i -na -i -na -i -na maximally reductive. Note that it is not at all self-evident why Nigerian Arabic 2 M -ak -ku -ak -kum -ak -kum should have maintained the contrasts. Arab society in this region has F -ki -kan -ik absorbed a large number of non-Arabic speakers (shift to Arabic via contact). 3 M -a -hum -u hum -u -hum Indeed, it is very plausible to assume that the Nigerian Arabic reflex of *t > d", F -ha -hin -ha -ha an emphatic, voiced, dental implosive, is due to contact with Fulfulde
Using this speakers (and perhaps other languages), who have Id/. Of course, one data as a model, two questions can be posed. The first is, given the would want to examine the social structure of the community to determine Can bC dedUCCd 3b0Ut broad soci*l fo«4 which ,f ^ what factors favor 'normal' transmission. For the moment, however, such ^.portedZTh the increasing morphological paradigm simplification. One com- a W r ethno-historical information is lacking. addUCC Urbanization Other " important urban areas they are, rthe M L , C p 'u The data and issues sketched in this section, problematic though Ch 3S DamaSCUS md Iemsalem ' have st^tural para- dim 1 f , Tr are nonetheless relatively well documented. To invoke the role of transmission """^ "* urban-tion explanation hardly wor" as a global factor in explaining change in the history of Arabic, beginning in orMlf T1 NOrth Aftkm dMects with Paradigms such ^ (t) Funh ^ u ^ pre-diasporic times and to the present, is to add variables which, at many moving mral areas (e of ^tf^TTv^"-"" -g- ^^ this stage in the study of the history of Arabic, are simply too numerous to m tem Syrfa) ^ " WeU as **** peninsular 14 Sc^e^ Hofi f r deal with within a macro-analysis of language history. Beyond the many pp 4) ^ {3b) - To anticipate the second p«p«- S^^^.T , imponderables noted here has to be added the further key variable of linguis- tic should be taken as an initial t0 reconstruction itself. What form of Arabic mVOke ShIft COntaCt " M™d h-ever, this ™ Y> Arabic itself is not Z££ two in/ T input? Obviously it is an argument of this book that proto- ^-^^ ™W-. urbaniLion and con- a pre-given entity, but rather one which needs to be argued for using, inter ^^^^T e hiSt0riCal aCC°Unt is > diffi«* to gauge. WlLT^T\ 7T alia, the comparative method. "* «* when d "wtat condL ns a e ^ ^ - ™der that at this point linguistic and b ~ To believe ^ summarize this section, I do not dUCe SbnPlification? Only when such q-^JT.eSSZ? 7 extra-linguistic data on Arabic are sufficiently well understood to reconstruct given plausible "^ ** *"*» *-*» be Relevant parameters {S^^"* " the role of transmission in Arabic language history. previous which can ameliorate this situation are known. As pointed out in the ven soci " configurations ' with ^HStrSL^^f^ section, to a degree contemporary linguistic data can be correlated Perspective ? more difficult is, for the linguist, a focusing one as social /T historical texts; contemporary micro-linguistic studies, inevitably ^t many "" " f ' earlier eras of variable! P ° on the variable of variation, can be used to extrapolate back into Xfe *£££££»nflue ^ ^ nce on language derable. The T are often impon- as difficultv ! 7 concepts such in T language history (to this end see sect. 2.4.1.1), linguistic •anguage is *«» ** These co^de" £***?* * ^ saliency or transparency can be applied at least as diagnostic heuristics. ^£ 7 fre uentl essential demographic, and ^ y social, not pre- political!* I T measures, however, are elements of an agenda for future research, digms (3a) and "** *~ qualification to question the (J^tl^^^ ^- existing instruments which can be used without tion that observa- historically the ^ ™* ^ arguments ancJLT^ ^ of the current work. °f many of the North IStl^ ^ ^ Ni*erian *"*• -d Owens U er 2003 for .CS,rS, * T™^ * PP ^t <«
14 factor has been neglected in the One reader points out that transmission as an independent in current language. There is almost.nothing book: a serious neglect of the transmission of the .' of the current the structure. . The purpose book on the effects of this transmission on the language section is to clarify the reason for this neglect. 20 Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets 21
here. First, Bellamy explores only one assumption, that the text is in Standard 1.6. A Critical Look at Some Truisms in Arabic Historical Linguistics Arabic. This should be in and of itself unacceptable even for the most conservative of Arabicists. The construct Standard Arabic assumes, inter In the following eight chapters I will develop my interpretation of certain alia, a social milieu which, so far as we know, did not exist in 328. Beyond problems in Arabic historical linguistics. Within the large complex of issues this, a dispassionate comparative analysis—should one assume on a priori which make up Arabic historical linguistics, I believe there have developed a grounds that a certain variety underlies the variety—needs to explore other set of truisms whose theoretical or descriptive basis is taken for granted. assumptions, for instance that a certain Arabic dialect isn't equally commen- I would like to take this opportunity to comment critically on a number of surate with Bellamy's interpretation, or that using a certain dialect as a basis of statements and perspectives often encountered in works on Arabic historical interpretation doesn't also yield plausible results. linguistics Some, though not all, of these points are developed in greater Second, and more importantly, it simply is impossible to claim that the detail in the following chapters. Since scholars often have these truisms at language of the text is the same as that of poetry. The lack of short vowels their disposal m their approach to interpreting the history of Arabic, I think it alone means that important comparative issues are opaque (see sect. 2.4.1). relevant to mention even positions not directly germane to the issues in this There is for example no basis for assuming case or nunation (see sect. 3.4.1). book, since I suspect they are part of the background noise, as it were, which and even the interpretation of the hamza (orthographically an alif) is prob- accompanies analysis of Arabic language history. Following lematic. A simple comparison I think renders the pitfalls clear. Larcher (20050), the orthography of the pre-Islamic inscriptions may be 1.6.1. Mistaking a part for the whole compared to the unvoweled, unpointed masaahif or Koranic manuscripts Cen °' S C OU A"Wc and (see Ch. reading traditions that there are ^"^ «« often estab- 4). In these we know from the ™ZZleT15 f ^ erenCeS many of these do ^5 0nly- ThiS P°int wiU be Crated and many ways in which individual words can be rendered and commentedItml;on m detailH fTin Ch. 2. not correspond to the language of poetry. 15 A bare consonantal text leaves many pre-Islamic inscripts as reflexes of 1A2 interpretations open. Reading the 6 5 ' ^ poetic Arabic is but one possibility out of many. ^^^ ^^ cannot dictate ^JTZZi ^ClaSStCal Amhk Camot he «** » Ermine what predecessorJZ " varieties were convenient, but it is 1-6.3. Reconstruction on the basis of a terminus ad quern is
eX lidtl not comparative reconstruction ^^t^tT"*^ P y Elated * interpretations previous procedure the Again crifsl This is related to the previous point. Whereas in the a a proto- l) C future is into the past, in this one ^M^is rm that ^s perspective projected as a whole backwards indeed ^^'^ prominent ^° among We ern A r °f attested Alabiasts reference form is and given this form Bellamy ' may be made to assumed (but not demonstrated), 1985 In this work n , a new this proto-form. Recon- «^ reading °f the fam°us variants are derived as a logical development from i^^^s^ attested forms to »•"**» <* Arabic AD struction, however, proceeds in the opposite direction, from 328) and was written in *£™* ( interpretation led reconstruction of the proto-form. of many a^'^^5;~ ' «* ^ ^r0Dlem Birkeland (1940). P atic. of vanes Bellamys interpretation A case in is excellent and challenging work in a number of nni„t. a. point the °f D in a comparative translated ™™*> who interpreted and His is probably historically orientated work thet* ml v T^ the most half of the a-mption ™ the linguistic sense found among Western Arabicists of the first ^Z^^^l™"*d ^ to a sign- his interpretation assumption confirmed- fZ f ^^ ^ ind<*d finds this twentieth century. Birkeland (1940: 21-31) bases cited here which will ificant part on the work of Sibawaih. An example can be
Angers of co„s,d„,bl. in proponio,,. , 15 while the hamza, missing ^ mention For instance, significant role in poetry, ^ imala (see Ch. ) plays no 7 some of the QiraaPaat, is represented in poetry. 22 Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets 23 be of relevance in Ch. 8. Sibawaih (II. ff.) describes 307 in greater or lesser thus equally plausible to assume the pausal forms (sufcuvvn) as original ones, detail four different realizations of the pronunciation of words before pause, and derive the full-vowel pronunciation as a later development. This is the or 'pausal form' as it is known in Arabic studies. These are rawm, Pifmaam, position argued for here (see Ch. 3, 4). tadSiyf and sukuwn. Very briefly, sukuwn is simply pronunciation without a Regarding Birkeland's five stages, it should first be noted that Sibawaih was final vowel, tadiiyf is the pronunciation of a final consonant geminate, so simply describing variants which he heard. All five 'stages' are for Sibawaih instead of the personal name, xaalid, one has the pronunciation xaalidd. synchronic variants, a point Birkeland (1940: 31) in fact concedes. What Rawm and Pifmaam are given greater attention by Sibawaih, and their Birkeland did was to construct a plausible scenario by which they could be realization appears more subtle than the previous two pausal variants. interpreted as historically successive. Beginning with the assumption that all Pifmaam, Sibawaih says, applies only to the vowel -u, al-kitaab-u 'the book'. vowels were originally present, Birkeland works his way down the scale, It apparendy has the realization of a voiceless or whispered vowel, as he eliminating the vowels one by one. Logical problems are apparent, however. reports that a blind person could not ascertain Pifmaam, since it is realized Stages 4b and 4c essentially eliminate final -u, -i. Stage 4d, doubling of the only visually by hp-rounding (see sect. 7.1.3 for more comprehensive phonetic final consonant is interpreted as compensation for this loss. However, this interpretation of this term). The phonetic quality of rawm is not spelled out explanation makes sense only if 4b and 4c were already accompanied by a final in great detail by Sibawaih, though it appears to be a weakening of the the presence of the final pronunciation consonant doubling, which needs to be able to detect of the final -u and -i. It does not apply to final -a vowels. No evidence for this exists, however. Birkeland assumes that the four realizations reflect differing stages in the Interesting challenging though Birkeland's inter- oss of originally and often brilliant and present short final vowels. His main source of evidence for Birkeland this pretations are, they ultimately lack a comparative basis. Implicitly, assumption comes from poetic renditions in which a final short vowel can assumes and reconstructs an idealized Classical Arabic, sometimes termed the (SCe Ct 8l) - GiVCn this - "Ption, he reconstructs sZTeTl 7 ? SArabiya, as the proto-form from which Old Arabic pausal phenomenon 8 C C°mPkte l0SS °f 3 Sh° rt final V0WeI in sal Potion. d sit TK P- derives and deviates. This requires Birkeland turning Sibawaih's synchronic S are - foUows mustratin ' s «* ** .*»- cases Birkeland offers no zi e^r\ ::^ ** observations into historical stages. Since in most " " **** "*> u J "^ ^^ ' -cusative, open to other interpret- ^ ™* independent these stages, they are nTmtatnominative,v t justification of 7land genitive, respectively. ations (see Ch. 8, especially sect. 8.9). Development (4) of pausal forms in Old Arabic, according to Birkeland a. Final short vowels, 1.6.4. The quick-fix syndrome -u, -a, -i all present, kaatib-u, kaatib-a, kaatib-i The basic dichotomy of Old and New Arabic has frequently been associated m find and ** - reduced -*• among a new Kzs&r - with the assumption that as Arabic became widespread is found in c development population of speakers, radical changes occurred in it. This idea of Pifmaam, leading to -a, -i, with -u radically only represented Fuck (1950) and Brockelmann (1908), among others, and is most by voiceless realization: kaatib-a, kaatib-i, kaatibl the expressed in Versteegh's (1984a) bold creolization hypothesis, whereby d- Development of doubling of final None consonant (uuKyf)'** modern dialects passed through a stage of creolization or pidginization. compensation for loss of final vowels: set of kaatibb of these authors, however, give a detailed account of what significant e- AU final vowels lost = sukuwn: kaatib language changes occurred marking the transition from Old to New. have a great As an indication that Old Arabic and the modern dialects singular object deal in common, in the following three paradigms of confinns «« of S y the ™ai"'™- word 'house'. The first h„„ faT^k^TT ""^ Pronouns are given, attached to or modifying the case), the second the set of column in (5) is Classical Arabic (in nominative basis of the modern Pronominal object suffixes as reconstructed on the namely East African Nubi dialects (see Ch. 8), and the third Creole Arabic,
(Wellens 2003: 52). 24 Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets 25
(5) Nubi and varieties of Arabic considerably more complex than Classical Arabic. Two examples from phon- Classical reconstructed Nubi ology and two from morphology make this clear. Arabic Pre-diasporic Phonology. In fact, Ferguson is very circumspect about offering generaliza- 1 bayt-iy beet-i* be ta'yi 'my house' tions about differences between H and L phonology, giving no broad sub- 2M bayt-u-ka beet-ka* or beet-k* be 'taki 'your(.M) stantive differences. Discussing grammatical structure (i.e. syntax and house' morphology, 1959a: 333), Ferguson does suggest that an L variety will be 2F bayt-u-ki beet-ki* etc. simpler than the H. Extending the idea of simplification to phonology, as 3M bayt-u-hu beet-hit be 'to far as Classical Arabic and the dialects go, there are clear instances where the (< ta uwo 'of him') dialects are more complicated, for instance in having more of certain types of 3F bayt-u-haa beet-ha* phonemes or of having more syllable structure rules. which in Stand- Whereas the reconstruction based Classical Arabic has four emphatic (phonemic) consonants on the modern dialects yields forms nearly Allophonic variants identic^ to Standard Arabic, ard Arabic are conventionally represented as s, t, d, and 3. the Nubi forms are entirely different 16 has lost 3 due its loss of C t0 th£ °StUlati0n are excluded from the count. Nigerian Arabic P of a Pa^igm similar to Standard , I, r, and a! w f eStmcturin interdental fricatives, but it has in addition to s, t, and d phonemic m 8 instrumental in a purported transition from ™Old rjto A [ as well. Neo-Arabic one would expect a development along the lines thC SUffiX f0mS Were l0st «*°8«lJ. I* the (6) gallab 'he galloped' M F ITT "I * °f * * «* endin s in the gallab 'he got angry' Urn d ,T °t ^ ^ & °—d «"»** to karra 'he tore' "dfcTchange ^^ * ^^ * «" karra 'he dragged' amm 'uncle' 1.6.5. Dia/ecfs are mistakes, not languages amm 'mother' This point was mentioned in 1 3 and need ™t k 1 u complex than is ra,ed "S Nigerian Arabic with six phonemic emphatics is thus more h UPO"' -** < for'a — "- iv like Nigerian Arabic in having a X™ :l^t° Classical Arabic. Many other dialects are larger set of emphatics than does Classical Arabic. ui.6. 77,, „ . %rf,, „,„„ „mp,„ ^ a rule which inserts an mriay ^ ^ Nigerian Arabic, again like many other dialects, has 'red' *?ahmar. This /a/after a guttural consonant ([?, h, x, q], e.g. ahamar < nile is lacking in Classical Arabic.
16 variants of certain conson- In the Koranic reading tradition in particular one finds allophonic tradition, tor Sh ants, systematized in the later reading °°t fClaSSiCalArabk especially emphatic [r] and [1]. These are clearly attempts to ' /a/or /u/ indicate way! fa ^g"^ instance emphatic allophones occur before an wHcn H f r in Dani's (d. 444/1053) Taysiyr (51-3), where the occur), and both consonant the [1] must phonological* as in al-salaah 'prayer' (Warsh variant, where after an emphatic or muraUata variants J^^S^^I^r-^ Hadar-a (al-mawt) death). These are termed mufaxxama guage. Leaving aside 'precaution' (against Ferguson's 1* terms Classical Arabic holds (it at asTump'ions Ferguson's is phoneme of what he Arab,c, m ^developmentt argument (1956) that emphatic 1 a on a ^of issue in the Old strictly investigate the typological basis tlTT aU) only for what he termed modern Classical Arabic. He does not ' 1 Old Arabic false. Ferguson, t0 Arabic of allophonic emphatics in the like"thTmaJ^ ^ * * literature. It can be suspected that the existence 2 ^ phonemes. Using tne his S^r*{ literature these same sounds as contrasts point by ab°Ve) cements probably masks the existence of comparing Classic^ ^ emphatic and LrJ AraWr reconstruct IJj T*' arguments developed elsewhere in this book, one could certainly Arabic has Ci here. It should interdental' ™^ I will not undertake fi^T^S^ Phonemes into pre-diasporic Arabic, an exercise which, however, mrene f^Arablc for instance, lb], in], f^la Arabic, However, cks- be Nigerian as soon a < «™ noted that dialects too, have further emphatic allophones. In he tied or 1 and emphatics, as in rab^f ** *e of other sounds emphaticize in the neighborhood of other <— «*, with Old Arabic goes, P-^-SL^.'J^S*ciear comparison that nbanna the current the ,^dialects "we tied' (with cf assimilation) so that as far as are in many respects Ae variants than Old Arabic. dialects, in terms of simple number, will have more emphatic *
26 Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets 27
Morphology. Old Arabic has a single common form for the iSG independ- From this brief, very far from exhaustive exemplification of the realization of ent pronoun, Panaa T. In certain Tihama (coastal) Yemeni dialects, the on pre-verbal tense/aspect/mode markers in Arabic dialects it is clear other hand, that a the first person singular independent pronoun distinguishes a holistic, pan-dialectal description of the formal M and F form properties of these markers (Behnstedt 1985: 31): alone is considerably more complicated than that of Old Arabic. Ferguson's (7) anal.M suggestion that 'the grammatical structure of any given L variety is simpler ani I.F. than that of its corresponding H' simply does not withstand even a casual perusal of the literature on modern dialect phonology and morphology (see 3' 3 Sin8k prefix which can be Prefixed before the imperfect verb, also classical namely A , Belnap and Gee 1994: 146, on simplification of the language). Zi^uthe future marker sa-: I would caution that the observations here do not automatically lead to a (8) yaktubu, 'he writes' historical account of their origin or their priority of origin. In fact, Ferguson's sa-yaktubu 'he will write'. does not either. He simply assumed that the dialects were 'younger' and a prioristically linked this assumption to the weakly illustrated assertion * **"* m Cairene nu^ber^Tnumber ^ic there are a that dialects developed in the direction of simplification. of pre-verbal^uT"tense/aspect^ prefixes.
(9) yiktib 'he should write' 1.6.7. Beware ofsimple dichotomies; a nice label is not necessarily a nice concept bi-yiktib 'he writes' There are four or five dichotomies which are invoked to characterize varieties Ha-yiktib 'he will write' of Arabic, expressed variously in dialectal, sociolectal, structural, or historical
terms. The most pernicious in my view is the Old Arabic-Neo-Arabic split,
which is the subject of the next chapter. Others include bedouin-sedentary, 19 urban-rural, eastern Arabic vs. western Arabic, and synthetic vs. analytic
(see sect. 3.4.3). Each of these labels deserves separate critical attention, which
is outside the scope of this book (see sects. 3.5.3. and 1.6.6 above on the yan Aralnc marks future, has a Prefix bi- which question of complication, simplification, and analyticity). I would, however,
(10) bi-yim/f make three brief critical points. 'he will go'. dichoto- First, in the contemporary world it is relatively rare to find neat In Nigeria Arabic the found they are distribution of the nr.fi u mies such as an urban-rural split, and when they are interaction P ls complicated by an of phonolopiral ™a . , ^ northeastern Nigeria geographically limited. Arabic is spoken from Borno in <— . prefa * -* — to identify an urban vs. a »«itc£:cs* the Red Sea, for instance, and one is hard put to (n) rural equivalent to that from the 'M-fanb 'you write' variety in the entire region, a distance Mississippi bedouin lifestyle in Iraq will b-u-ktub 'he writes'. River of the US to the east coast. A in Chad be associated with a very different dialect from a bedouin lifestyle 641 WC°ntr01 or Cameroon. * dtuml^cl™ ""^ ** P** fr- is disallowed under
(12) ««/ib«fc 'I said, he should write' 19 and eastern dialects for PUT **'-* Cowan's (i960: 4) division of Arabic dialects into western by proto- essentially good idea can be undermined Arabic reconstruction is a good example of how an 17 principle an equal say old Arabic a prioristic in allowing the dialects in has a three-wavww™, c dichotomies. My own work follows Cowan examples in this book show, >n proto-Arabic reconstruction along with Old Arabic sources. As many however, directly to pre-diasponc Arabic much historical phenomena in Arabic is reconstructible difference runs the risk ot Mandating an intermediary historical stage based on the east-west divisions as they developed in the obscuring deeper historical relationships, which antedate dialect Post-diasporic era. 28 Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets 29
Secondly, once the dichotomies are in place, they tend to become hinges western Sudanic region), not to mention many of the historical issues dealt upon which more is hung than they can hold. I have argued this point recently with in this book. in relation to the east-west dialect dichotomy (Owens 2003). The east-west dialect split divides the Arabic dialectal world roughly at a boundary in 1.6.8. Peripheral dialects are not on an a priori basis irrelevant to language western Egypt or eastern Libya.*" One of the main traits sanctioning the interpretation division is the expression of the 1PL imperfect verb. This is assumed in Fischer (i995). In comparative linguistics, as well as
(13a) nu-ktub : eastern 'we write' historical cultural studies, it is a standard precept that innovations move in
(13b) nu-ktub-u: western 'we write' waves and that it follows from this that older variants will frequently be found
in peripheral areas, as innovations take hold in the center (see Holes i99i for All of North Africa, as well as Andalusia has (13b), while all of Asiatic Arabic one application of this approach). In Chs. 3, 5, 6, and 7, features will be has 13a). The problem comes with Egypt, which has both (13a) and (13b). To discussed which are found in dialects outside the Arabian peninsula, certainly explain the status of ( 13b) in many Egyptian dialects, scholars have trad- peripheral by any traditional sense of the term, which point to forms which itionaUy resorted to a historical explanation: since North African Arabic has must be reconstructed in pre-diasporic Arabic. (13b), any Egyptian dialects with b) ( 13 must have been influenced by migra- ftom North Africa (Woidich tes 1993 : 354; Versteegh 1997 : l62 ; Behnstedt i.6. 9 . A truism which is indeed true: languages can be surprisingly conservative W8. 87). The problem with this explanation, however, is that no such in many respects paus.blemigrat.ons are attested, particularly when the following consider- ate ,s brought Consider the following two verb paradigms, one from Nigeria, the other from mto the equation. Western ( 13b) is also found throughout Iraq. S mi8rati°n th3t br°Ught ° (l3b) t0 EgyP1 must have been «Trearly enoughK 7 around .500, for the form 21 to be able also to spread into Chad. (14) Iraqi Nigerian Arabic (imperfect) e MVe 1 °f ** Pr°blem COnsiderin both SG ' com- Para, veT, ? JT^*" g hiSt°rkal S°UrCeS kads to the «ndurion that 1 a-qbur T bury' a-ktub T write', etc. fnb in f ^T "* *"* l° North fr there. 2M ta-qbur ta-ktub Th overaH **« ™ ^ 'f^Str d herC " tHat What Was ori simple 2F ta-qbur-i ta-ktub-i diJlZflil 7 I T ^y * ! St3tUS °f °" *? hiSt0rical explanation: 3M i-qbur i-ktub No^S^ Cm %^ * Afikm not <**? aTialectolo- 3F ta-qbur ta-ktub gkaltnst but ^ * w^r JUStlfiCatl^°n bCCOmeS SSonel^ ^ "*» * * historical PL i ni-qbur na-ktub beC°me S ° «*** that convey a fal^t ^^0^ "T ^ 2M ta-qbur-aa ta-ktub-u Unde taDdin of ^ 8 A»bk. Classify a dialect as Mo*Zt£™™Z . 2F ta-qbur-aa ta-ktub-an C $ 7 if and as " *** ™™~ hlv^rela Z Tf ^^ ** ™ 3M i-qbur-uu i-ktub-u about manv lM~^ have nothing to say a peTof A^h T T 3F i-qbur-aa i-ktub-an of mixed X^^^^^.^^-^thed^dU- To if one were to say that mamtenance spread those not familiar with comparative Semitics, I think originally rural ' or loss of varieties to „* Arabic, the Ae paradigms represent an Iraqi variety and a variety of Nigerian **>. language "°* »** modern Arabic ^c^Zl^ reader would probably try to locate the Iraqi variety in a non-Arab ^^^-tion of speakers mto a ^ pop^npopulation (attestedfj Tl dialect. paradigm comes from the year m many parts of the In fact, whereas the Nigerian Arabic at all, but rather is 2005, the Iraqi paradigm is not a variety of Arabic Cal COnCept ignored *« ***** " problematic, * foMhT^f though this point may be tJS? 21 context (see (n), (12) above This illustrates the paradigm in what was termed the 'non-control' *nd n. 18). In this context the prefix b- does not occur. 3Q Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets 31
Akkadian, from approximately 2500 bc Nonetheless, the paradigms are Chapters 3 and 4 consider in detail the status of short case vowels in Old virtually identical in all respects: they have the same dimensions of morpho- Arabic. These have been the criterion par excellence taken to symbolize the logical contrast, the morphemes are nearly of identical form, and their dichotomy between Old and Neo-Arabic, Neo-Arabic being identified as the sequence is the same, with a pre-verb stem prefix plus a suffix in the plural variety which has lost the vowels. It will be argued on the basis of old sources, and second person feminine singular. Of course, there is a major difference in the Arabic grammarians and the Koranic reading tradition, that a good the meaning of the paradigms: in Akkadian the paradigm realizes a past tense argument can be made for there having been two varieties of proto-Arabic, (preterite) whereas in Nigerian Arabic it is an imperfect. Nonetheless, given one with short case vowels, one without. It is suggested that the variety the 4,500 years intervening between the two, it safely may be said that they without is the older. °ri8in 3nd that 3S far as the ' form g°e*. they have not The remaining chapters change the perspective from a primary focus on changed."K LTMeasured against such remarkable paradigm stability-there is Old Arabic, first to one in which the modern dialects are the main center of nowhere in language history where members of the same family can be attention, and then to one in which Old Arabic and the modern dialects are e r SUCh 3 bng Peri°d f time ° as ** the S<™itic family-the given prerequisite for any Zr f r equal weight. This, it was suggested above, is a PreSent WOrk ** difoences between Old Arabic and the history ofArabic based on the comparative method, since a proto-form has to rnXmodernt?dialects are , relatively minor is rendered added plausibility. be able to 'explain' the development of its daughters. A mere labeling of elements as 'old' and 'new' explains nothing. 1-7- Summary of Chapters In Ch. 5 I argue for the importance of post-diasporic Arabic in interpreting
Arabic language history. This is the spoken Arabic which spread in the wake of Arab-Islamic expansion which began in the seventh century. Four varieties of Arabic outside of the Arabic peninsula are compared. Two are large dialect gather the remaining are single together and .h,™ >u treatments areas, Mesopotamian and western Sudanic Arabic, while two f °™> «*«*>«*« a ^re- varieties, Shukriyya Arabic of the Sudan and Uzbekistan Arabic. It is argued «^tc££^^t ^ an °VeraU d lation * evelopment of argumen- on the of forty-nine phonological and mor- Nonetheli ?h ° ^ basis of a statistical treatment nglnal 0rmat «f dividual pe k th^ult articles will probably phological features that similarities between far-flung varieties, western Suda- 2e^m iUed repetltion or in a ra id That L«?S£. " P shift * subi-" nic and Uzbekistan for instance, are indicative of pre-diasporic unities. linguistic is, post-diasporic varieties allow reconstruction of pre-diasporic i chapters - in ch - b features. followed in Ch 6, where the development - This perspective is co^;;x^:x=L^f - * same lnized fi a contemporary historical > «* * terms of of the on the basis of overview of their ZL^^"^f basic imperfect verb is reconstructed terms in of their validity ^^ ***** SCCOn dialectal data. in " ^ "eTn^ tf c will be argued * dialects, establishing that sits of ^^^^^ Whereas Chs. 5 and 6 concentrate mainly on modern ^^^17^Characte dichotomy n the Old vs. New history of the are of questionab^^ ™ S that they are a legitimate mechanism for reading the linguistic C° intellectual mParatlve ^torical terms. The and and to a historical bacbrol U T past even with minimal help from older sources, in Chs. 7 8, wul be suggested, * degree contemporary dialects to their as ^^ in Ch. 6, I relate forms found in the ept f * ^^ d^^SST°ld vs .° before comparative - Neo-Arabic was introduced of the phenom- historical H L realizations in Chapter is a detailed treatment ""^tics became Old Arabic. 7 rigorous established in the West as a the long vowel discipline. enon of Pimaala (= imala), the conditioned variant [ie] of phonetic and [aa]. It will be seen that there are striking identities, both Sibawaih's description from fMkadim Phonological, in the realization of Pimaala in r sWfted » c **«** °^W the well as in Andalusian W^^^s^:h * late eighth three modern dialects, as £T^ form century k" and m A ^itious and N,man -»»g coiSe W i" ^ ***** nET' ^ r linguistic wh£re ^ S Arabic. to work out a comparative ^ ^ pteL These similarities are used Z^^Sgg*^^ of a reconstruction history of the phenomenon. Finally, Ch. 8 begins with 32 Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets Introduction: A Language and Its Secrets 33 pronominal object suffixes solely on the basis of a sample of forty-nine One implication the rn of approach advocated here is that our understanding dern d.dect, The results of this reconstruction are then correlated with of Arabic language history is set for a period of uncertainty. Atomization matCnal f°Und ld ° Arabk is first sh that precedes Jon tZ " - " °™ the synthesis. Analyses which may be equally plausible, but mutually t0 Cl3imS S°me> *"» n° evidence for tnu» of contradictory should be welcomed as pointing towards areas of future Teal suffix' T*Z ^ 3rgUed th3t the ' " constructions based on the research. can^S? I! $ "" rea "^ ^ ^rpretable as continuations of or developmentsdevToTJJ 7 ^ tfrom forms attested in the Old Arabic literature f°Ur Cha com!Xl^T *«** ^ PterS is to greatly narrow the
8 argUment directions. On ** W°rks in «» the one hand t f 7 featUres which have Popularly been ascribed to the Za a T eXdUSi° h" n °f 0U are sho t0 analogue oftenTde^t ^ ^ ™ the the ld Arabic literatu °n other hand tven 1, ^T^ " ° - "0t literature "^ "* attested in the Old Arabic cant rel! !? ""? sect. ,, above ^'^^ Arabic, which, as seen in ch onT n the pre-dX; °ld The Arabic f c et^hCAT^^ ^ ° dia-sporic '" °f SeCt ab°Ve and re " Arabic ag^inln SJ ^ " P SCCt la variable ' * emerges as a richer, more object than the OIH a* u"^^ Arab,C Ne°-Arabicd > think ichotomy implies. « appoplt^ t , : lntr°dUCt0ry A ma,or aim ofZ " ** a caveat - btk isTo ^ Arabic. LmguistichisCiswnlTnTmT"118 ab°Ut the °f case ^ histories. individual I have ^^^™ chosen a number ZtCZv time central to * *K at ne and the same the Arabic lane a ° lndlcative not explicable of phenomena are within reienin* r which elusions " which follow "*»* Con fern C^Tf^ ^"^ mdividual features, °" *** interPretation of many comprised often f of arCUmstantial a language so evidence. The history large, so lone art!*/!! Arabic 3 rfch is not readily ""^ of sources as is reducible i ^ to a rfm that mter this book is Pretation. From not a comprehend u this it follows one 7 perspective for * "* II offerS a historic/iSL^** ^^^^ Furthermore, I deliberately esrhew a- era! dlSCUSSion nature, for of certain questions instance the^tarT of gen- d-giossia a Pre' Islamic or the social, koine or early Arabic political and a , gence of a standard Classical ""^Pinning, of the emer- Arab" ir!T!h ^f Th.s is not ninth because the ^^ tenth centuries. issues are nn ^ these sociolinguistic 9?"™' but rather questions dialectology established that non-normative forms of speech were as legitimate an object of study as a standard language (see e.g. Knoop 1982). An under- standing of historical linguistics and dialectology grew coterminously with the definition of historical relations among the Indo-European languages, or the Old Arabic, Neo-Arabic, study of geographical variation within individual languages. The problem with and Arabic, as will be seen, is that the historical relation among varieties of Arabic Comparative Linguistics was basically fixed by the mid-nineteenth century, and thereafter impervious, if not oblivious, to reinterpretation, up to the present day. 1 The notion of language history in linguistics2 did lead in the nineteenth century to the postulation of language families other than Indo-European, including the Semitic family (Hecker 1982: 6). Language families assume a 2.1. A Method vs. a Logical Matrix genetic relationship among all members, classically represented in a family iStk °f A™WC iS chaUen tree application of the mal^f ^^ 8ing ^ two special ways which model. Genetic relationship is confirmed especially via m PCCt amM UniqUe amon comparative method, which above all uses retentions and shared innovations > S the ™*T» languages. Th7eThese challengesrhr' r ? have had both positive, 3 this book and I will argue, negative conse- to establish subfamilies (Harrison 2003: 232-9). It is assumed in quences 8 for understanding the history of the language that a historical linguistic treatment of a language or group of languages e *** is one in ** of ** *" Images Ae worldt T1 °l3 ^T^ UngUiStk deSCripti " °n exists which is as old as , ^uTSi^ rdl 1 subject too far 0U though takes the XtS f the kn e This remark deserves a chapter in itself rather than a footnote, ° - This literature goes back o the e ^ afield for Arabic linguistics outside comparative Ih* ™ domain of ? ? inclusion in the main text. In another general grammar, European Arabicist scholarship was also largely cut off from newer developments in recognized for its linguistics. In its interpretation of the Arabic grammatical tradition, which today is European scholars at the theoretical coherency (see e.g. the collection of articles in Auroux et al. 2001), criticism was an implicit turn of the of it. The basis of their °f nineteenth century were disparaging *~ assumption universalistic claims of classical Greek t^SS^T*"*^ ^ - ^^ W the Arabic of European cultural superiority founded in the logical principles. learning. The Arabic grammatical tradition was particularistic and not based on fait que la grammaire Merx (1891: 16) reprimands the Arabic grammarians because 'ils ignoraient le repose perspective, dismissed the Arabic sur la logique'. Weil (1915: 383), anachronistically from today's halfof nin tradition der grammatischen Theorie" (my italics). and of itself of ^ eteenth century. In because its strength lay 'nur in der Entwicklung course thk k 1 in °° Weil further tradition which was interested in language 8 d ° maintained that it was only the European Wstory of ** H WeVer **** Arabic Arii " > ^ general antagonistic attitude towards the C*Xr the ('Sprache im allgemeinen', 385). This basically general interest and devd°p- Indo-Europearusts. The ^Zf^ ^Zl^Z?!T: linguistic tradition again contrasts dramatically with the then contemporary T comparative Indo-Europeanists as independent *** *** " great, early figures in American linguistics for instance were often intellect^ ^ ^P^ were well ^ of whom Tof etd well. both Bloomfield, ! S Two significant examples are Dwight Whitney and Leonard ; teenth century. one of the founders ot 1 i T^^^*™^™*™^^^*** versed, inter aha, linguistic tradition. Bloomfield, in the classical Sanskrit formulating Theorie), ^ Mo-European (Stammbaum- modern his debt to this tradition in fcrL^^^J^ structural linguistics, in particular, openly expressed in this footnote, his own ideas The general point developed year before Fleischer Sdddd in one of language structure (see Rogers 1987). (eTLc, « *» Western Arabicist tradition ^ which complements current chapter, is that the early 2^^ the argument of the Arabic'. introduc«l the Historical . > idea of a 'holistic was lineuistirT^ relatively distant from developments in general linguistics. logical 2 is much older (rf e.g. toe rigor, Of genetically related . a££££ ^^ * "» ^^ course, the idea that languages can be in some way $ Hirschield 1926). JSK"atermtheworkof^ tenth-century Qureysh on Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic, Osthoffand Brugmann *eneogrammarians Hebrew grammarian, Ibn (~ ^„T incorporation into language structure, Language history as a linguistic idea requires a methodological fnJced to °f linguistics was *" P"-'"'*"* and this when comparative daughte^^V^lSr' * was systematized essentially in the nineteenth century ^ 2001; Einhauser logical change, arti developed. Germany (see e.g. Jankowsky was made ^^ P <^ Ph<™- The focus of this intellectual activity was eve^ore nr witnessed the presence ot both described ** "eW formation »»). Not infrequently one and the same university (e.g. Leipzig) Indo-Europeanopean Un.! u from newly languages Semiticists/Arabicists scholars. became available. and Indo-European ., , , , „f . During this same era. 3 terms was an idea far aheadot The postulation of genetic relationship in chronological atea comparative method. Ibn Qureysh, m methodology to work out comparative details, i.e. the u . 36 Old Arabic and Comparative Linguistics Old Arabic and Comparative Linguistics 37 requires both a clear statement of genetic relationship and at least the attempt the comparative method. Once it is assumed that languages develop, the old/ to apply the comparative method. 4 (middle)/new motif follows logically. One stage must be older than another. The idea of language history provides a powerful metaphor, which can However, in comparative linguistic terms, this is what may be termed a assume a life independent of the comparative method on which it is based. pre-theoretical logical matrix in that it may be expected to exist for any Given a corpus of texts from different periods, very often clear 'developments' language, but so long as the stages lack specific linguistic content it has no can be discerned: Modern English derives from Middle English which derives substance. The logical matrix remains untested until it is filled in by plausible from Old English; New Egyptian from Middle from Old Egyptian. From a substance. It may happen, for instance, that over a long period of time little comparatively well-documented language such as English it is known that or no linguistic periodization is possible. anguage penodization proceeds fitfully, as it were. There are periods when a I would suggest that an untested logical matrix was applied to Arabic early language undergoes relatively little change from generation to generation, and in the European study of the language in the nineteenth century and that this oAers when a change can be rapid. In the period ad 800-2000, which covers reading of Arabic linguistic history has continued to inform its conceptual- onol°Sical ^e span as 6 century European I I t^.f that discussed in this ization into the present. As early as the mid-nineteenth ZZT Changed *?* ^ conside-bly, from Old English via scholars dichotomized Arabic into Old Arabic and Neo-Arabic. The latter are mX En'l hf m En8Hsh - By C°mraSt a 7 1° > rdated G 4uage, the modern Arabic dialects. faSic hi !IT , ™< 1 "16 m th£ S3me eriod 5 counts, 7 P - L-guage history ifthus The dichotomization of Arabic into Old and New is faulty on two m^tl P "J A langUagC as history. Secondly, once it o «**• characterizeTby a set however. First, it mistakes chronology for linguistic 1 \sttr T'Tf °r a Sh°rt Peri°d f linguistic stages of ° ch—logical time'or for was in place, it provided a framework for defining different a 1 t ? 0^077' S£ faCt0FS b°th lin - sects. 1.6.1, 1.6.7). ' uistic and extra Arabic on the basis partial differences only (see linZstkl.ngu.st.c, mfluencinginflln f ^ ' 8 of li„guiStlc stabilitv> are ^ object rf in this chapter. Arabic has in a ^ ^ ^^ ^ These points will be argued in five parts language (see sense two histories, one the literary language, one the 'holistic' an 0Ptimal SitUati°n is a When a Wuage is attested over «Su^^ t is fairly close to its - spoken form routinely i-SZ^ZZZ?^*" 6 As evidenced works on Arabic (e.g. Versteegh 1997: 47. 93) in the fact that textbook-like Can be the Old Arabic and contemporary ^ -constructed, assume Holes (1995: 30-1) speaks of an at ^ the Old-New dichotomy without discussion. J^TTr^ wtule ° Middle modern dialects. Ferrando (2001: 137), the comparaTive "?* n —Action via Arabic, with a direct line of development to the m hod anH/ ^ artl">lar'v the dichotomy, giving a good overview of different ideas surrounding the Old-New P The history of Arabic roots in a period when Old question, as it whether Neo-Arabic has its and the has been formulated, of this^^^^rc^zr™^-' Americas is distinction as a grounded basis. reconstructed on also of the existed (e.g. Spitaler 1953; see 2.4.2 below). The legitimacy linguistic e concept, however, is not questioned. , °ld tradition can be discerned in middle/neW The pervasiveness of the Old-New dichotomy in the Western Arabicist s^soZ <<* -°dem) can assume the paragraph (Versteegh tor Za^Zexpectation * / a survey of those cited in the previous rather than representative national writers. Besides an empirical tor object to be via Fleisch (1974:13) or Cohen (1972) established Holland, Ferrando for Spain, Holes for England), one can note contributions are treated France, (e.g. Ferguson) while the German, Israeli (e.g. Blau), and American in the western in greater distinction is so entrenched 1 r ati0nshi detail in the present chapter. Indeed, the P b three s.tuat.on, all , «^ Semitic languages, the pre-Islamic ^"t^^^^S^^JTlform. !| tradition that matter how they describe W„hou, ** Cuvalay (1997: 6) writes, 'No a comparative ' *?"** ta occurrence ot arge- memol no r ^^ «* ""W* theories dialects acknowledge the h °ton ,' of the development of the MA (modern Arabic] * Complemented S^'" U P0SSible' which started by other the Arabian peninsula, method , *ale linguistic of Arabic beyond Panson. changes as a result of the spread Of course, intenal perspective of the curren J has now ^ -construction and mass com- with the The problem from the anguages ti X^5^ Islamic conquests in me f> century A.D.' (Durie and method comparative historical Ross , does not many work does not have a 996) and J™*. work for is that the consensus (PijmaaV.) which Cuvalay describes •9961 Before its ^T^ re.evance can be * *" <*" °f «*«» linguistic dismis^ ^ basis. , . ^^ c , „,.. [Z^X*e mg "native of 1fe Summarizes method must first applied. ' European Arabicists ™™ Icelandic be out, • coin !^ thus- Moreover, as Pierre Larcher (p.c. June 2004) points S Or ne^peut nen European languages. century were strongly models of development in 4 influenced by ( ' 96l;pv) "* recente les °™nt °* - ^larly, '" measure mark time for a jusqu'au date ^ Kuster!(foov/ \ ^ comprendre du si on oublie que paHnartThas ^ l'orientalisme europeen, remamed the European language,^ same as ''^^ models from in ^"^ for *e est tous fait ako inspired by ^ du latin e, du grec.' The logical matrix was ^tSZ^^ oUoqui^ m ** SUb Unctive ,« concerning the so-«dld ' in ? Celling of Goldziher standpoint I ^d *fe£ "^ « ™* (i correct sufce, ^^ i : l 'The -fees to'T"the PPaXnl ^ 877 994 ,o) he d that lndicative foms ^W the reduction of most Arabic language, ,ust as Latm subjunctive plural of the (j) ^ er on f 'anguage is that level in the development ^ me middle voice it represents a later distinctions.' preceded the Romance languages.' Old 3« Arabic and Comparative Linguistics Old Arabic and Comparative Linguistics 39 2.2.2). In sect. 2.2.1, 1 begin the discussion of periodization of Arabic on the It is the following four elements which Fischer (1982b: 37-45) defined as the basis of the literary language. The literary language is attested, inter alia, in the sources for Classical Arabic. dC hI 8U,St1C exts of the AnWc f ! grammarians. A closer look at these texts wdl reveal, 1 i how difficult it is to (1) Sources for Classical Arabic achieve a periodization of the language even on he baSls of the closed corpus of written Quran descriptions. At the end of sect. 2.2, 2 ' 3 mine 3ttempt by poetry ' ^ Mabkists to ^corporate the spoken Zel i [? conce early Paadaab literature8 Ptualization of the language, iSsoand beginning about T/ 8 In p' grammatical treatises 24, ^ most serious a«em to define ^ Toll oTd ? r d, rNe°- Arabk> in HnSuistk terms is examined in Using the Classical period as a pivot, Fischer on the one hand defines a post- dTail D ta Z^Tb ? dMeCtS md the characterized Sabkll ™ ™ detaUed descriptions of classical era, the literary language of, approximately, 900-1100, n indkate ** th3t mOSt Criteria r sed for mainly by stylistic and lexicographic differences with the classical era. On the S^TSIf! ''I ° P °P° other, he identifies a pre-classical Arabic, the period before the classical. While In "5 and I of the periodization—elements of ^ "^ 26 > b-% consider Fischer recognizes the non-discrete nature rwXhL wS , t"^ kh bCen CSEJ^T" ^ inV°ked to und™d A»Wc one period may also appear in another—the system creates a neat triadic C°nSidered which idfiSS'^f-^ ^ " Where ** -odern diglossic division comparable to the old, middle, new linearization matrix, in dWect era. In ^ * P"*** **> the Old Arabic language periodization replicates chronology. IcT 6 1 H ^ are Already here, however, there appear fundamental problems which to tion «* systematically developed. Sec peculiar Arabic sources which the system serves 2, is t£^^£,£* to the nature of the period, Fischer elucidate by its classification. Writing about the classical the culmination of the (1982b: 44) notes that Sibawaih's grammar marked den Abschluss der 22. Stages in Arabic development of a standard Classical Arabic ('markiert 9 same time, Ausbildung einer klassisch-arabischen Standardsprache'). At the than define the ***SCemed the for the characterization of pre-classical Arabic Fischer, rather internal !T^?^™ |° Old/New dichotomy, one Noldeke's (1897) variety in attributes, refers the reader to teenth-century *'' *" °ther t0 what the nine" terms of linguistic German sZlar fT^k f with unclassical- grammar of Classical Arabic. Noldeke's grammar is replete as a holistic Arabic "* "* bcl°w) COncdved °f (Gesammtarab^ Noldeke's important sources looking forms. It happens, however, that one of for instance (1897: 14) for his grammar is none other than Sibawaih. Noldeke 2.2.1. Literary Arabic 'I didn't hit him notes the 3MSG object pronoun-(u)h, e.g. lam Padrib-uh be in Sibawaih II: 3*3 8«> with the first, instead of-hu, alternative form discussed I as it is the «imnl * u ?adrib-hu, is an by P be a norm /* tWa Literar Arabic defined at one and the same time developed in the ™„ f y is (see discussion in sect. 8.9). Sibawaih cannot basis dghth pre-classical of a fixed and ninth centuri on the the and a key source for the canon of text" , « culmination of the classical period Poetry y *** "rfl and the early ^u Q "- Pre' and early Islamic ?aad Tn the data lettreS ' not a part of the linguistic 'treaty Stings of Ibn Uteratoe, for the It should be noted that the Paadaab literature was al-MuqafM example poetry from (d f* early QurPaan, from early •"*"*£ pre- fim grammarians. They used examples from the ™* and early * sources Mra" w>th the rWaab Islamic ^ > ^ Q informants, constructed examples. A problem poetrl^ u and from their own ^™ cas«i« commentary, themselves quite possibly-in some £ subject to a process of that much, if later versions, which evaluation and [ P not all of it, is available only in 1 Latham 1990 fageneral K° certa (see Bosworth 1989; d 7 raniC COm-ntators *" mty_Were edited according to later stylistic norms - 324/936) d (,g . chain » tbfc^L discussion). Of pre-ClLical-^aassical-post-Classical historical «"*™*£^ «w»8 Farra? course, a ' ^ (d . *« best these that condm of argues 20?/822) ^wn for individual constructions. Larcher, for instance (2003: 189) «^ Aese ZTk^T™*™' what"T""J™he terms pre ^ammaticd (d V7' and result clauses from Ju^bTcLe 7^ ) resPectively, so that Progressive simplification of verb forms in the condition a *" beCBne aT u Arabic. ^ra^ *«*« element Classical Arabic (QurPaan, poetry) to Classical to post-Classical .. norm. in the establishment of termed here Old ' even in the era of what is Fischer properly allows for a historical development Arabic. See sect. 2.5 for a further type of modern matrix. 40 Old Arabic and Comparative Linguistic, Old Arabic and Comparative Linguistics 41 } aPPli£S t0 °ther 12 USed h ™*>* (1854/1968: ). This holistic Arabic could be divided into three stages, Old HeZtes fo e ^ r 155 £Z US exce tio — P ^ constructions found in the different Koral rtZlS 7° . Arabic, Middle Arabic, and Neo-Arabic (Altarabisch, Mittelarabisch, Neuar- readin§S h°WeVer are ' a«e at the ^S^Xi^! Tu > «^ ^' abisch). Importantly, these three stages are definitional constructs. It would appear that Fleischer conceived of them in chronological terms. The first two a S°UrCe k Can " ' be »««1 that Fischer's i^^^t^U T J™ the same stages, Old Arabic and Middle Arabic, basically correspond to Farra (L that bite 388)> Wh 0bSerV£S Classical Arabic and post-Classical Arabic respectively. Old Arabic is the d uS S5"«SSf ^ J ^ ° *"*" SAa m d ll8/ and language the Arabic grammarians (Fleischer PASmash (d. P < ^) of the QurPaan, of poetry, and of 148/76 ^ use thp t^ ^'^ in Certain the In fact Wdeke hi 7 ^^ contexts - 1854: 154), while Middle Arabic is the literary language which emerged in early Islamic era in the lands outside the Arabian peninsula (ibid.: 155). Neo- """"^ CXCe of Classical ^ * Ptions to the "*« Arabic is not characterized explicitly, though clearly Fleischer understood this Arabic as he unH t , not * * t0 Fischer Nold does variety commit "^ > as the contemporary Arabic dialect. hin el on the ^ -al Arabic *?*" ** CXCePtionS t0 ClaS " The key element of the current exposition is that the logical matrix of Old whTch h^t d' 7 "^ or comparativeiy prior to Arabic, Middle Arabic, Neo-Arabic is imposed by fiat, rather than established ^^iiS^jrt^cI m uestion of the ™ S 1 requiring application on the practice. comparative basis of comparative linguistic method to ; Mature. question needs Lacking this, the My current critical introduction has a stringently linguistic basis. Under- to be left ODe "fS"*"** non -class contemporary with ee .w.t! ^ ical feature is older, standing the motivation and causes underlying Fleischer's initiative, is an hich or « h did nM 8M dass enterprise well outside the scope of the present book. This belongs properly to , , aj* Arabi ^ vvun ^tit;r„r noted, however, that rthis last observation the history of Arabic studies in the West. It may be the basis „f, . Pre-classical characterized by literary Arabic as Fleischer's incorporate the modern dialects into Fischer is talc model is in part an attempt to work. There are * Pending doser comparative the that Neo-Arabic enjoys a no large corpora Tl' ^ total fabric of Arabic. He notes, for instance, sources scholars (1885: cited i n (l P^^al Arabic. All serious status nor among many Western ) above 1^ T^^ either among Arab a" He in what S 13 dialects, he Fischer terms ibed^^ ^ ° chronologically 154). Citing work by the Finnish Arabicist Wallin on Najdi than is suggests that Arabic peninsular dialects may be closer to Old Arabic 2-2.2. Holistic 14 Arabic commonly thought, perhaps being a direct descendant of these (1885: 157)- A it be, at the pre-Classical hi 1854, Arabic dialectology was very much in its infancy, and may Arabic is ther^fr, i • as a which has been ?OSsMe entit risk of was using the term 'Neo-Arabic' established on cL* ^ * *°»8«i not one being generous, that Fleischer into applying logical BngUJstic terms heuristic, incorporation of the spoken dialects matrices to - The P^blem of a place-holder for the AiST*"* 15 language is * mUch to be determined. added to the mix &*** when the spoken Arabic studies, whose precise linguistic status was yet The stage for this was German set at 1 Arabicist S Fleischer 7* ^ •** The 12 Arabic lexicography which was ^^ Fleischer's to an article on suJSedThl^f ideas appear in the introduction lS 3 °hStiC being *""*? Arabic, it. modern dialects contributing nothing to • , „, 1 „„ »!,,„ 10 Classical language than Unless M texts as closer to the one assume* However, the fact remains that this early matrix is not linguistically based. With these examples of Fischer and Fleischer, the groundwork is laid for Moreover, m citing Wallin's work on Saudi Arabian dialects, Fleischer allows exemplifying the two main strands of Western interpretations of Arabic other, non-linguistic parameters to intrude into his interpretations. He sug- linguistic history. The first strand is an adherence to a strict chronological gests that urban Neo-Arabic (stddtisches Neuarabisch) is further removed historical line. Neo-Arabic is not new because it is characterized by certain from Old Arabic than are the Arabian dialects. From this observation it is innovations relative to Old Arabic, but simply because the dialects are clear that the Old Arabic - Neo-Arabic dichotomy is to be understood as a chronologically younger than Old Arabic. The second is an assumption that historical linguistic development which, presumably, may show greater or Classical Arabic as defined by the sources in (1) above is the historical esser degree of innovation in Neo-Arabic. No comparative linguistic basis for standard for all further varieties of Arabic, be they literary varieties or the this assumption is provided, however. Moreover, a further non-linguistic development of modern dialects. Both assumptions present fundamental parameter, the urban-bedouin division obtrudes effortlessly into Fleischer's impediments to a linguistic history of Arabic. n§ imp0Siti°n f ' ** ° 0ther loSical Prices onto an inter- pretation T.VJof ™ Arabic linguistic history (see sect, i 6 7) ' 3t WaUin S W°rk hisTedr" M^f Sh°ws ** Wallin himself judged 2.3. Arabic and the Dialects J dlde acC°rding « ^ its conformity or lack thereof to QasS a" b J In this section I introduce further interpretations of the history of Arabic. All g loSt ' a ears in the 'rather than //"' ^ * * PP text, of le t them assume an Old-New dichotomy, while one, as with Fleischer above, ***' 8) Le WaUin ' " Wtf the Najdi negative ^ adds a this section I exemplify ilTT f middle variety as well. I should note that in faaa ' >"** - The Na di ba verb raad want" ?** i - important them in a broader 7ZT 1 ramm types of interpretation without embedding ^ ^ 8 «ical [i.e. Classical Arabic] ZZJiZJpT ^ Arabicist intellectual history. ***' ** Stem Pab««> is to appear n!tead of 1™ ** ««* ?T\ aCCUSative '"^ context because case enSngsaTnotr ) 'the old ^contemporary , 2.3.1. SSff AMbB It be ^ Brockelmann: Old to New without discussion ation to Carl history of the reader- However- scholars in the hs cLSrss^t^t'^ss Brockelmann is one of the most respected commentary: t r a normative character Semitic studies, 1908 and 1913 (vols, i, ii), to this which his in can easilv he „„/ T , Grundrifl, published day Brock- languageTm!^^^ being a fundamental reference work in the field. In the Grundrifi °" ph°n°l : elmann, reflexes of grammatical Wallin offers a •triclh^SSt *** °^ (l8* 7) while extensively cataloguing the Neo-Arabic Q *« categories, status, other than their dialects, though j£ tfaT ^^/^ ^^ "* is virtually silent about their historical ^ ""* f (see does °™ Ch. language' ' 7 ) m the 'oldest Post-Classical Arabic term 'Neo-Arabic' (Neuarabisch) ( ^ emergence. The i is h f not form. Neo-Arabic modern bedouin. ** ** ° ** appear until p. 45, and then as an exemplification of a 'Old' and b7 Lr 'u^ W ? here a dialects chronological W PPears to be strictly assumed, not Earlier he notes that spoken In al w ^ defined or demonstrated. <** ^-5) Wallin in a rather are the nineteenth ^e^,^* confused" very poorly attested in the research literature before century (1908: 25). a is very much in " -eve^^ Brockelmann's silence on the emergence of Neo-Arabic keeping extensive listing with the classificatory character of the Grundrifi, the In the °f forms being its great strength. within Blaus genre from the various Semitic languages of Middle Arabic app^rs i e formal ,0 be responsible 01 fro Production reconstruction is a purely for introdudng * "> »* 'Arabiyya. Fleischer thus he explicitly states that for him M-ddje and Tnl^fI^ Heo-Arab.c, and bedouin concepts Ending Old vs. exercise, a real language (1908: (^^'^ reconstructed entities having no correlate in 4-5. to one another, 35). Furthermore, the Semitic languages are so similar presumably rather *« a geographically-based classification of the languages, ,n epm,he,ic ^ *»*. he tmas however *an one approach to summarizing - wail «» ^ -to* - based on shared innovation, is the best ^s^ the Semitic them observation that (1908: 6). This approach coincides with his Old 44 Arabic and Comparative Linguistics Old Arabic and Comparative Linguistics 45 languages have experienced a great deal of close contact, speakers of one degree of linguistic competence in Arabic, far too great to present it as an Semitic language often shifting to another. The remark, though interesting, instance of pidginization. In particular, the morphology is completely correct, remains an 1Solated aside, and in no way presages an interest in the effects of allowing for fariik-aat instead of furakaa?, and complex. Besides their correct language contact on language change. personal prefixes, the two weak verbs occur in their correct conjugation, and ° 19 8 dkh°t0my ld-New onltT *7 ^ ° ^hic is c™n™*d » an the noun fariik has two suffixes, plural -aat followed by a pronominal suffix. PnnCiP neCd °f a Com cZTS^ ^ " ^^ "nguistic basis. Dis- A universal mark of pidginization is a lack of morphological structure, as ratlVe UngUiStk devel °P^nt of his Neo-Arabic out of indeed has been attested in Arabic itself (Thomason and El-Gibali 1986; see OldZhOld Arabic isTTtherefore entirely absent from Brockelmann. Owens 1997: 132, on a short tenth- century text; Smart 1990 on Gulf Pidgin Arabic). Contrary to pidginization, it appears that one is dealing here with a 2.3-2. Fuck: Old to New, pre-diaspora to post-diaspora relatively sophisticated L2 variety, though of course the data is presented to us through the filter of Jahid's stereotypes, not meticulously recorded texts. °f 8reat emditi0n On the variety, non-native Arab " ' but other hand, Fiick identifies a class-based on ZtZl^U ^ 0ne which is based mainly lower and middle classes in the early Islamic empire striving assiduously to learn the Classical Arabic of the Arab upper class. They basically succeeded, failing only to learn the case endings. This caseless variety then became the At basis th same time *« a for Arabic urban dialects. an for the ^^sxs^ru er dass: This presentation is rather confusing and as a linguistic explanation middle ^ PP and a non-Arab lower and class (, o: ^^ 95 " transition from Old to Neo-Arabic, unsatisfying. On the one hand in the iC ana t0 same time a su^tS * ^ f°U°W °n °" hand he course of the diaspora an abysmal pidgin developed, but at the m?s^e s ^ ^ ;r Fuck's form of Arabic normal except for the loss of case endings. Given qUeStl° Both summaries nabk 3S n°ted reliance on written sources, little better can be expected. sources - °n literary (efpecT^an ^^ ' ^T are allowing for a better "" correct in to the sources, century), he quotstneS. ^ '"^W" from ** ™d-ninth their own way, at least true an CXam le discussion around (2) of theTanguale " P of ^ extreme pidginization characterization of L2 varieties as indicated in the ( : ^ 5) as a above. Fuck himself admits that 'the specifics of this development U) consequence are virtually unknown' '"^ "" ***** of the lack of contemporary material fi ^aPin-Ha Wa kamaa Fuck's historical St^ (1950: 5). Ultimately, as with Fleischer 100 years before him, the barest of linguistics rests on a logical matrix of Old vs. New, with only VVtBm * itS MadaKn and - ^H^« ^T "f T linguistic substance to justify the dichotomy. business partners by ^ to summarize in this ^^^ Before pausing worthwhile c^^^ moving to the next model, it is the influenced by Fuck, opinion of two linguists who, if indeed not directly °f ^extualization, the meaning developed ideas in his work. ^^X^^^?ammati which are prominent WeVer The Ferguson (1959 W- Ferguson y, ° ' ** *»*«"* shows a high first is the well-known koine hypothesis of argued or koimzation that in the early Islamic military camps a simplification °f In Fuck's version Arabic occurred which heralded in the modern dialects. **** (p fo d Fustat - »> - - -****. as Kufa and slk S?^~^ /ilSist'r, foso: 5) the military camps and early Islamic cities such which served as (Cairo) saw the development of a common bedouin variety, *e Ferguson took this same basis of what became known as Classical Arabic. social variety of Arabic koine, °f milieu for a common * ^ en h "" " impOSsib,e to gauge. Fiick thus to be the breeding ground "Ta^ZC°rdU,g ,0 ^ ^ ^ accost h C a °nCepti0n Fergusons ^Wcally °fhow ** amplified In a sense, funded ^Sl^ ***** looked, according to fourteen different parameters. ^talent few attempts to extensively is the first, and till today one of the ™ OW Arabic and Comparative Linguistics 47 have studied Standard Arabic as a second language will be familiar with; for instance, lam taquwliy-na 'you.F did not say', instead of taquwl-iy, with the U not comment on his suffix-rca wrongly maintained in the features in this wnrt • u individual jussive verbal form (Blau 1966: 269). In either case, Middle Arabic in these texts arises from a mixture of Standard Arabic and a spoken dialect and is adventitious upon these varieties (see ion , (i984fl)> in ^ pid - Larcher 2001; Versteegh 2005 for summaries and overviews). Indeed, Blau ^-^te^s^rSlm ~ lifkati recent ' P on of Arabic dialects. In a himself has tended to move Middle Arabic from the historical work (2004 K to the stylistic XT t0 Changed his ideas somewhat realm (1982), no longer viewing Middle Arabic as a variety emphasizing second iTn^.^ ^ ' independent of 8 19 source "** idg™-tion as the Classical Arabic/Arabic dialects. In his latest work (2002: 14) he writes that of the old to new^hS "^^ P 'Middle Arabic is the language of mediaeval Arabic texts in which classical, 2-3.3. post-classical, and often also pseudo-correct elements alter- B/flu: OW fo Neo-Arabic and AfcHfe f0 New nate quite freely.' It is primarily a style, not a historical stage. The progression Old to MirlrlU t„ xt W3S met above Pretation, in which MirMl. TV in Fleischer's inter- ' " Classical'. °f Fischer S ' P°St Fleischer ^ umls bttT"^ ^ ^^ 2.4. Neo-Arabic and the Neo-German school Middle "* demonstrate Arabic to Neo-i the transition from A After well over Arabic was dlfferent interpretation of Middle a hundred years of logical classification, an attempt was finally offered by Joshua m f^ and 198l> 1988 made to give linguistic content to the Old Arabic - New Arabic dichotomy. In careful ' 2002 Based extensive textual analvsk w u ^ on Personal that ch. 3 of the Handbuch der arabischen Dialekte a number of phonological and and business ^ *"* Were man documents, letters f y Arabic mStance morphological contrasts between the two are summarized. 20 This summary sources, ' md many Christian Jewish written in wh'tt' and follows in the tradition b, see sect. 2.3.1 above) and Cohen basically Classical Mm* Mabic in a of Ferguson (1959 matrix The £?** - ^^ wi«en 1 (1972), though object, the dialects. The many elements of modern Arabic the dialects rather than emerging in a sociolinguistic earliest is dated fT"* te koine, ostensibly linguistic end product, Neo- numerous, however, ° SeVenth centur They become have the status of a comparative only in th/t u 7- tation, Arabic. I summary, Blau '" °n the basis " will devote the bulk ofthis chapter to a critical review ofthis suggested that of his documen MiHH f""^ as tion from WaS the missin the very idea of Old vs. Neo-Arabic stands or falls as a linguistic concept on Old to Neo-Arabir g l"& in the transi- .T the contact between 8 '" *' early Islamic nature of the linguistic developments which are represented within it. Arabic and noTfu era as *e result of ^ewed S eake In all, features. Rather than as an P rs (1981). Blau's can be Fischer and Jastrow discuss about twenty empirical aPDK^ L thesis *nse review the features that given *#* matrix each in turn, I criticize the entire concept by grouping Old and - » » logical in the New 0n e^ empirical in in8 must into four types. representatives of each type will serve mat his be Middle as well. It is A detailed discussion of Middle islfi ; ? 3 to may be Subsequent work X COrpus of tex*- characterize the efficacy or lack thereof of the features. The features . indicated flf^f interpretation Middle characterized other than ^^ could be given an by the following four parameters. v zZcZlfV- -y early *"°rical documents ^d^^ one. It ernerged that both "ntury " Holes from the earliest text), °OSS (1995: 31) writes, 'it is possible to discern a clear line of development showed the 1995 ' on a seventeenth- sal ™ '/i^ wmten modern colloquials'. ^enfaUy, Arabic ephemera (cad through medieval Middle Arabic texts to the these from 800) deviations ^^ a sta*da'd norm, my demonstrated such an assumed "n * Jo knowledge, there is work which has .^erfoence be no detailed published from 3CC°rdin development; Middle Arabic as a stylistic by- the dialect to P^pective, as as noted here, the current consensus is rather to view n a ^7^'lea S **M. m ™ed Standard Product. Against what of Middle Arabic development, Versteegh (2005: 100I %/if5> Arabic (e.g. hada for tofa can be termed the linear view M 8 «>) warns vernacular speech of orasI us not to '[r]egard them [Middle Arabic texts] as true reflections of the ^ ' eanung " errors of a type all who *e writers, taken place in the spoken SeeKaye^fc but as "the tip of the iceberg" giving us a glimpse of what had ST***' earned There deal more analysis remains to be ° is in any case a general consensus that a great n er as< ?'' 8j~ iasa "^"ngs (2005- « "> (i959i>), 4 6°°d summary proposed °ut on positions. 24)ra l Cohenf,,? of Middle Arabic texts, which will shed further light on the two 20 A shorter chapter 'Das Neuarabische und seine 8 PUrp summary of the features is also found in Fischer's °rted °ld/new """^ "x®™** contrast the non-comparativist ^fekte' in reference work for Arabic the Grundriss (1982c). The Handbuch remains a standard dialectology 48 Old Arabic and Comparative Linguistuics O/d Arabic and Comparative Linguistics 49 i. The contrast characterizes some, but not all modern dialects. are categorically deleted, 'sirig'he was robbed' vs. 'sirig-aw—> 'sirg-aw 'they.M The 2. contrast characterizes some, but not all varieties of Old Arabic. were robbed' (Ingham 1994a: 27, 33). In various northern qultu dialects of 3- The data are incomplete. Iraq, Syria, and Anatolia, high vowels in open syllables are always deleted, 4- The contrast is valid, so far as our information goes. r'jeel 'men' (Sasse 1971: 92 on Mardin in Anatolia), unless they follow CC-, in I begin with the first. The most which case they are maintained (yaktab-uun 'they write'). is common, and most difficult problem in my The low vowel view is that what „ presented as an deleted only under certain conditions. In the reflexive (mutaawif) prefix of Old Arabic - Neo-Arabic dichotomy in S°me f verbs ° m°dem Arabic dialects stems V and VI, for example, it is deleted tqaatal 'fight with' < " *ers are identical bUTZ a U ^ *taqaatal). In pre-stress open syllables in adjectives In faCt takes but one count- nouns and /a/may be "^ > examnle ? h rf ?* ^^ * a raised, ure as an makeetib ' office' In other positions a is example for the holistic dichotomv 01d 'kept' 7°U where in all contexts ^^ ^ short vowels are Znl^ Table -stern 2.1. Basic vowel deletion in Arabic dialects Sudanic CicTcha^r ^^ ( « CL 6 for **»' in vowels Uuneroon northeast are kept in ' Nigeria) nearly all post-stress high V all conic* /a/ in open syllable pre-stress high V P°St" Stress sometimes vowels in open syllables (depending inter all ^ (ri'jaal °° C conson Highland + 'men', „•„# . antal context) deleted Yemen + -^ heard being + 'they Sm? Banariyya + + understood'). '° '^ heard', but 'fihim-o + Within nonn"T° 7 Western +/- vowels in StemS Sudanic Arabic + + stressed ' Na di ***** all short or pre streT ' keeps Najdi ddetin + + opensvUables.yfVuus'sitting' « onh/ those in post-stress Mardin _ "JJT"^;flaZ 1 +/- 8 men' * Vowels in — post-stress ooen svllables Central Morocco - " -* SO Old Arabic and Comparative linruiair. Old Arabic and Comparative Linguistics 51 " nM ^ '""•"'^ LdtIT' " P'-P"— open syllaWe posmon, 2.4.1. i vs. u, Am interpretive case study The in c question of short vowels provides a rich source of interpretive material. - ™» r y a .e"r "••»»* I will discuss "t fo d - one aspect of Fischer and Jastrow's proposed OA-NA contrast in r.r; /a/m Mardins T t^hides r a somewhat complicated situation „ .7 . Z I greater detail in order to illustrate the range of sources which can be brought A ruller representation wouTdnee^ to bear on the issue of relations between Old Arabic sources and modern SyM,le into a number of ™ C°nteXtS dialects. They observe finer categories ^^ (ibid. 43, sect. 3.5) that the opposition between i-u, the ^ n J^ WCVer rt is ' ' clear from this short representation short high vowels, is that the 2^^ only weakly represented in Neo-Arabic. This is undoubt- -brie be Sub under a single such —d edly correct, and as they a"^ bTc^ ^T ^ observe in many dialects there is no contrast very best (JS^^*^^.^*^*^** whatsoever, the two falling together in a common hi whose phonetic real- SCCt - between 2 4 ' 2) a contrast 'Old Arabic' ^ ' ization is determined and dII by consonantal context. For Moroccan Arabic, for ** draWn Moreover, as only for some dialects, will be seen J T instance, Heath (2002: 4-10) distinguishes three broad dialect areas. In the CCrtain implkational scale **" * * Point °« the southern are cL7"l7^ or Saharan dialect Old [i], [u], [a] merge in [a]. However, the short Similar instances "* °thers is Problematic, where F I ^ ^ vowels may be maintained in open syllables. For the northern type Heath does whole W a include the "^ part to s eak for me not foUowing P attempt a generalization relating to all vowels in all positions, though he does speak of extensive loss of short vowels, all his examples being short " the change vowels in ****** -* - in open syllables. The central type, which is also the basis of a broad ^M^^r mVariable Moroccan most "« < Sect koine, is similar to the northern type, except it appears that in qultu diTof M - ^ 1980: 3.4.3, Mp0l,,,, Uzbe many A^«ee M ^ ^an, western Sudanic positions an old short vowel is simply lost altogether, as in n-ktab Many ^^ I write' (southern na-ktab). of North African dialects • Old In many grammars Arabic words h aw „ k • «««/«,«, 8 * ' Ne°-Arabic e* ""»» there is only one short vowel, represented in most grammars as lal, whose 'who?', ' or antaTfa ' value is with *«« is found 44> SCCt - determined by phonetic context. This is the case for instance in ^^ 3 6) " However' many dialect. ^ Caubet dialects, Horan, {Bastaa Libya, some Yemeni (1993: 23) for Moroccan Arabic, 22 and Marcais (1956) for Djidjelli Bahariyya J?, i^v ^ some 3S is anta (Algeria) has determined. Omani dialects). ^ (Tihama in Yemen, only hi, whose value is again phonologically Indeed, phonologically a case might even be made that the short vowel in n°te (basic that ten some stem, 9 derived stem^T* ^ standard verb forms dialects is always determined by phonological rule, which would elim- "e ewenti ones (ibid. identical mate it 46- . % to their Old Arabic from the altogether at the abstract level (e.g. Owens 1980). 7) sea grammar 3T' " separate 0t form a basis There entities. for identifying two are two fundamental problems in Fischer and Jastrow's formulation °f the short vowel situation, however. First as in the other features discussed above, [i] and [u] in fact are maintained in various modern dialects. Secondly, Pischer opposition in Old and Jastrow imply that [i] and [u] were a stable Arabic. sources, This does not stand up under close examination of the old mi,li0nS many however. detail here. In - hundr Speakers Both these exemplified in greater *< Utt r^r« ;rSr', ^ofSo„^ T » ab*>'"" terms objections will be 2 -4.i.i, I case study discuss modern sources, including the results detailing a Arabic 5) ,°d his,orical ? *" **»** d in . 'erms «on, both WHoriciuS, 1 Such 7h fi conducted sources. in Nigerian Arabic. In sect. 2.4.1.2, 1 turn to the old W ( *ere Be basic forms fa *•> •*»*«« recent excep- fore helpful to sketch the SdTj*^ ^ Arabia De„"r « . proceeding to this discussion it may be eg F*htt d H°leS WatSOn ™<= Bs - I-tro^ ue with the (3a) represents Fischer *^«*S^\ ~:„e i ^ ^ foUowing developmental trees. Example « «*U enough ,0ry r^uires ^^ Whether *<* have a estab&h^T «i«W -, " comS* "*» defining 8 the ""^ '" "^ '^ons' a SS^" """^ffi* ^ ^ 2 however, apparently are not **' She rec short vowels /a/and /u/, which, Pho ^ °g"^ ^o nemically contrastive. She says lul is rare. 52 Old Arabic and Comparative Linguistics Old Arabic and Comparative Linguistics 53 and Jastrow's proposal. Short vowels are stable and/or contrastive in Old vowel in a lexeme, others the other), while in other areas [i] and [u] are non- Arabic, while in Neo-Arabic they have changed in such a way that their contrastive phonemically, but complementary on a lexically defined basis. stability and contrastive value is reduced. It will thus be instructive to look in greater detail at the behavior of [i] ant. [u] in one Arabic dialect where the two vowels in both open and closed (3) Short high vowels (a)Fischer/Jastrow (b) present interpretation Old Arabic short high vowels stable short high vowels stable/ syllables are very healthy. This will serve as one basis of comparison with the unstable situation in Old Arabic in sect. 2.4.1.2. The dialect illustrated is Nigerian Arabic. While there are no phonemic contrasts between i-u, in closed syl- Modern dialects unstable short high vowels stable/ lables,23 the two vowels have to be given phonemic status because it is not unstable predictable in which form a high vowel will occur, for instance in the (Old Arabic ^ Neo-Arabic Old Arabic ^ Neo-Arabic (= approximates to)) imperfect verbs, bi-tumm 'he finishes' vs. bi-limm 'he gathers'. However, the situation is far from clear-cut in that there is a large amount of lexical In comparative terms, Fischer and Jastrow describe an innovation which variation, idiolectal, sociolectal, and dialectal. In general, given an [i] or an distinguishes Old Arabic from Neo-Arabic. The question I pose here is [u] in a word, one will always find a lect where the same word will appear with whether in fact an innovation has taken place which distinguishes Old Arabic the other vowel. from all varieties of Neo-Arabic. If not, as in (3b), this feature must be removed from the proposed set of factors constitutive of the differentiation (4) himirre > humurre 'donkeys' between Old and Neo-Arabic. bitimm > butumm 'he finishes' 2.4.1.1. Modern short high vowels While there are dialects, some of them very To illustrate the situation in greater detail, I note the results of a brief survey large, which exhibit rather dramatic short vowel loss, there are also many I carried out more than ten years ago. I drew up a list of i/u alternating words, which exhibit short vowel retention This be to one degree or another. There are like those in (5), and elicited the form with the short high vowel. may dialects with a phonemic contrast between the three, albeit only in closed a singular noun, a plural noun, a perfect verb, or an imperfect verb. In (5) the syllables. For eastern Libyan Arabic Mitchell (i960: 379) cites the contrast, higg high vowel morphological forms elicited in the survey are given, along with young camel', hugg 'look!', hagg 'he looked', and Fischer and Jastrow (1980: their non-high vowel counterpart. I use the /i/variant as standard illustrative 53-4) themselves note that there are dialects which retain all three vowels, for form only. instance some dialects in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. non-high vowel In many other dialects (5) high vowel a free variation of sorts is reported for the occur- 'shoulders' [i] in SG noun rence of i/u in closed kitifshoulder' kataafe syllables. In the North Yemen language atlas there are a humaar 'donkey' [i] in PL noun number of entries where the himirre 'donkeys' same lexeme shows both [i] and [u] dialectal [i] in noun, noun is variants. For instance, dirdir 'wall' daraadir 'wall' SG the word for 'frog' with various consonantal difference 24 is based on a stem like loanword difdaSah or difdaxah (CVfdVC2-ah). In five of the [i] in variants kibir 'he grew up' bikubar ~ bikubur 'he grows up' the initial vowel is high [i] while in seven of them it is [u] (and two perfect verb [a]), e.g. difdatah vs. duf is standard Hausa. 'all' may appear as both duk or dik. The first Old 54 Arabic and Comparative Linguistics Old Arabic and Comparative Linguistics 55 bilizz 'he pushes' lazza 'he pushed' [i] in imperfect verb, are 407 [i] tokens, 355 [u]. In addition, 72 tokens of [a] were recorded, which doubled verb 26 I will not consider in detail. Looking more closely at the breakdown of the bijilis 'he sits' jalas 'he sat' imperfect verb, normal forms, only two words returned no variation at all as far as the high vowel triliteral verb quality all other lexemes have both [i] and [u] btjibduuha goes (see Table 2.2). Otherwise, 'they pull it.F' jabadooha 'they pulled it.F' imperfect verb, in their responses. In general, there is much less variation among individual normal triliteral with object suffix verb forms than among nouns. The 5 verbs and 5 nouns with the least i/u 1 f0rty" S Nigerian variation are as follows. No summarizing statistical tests such as regression ' Arabs Were !* oraUy asked to fill in an answer. w! r WCre m MaidUgUri analysis were run, though it appears by inspection that significant influencing ' ^nty-two from various villages- AtoXr - u° elicited T factors could be the following. Phonologically velars favor [u], alveolars [i]. hlyblTT^ ^^ heoreticaUy, 1>288 answers should P 3CtiCe thC Individual lexemes will tend towards [i] or [u], as the list shows. Only one nUmber Was considerably lower because, particuTarlvtTt u thC t£St meth noun has close to a 50 per cent split, kirkimme 'protrusion' (i/u = 8/10). °d W3S not understood, and could nHfcoC mn,fhT Finally, as d fW C ^ Otherwise, the difference nearly always lies at a 2 : 1 ratio or higher. test °7 P— Moreover, for an answer which elr d a u^ f far as individual lexical patterns go, the fiSil verb form favors [i]. However, among nouns, no pattern-based generalizations are evident. In the list in as a the Plural of possible test answer for Cr^t J""'^»-«- i-dominant, 2 u-dominant. Table 2.1, there are fiSille plurals, 2 ham another - 4 and was iven b resp°nd * ^ *~ for in- ^£%Z£iz ^ None of these factors is categorical. The plural lisinne 'tongues', Plural ^P °f ( ean 3S lura1 wWka for naar ^ P ' 'fire' ^ Maiduguri sample wis TA T stance, composed entirely of alveolar consonants, in the tokens with * *"' '" *** "^ either [i] or ^ ^ returns imperfect bikubar (or bukubur) returned [u] ^ 12 lisinne, but 6 lusunne. The The test was carried u out bvby QPtt; n„ £„ • . in the perfect 13 kibir vs. 16 kubur. setting up a fill-m , . frame, type, , of the following (6) kan daraadir katiiraat keelr„*f* i , f^guula le waahid 'If "walls" *r? I Table 2.2. i/u variation in Nigerian Arabic, selected lexemes [i] ' yesterda and again it) No. here. ' ^ y now they (are pulling Verb No. % After a few trial limis touched' 100 runs with 'he 35 ltemS 1 nominal and a"d runnin trials for bilizz 'he pushes' 40 97-5 verbal frames ' 8 separate tiTT^ 2 ** res simin 'get fat' 27 91 *«: oral blanks. Pondents had no problem filling in There wer \ 96 UnS bugulub 'gallop' 2 32 noted by me on 10 Verbs The answerS ""* an ^"^ - answer she t her' 38 92.5 3 were Prepared bijibduuha 'they pull not recorded. for the questionnaire. The sessions The Noun words were 10 100 cho k rukubbe 'knees' fact, °" e observa many others) tional experience these (in l codTann^ ? that dirdir 'wall of house' 36 97 Present purposes [i] or in lexeme. For 24 80 3 the test , ^ M ^ same ininne 'reins' resultsiST confirmed this 32 88 4 basic observation. In all, there lijimme 'halters' 12 86 rugubbe 'necks' 2 *"** ^gonan, Dala Axa- **££Et^*K(2? *«-• f0Und S^ first » U^e (»*>. Abbari (Mollis). The ^emeSeTrn"^ °^\SL^9l) F°r Three of these are [r] contexts, tor/ W, "^ "e " ^these last the * Four the 72 tokens. »ven of b br«fe£r four, neighboring villages from lexemes account for 54 M context, tenne ears (•*,. daan). kribmme 'prolusion', ragsbbe 'necks*, and one is an emphatic 56 Old Arabic and Comparative Linguistics OW Arabic and Comparative Linguistics 57 Table 2.3. Villages vs. Maiduguri called the Bagirmi area). However, the difficulty in drawing linkages based on the same home area, or ancestry as I term it, is seen in a comparison with Maiduguri Villages variable in naturally occurring data (recorded texts). In texts, which include with a 281 222 in part the speakers in the present sample, it is in fact the Gambaru area 126 133 higher proportion of [u], Gwange with higher [i] (Owens 1998a: 143). of i/u Note, df villages themselves tend to have balanced representations = 1 chi sq = 3.5, p < .06 The (though in most villages only one person was asked). The most extreme (Kinyande). In differences are [i] vs. [u] (Mitene) and 13 [i] vs. 6 [u] Turning 14 7 briefly to the dialect and sociolectal twenty- distribution of the forms, the natural data, summarized in Owens (ibid.) i/u values in a sample of following points are relevant. more two villages gave an almost even split of the two sounds. In three villages Comparing Maiduguri vs. villages, there is with and a tendency for the city to favor than one person was questioned, Magonari with 4, Mule Shuwari 3, li], villages [u]. The breakdown is shown in (i/u) 1: 2: Table 2 3 Dala Axderi with 2. In Magonari, 4 individuals were questioned 5/7, For some lexemes the differences can be quite into a 29/23 split. In marked. The plural of kaab 8/3, 3: 5/8, 4: 11/5, the individual differences balancing KoxKaSab) elbow, for instance, is : 1 in predominated 18 favor of kuPubbe in villages, but Mule Shuwari and Dala Axderi on the other hand, the [i] value 7.6m favor of kiPibbe in Maiduguri.» suggestive, as considerably, 22/12 in Dala, 34/12 in Mule. This difference is bUt the °nC resP°ndent «n be grouped parameter villages directly south of Maiduguri on of I"" by the Mule and Dala are neighboring ^^y hreC nd hbori>°ods to the administra- g are represented by at least four Dambua road, while Magonari is east of Maiduguri, close londe" , , Gwa and inadequate basis of three ^^ Dikkece- The -suits are in tive center of Mafa (= Muba). On the admittedly Table 2 a V ^ dlng rediZation [i] villages vs. [u] villages, ** Gam tends to be cases, is to speak of predominantly populated v'VT I"' M- bam one tempted WeStern pa f suggestion is put forward in light ** * ° the Arabic dialect perhaps even [i] regions vs. [u] regions. This reXnregion, Gw"Gwange ^/^and ™&™ Drkkeceri from those that the [i] ~ [u] variation from the east (which I have of the argument advanced in this chapter, namely in the pre-diasporic attested here essentially continues an alternation attested maintained over such a era. To understand how such alternation could be T^Mj^nthree Maiduguri detailed socio-dialectal neighborhoods long period, in such a broad geographical area, more studies such as that sketched here are needed. 1 u 3 of short i/u variation in This survey is indicative of a broad maintenance Gambaru [i] and [u] 168 both The important overall point is that both Gwange 65 17 nouns and verbs. Arabic, 72 are firmly embedded in Nigerian Dikkeceri 37 13 despite their non-contrastive status 14 15 speaker cannot be reduced to 2 and their presence in a given lexeme in a given ^df=4, chjsq = 9p Turning to the situation in 2.4.1.2. Short high vowels in Old Arabic sources 27 Looking more to an analogous closelv at th» \a j various indices which point ne^borhoods Classical Arabic, there are in the cij CMe %£*°?*°* "^ fr°m *™ **«* Fischer and Jastrow's character- G^Z^jT', situation as in the modern dialects. That is, m e dm8 weakly developed ('schwache Ausbil- CompanngAesethreenVborhoo^ in Mafduguri biC ' ization of the opposition [i] vs. [u] as D ie ^ t ^ «<>" ^ C t0 fe T f°r ?" Gambaru and degree to Old ™ M (without the ^ to fe™' W- Gwange sect. 3.5) applies to a large anfn [Jvt", V = dung der Opposition i : u, 1980: 43, ^ POP-la^ = *• < -««7>- In general, Gwange is ?" P b , ? different types east^, ^ * iS™'g™,s1from clear when evidence of four southern ^what , term Arabic as well. This becomes ^J"d ^ ^ fe ^ considered. distributional aspects of [i] and 1. Old Arabic. The first issue relates to that there are relatively few [u] in Old Arabic where it may be observed 58 ^!i^!^^mratiwLinguistics OW Arabic and Comparative Linguistics 59 p ere s ort . i/u are phonemicaU y ^- 1- ** Pflfirw/'letters' S£2£ 'Z^ t0 — (12) *" ^^ S bIe of endings W* ^ ™*> -d to the case Pahmar 'red.M' n°minatiVe (SCe "" ' (17) bd0W °n this Thus, contests Lrr )- one has In other cases, as with Nigerian Arabic, [i], [u] may be lexically specific, (7) mist 'a sweet scent' without being phonemically contrastive. >hus& 'avariciousness' «-*«** (13) Paktubu 'I write' (Qutrub, 26 28 ; KisaPi (Brockelmann Parjfiu 'I return' ,898), 45) (8) zyaa; arrowheads' In traditional phonological terms, therefore, the contrastive value of [i], [u] is ZM;««/ 'glass' functionally limited. 'type »W of clove' (Qutrub, i9 ). Phonotactically, sequences of i . . . u never occur within lexical stems and In a very few triliteral even across there is a tendency to avoid this sequence. VperfectCT Verbsverbs Ml ™a r , morpheme boundaries W and [u] are contrastive. , , Thus the object pronoun-hu and 3.MPL object pronoun-hum often (9) xalaqa create' 3.MSG *<%« (in the Classical sources both variants are attested) have the allomorphs -hil- 'become soft, cooked' him 29 «&«« 'become after an /i/(or palatal /y/). worn' (,bn Man3ur, Usaan, 10: 85-90) tven bayt-i-hi bayt-i-hu for this last (14) min < contract ;;„ r \ u ( h°WeVe may ^40-2: viii. ?' /> W vary freely with [u] (Kofler from house-GEN.his 6o) . ^ More^ emi Koranic Arabic, 82) in a stud of verb in 'from his house' does no7finH? ^ ' y *e back yuPaddi-hi short high vowels ^^^ based °n front *"* in this yeA^TS* second stem conclusion about the tri-valued return-it.M vowel is 'En Pfnsons t)TeS 'who pays it back' 3: 75; Ibn Mujahid, 131) qu'il n'existe '" de Cette forme n0US (Q en reali* > netant T'T* qu'une "1 typeK /fl?fl/fl et a Sibawaih notes that in some dialects (especially Tamimi, i.e. Najd, eastern This treatment of the nominative and genitive endings is also attested in the Arabic), both [i] and [u] are subject to deletion in open syllables. Koranic reading tradition, and in fact is associated with the tradition of the (15) 'ialima -* From this discussion it is clear that Interestingly, Sibawaih described varieties of Arabic this applies to the passive verb as well, in which the phonemic functionality of [i] and [u] was severely curtailed. (16) Susira -c Susra 'be pressed'. Indeed, this extended to the two vowels in their prime morphological guise, In where even their case marking function could be neutralized. In some general, in his inimitable explanatory style, Sibawaih notes that the a-i/u or cases Sibawaih identifies the variety with a dialect region, eastern Arabia, i/u-a sequence is avoided for articulatory ease, the reduction of [i] or [u] while in servmg to others, as in the discussion of ixtilaas, he appears to present the avoid having to move the tongue quickly from a low to high or high phenomena as widespread variants. case, the lack of a well-profiled S1 ' In any U [ SCqUenCe (l6) is considered b Sibawaih to be very contrastive marked,m Tf° Tu y function of short [i] and [u] was very well established in Old and he notes that the passive verb is the only sequence in the language Arabic. where u-i is found within a lexeme (II: 278 6) Comparable examples can be found in the second great early grammarian, imP rt3nt P°intS in this context ^ " First in the modern > ^ Farra?, dialr T ° n one of the eponymous founders of the so-called Kufan school of Pen C iS 3 ° P Siti0n Particularly conducive to vowel reduclon I , f^ linguistics. In his MaSaaniy, for instance, he notes in various places free lexical /U M Within 3 C° mmon dass of 'sh°rt high vowels' alternation botht „ Ti- between [i] and [u], as in In offers the (18b) the indicative mode ending /u/ is simply 'deleted'. He "^ and is in evidence in "^ W ^er *e c'feLt^e ^ general or a [u] ^ observation that 'they find a [u] after an [i] or a [i] after a [u] extetsi: ££" « *** ' ^ ** with case vowels y — after that fa a examples [u] or [i] after a [i] marked' (II: 12). It is clear from his Koranic *" grammatkal *" tLit^ns a the ^ Farra? vowels in b^i ^ ^ limits two short high of mt' 1 his observations to sequences of present Y "V ™"1*™- What is relevant for purposes is that Sih ! sequences examples, of two or more open syllables, offering as further 3 reaUZati° ' U and n °f n0minatiVe J£^^£££Z?^. rusul-un -> rusl-un ->• yahzunhum '(the terror) will P3USal ° 'prophets', yahzunuhum vowel sition ' in which the contrast •' P was neutralized bring them -> yuxabbir-naa 'he informs ^ ? 7 (no) grief (Q 21: 103), yuxabbirunaa us' vowel That is, in a sequence CVCHCV, where H = a short high vowel, the may (17) mm maPman-z-ka be 'deleted' (in FarraP's terminology, see also his II: 137, 160). 'from your contrast- haven' 3- Didactic manuals. Indirect evidence for the weakly established ive value of a book such as of [i] vs. [u] can be ascertained by the existence 'he hits her' (II: Qutrub's treatise in which lists of 324 . 19 ) (d. 206/821) MuOallaOaat. This is a short lexically [u], [a]. It is noteworthy contrastive examples are given, one each containing [i], that Sibawaih goes out of hi. notable here that the """*' s,m shon ^Ples (7, 8) above are taken from this book. It is —" *• *. majority of vowels in word-initial CVCC >*z"£z2£z y#i the examples, 44 out of 63, are of 62 Old Arabic and Comparative Linguistics OW Arabic and Comparative Linguistics 63 closed syllable position. The remainder are of initial CVCaa(C)a (as in (9) 'new.PL' vs. judad 'ancestors' (p. 41). Further, of the eight i-u contrasts, seven above). Here it may be noteworthy that twelve of these latter examples have a occur in closed syllables, e.g. sufr 'brass' vs. sifr 'nothingness' (43). As with sonorant at C2. 30 Sibawaih and Farra? (see sect. 2.4.1.2, above), the important contrast is low [a] This short treatise falls into a ninth-century genre in which certain mor- vs. high [i/u]. Direct [i] vs. [u] contrasts are limited, both in number and in phological and phonological patterns were summarized in single works, often terms of position in a syllable. in verse form. Sijistani is a longer work giving the contrast (or lack thereof) In both these short works the contrastive distribution of i/u in Old Arabic is between verbs in the faSala and Pafiala forms," while Farra? deals extensively seen to be limited and the inclusion of short vowels in this didactic genre with gender in his Mudakkar wa 1-MuPannaO. This genre is also attested later; points to an early or original lack of salience of the contrast. This last Farrukhi (Al-Farruxi), for instance, in a later work (sixth-twelfth century), observation leaves unresolved the question whether Qutrub's MudallaOaat where minimal pairs of d vs. d are illustrated. What is particular about these reflects the breakdown of a 3-vowel contrast, or the attempt by grammarians books is that they appear to be aimed at an audience which is not familiar to take one variety which had the contrast and impose it throughout the w,th these contrasts. All three of these examples are of features which in the language-speaking community. The first perspective would certainly be the modern dialects are dialectially restricted or which have completely disap- one favored by proponents of the Old/New dichotomy. Here, didactic books peared, for instance the contrast of dvs. 6 (see sect. 2.4.5 below). Vollers (1906: would be needed to instruct the rapidly expanding Arabic-speaking public 15), commenting on Koranic variation between 5 and d, had already perceived about correct Arabic. Beyond the objection that it is impossible to answer the that this contrast was weakly established from its wry first orthographic appearance. ° r question of who the works were intended for, more fundamentally the works stem A genre from the very period when Old Arabic is purported to be all-dominant. which explicitly dealt with language errors was the latin al- mm There simply are no detailed descriptions of Arabic before the generation of m n SPCeCh °f educated < see Ml* 1960/1986; u ^ ^ KisaPi, so any generations spoke is conjec- MolanMT 1978;'*TLarcher assumption about what previous 2001: 593). The first work of this type was, reputedly, ture very early, that needing comparative linguistic support. of KisaK (d. 183/798 or 189/804; BrockelmL 1898; see Fuck This basic chronological in view serves to support the 0f a"ribution). observation my The title, in fact, is something of a second the imposition ^,77monomer at least as far as perspective, that the didactic genre above all reflects KisaPTs work goes. First, it is relatively rare that the of a In S norm on the basis of one or more varieties out of a number available. P °n 33 f°r inStanCe P - ' sets of c are > °rrect forms this ICn wnh h* Tc" variety, in certain positions. It can PTm fl?" short i/u are phonemically contrastive H '^ **"»* one entry, h b b (vol. I: 289-96) » The entry is nearly eight pages long, small a predecessor of Ibn Mandur in lexicography (d. 398/1007, author of the print and double columned, and by my count contains twenty-nine separate Sahaah), only for domesticated food plant seeds (e.g. wheat, barley). The lemmas. However, it is not always easy to say where one lemma begins and singulative habba is used for all meanings, both domesticated another and wild plant ends. Roughly it is divided into three parts. The first concerns the seeds. However, one source, Abu Hanifa, is cited as using hibba for any plant, meaning 'love', or as it is defined at the beginning of the entry, hubb, naqiyd i.e. = hdbb. Putting all these sources together, hibba and habb, depending on al-burd 'love, the opposite of hate'. This meaning runs for approximately four which source one uses, are in free variation in the general sense of 'seed'. pages whereupon a second general meaning al-habb: al-zarf saviyran kaana Saw Summarizing over many details, the discussion gives the following kabtyran, 'seed, large or small' begins. After two pages" other isolated meanings. meanings continue the entry until its end. The problem for the present (19) hubb 'love; large issue begins at the very beginning of the pot; friends' ernma, where as an alternative hibb 'love; to hubb, a verbal noun which introduces friend' ne entry, htbb is given as a free habb 'seed, seed variant. The [i] alternative appears to be the of a domestic food plant' lesser-known one, since as soon as it is hibba 'seed, seed of a wild plant' given, it is legitimitized as it were by a poetic quotation. In some they are In any case meanings the short vowels are contrastive, whereas in others this is reminiscent of the i/u variation discussed in detail in sect, not. This is if Based on the 8enan the entries are considered in their entirety. ArabiC Furthermore it is > explicitly pointed out that the vih \L citations for Ibn Manciur's sources, the non-contrastive meanings are often nmUal ifaa5S) in th3t in form l its im Perfect form only has a variants poetry and ll?Tuvariant with the from different sources: hibb 'love' comes from a line of vowel [i], yahibbu 'he loves', the only transitive doubled verb hibb in the sense of 'friend' from a hadith, hibba the 'seed' interpretation of 38ain short hi h vowel S quality must be explicitly noted (see Abu ~ also KisaPisIaAw,Ki^' V? r Hanifa. In both cases a lexical free variation effect is analogous to the i 33, for related remarks) 34 u variation are 16 in Nigerian Arabic; the variation is free when enough sources t0ken Within tHiS Cntry [i] and are at lea^inT" ,' M d«rfy contrasts considered. 3PPare m°re COmm ' 7 °n Version of hubb W. which can be OD00 ed Looking at the matter from the other angle, a seemingly solid [i] vs. [u] m 3 mher bng diSCUSsi °n to hibb What cannot largely limited to closed syllables. There are ample be gauged is whether the contrastive meanings are associated the modern dialects, with a single the short high vowels in open syllables, again a speech community, or whether they represent a pan-dialectal examples of deletion of amalgam modern dialects. Viewing the dialects in their whose contrastiveness derives from the lexicographers' compilation. phenomenon attested in the dialectal real- Looking at a more or less entirety, it is hard to view the functionally restricted modern arbitrary sample of ten roots from volume I, usually a given root qualitatively different from that attested in the shows a single high vowel value for those positions where ization of short high vowels as theoretically a phonemic contrast oldest Arabic sources. can occur. For instance, juzP 'part' (45), always has [u], never [i], though theoretically an [i] could occur here, hizb 'group of people' (308), on the 2.4.2. Old Arabic itself is not unitary other hand, always has [i]. Of the ten roots, five have only [u] (kubb 'duster', the second problem, the (695), kuf? 'equal, similar' (138), ruhb 'breadth' Returning to the list at the beginning of sect. 2.4, (413), and iujb 'surprise' with an example taken (580) and three have only [i] (hizb as above, fifc? diverse character of Old Arabic, may be illustrated load (117), and sibb 'veil, Jastrow (1980: screen, rope' (456). Two show variation, firb ~ farb from the syllable structure rules discussed above. Fischer and ~ Jurb drinking' (487) appear to sequences of short open be free variant forms of the verbal noun (as 40 sect. 3.3) note that Old Arabic allowed extended in Farra? II: 282), like hubb ~ hibb As noted above, there above. Xibb 'rottenness, rough sea' (342) is syllables, as in li-harakati-ka 'for your.M movement'. like the total entry for hibk katabata 'she some forms are in free variation, xabba ~ xibba ~ are modern dialects which also permit similar sequences, e.g. xuoba dm path', while others are cow' (Highland Yemen, contrastive, xubb 'a rag' vs. xibb (as above, wrote it.M' in Nigerian Arabic or 'bagarateh 'his rough sea rottenness'). This brief the dialects, as opposed to survey would indicate that for the majority Behnstedt 1985: 63). If four is the upper limit in roots 01 [1] and [u] are lexically morphological patterns in the determined, but phonemically non-contrast- five in Old Arabic it is because there are no •ve. in a minority, basically free variation four open syllables. However, between [u] and [i] reigns, with dialects supporting more than a sequence of some meanings showing contrast were subject to via the different high vowels. even in Old Arabic long sequences of short open syllables Addressing the problem from open syllables have ; the perspective of the rich Arabic lexico- reduction. Examples pertaining to short high vowels in short 10n st fact, sequences of ' .** J*™*** *us of and be already 2.4.1.2, above. In rfroble^t p W [u] is again seen to been introduced in sect. m Se fW rules of assimilation POSiti°nS Where the vowels in general tended to be avoided. Discussing • *"> » Po*^ cotr * 1S f° when mdeXiCal "*"*> Whkh Arabic, at a word juncture Ae ohon? reIati^es the importance of (Pidxaam), Sibawaih notes that in Hijazi two words, then under five open syllables result from the juxtaposition of e Ch be deleted. Example "?*"» t0 the collect various of the first word will t?n™^ Z7 ««&» of f™ one can conditions the final vowel Ph°nemk C°ntraStS • ^ eastem Libyan Arabic) can (20) illustrates a typical case. b^ltd tt th 7 ifi d but phonemicaUy non- IStroltTfoTndT;^ (20) jaSala laka - jaSal laka (II: 455) TMd; degree Variati°n iS °f free attested (cf. Nigerian * tabic) ^ 'heavy', as I under- are Sibawaih states that sequences of five open syllables Koranic reading f [i] vowel. In the vs - [u] riginai oid stand deletion of a aI: °, fa the ° the term, 'marked', requiring S^itssi-r assimilation describes °f tradition, al-kabiyr 'major the old sources. «" "^ the so-called Pal-Pidraam eXtentt ^^ tX tt*"* ^*•* ^ "i detail. Phonemic ^ contrast existed, it is, as in such 'deletion' it deletion, see Ch. 4) (if indeed was sequences of shoitvoweis Sibawaih notes that within words constraints on of the 'glass' is can alternative forms indifferently zajaai ~ be equally severe. Discussing the <^JT* zuiaai tne-c nnai *»' only eUiptically, Ma"$hur of he notes that in a definition^ ^^'^ mentions zujaaj in the sense pronouns-jtum ~ md-hum ~ -humuw, form musk l^L -kumuw ( 7 ) is not °f sequence or found in the lisa^C^T^""* *" <*WV. Similarly, Qutrub's would produce a he *d no, find °f variant is preferable when the suffix -kumuw the form in *' ^""^ Aliwi noting n. 1 that any Sn^t I (i hyphen representing atatKmS POSSM four (21b), with the ^.someofmeformsheconecte^SiSt * retricted to open syllables, thus (21a) rather than no unhfa Ver <*U -W* .hri, modCTn * communities. scholars, counterpart?" « While ancient a syllable no*d boundary. that Qujnu* ^«ta. about maligning ^^J^J JJ their opponents, it may be syllables (21a) ru-su-lu-kum 'your.MPL prophets', = 3 open / » ^ 68 Old Arabic and Comparative Linguistics Old Arabic and Comparative Linguistics 69 (21b) ru-su-lu-ku-muw = 4 open syllables If avoidance of sequences of short open syllables is part of Old Arabic, and a of the modern dialects, then this is not a Here Sibawaih invokes the similar avoidance is found in some generalization that 'obviously in their [Arabs'] varieties. It simply speech there is feature that can be used to differentiate the two presumed no noun with four open syllables' ( . . . ?a laa taraa Pannahu has gone laysa fi characterizes both. course, it can be shown that vowel reduction kalaamihim ism Salaa ParbaSat Of Pahruf mutaharrik, II: 319. 19). much further in modern dialects (see Table 2.1), but this is properly a The problem here is not some to formulate the situation such that processes attested part of dialects which evince such behavior, not 'Neo- m the modern dialects, the history of those in this case short vowel deletion in open syllables, were already adumbrated Arabic' in general. or anticipated in Old Arabic. of This mode further reasoning At this it useful to illustrate the discussion with is quite old. Noldeke, a point may be great scholar of literary Arabic, for instance, notes developmental vowel reduction is illustrated on the basis of examples of deletion of a case trees. In (22) or mode vowel such as illustrated in sect. 2.4.1.2, above the 3F.SG. 'she wrote'. (1897: 10). His explanation, verb form katabat however, is to attribute such forms to Arabs who had settled outside the Arabian peninsula, or to note that they (22) Vowel reduction otten occur in scatological verse. Neither observation carries comparative Pre diasporic Arabic CVCVCVC (katabat) hnguis ,c weight, however- Why scatological verse should be more prone to deletion of a case vowel is not elaborated upon. As far as the debased form Va etieS N5ldeke ' g°' S thinkin is based 8 on an a prions* Damascene etc.) IT™ T7 u Modern dialects CVCVCVC CVCC -VC (katbat, °ffm S° ci0linguistic arguments for the proposition hat Thev f Tk katabaf NA etc. ** * CaSe endinSs than Arabic in the PeninsI t 7f m ^ LT" given pre-diaspo.-Tic ^^^ ™? be that Andric in the Arabian This shows that some modern dialects continue the penn d w " ^ reducing the unstressed ". % COnservative than diaspora varieties. Arabic verbal paradigm, while others have innovated, There i ^ a " Umer eXample t0 this linguistic basis here for ^mption, however. Holes vowel in the open syllable. It is clear that there is no 199^^^ t LLt7 ^ in t0 °r no innovation occurred anand *? ^ UX] M began in Central Arabia differentiating 'Old' from 'Neo-' Arabic, since spreadpX'toutwardsfTfrom there (see serf »-,^ t u j.. -.u WOUld ^ many modern dialects. purposeful irony, that ^ ^ Noldeke h ^ fact is Id 1 misgivings Neo-Arabic in using as one of his chief A related strategy this regard is to observe that sources for Old in Arabicb si I an attribute an identical but to explain this as Arabic, who htfe *"*** *" "* to a certain feature in Old Arabic, ^ (1980: 44) ^tZl;r ° 38 and Jastrow ''^ ^ne of the earliest Arab-Islamic of an Old Arabic dialect, of Old Arabic. Fischer not diasporic cities who n T sula^d *" * ** **** PCnin " for his^? e who 38 vexed one. As those who h™ ™°*£ Noldeke sees^2 ** As seen in sect. Arabic 'dialects' is a ^ Old as speaking ^" ,.3, the problem of ^^"^ in the on old term for 'dialect 'dialects' have observed (e.g. Kofler 194o: 64), there is no 0^"*^ has *.perhaps which The closest one begs is hardly surprising since there was no systematic dialectology. lon of what 'dialect is *«. and 'dialect of the Hijaz', »mj ** in some cases e.g. lutat al-hijaaz etc. sociolect, .;, ^^T^Z^TZ association (idiolect, ? translation. without further r Ima can equally refer to a 'variant' however . • many themes a topic m The literature is, like so treatment of Old Arabic 'dialects' in the Western sources are the other z methods, e.g. the same, then «*lf. work-and ,s -gnf-nt-is commit f Kofler o- as an authoritative ^ ( 194 2 ), who is often cited a to be systematic.^ is dimc^t what parts to determine summary autnorsauthors wnuxwhose ay^"— , > £ "£* -H** of many different Arabic linguists andI — sa^h^Pre-,Z ^ ^ T (II: post-, or simply Ws discussion notes that Sibawaih 'Classical'. Similarly here. of cas^ fo^^nc^i^2:26-:2^0), Kofler ™>»™^f«^flacking «« where expend c** suffix. poetic Hcense forms (see (6b) in Ch. 7 for an examp.e) together. He '^^^L'^^S^^^^'^ Sibawaih"^^^ ^^^P^yadriZtTy^ZtZ **~e**. « he offers a standard, Poetic work about ^ citation. entire s in his P^trMhough xT ^ - This is all Kofler has to say tic is ld l£ treated in dd«*» variant remark onSS»Aawaih s^ the same » exemplified only in Kofler s chat r Jl^' T However, in the same and on the very page before chapter (506) e<* Xn b M the lailaas vJan, ixtilaas/tamnyt (see «*« hcen * ** *»»g to aTmCon ^ "« * (II: Pifbarf and ^couldH £ T' cat'" 324), Sibawaih has his discussion of be tha, comply on ^ deletion """^ paMheon - was °f *"** variants Kofler did not comment *^' Amr, ZZZ*?^ S rations, as (18) above. Koranic N° summarized around e.g. s la gu£ recitation practice ^ " ldeke see ..ngm fcbawah ^ in sec,™ "es; in this respect Abu there is nod Sordid not consider dialectal. However, the latter forms as discusses between what S.bawaih ^ch allows one to distinguish an evaluative difference Old Arabic 70 and Comparative Linguistics OW Arabic and Comparative Linguistics 71 observe that modern dialects generally have i as the preformative vowel of the Jastrow's summary basically left off the entire Sudanic dialect region (inter imperfect verb alia, Carbou 1913; Lethem 1920; Trimingham 1946; Kaye 1976 being available), I think a point t-i-ktib, a consideration of which adds to my category three criticisms. (23) n-i-ktib 'you write, we write', etc. will soon be reached where no 'new' old features are found, though the This is not to be understood as an innovation, but as a continuation of an old general tendency resulting from empirical research since 1980 has been to dialectal form which deviated from Classical Arabic (see Versteegh 1997: 42; reduce further the set of features Fischer and Jastrow used to set Old Arabic Larcher 2004; Larcher and Gilliot forthcoming, citing Farra?). For what it is off from Neo-Arabic. worth the observation is valid. However, if the modern dialects continue old forms, wherever they are to be situated in Old Arabic (see below), there is no 2.4.4. Valid differences basis for introducing them into a discussion which purports to differentiate wishing to see This leads to point 4 in the list in 2.4, which is crucial for those Old from Neo-Arabic. Lacking further comparative analysis, they simply can the as a linguistically grounded one. be said to dichotomy of Old Arabic/Neo-Arabic characterize both. This is illustrated in (24) » survive In fact, there are a few instances in Fischer and Jastrow's list which historical (M) Old Arabic the criticisms identify four, represented as t-a-ktub t-i-ktub of points 1-3. I can developments. (25) a. F. nominal suffix b. dual of V etc. Neo-Arabic Sect. 3.7.3) -aam, -aa t-a-ktub t-i-ktub OA -at, -aa,aa?( 1980: 41, Sect. 3.4.2) (1980: 46, 2.4.3. Lack of information A third aspect of Fischer and Jastrow's Dialect -at summary is a problem which is still very mUch with us today, Imperfect plural namely that generalizations c. case/mode suffix d. are formed on the basis (1980: 42,Sect. 3.4.4) of the data OA -u, -a, -i, -uun/-uu avaxlable it is only in the 198os that more intensive research in ( * Behmtedt 'old' feaTure^h ^T m T"*^ ^ ^ 5) turned up ** ^^ ** st ''he came'), a -uu omrast^ * ^ °P <*** Dialect -uun (Mm bone or the word raised ) maa for 'what?' question may be for instance. Even so Fische'r and Before discussing these in greater detail, the general for denning so^broad whether four quite heterogeneous features are adequate U eCOgniZe<1 practitioners "* a variant its and Neo-Arabic. > when Sibawaih identifies Old 'as for 'tho'sTwho'^J ?T£ ^I and allegedly fundamental a difference as that between complete "loss" of i<£uwna Ae detail, the case suffix ^^ ^ • >. ****** one of these in ^2SL2rT Turning I will discuss only a nominative ""= "»>« ™- 'and it is to the features themselves, or genitive . possible that they "delete" in poehV (wa „7a ™f type, ana l-JiSr...,„ UW V«^tuw developmental :3J^,^£g ^f.^ ^ 1-harf al-marfuwS wa l-,mjmwr fiy (25b). In my analysis (25b, c) are of a common son, being £Me is ' (25b) only. identified with an doser to a Jastrow's terms proto- own exposition is illuminating (1980: 46). They note that among model, Fischer establishes an intermediate category which he Semitic languages, Arabic is unique in having a fully 'developed' system of Neo-Arabic, and exemplifies the construct with the independent pronoun dual marking, uses cat- encompassing all nominal and verbal categories. They expli- series, perfect verb suffixes, and various question words. Here he citly argue that (25b) is distinguished not a simplification in the modern dialects, but (it egories reminiscent of Brockelmann. Brockelmann (1908: 24) appears) a retention of the the origins of original proto-Semitic situation, where the dual, if between a poetic koine (Dichtersprache), in which he saw indeed it is reconstructible to Arabian region, from proto-Semitic (see Retso 1995), is restricted to Classical Arabic, and tribal dialects in the northern the noun. This point is an above, Brock- important one for my interpretation of Arabic which it appears he derives the modern dialects. As mentioned language history. It linguistic shows that even if consistent differences between Old elmann does not treat his Old/New dichotomy in a comparative Arabic, however defined, and the precise development. dialects are discernible—and it has been manner, so one can only interpret how he saw the seen here that there are in fact very examples of Arabic few important ones—it does not auto- Brockelmann does regret the fact that there are hardly matically follow that the suspect that he reflexes borne by the modern dialects are necessarily dialects (Vulgararabisch) from the Middle Ages, so one can innovations. The modern dialect Middle Ages -> dual could in fact be 'older' in comparative saw a development: Old Arabic dialects -> Arabic dialects in linguistic terms than is the dual in 40 case, Old Arabic had Old Arabic, whose spread to verbal modern dialects, though this is speculation. In any and other categories is to be seen as which were two innovative. The situation can be sketched dialects on the one hand and a classical Arabic on the other, as in (26). quite different entities for him. system than Fischer, however, develops a linguistically more sophisticated U6) (26) nominal dual (proto-Arabic) explicit developmental the earlier work, as he is committed to recognizing Moreover, the proto- states from Old Arabic to the modern dialects. of leeway, in recognition Neo-Arabic stage is given a degree of ambiguous fact would appear to the fact that various 'typical' modern dialectal forms in for instance is given as have an old heritage. The third person F singular suffix, ' for OA (his (modern either 81) paradigms dialects) nominal dual -at or -it. In (27) I give Fischer's (1995: pronominal dual> verbal dual ^ ^^^^ to serve as the terminology) and proto-Neo-Arabic perfect verb paradigm, 5 dm:loPmems in this basis of discussion. ^ ^ > case the comparative method returner , mterpr tat U side P d°™' as it were from chronology. would !? I (27) notenoteThtha,a t I ; OA Proto Neo-Arabic ( Ch y ^ ^^ ^ ^ f SG eSS m°dem ^^ " f3Ct COntinue -oWer Semitic and £L£L feaf M 1 katab-tu katab-tu, katab-t ** fatep tions *• number ' 1 M katab-ta katab-t ^^^z^^2^rrec° nstructibler are reduced * Proto-Arabic by 5o per cent. F katab- ti katab-tii 3 M kataba katab f°Ur featUrCS a ^ in <*> do not "P«*rf ^SS^r^deVd ment F katab-at katab-at, katab-it °P " thC direrti0n of the directs that h™e Sotewt T - fr° PL m diffCrent d°mains «f gnunm-r. Fur- L™rrdIdo 'f ^eie 1 katab- whkh naa katab-naa ^rjcZZ2^f consisten^ *-***« °id r 2 katab-tuu ^P-ve^ M katab-tum katab-tum, • Arabic Conveniently, Brockelmann finds evidence for Old deJdop- ^°**T££ilogxcaUy form ^«n who that Brockelrnanns also i s la,e (d. 1505). It may be suggested ^ hffl *«« matrices conveniently prevented (01d-(M ddk?)-New) grammar,^^ would comparauve ^ **«tf in his material (or other, e.g. the reading tradition) Ve implicated his data considerably. 74 Old Arabic and Comparative Linguistics Old Arabic and Comparative Linguistics 75 F katab-tunna katab-tin Arabic' (Al-Nassir 1993: 116). Sibawaih was, apparendy, aware of 'a colloquial 3 M katab-uu katab-uu form of the language', but fundamentally concerned only with the high F katab-na katab-an variety. This approach obviates the need for posing the difficult question of defining the diverse elements constitutive of Sibawaih's and other early What is above all striking is how similar OA and proto-Neo-Arabic are. In grammarians' thinking: Sibawaih task is seen as applying available rules to a fact, the differences are even exaggerated. Looking at more Arabic dialects, for predefined language corpus. 41 Like other logical matrices, however, it defines instance, 2MSG -ta (or in Yemen -ka in some highland regions), as noted by away the problem of understanding Arabic language history by ignoring three Fischer, is attested in about fifteen locations in north and central Yemen, and key complexity of Arabic in Sibawaih's T. Prochazka elements. First, the relative linguistic (1988: 27) leaves open the possibility that it is attested in Saudi which Sibawaih was Arabian day is ignored. Second, the sociolinguistic context in Tihama as well. Similarly -nah 3FPL and -tunnah 2FPL is attested in countries today. working is taken to be equivalent to that found in Arabic Ghaamid, (southern Hijaz, T. Prochazka 1988: 27). In the the 'proto- 3MSG. relation between modern Neo-Arabic' Thirdly, it is silent about the comparative historical form in fact is identical to the pausal form of Old Arabic. This is, as I native varieties of Arabic and older ones. have noted above, an issue requiring separate treatment, but in this context it does reduce on a prima facie basis the difference between Old and proto-Neo-Arabic. 2.6. The Arabic Tradition Looking at the Old Arabic sources, it will be seen in sect. 8.9 that the 3FPL briefly the surnxes Before moving it appropriate to mention -tunna and -na are problematic to the conclusion I think representations in Old Arabic, given part of standard analytic tradition, upon which a good interpretations of the notion basis of the Arabic grammatical of pausal position. It will be suggested this missing in it. The term there, that Fischers proto-Neo-Arabic chapter draws. In general a historical perspective is -an or -in is also plausible as a pre- diasponc f<4 important in Arabic morpho- form, which takes the form 'source, root, underlying form', which is into the Old Arabic era. source, akin to deep C derin8 thC logical theory (Owens 2000) usually refers to a logical P°intS raised in P«vious paragraphs, on T, ^ two verb qaala 'he said, tZT Tl°nC structure in earlier generative grammar. Thus the thCre n lin istk round forms of " ° ^ 8 for differentiating Old general rule Z^Arabic and»1 ''I is said to qaala derived via proto-Neo-Arabic, as the have the ?asl qawala, with the form two are largely identical. The linguist's that qawala is histor- 3 converting an a WV sequence to aa. There is no claim diStinCti°n betWeen °ld Arabic and proto- SeoTabtTK ically T^ anterior to C°ndUSi0n qaala, however. here melds th that reached However, above weTe n C ^f^ ™ The notion of change. PtS °ld A"bic N grammarians were certainly aware of the from «* «-A»Wc not inherited baggage than by a thTlt T the issue was of a logical matrix rather would ™t be treated within the framework ""^^ recognized as independent by the entme?entities inn contemporarycon systematic through a discussion Arabic linguistics. methodology. This may be exemplified attempt late is a synoptic grammarian Suyuti (d. 1504). Suyuti's al-Iqthaah developed in the to distill theory as it had 2.5. The Past is principles of Arabic linguistic the Present: Suyuti m A Modern Logical Previous relevant to cite Matrix seven centuries (see Suleiman 1999). It is threads N h *is together nearly all y "* ** context, despite his late date, because he brings " °* * which Arabic language language Stor^t unlSooT ^ of the origin ot Pertati0,,, 0thCr Previous Arabic theory in one work. Discussing *" those ded *** where o2^^^fi P™ like Payna T (31-5), nouns Suyuti non-declined *e foLtive yZs f adduces the example of are inflected as ** *"m 'how Standard Arabic usually ^K^rarr 1S t0 )eCt : many. Nouns in present-day iri "^ PT° ** Arabic realities bacfonto * ^ encountered Y Pm0± "* in a differen"ont ™* ^^ t In * tmiSmS today Arabic Ch " x sect l6 If ^Arabic dispatched is marked bv a * < ^ language history is frequent* y Hi ^ ^^^SS^Stimes, tne pre-Islamic ****"• Standard for uistance, fact that Since dichotomy,7 th sZdi ^ Arabic-dialect *9*JS) states as a matter of jection in the well. inter- pretation, ^^ - In this is, sine baw^ P« Clrcun There y r ns task for »tances onto pre-Islamic times is apparent. JJSt"instance is seen lhZ of the oral mature as describing a 'high of only interpretations form **r «uvre attested from the pre-Islamic period itself, ""a- « seen ninth century. in Ch.i, sect. 1.2, derives largely from the Old 76 Arabic and Comparative Linguistics Old Arabic and Comparative Linguistics 77 nominative, accusative, and genitive, Arabic grammarians theoretically kam-un, kam-an, kam-in I think the descriptive and theoretical achievement of the respectively, kam, however, has unsystematic attempts of no inflection, being invariably kam. is enhanced when compared to the inconsistent and in Arabic grammatical theory Arabic language each word class has certain unmarked prop- modern Western scholars to develop a coherent account of erties and one of those of nouns is case inflection. Should a subclass of nouns history against the backdrop of a badly applied comparative linguistics. lack this property, a reason for this lack needs to be found, in order to maintain balance in the system (Versteegh i977 ). One of the reasons for the tack of 2.7. Conclusion mflection in kam was said to be because of its frequent use (kaOrat ai-i5«imaal). This was a general after over one hundred and fifty explanatory device applied elsewhere as well The conclusion is a sobering one. Put simply, to certain frequently-occurring meaningful compara- word forms which failed to show an expected years of Western research on the language, there is no was § MU '" WS n0t ' Old Arabic-Neo-Arabic ' for lam >«*•»)• In *e case of kam the tive linguistic history of Arabic. The distinction discussiond sok7 7 went beyond this explanation grounded in comparative to speculation whether 'frequent use' postulated on the basis of a logical matrix, not one imP feCt 0ri8inaU tradition has either accepted the ^ had a kam-un, etc. linguistic theory. The Western Arabicist F eoul lu y ™ Action, redUCed7 without reflection "• SU aU°WS this as a distinction as the working basis for Arabic language history h! I ^ Po^bility. The explan- aZ ^eT Ver comparative foUOWin8 Ae S° (e.g. often incisive and pointed ' lution of the ninth-century gram- Brockelmann) or has allowed Zll%TS l' T 1980; Fischer " VeiT °ri8in Arabs linguistic observations (as frequently in Fischer and Jastrow ^ ' had rea d *at kam and Xr such ^I t ? ^ mold in which it does * USed and with 1995) to be pressed into the Old Arabic-Neo-Arabic ' **7 therefore did away the ca e enH ^ ^^ W°rdS 42 CVen bef°re not fit. The I"' l^ ? " ^ could ^ used, data. The last forty hCre WayS Clearly does not lie in the lack of ", ' First > the su sition the problem today tha ^ ^ - PP° Lt h^d "Se ^ above, can be 5 dCriVed which, as seen " fr°m the observation that in the years have given us a wealth of dialectal data, nl"Z^t "'"I nS H and also can be used to expand Tanot " Cndin8S: nouns ha- -se endings, kam correlated with data from the Old Arabic era, Cf 'r raSSUmCd evfd^e sut/r ^ ^ °nCe t0 have had «*. No linguistic upon our knowledge of proto-Arabic. 7 Arabic dialects are given a ^""P*" °f a former is It is clear that in present exposition modern adduced howevelT case ending presence the of Arabic linguistic history deduSo'n much more important role in the interpretation i:i^^^*^«**f£<**#* practice. W1Sd° rectification of past knowing m mkma) •oppressed case endings than is usually the case. In part, this is simply a they would h K by As excluded from this sub discipline The Ae frCqUent daUS£ - seen, Arabic dialects have largely been fa53S^E^^«^ ^ with a history coterminous ° a rammatical certain fiat. Arabic linguistic however, is no more word classes in «**»„ 8 constraint: history, Fleischer s of the Classical language. Arabic dialects than it is with a history of ago It will be goal as it was 150 years Hve, that a contem orai perspec- of a holistic Arabic is as cogent today a change M P T W „ ( etcT t account C°Untenanced in Su^'S reached,however,onlywiththebasisofagroundedlinguisticmethodology,and (see Bohas and modern GumaumeWUme 198 T" ^ of relations between sion). 4; Archer 2005&, for further discus- this involves, inter alia, a principled exposition scenanodescnbea In the broad At the risk of Purees and whatever old ones that are available. sounding dichotomous polemical it ; simple linear to say " C"tlasm f tradition here, Arabic conceptualized not as a that a historical lineuST ° the Anbic is better According to the WaS kcking in Aeit the0ry' definition f hi t^T?"* linguistics ""guistics adopted historical - n, exists only when here, There are of course dissenting voices in this parad,g th *J^£^ffiS£Vollerss a"ou to and down, first tradition (according this method meth°d is somatically applied, by the then contemporary Arab u did not exist unT™ *» of the Algiers, 19o6: 3), Arabic mneteenth presentation of his thesis in the ancient tradition lay century. The genius of the ^"^^Zl elsewhere No.deke that, 'The modern h 1910 ) . Rabin states simply K more concre F fa * (Owens i m °f J., development, the Old vs. Neo split, but rather as a multiply-branching bush, whose stem represents the language 1,300 years ago. Parts of the bush main- tain a structure barely distinguishable from its source-in linguistic terms parts m which an Old-New dichotomization is wholly irrelevant. Other parts or the bush are marked by striking differences, differences which distinguish them as much from other parts of the Case and Proto-Arabic appendages as from the stem. It is a complex organism which resists a simple description in terms of a dichotom- ous structure. h< f0ll g Sk ChaptCrS thr °Ugh Case studies b**d both Arabic anH^ H on Old T! It is a fundamental of comparative and historical linguistics that S°UrCeS l farther exem precept New 1.T? ? P^ the ^levance of the Old- Understandin genealogical affiliation can only be established on the basis of concrete 8 AnWc linguistic history at the sanTe 1 and t^T* t0 linguistic features, the more central the feature the more important for aPPr°aCh thC SubjeCt from pe^pe a comparative linguistic *ve classificatory purposes. While there is no absolute consensus about how a that central linguistic feature can be identified, it can be taken as axiomatic long-term reconstruction and classification rests most fundamentally on phonological and morphological criteria. Of these two, Hetzron (1976b) has because argued that it is the morphological which is the most important and morphology represents the level of grammar that is both more complex more arbitrary in the sense that the sound-meaning dyad has no natural basis. are Precisely this arbitrariness ensures that morphological correspondences relatively unlikely to be due to chance. colored by Though Hetzron's principles of genetic classification were surely are strik- his experience in comparative Semitic and Afroasiatic, where there widely ing morphological correspondences to be found between languages in sect. separated both geographically and diachronically (see example (14) can be dubbed, 1.6.9 above), his principle of morphological precedence, as it morphological maybe taken as a general working hypothesis. Unquestionably, of a language. case belongs potentially to the basic morphological elements a language family Whether morphological case belongs to the basic elements of is, comparative method. of course, a question requiring the application of the belong to the proto- In Niger-Congo, for example, case apparently does not of the proto-language ianguage,! whereas in Indo-European it is a key element belongs, the status of case (Antilla 1972: 366). In Afroasiatic, to which Arabic of in the Nonetheless, the assumption proto-language is, as yet, undecided. Semitic a case language family, system within at least some branches of the the in consequences both for particular (Moscati et al. 1980), has had so ' of the ten or In an overview of Niger-Congo languages edited by Bendor-Samuel ^°^>° ^es, only some case marking (.99* the Ijoid language! appear To have mform me u. Niger-Congo,"^^i^ Sleuth, Gudrun Miehe and CmA Hoffman, both with long experience uwt it is very unlikely that case belongs to the proto-language. 8o Case and Proto-Arabic Case and Proto-Arabic 81 conceptuahzauon of relations within Semitic and for the reconstruction of the other two, Egyptian (suffix only) and Chadic (prefix only) have conjugations proto-language for the entire family. Given the as yet uncertain status of with clear correspondences to one or the other (see e.g. Rossler 1950; Voigt C Phylum levd believe ^ ^ > * a critical appraisal of its 2 1987; Diakonoff 1988). It is therefore equally striking that only two of the five sTmsst us atIfall T genealogical levels to be appropriate. Within this perspective in his branches, Semitic and Cushitic, have languages with morphological case chapter, I seek to elucidate the interplay between case conceptualization systems. Even within these two branches there is a good deal of variation 10n Of ne r0t°-variet ° P y. -mely Arabic. Given the im- among Pomte u individual languages, and the question of the extent to which Cushitic onTWlthm SCmitiC C°ndusi0ns ' reached re 8-ding this lan- case corresponds to is 3.2.1, 1 briefly summarize l^Znl COnS Semitic far from clear. In sect. the subfamily ^™ ^ and beyond, as I wul attempt the fo show^ situation for Cushitic, and in sect. 3.2.2, that for Semitic. 3-2.1. Case in Cushitic °f Afr0aSiatiC HerC ft be ^ seen that a case system is ZteulZenr While many of the Cushitic languages have case systems, it is by no means y rt7 f thC Cntire ° Ph lum - In sect I turn to case in C ^ - 3-3' rab i clear that proposal has to r '"?T COnside they derive from a proto-Cushitic case system. Such a ^^ ™§ *e descriptive work of as ^^beenten Sibawaih, who been with m mental put forward by Sasse (1984) where a proto-Cushitic case system "; " ***** the nat-e of Classical Arabic. F^aUy^ S nominative 3 T T opposed to accusative is postulated. ' ""**« the evidence fo case Aralic d ' in the modem that al" adH ^ Against this Tosco (1993, in the spirit of Castellino 1978: 40) has argued the origin of lies in a focus morpheme. § the0ffSpnn ofa many Cushitic nominative markers 8 ^-bearing variety, and ifnot whether caselessiredetvanet.es are Tosco's argument formal considerations, the innovative or go back is based on both universal and to a caseless form of proto-Semitic. main features of which are as follows. First of all he notes number of scholars before him) that the 3-1. Introduction (as have a nominative-absolutive (roughly = accusative) distinction in Cushitic is typo- logically a number odd since it is the nominative which is the marked form by of criteria. It is the nominative noun, for example, which is morphologically dWec °f *e differentiating "^ * the °ne at the head marked list lq^ (see (1) vs. (2)),* e.g. Oromo. " Blau ^ ***• 2>3 2 above; ' Fischer 19*2a: 3 1988: 2), is the case and a ?* * to a SyStCm ft thuS time t0 tUm detailed - *» 2 consideration I assume are classificatory questions TrhV r^ a very traditional Afroasiatic family tree, well aware that there relationship phenomenon in the the debate about at all levels. the present treatment of between Old A K I do not think, at this point, that such questions bear crucially on I case, will 3nd the modem diaIeCtS - however. concentrate ' adusiveh^nV™*"^ vowels, Berber and Chadic Egyptian orthography did not mark short short-vowel nominal featUre of Arebic case marking, do not have case. Since inflection whether or Even if Callenders (1975) not ancient Egyptian had a case system is difficult to know. Mempt behavior of verbal forms is to reconstruct ancient Egyptian cases on the basis of the functional on the -«, accusative -a) is right track, his attribution of formal values to them (e.g. nominative 3^. Casern speculative consonantal text with short the Afroasiatic at best, at worst no more than the fining in of an Egyptian Phylum vocalic not reconstruct a case system values taken over from Classical Arabic. Petracek (1988: 40) does for ancient Egyptian. 3 60) branches Sasse reconstructible. Diakonoff 1988: of the °\ corresP°ndences found in all leaves open the possibility that other cases might be phylum^thin ^^ its trf* Proposes above all, apparently, by markers ronom an 'abstract' proto-Afroasiatic case system, characterized (in pronouns ^ P inal systems. Personal how this system abstractness. -a ~ 0, though and/or ™J!rbsw Formally there was an opposition between i ~ u vs. and - «'« PL),t- L ' "> ^instance,"' «"»wnce, in -* Diakonoff s reconstruc- j, -nVnV (i) namicc-i ni-dufe where the determiner assumes the low tone, allowing run to re-assume its man-NOM pre v-came unmarked absolutive form with high tone (Saeed 1987: 133). Any attempt to 'The man came'. link this Cushitic data to Semitic case would have to account for significant (2) namiccd arke structural mismatches. To these problems can be added that of the Cushitic man (ABS) saw genitive, which neither Sasse nor Tosco integrate into their models, both 'He saw the man'. cognizant of the special problems accompanying the task. To summarize this section, while it is certainly correct, paraphrasing and abS e SemS 3S the basis for forther inflections, cf. genitive changing Sasse's formulation slightly, to speak of certain Cushitic Cfart ZZ-- ff (1984: m) man' Furtherm ^e, the nominative has a more endings ... other est ktedTrK ^ as bearing 'a striking resemblance to certain formatives in mited t0 ' the Sul ct ' a«d less frequent in Afroasiatic to link eT n th u ^ * « ^ branches', it does not appear possible, at this point at least, 1 Cushitic nominative has - S^XST close affinities » *ram these direcdy to Semitic case markers. Even assuming a link to be possible, it would not automatically follow that it would be made in terms of case. Indeed, B °n CUShitk lan es Tos«> further shows that a given Cushitic) which sufc^rTrl^ !TT ^ > that it is only the Semitic branch (following Tosco for «* ****** East Cushitic (e.g. Sidamo min-i unequivocally has a proto-case system, it would not be surprising if such a Wi^r^C ' (AWlgi ki) 1S found only subl" > wh-h marks not system developed at the proto-stage Semitic out of markers of another type. s but om t P1Cah? matted alfsK f ^^ 3S ^ ™*» "' *- been gram- PaSrfy^ 3-2.2. Semitic case S ftinCtl°n as ' Perha exhibited in the Harar Oromo. P* It is not my purpose here to review the literature on case in Semitic. The situation in Arabic will be reviewed in detail anyway in the next two sections. (3) namiccd-n arke For present purposes two basic points need to be made. man-topic saw First, although a three-valued case system (nominative -u, accusative -a, 'I saw the tnari. well- genitive -j) can be reconstructed for proto-Semitic, only a minority of attested et al.'s tripartite Semitic languages have it. Moreover, assuming Moscati ' rthermore noteworthy that Sasse's ^La^Z^Z I'?/* ^ f classification of Semitic into Northeast, Northwest, and Southwest sub- *~" - correspond to *°" ** seIf evidently branches, sub-branch. The the mree41ed sl> caseless languages (or dialects) are attested in each T0SC Sh°WS * the case earlier stages it, though after 1000 bc ^"to^mriZ^^T^f ^ " ° ' of Akkadian (Northeast) had is * to lcahzer -i* It is true P ) inflection on full nouns 7 Semitic that a 'no > system showed clear signs of breaking down. Most of the Northwest f°Und Part of the " * through°ut Cushitic, though as only Ugaritic8 article or dem t' languages did not have case (Hebrew, Aramaic, Phonecian), 'this-NOM', °* * n°minal affix °romo *""' vs. kana 'this W^t™ ^' Semitic, C3Se markin is overwhelmingly ^^ 8 > 7 that even * observation (1969: 80) "(Cenil^T"' The outside observer may be slightly disquieted by Von Soden's O^mo are (HetZron and system occur. He exception^ W«" 37) m Old Assyrian the expected case-marking pC fiS f"V*"* and Old Babylonian exceptions to S attributes closer study of such errors nominative °maU, for instance, where the these to orthographic errors or to 'bad pronunciation' (?). A subject is onJL 1. \ would be interesting. has in fr t0 absolute 8 * °m H U ** 8 have case systems, case.^W ^ Even Semitic languages demonstrably ^nl^™ Semiticists are not unified about which NOM "in, but man', reconstruct case NOM nin-ku 'the ^bin (i is not enough data to 969: l6l ) in a minority opinion, cautions that there syntax attested case-beanng Semitic in Ugaritic and hence does not include Ugaritic among the but languages. opposed to Weningers 1993 one) He has a two-valued case system for Gofez (as would with the Akkadian abso- ( HUd n apparently 'nominative' etymologically 1976 = 253 ff (or topic) rather identify the GsSaz > ^ ^.^ative modern o°™ F^l^^^^^eL^ e , (1969c Some lf IrSTfr* abs°lute r lve Arabic -u 1*). '* fo™' if (i.e. lack of case) than with Classical • £V" » ° " * Ae absolute ends in a front vowel morphological Paradoxically, developed an object^case, ketones the Semiti Ethiopian Semitic languages Amharic -„) have secondarily (e.g. based *nsMve that proto-Hebrew had case is to definiteness features Barth's (** 594) assumption casele* variety, >969. 47) showcase cmcially on and only case (Le. no parallel differentiation «*g« of Akkadian, Von Soden the assumption that proto-Semitic had case in h(5&S one could no more ,ustuy J^^™* •* however, it is clear that «t 3.5). Reading between the lines of his article, 84 Case and Proto-Arabic Case and Proto-Arabic 85 and Eblaitic (probably) possessing with a case system it. The situation with Ugaritic in this respect Second, it can be noted that in the Semitic languages is not very satisfying, as the only direct system is neutralized. In the evidence for case endings comes from the there are contexts where, in synchronic terms, the word-final symbolfortheglottalstop.InGordon's(i not bear case (or appears 965)lexicon,these amount Akkadian genitive relation, the possessed noun does to barely ten noun lexemes from possessor, and before a which the entire case system must be con- in the so-called absolute form) before a nominal structed It is noteworthy that possessed noun ends in a neither Rabin (1969, see n. 8 above) nor Petracek pronominal possessor generally only when the U988: 39) list Ugaritic among the case-bearing Semitic languages. Among the vowel (Von Soden 1969: 82 ff, 189 ff.). southwest Semitic languages Classical Arabic has it, though G3«i 9z (in chrono- ogical beel-0 biit-i-m terms attested some 350-500 (4) years earlier) probably did not, at least not n a way which self-evidently master-0 house GEN-M corresponds with the three-valued proto-Semitic = case) of the house' ystem.ThemodernEthiopicSemitklanguagesdonothaveit(seen.8),nordo 'master (0 "absolute" The affas-su 2°> ^ m°dern South Arabi*n languages do not have it. while Tthe atuatoon for epigraphic wife-his South Arabic is unclear due to the script. a dlStnbut 0nal Perspective traditional accounts (see sects. one can approach the problem in two In Classical Arabic the neutralization, at least in wav P- t ,i C aSSUmed at raising questions of the func- ^ * the cases are original and lost in those 1-6.3, 3.3.2.3), occurs in pausal position. Besides Tari ti! 1 atteSted ThiS> the presence of these caseless °f C°UrSe is the a taken most tional centrality of case in Semitic (see sects. 3-3-i), > PP— by S m It r \1 h case £t aL with morphological 198° : 94) and couId contexts those Semitic languages ' be said *> be supported suggests that even inZcZ^T^ further case- 7 C SltUad°n I will touch on ' * A3da£aa where the breakdown of a case systems possessed traces of the caseless variety. ystem is d T n Y atteSted A (sects. 3-3-3, 3-4-2, 3-5)- SCCOnd aPProach -aid be to view the related comparative aspects of Semitic below ZXs itt t n °" they are consistent 8ma1 Akkadian Brief the present section are, " ' ^ and Classical Arabic system as though the remarks in nnov i! rt° 1S Pr0ble atlC see also Rabin 1969: °f the fact enough conclusion (1988: 41, . that oldest to underscore Petracek's of the " ^ Akk-dum is the XLl k ? case 'the robustly structured " and that the 191), based comparative Afroasiatic data, that ," ^ case in the two on langta's^ ^ pragnant ^ innovation' ('Die *?" """*«*** II innovated system of Semitic can be regarded as a Semitic inTeTme 1 " "^ that ** two 1 7PCndently -a) diirfen wir als °f CaCh °ther gebildete Struktur des Kasussytems im Semitischen (-«, -i, oriLn ' "* not, a common ZhelTh *«*Y ^ however, there the If this point is accepted, thaf ^ ^ A third solution is eine semitische Innovation ansehen.'). L pto Ian"" TT ^^ point Semitic what § emerges internal issue, namely at case, **" * ** a further Semitic- te^ht r^ developing ^° " ~ development represented this ^ whether this ZT™ itself and chapter perspective in the rest of this developed a case system, Forth,™ In the rest o SUffiCCS t0 te or only some of them. at * "° ^t postulating a caseless variety the ancestor of all Semitic languages tK^^ consideration of the 1Ssue by this show that a detailed namely ^1^^^^°^ "^ema! distributional facts, chapter I will attempt to in answenng the 1 langU3geS Whkh for one important component (to JnV^^f- IT'': do not ^ve case systems proto-Arabic will provide in he PreVi° US POmt °" hCad) ^ question. -^oSSESS h ^ ' ^ Afroasiatic, * *" is prolbTyt^ ^^"^^ 3-3- Classical Arabic assumption that there is a clear It should by now be becoming clear that the and those the reconstruction with case systems of a case system fr„ distinction between those Semitic languages -•stem BibUcal tonne fro. the Hdww case trait than the modem b , ™^"^ sources than one can an Arabic an older ^ without, the latter possessing, in this respect, assumed proto-Semitic "° to case system ""'""P* mr knowledge to explain how the (e.g. _Moscati or diszmlJT' C in the textbooks example, is no, °mpletdy is perhaps as represented so much ar thr°U hout the oscati <>«« not so unproblematic . attempTtoS « M ^deterrmne 2 *U- status of case in the lenph 1 °f as I examine the of the assumed ^J^P ™ a family-wide proto-case system et al. 198o; Fischer 1982a). In this section S*m«.c enlfe a" languages/variefes "^ *< Significant counter evidence that some In sect. 3.3.1, neve^aTfcattf two sources. 1 — Classical detail, using Arabic, perhaps because his views about case in Arabic Old are somewhat the stems they are suffixed to or the items which may be suffixed to them. To iconoclastic and perhaps because Corriente himself did not follow his not subject to own this can be added that fact that unlike many languages, they are ideas to a further logical conclusion. In sect. I seen in 3.2, turn to the grammarian variational rules based on animacy and/or definiteness. Moreover, as who, if not the founder of Classical Arabic, doubtlessly nominative/ played a more pivotal the previous chapter (sect. 2.4.1.2, Old Arabic sources), the role in explicitly defining its form than any other varieties. individual, namely the genitive contrast, -u/-i, may be phonologically neutralized in some eighth-century grammarian Sibawaih, in order to gain a precise insight classical norms found more In his 1975 article Corriente cites deviations from the into the nature of the Classical Arabic which invariable he defined. This account will in various verses of the Kitab al-Aghani, including an inflectionally initiate the comparison between the Classical language and the modern 20. mixing up dual (1975: 52, cf. Rabin 1951: 173, also, of course, QurPaan 63), dialects, a necessary step in the discussion explan- of Blau's theory deriving the complete absence (1975: 60). Corriente's modern of cases (1975: 57), or their dialects from the Classical language. Middle Arabic ation for this phenomenon, as well as for the development of A work which took a philological perspective in pre- a diachronic step deeper is out of Old Arabic, was to postulate a caseless form of Arabic formed Diem s (1973) study of case endings in the 88; Arabic words found in the Aramaic Islamic times along the northwest Arabic borderland in Nabataea (1976: inscriptions of the Arabs of Nabataea in southern about centers, this variety Jordan, dating from expanding on Diem 1973). Associated with commercial 100 BC.» Diem shows that Arabic personal aftermath of names found in the inscriptions did of Arabic would have quickly acquired prestige status and in the not show traces of a living case system. If development Diem's interpretation of the data is the early Islamic Arabic diaspora served as a model for the correct, it would mean that the oldest written he does not break evidence of Arabic is character- of caseless Middle Arabic in urban contexts. Note that ized by a linguistic trait, the lack of functional case arising out of the endings, which is otherwise with Blau completely, in that he sees the caseless varieties said to be a characteristic par excellence of Neo-Arabic (see sect. 3.2.2). border contacts. recognize a caseless The present study agrees with Corriente on the need to 3-3-1. Corriente varieties. Where issue form of Arabic existing contemporaneously with case SeTi S (l971 postulate a simple link ' 1973, 1975 19 6 can be taken account is the readiness to tl ! > 7 )> Corriente argued that Classical with his ^^1 °f 3 devel me (Nabataean Arabic) and the modern ort~ f HZ ^ °P *, and that its crystalization in a more between one variety of Old Arabic dUC in krge linkage will become evident ^ Part to ** efforts ^ the Arabic grammar- dialects. The difficulties in drawing such a simple knlL ?T As a 7 hC makeS rdate well as elsewhere in this book. ^^ to *« case astern- These include in the discussion in sects. 3 -4 and 3-5, as eWde!l f L integrating the SOm ' noted that lingUistk intemal interpretations, and an exam- general introductory remark, however, it may be Sonination ofnf thetH kT!" philological record. proto-Arabic will yield results modern dialects into the reconstruction of e fi P iVe entities defined by the Pr0minent in his Corriente which do not self-evidently replicate the linguistic sho™ed ^ Wi article where thLT r nal caseless Nabataean ^ °f ClaSsical *** cases-roughly those Arabic grammarians, or by the epigraphic record (e.g. «S.t£ ^T° comparative nCe f meaning and goals of the ° "* be effected a change of case Arabic). This follows from the different methods Tn^istn V f? ^ and from m 0W Ue nC to whom I turn presently, ° ""* agree ** Blau (r^) that method and of the Arabic grammarians i«rne reconstruction ot f 3TWgh record. A full degree of redundancy, the point stands that the very fragmentary nature of the epigraphic A^b? LTiffi ^ "r ot these ** ***** and detailed definition of each form r^ther^ * ^^ into ** 8~. The case proto-Arabic requires independent together into a larger picture. into ^ morphoiogy (i97i: 47) - components, before they are put CJ^^r^*^allomorphy, end exceptionlessly tacked on to the of the word,worH 1 , , with little 3-3-2- Sibawaih morpho-phonological interaction with either grammatical to be found in all Barring a full-scale study of all the material are Sibawaih in the first instance treatises, the reasons for concentrating on «igen of detail ana versucht, dais <4 "^ Diem (l973: *») writes: 'Es wurde zu standards, a paragon N^S^W^ *F™? self-evident. is, even by modern des Un ersten His Kitaab Semitischen " M>*undert v. Kasussystem aufgegeben hat' WhX!!? Chr. das clarity ot style). More ym of of organization and W«orical reconstruction. *" «* «« had case question of completeness (if not necessarily ^^ becomes a large comprehensive grammar where a importantly, it is arguably the only H 88 Case and Proto-Arabic Case and Proto-Arabic 89 body of eyewitness to mention that the observations of actual linguistic usage are systematically Before beginning this exposition, however, it is relevant recorded. This is not to deny grammarians may bear on the that interesting material is to be found in the very terminology of case marking among the later treatises. Nonetheless, two oldest grammatical later grammarians were dependent to a large question of the existence of case in Old Arabic. The degree on Sibawaih for the of the eighth century, the simple reason that the ^rabiyya came to consist works, one (Sibawaih's) definitely from the end of a more or less closed case form as a central set of data by the tenth century,™ rendering obser- other equally old or only slightly younger, utilized vations on the contemporary syntactic structures. Gram- spoken language superfluous (see below). formal criteria for organizing their exposition of Turning to Sibawaih, there are history of Arabic grammatical two aspects of his work which may be kept in mars and case-marking go hand in hand in the mind when interpreting his is a short, practical gram- observations on Arabic. The first is that Sibawaih theory. Xalaf al-?Ahmar's Muqaddima fly l-Nahw was confronted by a mass of Kitaab is one of the most variant forms which he evaluated in his own mar (see Owens 1990: ch. 9), whereas Sibawaih's inimitable style, to to which I turn Sibawaih in particular goes presently. By and large, in the later grammars, detailed grammars of Arabic ever written. those written after the end of the grammar (I: 2.1 ff., see Baalbaki ninth century, the variant forms were either considerable pains at the very beginning of his excluded altogether or treated in determined from syntactically de- the more detailed grammars (e.g. Ibn Al- 1990) to functionally distinguish lexically } addCnda case markers. Sibawaih's ^ t0 the eneral rules material termined short vowels, the latter of course being the S - If the rare, new was aaa added, it was nearly always by reference to forms recorded from person- terminology is thus: ages/tribes contemporaneous with Sibawaih or before " (5a) Short vowel terminology in Sibawaih d P°int rdateS t0 What may be termed Sibawaih's attitude to- « phonetic value wJ rT 8U1StlC lexical morpho-syntactic Whkh he described Carte Ditters ^ - ' (1973: 146; see Too990. , torf damma u 131 criticisms) has contrasted rafi Sibawaih's 'descriptivist' approach with reSCnptmsm fatha nasb a P of later grammarians. This contrast of styles, as noted in he nrp 01 kasra jarr i Para8raPh rCfleCtS 3 ' genml orientation in the definition of whafZ ? , was pre- ' vowels " Ae definition of clear, It appears that 'discovery' of functionally-differentiated ™ the A^W*- It is not the nowever wh t f^ undifferentiated for UnderSt°° was used ^ d by descripti™, whose characterization ceded by a time when the same terminology Can"! , ^ FarraP's terminology Unders still in evidence in rmlrtanttoT/ T ^ t*nding Sibawaih on this point is vowels of both types. Such a system is g the°retiCaI "»*** thinking, to comprehending (Owens 1990: 159; Talmon 2003). Teson o a , ^l hngU1StlC data which his detailed observations make accessible o us and oT f (5b) Short vowel terminology in Farra? 8 ** motivat l!' * ions for and mechanisms by which value gramrnar! T" T lexical morpho-syntactic phonetic 7 eVd°Ped Baalb3ki - (1"° : 18 has Lport- S " > made ^e U Zn Sf damma ~ rafi rafi confronted »"-*. by a mass of linguistic data, were not com „ U fatha ~ nasb nasb a deSCri material ,* ^ * Ptive «P°^n of linguistic but a* ^ kasra ~ xafd xafd ' P t0 ** material system' (mTelhal) , *?* a coherent P Sih K * describe the phonetic are used to th/ne" *" *" «*™ ** * In Farra? the morphosyntactic values also th"e s^b ^ * is descriDe ^nsV^™' aspects ^ values vowel in Pumm 'mother (1: 6) of ** system special of lexical vowels, so that the ' with "^^tocJSS^T' study on early Arabic as rafiM This supposition finds support in Versteegh's he have to "e » That the 'older', though be excepted LTSf^t/Z ^ rela,ively few crit^ modern studies, may FarraP's terminoiogy should be ^J^SSS ^ (e.g. word absolute ^ to the lexicon 3phy deals a time!),may be explained by Talmon's theory 1990, -i rarely changes ^ "» open-ended system. Adding for the variant MtoeTl ^XxXauonrarrar Ganges m T grammatical would tend to accept «P the entire grammar. ^ "^ *" add>ng a rule to the grammar potentially tradition than did Sibawaih. I foUowing -i nommatwe.s ofa;-nflW-n,^(I:3)amon some Bedouins, that me — g frequency oruse.. conceptual "* of />- within has arisen due to SLuS^^ tentnTZ UngUistic ***** *>"** down. There were the compound-like unit that ^^ ^^ ^ areas of ^Ugh distinctive temmol fa grates a W™ morphophonology areas °f core (,) the convenience of not having _ speakers. anda syntaxsyntax, thinking adjacent to the some gr Gf ZT^'such as vowels among at least P pragmatics and semantics. (*) the non-case functional value of final nominal 90 Case and Proto-Arabic Case and Proto-Arabic 91 grammatical theory. He shows (19936: 125 ) that the Koranic exegete form here. Were Muhammad 'Zayd' can equally appear in nominative or accusative al-Kalbi (d. 145/763), who lived a generation before Sibawaih, Sibawaih a simple descriptivist he would presumably have been content to used the term damm for a u vowel 'within a word', as an 'ending' (Versteegh note that a topic can appear in nominative or accusative form, in free does not specify what sort here), and for a nunated noun, nasb is used for a variation. Such a statement appears to account for most of the topicalization lexical yowel a, an ending, and for nunation, and Such similarly for the other terms structures which Sibawaih discusses in this and the following chapters. on the lists in (5). For Sibawaih, no an approach is quite foreign to his methodology, however. Rather than consider the data in terms of their implications catalogs implies its for an under- variation is simply 'free' because every variant which he standing of the development of Arabic linguistic and theory, which has been one own interpretation. In the present example, both nominative interest conceptual in such data to date, they may be interpreted other, simpler in terms of the present accusative cases are justified by a series of analogies with quest.on of the status of case endings in the of history of the language. In these structures and paraphrases with examples which allow a regularization terms it appears that Sibawaih made explicit two aspects of vocalic variation, apparently anomalous structural elements. one lexically, the other morpho-syntactically determined, existed in the explains the following pairs which At the beginning of ch. 31 (1: 31. 17 ff.) Sibawaih language he described. What of examples (where (7a) corresponds to (6a), (7b) to (6b)). may be asked here is whether the variation and imprecise distinction Detween lexical and morpho-syntactic (7a) zayd-un darab-tu-hu vowels found in Farra? and other early C°mmentators d^sn't originate in were Zayd-NOM hit-I-him ctS v the fact that there Whkh Farra? studied 'As for Zayd, I hit him'. h enir T 5/^ where vocalic variation at n0t repreSent Case endin s varieties of (7b) zayd-an darab-tu-hu 8 > " ™« useless AraWr 1 1 u 7 SUch ClrcumStances a insistently differentiating terminology Zayd-ACC wouH of u L VC bCen Unnecess ^ trap's 'imprecise' terminology 'Zayd, I hit him' woddthl fl T' 3 CSS " differentia*d grammatical thinking than Siba- topic wdh's but Example nominative noun in the function of Z ItS ( 7a) contains a aPPUCati0n t0 a different data **• ™s perspective is as its comment" ad^tted'n I u (mubtadaP), with the verb structurally set against the topic t OUgh °f ' ** rdatin earf prob- Zayd is lems to ^ 8 y terminological Here the nominative in kTto tZuactual J (mabniyy Salaa 1-mubtadaP, see Levin 1985). language forms, should be pursued further." nominatively marked explained by the general property that topics are which Sibawaih '"*?'*»** In b) the accusative in Zayd, toSioawa^r^ <™Ple will serve both as an introduction ( 7 the problem is to explain of the same value as does by assuming an implicit verb (Pidmaar al-fiUh 32. 1) zaydan fr° cL the accusative in Zayd (= (darabtu) g m ** < I: 3»ff.) Sibawaih considers main verb which governs the somefairlvcnrnT , fat n Whkh he 1S COncerned darabtuhu). top" ant> *> define the case form of a aZt n U V(See where the co-referential 1988: 25 f r Sibawaih complex examples is ° disCUSsion)- A basic then proceeds to more showlt (°6 ^ ^ b). — object is marked by (^ the direct pronoun is detached from the verb, first where passed him), then a preposition (zayd-un/an marartu bihi 'As for Zayd, I Zayd-NOM analogously to (7a), as a topic met-I to the set in (6). Example (6a) is explained brother-ACclis problematic be- As for Zayd, That in (6b) is more I found his brother' (nominative) + comment structure. direct semantic link cause in does not appear to be a contrast to ( 7b) there sense in There is no obvious between the topicalized noun and the main verb. lo related to the topic, Zayd. 'As for Zayd, which the action of 'hitting' can be directly I found his brother'. '< translation of the later * The term 'comment'.ommenf is a more appropriate 9«W (Versteegh '££** complete.^^^J^TujZFor brevesbrevnys saKeisaKe ViU lura, " --"-—«•—•—-*»««""** ^J™^°* eties/entities *"*"»* the sentence > translates-«nslatesSibawaih'stenr,Sibawaih's term as 'the" part which makes ^ ^IZ^^Z^^^ ? shorter term 'comment'. 92 Case and Proto-Arabic Case and Proto-Arabic 93 explain these structures Sibawaih invokes a new principle, namely that 'if the ?idl- 'equal', may undergo genitive case epenthesis, Sidilt, but in the nomina- action faUs on the object containing a co-referential pronoun it is as if the tive this is impossible, *'iidul, because 'they [bedouins] have no words of action falls on the object itself (I: 32 . 17 ). This semantic carries equivalence structure fiiuV (II: 309. 20). Here the non-occurrence of particular forms is over to a morpho-syntactic one, where the topicalized noun assumes the same apparently confirmed not in terms of what Sibawaih observed or tested, but case form as the item it is linked with. In (6b), for instance, the co-referential rather in terms of the violation of his own general rule. ?aXaa ' t0 zaydatu Since Faxaa - is accusative, too can TTu^Zu so What should by now be clear is that there is no pure data to be found in zaya be. This principle is invoked a number of times to explain ever more Sibawaih. Everything he observes and writes about is filtered through his own complex structures in the succeeding pages (particularly I: 42). grammatical thinking. One salutary effect of this is that it was this very 3S thCSe fr°m Sibawaih ?", can be «P«ted many times over. systematization to produce a work of I wT of linguistic facts which helped him Cm PrCSently n°tin onl ' for *e moment that what is ZorTT. °,. 8 y extraordinary detail. In examples (6)-(z) discussed above, Sibawaih starts S CXample ^ dted bv Sibawaih ^ays has to be inte- with finally t basic N-V-Obj structures, moves to N-V-prep-Obj structures, and ZZ wVngU k thinking - SibaWaih cites ( 6a ^th minimal comment to slightly more beclTf IK f ) N-V-Obj-possessor pro structures, with each step tackling a kS StmCtUre is clear is - Wh« he moves to (6b) he complex case. His description is partly carried along and expanded by the very confront^K 3 new tructural ««e of new Z ^ affairs which requires new principles, logic of his grammatical thinking. W10nS ' PPCnS h°WeVer When he Whkh ' meets structures This is not to no regard for the linguistic he finds ce /" ' say, however, that Sibawaih had r°ng ** ** happens rdativelv infrequently- It is true, facts such as as Cart o * provided to him from his various sources. I think examples (6) 7P°mtS Ut ° ' th3t SibaWaih does have which IwK a" evaluative vocabulary and (7) can be understood in the following way. Sibawaih was presented with fank acce 1° Ptabi of one another, raw nominative men t 2 > ^ % structure against data, and this was that the topic noun varies freely between iS USUaLv * to commend a b, without and of his own rejecting altA T^' over accusative case. He accepted both forms, but on terms a f r 'facts' k ° mStanCe hC th3t ^ theoretical making. It was Sibawaih's achievement to integrate these ' ' ^ *^t^t?Tn( 3 ClearlT however he judgment into of Sibawaih on the ^ * > makes this a more or less coherent whole (the definitive interpretation basis of Z6 grammatlcal ™rits of each the nueTby structure, i.e. in terms of remains to be written), in this case through such concepts as 'topic', mabniyy wlh I? CValuates them in Ae first . place. Salaa Nonlth 1 al-mubtada?, co-referentiality, and so on. 3111 for .PMent ur oses to know if Sibawaih sets At elements of 'Arabic' limitSTo Ae^cclpLwe^n P P the same time one has to assume that there are many ne ° " P SltlVe 3nSWer to this uestion can be muS which Some of these, of toted in his discn«T ? q were outside the scope of Sibawaih's cognizance. Pa Sal f° rmS Whkh wU1 be referred ixuiha fa course, mortal, the amount of ^ct. ' t0 are due to the mundane fact that Sibawaih was 3 2 3 Sibawdh m % u 495) n°tCS that ft final would have nouns (particular^ ^° may haPPen in -CC# observations he could make finite. Other elements, however, s r as ** finai pausai linguistic posnioni c Aat in escaped Sibawaih's notice because they could not be fitted into his ge^rrir r w^w a *"* n0t bUt thinking corollary of the system- Process of "^ "* ddeted "^ * (Baalbaki 1990: 22). This is a necessary what may be ZT epenthesis ' principle rules Thus 'some ^ form a final CVC syllable. drivenness of his seen above, Sibawaih on Arabs' i H f methodology. As 7™ that NOM', 8 Wr or bakr have fofcWr# 'Bakr- out forms * if such forms did exist bakir* 'Bakr GEN' h ^ (0 such as iidul. It is therefore possible so long however that this is possible only they forms of Arabic could as the resulting ,tr,l ^ ' would have been observed by him. Caseless structure meets acceptable constraints. word structure similarly have been outside his purview. Sibawaih may not h#> of free (*>mewha, °f 3-3-2.2. is improper to speak strained) ex l Stable cases, variation While it exampte'whereT^- ** P ™«™ himself, for he adds two further free a rammatically the fact remains relati<"> to the affected by a verb, without bearing a variation of case analytic framework, Zhonoredft™* action rZZ 1 5 within a Sibawaihian his brother' *" ThUS you (, : "' °De *' as 32 . 1?) "^ «* honored him that instances. Looking beyond h.m who ^ £* hTn this effectively is what he documents in many „ honored, where* "^ " * actions in the first it is ^ - though in onH t ^ ^ free ^ amount to Admmedly ° ' *e of what mfrequendy- * "^ Wm but his brother. topic construction, there are many examples i" ^n jrn h°WeVer taki ^tion. ctly discussion above ', - a m principle b, fairlv stri variation In fact, the samples "S " the ™r'~ ^ in case form discussed in the Kitaab. ~I drscussed. The ^^^^ by Si divided by aU his concerned to pUuage^t Pf^ " around exposition, intimately (6)-( 7 ) is typical of Sibawaih's 94 Case and Proto-Arabic Case and Proto-Arabic 95 define the proper case forms. Full proof of this is a task beyond the confines of Nominative, as badal or tawkiyd, accusative as nominal complement brought the present exposition. What can be offered here is a brief overview of the type into direct governance of the verb, with implied preposition {ialaa dahrihi) of case variation Sibawaih dealt with, based on a review of the first 100 pages like daxaltu l-bayt-a ~ fiy l-bayt-i. of the Kitaab, just under a quarter of book I. In these 100 pages, roughly the following topics are dealt (8f) Sajib-tu min darbi zayd-in wa Samr-inlan (1: 81.1) with (initial pages of topics are given): general concepts (i), transitivity surprised-I from hitting Zayd-GEN and Amr-GEN ~ ACC (10), negative in laysa and maa (18), left noun dislocation (tanaazuS, 'I was surprised by the beating of Zayd and Amr'. (I: 81.1) 28), extraposition (31-64) arranged according to type ot predicate and predicational type, extraposition in inalienable-like Genitive in Amr by agreement with Zayd, accusative by virtue of an under- constructions (64 ), governance of participles, verbal nouns, and adjectives stood verb (daraba) Samran. 70), extension of function (ittisaaS and iftixaal, p. 90; Owens 1990: 251ft). in tne following I (8g) duriba bihi darb-un daSiyf-un ~ darb-an daSiyf-an will excerpt a representative example, summarizing Sibawaih s hitting-ACC comment on each example. hit by it hitting-NOM weak-NOM ~ with'. (I: 97-^) 'A weak blow was hit with it ~ It was hit a weak blow (8a) maa 96 Case and Proto-Arabic Case and Proto-Arabic 97 It does not appear that the variation in the case system points to an modern dialects. In both instances the perspective is the same, namely to impending breakdown. Sibawaih is too specific about which forms are enquire into which ways the modern dialects can be shown to continue or uniquely correct in many contexts, and too specific about the implications develop from the language as described in the Old Arabic sources. or choosing one variant or another to lend such speculation any weight, Concentrating here on those chapters which explicate pausal {waqf) iaken as a whole, however, the variation 18 does point to a system with an forms, it emerges that much of what Sibawaih describes for pausal phe- inner dynamic and flexibility, a variation which grew out of variegated his- nomena is not immediately relatable to the modern dialects. The following oncal developments. It could even have evolved out of a non-case system extent to which ; typology, without answering definitively the question of the (see sect. 3.3.2.3). there is a direct link between pausal forms in Sibawaih and the modern It can be noted here, before moving on to the next point, that there is a dialects, at least defines where the problems lie. The typology consists of clear structural tendency in the variation, namely that most case variation two main parameters. One relates to Sibawaih's description of a particular involves the accusative as one of the two alternatives. Expanding on this phenomenon as being a property of context or pausal position (or both), the observation, ,t is fair to say that the accusative is the unmarked term rela- other to the extent of distribution of the phenomenon, both in Sibawaih and to frequency te of functional occurrence. The only positions which are in the modern dialects. I will illustrate these points here by means of an unequivocally not accusative are objects of prepositions and possessors informal scale, at whose initial point no obvious connection between the ' 0mmentS ' t0pks When the comment is agents dialects whose end point a fairly n VW k not a verb, and the Sibawaih's description exists and at Senter CeS (=nominativ e). Otherwise (the various objects, plausible relation be postulated. LvLT , V may "'" the "*" ?ima class of complementizers) sen- On the one extreme there are many parts of Sibawaih's description which tenTe L t f*"* take aCCUSative or vary > freely in accusative another have because they have no obvious case with no relevance to the current question arformfoT(as in examples, above). of this reflexes in the modern dialects. Perhaps the most obvious example P position they don't Cm °rmS Pr sort is the fate of the case vowels themselves. In pausal ^ f °bablv the reates degree of variation g * (of anv Z^a T simply occur at may take on four aated 3 disappear. Rather, the pausal position they *& ^-nal position is that relating to pausdfoTm point is ?K k T* different values briefly in Ch. 1. The important deV°teS m°St (ch. 494), as described H ™ '^ °f the twenty-eight pages between To. impossible that since the case vowels do not occur in the modern dialects it is deSCripti°n as ' " WU variousTeferences to it in 1r^of ? T to and their reflexes in the h^ dear that draw connections between Sibawaih's description ^ " for Sib^aih pausal context is not simply a no"-,; T modern dialects. ** Sndefinite and -se suffixes, rather a poAbn but apparently el'd ^ Moving type pertains to word-final -aa, up the scale, a second various so A basic when notes (II: 314- 8) that although ^^^?6 tr«- r written with the alif maqsuwra. Sibawaih in hublaa umed most Arabs -aa, the Qays change it to y, as [--^SekeCSoSnt pronounce it in pause as -> dialects, Blanc (1964: 50) Ch hublay 'pregnant' (see sect. 7.1). Among modern ^Sr : BkU the 198l: Diem 303) that mod^tSlS ^ * ^ notes undergoes Pimaala in Jewish ^ f T&°m that a final feminine -a irregularly Naively ^ ** ClaSskal **** ausal formS - pXps a K P Baghdadi the lexical items where this 7m 7 b< CXamined here Arabic, heblee 'pregnant' being among correlation \ whether in fact a one-to-one nTU' happens. neither for Sibawaih nor in the i aw The -aa - -ayl-ee change is frequent -d vo::zit:^T£ **««»*» * *- between the Qays pausal Lf f: p— modern dialects. While there may be a connection uesti a farmer one 7" ^^ m& interesting than the forms generally, i.e. not only previous one in two directions. On the one hand for the drawn between Sibawaih's description of pausal Classical language, vowel, and comparable forms Sibawaih does not appear to place such severe restrictions those relating to the treatment of the final case on the Arabs who use connections exist, it is rarely so that the form. On the other for the modern dialects, as in modern dialects. Even when such will be seen in sect. modern dialectal forms. Similarly, 3.4.2 below (18), under certain interpretations it can be they would explain anything but a part of related to fairly widespread certain Arabs ('some of them', the contemporary phenomena. Very briefly, many one would like to know why often only modern dialects have modern dialectal ones. Until a rule inserting an epenthetic vowel before a sonorant Qays, Tamim, etc.) have forms analogous to the (e.g. -r, -/) consonant (see serious attention, I think it overly Ch. 6). Interestingly, all Sibawaih's examples, these problems have been given more admittedly when only seven in all, dialects arose from pausal forms, have a sonorant, -r, -/, or -m as the final selective to argue that the modern consonant. Uncharacteristically, position in Sibawaih would appear if sonority is indeed a conditioning factor, the main piece of evidence supporting this in Sibawaih does not state a of pronouncing case vowels phonological environment respective of the final to be that only one of four alternative ways consonant, though he does altogether. explicitly note (II: 310. 5) that the process does not pausal position is by deleting the vowel unequivo- occur when a semi-vowel occurs above kind, there is a more as C2 (e.g. zayd, lawn). Even if the sonority Besides interpretive problems of the the condition plays a role in Arabic pausal forms were Sibawaih, a difference exists with the modern cal argument against assuming that Classical pausal dialects, where, as will be According to Sibawaih, seen, the rule applies anywhere in a word, not forerunners of the dialectal caseless forms. only his finally as m Sibawaih. mentions at various points in Certainly the present example potentially repre- forms should occur only before pause. He sents a more general correspondence describes for them do not apply to between the modern dialects and Siba- discussion that the peculiarities which he waih as we s treatment of pausal 306. 313- 18). Dealing phenomena than the case discussed in the previous forms in connected speech (wash e.g. II: 302. 8, 5. paragraph. precisely pauses were The correspondence is measure where not complete, however, so there will always are with written texts there is no way to be a risk in drawing non-poetic style, which definitive conclusions. placed in the Classical language, at least not in In dialect a fourth set of cases model of the modern correspondences can be drawn between modern certainly must be assumed to be the purported dialects and a variety of pauses actually are in spoken pausal alternatives, or even with context forms. ancestor. To get an idea about how frequent Mbawaih, Arabic ot for example (ch. collected from the spoken 500) says that the pausal form of nominative language I used a corpus of texts which I and and genmve nominals of the basic phonetic alphabet, form faaliy may be raamit, raamiy*, or roam* NE Nigeria. The texts are transcribed with a m°dem occur. Since this material is dialects have raami here or perhaps raamiy, the pauses are explicitly marked, wherever they cwT?hoice between u > how many the short -i or long get a basic statistic about -iy being one of phonological theory computerized it is an easy matter to information from five texts '""" °n other pauses there are in each text. Table 1 gives basic ^ ^^ ^ han<*, the definite context form*" Ik words.21 S the total number of ,'? """* ° ** COuld *° have been a 'source' for the about the number of pauses relative to modern H° ^ In ** C3Se co wa^, Tt T; ^spondences between some of Siba- alternatives and modern • ^ dialects are close to perfect, but "mtlT^l US deddC n 3 defimte Table 3-1. ? ° despondence. In this category, ZTceZ T u U SlbaWaih,S COntert fo the word/pause ratio " ™ -hkh provides Text Number of pauses *ZZITt tK m°^dem no. Number of words Such *?*. ^^ a «* is f<>«nd among the Tamim 7. ^ 4.11 ° dem 1 598 **? ^ ^rative have haadih in pause - but 2,460 L£X 1? ? 6.57 haa8i( 2 6,287 956 ) ,CT I:322,5)SibaWaihrePor,sfrom con,« fiX "eliablesourcethat S omeArabshave W> Nigerian Arabs. recorded between 21 All five texts are informal conversations ioo Case and Proto-Arabic Case and Proto-Arabic 101 The ratio of 5 : means that 1 on average, only one word in five occurs before where an -a(a) suffix (as seen above, representing the unmarked case in a pause. Four words in five do not. Assuming this ratio to be generally Arabic) was opposed to a bare nominal stem (0). The nominative and genitive representative of spoken Arabic, it is inserted clear that most words do not occur in vowels may then have developed out of epenthetic vowels which were pausal contexts, and by extrapolation dualities that in Classical Arabic the non-pausal in particular contexts. 22 One can cite for analogous morpho-syntactic forms in normal speech would the have considerably outnumbered the pausal. To in related languages, the GaSaz opposition -a-0 (genitive-0), or even argue that the modern dialects grew out of the pausal forms of the Classical Berber construct-independent (unmarked, u-0) state contrasts. anguage is to say that forms which old or are a relatively small minority became the Having developed the thesis that a caseless variety of Arabic is as standard or the further development and philo- of the language. This I think is a priori older than one possessing case, on the basis of the comparative refinement on *e pausal second part of the chapter to r™ origin hypothesis is specu- logical record, it will be the main task of the atiye. f,T This would have it (e.g. Corriente 6: the modern dialects. This will 197 84; Blau 1988: 9 ) that under the bring evidence to bear on the question from "'18 8U3ge of case in " leamerS even in the Classical lan ** lead to the development of a general model defining the genesis Z«T? I ' guage t0 C USCd f°r thC non"P^. Strictly speaking the idea Arabic. ilweZZ Tu "hu *** n intimation of such no mod ° a P—ss, and there are whkh recoil ^ "J"*** * ^ * t0 be ^^ ^"g to TC 3.4. The Modern Dialects PreS ed Pr°CeSS kck ' Motivation is a stumbling^. udemlh H C T PkX mor hol in proto-Arabic was examined P °gy of modern Arabic sect. In the previous three sections the status of case 6 dialects (see TilP T n°n " and the treat- ArabS karned COm lex in the light of comparative Afroasiatic, comparative Semitic, Phonolo P A-bk morphology and J T 1 devel- The thesis was nativC lan^ge apparency witflitde ment of case among the earliest Arabic grammarians. problem ml ^tu ^ ^ h3Ve SUCh to a case-based one. a Problem with *e cases? Moreover, oped that a caseless variety of Arabic is prior wha' w!s 2v H ^ ^ Pi e re Sh°rt of the past, it is now time find VOWls amon whi were found the Having considered the issue from the perspective ' 8 * - Tinfth UR[±e; , on rS ati°n th3t to see what light they shed Tabs 111 \ the Cases were too difficult for non- to look to the present, to the modern dialects, f dialects descend from a the thesis. In particular, to claim that the modern distributed that they caseless ancestor implies that the relevant forms are so avoids these mental mn"fa » to the argument.Its 22 This should be emphasized is not crucial ^^^J^Zt^^3-5 m°re refined suggestion is speculative, and it Mauro discussion) claimed that the cons.derations. dialects descend I overall following (again speculative) 3 ety plausibility may be heightened by the Whkh material to reinteI r«e° did have Tosco for non-morphemic ^. "* -dings, (p.c.) points out that it is relatively unlikely BefL mo"„e ^ out^ that T r pointed To reply to tins, >t can be with a morphemic value, as the present suggestion entails. knowlch^ later (sect dialects is reconstructed .»£»» rfM the 3MSG object suffix variant -u found in many modern Whkh he is very common pausal trea inter alia, among the are situations where .t ^, being precisely a former epenthetic vowel. Furthermore, there fcrStI ^10 namely via betWen morphemic value m another, vowel " the hi h vowel vs. the low for non-morphemic material in one language to acquire a, in particl § * '• « become* in the Z T^" where non-morphemic h- ^""^ty of the language contact. A standard example is Arabic kitaab, was latter against former. This n-*bu. r. do the class marker, hence pi. Zemed 7 Swahili loanword ld-tabu identified with the Swahili fa- noun (see Krumrn 940. *mjL the high vowels are process this one class of nouns e* feted is quite regular and is not restricted to ^^ similar process d.d not f that a forms both e.g. cannot be ruled proof is equally elusive) ««^T^« ' verbs, out (though kabid-un^kabd^^^^- nouns and Lm,\ c ^7 text of 853 -c case is from an Akkadian « into Arabic. The oldesVmention of the 'Arabs' ^ very likely between speakers of Akkadian and speakers of proto-Arabic ~* ll Was vs. shifting into ^""J^ i«m«/-w (*/am/un) "" ***"**&' (H: 277. 22), also be that Akkadian speakers with a functional case system SimilJ 1 ^^tZproces^may ha as case vowelsjhi^^ vowels th£ bUmguals) reinterpreted the original Arabic epenthetic h.gh vowel WhCn indCfinite WherCaS ew^ See *ct ' adverbial, asm Heb been helped if a suffix -a (perhaps 3^ c^^^T^} "' Arabic already had low vowel (GEN) are deleted in pause, the parallels between -an 1 ^ coexistence sect. 4.2 for (ACO u and («) I of case and easelel varieties, ^f^^cS 11 of suffixes suggests mat symmetry where in lack and epenthetic vowels.) Tropper (1*9) 1"^™-^ in one * »«** ^ &S Semitic Tata**"'J^^ UnrsfatTfo;:-^. accusative -a in wes the n absolute case -a, which fell together with the (proceeding on ! ° 8ins of the Arabic case system the assum another t ^ °aSe direction, one might innovative). in Semitic, exists, is ^*e^<«-'X^£^E^~in Classical Aramc me This oanwl ,if where it with the developing out of 0, and pausal alteration may nominative/genitive contrast represent an affairs developing ^ ^ rf into the accusative. 1 102 Case and Proto-Arabic Case and Proto-Arabic 103 could not have descended from the Classical Arabic as described by Sibawaih. The formal similarity carries over in an interesting fashion to nouns ending will attempt to 1 motivate this claim from to Nigerian two perspectives. In sect. 3.4.1, in long vowels. For the dialects, I restrict my observations here summarize the distribution of elements lacking. In which possibly point to traces of case, Arabic, as detailed information on this point from other areas is and in sect. 3.4.2, address aspects of vowel the question of syllabic reorganization Old Arabic, nouns are customarily represented as ending in a long which is implied by the loss of the final 'guidance', and short vowels. when written with a final -aa or -iy, as in Sasaa 'stick', hudaa apparent from qaadiy 'judge'. When a pronominal suffix is added the length is 3-4-1- Case traces? the orthography. Blau ( 198i: 167) identifies certain dialectal elements which he suggests are (9) Sasaa-ka 'your stick' SyStCm - * ^ ft is aPP">Priate to look at each in detail n n H f T qaadiy-hum 'their.M judge' mme t0 Wh3t 1° ment * is necessarv t0 d^ive them from old LIJr er nT though C°nSiderS threC final vowel is said to be shortened, candidat«- I summarize two cases here, When the indefinite -n is added the whL a i. !i long. y cursorily at this point subject °f a final -aa is still written orthographically ^^::x.T > bdng the (10) Sasa-n 'a stick' °f tH SUffiX ~ m appearinS on a sma11 «* of forms in many diafcr^T r~ ^ qaadi-n 'a judge' U iYa§bin ln $0me dialects in 1ann-u 'he must Wesote'hf •? ) ^b-an 1 \ the final C 1 preserve the length of "^ ****** tongues eastern ') ^ 'fheir.F Saudi "? * (11) lusun'nee-hin Ar b "aHc^ ^^ ^^ lu'sunne 'tongues' vs. ( ^ "'"' In ~ T8ham ffi), Arabic in W4* 47 Tihama drums' Yemen (= -„ un n 1 T? ga'naagi 'drums' vs. ganaa'gii-hum 'their.M stress. and so it does not draw This formaUy The linker - n does not induce vowel lengthening, similar toTe cTassiS ^^ Suffix is !x hi , l^^n°minal ing Suffix> which varies accord- to case as ^ (12) bagar 26 lu'sunne-n xufun -ulan amay-aat below, I gemtive For reaSOnS rough.PL term it - P*" tongues-n the 2"^^'mixer "n cows having. FPL m me dialects (see n. 28). 'rough-tongued cows' raajil abu ga'naagi-n katiir-aat man having drums-n many.FPL 'a man with many drums' combined ^i^^mh-c^toy offshoot of Uzbekistan Arabic, and may thus be ^-evident. a '° 'tongues' In Sudanic WVOWel -" or high is not » final vowelin lusunne Arabic °f vowel -,«/-«%; InNigenanArabicacousticallythe the vow m»y Z-J^ZT™ When a suffix•^"^fj^is added, formatives, verbal * ** * the consent value of /e/of studies are available. FPL suffiL „^ZT™ ^ low-vowel driver, lake'. No instrumental Tihama Arabic, vow the ™* however, ek of verbs, definite Najdi and lengthened, as is apparent in ««« paraZrT„C ^"""l"™ article. In lusurinee-ku 'your.PL tongues', amanaax, M weU M * marker, including mahanaattnd There are many variants of this associative amayaat. " f 104 Case and Proto-Arabic Case a«d Proto-Arabic 105 Pr°nUnCiati°n f ° AnWc ^4iy^adi-n and the (13b) Sudanic Arabic, Shukriyya in E. Sudan (Reichmuth 1983: 190) ItZ I r 011 P 0{ ii anaa ^ag /g gi-n is noteworthy. In the ba-jii-k wakt-an gariib n^n"lf?o t — Wd M / " * ^ *»««P » relatively tense. When I-come-you time-n near the „TJ^-1$ added becomesu T , ' " laxer, [,], [qaadm], [ganaagm]. T , 'I'll come to you soon' b the °ld ^abicindefinitesuffixandNWianArabic 1 Je/isTstr u (13c) Najdi Arabic (Ingham 1994a: WSTT An,Wc 49) - 3nd Ni ian Arabic (and all other A^bk dfa ^^ ^ kalmit-in rimy-at e^ n0mmaI SUffiXCS indUCC V°Wel le h ^al vowel. £etdt£S r , ^ °» * word-n thrown-F a shorter laxer ' p ion of the ^ ^tSStLL^' " 'a word thrown down' S kritieS bCtWeen (13d) Afghanistan Arabic (Ingham 1994b: 115) the Suffixes and though in mo^sCie'u isTf ^ > ft0 " indefinitC hintit-in hamra ^S^lrT^ " mafker °r b^ the terminol°S of and is usuaUy wheat-n red old assumed t0 derive fro- an ^SS™"^ ITT 'red H°leS grains of wheat' 199° : 43! Dkm ^ " 1991 >' dose Action shows thatTLTouue dT Pr0pmies and a all dialects—in di^T^?T ^r^ reIated%ut in detail While the distribution of this suffix is not precisely the same in DlfferenCeS rClate b0th to fo only to a noun, thT2lr^ ^ ™ and function. First, Spanish and Nigerian Arabic, for example, it may be suffixed variable it in Najdi to noun and adjective—and its frequency of occurrence — ^ ' ""' °r fl aCCOrdin disappears example, but in Najdi and This is not a conunu^M, "'' " S t0 dialect from Spanish Arabic in later texts, for il is it Shukriyya characteristics are common occurs only w thTn^f ^^ ^ "W» °P*»* ™e Arabic it occurs frequently—its basic SaM l -» doe. * * ° mark ^efiniteness (as to all its dialectal occurrences. So-called nunation and mimation phenomena to Qa siSfan r^ ^ indefiniteneSS -st IS indkated in in Semitic language do not have enough in common functionally and seman- dia^itSS^the "^ defimte article - Fourth, tically proto- appears to its primary function to allow Moscati et al. (1980: 96) to reconstruct a common mark an IT 1 b ifierS '^^ *WBen an indefin*e noun + Semitic indefinite form. The present data suggests that yet another function, Th ^let"?" H I namely various ones served by have no text aXSTTl " ^ ** ^ dtod nominal linkage, has to be added to the md fa ^ m is - aU, as the fbllowi?^^ « ^ only one common Semitic final - Vn nasal suffixes. reason- In a point which will be repeated in the following discussion, it is immediately able to reconstruct the nominal linker *- Vn into a form of Arabic d3a) Spanish Arabic the (Corriente - pre-diasporic Arabic in i977 12l) predating the variety described by Sibawaih, i.e. mushm-Un-an geographic distribu- Utaaf terminology adopted here. This follows from the wide Muslim-PL-n bad It appears in the tion of a relatively uniform morpho-syntactic phenomenon. 'bad Muslims' brought into earliest forms of Spanish Arabic, which means it was probably into the Sudanic Andalusia in the eighth century. Though Arabs first moved area which migrated into only after 1300, they derive basically from tribes marginalized Egypt in the seventh and eighth centuries and were increasingly f V0Wds from ever further South (see sect. ° in ,d ArabJ ™ *" ^"ically is ,he status of the the eighth onwards and pushed ° n , ^ century forms such^ 7iS II Z as qaadiy and ^™**^ - ^ible ,0 view the Arabic recent, dating Audfla M vowel-final Old 5-2.2.2 and Arabic in Afghanistan is relatively ^econtras, Shs ho° rtvs «. In nouns a Owens 2003). rtVSlon "^ lexical Jongwowo^ * final VOWelvowel is non-contrastiv,"on-contrastive. SueoVT? 8 ^emerg^„tovfewde ^ from immigrated from Uzbeki- ^finalvowenen T? the its speakers having =• kngthgthlsis bound "*** added fa nineteenth century, bo^up with quetticZ " ' M <»> "• <«»> ^ ^aTtunder 5.2.2.3). There °n iSSUes lywg (see sect. " « ^ues of theoretical '?^^'^ vowelTOWel length which Lin turnUrn, implimphes stan, where the eighth century pin" ?? AeoricdphonoWphonol™ , they have lived since «ok for ""P "' whkh pre-Islamic Waticsystematic t,«Lm uf ,W *** « too *far -movedremoved fromfrom'the have parts of Yemen since ^S£S£? r '—Th^ - been Arabs in central Saudi Arabia and existed in one variety ot times. It thus appears that this common feature at the beginning of the Arabic no later than the time of the Arabic diaspora ^ io6 Case and Proto-Arabic Case and Proto-Arabic 107 °* ^ ** **"* in **» SCCtion note 3.4.2. Epenthesis, final short vowels, stems Nereis ^ TT ^^ ' The loss of the final vocalic case markers, according to proponents of this theory, had consequences for syllable structure (Fischer and Jastrow 1980: 40; 011 ** °f " * V" forms is at with short high vowels to be deleted in BlauraXre?^B aus, a digression ^ ^ ™- Blau 1981: 3). Coupled with a tendency of companng our views is in order. Blau (1969- 40) recog- open syllables (see sects. 2.4.1.2 and 3.2.3), this led to a basic reorganization of syllable structure in Neo-Arabic in which the insertion of epenthetic vowels baSCd °n inde ^ Pend parallel development. the majority of To b fa r to Rl,[( r ^ plays a significant role. This is because, like Classical Arabic, °ri8inaUy 1965) im rtant so the " ' P° structure constraint disallowing tia^^TZ**? ™ dialects have maintained a basic syllable Reichmuth 1983; °wens b) were — Neo-Arabic the Old > no, tSe I ™ sequences of three consonants. Thus, assuming X^ZZT§ r°U 19*3 n Chadian ° ahic is older case) source) and so thl ^ ™ model for the moment, given a nominal form like *kalb-V-haa (V = m h™d °n a **<" data base. In unacceptable CC-ha particir Bl u n T T™™ 'her dog', the loss of the case vowel in dialects leads to thrCe VariCtieS ' s A^ian peninsular generally two vari tks Uzbli ^ ™ structures. As Fischer and Jastrow (1980: 41) point out, there are ?AK1 and ?"* ^sh Middle Arabic. Nonetheless, on epenthetic vowel. g^oS^/ solutions to this problem, both involving the insertion of an Can bC raiSCd 3bOUt BWS a rforistic cond vowel (underlined) ^SSS^ u P ™ In eastern Libyan Arabic, for example, the epenthetic **">* °f CentraI Asia between shared - beginning, Nigerian Arabic He Zl ! , * ^ comes between the first two consonants, kalib-ha, in em th3t affCCted the in dialect^i modern ^edoi the is comparable to that used 40TCis T last two, kalba-ha. Note that the first solution (Kitaab II: ch. 560), the Classical language, e.g. radd-tu -> radad-tu 'I returned' **" * moreover, argues that Uzbekistan of these forms, Arabic . imperative is indeed a rennet r while the second is also attested in Sibawaih in the the '"^ * wide reacheS °f below). Arabic" 1^ ^^ ** rudd + haa -> rudd-a-haa 'return her' (II: 163, see n. 31 ^LST 6 however phenomena of of ""^ ' iron's principle overview of the morpholoSSt In this section I would like to make a general ?l.T that ** diffUsi°nist ™uld inform us on the question of the Z ZltZ^l7r f ^ epenthesis and stem structure, as it bears directly 3 V &U&X all extren^s " " ™ a comP^le function at pausal forms. This data will TtTe fa7 5 presumed origin of the modern dialects from old 118 (AndalUSia Uzbekistan, Sudanic »»«»• also in Ch. 6 will be the mainstay AfghtistnWnTf m ^ ' ^ be one basis of the discussion in Ch. 8, and ders the "^ (Arabian eninsda ren" of structure of the imperfect verb. speculatir^tthl ^ ^ P > a historical interpretation of the syllabic " mnOVatiVe sible. In " in each area virtually impos- the dialects. The first, passing 1 uH ,T Two basic types of epenthesis can be distinguished in (central °f *e S™ps using -Vn, Najdi on consonantal sequence. Lb" Zl™-^^ illustrated in the previous paragraph, is dependent area 29 'Bedouin', * SPeakers some sense in most dialects, the while three An n \^ > «« ™ As mentioned, *CCC sequences are not allowed A third -d Tihama, are not. just illustrated. I will term set rf^^o^^^A^ constraint being lifted in one of the two ways aSSUmCd t0 consonants, vowels which repreSent relics are me this the linear sequence of appear with or ^ linear epenthesis, since it depends on h*"* h suffixes, °f certain object namely the "* ^ Pronominal rather than quality (see below and Ch. 6). following on consonant (H)-a* 2MSG,-* 2FSG,- u/-a3MSG (15) Linear epenthesis below for quality), galb-ha - Thus for Egyptian (15a) CCC -> CaCC (9 = epenthetic vowel; see Arabic Birkeland Person ho« forms as relics "~ ** «*' in SeCOnd galib-ha of the accusative '? ^ anH genitlve -« a nominative. sufnxes, respectively, the 'her heart' It will be see rl (15b) CCC -> CCaC galb-ha -* galb-a-ha ide is to recommend " remnants in ** ^^m?" » Morocco and Algeria do non.fed «"P™« Sbirh The sigmficant exceptions, like many dialects of 1 is either a ™»*%**W* ~ vanouT Hussion, constraint ShOWn forther Ch 8 *at since in them the lifting of the *CCC * " ^ > fo^rTh^tt^r' « discussed further « Ol f which must also be included in the proto-language, as Arabic case effect, e.g. Eastern system ° °f the same epentheUc hav" ** dialects a final status as a inducing ^^ ^ pause, #, has the same C equally pl ^ ^Z^TT^ausible or eyen Libya ^^ explanations kabj* -* h>bij#. ' io8 Case and Proto-Arabic Case and Proto-Arabic 109 S ™ * ****• «* "*" <*&»* **"* *» * 'coffee' having the prototypical trait of inserting a low vowel in the following !eque°n1e of WcT" Tmtemallyn " indUGeS the same ePenthesis effect, beet- sequence. It may be termed guttural epenthesis. hum , hZZbttu- teefi -ft Mm theirr house j e ccc _ ^^ _^ c/yyC3C V al Guttural epenthesis ' am su izing the in broa7strr TT^T ^ ^^ — variants (l5a) SOlUti°n f°Und in eastern Lib (18a) C C —y aC (gutturals = h, h, 9, P, x, y, in some dialects (e.g. NA) " ' gut Cgut q S^^T^raq1 ^ ^ ^ n0rthem J°rdan) ' most dialects *" ' 6XP south (18b) *gahwa — oflslof Asym, andanH tih ^^ gahawa 'coffee' astem Ni]£ ddta (Behnst£d ^ °f th£ SU an • This (RdChmUth 1983: The is found, inter alia, in Najdi Arabic, Sudanic Arabic (see sect. 1.6.6), 70) - ('5b) soluS,n mpttrrrp / eastern Libyan and south (Behnstedt **"* "^ °f A Chadian and Ni Arabic, Egyptian Arabic around Asyut raKadiArabic, Najdi Arabic,Arat ^Tand ^ ^ most Yemeni dialects. and Woidich 1985: 45), and rural Iraqi dialects (but not other Egyptian dialects, 1 e C V0Wel U3ily 3 Wgh V°Wel Hijazi, most Yemeni dialects, and most qultu dialects of Mesopotamia). back ", whose P-ise value, front, orlid is d t T C°nSOnantal A different subtype ofconsonantal environment is provided by the sequence. -^ext. In a few dialects, includ- 6 Y S?™^' determined ** m uTe of he *^ ^^ * by Sonorant epenthesis fSr C nSOn ^ f°rmed °, by the r°nominal th^t^T"?ep P suffix - Th- -» r (19a) CCsommnt —> CaC (sonorant = /, r, n, sometimes w, y, m) occur S briraro^^ (19b) bajri —> bajari T run' (Nigerian Arabic) (16) WSA and Cairene This has already been alluded to above in the discussion of pausal phenomena no Case and Proto-Arabic Case and Proto-Arabic in pr°n°minal 7™ ^ * ^^ suffi*' contexts universality of epenthesis rules in Semitic, as opposed to the only sporadic where Hnea e ^ T 32 (14) ° CCUr' h h3 ^y Wir \ ^ PPens that in this ^alect the appearance of case systems, lends greater credence to my suggestion above "' °CCUr those that the strn vowe ! ^ ^ ™ ™* an a as the final Classical Arabic case system grew in part at least out of epenthetic T^lh a*-hum °f them- ;™™ Generally speaking it appears phenomena. toa™aS ?ng °f SPeech wil1 c one -tain a majority of forms with Returning to the major theme of this section, looking at the distribution of ^ Z^°t ^f °r an°ther before ^vS^^T? ^-initial pronominal suffixes. epenthetic rules among the dialects, one is led to the same conclusion as with f°rmS f n°Un + C - initial the linker *- IZl^llr K-f, ° Pronominal suffix in the Vn discussed in sect. 3.4.1, namely that each of the epenthetic rules 1 °f Ingham -^^ (1"^- Th-e are a total of twenty- is represented in such a spread of modern dialects that their origin, in their SfS^S? Pr0n°minal " SUffiXCS tWen ne f these under diverse guises, must be at least as old as the ^rabiyya described by Sibawaih, ing o^f ' ^° ° hTl P t rUkS 34 ^ ' lacki that is, thfs *g them. In other words, eighth century or older. For instance, the common guttural epenthesis dTale1 t ofrh ? r ^* noun ^tXS^SS*** ^ Ae diStribUti0n °f rule of Spanish, Nigerian, Tihama, and Najdi Arabic, but equally its lack in °. * consonantal suffixes: where Classical highland Yemen, Cairene, eastern Libyan, and urban Baghdadi points to both Arabic i T has a c»*. t0 haVe an its presence in relat ily Louen/ ^ ePenthetic °ne. The and its lack, at the time of the original Islamic diaspora the 11 ^ "11 "* "'" 3 '"' seventh/eighth centuries; similarly, with cluster and sonorant epenthesis. If flavoM^h^Tarier " * ^^ **"* this is the case, however, one does not have to seek the origin of the epenthetic PCrl aPS emphaSiZe> imimatin that the case vowels of rules as the result of syllabification changes associated with the loss of final Cto^bict? l 8 Besides vowels, including final in Old Arabic. Rather, epenthesis can be contrast ^ nT^^^^ ** ^lear functional case vowels, P-un JS L^g to relate the,, Tf nomena found in othSS 8uages e 3-4.3. connecting ' -8- m G^sz and Hebrew, where a Dialects vs. linguistic features vowel mav «,-,- u r As e.g.%mi;n^ mentioned in sects. 1.6.7 and 2.3.3, Blau (1981, 1988) has developed a model 7 s""5 vowels ' 2-*« 'your horse'). such for are often intern^ a v m While the development of Arabic, attractive for its linguistic simplicity and for its °f an present **» «*» system the mt*,^^" «* (Blau 1976: 67 ), socio-historical plausibility. Pre-Islamic Old Arabic, spoken by Bedouin are the epenthesis ^e^^^^^ 'relic' of an ur-Semitic tribes, was transformed during the early Islamic period in an urban context Y at least a is that Proto-Semitic had where Middle Arabic. The system of linear Z^ ^^ Arabs mixed with foreign learners of Arabic into a P S1S This in the conte CC# -, C,C#. linguistic synthetic-type *ernxCtmZA T: ^^ * reflex of this transformation was a shift from a Possessed *"**" °f Semitic <* Akbduu. language at this point to noun, uzun^vTT ' ** to an analytic type (Blau 2002: 16). It is important 1969 l8) segolates ' A™"^ and Hebrew look morphological (Heb. ' at concentrating on ? ^ 'ear') h °a k ^ what is understood by these terms, n as (eaStem Lib see - 33) well as ^^ an widin realm of historical linguistics, the current discussion being based on a purely Eksell 1995: 66). Furthermore, S. Prochazka (2002: 153) reports that in Cilician structural dichotomy adds another critical dimension to the debate. Arabic in south-central Turkey only the synthetic is used. Third, in most Leaving aside problems in the definition of syntheticity and analyticity (see dialects the analytic genitive can hardly be said to be a simplified form. To the Retso 1994: 335; Cuvalay 1997: 19), the list is open to criticisms of two major contrary, it is usually marked by a morpheme agreeing in number and gender types, both of which were dealt with in some detail in the previous chapter. with the head noun, and hence is morphologically more 'complicated' than On the one hand, some analytic features are in fact well attested in Old Arabic, the Classical Arabic analytic genitive in li. the m sense that they are described in some detail in Sibawaih. The fall It is true that a few items on the list do distinguish Classical Arabic from the agreement in VS sentences, for instance, is in evidence in Sibawaih's stock dialects. The dual in dialects is restricted exclusively to nouns, whereas in example Pakaluw-niy il-baraariyO 'The lice ate me up' (e.g. I: 411). As Levin Classical Arabic it occurs on adjectives, pronouns, verbs, etc. as well. Whether (1989) explains, Sibawaih does not condemn this as substandard usage, they suffice to define broad varieties of languages in terms of syntheticity vs. though Levin does suggest that it is a minority usage (1989: 60). In such a analyticity is doubtful, however. Moreover, as seen in the previous chapter, case it is hard to see the dialects as representing a radically new development. the historical question of priority of the dual forms remains open. On the other hand, most of the other features this establish a contrast only Blau's list is more striking for a fatal methodological shortcoming, and between Classical Arabic and some modern dialects. While Blau recognizes is that his dichotomization is no dichotomization at all, or at best only a this, the methodological problems related to this have not been emphasized dichotomization based on the a priori abstraction, Classical Arabic vs. dialect. enough. Regarding the list in Table 3.2, some of the features such as the But what is the basis for making this abstraction, if not the synthetic/analytic comparative expressed by 'more' (e.g. in Chadian Arabic) are quite rare traits he assigns to each group? Blau has no way independently to identify the among the dialects. The analytic genitive discus- may be given special attention, very entities he is trying to distinguish. It is clear from the foregoing since it is a favorite distinguishing point the between the Old and Neo-Arabic sion that no such general criteria are to be found. Some of the criteria, e.g. e.g Versteegh 1993a: 69). Here, discussion of this two groups feature in terms of analy- analytic genitive, have little basis in fact. Others do not distinguish ticty or simplification often misses at three points. First, Classical Arabic does in the way Blau would want. Nigerian Arabic and Classical Arabic, for nave an analyt.c genitive, namely in the form Arabic of the prepositions li 'for' and example, share the property of having comparative adjectives, Najdi mm horn Classical grammarians even to regarded li as the 'Pad' of the direct and Classical of having internal passives, etc. I return genitive Arabic the property (Owens 1990: ff.), 14 though this is a theory-internal this few features which question bearing point presently. It may then be asked whether the only mdirectiv on the linguistic function of justify the construction. Second, the genuinely do distinguish two varieties of language are sufficient to 8 itiVe marked by inde The ^ ' ^ Pendent morpheme is in nearly drawing far-reaching conclusions about their development (see Ch. 2). T*aU dialects1 nbut an 7 alternative to the direct the one genitive. The choice between the problem becomes more acute when one considers arguments such as ' Semantk ' StyliStk ' and ra feature in the *, P 8matic ™"er ^n a question advanced in the present chapter that what is probably the key cThof historicaltor.*replacement of one by the other which can be (e.g. Owens 1993k 65; 2002; synthetic-analytic contrast, case vs. non-case, is a dichotomy urban trait in reconstructed into proto-Arabic, and hence did not arise as an J^fj^nalyticjs^ Blau pre- or post-Islamic times. contrast Synthetic The conclusions reached in the previous chapter on the Old/New Analytic is seen in Ch. 2 that on equally applicable to the analytic/synthetic one. It was Cases and moods Old and Neo-Arabic is No cases dose inspection the list of elements distinguishing VS, partial verb agreement VS, any given instance verb-subject agreement Perhaps useful as a typology of traits which may in Piddaafa, direct genitive Analytic genitive dialects, though the list as such Comparative adjective distinguish the Classical language from the Comparative Dual expressed by 'more' as historical concepts. does not justify the conceptions of Old and Neo-Arabic Decreasing use of dual Internal passive define a structure contrast No Similarly here, Blau's synthetic/analytic list may larn internal passive + imperfect of Neo-Arabic. There are far Negative only by maa between some varieties of Old and some varieties as a useful analytic tool. too many exceptions, however, to maintain the dyad " ^ H4 Case and Proto- Arabic Caie and Proto-Arabic 115 Figure 3.1 is a working sketch of development of case in Arabic. 3-5- Case and Caseless Arabic Old Arabic here refers to the oldest form of Arabic attested in descriptive The suggestion that modern Arabic detail, sect. I suggest in a dialects are the descendent of a caseless dated to the seventh/eighth centuries (see 3.1). variety is not entirely new. As early sources; Ch. sect. as Vollere* it was proposed that pre- number of places in this book (sect. 2.4.1.2, Old Arabic 4; diasponc caseless varieties of Arabic 8.1) period via interpretation of existed, and that these represent" the that caseless varieties can be inferred in this ancestor(s) of the modern dialects (see Spitaler concepts such as ixtilaas. So-called Middle Arabic texts are perhaps charac- 1953 ; Diem 973 , 199i- Ketso 1994; and Corriente 1975, i976). All these scholars, however, assume terized by interference from this variety (as early as the seventh century, Diem that at some point in the prehistory adduced above of Arabic a unique case-variety ancestor 1984: 268). It must be assumed on the comparative evidence existed. The present proposal is a that 39 qualitatively different interpretation of the in the Old Arabic period caseless varieties existed. C h°WeVer> in ar uin The designation of original proto-Semitic nominal as C-0 means that it ' S S ** there * variety of proto- the ArabicArlwTlwhl [ ™ ch never had morphological other relational case in its history. Lately Zaborski does not possess case. Whether it had suffixes marking S ° 19S } h3Ve argUCd co phenomena, such as (cf. -a as an adverbial marker, as in Hebrew and ' ™ngly in my opinion, that there an -a re v H ? T m°dern GaSsz, or-a as Arabk dialeCts notabl Pronominal forms Classical Arabic, or -a as a genitive/object marker, as in andZ7CUTT l^ > y dUal Whkh PrCSerVe developed is an inde- °ld Semitic <" Afroasiatic forms absolutive as in n. 22) out of which the case system with r" t : P^o m CkSSiCal younger trait 8 langUa e This pendent question. It is assumed that case marking in Semitic is a S - la«er work is important, for h c eat a ^ °f What than basis of the Afroasiatic evidence ^ ta com arative Semitics has too often nominals lacking case marking on the been defin P T a 0ne*TdimenSi and the °nal StmCture be (sect. 3.2.1). Proto-Arabic had both the 'original' caseless nominals, . innin and ; 8 8 with Akkadian e7dwt th n 38 M hk - Adding case-marking languages (sect. 3.3.2). Proto-Arabic the m°dern *** dialects creates a of certain other Semitic VoZTt 7 Wth: The leaSt *" di here is a reconstructed form which can be dated only in relative terms. mems anirT ? ™ns * the sense that develop- SmS m rot°- direct only in the seventh and eighth ^° P Sem"ic may move directly from the evidence that it has case appears pZZ^LT^ point, the "^ b aSsin centuries, particularly with Sibawaih's detailed grammar. At some Thts mTurf• 7^^ ^ S Clas-al Arabic completely. to a specific date, rightward pointing arrow in Fig. 3.1 is not meant as pointing ^^ ^ ^ «*« *» -v point in it The direct J£E£S;SS StagCS °f the the case-variety of the spoken language emerged with the caseless. emphasizLTat " *«% his*°ry. It has to be ^ work (sea. eSmg °n 3 Pri°ri evidence that proto-Arabic does not have case, barring Diem's oTvSs) ' —linguistic ground, any variety fo Z 5 f dialects. reC°nStrUCti0n 3.1.2) which defines of around 100 BC, comes from the modern the hSS X^ ^ ™° A than no" distort a date modem dialects Proto-Semitic Proto-Arabic Old Arabic: 7th/8th century highly £ original work was c published fa C-0 -» -» (C-0)-* - ^ ft ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ nominals C-0 ^ ^^ \ already C-case -> C-case -> C-case tapi^Sn^S^S^S "^ UWmately fr°m a »* *"** bUt ^ closely et,eshad emerged, C-case = = no related. This to which the modern dialects are most final case-marked nominals, C-0 perspective is TJff development, Diem an alternative ™ ""»»!»» *at if this is the historical explanatioT^!. ?* , Figure Provided. 3.1. Proto-Arabic case His alternative ** for the case system, it is a (.) des^tl 1 a populations took placeand w Iways possessed t0 ,tS have to have mixture with non-Arabic should ^PP^ce, that a trait system disappeared before large-scale be me motfve w?^ , which the developed ,n tta M (15a, b), irnmed.ately m the would require rules, particularly , standard mtroduction * ^PPearance. that the different epenthesis T u could save languages, Place of the such a sequence of events including the modern * "- modern "flexes of the Semitic vowelless forms. Postdating AraLK dial^' *%?* application off"*™**"?the comparative *"""» »" b varieties of suspending normal ^^ « « ignored for purposes of Semitic recon- of Old Arabic, though at the cost method. u6 Case and Proto-Arabic Case and Proto-Arabic 117 Since caseless forms can be comparatively reconstructed at least as early as the varieties may strike many Semiticists as odd. However, the suggestion is seventh e,ghth centuries, from the time of the Arabic diaspora, they are plausible, if not indeed necessary, from two perspectives. First, if Diem minimally as old as the case-Arabic described by Sibawaih, and hence can (sect. 3.2 above, see n. 10) is correct that there existed caseless forms of Arabic be projected into proto-Arabic as well. as early as 100 bc, it necessarily follows that at least between 100 bc and ad *°t hat Fig 3>1 re resents ' P 0I* «nguistic feature in two V manifestations, 800, a period of almost a millennium, there coexisted case and caseless m°dd f°r the ^ " dev^Pment of modern dialects as duration on Tlf r^u ^ varieties of the language. Clearly, one cannot put an absolute " e em hasized no P > more than a rough working model it must LTthTd ^ ? how long the coexistence occurred, though if it lasted for 900 years °f the ^^ °^ detailed of bundles of have been sort. traits ^ »-U of an extremely stable wt^8Cn 7 VaHd PktUre emer Even then the model will fail to analogies to enZTV ^ Second, it is useful to look at modern dialectal and sociolectal aSPCCtS °f kngUage dev ^ ^Pment. In particular, it would determine whether diametrically opposed features can coexist. Of course be wron WTn ne imegrating ° farther lin uistic trai into the model, modern to eTerf 8 * many examples can be found, of which I will cite only two. Among ^ T^10 7 krge bundles 0f featoes geo- ,° ^ elating with the dialects can be found quite striking differences coexisting along long LeTnd c Van S reSpeCtivd See Table y < 3- 2 ). It will be difficult, if not graphical of this are found in Behnstedt's atlas of n^posl e , T borders. Excellent examples t0 COnStrUCt diSCrete entities dial^s, sociolects or Yemeni dialects lacking a morphological Ztev« w '"I " r ' Arabic where, for instance, Tihama maglCal Speakers °f Class-al Arabic is first and Tn^l^Tu will be found; nor feminine plural and having the suffix -fas perfect subject marker in *" P™ "^ split into case and caseless second 116, sit next to central Yemeni ^ 'I wrote', 1985: 125) varie es person forms (katab-t ^ 2 M 7^1CCtal CntitieS ^ —Ponding directly k {katab-k dialects « with the modern forms possessing the feminine plural and marking the subject with of different 'I wrote'). Equally striking is the sociolinguistic coexistence °f "^ ClaSSkaI or ™re accurately, varieties Arabic-speaking neighbors, the^uretf^V 7^ ***> side by side in the same urban settings. in ic 8 - The two c^ A 8 roie °f in defining in the city of Maiduguri in northeast Nigeria, for example, use essentially :Lt2l: b *" rVC f^bC ' from west- sect ru emphasized. But as seen above in systems of marking verbal mode. A minority, originally migrants , , 2 «i iT I / Sib3Waih mUCh 3 °f thilJdn ab°Ut ern so that, for example, gaal yamfi langua e " " " ™* S Chad, have no verbal mode markers, ^ , and we go'. More commonly ' containin§ - many means either 'he said that he was going' or 'he said to «^ K ((6} (7)) ' "nguistic rfeatures as Sibawaih's own dialects), subjunctive by linguistic ^^• ?. indicative is prefix (familiar in many ratinn.u, ^^ marked by a b- S 0Wn HngUiStiC ' " indicative gaal It T hu ****' him to incorporate, its lack, so that a morphological minimal pair exists between in s S ^ "f t0 me °f ClaSskal 'he said to go'. As denn d ^^ Arabic as an bimfi 'he said that he was going' and subjunctive gaal yamJi :r7 i ^ X there are no Baalbaki ft is ref a ain t0 might be individual speaker variation, though {l Z the "^ ^^ ' ™8 S expected, there is ml 41 discrete, *«*" * is dying out (Owens 1995. W*")- £%£££%£ ^ ^ "™ *** *** indications that one or the other variant linguistic features, Looking at the postulation of two opposed coexisting ChaPtCr W°Uld t0 of Arabic ' CX and on this int sinC£ case and to data which dialectologists ggestion P P° ' caseless, in terms analogous Ae^SfSfthat a iflanguage can ^ simultaneously the two varieties over ^ have both case and caseless have been describing for years makes the coexistence of " Ev reconstructing dramatic than it might be ™ the historv nf a very long period of time look less exotic and intractable undertaking m°dem dialectal than features is a much more and it may most ZZriJ^ ^ portrayed. point the case endings did die out, ('990 argues that those Care t0 Of course, at some mode™ d ""^ admit - *" example, Diem the a£ w^h *7elf, ~ guttural epenmesi nker Vn suffi with s ™le( l8) ?^' ! * (« («)) tend to be those , onthe f conclusions. In feet, only ^^P^ence Diem diachronic two of the - Vn,fell draws various competely m different dear), "*' Sudanic 41 is of a quahtatively are also gahawa *«** though Shukriyya is not Mauro out that the -t/-k variation in Yemen no. uJZTT^tt n Tosco (p.c.) has pointed (Andalusian, hypotheS1s assumes ine rI «^ whereas three of the -Vn dUJects are »rt is what the case/caseless h^l%h ^) from the presence/absence of a feature, which eastern Libyan ^ 8 many more such cases Arabic ** 1994fc analogous (and ^ angle, : and S^ reverse precisely »5>- From the Nigerian is ime^S Arabic indicative/subjunctive, however epenthesis bu, zaton of M7F no -V„. Diem's atOUnd «*• have guttural could being another one), and the "eu«f use o ^l^T?!™^ ^ ^or be cited, the occurrence of -Vn in sect. 3.4.. descr.pt.on of li shows th* Perceptu^y nguistic co '^ in the -t/-k variants do ^ ^^endialekte') concepts contrast in the similar. What the make iSS plural in Yemen is vanat.on sound Y SanCtI° a stable reconstruction " ned Practic* '" Arabic serves to categories may be subject to even harder linguistics, prominent variation among central morphological which has endured well over 1,000 years. n8 Case and Proto-Arabic a on "iany «J™ ^ new native speakers of Arabic in the Tnod f SOWln8 Slamk diaSP°ra did a roIe in Ae advantage fowa f* ^ ***** ll CaSeleSS Variety Prwin in - S «* lin^ic terms will be ver, aimed h 42 T 3 1<5 °k at the ^ Strikin8 mixtur- of linguistic ^ ' featrl ^7"n S t0day S m°dern diaIeCts «"««* tha* « is unlikely intrl^ ° K u " S 11"6 W a " COrrdation between ^alects with as e .I' ^ «V. Al-Idgham al-Kabiyr and Case rT,T °f F retenti°n of 1™ *"*> etc as opposed to those which ack d f.' Jt 1S m°re ' that these Stares, in Endings bsenc T ^ their presence and 31 inde Pendently of each other, as Rabins 19 S!) \ studT S T^ ' d> Sib3Waih S task 2^lTT - ^f Can be "» ?-% as one of "** conceptual as" varL ^ * *& whole, with the v J ^Cl f" r attenti°n him In such Observations about linguistic variants in Arabic are as old as the Arabic rth Z® T ? * " a situation, however, ** dis grammatical tradition itself, perhaps even older. Indeed, what most (though necessa^ *™™*™ of case endings did not TnfV^°ther not ^ ** Appearance of case ending, A all, see Wansbrough 1977) students of Arabic would regard as the oldest ^t^H*"*fe tUre S l0St> 3 C° lete extensive Arabic document, namely the QurPaan, exists not in one fixed form, certainly ! ^ mP dialect or variety, and n nZnot the entire 7: t edifice of Old Arabic but rather in a set of variant versions. In this chapter, I will continue with my attem interpretation seventh and eighth ' Pted to ex and «n the caseless of the form of Arabic as it existed in the hypothTis of nrnt ^ k^" ^ P y arguin8 that centuries by these variant versions. "^ evidence ^m "" °f e recourse to a discussion of jsine «**» * S tic As seen in the previous chapter, in the Western Arabicist tradition, it has ' ^ugh the down to SodlIZ™ *4, £Z££ t been possessing C 7 in a standard practice to contrast Classical Arabic or Old Arabic that a and when this is done ^"^ ^"« e7denC for case historical perspective, as tLT 1S Str endings with the caseless modern dialects. In a time, it ^ qUhe °nS- At ** has been ^ suggested Z , ^ argued two varieties °f for in Ch. 3, it is not at all clear that a distinction between one particular ** * foS U ^ of consti- S^reT^nS ^ Arabic, can be postulated as ^ case, en one with case, another without This ^ °P > erhaps impossible task, chapter has fnr+r. T P tuting variety which at *" *""** that a incorp- successive varieties, the case-variety being the primeval oration o'fEvidence £*"? ™re active £ some point evolved into a caseless one. language history ^^^ comparative Arabic wflX contr^h 7^^ A brief look Western Arabic studies, however, reveals and Afroasiatic *" "^standing of the larger Semitic into the history of faTnks once held that a more nuanced and differentiated attitude to this question sway. German scholar In particular, at the turn of the twentieth century the singly Karl was originally composed "* Cnta"e Vollers (1906: proposed that the QurPaan M^L^y'S ^t^nH^' ^^ of Chad «*» norths Nigeria was 165) n«ances ,o language Ful in a on this point is shift to the ** ™-Arab contact led in many variety without case endings. Vollers's argumentation northeast advance ^A V*,^ Nigerian * (Braukam of maintains many con^™ P« >993). Nonetheless, the Arabic embedded that the QurPaan was revealed 'og-cal paradigm "dudln in a larger one in which he claimed and the - Vn *?' 8 a functioning FPL morpho- linker S ^ Arabic. In alone does no, X,SUmmanzed in a west respects from Classical imply simpUficad^ * *ct. 3-4-x. Intensive contact with foreigners Arabian dialect differing in many this variety was later what he regarded as the official version of the QurPaan, with an eastern replaced by a more prestigious variety, associated basically Arabian dialect. revelation and later Vollers's historical interpretation of the Koranic as has been pointed remodeling according to classical norms, though bold, is, °ut his thesis is weakened by a in a number of places, difficult to verify, and variant readings^ fact, number of factual errors regarding the status of the his it reason, did not base should be pointed out, Vollers, for whatever 120 Al-Idgham al-Kabiyr and Case Endings Al-Idgham al-Kabiyr and Case Endings 121 argument on a detailed reading of the QiraaPaat, but rather drew on a range Certain criticisms by Noldeke are correct. Vollers, for instance, opposes a of sources including lexicography, grammar, and excerpts from the QiraaPaat received version against the QiraaPaat, which is a misinterpretation of the themselves. entire concept of the variant readings (see above). 3 This observation, however, Despite any shortcomings, however, his linguistic interpretation of the state hardly invalidates Vollers's thesis, and further criticisms by Noldeke turn out of Arabic in the early seventh century was remarkably prescient. Moreover, to be surprisingly weak for a scholar of his stature. Noldeke, while pointing to I will attempt to show, his assumption that there was a Koranic variant the existence of the al-Pidxaam al-kabiyr 4 tradition, never explored its sig- without case ending receives partial support from the Koranic reading trad- nificance for Vollers's thesis. This was the practice associated with Abu Amr ition itself. I present this evidence here. The present chapter may be read in (and perhaps Kisa?i) of allowing inter-word assimilation according to various conjunction with Kahle's ( 1948) summary of a manuscript written perhaps by conditions, which will be discussed in greater detail in sect. 4.2 below. Noldeke a fifth-century scholar named al-Maliki, in which various hadith are cited, simply remarked that (as of 1910 of course) the works describing this Koranic pointing directly and indirectly to the practice of reading the QurPaan reading tradition were not available (or lost). The existence of the tradition, without case endings. even if only upon, without concrete exemplification, The rumored or reported caseless variety of Koranic reading was associated with the tradition of could have given Noldeke cause for circumspection, rather than rejection of °ramC reader 3nd ramm«ian had written f g Abu SAmr ibn SAlaa? (hence- its significance. Furthermore, Noldeke was aware that Sibawaih 2\uT ' °ne f thC SCVen reCeived particular ° ' Qur?aan reader nized in on inter-word 5 even if Sibawaih never linked it to a IbnZt k-^TJ' * ^° assimilation, Mujahid s (d 324/936) al-SaMfiy in 1-QiraaPaat. Abu Am: died in 770, and Koranic tradition, so the question of the existence of the phenomenon the tradlti°" associated ^th him is true, it that a an issue for Noldeke. Rather trldiH , would mean classical times would presumably not have been 3 CSS V3riety is as 0ld as displayed a zealousness in ZcTl Tt tradition« with case endings, than assume an air of caution, however, Noldeke n81n 1 Written K°rank text *e unvoweled rejecting beyond the bounds of measured > m was Vollers's thesis which carried him (andfand unpointed),n ?,? f ™W and that it is precisely the QiraaPaat which give the academic judgment. 1186 ^ renderinS a com oral interpretation of XhTZ A""" P^e Texte kunstlich zu gestalten; i^T"Crent Der Orientale neigt dazu, den feierlichen Vortrag heiliger rCading Versi0ns none of Mujahid's seven has Inv ' »» das wirkliche Sprache blickt doch liberal] orTT7 taten auch die Juden und die Syrer. Aber die PreCedCnCe °Ver an of e where the ^ * °thers (when or durch. hatten der Prophet und seine glaubigen eZl 011 T"? ' Und das lafit sich mit Sicherheit sagen: fl°UriShed iS md so sh be davon nicht :- ^^ ^ld any of them Zeitgenossen gesprochen, so ware die Tradition provenTTproven to sanction a den Koran ohne I'rab caseless reading, the caseless reading is 'old' as any as spurlos untergegangen. (1910: 2) Jews The with artificial pomp. The [ancient] 1 5 d Oriental is inclined to intone holy texts °UbtleSSly l0St °n Koranic sch Arabicists, and perceptible behind the OrStalS ^ ^- and Syrians did Nonetheless, the true language is !!/ 510 the same. ", th3n V°UerS>S T acce position woTd^tuirerrr ^ - ° 'Pt VoUers's hinldng ' intCr dia of vs. Z.toZofZl ' the tat- of caseless rT? f Allen (1998. 51), C ndeed 3 stupes. alread in Though prevalent in contemporary Arabic '. y *** the preface Vollers a misinterpretation all too * to his book, establishing a sing* decriedTLt intended describes the process of 111 t0 as a standard textbook on Arabic literature, Whkh he was re- non-canon.caL Lhis sen Ejected when he P written declaring other versions d ht theS t ^Tt version of them as the canonical source and °krS as VoUers u For ignores the situation roughly ™ cnt " "*» W«*™ Arabicists, the the entire Islamic QiraaPaat tradition, representing L othe n°, s cntiasms^of nearly f ones. Noldeke 1906 non-canonical *"*" ^^ ™** <*«» were probably of with one received version opposed to various one in Vollers's time. V^Z^T hundred years are as relevant here as they were ago for the des.gnat.on,Herniation * VIII verbal noun ,s used Pidyaam = form IV verbal noun; alternatively a form iddixaam . r 5 and in point, °{ Even here Noldeke errs in points of editorial detail ™mpl e erslons the™^™^ZD«*°«« further w though m subvariant, the /' «e summarized, and there developed a mstance alludes sfbawaih's chapter on Pidyaam, '^ 'non-canonical f, to ch. 564 as Id, 566. tional (r°Ugh tran inter-word ^uo »un f readings', see sl«ion of fawaadd al-qiraaPaat 'excep- discussion ch. 565, and Bergstrafier ig,v ,<•, of Pidyaam does not begin until ™0?T V " ,2 or series. U known varia discusses - M The linguistic «ts which did not fit into the 7, 10. More seriously, assume that Sibawaih *? and exelericalhl"' ? k Noldeke appearsT coned^>rJy, * In an assumption^ s *^nH more Variants itself Amr. Such recent times a few schrrfLh °, ** requires separate attention. conditions relating to al-PidLm al-kabiyr as did Abu This, however, ff.) short vowels. "9 taken a critical, Y 197l) °r e Zw£ttler ** be lacks final mough ^™' ^^^ *Pud < *"* argued, if Abu Amr's rendition basically my view 7, ^ ultimately mconclusive evaluation, of the Noldeke tradition. assumption which Noldeke argued against. T ^ — 122 Al-Idgham al-Kabiyr and Case Endings Al-Idgham al-Kabiyr and Case Endings 123 d d 0n t B r With Cett tha ^ the ™r> < Prophet and his compan- concrete linguistic data has been applied. ions hara t i 7a ^5 V> ones, or at least, not ones for which "thout case endin - such * the function- z^rrir;;^ — Clearly, therefore, the existence of a traditional work describing putting the discussion ing of al-Pidxaam al-kabiyr is of crucial importance in P here ' N6ldeke S C°ndusion 6 ^Ln^ ^ ^ (how could the tradition have on a concrete linguistic footing. ""^ anythin8 but N5ldeke>s own embeS shed K * ^^cally rT "S C01TeCtneSS - l WOuld draw attention t0 four points in Treatise on Sek s . . Fifteenth-Century N5ldCke W°Uld 4.1. Sharh Tayyibat al-Nashr: A appear to assume tbat the qLfc* fehhtt H ^ ' M ammad s Koranic Variants -tual speech. Perhaps he is only po^I^TC f ' V°UerS S Wn al-Nashr, a work in the ° -options in this regard, though Such a document is provided by the Sharh Tayyibat Thi® t T °u a traditi°n C° al-Jazariy (henceforth, dified Some 80~l6« y-rs after the variant reading (QiraaPaat) tradition written by Ibn 3£^TT^F0P COUld^ °r WOUld h3Ve Ali Muhammad al-DabbaaS Muha™d'f ^ even attemPted to, preserve Jazari) and commentated by a modern scholar, °n Pr ati0n Damascus. The work is about Ortrrbel ^ Perfect accura^ (^Beck's Lies in (henceforth, DabbaS). Jazari died in 833/1429 in ing Tr ° intr° Jazari, with detailed duction -me of the issues). 330 pages rhymed verse written by T ads ^ * relevant long, consisting of Z to ^f of the ** tradition nature of such texts, the meat decentrdted * ^^ in ** represented explanation by DabbaS. As is the o TT^T condi- Y ahernatiVeS t0 I should note one K°ranic Nation, tLn there explanation lies in the commentary (sharh). Here shTdTot al n k "I' COntradkti for the most part on * "° on * finding that one of these tional caveat to the following analysis. It rests, namely, radons had a "T ' assumed that DabbaS s "^ " *" N°ldeke s (*"<* Vollers's) mistake DabbaS's amplification of Jazari's text. While it maybe w ^to assodat ^ T confirmed all ot Pm0n °f t^ his sources, I have not mrd^miVr^^ ^ Prophet. interpretation is correct and faithful to medieval QiraaPaat texts^ them independently myself, on the basis of other the readm the Sharh Tayyibat al-Nashr the Abu « tradition. I will argue below that The editor Anis Mahra appropriately places AmrTradition 7 | twelve is said to have studied variety, "*""*« "* * within the Koranic reading tradition. Jazari ^^ " different ^ZZ^ O work deals with ten ^ 3 different in the present this ( JaZari) " Koranic variants, and variety represented «* ^ afone , ^ ^^ seven ^ Mujahid's basic ' with Ibn teristic 8 (iW) The definin charaC ones, as follows.* first seven are identical of - The me Abu r ^ S A^ LdV ^ traditions. 00 is not lack reading additional, sanctioned ' of case endings, but traditions, the last three Presence of assimilation TV t"" thC - Y tem al ?idYaam Wj°r ^«o^X<^l 11 **** ?«7ra«?a/-?,? associated with it (rather than, say rflaM Recaiii' iul linuted k! « al-kabiyr tradmon » Pretzl the al-Pidraam ( 1934 : 293) implies that ™ to the ** **" grammatitd, "^ ™ readers, not mention it. His did ^ ^^ noting , himself ha, bn Mujahid TJ?^atization"f^ of ^^"^^^SSal-SMafy stigmatization ^ the Abu Amr tradition, a recent edition of Ibn Mujah.ds mieht hi. K correct. The editor of a standard and more f^'~ Shawqi .0 the al-?idraan, al-kaUyr (p. its CaSdeSS is t0 Dayf ), notes in his introduction establishment charaCter> due ( 1972 ^*J^£Zthe^nuscnp befor * wh.ch he foum m ^ pages 1 non-consecutive T^ his chapter on thi subject on the basis of ^^^ed the 'ideology ^' of «fr' became established in th 1^7^ Mra of QurPaan) ***** and ordered them before al-Baqara (second chapter g» Tto al-?ui t0PP simply *" ** Carly histor of ^lam, therefore appear that ^ did not have Zr, "; y ?iW works on the QiraaPaat (like Dani). It would the ,r ^^ foree important in Q whkh treated in Ibn work is the most lished *»* Mujahid, whose ^'"^ , for it (see grammarians later estab- eived schooU ZT*?™? 7 treatments of Pidraam *™^™™ Ibn Mujahid summarizes different in th Fourth, and * ^^ and 2005*). tZ^ finl <* noting a t™™* ^l^Kn i m.r^)^^^^^^^^^^^ bi^ Noldeke's aUuded t0 Shart relatmg o Abu ab°Ve Tayyibat al-Nash, His basic generation ±e first cognizance-'of ^ ' ^ Ae AbT" ^ ^ (PaskanalJ^^U^'~' 'Abu the first consonant tion his a Amr would delete the vowel of rf the «fenfi'^ i.e. - e*l to argumentation ^ « lack PP voweled m d ^ of concrete te^T' consonant consonants were both . ^ " in the second, if the meuls b of the itSC n°n eXiStenCe f does not 8° ^^ ^^ pattern (Salaa mi 6aal wahid)'. Ibn Mujahid rLbbaS's 537 ° treatment is fofoundu m Abuf Amrs/^^^ X . ^ says about To ^plTm'edi ^^^2 same pattern'. Much of what Ibn Mujahid summary of al-kabiyr. , i" the to al-Pidxaam Vnr,„ ic variants, exceptional fating ideological issues the <^^M^^!^^. ' See for information about Arablc SAbd Allah ( 1984: ^n8) other y ' but thus Koramc text, far not to concrete linguistic tradinon and the ^^JJwntten variants, the relationship between the reading basic points regarding the variant readings. 124 Al-Idgham al-Kabiyr and Case Endings Al-Idgham al-Kabiyr and Case Endings 125 Table 4.1. Koranic readers (1) al-rahiym-i malik-i —» al-rahiym malik-i (1: 2) Reader Place Date of death art-merciful -GEN master-GEN 10 'Most merciful, Master. . . (I: 3/4) Nafi' Medina 169/785 Ibn Kathir Mecca 120/737 Both types of assimilation pertain to complete assimilation, the pronunci- Abu Amr Basra 154/770 ation of two consonants (harfaan) as one. The different grades of assimilation Ibn /Imir Damascus 118/736 treated are thus not distin- .Msim by the grammarians (e.g. Sibawaih chs. 565-9) Kufa 127/745 Hamza guished here. Kufa 156/772 Kisa?i Although major assimilation is given prominence in the Sharh Tayyibat al- Kufa 189/804 Abu Ja'far Nashr, in fact longest thematic sections in the book, it is not a Medina 130/748 being one of the Ya'qub Basra 205/820 widespread phenomenon among the readers. It is associated with the Basran Bazzar Baghdad 229/843 reader Abu Amr via his interpreter, Suwsi. It may also be associated with the Kufan KisaK through his interpreter Duri (54). The tradition relating to major assimilation is not a unitary one, though 150 PageS taken U for instal^hT ^ ™ P ™th general topics, specific names are cited only inconsistently. DabbaS for example speaks of ^°f thC vocali ^ion of the 3MSG object pronoun hu al-Pidxaam) who 66 ff el, ffT? some of the followers of major assimilation (Pashaab assimilate in a certain (jussive) context, while others do not (56). Later he ™raqqaqa, (laam mura'LT I, 133 ff., see sect. 1.6.6 above), / refers to the 'readers of assimilation' (ruwaatal-Pidraam). On the other hand, m X PaUSal Phen°mena *' sect. !.6. .) and final regarding is said to assimilate {al-raPsh -X ff ^ - 3 the phrase al-raPs-u fayban only Susi TT at 8 indiVidUal t0 "' Pks reIati to each ter are It is also noted that success^ vtt?H K ™ *S ^P fayban 'the head (glistening) of white hair' (19: 4) (58)- certain readers outside the assimilation tradition assimilate certain Koranic )- readers and the associated with T chain of transmission excerpts (61-5), that Hamza, for example, assimilated f in four instances. In SUmmariZed at thC V h of the work. one practitioners of assimilation " ^ ^™<* comment (63) it is noted that among current To^antru" t0 rCPreSent 3n °rthodox variant vocalic foment of a phonetic realization is preferred where a slight, undifferentiated rJ^tTM t:T7 MUJaHid f°r inStance ' en are treated trace II: see sect. 1.6.3 above) first (lulh het ' 8 ^ *«» (a weakening quality, rawm, see Sibawaih 307. is left between the assimilated sounds, whereas among the classical readers % Jazari/?abbaS's -to is treatment of3MSG preferred. comparableP .1 f u^* (al-qudamaaP) complete assimilation was Amon t l"rio ^ ( *<">' ** **"« Uftooi ^ ^^ ' 4-2. Linguistic Attributes of 'Major Assimilation' deal " "^ and in there is a degree of inconsistency representation will be familiar to the informed reader. Although the discussion in sect. 4-3 as representing the mode of representation, the reader should take the proposed analysis of the Abu Amr tradition. unique 10 to chapter and verse^Many are The Koranic citations in Jazari are not specified according Qurfaan an arbitrary passage from the collocations, but some are not, and for these I have chosen mples c.ted I represent final of vowels simply because this mode which matches Jazari's citation. . 126 Al-Idgham al-Kabiyr and Case Endings Al-Idgham al-Kabiyr and Case Endings 127 (Pidraam) in the standard grammars, and farther technical terminology is assimilation is not favored when the short vowel occurs after two consonants introduced appropriate to its status in the Koranic variants. Thus, at the very (of which the geminate condition is a special case). Thus the assimilation of beginning of his chapter three conditions are distinguished, that involving the n of nahnu laka —> nahl laka 'we for you' is singled out as exceptional two identical consonants (mutamaaOalaan) such as the two ms in (i) above, because the n occurs after a consonant (i.e. Cn). two with the same place (muxraj) of articulation 11 such as 9-8, and two which Morpho-phonologically assimilation is said not to apply to the agentive are close in terms of place/manner of articulation, 12 such as 9-t. pronoun -tu, as in xalaqtu tiynan 'I created from mud', while a number of It is further in evidence in the interaction of major assimilation with lexical exceptions are stated, illustrated inter alia in sect. 4.3 below. general linguistic rules. This may be illustrated in the interpretation (57) of With a few exceptions (see below) major assimilation describes inter-word he fragment Paa(a) luwtJn 'Lot's people', which is noted to occur four times assimilation governed by various phonological contexts. As noted above, in 8 27 56 " ' The ' M - 33) - Petitioners words which normally end life uiTa of major assimilation opposition to minor assimilation, all cases involve ] 3re divlded 3S t0 Whether assimilation (- Paal luwtin) in a short vowel. Note that the relevant distinguishing characteristic is simply s (2) Pahl(a) (luwtin) (-a), the latter genitive inflectional -i. Base form (Pasl) of a - PaPl(a) (luwtin) transformation qalb) ( ofhtoP (3) aaala rabb-u-kum —> qaar rabbukum - Paal a (luwtin) change (badal) of Pa? to Paa said God- NOM-your - Paal (luwtin) major assimilation. .' 'he (Moses) said your God . . (26: 26) SUrr0undi this «8 derivation fall squarely within (4) PUaa sabiyl-i rabbi-ka -> Pilaa sabiyr rabbika maLSZmainstream ArabicArl^u ^ phonological discourse to way-GEN God-your 8 US J 3SSimilati0n °/ il is stated ** * is sanctioned to 'on the way of your Lord' (16: 125) appi?uis rutrS ?T f°rbid il fr % °m doin so assimilation is, in o 8 ' - ** assimilation are dealt with ^^S T k d The categories of consonants allowing major option im ortant what, if - P e S 3 > ^ *««*» « non-exhaustively here. By far •^Se^SS: mderl)qrr sequentially (56-61), and will be summarized final VOWds is * - In Jazari/LbbaS no explicit men„on L of t/d, which may be Z th l the largest class concerns the progressive assimilation two (U6) "^ ** ^ s, as in simn^onolms and (££ ^^ assimilated to a following: s, 8, 8, d, t, f, 9, z, ; ^^Mwfl m the first should be ""^ ^ *«> words meet, that mmTd £ f6 (M -> yakaas sanan . . " " and then assimilated. He (5) yakaad-u sanan barqi-hi dearly Xs meC v IT? ^—0 l baSiC Fr°m a rOCeduraI be lightning-his poin/oftlw " " P and eda near-IND flash s:r 1 P ' ^ t0 .' however, wa"e " * ^^ Ibn M^hid S "* 'the flash of his lightning nearly. . (24: 43) ^y pStd compdatory, of largel devoid of discussion theoretical issues y even il and /, r, as in (4) above and in °f *** -orpho-phonolo^^P^e TT" * ^^^ ^ °nC Can deScribe starting (6) Pathar-u —> Pathal lakum Point as ** lakum having a final shon h ^ ^ .' **» n0t neCCSSarilv . . 11: 78- vowels were underS t the^f 7^ mean ** ^ '(they are) purer than you «**»• will 8- Conditions - 1 discuss in sec, «. k-q (see below), JSS^^ Further consonant sequences allowing assimilation are d-f, fl phonological, '-^«am fl /-*aW)T are stated in restricted. morohn n 1 , above) lexically L &Cal s/s/j, j-t and b-m. A number of these are (as (3) tenM Phonological* for ^nce^^etc^ J* ^ " where the 'original' conso"«>•*"• " The terminological opposite of Pidraam is Pibhaar, UKe --' in one fragment (57). ' one u -ta (U. use -t alone) (13: 19, see n. 15). Moreover, Though even here, some readers assimilate the 128 Al-Idgham al-Kabiyr and Case Endings Al-Idgham al-Kabiyr and Case Endings 129 b assimilates to m, for instance, only in the word yuladdibu 'he punishes' (e.g. deleted a short [i] or [u] completely at the end of the verb, before a suffix. The r. 284), as in yuSadSm man 'he punishes whomever', n may assimilated be in tradition to be sure is, not unusually, contradictory here. Other reports say certain words. only that he weakens a final vowel. It is clear, in any case, that in the Abu Amr Generally major assimilation occurs in contexts where the high vowels i, tradition, more so even than elsewhere, a short final vowel was of negligible " C m thC non - al-?id ?/"" ,7" ™<™ al-kabiyr tradition). In sequences of functional aal/ra+ ; status. i/r, for example, assimilation is allowed only in the verb qaala (see (3) above); sequences of Cda do not allow assimilation of d unless explicidy sanctioned, and so on. 4.3. Interpretive Summary The unmarked direction of assimilation appears to be progressive (first One point that emerges from the present discussion is the legitimacy of the 3 "?* t0 sec°nd), which accounts uZ7^f™ for the opposite effects in al-?ia\aam al-kabiyr, major assimilation tradition. Jazari/DabbaS present the We ' "* of assimilation (second ^^ "8"*^ topic as an uncontroversial one and embed it in a linguistic discourse (e.g. (2) to first), ^ a! in above) which clearly reflects a long association with Arabic grammar (see n. 6 xalaqaka (7) - xalaq-qa for Ibn Mujahid). Noldeke was premature to ignore its significance. '(who) created this particular you' (18: 37). That said, there remain interpretive problems in embedding d tradition into an understanding of the form of Old Arabic in all its varieties, PPear that thC natUrC °f Ae COns°nants the proto- P^ * «* here, with an understanding of which is a prerequisite for the reconstruction of unraleH K pr °8ressive assimilation, unless ant^ certain sets of conson- Arabic. I will begin by outlining positions which may be, or have been anTocrnroccur whereT Tother precedence factors are operative (, over k for instance, advocated by others and work my way towards what I think a plausible diSCUSSCd " eXPliddy thCre arC t0 fW reading of the facts allows. e^pttS^SaT" " ' ^ ° Before proceeding, I should note that I believe a fuller discussion of the Abu d n is treated **** *• cate^- This Amr tradition will require, inter aha, a representation of the problem in a p^Tu^7Z:^TMSG ° hm suffix "*». illustrated in above. contemporary perhaps more than one, to elucidate What is ^ (7) phonological framework, „7 3t * "" " thC iSSUe Which the concern- pZo most Erectly concerns the question from different perspectives. Furthermore, assumptions of2tT tCr> namdy "8™* that a Koranic tradition ing relevant, the basis of which is SThe ut"jS? ^ reading Old Arabic syllable structure and stress are die whkh ^^^ ** fact that *e editions never not always readily discernible even in the more detailed grammatical texts. u es a T? about I would reiterate, in any case, that the major assimilation tradition is pronominal V°WdS pertainS t0 ^"^ phonology, morpho-phonological constraints playing only a limited role (see .uffix^n^ H 5°" *" StatUS °f discussion perfect verb suffix -tu), so that understand- vowels is not ody " "* ^ "»* ^ above concerning the rrdlCt npk>^ ^ ?" SUch as (2 vs indicate; the ing the sound interpretation. absence " tradition requires a phonologically of the final"Zn > « 5) generally silent about nomena " *"** "* ™1 As noted above, the al-Pitkaam al-kabiyr tradition is as weU hence ^ "T ' ^^ P" ^^ th which is " faBd and inflecti«nal vowels e.g. the underlying status of the final short vowels, the absence of (3- 6 vs 7) wTtlwithin th' ° 7> the same conceptual , that even framework necessary to trigger assimilation. A literalist reading might argue h present in under- re ** W' ««**«» was also in the tradition of major assimilation the short vowels are P ^ «"»^ ortUlXve7v^deF r Specific constraints cases where assimilation Ibn Mujahid .f" related to assimilation. lying structure in all instances and deleted in those ( W ) nnf ^ t0 3 occurs. rules, one deleting the vowel (8a), pronunciation "" "* ' Weakened ' ( (8b) C^Qa ^>MVJ '2a ^2a He also gives a few examples of deletion even where the deleted vowel is a case Example (8a) says that short high ending, as in vowels are deleted word finally (ignoring limiting conditions described above), while (8b) is the assimilation rule (10) Qawb-u bakrin -* Oawb bakrin 'Bakr's cloth' (II: 457-i8). proper (assuming assimilation only between the requisite consonants, the assimilation (as I have provisionally subscript a marks assimilable Whether cases such as these count as consonants). The rules must apply sequen- .ally. it) as a geminate consonant necessarily arises as LogjcaUy (8b) cannot precede termed is debatable, however, (8a), since (8a) creates the en4onment juxtaposed. 14 Formally, they are for assimilation to operate. Example soon as the two identical consonants are (8a) is thus in a feeding relation to (8b), which can exhaustively for (8a), appropriately formulated to specify iden- be represented '(8a) -> accounted by (8b)>. What is linguistically odd about followed that tical consonants, so there is no need to postulate the sequence (8a) As (8a) apphes only in those cases where (8b) does, that is, that it bef by (8b). ] °re (8b) haS erated °P With- the Arabic morpho- of a short 21?phono ogicalTtradmoni Looking at the problem from the perspective of (8a), while elision where rules work sequentially such a formal represen- Sibawaih tat.on is unusual high vowel in an open syllable within a word is not unattested (e.g. (though perhaps not unique) a further II: 277, 132 Al-Idgham al-Kabiyr and Case Endings Al-Idgham al-Kabiyr and Case Endings 133 Sibawaih: (l2b) Y ' imp1 (l2a as weU> is *e discussed here under the rubric of major assimilation. For instance, he was ^ > HL^hv pretod as in Ibn Mujahid *** a final vowel und- said to use Pifmaam (see sects. 7.1.3 below and 1.6.3), apparently even word S££l^nA T Ste would be (uc), with final high vowels in 'ran F f present internally. I represent Pifmaam here as an epenthetic vowel, as ^(i2c is ^ identkai to (8b) exce i is the ('instruct them' > P *** *» Paslihatakum 'of your arms' (Q4: 102) and in yuSallimahum ^s^sfT?n PC ent n thC ° ° ddetion 0f a final sh high vowel sources). In general, as seen e °* Q2: 129, see discussion at sect. 2.4.1.2, Old Arabic tT) mTV(12C) S ideSCribed 3 8eneral case in tradition is - ^ " the literature, so far at the end of sect. 4.2, Ibn Mujahid (157) reports that the Abu Amr I teow ^ 10n °PCn reCOnstrurti ^ -' » I will outline presently. known for the 'weakening' (taxftyf) of various elements (especially short ™e ; ovin eT vowels and the glottal stop). How far this generalization goes is a matter of interpretation, one logical endpoint, weakening in all contexts, being outlined in this chapter. VOWdS PreSent in the fi tradition had as its base represented rst P^- This is Second, it may be asked, if the al-Pidtaam al-kabiyr li LTh ^h formUlati° n IS imPlidt in the very existence forms words short vowels, why there should exist a distinction Slt^S "I u without between major and minor assimilation. Minor assimilation, after all, expli- ( ia0a haapM - citly has as words. There are three considerations here. ation has the mpo ^ ^^ base form C-final ^S^^^ all variants, so § ** Pheno1 -to line with First, it appears that minor assimilation was common to Sibawaih's own dLcrim on o T ™ 3SSimilation: by only identical co^^^^T"^ ^ the exception of it would have been confusing to assimilate a tradition practiced word ends ST^^Z °? ^ ^ ** some of the readers, the al-PicUaam al-kabiyr, to the al-Piihaam al-saviyr. iteT^"Assumin identical, the basic input 8 C-final words as the In other words, even if the phonological phenomena were allows the al ?;1 , , it of a « i* "*- -* fact that the al-Pidnaam al-kabiyr marked two traditions, assured -„, ^t: :' '™ forms r^ V-final it may be assumed that rThree potential conceptually distinct status. Second, problems relatine to ttJ 8 e Current 113 if only on a formal basis. Major tioned. First,uai, my interna a ^5 may be men- would have been taken as the standard, interpretation • assumesmes a r fl„ i , outside assimilation c-nnal mput not only when assimilation lacks vowels present elsewhere in the reading tradition occurs bhut a ico u en assimilation designation of beiow),M am:;::; does not Abu Amr (and perhaps, KisaPi), hence the need for a special t d — <~ ™ ^ t ei . the Abu Position can be found even in this phenomenon. Amr tradition For T"^ in fact, vowels Amr would MUJahid (p n°teS that Abu Third, the possibility may be held open that there were, 'imalize' («« _, Jch "T ' H9) is the case in those genitive ending C ntm Where "' * appearing word finally in the Abu Amr tradition. This (e.g. daati qarierZ ^ ,° ^ * ir/ of the contexts reading of the 8 Q ° Usin a Uteral instances where assimilation (8b) occurs. After his description Abu 5 } - Amr tradition ' ^ 8 i" to assimilation 1 "mt the instances where allowed, Jazari (61) notes that as an alternative to those described of inter-word assimilation is hw^ lw(= element, Against ( b beI complete instead pronounce a vowel-like a literalist reading ^ » °w)- assimilation, one may I wo^j ^ sect. matical the StatUS either or Pifmaam 'rounding and fronting' (see elements in the QiraaPatt/^ of manX gram- rawm 'labialization' treatment, 3WaitS would be something like and that in ^ " ^ detailed comparative 1.6.3). An alternative to (3), for instance, some instan reC°nstructed which are not forms may be necessary, attested directly 1 * irT* (13) qaala rabb-u-kum -* qaaf rabbukum. relevant *"* Variant to note that ""^ In re ard il is a general tend *" S ' neutralization *" ** Abu (in both Sibawaih and Abu Amr). of short high ^ Amr tradition is for the rawm neutralizes morphological marking vowels,vow.l. g a are Pp ntiv in all the confines of this chapter. contexts, not only those In what way Pifmaam does is an issue beyond within both the read- Evaluating the status of these vowel-like qualities h : are epenthetic ing what I suggest is that they S£ Sv"F^S^ ^iT^"8 «—« °^e short vowek, and grammatical traditions, imaginable For . £» in "*" fr0m - . „, c^ - post-classical generation ie^^ SSS » rawm and Pifmaam are favored by the ^ ^""ices would W non-presence, introducing As noted above (end of sect. 4.1), (12c) not be or„fcv j of ass.m.- pronioited, ,. variable into the mterpretanon e. the set of contexts denned by (al-mutaPaxxariyn), which introduces a further, diachronic lation. l l 134 Al-Idgham al-Kabiyr and Case Endings Al-Idgham al-Kabiyr and Case Endings 135 insertions in the C#C context, not weakenings of erstwhile case or lexical Abu Amr tradition the remnants of a once more widespread tradition, whose vowels. I would furthermore suggest that such insertions might occur in any bare traces are still visible, but whose substance was superseded by a different C#C context, not only those where they alternate paradigmatically with assimi- interpretation of Arabic grammar. Scholarly inquiry along these lines leads to lation. This would align the al-Pidxaam al-kabiyr tradition with the observa- the heart of Arabic historical sociolinguistics. tions of Qutrub, summarized below, and it would imply that even in the al- I would argue that nearly one hundred years after the publication of Ptdraam al-kabiyr tradition the status of word-final consonants would have Vollers's work, his suggestion that al-Pidvaam al-kabiyr tradition within been different from the al-Pidvaam al-sariyr, where no epenthesis occurred. Koranic variants has as its basis a caseless variety of Arabic is indeed a Note that formally this suggestion is compatible with (8b) above. In the plausible approach to understanding this tradition. Indeed, against Vollers, interpretation advocated here, for inter-word vowel deletion (8a) does not I place this variety among the canonical variants themselves. The Koranic exist so far as the variety used by Abu Amr goes," hence (8b) can operate variants thus encompassed both varieties. Taken alone, students of the history direct y. Such vowels as do occur word finally (other than those morpho- of the Arabic language, to the extent that it is accepted at all, may not be logicaUy determined, like vocalized pronominal suffixes) are added by rule particularly impressed by this conclusion. However, when it is linked to and thus, not having underlying status do not need to be deleted. Rather than further, related phenomena, its significance is enhanced considerably. above, W I would suggest instead that (14) describes the status of final vowels First, it can be recalled that the early ninth-century linguist Qutrub had and inter-word assimilation in the al-Pidvaam al-kabiyr tradition. suggested that the final short vowels were non-functional. Versteegh (1983) (l43) (= devotes a well-researched article to Qutrub's position, which was opposed to °Id (8b) assimilation under appropriate )* ^ ' ^ views in rondMra that of linguists such as Sibawaih. Versteegh seeks to explain Qutrub's philosophical terms. A simpler explanation is readily accessible, however. d4b) Qa #Q -.Cl3 #C2(, = vowel-like element) 2" When Qutrub spoke of the morphological inconsistency of short vowels, he b eCti0n was simply referring (in contemporary terminology) to their phonologically 3part fr° the ^ m short vowels ^se is also represented m^el° i ^ > determined varieties of Arabic where the final short SUffiX - nature. He observed formS UWm NOM and well ' -V» ACC/GEN, as Z b Z H TT , vowels had, as with the major assimilation tradition, no morphological (SCe SCCt 24 - 4 f°r disCUSsion ^1"?"" - of these These are *° W bU )- value, but rather were phonologically determined. 21 011 At this °int - P the infer from the current Siscussi^ndiscuss10n isif h — in works of the earliest grammar- that^the Abufu^ Second, there are various indications the Amr tradition has a case-marking system thus: ians, Sibawaih and Farra?, that case did not play a role in varieties of Old (15) Short vowels Arabic in certain functionally restricted domains (see previous two chapters). -a accusative/adverbial vs. dia- or a Third, as seen in the previous chapter, approaching modern Arabic Long vowels of a lectology as comparative historical grammar leads to the reconstruction ~ UWm nomi*ative vs -iyna with accusative/genitive, caseless variety of proto-Arabic. In other words, reconstruction dovetails n the of Old Arabic, as evidenced in the enSi0nS 0nly attestation of a caseless variety °nC f Whkh h3S ClaSSkal ' ° traditional his- ^cfe o°„tttr ^ al-Pidxaam al-kabiyr tradition. In this instance, philology recapitulates torical reconstruction based on comparative dialectology. (Q2 °:63 ) *« is one accepted emphasize that *%££££££ «-«^ Before moving on to my concluding remarks, I would ST"nomi*ative/accusative Koranic contrast. Moreover, in tradition first rhyme a fi^T the interpretation advocated here, while situated within a ""***« to a Taking a leaf J * final "«>- 0*0 195* 69). g Sofrom KahlekIiT" T ( 1JM8 ) and Wansbrough the ( 1977), one might see in 21 to this. The interpretation of Qutrub I am indebted to Ignacio Ferrando for calling my attention issue we have his ideas at second hand runs up against severe difficulties due to the fact that on this 15 the fact that Qutrub appears to base thejwo ° Exam le only, from In favor of Versteegh's account is consonants are identical™* ^^ P (»»> operates for Sibawaih, but only when Zajjaji (Iydaah: 70-1). case-marked forms. In favor of my his arguments against the systematicity of the case (Pilraab) on words have a purely that the vowels at the end of ^mu ka-man in Ae stri«">* on vowel in interpretation is Qutrub's overall conclusion reaUrTis a'condirTncondmon f***™' maintenance of the high msertmg « phonological ^^ ^^ fa ^ CQ ^ ^^ character. f 136 Al-Idgham al-Kabiyr and Case Endings elaborated by VoUers draws quite different conclusions and has different the inter mation of P ^ history of Arabic and for the Sir^^tradmon.H> , For VoUers the coexistence of case and caseless forms of S arily 3 StyliStk P difference hi h '"erary (case) vs low ver 77 T ' S > ] r ( } SeC° ' ndarily 3 ' dideCtal one v " ' «« = «* wel'tTn J3Z = C T r W V0UerS " WaS quitC COntent to see Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the h stoSa ^ ^ -se variety as P ary (169) maj°r ' 3nd m° St ^ ' controversial conclusion was tha the n Ta W Statistical " rem0dded S° that M°hammed's Diaspora: A Approach ffiUn ™T? T original caseless "k^^ in the on ^ Mme of lite correctness incasea case-basedhTT 22 4 to History (eastern)^ Arabic Language variety. SeS Md baSed on compara7ve T f^u"^ ™ the methodology of the h V°UerS il " ' iS a d that -d caselesYforms oel d 2 u" ^ «* CentUI7 ag3inSt ' VoUers there decisive ^ > » - toe L DCe"f 5.1. Introduction SSUme thC °/ ^ CaSC forms are historically primary, eSSe^f f° r 3 P"^ differential is com The importance dialects for an understanding of the Arabic hltl tLr^r P^ng. It foLws from of the modern language incorporated in various which was stressed in the introductory chapter and ^ t0 historical ways into historical linguistic interpretations in Chs. 2 and 3. Not to incorp- u^Zlr^. ^ ^ ^^ " ^ri-ty. Indeed, 1 befo a standardJng gram - orate this information systematically into an account of Arabic linguistic «ks m prevaIent rt ls trs^t^r' qwte naturalT history is Arabic language. In this chapter . to expect that reading to write half a history of the traditions shnnW , ] deVd0P Slmult -und any I more explicitly construct 'pre-diasporic Arabic', as explained the ZLX ~% varieties prevalent in develop the in i.i, an idea which relies on an examination of post-diasporic varieties. dWpte linguistics may be amZaTatka^ ^F™™ ' the CM interpretation of the Before proceeding, the role of dialectology in historical briefly a linguistic tradition can be viewed was a commented upon. Dialectology as ::»^ as a Dialectology requires a synchronic counterfoil to historical linguistics. whether it 10 ^ -I-o^w-^iS^^^r^ ^ historical spatial or socio-spatial starting point. Wedding dialectology and what linguistics is of course possible, though here intrudes a problem of may be Tracing the development of a dialect, it might Gensler idea that the termed 'reification'. S™"! ^less variety is original. Orin (S/vS^gXnESi^ f. say to proto-language, 8 and caseless be assumed that a dialect is a complete, discrete entity, comparable would stUl see the "" v^«ies of Arabic into the case V7JZ 35 ? pondenceofthe fr Arabic system °m P^-Semitic, given the corres- a through time. Under this with that oTr^H ^ building, which moves relatively changeless work on the 8aritic basis of an intermediate He "^ Points °«t that one might numbed start with whatever set of features Ce a Pr°t0 " Sta8e assumption there is a temptation to i VS fof inStanCe WKiCh " igati°n ' *""*£ * " ' ^ that the same ^eStTtS T ^ one has used to define the dialect in question, and to assume grammatical ""*? "° dab°rate so ' P"^cated pre-Sibwaihian in consonance with ^JTjhSiS^Zn ™~case, set of features will cohere through time, each changing tenth century ' speak of a (Owens 1990). ^ unified normative tradition only in the the others. perspective This may not be the case, however. Indeed, from a historical language and one has to begin with the assumption that each component of at a different rate from each feature has its own history: lexis changes so on. The phonology, verbal morphology differently from nominal, and and Kaufman's (1988) recognition of this is what lies behind Thomason different components attempt at typologies of potential rates of change in of grammar. ]^__f^iasporicAmbic in the Diaspora Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora 139 d 3 C° ° herent Uniform fashion leads to a ^ " ' lettddol^H Calt™* T° d° *»** to *e historical linSk r f ^^ t£ T?dlaleCt ""^ °nC fot to • "^ **» ^e development oSS^*?; POtentia% bC induded in a iven pe^d o S dialect: in a given Z T ^f eS WlU Ch3nge a Httle °thers a Iot at all. I I howe" > > **** "0* r: Tnot possibie to reconstruct ii^wTsr^: the ««* »«=*« °f * ^P^ diakctol is n0t -Ply thel- t0 of ^ ^^ °^ ^ a dialect aU°W 0ne consCtttacen "T° ^* to ™vent practical 8™ l ae8te which ° rdativel la data bases with complex daI cfn J J y ^ ""^ manageable second is ^ units quickly. The the Litl nf in particular, 7 *"" hn S *»** and I wST ^^ ^ ^ > Which be drawn from them, Arabic is spoken ^ asa n Hv ^ land area Y "**» in unbroken stretching ZTu^^ ^ - ° nT°rthern Irac to Yemen. from Mauritania Sprachinsels o„rl 1 l> "" W ItS is ™e diaspora to STtSt ^ ^ ™«Y ^n' around ** ** ** 630. Once popdat^V^ "^ ^^ northern Iraq, m °PP°Site direCti°nS Say ^ southern ' W or Ch C T°ntaCt whoUy lost. between them was largely or These two farT u Map 1. Sample points, Middle Eastern dialects Turning "**!* **'*** ^rpretation. then to the ptsentl^ relatively features are coded * large number of linguistic in a statistic and would have remained " these two regions took separate paths of migration logical and k*7"™6 " twenty-four ' ^"^ P" two areas morphoE ^ out of It will emerge, however, that the at V contact with each other. opposing features are dialects ends of the chosen from Arab"1C~* 1/ dialect coherency, at least as tions Peaking worid differ rather dramatically in terms of their in particular . under the premiss that reten- will be du difference itself ° measured by the features chosen here, and this coherency original diaspora. ° * ?°mm n inheritance dating back to the Since this h the large-scale " suggested that insight 01 calls for historical reflection. Second, it will be into the ^P 3 be83n about 630, an indirect Arabic of this the recon- ^ statistical at a certain point have to give way to Program Y achieved comparison does followed ^ ^ ^ - In a nutshell, this is the in this chapter struction features as a way of reconstructing pre- The methodology of individual linguistic used here h scrutiny in this respect, diasporic Arabic. I single out two features for greater which can be made * ™ of ramifications, however, two of explicit in H reading of the philo- the complementing the statistical approach with a close issues involved. ' *° *"* * m°K com rehensive account of First the P throw 30 logical evidence. into relief what " betWeen two dialect regions will is LaJTIT inform this chapter. One is dialec- selected two Y ** VCry term ' Initially, therefore, two separate issues widely separated A™hk dialect'. I have dl It may in fact appear that (Map f°r tological, the other historical and comparative. 1) and the western "^ detaued scrutiny, Mesopotamia SudJ the concept of 'dialect' con- mC area ln Africa I have contradicted myself, above arguing that (Map 3). The populations of historical linguistic interpret- ceived of as a coherent unit is antithetical to 1 More legitimate elements in °ver,inthepastfortv ation, but here suggesting that dialectal units are however, will disappear historical linguistics. This apparent contradiction, >- ra s y P°Ken Arabic (see Owens 2001a for internally differentiated once the statistical treatment gives the dialectal units 14Q Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora 141 [ Andalusia U Sample points underlined: Mad» (Spain) Cultural-historical regions in italics: Bornu Djidjelli C __ ^Junis \r7^ usa Malta > * Map 2. North African sample points character. Map 3. Western Sudanic Arabic Ultimately, it will em?™ tu diakctol C°n" verges with reconstLtio^to f^?*™* <^ 3 JdefenSlbIe about the nature ^^^ of re-dias ^^ p pori consist of riab:c to be identified by their component parts. These component parts chosen for (1) the different individual dialects and (2) the different variables h°nest J do an comparison. a priori basis n^ think it possible on to detenrle , whth analysis is fraught with gU1StlC Variables A set of linguistic data coded for numerical problem of reconstruct^, are relevant t0 ^ ™- Dn,,to problems, including choice of linguistic * ofArabic methodological and interpretive Ms often salient features to define choose a few eCt consideration of Traditionall North variables, choice of dialects, interpretation of alio -variants, Africa is said to y> for instance be maTkedbvt^ "^ > assignment of numerical codes to individual verb, - °f k imperfect sociolinguistic variables, and n- M, as *™ *« in * ^™ or J^^" cases. linguistic variable has to be coded one way In each write'. "" m eastern dialects, n-uktub 'we the final analysis Even if such a char*,-* • Therefore, I have another, and there may be no optimal formula for doing this. tion, it does not *" * dialectol ^sinca- follow °^ indicate ZZ^ f T^ attempted elucidate the reasons behind my coding system, and to to ofArabic into " Criterial for definin the s read North Africa (f H S P some of the interpretive problems in it. set is a reminder A rdatiVely ** many that ** "^ ** and ^ib^^SS eight parts. Section 5.2 introduces the data Second, °tentiall The chapter is divided into as indicated P y ™ * play, above laree H T^ initial interpretive dialects used; sect. presents the basic statistics and homo/heterogeneous "^ themselves are more or less 5.3 Labels' SU h statistics help orientate a historical Sudanic "* Meso ota results. Here it will be seen that the Arabic are P mian Arabic and western abstracts.abstrartion c ri the introduc- The use of interpretation, that a more precise interpretation requires statistics allows these abstractions but 142 Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora 143 tion of further types of data. This is done in sect. 5.4, where two specific the areas lie in different directions, so that it is unlikely that there has been features are discussed in greater detail and general conclusions relating to the significant movement between these regions after the initial migrations out of interpretation of Arabic linguistic history are drawn on the basis of the overall Arabia. In general, common features should be due to common inheritance data Section 5.5 sums up the main points of the chapter. The rest of the from the era of original expansion, or before. Third, areas are compared chapter -essentially has the status of an appendix in which the linguistic basis which, very roughly, are matched in size: these are Mesopotamia and the o th are statics elucidated. In sect. 5.6 further applications of the data bank western Sudanic area. The Mesopotamian area is here limited to Iraq and the pertaining to questions of language contact and change are presented in a bordering area of southern Turkey (Anatolia). Iraq has an area of 169,235 ene of seven short hypotheses. In sect, 5.7 and 5.8 problems of methodology square miles, while the Arabic-speaking areas of Anatolia cover only a small 3re d In ApPendk 2 Can be found a ** the variables area. The native Arabic- speaking population in these two areas is about and the codingH rT ^ of each is briefly illustrated. 11,500,000 in Iraq and 400,000 in Turkey (Ethnologue 2003). By the western Sudanic area, I understand the western extension of the Arabic-speaking belt beginning in stretching into Nigeria (Owens 1993a). I restrict 5-2. Dialects, Kordofan and Procedure, Initial Results the sample to Chad, Cameroon, and Nigeria. The total area of Chad is 499.755 e " °f rty nine square miles; Arabic is spoken as a native language only in, approximately, the lingUiStk VariableS aU from and morpholo^ h K° > Ph««*W C°mpared betWeen southern third of the country. Pommerol (1997: 9) estimates that only 12 per andThewet" «» dialect areas Mesopotamia Th C cent of the population are native Arabic speakers, which would give a popu- " additi°n as a control Uzbekistan with ^ > *> >nuknyyahulLivvlS r ^ Arabic (see sect. 5.2.2 lation of about 700,000 native speakers. It is further represented as a native and Maps i, 3). language in the small finger of Cameroon separating Chad and Nigeria, and in 5-2.1. Linguistic variables Nigeria in about half of Bornu (69,436 square miles). Estimates for the number of native Arabic speakers in these areas vary wildly, though it is now moved of'rT^^^(0r probably not more than 500,000 speakers. Arab nomads have a thCre0f) °f Sh°rt —Is in open syllables (see sec 2 i south there is not documented. 4!) ;etl ? ? lSG into Adamawa State, though their extension p n suffix in perfect tion -bs > the native Itm^tZt^ ^ In all, very approximately, the area where Arabic is spoken as a T Verb and ?" > so on Even the most nidimentarv ^^ - and the total number of til*? language in WSA is perhaps 250,000 square miles ammai thCSe ^^ - that deMs Th centrality ensures ™TZ£utf - speakers just over 1,000,000. " ^ usedlrXedmZer^f Fourth, a minimal constraint on the choice of dialects was the availability acase.Thet of Beyond this, the compari- a^^ material covering all of the linguistic variables. and choice theo-tical issues connected with the of h« vaXf f°^f^ son was limited to the same number of dialect samples in each area. To have dialect,. At a ^"^ realizati » the different some of the arguments nuXfof , ^ ^ overweighted one area or the other would vitiate P °f Pr°bkms arc addrcssed "* to secte.s.zands > mean that relative 8re deVlH T^ ^ advanced in sect. 5.3. Practically these two considerations the number of descriptions available, the Mesopotamian area is underrepre- Pretend that are the only ones *** choices made here sented possible 2 that H ^ while the WSA is overrepresented. * y are each case. ** ^ Pt™ally perspicacious ones in and nine By exohcitlv a Ti,?j- ? I have used nine sample points for Mesopotamia (see sect. 5.2.2.1) comparability. for WSA (see sect. 5.2.2.2). This allows for a direct statistical Alternatively one could attempt to construct proportionally representative 5-2.2. The the dialects samples based on any number of parameters, such as geographical size of statistical two regions or total population. These would constitute alternative 8 noted ' COnsiderati°ns are as to develop here. above, I compare two^r ^ in play. First, approaches, which I will not attempt Arabic and course of the areas which were settled in the I two further dialects, Uzbekistan Arabic diasnnraTaspora have strategically added that accompanied two function the spread of Islam. Second, Shukriyya Arabic (eastern Sudan on the Atbara River). These 144 Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora 145 as a comrol both terms m of defining dialect areas, and in terms of a historical aultu dialects (see I should note that while in Iraq the qultu dialects may interpretauon 5.8.4). of the data. For historical linguistics Uzbekistan Arabic, as will be regarded as the older of the two, this does not imply that qultu dialects are, emerge, ls of partlcljar importance) as ft became ^ off from in terms of the global history of Arabic, older than the gilit. They are simply Arabic-speaking world at a very early date. older in this area. ""* Meso ota ?™ P ™an area was defined as a dialect 5.2.2.2. Western Sudanic Arabic The western Sudanic area is much more aral^T™lanC (l964) He ' distinguished two large dialect groupings, sparsely described, and some of the literature available is problematic in its dubhW^™ ? 1 interpretation. Two works of high quality are Roth (1979, also 1972) for rePreSentS a form in Which the characteristic differences Abbeche Arabic and Zeltner and Tourneux (1986) for a dialect spoken either b ; e^nlC J 7 " / /and tU V f°r lSG erfect ve in far authors are not explicit on the point, in ^ ^ ^ P * «** are found western Chad or in Cameroon. The inTslrta short, commonc word.f though they note that the phonology of the dialect they describe (identified by S tamian in "*? Part t0 *« work of Otto Jastrow tribe, wulaad Peeli, not place) is identical to that of Zeltner and Fournier anInL^ort ^ ^ 2 (1971). This was a description of a Cameroonian Arabic dialect. Beyond these § A rCCent °rk W (TaIa divides the qultu two, I have relied on own data. This consists of a wide range of samples a al tf ^ *»: 15) my Lot \ Anat °Han the Kurdistan from as specifically elicited information from ^ ' the Ti and the Nigerian Arabic, as well > ^. E^ZTJZ T*Searc eSSemiaUy ^-Phically for speakers from Chad. For Nigeria, I exclusively use samples from villages. The pre'Xurr based, but serve largest conglomeration of Arabic speakers is found in Maiduguri, a city of (JaStr°W 500,000 inhabitants, with perhaps 50,000 native Arabic speakers. They 1978), and '^ ** Mardin'sasseH The °a 1 T^' ^ Anatolian group is itself quite differen- come from different dialectal backgrounds, however, so it is not possible to tiated dialecrirallw t y l) the three all speak dialect of Maiduguri (see Owens 1999 for ^ > ^ dialect here are of a characteristic Arabic membe f f dl * ^ ^TP groUpt ThC I village of Sam le sociolinguistic From Nigeria, use the E«^^^ ™?S. P has ^ -mbers of the basis of this situation). - Lake Chad. Lake Chad expands 4) ^.Hi^JS^^ 7> and Talay i9"' respect Kirenawa, located on the southwest side of aadr and 1970s Kirenawa was on the lake, today ,CWish Ba hdadi BlanC 1964; contracts, and whereas as late as the Abu Haidar r ^ S > 991 ) ThSf7 *****?* m ""^-represented, it is well inland. second Nigerian village is Mada. While this is less than 100 and in the literati both in this sample A Bagirmi dialect area, quite (b^c th Musiim diaiect kilometers away, it lies in what I term the northern ^Z2iitztd \^:°Uthernr L Kirenawa. The final village is Aajiri, Mes distinct certain ways from scribed especiallvhvTn I ? °Potamian dialect as de- linguistically in ( and 1982) 3nd Q Mahdi near the town of Banki which lies on the border between Nigeria BhnC.tS^fc - <**>• T n f Bagirmi area. To Cameroon. It is as a representative of the southern relevant ° diakctS int0 Ira<* is StiU taken today a9T4 ltTh° ^^ ° of these were f <*""" first these five samples I added four from Chad via elicitation. Two major wave of Arab ^J "^ fakers constituted the every MeS° °tamia gathered at town of Banki, which has a large cattle market century. P > ^ning in the seventh the border Beginning £^TT there are driven across centralized ** ** Wednesday and Thursday. Most of the cattle sold government £*£' " *" ^ * ^^ ZZf gan of to three months, and nomadic q increasingly to be settled by Chad, through Cameroon to Banki over a period one groups whn a „ , Nigeria. aSSOdated sold to cattle dealers who transport the cattle via truck to southern ^c^nce^T* T- ** 2 *fc dialect. Tins e Iams the therefore be found there on any in contemporary *P current distribution of dialects Speakers of various Chadian dialects can Iraq- a fat $ uninhabited ^ sPeakers (0 populated previously rural areas Z uuf (3) fragmented the 7 **" ^^ ^ 2 the Chari River, which separates Iraq ^.E^S^ T" The epicenter the Eeli tribe is located on either side of and Anatolia, in ^^ of Weed usually "^ published urbaXs do not use is Abu-Absi (1995)- Though ed ^"T^ Cameroon from Chad. One work which I explicitly this later UnafifcctBd by thirty migration, author's work with Chadians in the USA some ^ ^ recently, it is an antiquated work based on the tko^c^Ja r^ hshed ,Z*-variety itself deviates in many points from as an Iraqi S has become estab- years ago. The bibliography cites no works after 1984. The grammar q linguamgua francafiSL winchI u m Iraq at what variety it describes. least continues to spread into better descriptions, and it is not clear exactly — H6 Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora 147 this very isolation makes Uzbekistan an interesting source for divining the Z) ' °ne 3 n°mad b° rn south of Umm Hajar lives form of early Arabic. The status of Uzbekistan plays nl!dki K t ^mm who Arabic a major role in the Am Timan Two other discussion and argumentation in conduct M J" ^^ ^ - -terviews were Ch. 4. a8dn fr°m Spe3kerS Wh0 had For Chad ot T' recently --ed from Shukriyya Arabic, there are no reliable historical accounts for when the VI eS 1S Tlman °ther 3 °UtSid£ ancestors of the Shukriyya Arabs left Upper Egypt for the Sudan or when they II :e ^ ' ^ ^^ S eMt 3). ^ ^ settled in their current location. Reichmuth (1983: 2) suggests that they have d intr °dUCed int° the weste been there at least since 1800. At the same time, he concludes that no in l™Itefo7« ^ ™ Sudanic region (29) ^hT<*ntury byrnomads ^ at ^ direct relation with an extant Egyptian Arabic dialect is discernible, though nller ^ ITout EgyPt Jt 1S h°WeVer many 4 ' noteworth although similarities are found with various varieties in Egypt. This is similar to the« are £ T- ' y> ** C 1S °SSes linki*8 WSA Arabic and that of Upper the situation with the relation between the WSA area and Egypt (Owens Z!"tr^ kf 1993a, 2003), and it may be that my conclusions for the WSA area are extendable to the Shukriyya area as well: the WSA and Shukriyya dialects, and indeed the Arabic dialects of the Sudanic region in general, filtered into """ Fina .^^ %> two further dialects have been induL^fheT the region via Egypt. Their Arabic, therefore reflects earlier forms found in ShUkriyya " Arabk SP°ke in the eaStem S^^^T'T °r " Upper Egypt, some of which have since disappeared in this homeland region, as well as innovations and mixtures which arose via contact in the Sudanic g J°gan near (see ' Bukhara to the northeast Fischer icfiv v 7 I region itself. i999; zimme U^ss^r*^** ~ 2o°2) - There SUrVCyS information of Uzbekistan Arabic. What exists no, nt7 ^ 5-2.3. Procedure eTahh dialeCt variability is therefore ^Pon^lZt^Zrf - * Each linguistic variable was given as many values as it has realizations in the onevma ge, Jog ar;;r^:xi:^ data. The variable 1SG perfect verb suffix, for instance, has two values, either- tu, as in qd-tu 'I said' (e.g. Christian Baghdad) or-f, gil-it (Muslim Baghdad). '1' These two values arbitrarily (see sect. 5.7.1 below) given the values and " were porary Turkmenistan C°ntem and ^ * V. the contrast tu vs.-t. Other ^ The implies only 0^^°^^ variable 1SG perfect suffix became cut off from *"* Speakm in this re8ion the main ^c-speakiiiga k- aspects of variation relating to this suffix, for instance whether an epenthetic though so far regions is an important, as I know suffix „T vowel is inserted before the- f (as in the gilit dialect), or whether the 1SG in Bukhara, Arab;! ^^ "*" ** £j c^oTh T^ ^ has the alternative morpho-phonological realization of 0, as in Kirenawa (gul langU3ge beginning of the tenth aS 3S *' century and ^ 'I said'), are in other variables, since they are accounted for by different thTtK^ coded Arab quarter *"* h°USeS in the of the city ^ ^^ , variants range we"e7n "In UzbeT I rules (see discussion in sects. 5.8.2, 5.8.6). The number of such drastic kstan Arabic itself has undergone influence in so amn atlcal between 2 (as here) and 5 (for the realization of S). case can be domains, such as syntax, that a made for viewi™ ;f J the Simple sets of statistics were produced (using SPSS) by aggregating 2ooifc). " ^°loglCall as a There are thus y "^d language (Owens various 3 individual values according to variable and according to dialect groupings of very early isolation * P1CCeS °f Cvidence su uin for a from , 8 8 the ^bic-spealungArahT different kinds. world. As Jastrow (1998) notes, *«°r* such as the story popular in £1K^P"^ P eny °fArabs 4 which lives to the north of the Shukriyya and centur De the 'Ababda, a group X- Jastrow «*d from Tamerlane Jong (2002: 358) considers (ws °f Damascus by iStl,Hat 'fn a ro the Shukriyya, influenced, however, by *< Present PP P^ly sceptical extend into southern Egypt, to be a northern extension of ^y Arabic S "l", of Spuler's (,95* *44> E° pXe the similarities to Upper Egyptian Upper question whether gWh Egyptian Arabic. He does not discuss the chapter, argues Centu"«- link sorts between Egyptian and strongly for The Img^ Arabic are due later or whether the group is a missing of me thesis ^ ^ to contact, Sudanese Arabic. 148 Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora 149 5-2.4. Inheritance and independent change which could well have been lost in the course of second language learning. There are many methodological This latter point, course, has to be read as establishing a plausible, and interpretive issues relating to individual of one variables, so many in fact that I have though not a necessary cause. Uzbekistan Arabic has not lost its pharyngeal summarized the major issues in sects. 5.7 and 5.8, after the presentation of consonants, which are structurally comparable to the emphatics in their the main findings and arguments. There is one interpretive issue which I typological rarity, and there are many dialects in the WSA area which have think should be discussed before the statistical findings are presented, however. maintained emphatics, even though, it may be assumed, in these there has A core issue in addressing a question in 7 historical linguistics is been a good deal of assimilation of originally non-Arabic speakers. whether similar or identical forms in related varieties (be they languages or dialects) Even ostensibly clear cases can become problematic in a broader compara- are similar because of inheritance or because of chance change. This is a tive perspective. I would assume that the loss of pharyngeals in a number of question with no all-encompassing answer, though tor some linguistic variables WSA sample points, for instance, is a region-specific development. However, the answer is easier than for others. For instance, throughout the WSA area is the WSA shares with the Tihama (Yemen, Saudi Arabia coastal area) the found a rule (simplifying matters somewhat) deleting the suffix —> it cannot be ruled out -t of the 1 or - change ? ? (Tihama maintains h, however), so 2MSG perfect verb, after C- and not before a m SCCt ThiS pr°duces with complete certainty that the change in the WSA is partly ancestral. ' M ' Paradigmatic contrasts such as the follow" Even more problematic are those cases in which changes may be due to one factor in one context, to another in another. For instance, WSA, in (1) gul 'you said' VS . mafee-t 'you went' agreement in this case with the entire Sudanic region, for most lexemes has katab 'I, you wrote' vs. ka'tab-t-a 'you wrote it.M' the change *d -> d, dahab -> dahab 'gold'. As this is attested only in the ka tab maktuub 'I/you wrote a letter' vs. ka'tab-t that it is al-maktuub 'I/you Sudanic region, and as it is historically contingent, it may be assumed wrote the letter 5 the result of an innovation in the pre-WSA diasporic population in Upper f d ninC WSA Egypt. Elsewhere in the present data d may remain 3 (Mesopotamian gilit), '? ^ dialects sam led is unique among 1 P - K so Irl^ ?T (Siirt), or may become d mdeed When l00ked may become fricative z (Daragozu, Uzbekistan), v ' at - detail, rather odd in general Zt 1^ ^ Uzbekistan). The changes } 1 t0 S3y (Jewish Baghdadi = JB, Christian Baghdadi = CB, " ^ that * oriSina*d only once before the nTs^ T f/ to often d in North Africa). The SA d and z attested elsewhere (e.g. Spread °ut their are also °7 — current distribution. In cases -* ucT 1?^ independent widespread d value of this variable could thus have arisen by 6 ** inn°Vati°n took place in U er be or a7" ^ P? *&* * explained in *e or aT"S mt d changes. In this perspective, reflexes of original 3 could be ° WSA area origin- ^ - The active, that it ated mdto nH t , area, but as y thC? diffCrent terms of a single change in the case of the reflex in the WSA dialeCtS °f this -gion, and only in these, may be dialects. rCa2 rI Vatl°nS SUCh independent developments in the case of North Africa and the qultu aS these J term Really contingent oTs as T° regarded as due to 7Z ° In other cases, changes which could plausibly be ^ P im and did not repeaUhemselves. A 'the o " ^^ probably her 2 7 independent innovation, when looked at in a broader perspective, r£ SU aS l0SS °f is emphatk C ^ found initial -h from the object ^l^Z ^nd ?, — • are not. A case in point is the deletion of the (e are two ***** ^ -hin 'their.F (see * ^^ pronouns -ha 'hers', -hum 'their.M', and hesedevelo ^ after a consonant ^^Z^T'^ Pments are the independent events. First, feature is n0not To Often in Arabic WSA feature Ap 2.2.66 and sect. 8.6.4 for detailed discussion). in ** Nl eria has ^phasis, for ance^o the ^ * Cairene wif, Mardin wxc, Ibb" h 7 ? dialects word final -h is lost (cf. the word for 'face' is in > P^babty, a specific even the WSA one is ar^ Setond ^^ Nigerian one could argue that the current change a wic, etc. explained as a ° ^"^ the ~ tinthe 7 dialects, for instance, may best be t-less form in ^ second example; The realization of tas rf in a number of WSA the firsT its absence in the requires the DO Fulani and Arabs have been in close combination of Fulfulde implosive rf with the emphasis off. The • - ^tan, for mstance, Tajik and Uzbek; in Abbeche ^ contact for hundreds of years in the region. 150 Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora 151 m two areas, namely among the qultu dialects of Mesopotamia and parts of One might want to exclude these features from any consideration of Syria and m the Sudanic area. Moreover, wherever it occurs, underlying stress historical relationship (see sect. 5.4.4 below). Doing so, however, does not rules are not affected. Thus in Nigerian Arabic, Jaham-a 'he understood it.M' materially affect the present conclusions. is distinguished by stress from fa'ham-a 'he understood it.F' developments **" °Ut ** *»*" iTrm oL stmt ^^ and their Meaning ^ 5-3- Statistical Results and Akkadian M°dem HebrW' Ethio-Semitic fo ^^ ' iZ^T* of ing *** *" of P^ryngeals, strengthen- tables. Table 5.1 gives the range the case fori^dep n if ^ The basic results are first presented in 7„td The ch. one Hebron "* standard and the means for the forty-nine variables. 3 ), may vie^n^^T* ^^ ^ <«** deviations (SDs) ** mean is calculated for each purposes of ^^ ** ^^ ter wd means and SDs are calculated as follows. First, the comparativeTeconTJ , ^ ^ SUCh COgnati individual means and SDs are phonological and °n ^P"6* ^ of the forty-nine variables individually. The arbitrary • ^ seZm ? means/ logical M be Seen m0rph°" the total forty-nine so that an overall cognation ' then aggregated and divided by is well a^sZTn ' Occasionally i„ scathe™ Gulf Arabic and in relative to proto-Arabic. a few areas » kbiir is to be seen as innovative in Yemen; Behnstedt 1985: 87. Certainly the form 152 Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora 153 Table 5.1. Means and standard deviations for for variables, 49 variables Table 5.3. Means and standard deviations 49 phonology and morphology Mean of aggregated SDs Mean of individual variables Phonology Morpholo gy WSA 1.68 15 Standard Standard Mesopotamia 1.58 deviation •39 Mean deviation Mean Uzbekistan 1.46 Shukriyya .10 1.38 WSA 1.72 .21 1.70 Mesopotamia 1.62 45 i-54 •33 Uzbekistan 1.58 i-34 SD is obtained. Since Uzbekistan 1-35 and Shukriyya have a single value, they have Shukriyya 1.40 no standard deviation. The important statistic in Table 5.1 is the means of the aggregated standard morphological features are classed together reappears in the phonological and deviations It is clear here that WSA with a lower mean of SD is a far more subcomponents. compact, less variable dialect than Mesopotamia. According to the measures the to the discussion in sect. 5-4- In these here it is The next two tables are relevant more of a coherent dialect than is Mesopotamia. The standard specific dialects, dialect areas are compared to two deviation is a WSA and Mesopotamia more telling statistic here than the mean, since it would not Uzbekistan. As these are represented change, even the Shukriyya in the eastern Sudan and if the values of individual variables were changed around. deviation. For these Forinstance^k by a single variant they themselves have no standard is given a value of V, *c of V. Reversing these values so that the value of a given feature of the 2 C statistics, in Table 5.4 I have compared W°Uld n0t alter * the fact that WS has at all Mesopotamian ;„ tv u, 7 A no deviation to the mean of the WSA and in this variable. In Shukriyya or Uzbekistan dialect the current coding system it is uniformally V, therefore an instance, for variable 45 (Ap ones, and noted to which mean it is nearer. For UCS WCre reVerSed ft would categorically '2', with an SD verbal pronominal object suffix of To ^ 2.2.45), insertion of a long -aa- before a of aa, '2' = insertion), WSA (katab-aa-ha wrote it', = no insertion 16 f nine 'he Y Vari3bles are c°mbined into variable insertion). In one super areas a value of Y (i.e. uniformly no bvtit ^Stan°T has a value of 1.62, all other 8 d te be that the Uzbekistan are considered closer to vlr aTon Tn WSA f^**""- * ^ ™ * °»Y ^ terms of this feature, Shukriyya and f ° " ** f Meso Arabic, for the WSA. According to Table 5.4, individual ™s treated *" ^ P°<" Mesopotamia than they are to evenly split as regards features of WSA/Mesopotamia in the sample are about abk 5 CXCept th3t the features are di-ded into phono- Shukriyya. logicalloJcdf u to their relative proximity to Uzbekistan and ( N-?rN -25) andJ morphological (N = 24) classes. be noted that dividing the Without presenting the statistics here, it can also in "* COntrfbute ^°^ morphology yields a similar division as nJely^equXtote^ ^^ """P^ features between phonology and n WSA 3nd MeSOPOt°mia difference between Tables 5.1 and 5.3. ticulal - Table analogous to the ZtZXt™t»7uauiy larger SD ^ ^ 5.4, of n Table 5.4. Mesopotamian Arabic found when all a similar perspective as Table 5.5 looks at the same data from times the WSA and Mesopotamian A count is made comparing how many Tablej^Sum of standard deviations means of WSA or WSA Number of variables for which the 7-9 Table 5.4. Mesopotamia are closer to Uzbekistan/Shuknyya 19.7 Mesopotamia Mesopotamia Closer to WSA Closer to 10 For information, thirty-three of th<- f rt„ • 3 ties one 1' 22 has values, four 1'* "" biValued f the remainin sixteen> 24 5 have and - ° Uzbekistan 4, elevJhave^r™ 8 3 ties goes, ten have the multi - valued 20 same value (hence ^^ variables, as far as WSA Shukriyya 26 an SD of i) 154 Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora 155 Table 5.5. Identical means, WSA and Mesopotamia compared to Uzbekistan, Shukriyya Table 5.6. Mesopotamian subdialects Mean of SDs WSA Mesopotamia Dialect or subdialect area Mean (where applicable) Uzbekistan 19 13 Shukriyya Non-Baghdad qultu (N = 2) 1.31 .12 22 14 Baghdad qultu (N = 2) 1.38 .06 Shukriyya 1.38 Uzbekistan 1.46 dialect areas have Gilit (N = 2) 1.51 .11 exactly the same score (same mean value implying same .21 mgmstic value) Anatolia q«ZfH (N = 3) 1.61 as Uzbekistan and Shukriyya. The mean score used in Table •15 WSA (N = 9) 1.68 inter ^ Pretive Proems discussed ems wSVk, in sect. 5.8, prob- 5 ' 5 ClrCUmvents simPly by counting only values which are identical.ZtS tFor instance, variable 12 , absence/presence of word-internal imala to WSA than they are to the other Mesopotamian subdialects. Uzbekistan ' M"°P0tarnia = "fc Uzbekistan = x.oo, Shukriyya = 1.00) is counted.,? Arabic falls close to the middle of the entire range of mean values. Cal WSA Uzbekistan ' a«d Shukriyya presented These Z Tl T ^ > The main problem' which emerges from this statistical summary be ™ ^ ^od the W and Mesopotamian in dialects. They are extremely borders foT? ^^ ^ Tables 5.1-5.6 resides in the Mesopotamian tiVCS ' WPbicd proximity by no means guar- often as or more ^^uT^ splintered, and are, under the premisses set out in this study, UZbeldStan in artkular is close to WSA, in to each other. Why «™ 1XZ rt^ P <&* similar to dialects geographically far removed as they are mCaSUre (Tabk 5) - In te means reside in a complex ri^rion Shi "T ™ ^^ similar should this be so? As a linguistic problem the answer will S^ant^ « - *~ - each other as are of causes: change through language contact, lack of change due to linguistic era isolation and other causes, independent innovation, and, as a post-Islamic diSmamks the this last, compontf Mesopotamian dialects into diasporic variety, characteristics of the founding dialects. It is camrthe ifiCati0n ^ f°r this is **• as seen above, the area is on in greatest detail. I touch ' historical component which I will concentrate q3Td£ Se I yt r * below. I consent ** ** "^ "*» on other questions in summary fashion in sect. 5.6 ^oupfTn: Sub ^ T8rou s ™ed centered P here follow ones historical hypothesis in , traditional At this to suggest an initial Mesopotami^ H , point it is relevant from each other, on the two dialects which are geographically most removed a8hdad gilh dialects N = 2 and Sudanic area. Because of the immense distance, dialects (N = 2rS \ ^ ( )> Uzbekistan and the western is focusing the issue on logical ba*ed on reigning dialecto- both spatial and diachronic, separating the two areas, classification The' IE' ^f^™ importance of historical of increasing '* ^"P^ ^re arranged in order these two dialects brings to the foreground the means GrPro°UpS u Wth onh °*e significant. deviation. / member have no standard explanations in accounting for similarities, should they be Arabic and WSA The statistical similarities between Uzbekistan Fr° a pureIv StatisdCal perspective, WSA regains '^ m located fstrikTf* f Arabic are due to a common pre-diasporic ancestor, even though (h it has more ' ™ " * ^^ tha„t"ef ^ probably on the Arabian pensinsula. tim aS group on this many memhers as any other list and cover, * I , Wlder stated without instance, geographical area. It has, for scepticism, as it has been a lower SD rt, a „ .1. u This hypothesis can be met with themselves. There are two initial A more **" diakctS " detailed of the linguistic variables imp^ *£,£ o ^^ discussion areas PUrposes is indeed depend on numbers as represented ^e coherency of the dialect answers to First, the logic of the method does by the r» nt f this. tamia The only as reliable as the coding are split in 1ultu dialects of Mesopo- for developing hypotheses and the numbers are two as it w i™*™' the last third by Shukriyya of but far as the coding system goes, and Uzbekist ^^ Mesopotamia system and statistical test used. As J£ZAraDlc nf* in statistics " ^e Anatolian the system I used. The qultu dialects are closer of this chapter is devoted to explication of 156 Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora 157 C qUite baSk: J heW USC f ° m°re advanced techn until the baslTn , ^ ^s reconstruction of individual forms. One does not reconstruct a dialect or an Tand thC ^ b3Se is ex anded h<™ver. Given these ^ P > entity cav .tTn r^ such as 'Neo-Arabic' but rather individual linguistic features, which are C°mmensurate n- *? ^ wi* what little is known about the socS 'n subsequently interpreted as forming larger units, such as dialects. StK °f thC eXpandin Arabic rou s is historically ^ S 8 P - " It is in this spirit I two linguistic variables Zll in Tthat ° f that in the next section consider P pulations of ^bs are known to have moved into both UzbeSa H p in detail which bear on the relations between the varieties discussed in this m S° me C3SeS b°th via Syri-n ^ ** desert. In the early section, that ekhth in particular on the relation between Uzbekistan Arabic and of t? tanCC ' '^^ "" re rted to have be -ttled in Unoer 1 n P° - the other regions. S7 mhTS (LeWiS So teSo * ^T^ 1970: ^)- Qays is also a tribe Musiim> the conqueror °f ^^^^^^r^**»»* -*"*» fa * 5.4. Interpretations WSA area, a prLina^ s^p^n^ * The statistics become more interesting when the comparatively detailed Written S°UrCeS at our disP°*n whether it was coverage are used as a basis of com- thellToo'oT^ ^WhlCh? of the WSA and Mesopotamian areas °nC m°vin in moving ^ * «* Action, one parison for other dialects. ^KT" S Pr CiSdy " a ^^ of comparative linguistics that Cn^cl^ 7l ! f dUOdate earlier * m^ions. Unless the high degree of due 5-4-1- Uzbekistan Arabic 3aXT T mdePendent devel°P-nt, it has to be assumed SE^Tc^t In recent of attention has been directed towards POn,r,r °PUlati0nS years a certain amount P at SOme time have shared 3 coinn^Sr^ ^ Uzbekistan Arabic, both in terms of its dialectological and historical status. 1 Whereas this status has usually been discussed in terms of its relations to "^ "** ** the USe of st provides a ^- it its nects^tlTeT;. Mesopotamian Arabic, Behnstedt (2000: 145) going so far as to claim has Arabic^^L °~ associations, in J ^ origins there, I have emphasized geographically long-range i^s^^kTr f" "^SUCh 'Neo-ArabiC ^^/a**"* or 'Mesopotamia" labk f particular with Nigerian Arabic (Owens 1998a: 72). T. *T °f 1S that indices consist ^ "*"* ^^ The would support both associations. How- dtLatelv "f^H ^ ^ statistics in Tables 5.4 and 5.5 mdmdual cases and variables. what comes out • , While in the end k ever, Behnstedt's peremptory dismissal of the Nigerian connection in favor of a nUmber' the individual, ^ number itse* » ^pendent on well-defined m Mesopotamian one cannot be upheld in the face of them: Uzbekistan suggest a *|« * statistics quantitatively .^£££™ Arabic has more variables close to values of WSA than to Mesopotamia, and S ' ^ll 1S a variables. relati°n defined across a range of its mean values, though globally considerably closer to Mesopotamia than to WSA (Tables do not align with a single Mesopotamian subgroup 1 5.1 and 5.3), groupings, "^ SUg estive of significant the ulnWte ?* * S (Table lin^c^ measuring 5.6). is the comparative historical relationship does not methnH ]L An initial conclusion is that the present statistical comparison the of Proto-forms. of comp^^^^^*""^stoncal The nature between WSA and Uzbeki- method, however, contradict my suggestion of a special relationship demands a relatively painstaking neutral as to stan. However, the statistical summary read as pure numbers is 11 due to common It is extremely historical interpretation. Similarities and differences may be difficult tracing th Nile, and into the current set Sudan. I, °ut °f *e innovations. Given that the is> bL^Z^*?"*"* Arabian peninsula, down the inheritance or to shared or divergent ys, e Q at leas, * Egyptian ™* **o are geneal{ w ~ usually reckoned to be part of morphological features, they instance, ^ does comprise fundamental phonological and states that the Mameluke ^^^ MacMichael 6 : t8 -4) for Sudan, annywhfcTrnL ( 19 7 3 to this. Its ni^6 contained, 6 mc do give a broad basis of comparison. The WSA area is testimony inter alia, BarHUdtmft " ™ into Dongola in northern UPS T historical *** *"*«*" Gardn has identified related in part at least to its Jem 2 r * QaS who h^T ^^ <>»* 75) relative uniformity can plausibly be C " SPreadin in h" UPPCT E 1 ere «« othCT «**> ^ " exhibit a Tuoi f « dtaSns ^ ™ roots the fact that the WSA area does £ T f t ? (see above). By the same token, '"^ °Und 6 im,ance *roughou, the ' > is eponymous for a large sX^n encourages a closer look at the (KUfe) 2 M - same tribe is good similarities to Uzbekistan ** ^ number of Basra) ^ ^"ing "fXj £,£Ld ^ SICserved as stagtng ^ ar^ for Quests (Dormer Ae Sub4uen7c . 98l: 228 ). Kufa (and two wmquestont^ of varieties. Iran and Uzbekistan. 158 Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora 159 Turning to this question, Behnstedt says that Uzbekistan Arabic has its to those used in my statistics are identified by the variable number in my data origins in Mesopotamian Arabic. To this point I have not treated historical (see sect. 5.7). I have added one variable to Jastrow's list, namely the realiza- linguistic questions systematically, so in a sense, what I have presented and tion is, traditionally, one of the constitutive variables distin- what of 'qaaf, as this Behnstedt asserts have no direct connection with each other. However, guishing the qultu and gilit dialects. Behnstedt himself does not show how Uzbekistan Arabic arose from Meso- Below the table I have counted how many features of similarity there are po amian, so his assumption of direct genetic affiliation is unsupported. between Uzbekistan Arabic and the other varieties. In making his claim, Behnstedt refers to Jastrow's work (without a specific Even more strikingly than in my own data, this abbreviated list confirms reference, however). In fact, Jastrow (i998) does treat the relation between that a prima facie case can be made for linking Nigerian Arabic with Uzbeki- Uzbekistan Arabic and Mesopotamian Arabic in historical linguistic terms, stan. It furthermore confirms the heterogeneous nature of the Mesopotamian and m a more differentiated and detailed way than does Behnstedt. Jastrow area; the gilit dialects in this reckoning have only two features in common Y n ^ l00king f°r relati°nships Arfh A between Mesopotamian with Uzbekistan Arabic. ?7 6 arCa °ne should not tabular listings. Methodological Arf£ TufT rf ^ ' consider Mesopotamian At this point it is time to move beyond y Cr> il " ** ***** int0 the is much a familiar «* ^dialects, clarification is needed, however. For Jastrow, Table 5.7 not so aid r, of H n V** " thC Same ^ ^ ** dat "h- been organized in taxonomic listing as a statement about historical relation. He says that his this chant ^ rf"e hi ricaI inferences idea * °n the ba °f list is based on 'old characteristics' ('altertumliche Merkmale'). The ritC; f :: r - cJLpw th°U8h co^iderably comparison represent features d* it T Ir I"' ^ fewer than in the current appears to be that the variables listed in the (l 8: or at least, to a stage of ?' ^ " 177) is reProd^d in the first three going back to Old Arabic or proto-Arabic (see below), coLmns rlt ^rufb AnWc diaIe dialects Arabic occurred in the Mesopotamian dialect area. GMn ;S IT f^ ' **« «s (Q), and ^Y before certain innovations 3dded my relations 0Wn fr0m Th£ As it stands, however, Table 5.7 is no more a statement of historical vlbLledvanables used inin'tb ^ ™&™ the comparison are copied ^ an explicit demonstra- from Jastrow. The ones identical than are the forty-nine variables in my data. Lacking the danger tion of which features on the list are old or proto-forms there runs of claiming or assuming one feature to be older than another in a comparative assumption. linguistic sense, while in fact there is no linguistic basis for the A case in point pertains to a further element in Jastrow's presentation. Imperfect endings-m,, uun (Ap 2.2 52V: yes non-existent vs. F 5h yes yes no 5.4-2- What is not attested in writing is not necessarily M plural (Ap 2.2.30) yes Linker- in* no no yes direction markers. As I noted, the statistics in sect. 5.3 are useful as general 2FSG-J3 (Ap yes no no yes 2.2.62) a valuable diagnostic for estab- yes Shared features which are relatively rare are internal passive* yes no yes all no lishing Thus, the fact that (1) above is shared among iSG perfect- fu(Ap no yes no historical relationship. 2.2.44) also no its limitation to the WSA area, but qaaf (Ap 2.1.1) yes no no WSA dialects is significant not only for yes yes feature. Such unusual Shared traits: no no in its status as a morphologically unusual linguistic Uz - Q: 4/7 events are unlikely to be produced more than once. Uz - G: 2/7 Uzbekistan context is a feature shared between Uz - Interesting in the present Nig: 5/7 whose chance of Arabic and some WSA dialects (the Bagirmi dialects) S** * *«• 3-4-1 for 13 discussionrflinker.;. ThT~ 1 independent origin is quite small. was written' vs. kitab three forms of an active Baghdad and some *"* Roughly speaking, in Arabic dialects there are southern Iraqfdo noi^t * ^^ Uw* ***** e* Muslim different forms are participle with pronominal object suffixes. The three Ural WSA **** Universal data is missing in the insSd of * ™ *e » the sample as for a number of the dialect* 5fgI~abL » WSA area, I could equally have used The feature was not included in sources used. i6o Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora 161 contrastive in the FSG. In all varieties the non-suffixal feminine takes the has hit her', identical to masculine, hu daarb-in-he '(he) has hit her'. Appar- regular FSG adjectival suffix -a or -e, the vowel quality depending on harmony ently with first and second person subjects, number and gender differences of rules, if any, prevailing in the local dialect. the participle stem are neutralized in Uzbekistan Arabic as well (cf. (5a) above, Turning to the object suffix forms, in one widespread alternative (e.g. where the plural suffix -iin would be expected), and in Dathina northeast of Cairene non-Bagirmi WSA dialects) the object suffix is suffixed to the E Aden, de Landberg (1909: 723) reports that a feminine subject is usually used participle form marked by -ee, or -aa, which otherwise is the FSG adjectival with the masculine participle, not with the feminine form when an -in + marker (see (4a)). In a second, when a pronominal object suffix is added to a object is added. In Bahrain Shia -in is added only to a singular participle feminine form the feminine participle takes the morpho-phonological alter- (either to the M or F form). It may also be noted that in many Sudanic dialects native -it, otherwise used in a genitive construction (see b) ). This is found outside of the Bagirmi area, an intrusive -in is added to the active participle tor ( 4 instance in eastern Libyan Arabic and in many Arabian peninsula dialects. feminine plural form, as in Shukriyya daarb-aat-ann-u 'they.F have hit him' 3 iS t0 3dd an ^ intrusive suffix -'«- or -inn- on either the or Kirenawa daarb-aat-inn-a (same meaning). I assume a common (as yet, Skt °r JIT **. FSG form ^enever a pronominal object suffix is added, as in c), unexplained) origin for this latter feature. using ( 4 Bagirmi Arabic forms as examples in is is the observation that it is unlikely column ( 4c). What important for present purposes (4) a that so unusual and specific a feature as the intrusive -in could have originated b c independently or five geographically separated areas. Formally it is MSG kaatib-ha kaatib-ha in four taa*-m-^ 'he has written it.F' similar or identical in these areas, and in some of them gender/number ^G kaatb-ee-ha kaatb-it-ta kaatb-in-he "she has written it.F' differences are neutralized through its insertion. It is plausible to think in ( by " the kast con in terms of common place of origin, with the present-day geographical distri- rtl^wfT^ f ^ " * is found only areaS S re rted butions being accounted for by migration out of this place of origin. Follow- H^lTtl ' ° ^ P° ^ ^ Oman and western T(am°n8 Shia Bahama) Emirates ing Retso (1988: 88, see Barth 1910/1972): 1-18 for original discussion), a 21 ' ** (Hoto 1990: 48, * ) Uzbekift Tv, 3 " (SeCger 20°2: 6 common origin, however, could only be somewhere on the Arabian penin- WSA^a t, TJ 35). «* Bagirmi Arabic in the CnCeS bCtWeen deduce, on the eastern and UzLw^T a 1 itS form and use - ^se area, In sula, so far as the present-day evidence allows us to C Pre- Pronomi object active northeastern littoral, and it would have had to have been pre-diasporic. part *? m ^ suffix added to an participle dple marksmtf thetK subject of the sentence, diasporic with what I have termed Old as in (5) (see sect. 8.7.5). Arabic, however, is contemporary (5a) zorb-in-naa-kum Arabic. To my knowledge, the intrusive -in is mentioned nowhere in Old hit-IN-we-you.MPL Arabic, either by a grammarian or in a Koranic reading tradition. It does not grammatical rule 'we have hit you'. exist as a written, attested form. Nor can it be derived via from an Old Arabic form or forms, as Retso (1988) against various suggestions 0ne as briefly described Pr0n0minal °bjeCt is ** demonstrates. Yet simple principles of reconstruction, objitomrthett D°"*. and ^ marks "'" 1S eighth century. It is " UflhBd l° here, require its presence as a proto-form in the seventh or the partkipl" the ^nder/number markers of Clearly a contemporary of all varieties mentioned in early written sources. describe (5b) daarb-it-n-if then, Old Arabic as described in old sources does not exhaustively hit-F-IN-you.FSG the forms of Arabic which were spoken during this era. The comparative forces us to 'she has hit you.F' method based inter alia on a consideration of modern dialects, 14 where §aarb-aat-inn-if reconstruct further forms into the era. This is illustrated on Map 4. force the hit-FPL-IN-you.FSG the modern attestations of the intrusive -in on the participle, 'they.F probably on the Arabian peninsula. have hit you.F'u-r reconstruction in pre-diasporic Arabic, 7 V(etceK., ReinhardtR«„u 4. 1972 (1894): 139). In Bagirmi the intrusive -f« ic „,«; ^ ^ , 14 interpretation that the linker -n of thereby l the parddple Note that same argument was applied in sect. 3.41 in the neutralizing gender ° ^ the and ^ L!? Arabic indefinite tanwiyn. 8 number modern from the Old contrasts, (hi) daarb-in-he '(she) dialects does not derive 162 Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora 163 Imala is one of the features Jastrow cites as representing a post-diasporic innovation characteristic of the Mesopotamian qultu dialects. He uses this observation to argue that 'Uzbekistan Arabic did not participate in either of the waves of innovation of the two [dialects, i.e. qultu/gilit]; it displays the innovations of neither the qultu nor the gilit dialects'. the qultu Imala, however, is not a post-diasporic innovation and therefore dialects cannot be said to have innovated the feature. This can be seen on two detailed source counts. First, imala is described in great detail in the oldest the which exists for Classical Arabic, Sibawaih's Kitaab (II: 279-94)- Imala in older than Old Arabic classical tradition is, moreover, at least a generation Sibawaih. In the QiraaPaat literature of Ibn Mujahid (146-52) we find in SAlaa? particular that Kisa?i (Sibawaih's contemporary) and Abu SAmr Ibn imala regularly. 15 Ibn (d. 154/770, see Ch. 4) were two readers who used the Mujahid summarizes the QurPaan recitation practices of seven readers, half of the eighth earliest of whom Ibn °f Ifaq in that has -nations not (features Ap 2.2.44/53/54/72) fotdtuzbl^f" T^ f* * Morphology ^ contexts (as in (1) above), Loss of -t 1/2M perfect verb suffix in certain a Wfl/fl 3 Vari3ble Whkh 3FSG form of weak imperfect verb " in fact -nnot ^ used to n- T, n-...-u 'we' in imperfect verb, Si^?^8e / Zbekistan Mesopotamian uku Arabic, since mfe be °^ - q phonological features are harder to L 1 ?S mt - As suggested in sect. 5.2.4, a number of ° pre dias ric Arabic. me P° The crucial point is a parameter, than are ^hoZoJc t?CreaS interpret as to the shared vs. independent innovation " JaStr°W intCrpretS the list in 5-7 in terms phonological ShttoricT ha K ^ most of the morphological. Except for the > cf shift, all the UneqUiV J " °CaI Standard -hi to measure the™£Z ^ <* via loss of a marked character- ^"f "frmgU1StiC imer changes involve an element of simplification Pret^n is possible. TfcTciuH^tr10 conclude interdental fricatives less common this section the fart »,., • *i_ istic (loss of emphasis, pharyngealization, dialects, " *' PfeSent Sample play a role here. Uzbekistan and Wa I ^ & than dental or alveolar stops). Universal tendencies certainly ° ""^ W uld Constitute one smaU I would indication of vet 1^' ^ features included in this data set, old betWeenu^ That said, however, all other these varieti great ^ «- despite the 17 I include in this geographkd that d i I argue, are candidates for pre-diasporic Arabic. Note *°* that in this uzbekL disappear into deeper proto- ussLt^rr"!.er to the latter set forms which at some point would rt ^ sss#/ dialects than it does to WSA. of Standard Arabic v. Arabic forms. Feature Ap 2.1.6 for instance is the reflex 5-M. most common is attested in six Innovations and ^^ In WSA this has various reflexes, though the q ^.^^ attested in ^ the reflex is also of nine sample points. In the present sample q ous Out- secti°ns m°dels fo" position) and in southern Mesopotamia. ^o^z^r^ ^ ™ - Shukriyya (especially in final r sample points in tory- Both to Yemen (five of them point side it is found in the former North ^i«^J^£ti^ !? these areas to '"P-d-sporic times, point continuous area on the Euphrates a wteivdyp™^^^ and both Behnstedt 1985: 44), in Syria in a long, to Aleppo (Behnstedt River, stretching to the Turkish border, and westward in Mauntanian participles, Were Vari°US WayS of markin of Bahrain (Holes 1987: 36), and marking linkage betwel *! 8 1997: 16), among the Arab spontaneously over and over so on. The (see SeCt and reflex did not innovate broader imXioT^T^"* " ^ Arabic. Assuming this a single, pre-diasporic Arabic dialects 17 f°Und *"""* ** again, the distribution of the variant speaks for can mirror diverX'drel broad PrCSent " ^ v occurred among It is clear, pre dias oric times ' pre-diasporic level the innovation > q of course, that ™ P origin. At an older there h outs.de ones, *"* innovations striking both variants then moved since the > sometimes Populations with Arab diasoora of fh ^f" some groups of speakers. them, dghth Centuries ointin however, - Pin S the is ^ P peninsula. . problematic It I .T^ I c * SC° broad distribution of q< v look at each of pe °f the present chapter t0 The important point, however, is that the the forty ' nin f pre-diasponc ***** 1>SK " the form in the though °n a case by-case basis ' reconstruction of eventually such a outside Arabia speaks for a detailed^? in all, that only necessar in (6) above, thirty-nine the following y Bein8 brief, I believe population as well. All features not included elements arT iT"? ultimate in western evidenth7 variety, though of course Sudanic post-diasporic innovations I believe are candidates for a pre-diasporic Arabic I will 1"°* treat seen it has MesoP°tamian as argumentation. a more different,,*nerent a Arabic here, for justification depends on case-by-case iated history m than does exception," none of the innovations WSA. I would note that with possibly one (6) Apparent that any innovations in Uzbekistan Arabic, which means WSA (6) is shared between WSA and Phonology (features above) would be Ap 2 1 ,/*/,/«/„/ the two (see Tables 5-4-5-6 See identical features shared between interpretive 5 " for problems) " 7 discussion of retentions. ' d o other features which may d« " Areaderpointsoutthat there are * ! J°t ^^"TK (not ^ genitive citing of the so-called analytic <^™" the development *^~^££both1 old _Arab.c, self-ev,dently a^ew tendency„„ however, this feature is not e 3.4.3). As argued to 3.4.3, , and a synthefc (= ««*>-*«,. Arabic and^onternporary dia.ec* having analytic * In Sibawaih, , is classed as of cours£ , 2Si5^^SSXIcerta,niy oS^^ ^ ^^^ siswidespreadbothinBagirmiArabicintheWSAareaandmUzbek.stanArab.c.Otco mnova,i » 9 > - «• «r be due ^ impi°sivenes; °f * wsa ssssfjssr this could also be due to common inheritance. 166 Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora 167 The fundamental issue of how, generally, Arabic linguistic history is to be con- 5-5- interpretation of Arabic linguistic history ceptualized. The discussion in the contrasted at previous two subsections may be seen as complement- Essentially there are two interpretive approaches, which were ing the use of the statistics in the mainly in Germany in the following way. The statistics provide, as it length in Ch. 2. To recapitulate, one, developed were a blunt instrument for suggesting conventionally termed Old where significant relationships lie. As nineteenth century, is to regard Classical Arabic, raw data, they do not dialects, also automatically reveal why dialect areas are similar or Arabic (Altarabisch) as the ur-ancestor of the contemporary different, whether because of Blau 1988, 2002: chance convergence, change due to contact and known as Neo-Arabic (Neuarabisch, e.g. Brockelmann 1908; borrowing, innovation due to tradition. He assumes (rather simplification or analogical formation, or to 16; Fischer 1995). Jastrow's model follows this common inheritance. They can, old and new or innovative structures, however, help identify where it might be than demonstrates) a division between interesting to look for further Thus, imala is assumed to evidence which helps disentangle what elements and on this basis works out a historical linguistics. are at play. Thus, by one and so Uzbekistan Arabic, statistical measure of similarity and difference be innovative or newer than non- imala varieties, tables ( 5.4, 5-5), Uzbekistan Arabic an older variety, relative to Old Arabic, turns out to be as similar to WSA as it is which lacks imala, can be considered to Mesopotamian Arabic. These have the innovative imala. similarities, moreover, are most likely not than are the qultu dialects of Iraq, which due to independent innovation in its basic logic. In some respects (see sect. 5.4.3). Looking further to features The problem with this approach is not shared by these charac- two varieties, it The change of r ->v, turns out that both have a highly contingent Jastrow's interpretations are certainly correct. participial construction, whose 2.1.13) is undoubtedly innovative origin goes back to pre-diasporic Arabic. The teristic of a few Iraqi qultu dialects (see Ap ^redness what of this feature can only problem lies in the assumption of be explained in terms of an original pre- for those dialects which have it. The diasponc population with this feature in their language moving out of the the ancestral variety is. Arabian peninsula and to then splitting, no predefined ancestral version, one eventually settling in the eastern A second approach is to assume Arabic-speaking principles of comparative linguistics. world, the other at an extreme western develop one according to customary Td TI Arabi- little developed among *?**" "^ reconstructi°n of the forms com- I have suggested that the second position is plementrTment participial eachTuother in a rather represents only basic spadework. It vivid way. cists,*> and so what I have presented here " more 01 6 rovide pre-diasporic Arabic which is considerably ' P *e basis leads to a reconstruction of lin^ktSnf"' for other, interesting, if not P "f™ complexity in part, as seen in the yP°theSeS h3Ve for complex than traditionally assumed. The - * ' inst included Shukriyya —, aX oriJ ? in some detail in chapters is already attested a terfoil emphasis on discussion in the previous three for *e forms a simple reconstruction of i^z^^^T the oldest texts, and in part it follows from r *"*"?* has no noteworthy ™' intrusive -in affin S n ^ post-diasporic elements, such as the ty WSA Arablca' 'w as comparedT*to Mesopotamian based on the distribution of Arabic I Hn ™* Z 1 T- which may to the postulation of forms ,nvia "- fom treated in sect. 5.4.2. It can also lead - **~ - gram- - as described by the Arabic Z^zxsrr?( of even contradict aspects of Classical Arabic course — ' > measured in the current forty- nine variable^ ;. variety as the proto-ancestor m°re dCpendent marians, for instance the postulation of caseless geogrlZS ll^Z T°i °" inheritance than * is °n P d"*eto, 4)- " terms, strong of a case-based variety (Chs. 3, , °^ there is, in fact, no torf See Se for^ discussion, the position argued (as i term As will be evident from the preceding *> contrasting a whoie ** proto-Arabic m-oSss iSrs^sif - the reconstruction of a unitary h °n here by no means leads to where, historically, " ™ »» ^ did ^ ^^ tltdiff***»*» come coterritorial from and to what extent does here are, ii.the itL - opposing positions which I define The two general, Lurking " * *** differen^tion (see sect. 5.6)? ""T^J^u^ behnid \h^ linguistics, relLely pooriy profiled. In fact,onl,;*e °f f^^^^^JST^the but at variables used in the I with a highly scholarly, statistics * ^^ believe it may be associated ^^"^L-wWes are VifSo^USTJonstruction Among its f Speofic restrictive of Arabic linguistic history. ° linguistic forms is the more intention appreciated .s ^°ZZZ^BMthat Brockelmann, Noldeke, and Fuck. What today is little "^T^S^ later Kahle argued ™ and man and Noldeke such as Vollers, de Landberg, d ^vemesssoBehnstecifM^^^^ interpreter* ^J^-J""with this latter group, agree in all detailed Arabia) ;orization of (Saudi the 'Arabiyya was. Even if I would not Sudanic Arabic as Hijazi ; see my position as reviving their perspectives. 168 Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora 169 located somewhere in the Arabian peninsula or in a neighboring area. By the framework for understanding the diversity and unity of Arabic dialects in same token, it does not preclude it either. It does argue for a stepwise their contemporary form. reconstruction process, working first back to the pre-diasporic varieties of The further interpretation of the statistics belongs to a different conceptual Arabic. Moving backwards beyond interpret- these varieties is a task left unaddressed order. One of the most important is to relate them to a historical here, though obviously is a desideratum for further research. ation of the development of Arabic. The statistics provide prima facie evi- The problem treated in this chapter Arabic and is not new. Indeed, it was summarized dence for a significant relationship between, inter alia, Uzbekistan over a thousand years ago by Ibn the al-Nadim (d. 954) writing about the origin WSA. This provides one lead in looking for other connections between ot Arabic orthography in his Fihrist: links can be found. 7. 'and each [pre-Islamic] tribe had its two areas. In fact, as seen in sect. 5.4.2, other, non-trivial linguistic variety which distinguished of the different it and by which it was recognized, all of Still, without a precise, feature-by-feature reconstruction which are a part of the original alone does (Past) variety'. linguistic variables, the citation of quantitatively based groupings In a recent compendious surve/of goes. the term 'Sarab' and its congeners in not prove anything as far as historical relationship classical sources, Retso suggests that relationship, coupled with the Classical language itself, as embodied Even if the statistics do not provide proof of in pre-Islamic poetry, had died out hypotheses about how Arabic before Islam, and that it existed not in one reconstruction they are helpful in formulating orm but rather as 'several 'languages of on the foregoing discussion, is that the the Arabs' in vpre-Islamic Arabia' spread. A global interpretation, based (2003: 595). Arabic-speaking pre-diasporic Arabic was quite heterogeneous, and that as The thrust of this chapter is beginning in the seventh sympathetic to these two perspectives. It is to groups migrated outside the Arabian peninsula suggest that old diversity is often different regions. The Arabs directly reflected in contemporary diversity, century, different varieties became dominant in and that contemporary diversity can their way down the Nile and be used both to reconstruct old diversity, who settled Uzbekistan and those who made area may well have derived from thrOU8h the ****** **&*&> ultimately migrated into the western Sudanic ll^U^^^^^C0mparatlVe Un Suistic meth°d. This can take place even in the same pre-diasporic group. fhe ahsen f fi C ati°n °ld give insight into many aspects ' daSskal sources point, Beyond this general perspective, the statistics ^ - Fr°ni thi. vantage JTTTi °u T these cursor- P tOGl t0 history. I mention seven of *"*" discern what the Pad of Arabic is. of developments in Arabic linguistic W*h his " "/ 5 thC §eneral These points are common issues in stafe&a^Z 'f discUssion of Ae ^la'tion between a ily in the form of open-ended hypotheses. a,y COntem change, though they are only P°-T Arabic dialects, reconstruction, and discussion of language spread, contact, and *e T f k 1 tradition. These seven Arabic dialectological K ' h the next three sections rarely stated explicitly in the Unless C are they mutually exclusive. ?ss^:irlnter retation of the features, hypotheses are neither exhaustive, nor of P linguistic which thor, a in Tables many °UtHne exemplifications relate to the observations ' otherwise stated the brief tlca^ b Th ^ "" Uses to *** • comparative DU more homogeneous area than is the 5-1-5.6 that the WSA area is, statistically a Proto-Arabic, may want to come back to these Mesopotamian. sections later. of its Hi The homogeneity of a dialect area is a direct reflection homogeneous than age of settlement. Newly settled areas are more 5.6. Statistics, Reconstruction, Hypothesis Testing older ones. Mesopotamian because it was settled on ** WSA is homogeneous than the ^^^^^^7^ relation between the statistics more construction, for mL issrwlih the statistics can be invoked considerably later. relics. functions ^ *! °f l °ne of innovations more likely than 7^££* ^ ™^ ** H2 Low percentage forms are °nentatln^ provide, S contemporary dialectology. They dialects, they are probably for examnle „ If they only are found in neighboring °Ut notions o7X 7/ " *** *h™ «f preconceived Th0u d ^ ^ innovations. unary nonction of the statistics, it provides a general classificatory i7Q Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora 171 Jastrow's example of % -y fits here. It gilit traits (e.g. is found in only two dialects in the further substantiate it: Iraqi qultu dialects are influenced by sample contiguous ones, Jewish and Christian are the Anatolian (see 5.8.4 below). Baghdadi. This feature is *k > c, q > g) to a far greater degree than certainly an innovation. This hypothesis was a major object of my investigation of spoken Arabic in H The Maiduguri (1998a, also quantitatively based), in which it was suggested that 3 homogeneity of a dialect area is a function of the life style of ancestral traits) is of its inhabitants. the lack of a city-wide koine (and inversely, maintenance a direct reflection of the minority status of Arabic in the city. ahk in the WSA area has historically strongly been dependent upon its JZTj hYt * n0mad^and H6 The homogeneity of a dialect area is ^mi-nomadic " lifestyle, intercommunication is acOhate^u Peripheral areas will maintain inherited ( e l peripherality or centrality. *C Mes°P°ta area), ? ™ and this militates against the developmentdevdonl 7 ofT categories longer than central areas. marked dialect differences. significant So far as the current data base goes, WSA and Uzbekistan show 11 °f dialect area ^ * is a ^tion of its geog- mnhw! similarities. mphyh should^fube recalled here that it is only in the course of the the previous H5. One might twenteth century This hypothesis, however, is closely related to that modern communication, roads, bridges, is the effective feature, etc. have prefer to say that it is not peripherality as such which tended to level natural geographical boundaries. maintenance. but rather the minority status of the speakers which favors arCa fl3t Ge in one respect: Uzbekistan Arabic bee^Thfd^f ? °graPhi^ boundaries have generally not Moreover, the hypothesis is contradicted ' ° to WSA. P PUlati0n m°Vement shows the more central Shukriyya dialect than - A greater similarity to inZ -bZS ? significant exception is found Wbe du of central and peripheral are difficult to "^ " the ™ny season, for four or five Furthermore, non-circular definitions monms aTa^ t ^ ageS e CtiVely Nigeria? If yes, what does it mean Bagt, " CUt °ff from the °^er world. The develop. Is Yemen more central than Jell f^tC f attested in Sibawaih, *"* dialeCt when Yemen maintains the 2FSG suffix -if, already MescTotam " " ***« area *** WSA. In northern a T Arabic -kP. What whereas has -ki, identical to Standard and it is in this Nigerian Arabic Peripherality and "^1^^ non-circular arguments are there that -if is innovative? from the social sciences (e.g. centrality are, I believe, designations taken over only with considerable Political Science) which can be applied in linguistics ^'k^ 1$ com Ikated one, which can be * P circumspection. extlndJ inn variou one ^"^ « ways. I wUl do this in only wav for th7 as a 1 morphology or, phrased W°Uld SU H Phonology is more variable than ' st that "hy 7 speakrjw^tendtr" ^ ^ variation and phonology is more liable to where i^SS^ historical proposition, 'f*™'**"***'***franCa morphology. 8 Variet will te"d towards change than is koinization and J, u y mh ed featUreS where the Whe **" from statistics is found in Table 5.3. ^ C, u^:;I rK " «** I think one of the more intriguing te are SOcial factorS and morphology are com- sanctioning a ^ means and standard deviations of the phonology g dialectaldSec^tfdiglossia ^(Owens 2001a: phonological vanables 442 n. 28).* pared. For both WSA and Mesopotamia, the SD of the inis hypothesis would appear to K» u is than that of the morphological. where Substantlated by the dialects, considerably higher minority traits au/ta point that such a H tend to support Hetzrons Paring are main Note that this observation would Anatolian """^ tained. Moreover, com- also qaultu v,S ^n0rthernlu sharedness than is phonology. It - Ira of ancient qi qultu dialects to morphology is a better index would appear ot the Oxford University Press that some 21 justifies the remarks of a reader for This hypothesis, this as well as ' even if it directs He then independent innovations, suggests, albeit fa a common features could be g. on the basis ""ai" manner way Nettle (,998: 4«. faV°nn ngUiStic 8 '^guage diversificatio^'trS^ «** not **"" that two key tendency towards phonology. ™ ** f St P Ulati0n "tifi-tion in "*«*> origin^ unitary «h A ^^ Meat™SficT ^m the ISSn T compared " "' "* H6 ge0 d popnta.^J^JlS'S^ ' « ^ Ppear broadl to ^ y correlate with diversity. ™H 172 Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora 173 many dialect descriptions no information is given on the form. It would be a 5-7- Three Caveats major mistake to ignore it, however. Three structural problems can be In sect. 5.8.5 below are mentioned forms which are attested sporadically in noted in the interpretation of the statistics. my WSA data, always in texts, but which, so far as my experience in explicit 5-7-1- Innovations elicitation of data goes, does not occur regularly. Unfortunately, even the best- researched dialect areas have gaps. Precisely in regard to the question of the The statistics are a representation of contemporary Arabic. Ideally one would as to retention or innovation, such want to have spread of a given form, and its status s,milar statistics from varieties of Arabic in 1800, 1500, 1200, and to play. The sporadic so minority forms may have an important interpretive role on. Obviously, lack of sources for spoken Arabic precludes such detailed link to presence of a final imala form in verb, ma'fe 'he went', suggests a accounting. In general it may be assumed that Arabic dialects are becoming Daaxila oasis in Egypt (Behnstedt and Woidich 1985: more dissimilar Tripolitanian m'fe, the with time and that the present statistics include many Prochazka 1981: 37). innovations 281) and to various Persian Gulf dialects (T. An obvious case in point are variables 3 and 4. These describe he reflex of *h and *% which in is WSA mostly h and ? (see Ap 2.1.3, 4)- That these are criterial? innovations in WSA is 5.7.3. What features are shown by the contrast in Bagirmi Arabic of VS the statistics as I have In theSe * * A final caveat is not to lose sight of the fact that ' W f0rms n and h have fallen together in WSaTw 7 WeV is of equal status as far indkati°n f developed them here are non-weighted. Each feature ^° ' ° a former Pharyngeal is left behind in A ff h Zthe different vowelf statistics which quality. Low a as numerical calculations go. It is above all this aspect of remained low after *h, but was raised to e Str Arabicists wary. One could add Arabk mUSt have had *& perhaps will make philologically orientated u ^^ at some point. The6 1 most stable theIr a feature, for the realization of *s. This is one of the "' ^ VCry 1 °&C in this to for instance, > ^ respect show WSA contr t T' for voicing, emphasis, of all Arabic (discounting assimilation "^ °f COntemP^ry Arabic, which of course phonemes in Werl^ed have the same *T and other regular allophonic effects). Were it added, it would UnderSC verb suffix as -tu or-t, °res the nece numerical weight as the realization of the 1SG perfect *% of using the statistics as a tool of histoLnlT the 1SG suffix Ptt™oa in a variable of greater significance than is *s. Why, however, is «*r ^ context of a plausible attempt at recon- stmct'n '?Z S regard it as such. Sted WSA more significant? Dialectologists would simply intuitively 2 ' ^ U2bekistan A»bk have a special histor- , greater T Qted a justification for according it SS out hCre W0Uld Even statistically one could work etaSh 1 ^ one to -oveone statistic 01 significance. refleXeS namd resence (Uzbekistan) vs. ^ ' y P ^^T^aTTT^ variation index, for instance, ranging ryn§ealS M°reOVer Each value ofa variable could be given a - Iooke<* at in these terms the starist"shdo1L f ' of cases by the is formed by dividing the number hat ovations given between o and 100. The index com:; w °—d in a percentage P and multiplying by the oZt^;z t: T therde number of different realizations of a variable spread ^ 8ree to which innovations have The WSA t goes, were *s entered as a of each variety in the sample. So far as the present data (lJh5) for this triable that the change which indicates all is cwTclose to T^ indicating that *s is realized as^s/m complete variable value of 100, in the region (2 = it would have a uniform h/P) , has a value of -tu - 33 per varieties. The 1SG perfect suffix, on the other hand, more 5-7.2. Minority of dialect comparison it is the forms cent, -t = 67 per cent (8.2.40). For purposes heterogeneous variables which are the more interesting. otn^r^^ *"""* incomplete. Statistics be • ^^ p I ill« 2 ^ ^ ^^ at places> so ! 5.8. in Coding ^-t . be Problems ,4 2it rsrn^rfot ^ provides x 3CtlVe: Partlcl Ie suffix ronoun problems which, in a sense, an interesting P + P a number of historicdTnkCal In this section I would like to discuss °" lmk betkIween one not variety of WSA h Uzbekistan Arabic and time, in all probability do ThisThk has not been have no solution, but which, at the same included as a in proviso variable, however, since present analysis. I add the materially affect the main results of the 174 Pre-Diasporic Arabic in th e Diaspora Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora 175 'in all probability' because, since they are problems, their significance cannot are three outcomes in the current data, as illustrated in (7). In (7a and b) an be accurately gauged until they have been solved, or at least, worked on to a epenthetic vowel is inserted between either the first and second or second and greater extent than what I have done. Furthermore, there are problems whose third consonants. solution lis fairly obvious, but which, for lack of more detailed data, are impossible to (7a) CaC-C, akl-na —> akd-na 'our food' implement at the present time. (7b) CCa-C, akte-na 5-8.1. Coding values (7c) CC-C aklna 1 1 SUmm Some dialects (e.g. have only (7a), some (WSA) have mainly (7b), and one relkS °n a nUmerical codin JB) ^ol f^ 8 Practice whose basis is, T Ta (Uzbekistan) In addition some dialects have (7a) in § rary iS h°ped that appears to have (7c). " - * this ver arbitrariness, however, guaIrdds T ' y against is a skewing the results some contexts, (7c) in others. Mardin, for instance, has (7a) when C2 in one direction or another. dlStin8U sonorant, as in kalb-ki 'your.F dog'. I code shes between ^inal, as in the example, otherwise (7c), ! interval, and nominal coding sca^Tr , however, th°Se Whkh meaSUre these 'both/and' dialects with a half point. In order for this to work, ^ the «*« to which a case has a et n WH instance (7a) has P rt define (7a) and (7c) need to be numerically contiguous, so in this ° ^ the rdative order a set of c^es have of a ^ '3'. cmai™ T the value V, (7c) '2', (7b) the value In this reckoning Mardin n the value and °minal m th°Se in which certat nrn?^' cases are defined to have a arbitra17, th° gets a score of \^ (see Ap 2.1.23). ", Ugh ex lkit Th statistics, lilTmuch fo P ™Y- * P-sent UnT I would note that as more dialects are added to the data bank, and 'both/ " ***** phenomena of a order: they ' « nominal measure no fi , down (e.g. if there 3nd and' dialects fill in gaps, this system would probably break aSSignment of a ^ ™"*er to one exponent '2', TZlZ^tr^' emerged a dialect with both (7a) and (7b), the value between would be con- which is already occupied by (7c)). For present purposes, however, no tradictions arise. or another. Beyond these three points I use my own intuitions to one extent While result different individual values, in most St^rat^htl^!^0t different codings would in makin8 a statement of historical origin. This is simnlv ,n variable f, k? cases they would not alter my final analysis. For instance, take the P°int Whkh for an ^^ > Provid an orientation - '1' (note arguably different from ^7^^ emphatic t. is the Standard pronunciation t '2' (implosive em- Sibawaih's" description of f as majhuura), the variant d A"ibK as seen in sect above is an interpretive - " '3' non-emphatic reflex problem tT t' if phatic), found in various WSA dialects, while is f, a this *** CaCW aS in Y M the ^ > ' rfas closer * samet s'JnH H - ^^^ found again area, and in Uzbekistan. Why I have coded f in the WSA Arabic. " * *° identical to Classical Howe" r if emphatic and (2) it maintains a ^1^ ^ to Standard Arabic than t is: (1) rfis still Arabic also * *""" ** ** langUage results has ' ^^ de-emphasized form the aoTctTve tZtl systematic contrast to fin its dialects, whereas the that, '^^ <**** II: 274) S° barring an * ?" ' what would happen if the extenS lustT ^ in a phoneme merger. Still, it is relevant to see atof f what one Arabic, ° understands by Classical relevant for the maiv^l i ? coding for '2' and '3' here were reversed. The difference is only in Standard ^ * *» dialects in the sample have Zb as ^ ££ " ^ ^^ status of Uzbekistan Arabic. All the Mesopotamian C° ^ Z nVentlonali convenient ^ model is in this context a compares starting t. Table 5.8 ^int t, and most of the WSA have d, though some have for Pr Ple the results of two coding values. folTefo£^ " ^ I Perceive -ore widespread Mesopotamia t ^ » is compared to h f The end effect is the same, when Uzbekistan Present the %1»^ -^ 1« 1^ WSA. The effect is greater for d^l^^J^ and the WSA area. In both cases it is closer to '2'. ° " Of course '"* PI n0Un fl * is ta ed V -** assign in this 88 > though other than to case t£\t ^ !! « the first manner of coding than for the second, In a few *"** *"" '*» is of no hel not consider cases have co tf P" Uzbekistan Mesopotamian or to WSA Arabic, I do ^-fracUon^^^ Arabic to uciow; 'degree of difference' as a relevant variable. . m CC-C sequence in nouns there 176 Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora 177 Table 5.8. *t coded two ways included. The Abbeche Arabic reflex t for SA t is therefore included, since SA t also differs in terms of the explosive/implosive contrast described above. * <2 *• ~ 1 '' 4- '> t = '3' (as in t present data) 2. f=Y, tf= Note that the same principle applies to morphological differences. In Mesopotamia many dialects the 2 and 3PL object pronoun forms have -n rather than -m, 9x1 = 9/9 = x Mesopotamia 9x1 = 9/9 = 1 qultu dialects), vs. WSA 8x2 + 1x3 = 19/9 = 2.1 -kun, -hun 'your.PL, their.PL' (e.g. many Mesopotamian WSA 1x2 + 8x3 = 25/9 = 2.7 Uzbekistan = 3 -kum, extent that -hun always implies -kun, or Uzbekistan = 2 -hum (see sect. 8.7.3). To the the other way around, there would be no grounds for recognizing two separate variables here. Indeed, there are no dialects in this sample with -m 5.8.2. Hierarchicalized variables in one of the forms and -n in the other. However, there are dialects with -ku in the 2PL, -kun, -ku series has to be coded. This is, in the Linguistic variables, particularly so a three-set -kum, phonological and morphological ones, may contrast, so the 2/3PL often be hierarchicalized. present analysis, different from the two-way -hum, -hun 'Emphasis' is a more general category than its instantiations in individual forms are entered as separate variables. consonants, t, S, and so on. is implica- There an way, tional relationship It would, perhaps, be possible to organize the analysis in a more subtle such that if a dialect lacks emphasis, it lacks t, d and all forty-nine dialects, a 2PL other emphatic consonants. based on the following observation. Among the The reverse does not hold. A dialect may lack a given form -kun -hun, whereas either -kum or -ku always imply -hum emphatic consonant, say always implies emphatic d, but still may have other emphatic ' errs on the ones (e.g. s or d). (there are no -ku/hun dialects). In this respect my classification As it turns out, there are It is preferable to oppose side of caution in making a coding distinction. dialects according to their most general parameter dialects in Syria, not included in the data bank, with ku (or -ko) and hun or * Arabk for instance ' > sho"ld be to Nigerian a ^ opposed rewarded in this case. As ArabicTTn,(all hin (Behnstedt 1991: so caution indeed has been dialects), on the basis 243), of non-emphatic vs. emphatic. This pro- duces more Arabic dialects become known, experience has one feature of contrast. and more details about Another basis of comparison would be to shown occur, someplace. ea COnSOnant Whkh that what can occur, will ° realizes such as opposition. this basis, On I not explicitly JST A K i Of course, other considerations are implied here, which do Ph°nemiC and ways * * * * * V "ould differ in six distinctions more in the n^mAhbfrom AbbecheI I' ^ address. For instance, I would tend to recognize Arabic (d, t, s, r, /, m). phonology. To return to the s/s ll0Wed neit realm of inflectional morphology than in r acCOUntin P^tice param- S completely. The clear dialect should turn up where eterofHlff° nC£ i ^ difference noted above, I think it unlikely that a nbCd PrCVi0US ^ ^ Para8raPh is muddied through the sounds. foUo^nfr only this distinction occurs, but not in other emphatic C°nSOnantS the n0t emPhatic series differ area which I leave ontTn terTTT" " ^ There are, however, issues within this broad thematic in te ^ *° ™s of oth- Phonetic contrasts. To second and third person continu r T^ unresolved. One, for instance, pertains to the class of m beginning °f ** section tbe alveolar plosive masculine and ^ - distinct ^Xttr t plural forms. Some dialects have morphologically the exponence feminine forms, while others do not. Among those that do, the 3FPL object of the FPL may be variable. In Bagirmi Arabic, for instance, too areas of Chad and Nigeria, it is must (non-emphatic suffix is -han, whereas in Kirenawa, as in most , variant), since a number rf dialects have this reflex into the comparison, -hin. I have not incorporated this vocalic difference the Mesopotamian h since the variation cannot be applied in a broad way to iS in the ' ^^ ** * diff in morphological FPL (only those alo^e?n^tcbded ^ ^ — ^P^ area: few Mesopotamian dialects have a °f C°ntrast con- ^^^ - The diff between , ( -ence the emphatic/non-emphatic W onTol N ! ^ \ extreme south). This case is analogous to bCChe) CXam iS induded ' only the param- sintso"^ ' however, I recognize SJS^^ f ^ ^ - trast discussed above. In this instance, of "° rarther h°netk *"*"«" any differences within the difference imp£d bv t ^ ^ ^ P eter, morphological FPL, yes or no. This means that " * contrast is - As soon as another difference instance the effect is impliedmphed lnin tbl 7 ," exponence are not considered. In this one the contrast, however, of FPL forms individual emphatic phonemes are area vs. the Mesopotamian slightly to increase the homogeneity of the WSA 178 Pre-Diasporic Arabic in th e Diaspora Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora 179 area. However, one would have to compare variation within a category in area differentiation is not adequate. In the Anatolian qultu dialects a short low A with a non-existent category in area B." The issue is noted as a problem. vowel will often be maintained, either as a or as a in nominal forms, but in derived verb forms the a is lost. In Siirt (Jastrow 1978: 62) one has, for 5-8.3. One rule or two, one case or two instance, ka'leem-i 'my word', with a maintained in the pre-stress open syllable A similar problem relates to the but in the same dialect t'qaatal 'quarrel' { suffix is added. Prototypical variants are yiktub-u (no vowel rearrangement) (8) JB, Hiit etc, kbiiy/kbiir, kleeb < *habiir, kilaab 'big, dogs' vs. yikitbu. 23 Potentially comparable nominal forms are found with In fewer dialects the vowel may the feminine singulative suffix -it (zib'dit-u vs. zibitt-u 'his butter'), but be maintained in both contexts. the interpretation of the variants here is complicated by two factors. On the (9) Kirenawa: kabiir, kilaab one hand in Mesopotamian Arabic in particular the maintenance or deletion SCtS (which may protect the short high °f 3nd indeed of the short high vowel interacts with stress ^ g°' the rules 8eneralize t0 cover a l^rv^r T (Nigerian Arabic IB m ltS entirety> vowel). On the other hand, the situation in other dialects 3 Slngle rule accounts ^ the occurrence or rorlurl" f il k consonants involved, Sh° rt in general, see Ch. is influenced by the nature of the " TOWds fa en re 6) °P ' P -^ess syllables. On the basis Xese carl' in a broad eS StatiStkS nCed which makes a simple rule formulation difficult. At this stage "** a Sin variabl* with two values: sin voiT' r ? ^ the situation is °r short investigation, I limit the alternation to verbs only, where vowei deieted <« ** **»*) pirirr 24 fairly clear. ** the »» Cases do not go hand in hand In oat V, ?T ^ *»V 5.8.4. morphophonological and sociolinguistic " °PCn re- Str«sed Variation: vowel. P syllable, but not a short high conditioned There are basically two types ofvariation in language, linguistically (10) MB: types are present in the current data. cibiir, cleeb 'dogs' and sociohnguistically explicable. Both and theoretically Khaweetna: is, traditionally, the better known cabiir, cleeb The linguistic variation as allo-variation better accounted for. In basic linguistic parlance, it is known following: (allomorph/allophone). Examples from the present data include the before -CC III or /u/ before The preformative vowel of verb: Abbeche = /a/ , ' m X*™*** is maintained as a. Short highgn vowelsvowels, ^ * however,how, are /a/ before verb categorically CV, ya-mrug 'he leaves', yu-murgu 'they leave'; Shukriyya = ^ deleted in pre-stress position in high stem vowel (yafrab 'he stems with /a/ as stem vowel, N before verbs with drinks' vs. yuktub 'he writes'). vowels (Je di^'^S^^^^^^-^^^a laWe 2a m sect. 2.4). Moreover, even this 23 verb. See sect. 6.1 for detailed discussion of the imperfect " ' M as morphophonological rather ^P" " Lest it In any instances of doubt, I present data be thought • • • • that I am wdl frequently be broken up^by sequences comparable Variation Jastrow 8: 88-92) for instance reports that in nouns CC# category ?* **"*» WSA by ignoring this feature, a ( 197 would be the but in verbs the -t of 2MH,.a to Si r an qultu dialects, e.g. Siirt mahzi 'cradle', vanous qultu dialects P °nOUnS 0aStr° epenthetic vowel in Anatolian (this W 1978: ff >' which **** a duancuon could bea^S^ ' m « of epenthes* in these cases internally not accompanied by epenthesis, nant "you slepf. In respect variable. I have kUW) gr° "* not included ^^ ' "* wWch UP I truTv ^^^ w has to be drawn, inter alia, between nouns and verbs. i8o Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora 181 The 2FSG object suffix. In a number of dialects, -ki after a long vowel, -ik given as categorically a, categorically i or as falling somewhere in between. The otherwise (similarly 3MSG objects suffix, either -ul-hu or -u/-nu in same contrasts, moreover, are based on statistically distinctive differences. Lacking contexts). 25 such quantitative data, however, one is left to make judgment calls about how to A slightly different and Talay, variation concerns the 3MSG object suffix. Generally it represent the linguistic variation. Based on the discussion in Khan has a basic allomorphic with variation between -V (usually either -u or -a) and -CV for instance, I consider both dialects to have both /q/and /g/, marked (either -nu or -hu), the latter after a long vowel (as in the immediately a score of '1.5'. On the other hand for a parallel variable which is spread from preceding -ki/ik). /k/and What is distinctive here are the allomorphic variants -hu/ the dominant gilit dialect, it appears that whereas Khaweetna has both nu. Within the dialects 27 with the -u suffix I distinguish further as to whether /c/(< *k), Hiit has only Ik/. they take -nu or sociolinguistic and -hu after W-. These instances differ from the preceding in Ideally features should be coded with differentiated that there are no dialects where only -nu/hu occur. lexically marked features. I have categorized these variants as having mid values. For instance, -fa' has a value of V, -ik a value '2'. recognized? of If a dialect has a conditioned -ki/ik variation it 5.8.5. How many variants should be has the score '1.5'. of this kind. The I think there really is no obvious place to stop a survey of A more difficult problem to handle broader survey is the issue ofsociolinguistic variation, in temptation is to continue adding as much detail as possible. A part because it only rarely is represented systematically investigated. Dialects, however, will certainly account for a greater degree of variation than that increasingly are coming into attention contact, often under the influence of regional here. Two aspects of this problem can be briefly cited. First, greater koines, and undergoing change For in- as a result of this contact. Pure dialects in the could be given to morpho-phonological and allophonic variation. sense that only a minimal amount there is a widespread of non-linguistically conditioned variation stance, the verbal 3FSG suffix is given as -at for WSA, yet occurs are becoming rarer. jaab-at Such variation is often remarked upon obliquely but alternative with weak middle verbs before V-initial suffixes, namely-t, unsystematically in standard dialect alternation specific to weak descriptions. Talay (1999: 30) for instance, 'she brought' vs. jaab-t-a 'she brought it.M'. Such notes that Khaweetna (Iraq qultu) hence its broad distribution has many occurrences of /g/ in loanwords middle verbs is fairly rare among Arabic dialects, h-om other Arabic varieties. While note. At the same time, he suggests that /g/ enters the dialect via in the WSA is significant and worthy of classificatory loanwords, rather than via I do not include it substitution of native dialect words, he has both it is morpho-phonologically restricted, and for this reason baaq steal (native basis of /q/) and bawwaag ' 28 I have used as the 'thief (with "bedouin /g/), indicating in this survey. A detailed look at the grammars that is /g/ insinuating itself into which I have not 'native' vocabulary as well. Remarking on the this survey will reveal a number of comparable forms same alternation, Khan termed, will await a (1997: 56) notes that in his recordings, the gilitlgl is included. Such second-order variables, as they can be largely limited to a story about a bedouin. The alternation g~q is thus more detailed treatment. conditioned in complex ways: which in a given dialect lexical conditioning plays an important role* A second type of feature worthy of note here is that and situational and discourse the spread of certain factors are relevant. Ideally one would want a is rare, yet potentially of significance in understanding dialectology which systematically here, very occasionally takes into account quantitative variation. forms on a pan-Arabic basis. To mention two examples 5 l USC of the type ma'Je 5) dideCt ma s binary there Arabic weak-final 3MSG forms P > for in^ance, which divide are found in Nigerian varShT f CentU S S Aat fOT for ' ° ' instance ^e sampling points ruralru al NigeriannL TArabicK / > for the in situ ^sta-idy preformative are Khaweetna is a dialect still vowel /a~i/(see Ap 2.2.51) » Though variable is at play here. again another Arab whereas Hiit was recorded among Jewsh exposed to influences from surrounding Iraqi dialects, emigrants residing in Beersheva, Israel. . . , , .ttdf.f In " Other ,s small chapter m variables here include , - a vocalic suffix a rr» In fact, the values of the FSG perfect suffix before Kirenawa, ™ (VleWed in synchronic, terms). In 3 for syllable-structure it lengthens, instance a / , instance, cnn,™ eastern Libyan Arabic and Alawitan Hatay and Cilicia, for ^**V**£? CVO, laUm " C1 S°n0rant <*» ft '**)• <**»** Mesopotarma the -t doubto, fa*- meat"! cb » hit him', in southern Sr ^ iktib-iet-ih) it', atl-u,-u "she "X ^ t^ 'she wrote Hatay lahm. Whereas allowed, q .etc. gnonng A second is in JB CC# is categorically darab-,t-ak 'she h,t you the stem ^' stress, ^ vowd ofrrvr att-a "she Calrene it attracts irregular 7V ' mperfect wrote if (urban), in - In verbs for which see 6. values for rt. - 1 atte Arabic sociolinguisticTletir - Ch. has three segmental I a~ purely variants, Nigerian Arabic C°"dlt onln has of phonologically determined Standard Arabic g been relatively well studied for the influence weak final h.gh-V verbs on spoken | 'she saw you', -.f after A™hW hollow verbs V-initial suffix, as in faaft-ak 8 ,3Wad 198l; before a of dialect contact, Holes l it is equally relevant to the study got them.M. however *7>: otherwise -at, lig-at-hum she before a V-initial suffix, lig-it-a 'she got it.M', * 182 Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora Pre-Diasporic Arabic in the Diaspora 183 he went. I have never elicited them, though they do occasionally crop up in contradict torts to distinguish the two, though the current classification does not from the Bagirmi dialect area. They are also found in TripoLian Arahc Daaxila basic facts of the two cases. and some Gulf dialects. A similar case is stem the imperfect of II verbs where occasionally ablaut stems such as with bi-diffin 'cover 5.8.7. Other points ***** "" the normal ones in Uzbekistan Arabic and aref f- ^ variable are minimally contrastive. This is perhaps a ^ Opposing forms within a m EgyPt 3S WeU (Behnstedt and oidich i 8 226). ^ W 9 5 : phonology and morphology TW I Tt type of hierarchical relation (sect. 5.8.2), though mterPreted 3S remnant forms brou8ht originaUy from Upper E^t-T / are not logically hierarchizable relative to each other. The minimal point of SPrCad fr°m Upper E and becLe established in after Inpoh,H buth ^ contrast in the object suffix is whether the vowel occurs before or So ^not,?Tultimately, 2FSG in the WSA area « between MB -tc dting the consonant (-lit vs. -ki). In these terms no contrast is made SeC°nd d3SS °f ^ ^ occ^enCeS which are not treated in one the^sS and the c ~ k contrast is a phonological mmd ne CB -j'fc (post-C form), since ° il be the one ^ aL »« form, but dialect which has -ic wlkhtnrl I' r ? ^ ™ accounted for elsewhere (see Ap 2.1.2). Should there be a Slmilar °r identicaI fo lo-ted far afield, that to de ™ c (I not aware of such), the 2FSG MP r ^T^ 2FSG object, but no other forms with am h 0riCaI StatUS of a feature. Ablaut imperfect verb as the c in this case steL aretr t ,f object suffix in this case would be given a separate value, T C 7 °mingent * L ^lopments. Rather than interpret to nr m T ddy would not be accountable for under other rules. SCparated areas as innov- ation, ! due to -dependent their surface realizations. It might adon't"lt is , I The variants of variables are opposed in more likely7theyr go back to common point of origh, and Shuk- be argued that Kirenawa buktubu (with maintenance of stem u) have the same underlying 5-8.6. Structural, not riyya bukutbu (with deletion and epenthesis, Ch. 6) lexical features in the index at some point a form and therefore are not to be differentiated. However, r S 8ely (ph of surface forms (as done stmctte'.Tot °nol°Sical and morphological differentiation can be made, either at an inspection ltcai Th T^CR rt iS applied rules which ' n°ted mat rules (Shukriyya in) has tlrfc ^ Khaweetna (Talay 1999: here) or in terms of application of iv ShC say AbleSSTc "^ the P°int °f iden ** Kirenawa does not). i ^existenceofa^ ^ common morphological structure. The fact that th. 1 ., j •r ,,i,,n f (KhaJl^ '?' ° "- PMe™S " - ^ r^be she Scribed elsewhmS W"°' 8°''» must •* «PMned md Similarly, in regards to ever* n„°Uns t , have ' both W^A and various ^wto dialects both CVCC# anj ^ # the resence of the • ^^^ or absence epenthetic vowel dete" a P m Cach C3Se my coding value of the consonants. In CVCC* h, Til , ^ ^ V CVC3C# **' have * vaIue which both classes of no u *« ^d Elects 3re WSA area, one different in the two areas. In the has CVCaT 1 ' SOnorant form occurs ^ " * > in which case the CVCC# (darb 'road' ' T heaTd ' . } - In the dialect (Jastrowi _ • Daragozu qultu 973 78 9 also M F" a 971: iS sonorant ^ /8) CVC3C# is if C' fifl;3r 'stone'ne, ^^ Zvs. T*r dahf young donkey'. Again, more detail is needed Though cf the wrh I noun in «co„d stem the WsA area <* verbs, t.-d . #n Wring with earth', which iscommon " appears that Khaweetna h« 1 tnmsitive/intranstive r£guUri2ed parameteT ^ *e '°w vs. high stems according to the < . The Imperfect Verb 185 With minor adjustments, this analysis works for a great many dialects (see list Syrian and in Kiparsky 2003), including many North African dialects, many varieties, for Iraqi dialects, Shukriyya in the eastern Sudan and many Egyptian instance in Upper Egypt and the northern Sinaitic litoral. Nigerian Arabic data Nigerian Arabic Against my earlier analysis, closer inspection of the and Reconstruction this variety. It will be seen shows that it does not work particularly well for in NA provides a key to of the Imperfect that a different modeling of the imperfect verb Verb of understanding the diachronic development of the verb in other varieties Arabic as well. as having four different In Owens (1993k 32) Nigerian Arabic was described (i7)-(i9))- m PreV types of rules of epenthesis (introduced in Ch. 3, S ChaptCr that there n OldTil T is dialect*l data, non-existent -> (as in "^ *** ^^ctions into the pre-diasporic (5) CCC - CaCC burgd-an burugdan (3)) ra Thifdat T'T <0 Second, wjl relat.vely some verbs 2 that an epenthetic vowel have an u -t is in the second lowest sonority group, which means 1C V° deletion ot the i while others Wel before the consonant, be part of the explanation for the do not. second rarely be inserted before it. This observation may Set (11 hi) 7 Arabic, when they are not themselves i) °* and 2MSG suffixes in Nigerian and western Sudanic (11 and (11 ii) ™ epenthetic vowel whereas sets subject do. ^ suffix unsyilabmed The cond of epenthesis leaves the Y ^f suffixed, - saw' (see (2) in sect. 1.4). The lack constraints °™ ** insertion can of *fif-t fif'l which I be stated in terms prominent target for deletion. will terrn and renders it non-salient, making it a more eXtended son sample to be sure at this time where extended', °nty constraints'. call them I would enough examples of /j/in my because the hierarch I note that there are not however. ants than "^"^ * greater differentiation conson- exactly it belongs. It is no higher than level 4» treatments of of explanation for the propensity o the sonontyson™!; ' Adapting from Jun (zoo* 65). one line of customarily allow.. observations In the sequence an might be in terms of speed o^ngualg^ QQ, alveolars and dentals (coronals) to support epenthesis are slow. The CC difference Coronals have a fast gesture, velars, by comparison, slow-fast and a fast-slow gesture.*^**£J*F"**™"* 1 between a In cuts' vs. buduguf'he crashes into' is thus one Clements (1990- on Aep»«dmg 286) si influence on the formant transitions the 'slow- consonant (/g/in this case) extends its the ™*" In a hypothetical vowel, even when it is in the position. W, "igle class, Q while typica^ 'f*™f%. stops and 1 A merarchy> nasals, liquids, and glides interfering with the fricatives havei?' ,. transitional formants of the /u/, thereby ""enial ^"^ZltwStins interference .s avo.ded. differentiation. vowel between /d/and /g/. identify the following Idl. With an epenthetic 188 The Imperfect Verb The Imperfect Verb 189 busufun vs. (14) bufsul: s-f epenthicizes, but not f-s Here the open syllable deletion rule applies, but on the metathesized f-g buduguf vs. bugdufd-g but not g-cf sequence. budubuz vs. bubdan d-b but not b-d It can be seen how the interplay of epenthesis as defined by the sonority budubuz vs. bubzur d-b but not b-z hierarchy along with the deletion of a short vowel in an open syllable, as in bukubsan vs. busubug k-b but not b-g (16), produces the effect which was described in (i)-(3) above. The examples from column (11b) can be understood in the same rule com- plex, except that here a further variable is added, namely that the stem vowel 6.2. Historical Significance (the vowel before the final -C) occurs in an open syllable. Using a very To introduce this section, it can be noted that there is a degree of variation descriptive format, a further rule can be stated: delete the stem vowel in an attested in certain forms. A detailed quantitative treatment of the alternation, open syllable, unless this leads to a violation of the sonority hierarchy. burgud 'he lies ~ burugd-an is found in Owens (1998a: 29). For instance, in down', burgud-an While burugdan is not expected from the sonority hierarchy, in fact its tokens in (15) 'busufun, bu'sufun-an an extensive text count outnumber the unepentheticized burgudan. Also, I have noted is the normal form, conforming to the singular form that while buskutan 'they.F are quiet' inserts because Isi is lower than HI. When a V-initial suffix is the sonority hierarchy, in village busuktan (etc.) was regularly observed. In added placing the final one stem in an open syllable, the stem /u/ is not deleted, namely that the since both these cases the exception moves in the same direction, /{/is less sonorant than /n/on the hierarchy. By contrast, in epentheticized form becomes categorical, regardless of sonority context. Epen- (16) 'bukubus, bulcubsan thesis occurs where a sequence of three consonants, CCC, arises. I will ignore 'exceptions' for present purposes, because so far as the stem vowel /u/ does these two delete in the plural, since /b/ is above 1st on the the Nigerian they represent isolated cases. Nonetheless, they hierarchy. The epenthetic Arabic data goes vowel between /k/and /b/remains, since Ikl is lower serve theme of this section, namely the than lb/. In as an introduction to the main historical development of epentheticized forms. The basic argument is that (17) buktub, buktub-an already in some pre-diasporic varieties sonorant-determined epenthesis gave way to epenthesis. As in the examples cited in there is no insertion what I term linearly determined anywhere, since Ikl is more sonorant than /t/. In the the previous paragraph, sonority gives way to consonantal sequence, as the plural the Ixxl is not deleted in an open syllable, since III is less sonorant than lb/ and hence determinant of epenthesis. requires a vowel separator. have no In (11), sets i. and iii. Kiparsky in The starting of this discussion is an article by (2003) deletion, since C is less point 3 sonorant than C2 C2 . Set ii. does have deletion, since Arabic dialects into - VC, C-, and -CV- is more sonorant which he offers a tripartite division of than C . 3 phenomena, not Sonority dialects. 4 His treatment covers many types of syllabification makes itself felt in further In the phonological alternations. chapter is limited. tallowing only those exhibited in the imperfect verb, to which this perfect-imperfect pairs, where the perfect verb has k-s as the first current historical I will extent that it impinges on the two consonants, converting summarize it only to the this to the imperfect theoretically involve would allow a short high vowel in an open placing /k/ next to problem. Neither C-nor -VC dialects /s/. /k/ is below so an / s/ on the sonority hierarchy, verb goes, in synchronic terms epenthetic syllable, hence *CV is prohibited. As far as the vowel would be inserted. of Instead, sequences of k-s (and others in above): the this constraint produces alternations such as the following (as (4) /s/class) metathesize in the imperfect, resulting in: (18) kasar 'he broke' (20) yiktib biskar> ^^ (instead of .^^ kafa or kafah 'he (a) yiktib-u opened' bifid, bifk-an. (b) yiktb-u A similar explanation lies behind (c) yikitb-u. (19) mM#fstanding', article. waafg-e 'standing.F'. linkages suggested in Kiparsky's * See Watson (ms.) for criticisms of many of the !9Q The Imperfect Verb The Imperfect Verb 191 As with Nigenan Arabic, the input is a verb with a VC# stem. When a vowel- (21) tuktub tuktb-iin 'you.F write' (T. Prochazka 1988: 32, 35) mitud suffix is added, a disallowed CV syllable (ti-) is produced (20a). The 'you.F drink' vowel tafrab tafrab-iin deletes (20b). This leads to another unacceptable situation, namely a LL *^' syllable. To third situation is sonorant epenthesis, with Nigerian Arabic an approximate ' alleviate this problem A , an epenthetic vowel is introduced between began with the the first two consonants living reflex. It will be argued below that sonorant epenthesis (20c). As already noted, in many Arabic generalized dialects this rule is categorical most sonorant consonants, essentially as in (6) above, and became when the stem vowel is high. Nigerian Arabic. The C-dialects as Kiparsky notes, from there to the situation which is currently attested in are similar to -VC dialects, in that they have directly from an earlier (20). After high vowel deletion, sonorant hierarchy of Nigerian Arabic thus derives however, the resulting CCC sequence is allowed. situation itself. Kiparsky includes here proto-variety, but is not an exact relic of the original both most North African dialects, and certain Arabian share one basic feature: either they peninsular dialects, particularly Up to Nigerian Arabic all the varieties southern Hijazi (see (21) below). As undergo no phonological perturbation to their basic form or if they do, as ^^^ ChsS °f C - dialects coUa ses historically P sequences which a^elTntTveb ments^ with Nigerian Arabic, it is not stems but rather consonant CV-dialects, finally, essentially are the domain of epenthesis. maintain a stem vowel in all positions. which is P 1™" With ELA, on the other hand, there emerges a phonological rule 7 YCmeni dlaleCtS 3nd Bahariyya in Egypt aS deSCribed " Unlike a^ S»l?2 ' stems: CCVC-V changes to CVCC-V. generalized to all high-vowel the process. I therefore 1 W 1C like Nigerian Arabic, consonant quality plays no role in t0 su88est here that ! ^ the contemporary Nigerian Arabic site!!!! ? depends solely on linear se- t0 call it linearly determined epenthesis, since it Undemandin a development ^ ^ S which may be described and proto- a"in Tabled quences of consonants. Tiers a and c in Table 6.1 divide the dialects verb has linearly based tkTS n varieties according to whether or not the imperfect " TaWe 6X II wiU be easiest onZT^ i to begin with the bottom ribCS the epenthesis. rdative chronol actual varieties. BelSon^/l °gy * epenthesis grew directly out of a f differem I would propose that the ELA-type are iden^fied of them « - M hierarchy t ' ^^ list in (11) that the sonorant SSS Nigerian-type. It is clear from the Pre-diasporic^ times. The first position by is represented and at the same time (SSlSS- introduces a large number of epenthetic vowels, th anCeSt°r f Vari ° °US mode --ties These have is noZtxl wrTh 5? l ™ vowel deletions when a -V initial suffix *" imperfeCt sanctions a large number of Stem ' neither of ^ "** deletion nor alternations from ones epemhlis added. Speakers generalized the insertion/deletion e to ones governed by the f a US being governed by specific consonantal constraints, dialectS " ation 7*"° "^ rePresents a second sitU the diverse inputs, for the HTetss hort h t global sequence of consonants and vowels. From iS becar"e no " " "" type in (11 a 111) epenS ' ^^ the « as ^^^ suffix, a pattern of | ^ cS ^ ^ forms without a vowel-initial the pattern in (11 b u) did. the norm, and in those with a vowel-initial suffix, m epenthesis open syUables, "* ^ linearly determined in favor of high vowels deleted. That a process of generalization the evidence cited in the first could have become dominant is supported by a basis in Nigenan Arabic such paragraph of this section, that on a variational 5 'shift' is observable. . . in this form only in Nigerian Since the sonority hierarchy in (12) is attested endpoint of a a. to be seen as the Non-linearly determined and other western Sudanic dialects, it is It may be b. Stem constraint Linearly determined which began in pre-diasponc times^ No continuous development stem constraint the hierarchy began at the orepenthesisbys°n further suggested that the input for expanding d.^orN*t Regular epenthesis NA>^ ELA etc. African *Proto-Southern Hijazi > (?) North CA, the shift will ever go to *proto-Yemeni 'This is not to suggests, 2.4. etc. ^^^^^f^TZquahty ,n N.genan Arab.c in sect. high vowel Libyan Arabic. As seen in the discussion of short supporting a non directed vanation. there appear to be strong social factors 192 The Imperfect Verb The Imperfect Verb 193 extremes of the hierarchy, step i and step 6. Note that these two contexts have ELA-type epenthesis. However, since the high-low vowel contrast was lost in already been introduced as general phenomena in Arabic dialects (sect. 3.4.2, most North African varieties, it affects all stems. Note that in this respect it e.g. (17), , Step (18)). 1, insertion of an epenthetic vowel before a liquid or nasal, contrasts with southern Hijazi, where the low-vowel stems are stable (see as will be reiterated in sect. 6.4 below, is a process already described by (21)). Otherwise, both southern Hijazi and North African allow CCC-V Mbawaih. Step 6, so far as I know, is not attested in the 6 Old Arabic literature. stems. Whether there is a residual southern Hijazi element in the North In the modern dialectological literature, it represents a phenomenon so African data is an issue requiring separate study. Given the current recon- widespread that it has a fixed designation, namely the 'gahawa' syndrome. structions, the southern Hijazi type is pre-diasporic, and therefore could have This refers to the /h/in the word for coffee', a letter which is eponymous for any served as a pool for the North African forms. gutturd consonant (as in (12)). After a guttural consonant, in many dialects an [a] is inserted (e.g. Najdi, southern Jordanian and the Sinaitic moral, most dialects of the entire 6.3. Epenthesis Sudanic region, Iraqi gilit dialects, eastern Lioya, see sect. 1.6.6). From this wide distribution it may be surmised that it is In all varieties of Arabic situations may arise where a rule of linear epenthesis pre-diasponc event. There is thus very strong evidence that steps 1 and 6 in is needed. This does not pertain to the imperfect stem. It does, however, apply m a iaiTlY lar e n^ber of 1*7 8 pre-diasporic varieties. I would to the perfect verb, in the configuration: C°nteXtS rePresented initial models for sonorant epen- ZT wl T is initial. Senerahzed (22) Stem-t-OBJ, t = 1, 2 MSG subject suffix where object -C ^ *>me varieties to other contexts, the contemporaryonln! resulting in situation in Nigerian Arabic (and western Sudanic in general). Given: Com arative * P historical basis I am not saying that eastern TK I I (23) fif-t 'I saw' " *" "* °f e enthesis in from Nkerian fT Tu' P ELA. developed Cr the gCneraliZed Nearly determined epenthesis devel- if a C-initial suffix is added, a CCC sequence will result. orS 2 f : ^^esis. It could be that the ancestral variety of lineTr vh 7°"^^ CP heSiS deVd (24) fif-t-ha 'I saw her' °Ped fr°m a more impoverished of a so^Ttv Le , T version (l2) Y m th°U8h at this sequences, no further action ' P°int «"* thinking is specu- In southern Hijazi, which as seen allows CCC laTe Wh 7 ^ L the Nigerian 1988: In both Arabic situation today is cloL to need be taken (e.g. darabthum 'I hit them.M', T. Prochazka 185). S ^-^ 6 ELA th3n needs to be ELA itSelf it is sense that other hand, the sequence ^ " ' -d in this Najdi and Nigerian Arabic, on the Z; "ln J" 7 10 imerpretin the between the second epemhTsif " ^ development of a linearly based broken up, *CCC being disallowed. A vowel is inserted and third consonants, giving, 8 ^ "*" f°U0WS the P-diasporic provenance ofSstlt^ u Ch. baSed (25) fift-aha 'I saw her' (see (15) in 3). °n SOno P™*W "-arty deter- mmedeZZ, T "T^ ^ CVC-CV-CV SS^^T^ ^r™* Cpenthesis is " ^ay, inter alia, in e between the first two con- the " *"*** *"** L In principle the vowel could have been inserted nrh^to^ede Jontt ^ Militating against this position of 8 f sonants. insertion of choice. the Sinaitic °e T°ng ** This is not the dialects can be dated ^^^ "^ - tT with the suffix -t. ° Pre Islamic times. Assuming ancient insertion This insertion is typically found and present dJ! T the are the following. it t0 list, hence insertion before th Hneit * "*"* *>*««**Y> * would follow that In the Nigerian sonority system, l\l is low on the taned , the resulting ?"?*"" "" *"** in lace after it favored. Furthermore, Since inletrZ 1 P in Pre-diasporic times, would be disfavored but insertion 11 d ,OPed disruption to the syllabification of the " ** chaPter <** logicly assumes CV-syllable (to) produces only minimal soXde^TneTCPentheS1ST epenthesis. This is form is not affected by the pre-diasporic ' ** «f epenthesis as well must be the basic stem. The CVC stem (fif) 311 in a * short epenthetic vowel will appear ?*" ** *"«" • in the literature that a very not^ru^My^h^^ * *"*" Though it is often reported 7 (henCe <&**«* ^ ^ mark) is that they derive from an C*CC-V sequence. . 194 The Imperfect Verb The Imperfect Verb 195 represented in tier b in Table 6.x. bakur, with the case vowel inserted Up to Nigerian Arabic there is effectively a as an alternative to bafcr-'Bakr-NOM', constraint which does not allow inferred from the few examples generalized epenthesis in a verb stem. In CA, before the final stem consonant. It can be ancestral context varieties of Yemeni etc, and that the epenthesis occurs in the in southern Hijazi no epenthesis at all which Sibawaih supplies, occurs or the ,s allowed in the stem. In nasals in the Nigerian Arabic rule (12) are also Nigerian Arabic, epenthesis occurs, but it CCUquid/nasal . Liquids and refers to consonantal sect. 3.3.2.1, the quality, not an the set, and as pointed out in abstract notion of stem. There is thus a most sonorant consonants of rough (bukura, isomorphy between the nasal, the so-called bukura syndrome morphological stem and the stem syllable epenthesis before a liquid or structure, and the morphological widespread in Arabic dialects generally. suffix and the suffix syllable structure: a the word for 'tomorrow'), is fairly stem is recon- represented in a syllable degree of certainty that the three and the suffixes by their syllables. It can thus be said with a high A if they are svuabifkaton of the type in the Old Arabic literature, or, fifitha, on the other hand, breaks up the stem structed forms are also adumbrated frfmto two syllables, for postulating them. Of course, fi-fit, argues strongly CV-CVC. Here, and in the ELA-type syllabifica- not, comparative evidence tion of the imperfect have a much more verb (see (20) high even more, sonorant epenthesis and (a6 ), (27) below), the rules are purely vowel deletion and do in the current "° C°nStraintS baSed Old Arabic accounts than they 1° °n the const™t 'stem' are relevant, circumscribed role in the Th!natTpt' As often me fcLA system confirms the current argument, however. the purely phonological epenthesis reconstructions. This is ancillary to can nature of on be seen m its solution can be practiced by definition to the current predicament: emphasized in this work, reconstruction an internal the results therefrom have (26) fif-it-ha. whatever data source allows it, and In my judgment what is validity independent of other linguistic sources. e each H PentheSiS in Sibawaih complement striking is reconstruction and attestation ** fim sonants parallels the that epenthesi'in ^^ ^ other at all in issues of rather small detail. (27) yikitb-u 'they write' Arabic Verbal Mode 6.5. The Reconstructions and the Classical baSed Endings " PUrely on course, in »"»»»»! «que„«. Of historical SttoS^T: relevant to consider the As a final issue in this chapter, it is verb verb. The Classical Arabic status of the mode endings on the imperfect by short inflectional endings marked (28) *fifti-ha parallels the noun in having a set of vowels. 6-4- The Old Arabic Evidence (29) yaktub-u 'he writes-IND' yaktub-a 'he writes-SUBJUNCTTVE' formS °f the im Whkh ^ diHTST^re^^ PerfeCt verb yaktub 'he writes-JUSSIVE' EaCh °f them analogous reflexes in the Old MaW™]*"*' finds identical or subjunct^ Ure thou The mdicative verb is marked by-u, me Table ' 8h to differing degrees. As noted in 6.1, no deletion vowel markings o th-mb of short ; As with the case system, the system Deletion of. °f he «or*y high genesis of the forms m ^l^^^^^ Plays no role in understanding the such »n the Old Arabic sequence is not^attested as^ literature H parallel situation in nom ** seen "» high dialects (see (u) in Ch. 8 for vowel in an Ch - 2, deletion of a short tad, *e open syllable T^' addition offa ^^^vowe m s The t0 (2l) follows following considerations. that ' iS WeU attested suggested from the the southern - It may be triggers, or a tbecue Hijazi'f Arabic-type systems 1 ** southern Hijazi and the Nigerian where deletion of ^^ related to °ld varietieS sh a hieh ^^ deletion of JT potentially triggers the Sonorant "yDable Was of Nigerian Arabic, / ^~ bespread. epenthesis dsoTatT ^^ mention the mode sources which «**££«£ This was °ld Arabk Sibawaih. There are no Old Arabic reconstructed summarized " ' Particulai7 in least, the in sect the old sources go at • 3-3-2.1, where ing such process. So far as it was seen that Sibawaih describes a 196 The Imperfect Verb southern Hijazi and Nigerian Arabic types have to be seen as parallel to and independent of a variety with verbal mode endings. 7 As for the 'no deletion, no epenthesis' type, the presence of mode endings in Classical Arabic cannot be related linguistically to the absence of mode endings in the modern typological equivalent (equivalent in the sense that a short high vowel is maintained in Imala the stem under all conditions). There is no relation because there is no logical causal connection: the mode endings could once have existed on the ancestral variety, but there is no historical linguistic trace allowing such an inference to be made.? dialects and Old In the final two chapters, I draw on data from both modern Arabic sources. Pt SkirtS arOUnd farther Arabic sources. In each chapter, I begin with the Old epenthetic Phenomena, such as the CA rule, radd-tu - ra^u?Z7Lt*radadtu I returned, Z and requires a complete subject in Sibawaih in treatment of stress. Arguably, the most complicated treatment of a (imala, as I term it). relation to variational properties is that of the Pimaala from the Arabic tradition The term is Sibawaih's and like much terminology Pimaala means has been taken over in the modern Arabistic literature. involves the change of a long aa to 'inclining, bending to'. Essentially imala or following syllable. As an ee-like value in the context of an HI in a preceding identical forms found in will be seen, the examples Sibawaih gives are often the modern dialects which have imala, e.g.: (1) kilieb 'dogs' (II: 279.21) masiejid 'mosques' (II: 279.11). can, in Sibawaih's termin- Imala involves a long /aa/, medial or final, and it much more restricted. ology, be applied to short /a/ as well, though this is comparative perspective involves a Imala of final /aa/ and /a/ treated in the the comparative goals ot prohibitively large data set. In this chapter, medial imala of long /aa/, with work are served by a concentration on the Siba- short /a/ imala. In describing one exception in sect. 7.1.3 where I treat final occasionally describe imala of waih's summary of imala, I do, however, thinking. Sibawaih's systematic linguistic long -aa, as it allows elucidation of 7.1. Imala in Old Arabic 7-i.i. Phonetics and phonobgy to contradictory rules P^mng Before summarizing the various, sometimes ; phoneti fa™. attempt to ascertain lts where imala occurs, I will first assimilation (/Wrwm), oq-^ Sibawaih describes imala as a type of or in terms of emphasis to consonant to another ; « assimilation of one describes;mab « following or preceding , He The long aa is assimilated by a configuration of /aa/ the phonetic an inclination of the tongue in which 198 Imala Jttlfl/a 199 made to resemble and approach that of HI (II: 279.16). Most Western scholars on-glide [ia] or an off-glide [ai]. Grunert, without discussion, opts for the (e.g. Jastrow 1978; Levin descriptions 1998) who have worked on fma/a-dialects have not latter (1875: 465). To be fair, reading Zamaxshari and other later interpreted Sibawaih's description with the of the sound phonetically. They merely linearly, this is probably the most neutral reading. Zamaxshari begins refer to it as imala. As phonetics is the reverse could also an important aspect of any linguistic [aa] which you incline towards a [y] . Logically, however, reconstruction, however, some that if the on-glide attention needs to be given to this issue. be intended, with the [y] value in the beginning. Note Schaade (1911: 23) represents indicate it with the German umlaut [a], which would interpretation developed in detail below is correct, this would already imply a front [a]. He does not reading of the imala explain his orthography, however. Similarly, al- that Zamaxshari's reading is based purely on a philological Nassir (1993: 92) suggesting aural phonetic only that the value of imala lies somewhere value (or based on those who developed such), not on actual between [ee] and [ee], in more detail in conventionally uses the symbol [ee]. He does not interpretation. Zamaxshari's imala description is treated recognize a diphthongal value for it. Fleisch's interpretation is treated briefly Appendix 3. in sect. 7.3.4 below. formu- By comparison, Sibawaih, probably not by chance, used a passive Grunert (1875), although an consonant after it with [i]' early treatment among Western Arabicists, is a lation, 'the [aa] is inclined (imalized) if there is a good one. Unlike some . This betrays no contemporary harf maksuwr. . ). Arabicists (see sect. 7.3.4), he recognizes (fa-al-?alif tumaal PicSaa kaan baSdahaa the close connection between between the two further textual classical imala and all the then-known modem bias for on-glide or off-glide value. To decide dialectal vaneties (Andalusia, application of the comparative Lebanon, Syria, Malta, even noting evidence in old material may be adduced, along with an Sicilian sources, 1875: 1 453)- Again in contrast to most contemporary sources (see method. above) Grunert attempts a very interpretation of the imala of long specific phonetic interpretation for classical In this section, I first suggest a phonetic imala. Unfortunately he bases properties. his interpretation on post-Sibawahian texts only, /aa/, then summarize basic distributional and ,n the tradition of his imala can be interpreted as a high falling compatriots (see Ch. 2), does not apply the The phonetic realization of comparative [a] method to the position of [i] and moves towards contemporary dialectal sources.* The description diphthong: the tongue begins in the ot imala imala is m later texts is quite neighboring syllable. This same unitary. Zamaxshari serves as an example. under the influence of an [i] in a Zamaxshan tradition (see says (Mufassal that in the Koranic reading 335 ) 'you incline an [aa] towards a [y]' (tumiyl attested even earlier than Sibawaih al-?ahf nahw SAmr al-yaa?). Crucially, all with the Kufan readers Abu Grunert recognizes in this formulation a Ch. 4). In fact, it is associated above diphthongal sometimes took as value. However, there of Ch. 4 whom Sibawaih is nothing in it which specifies an ibn SAlaa?, the main protagonist al-KisaK, who has also been an authority on Arabic (Talmon 2003: 43~7) and In Ibn Mujaahid imala is ld 2.4.1.2, Didactic manuals). imala °( the Arabk North mari met above (see sect. • 8™rians to as in di^SSS^KSr T,^{= U"" of a kasra placed before an ahf, * COrrect >- wou ""^-induced orthographic mark change of [aa] MfilT6« f T", * * ™* W ™P>7 «•« represented as the °f in Mujahid, 703). detaif in <"" M "* Arabic treated to Abu Amr (Ibn se« 7\ NorS J^TfT^ ^ —^n one who envies'^U this token attributed aca d this reflex for »[„]" ^ * ™S to contemporary descriptions, have of kasra) written Marcais h^- by a straight line (a type **** °f North African exampleS In Sibawaih imala is signaled where imala is expected dialects and in *" (eo th "k "^T*of direct phonetic comParlson with other have before the alif, kilaab. A [aa], e.g. • imo/a-dialects), his examples similarly placed kaan ('he was' d -n 1 beneath the line, kiltaab. Further edition of """""^ '"^ 174) Similar' <*** ^ hiaasid, Marcais's P" " diphthongs studie^onX y' * reading phonetic signs gives the aT V** " of these diphthongal 1 (S°U,hWeSt Ubya) '°W n°n of reflex for these *"* * and Kisa?iis reading wordTrMtSLlr ^ in Dani (49) describes Abu Amr , North the reading tradition, Africa does have the of thejk- dum^S^ T- TV*\ . . thefa] hut in as 'imalizing . greater detail '' house bfl but as will be discussed (= kiefiriyn) in sect 72s relaf ,k- u < ^ the imala of the -aa in kaafiriyn Change fatfiat problematic. Sibawail classical imala is quite al-Duwny Marcais /° * description of ' Paydan fiy riwaayat does JL^L^ ] SAmr wa al-Kisaa?iy CeaM "° (wa Pamaala Abu examples so it cannot " Tunisian dialects thoa statement, he be judged what rf^! T* > & &" reading of this under in a component this case (I «°od as lexical and phonetic reflexes of imala al-kaaf min 'al-kaafiriyn' '). On thank Catherine Taine PhTJ before the 2 P'°" 2 which comes In fact, Grunert °05, f°r discussi°n °f this point). short vowel /a/(fatha) (1875- 453) would ^ -aa = alif is stable, whereas the l the below), as a result of spread ° ^^ Various manifestations of modern imala pronunciation (see of Arabic and f "^T 'imalize' as an i-like contact alif is said to imalize. Taking developments, as 8' - rath« than as a reflex of pre-diasporic argued for in this Jf" h" JUStlfieS rather than by Ws Wew throu h a prioristic assumptions case-by-case argument*?* (' u 8 which undergo t0 OTery lan ua e under similar conditions, a kasra is usually vowel • l875 modification' "wi °H "I*"™ 8 8 described by Griiner, ( : *). T? > Similarly the hand-written manuscripts Fall ist, der Vocalismus SpraChe Unter denseIben Vorbedingungen der in immer meh'r madrfi •) placed before the alif. 200 Imala Imala 201 this gives the form kiafiriyn. This falling diphthong is basically the phonetic might have expected here mention of similarity. In fact, in this case there is a shape assumed here for Sibawaih's « imala value minimal contrast with the alternative bC SCen ' emphatk and ^ ^ uttural consonants such as /q/ J^^uZ'are 8 — imala hublaa » hublie (287. 18). inhibitors. They favor the (4) maintenance of /aa/ as /aa/. final -aa of hublaa, and (2) qaa5fd 'standing' Example (4) is an alternative imala realization of the imala. There are, is discussed among the various issues in the chapters on 1 Mfa is it appears, by different .* often referred to a therefore, two realizations for the final -aa, practiced, whetftt '; tt't - k— = W *»** 1S rCferred realization has to be distinguished t0 M a na b /a ^rizLztd^™^ frn-fci. stronger than others (see Ch. where some inhibitors. There are SbnnSbi also has degrees of imala dialects, however e^M^t '" ** «e «« *"™8 *£ *«* "The reading tradition • wnere *[S] is an imala inhibitor. 5 n. 16). 202 Imala Imala 203 Levin (1998: 77-80) summarizes the context of Sibawaih's imala in three The /aa/ need not immediately precede the /r/, as in main categories (C = category). 'unbeliever'. Ci. In the (8) kiefir context of an [i], as in (1). This may be termed allophonic imala. C2. Lexically conditioned: when a With an initial guttural sound, however, the Ixl generally must come im- weak medial verb has an [i] in the paradigm. In these verbs mediately after the /aa/, though even here imala is attested among some imala can occur even in the context of an inhibiting consonant, as in x/e/'he speakers. feared' (cf. xif-tu 'I feared', for the [i] Pa 18m) 0ther verbs - "ted here include taab 'be good' and qiedir (II: 291. u.( ?f ° (9) qaadir 'able' more often than 12) Thaab 'fear' (II: 281. 13). C . Sibawaih 3 Weak medial nounS) so long In terms of frequency of imalization, and leaving off further details, as no inhibiti consonant occurs> as in bieb door, nies 'people'. gives the following hierarchy of imala in the context of Ixl. (C3), it should be noted, is Levin's environment: observation, correct I should add. Sibawaih (10) Given an imaZa-inducing CXCe tional GaaCir P (J«M). a point taken up in sect. 7.3.3 raa, ier > Gier > below it TLSh0Uld I*? alS0 bC b°rn in mind th * (&) and (Q3) serve as reference to G = guttural consonant tvterof , , f°Und in ^ *° m°dem dia in sect. ., bussed 7 before it, can occur even after a infirmC ^ Imala does not occur after /r/, does occur 11 iS m°re com licated ^? P than represented in (Ci)-(C3 ), guttural if the hi is bothbo h lmguisdcallylinl' , 'n guttural consonant, and generally does not occur after a and dialectally/idiolectally. not adjacent to /aa/. 1^1131 ^ ***»»& effects, in particular /r/. Siba- word-final imala, Sibawaih notes that there wam'devott ^ Besides (C2) above, describing (481 3 1/2 s ^^ ' in to describing the effect or lyl in it, as ™* »> if stem has no HI oVr/tJTJTT is a tendency for a final /aa/ to imalize, even the thefe a ^ 8reat deal of detail, which win be pared dim-sightedness' Safaw. He down to he in da 204 Imala Imala 205 seem ,o c<,rrespond ,o (,) aboTC - h (15) haadaa mielun patzt^* ' - *- * - 'This is wealth' (II: 285. 11) (12) bi-l-maal group: wa qaala naas yuwOaq bi-Sarabiyyatihim 'people whose Arabic is 'with the wealth' reliable' minhUm adW fi '"waqf This is an unconditioned imala, as indeed Sibawaih notes, since maal comes r2fn m K ^ J ^^ Salaa haalihi [i.e. in 8CnitiVe C°nteXt] Wa minhum n from the stem mwl, with /w/ rather than lyl as medial consonant, and the wanf s ™ ^sibu % m1: 2 T where lacking the In Levin's classification this is a case of (C3). The interpretive problem, conditioning force •• of HI the /aa/l»*i nf 1 of mafl/ remams m lts is non-imala state. however, is whether (11), (13), and (14) are in fact separate cases. While (15) treated chapter from (13), the groups using the variants are °eS n in a separate 8 ° t0 n°te theK are ^ *° those (minhum man, with certainty how many sociolin- see^bovlwh^r identified so vaguely that one cannot say hen the conditi «* "? °^ *** «** *- This problem is discussed in greater detail oitr^r f ;:r guistic groups one is dealing with. below. Linguistically, one can represent the three cases on a cline of values, (13) bi-l-miel moving from most imala to least imala: group: as in (12) (16) a. haadaa mielun (imala in all cases) 1 par maal-un (imala in non-pausal and pausal genitive s to heip unders-d a b. bi-l-miel-i, bi-l-miel, s^^trsr 88CStS ^ suffix) ^ rthat context, not with nominative the deIeted has imalizing force fwT "* suffi* stiU bi-l-maal (imala before surface -i, otherwise /aa/). " * artid le c. bi-l-miel-i vs. final panicles "uch£ ^^ ^ ^ P P variant of ^ d. bi-l-maal-i (never imala) (14) miefiy ~ . mief ^ maaJ hierarchy, with imala general- (16) looks very like a change-in-progress type 'walking'. variant of an izing from a conditioned (16c) to a non-conditioned (16a) than speculate that this original /aa/. Unfortunately, one can do no more t0 its in Classical Arabic* Of course, Sibawaih's linkage (see below), i.e. all who 7.1.2. Imala: a variationist's dream imalize actually have HI as the perfect vowel, may be correct. On the other How confusing the situation was is attested directly by Sibawaih. hand, given the variation described below, it is equally plausible that Sibawaih is idealizing his grammatical Know that not everyone who imalizes the /aa/ agrees with others of the Arabs who do rule to the case of a verb which in fact should not so. Rather, each one of the two groups might differ from the other, in that have imala, i.e. some one might Arabs do indeed say miet, but these could be those who use /aa/ [in a word?] where his neighbor imalizes, while he will imalize where his say mut-tu. Given the information at our disposal, it could equally be that the neighbor uses /aa/. Similarly, someone who [basically?] has /aa/ will differ from imalization of miet is of the same category of the unconditioned of bieb, imala another who [basically?] has /aa/, in a way similar to those who [basically?] use discussed below. Sibawaih interprets the matter in another way, however, imala. So if you should encounter an Arab with such forms, don't assume that he is since he, like any good linguist, is above all 11 concerned to explain as many simply mixing up forms. Rather, that is how the matter stands. (II: 284. 1) variants as possible according to a general rule. Sibawaih's here often elsewhere) A similar point pertains to style is obscure in certain respects (as and Sibawaih's observation that maal is sensitive to I facilitate under- the influence of an HI in a have edited in words (marked with a question mark) to an preceding word. He notes that those who use maal in pausal standing ofthe text. In case, his observation is fully consistent with the data context (= (13) above) any as it is presented. To give some quick examples here, regarding (Ci), he says that (17) bi-l-maal many Tamim and others do not use it at all (281. 4). Previously he had said that can imalize when an none of the Hijaz use it, so it may be surmised that (Ci) is a non-Hijazi /i/ occurs in a preceding word, application, though variable. (C2) on the other hand, is used by 'some of the (18) li-zayd-in miel Hijaz' (281. 12). biyyieS 'seller' may be imalized, but many Hijazi, as well as to-Zayd-GEN wealth many Arabs do not apply the imalato it (281. 21). In general Sibawaih notes that 'Zayd has money'. nies 'people' and miel 'wealth' (see (13) above) may imalize, but that this is to be Again this regarded as exceptional and most Arabs do not imalize these words (ch. 479). may be the actual situation. But it is equally possible that Sibawaih What characterizes this topic, more than perhaps any other in the Kitaab, a SPCaker Wh 3lways ° Uses imala in this word (as in (15)). vLlTt however, is the extent to which Sibawaih points to linkages between different h°W Ver, aSCribeS t0 him Ae conditioned since this is , f imala, above. typical explicableeSSS* , groups. This was met in the discussion of miet ~ mit A by phonological rule. x, also use in h formulation is observe that those speakers who say form y; aUti°nary n tC l to am introducin here obser- 8 is that while Sibawaih's use imala in the third vaLr C ? the above example, those who use /i/in the perfect also 7 C°gent 3S f3r 3S Pertained *> ^e usage of certain nSuT- T ^ person form of the weak medial verb. is marked by Sibawaih's frequent reference h All in all, the discussion of imala ^°^ m°deIs for variation bribing language to or to individual experts. These can be termed *Teeneralt TbaSedf various groups of speakers, Phenome-n, nor - is did he develop them There terms 'dialects', as illustrated in a no WW co fT 'social identities'. What one traditionally m deSCri tions P wh° "** which variants to what minority of all such group- ZzrtlZ: f J* previous paragraph, in fact represent only a small at all, and the Koranic based references. Individual grammarians figure hardly summary ** (l6) a 12 By far the largest groups are the bedouins of whaT forms u ** ^^ " " ^^ readers are not well represented. L occur b > cannot be detailed inferences aho^tK , « used to draw ^ la ge was - deveioping in ** iate e hth cenmry ^Tori: * » himself cites, Fleisch's statement is incomprehensible: rtt In the light of this passage, which Fleisch T * imala which X imala, there exists an uncondmoned ****** h *** 'In to a conditioned Plethora of condoning * ^ P ™<™ the writer's opinion, in addition f^rT" not recognized as such and have forced into the is widely used, which Arab grammarians have between the leaving us the means to discriminate precisely framework of the first, without, however, category of jaaoo (exceptmnal) to two' Besides the passage quoted, Sibawaih's 9 (Fleisch 196i: 1162). In the Lisaan precisely of the s.tuat.on Fleisch summarizes. al-SArab In- oil ri,„ describe the imala oinies "people' takes cognizance » In contrast, in tradition. Sibawam does note that the Koranic a certl™ °" *"• > 2 found in the reading ZT^T *T' ^ Examples of (C2) are also made an exhaustive *e Koranic readin tradition which at least the medial consonant ,s /y/, as in xaaf (11: 281, listing of vanantsvariant, „ ^ g readers Saamma) use imala in verbs where g orderedYj against (unnamed various readers and chains of transmission. 208 Imala Imala 209 (SArab), and the grammar-internal identities, modifiers (Sibawaih 1: 195-207) groups marked by linkages. In all I have Table 7.2. Social noun counted fifty references to groups of speakers who are referred to with an Observations independent noun or pronoun. Entities The figures are presented in Table 7.1. Plural verb forms alone, such as qaal-uw 'they said', often referring to bedouins, are Bedouins 11 not counted. With the table I include an index, formed of the total social Xalil 7 identities divided by the pages per topic. Yunus 3 By Grammarians (nahwiyyuwn) 2 way of comparison, I also counted references to social identities in the chapters on Slysaa 1 noun modifiers which themselves govern a complement (marartu Common language (kalaam al-naas) 1 bt rajuhn muxaalitin Salayhi daaPun 'I passed a man afflicted with an illness', Those who say x (linkages) 3 see Carter 1972). This is a topic 28 which covers twelve pages and hence is Total: 7 roughly comparable in length to Index 4 the fifteen pages in which imala is discussed. 1 here are two striking differences between the social identities found in the nvo topics, one quantitative, the other qualitative. For present purposes the ftrst is the more important, takes issue with a number of other opinions on various constructions, and though I will first comment briefly on the second, lne Talmon section on noun modifiers therefore almost half the social identities cited are grammarians (see deals with syntactic matters, which in Siba- wam are to cite native speakers, since often subject to analogical 2003: 48, 57). There appears to be a lower need reasoning. In these particular chapters he here matters of correctness are decided by grammatical rules. Clearly, it is a what the relation on question of general import beyond the scope of this chapter, I^^!f!!i^^ imala, Sibawaih II: 279-94 topics. is social identities and individual grammatical Entities between confronted with Observations In the discussion of imala, on the other hand, Sibawaih is even ? Ahl al-hijaz various usages by native speakers, which he appears to record faithfully, Tamim 3 homogeneity of the forms in if, as above, he probably idealizes the 2 suggested ?Asad the realization regards individual speakers or groups of speakers. As far as Qays 1 to reject them on the basis of false 1 of phonological forms goes, he cannot AUSaamma = (consensus) of Koranic readers empirical credit, 2 grammatical reasoning. At best, and this is to his enduring 1 Abu ? Ishaaq* he can note them as exceptional (JaadS). Bedouins, 1 both a larger number of social (al-SArab) As far as the actual count goes, there are 10 Those of reliable Arabic to the number of pages identities and observations for imala, overproportional 3 for imala, twelve for modifiers). The lower index 14 in the two topics (fifteen for noting linguistic variation on a finer scale for People (qawm) 1 imala indicates that Sibawaih was that he invoked a larger number of Some of them (baSduhum) 4 imala than for the nominal modifiers in of These ° 4 observations. The high number (haPulaa?) entities to account for a larger number of The two groups 2 phonological dependency, at least in linkages indicates a complex web of Total: 1 15 this phonological complexity thinking, and it is probably Index 5° Sibawaih's way of invocation of many grouping categories. 3-3 which underlines Sibawaih's "* 746 <<>r I17/73 'become' "' ' '>- H (Kitaab II: 281). « « reported to have heard xiefa 'fear' as siera 7.1.3. Imala of short lal the situation in the modern dialects it Before leaving Sibawaih and turning to which deals, than ( °"e the section on imala, the number °f the seven) imala in ten verbs more the last chapter of Sibawaih attribute^'*"'"™? "**• ' is necessary to consider medial ers consonant ' m Aese Sibawaih's whereby the The general theme of the must be /y/. Mow rule (II: 293, ch. 482). inter alia, with imala of short /a/ 210 Imala Imala 211 chapter concerns the imala of an /aa/ or /a/ before an hi. An hi has an imag- where Sibawaih suggests that the lip rounding of the vowel before lyl, which ing effect on a preceding /aa/ or /a/. Rather than mm mfltar-m, for instance, in the passive model should be [i], is due to the fact that the stem nazaal one has matier-in. The diphthong, however, is not indicated as long.** yarzuw is originally a /w/ final verb. This has to be seen as a different usage Among the forms cited are xieyr < xayr 'better' and Keyr < Sayr 'insult'. As from the first, as the vowel is in non-pausal position. will be seen in sect. 3.2 below, In is also used elsewhere in the larger the phonetic interpretation of this form is passing it can be noted that Pifmaam important, so it is relevant to instance, the quality look at Sibawaih's description in greater detail. Arabic grammatical tradition. In Ibn Mujahid (105), for He adds in relation to these two examples: of the the I si in siraat 'way' (Q 1.5) is discussed in which four variants are in the normal noted, [s, s, z, Pifmaam] . The first three are values represented (Q 2) 'and you don't sniff them, because otherwise it would disappear in the Arabic script. The last is said to be a value between s and z. /y/[of xayr], just as an HI does' (fa-lam maSal- tujmim liPannahaa taxfaa medial value, this usage derivable yaa? kamaa The term Pifmaam is used to designate a Panna al-kasra fiy 1-yaa? Paxfaa). from its original etymology. A sound has the scent of something else, without This phonetic description is being somewhat difficult for the use of two technical that. terms. Pafamma 'give the phonetic Turning the second term, Sibawaih uses the stem Paxfaa 'be hidden' in coloring to, lit. smell, sniff', is generally to used in form IV, with the verbal various forms, adjectival 'hidden', xafaaP 'hiddenness', Paxfaa 'more noun Pifmaam. Paxfaa is 'hide'. Discussion of xafiyy each is necessary. hidden', etc. (see Troupeau 1976: 84). It has a complex of meanings, in a Wehr (1974: 485) gives as a to the idea that some sounds are inherently translation of Pifmaam the pronunciation of a phonological sense related sound with a trace of [i]. This less perceptible salient than others. These are in particular /aa/, /iy/, is only a partial translation. In Sibawaih, two or less distmct usages a of Pifmaam are /uw/, /h/, and In/. Additionally, Paxfaa describes a process whereby sound discernible. In the first, Sibawaih discusses Pifmaam along appear between two ys, with other pausal may (1) not appear, as when an underlying HI does not phenomena in chapter 494 (It 307). to (pi. of hayyaaP, II: 431. fferem t0 as in Pahiyya < Pahyiya 'she camel's private parts' 9, ^ Cffect a ?ausal fo™ One of these is t^TrT AS n°ted Lisaan moric value, but not necessarily a vocalic realizatio in SeCt J - 14: 219), (2) have a ' 6 - k a ears realized 3 ' PP that ni™»m is . f a!?vl . 1 an alternative to 1 n°minative n, * as in tatanaajaw 'you speak together secredy' (II: 457- 10), /U/ - This can be **» in two places. First, stba^I TT ^f an /n/ is said to assimilate to ° ttanaajaw, and assimilate to another, as when CCUrS °^ in the nominative not genitive or (3) ^^ ' al a^teT case, it appears that xafaaP is an 3°9 oral consonants (II: 464. 24). In the last - 2' ^ ^ °Ut m interpretation of Pifmaam in this conwT, the assimilated consonant has the ndmg /U/ is dread ternative to Pidxaam 'assimilation' when SSw.M* - y a ™nd vowel, and the case ending T 0theWiSe unro property of xafaaP. ^ ™ded vowel into vowel is the ™ "h a rounded «nkir terminology, I return to the Cann0t h3Ve ?f/waaw Having briefly considered Sibawaih's technical 2 - Sec°nd, Sibawaih very carefully eSlaTs ' r^ above. The term Pifmaam remains prob- °ne USCS interpretation of bi-xieyr in (Q 2) ?iImaam il is > onl a visible feature, not an one if ° y saying that the imalized short /a/, here * y U WCre t0 d lematic. It could be that Sibawaih is ° ?ifmaam before a Wind person he would not recogt^"t have a rounded vowel (lam given the phonetic interpretation [ie], does not would remain unexplained, however, is why ?ifmaam USCd t0 yujmam), i.e. not bi-xueyr. What " dCSCribe nding- ™s occurs in fb^^Tthe d1Scussion of "P ™ would be mentioned in this context at passmzation, Pifmaam in the sense of Up rounding for instance in the example: occurs only when an [u] or a M is all, since in this sense usually (19) Purziiya Puyziya Pifmaam < In any case, paradigm, to induce the rounding, as in (19). 'it was attacked', somewhere in the 447. 6 (also II: cannot occur because the 280.10,11:398.4) should an Pifmaam quality be contemplated here, it 13 One hundred and thirty years after Sik k c simply as (DI: imala imala of short ' l69) summarizes this type of /a/ (fathat al ? T conditioning context. In "'-^sra, as title), without specifying the M general later nT""* 3'1 8 with "with the weigh, of a short vowel' (W- ment of imala in a '? systematized and summarized Sibawaih's treat- " of tatfiyya is qualified concise fashion but a^U™ In mis context, the property has metncal we.ght. ies °n *e basis of 8 new as its show "hidden', but it strll a comparisonF-nson " ^ workings go. In App. 3, 1 zinat l-mutaharrik), i.e. a vowel is between SibawaihS." ^ s treatment of imala and that of Zamaxshari. 212 Imala Imala 213 Whkh ariSe$ fr °m e imala iS S Cl Se ° t0 the /y/ that n ?ifmaam is 7.2.1. Andalusia pllsMe * ° ° simply formulates imala in the converse way I would For Spain, Corriente (1977: 22) note in passing that if this interpretation is plausible, it would be from Sibawaih (type (Ci)). Sibawaih takes the non-imala form as the input, another argument for the [ie] quality of imala as opposed to [ai] or [ei]. The it occurs. Corriente says that in Andalusia the latter would and specifies conditions where give a geminate xaiyr y, = xayyr, which is a value Sibawaih unmarked case is for imala to occur, 'whenever this tendency (imala) was not nowhere hints at. checked by inhibiting factors'. As seen above, Sibawaih was describing a speech community where imala and non-imala varieties existed side by 7.2. Imala in variant had be- the Modern Dialects side. In Corriente's Andalusian data, apparently, the imala than to give rules for come so widespread that it was easier to note exceptions 1011 I ' Ummarize the ' reflexes of imala Cantineau's To^vT* in the modern dialects, imala. For the inhibiting factors Corriente refers the reader to SCParate areaS reflexes of imala, above. It thus appears eastel ^ word-internal summary of imala, which are basically those of (Ci) tT "L^ 3nd ' qultU dialects IdSZn ^ of Mesopotamian Arabic. In that Andalusian Arabic and the classical description are similar. ^ a "eSted in the /ii/ also of Spain (Andalusia), and In Spanish Arabic the value of imala is generally led, though thtZTuC ^ T" ^ U thlS SUmma of Arabic in outhT™ t° -r " ^ °ne forther related reflex from occurs. Both varieties are attested throughout the existence alS bC? Summari m ° ^d in this section, variant became more common in later w7! Z ^ Spain, though it appears that the /ii/ * f°Ur locations broadly similar, they alwav^differn T?* * « sources. P Imala " 1S —prized according to conditions ofTcltet!or °u occurrence andH rfor 'iibaada) phonetic reflex. (20) yibede 'worship' (< 1118 S° [almoneda] 'auction' me 8eneral distincti«n« moneeda applied can be noted which have been applfdin^Hin the description (Ferrando, p.c, citing Pedro de Alcala, early fifteenth of modern-day imala niis 'people' h pho century, < naas) *** iexkai imaia °ften has a phon°- ^o^n 24 n. 6, < kaan) (Corriente :^z^ t PmpeCtiw ** kiin 'he was' 1977: a " ", "^ comparable^nt ' * * "^ " ™n a paradl matl of imala occasionally occurring g cally related word will not display Corriente 23 n. 3) also notes examples 'wa/fl AUoDhnni, , (1977: ** hand between^! andT ^ ^ shows a regular alternation in inhibiting contexts. indeed (Q) * a daSsic exa le of *"> ^ Jte met ^ ™P ribaata "tt? (21) ribeete 'strip' < productuT^ *"* haS °ften been temed M rl, , ^^ maqeem 'holy place' < maqaam of H°WeVer there are VarioUS degreeS productivity. ^ ' aV will h seen generally maintained as ay in Spanish largely ' Mesopotamian ima/a, for instance, is As far as the diphthong ay goes, it is restricted t„ *u „ , C°nditi° nin8 *" "** Arabic (Corriente 1977: 2 9)- - ELlZZ: httefhandhand * ' ls ^ unrestrictedly^ suffix -i allophonic, inducing , mfl any /fl . (22) al-qasr-ayn °f Whkh 'the two castles' so^Tstrm^f .^ l «** -7-lf to here is also £? indUCed I prefer ™ * by an ""deriving or overt [i]. 7.2.2. Eastern Libyan Arabic not to use thk t f aS very like those in (Ci) 'dogs' (ELA) * ™plies that the imala of *fe* Arabic conditions for imala are is somehow!! ^ - »* In eastern Libyan /a/environment prevent imala. Other- This may or ma n" hZZtT* *"" ** °f "* ^ above. Emphatic consonants and an 15 sect. " T^ VC [ie]. ((&) VS C ab° ^ realized as 7.3.2). However, ^^^ " < *> ' wise a long /aa/ is the two c K SUDSUT med unless an inhibiting under a common rule (imalize factor o \ Can be phenomenon, something conceptualized as a single theTl^.me a pala.al.za.ion of the preceding S i-wato ^ Arabic is described as Benghazi formulation prohibits. » In Owens (,984) imala in (/Waa near him. consonant, followed by a low front vowel, ° 214 Imala Imala 215 (23) iCaa or aaCi -> ie /ma/a does not work across morpheme boundaries, so that given (26), if a Mitchell 1975: ( ^ offers a detai]ed ^^ rf ^.^ suffix such as -i 'my' is added, no imala is induced, in contrast to (24d, f). r Za and lar e be ' S " -n said that inhibiting contexts are emohlv ^^ (28) daar-i 'my house' emphatics, /x/;7and / y/ and following /a/. Summarizing these contexts: (24) No change ?imaaJa a- Jtalff 'leaving' (29) raa, aar#, ieri m,e/rgoing' contexts are ' What is noteworthy is that broadly speaking two of the three , misie^id 'mosques' c t ,,. , atfaal-hin their.F. children comparable to Sibawaih's observations on /r/ imala summarized in (10) above. °Ut MPL An /aa/ in post /r/ position does not imalize while an /aa/ before It/ does. The ' " '^ °Ut - FSG ' Mitche11 56) < e"e. saatarh'fsaamah ; ^* ** he forgave' > main difference is that an /aa/ before /r/ does not imalize in ELA across SImnfi 'forgive! r. mooz-aat 'banana-PT'oanana FL .. , morpheme boundaries, which it does in Sibawaih's description. However, mooz-iet-tk 'your.F bananas' even here it was noted that Sibawaih conceived of himierik as a single stem. (Owens 1980: 42) Sibawaih expected T This is a somewhat mysterious classification. Perhaps OPh iC ln that °7 °CCUrrence of the boundary here, as in ELA, and s ^ <™'« » conditioned by imala not to occur across a morpheme ufliinon of^ , in ucing front vowei therefore of post-morphemic phonological realignment ' - - <**> ** &*> ^11 assumed that a type ^ rnl r r aDn °Ph0I,Jr Sy inhibl " SCnsitive to the «*«» both of a poten- was needed to explain the imala of aar. In these terms, the difference between an nd t0 ^ mor ical status of the Mowing ELA and Sibawaih's description in this third respect would be that in Siba- front vlwd Emrr V P^g 8UttUfalS alW3yS whereas in ELA no realign- The inhibit <**)• waih's variety aar-i realigns to aari allowing—* ieri, bSvfoTf , T interestin * g. because it allows a direct com- ment occurs, so aar-i remains aar-i. parison with ssL° v"!, ^ descrip"°" f syllables, so alternations such as the rin '" h "»«" (« <»»• «* In ELA imala occurs only in stressed g oJLTLXtltS ma C ' '" °ndidons in Mi,cM di "' following are found. and i^ in ElA ZT ^» "8 them.F' (30) ki'tab-na 'we wrote' kitab-'nie-hin 'we wrote sa'amih-li 'forgive me' 'siemih 'forgive' (25) faamt 'having monosyllabic nouns ((C3) thrown' Lacking inhibiting consonants, imala will occur in above). -ms , is an imala abettor), ^^^^?^ (31) nies 'people' (26) 16 Mitchell gives the furth 7.2.3. Malta final syUab.e in the verb ^ «" < —"* + " * ^ere *e /a/of the that of ELA, except that, having lost ^3^0^^ In general Maltese imala is similar to induCes by fegUlar ^ '"""« " * Penological rule in the dialect. distribution than in 221'mala may be^ CC imak-induced *aa has a wider compared to ^**"* ° a form U Phonological rule in turn inducing emphatic consonants, some such as ?L^' ^ people, standard Maltese ( Aquilina ,*« Ae ^°^CC < Kmaad-aa, cited as a variant of diverse, so I begin with suffix ^ indu^iZ^Zmuda ELA. Maltese is dialectally (a* of the J4) . ^ following /aa/, a„d accusative ^ m turn of ^ consider dialect differences. 1973: 53-6) and then briefly 216 Imala Jmala 217 Imala is realized as [i3 contexts, ], represented as 'ie' in Maltese orthography. Nonetheless, imala may still occur in etymologically inhibiting (33) *baab > bieb 'door' (37) tiela? 'going up' < taaWi OalaaOa > tlieta 'three' riePed 'sleeping' < raaqid banaat > {Ibinaat) > bniet 'girls' sie? 'leg' < saaq (cf. above) xaddaam > haddiem 'workman' Piet 'staying' < qaaiid kaan > kien 'he was' Azzopardi-Alex- In recent textbooks describing Standard Maltese (Borg and As in ELA the diphthongal realization dominant realization of imala is stated occurs only in stressed syllables. When ander 1997: 305; Ambros 1998: 24) the unstressed the vowel shortens careful speech, while Borg and to [i] or [e], as [ii]. Ambros notes that [ia] is heard in slow, realization in open, phrase-final contexts. (34) bniedem Azzopardi-Alexander give this 'man', but bnedm-iin 'men' notes the usual realization as [is]. Wrik-t 'I However, Vanhove (1993) blessed', 'bisrk-u 'they blessed, n-tiarek 'I bless' situation appears to Turning to Maltese dialectology, the Standard Maltese (Vanhovei993: 28). main island, Malta, as reflect closely the dialect of the eastern end of the When final /a/ is describe the dialect- unstressed it does not Aquilina and Isserlin (1981) imalize. If a suffix is added, lengthen- described in Schabert (1976). ing the /aa/, it does. occurrence of imala are ology of the second island, Gozo. The contexts of description of individual lexical identical as for Standard Maltese. In their (35) ktib-na, 'we wrote', ktib-nie-hum 'we wrote lines of [a], or as a them' either as a diphthong along the sewa he did', reflexes, imala is realized sme-l-a 'it cost her' < sewaa-l-ha (Aquilina 1973: 56) of cardinal vowel 1 [1], 2 [e] or 3 pure vowel, as they describe it, in the region realizations in l0St thC aSSk inhibiting given words with various phonetic COntexts of Nonetheless, one [8]. In the following are trlceTf a""/ u ***» C° & nteXt Y0Txis the lack vowel. different Gozo dialects. This ' ^ ^ala in the nen, T !7etymol ical e °S ™Phatk consonants, v, and x and also £ waadi Imala t h V (38) wist 'valley', weet, west (81) < stron8 when the former inhibitins Isiin 'tongue', been (87) < lisaan ^t^^r*^otherwise ^ted, OalaaOa the examples were , * Mowing tliitts, tleetv, tlestv (93) < culled fromfro Borgp and tlietv 'three', Azzopardi-Alexander i 997. Aquilina and Isserlin state (104): 'Maltese (36) dyaarhouses' Commenting on the diphthong ie, < diyaar (Aquilina range ot : realisation in the 1973 22) 4343j) but a corresponding Paah expensive' spelling frequently features ie, < Yflfl,; (ibid . 22> found in Standard J Gozitan pronunciation (though it is [ie] is rarely found in rfawm 'marble' < rxaam (Ambros 8: 26 realizations are variously In], 199 , 34 ) that the common fl Maltese).' They go on to note they got Uow> < (vanh-e 1993 29) f:am rhe swam' r ^ **> *> [ee], [eel, or [ii]. < ?flaw (gftam) maintained in Maltese. il-hames The diphthong ay is generally 'the fifth' < il-xaamis '16' sittaf < sittaaf Mesopotamia, Cyprus ndafa 'cleanliness' < 7.2.4. Northern ndaafa northern Iraq across saP'he of dialects stretching from drove' Imala is found in a wide band < saaq or 5aaq and northern Syria as far as Damascus the isolated Anatolian Arabic dialects, ending n including Hatay province, and Lebanon, central southern Turkey usually associated with the »-«IW,^ the isolated dialect of Cyprus. It is with as refl x of there are some dialects [q] dialects of the area, though do not have ,mala »** y see Schabert classical 'qaaf ' in the region which i976: 5i - «• general L™" l imala contexts in^^this area >n the 8: points out, ?aaSid, even a, etynl0logical As Levin (i99 84) in the come^f /aa/bef°re * imalizes, Meet 'sitting' original condoning "ymoiogicale^no^^!!l u Sibawaih, though the emphatics, 'tacfiam > Ham We, are Ife^osfdescribed in 218 Imala Imala 219 environment may have been subsequently lost. In kleeb 'dogs', for instance, the neither variety has imala in class 3 verbs, asaameh 'I forgive'. All in all a broad short high vowel has been elided, but presumably after it (non-inhibiting) had induced imala tendency is for imala to occur in what are historically imala in the following vowel, kilaab > kileeb > kleeb. The realization of the imalized contexts, and for imala to intrude into inhibiting contexts on an irregular /aa/ is either /ee/ or /ii/. A representative '3' set of examples is as follows, taking basis (see Jastrow 1978: 63-70 for more examples). The example of the word examples from Jewish and Christian Baghdad (= process in this region. JB, CB respectively), Mardin in (39) underscores the lexical irregularity of the imala in Anatolia (Sasse 1971), Cilicia (S. Prochazka 2002), and the Cypriot dialect of In Maltese '3' undergoes imala as expected, tlieta 'three' (Borg and Azzopardi- Kormikiti (Borg 1985) as examples. exception in the Alexander 1997: 356). At the same time, it is a consistent 20 (39) Mesopotamian region. JB CB Mardin Cilicia Cyprus imala as led or /ii/. In kilaab 'dogs' Another source of irregularity is the realization of kliib kleeb kleeb kleeb klep In a few, for instance JB, its usual reflex muzaan 'scale' miziin most Mesopotamian dialects it is /ee/. mizeen m i'Zan verbs has ee, weeqef 'standing'. naas 'people' is /ii/, but in the active participle of form I nils nees nees nees nes found in Maltese and damaantya Looking at the region as a whole, allophonic imala as 'eight' Omiini tmeeni Omeenye tmeeni xmenye co-vary on a fully OalaaOa'thrte ELA does not occur, where imala and non-imala forms tlaaOi tlaati 6a6e tlaati tlaxe above illustrates this automatic basis. The exemplification of class 3 verbs In general, imala inhibitors are verbs, though this is the usual emphatic consonants, as well as M, point. In CB and JB no imala occurs in form 3 imperfect /v/, /q/, and Ixl. However, there imala may extend to the are many individual variations according to a classical conditioning context, in other dialects dialect, worthy of an individual in others imala may occur, study. It will suffice here to note some perfect, though this is not an imala context, and patterns of variation in the imperfect only. Apparently in realization or not of imala, as well as to note according to the standard rule as it were, in the individual lexical variation. which regularly induces the dialects in this region the only inflectional suffix On the whole, Cypriot Arabic najjeer-in 'carpenters', Sasse 1971: 99. displays a robust system of historical lexical imala is the plural suffix -iin (e.g. najjaar, and 21 allophomc imala (Borg inducing imala). 1985: 54-63). However, there are regular excep- cf. sect. 7.2.2 for ELA, with object suffixes tions. Class 3 verbs, for instance, in the more northerly qultu do not have imala in the imperfect, pi-saSed The diphthong ay is usually maintained he helps ( 96). There are also irregular exceptions. The participial pattern dialects. CaaCC has members both with and without the imala. In some instances Aazex) (40) bayt 'house' (Jastrow 1978: 78, for m g° baCk t0 ld inhibitin ° S consonants, e.g. emphatics, Cypriot, Borg 1985: 89) IT,which haveT 1 rm-ayt T threw' (Mardin, Sasse 1971: 165. been lost in the dialect, e.g. fater 'smart' < falti, In other Jastrow 1 inhibiting realized as ee (Blanc 1964: 50; factors la 'p*ssin In the more southerly ones it may be < ™y p y «° «** V&' s' T^T,' IT* 7 Mardin and other usually IT !h K ^ *-**•» V*" directs 1978: 79)- aBow imala id ** > V* 'ending' (Sasse 1971: , ^ astrow « : ^w^ (41) CB beet, rmeet AMbk S Pr° in ' " chazka notes that S7v b \ ^ ?T (— 47 88) VCrbS other areas Under that 7.2.5. Southern Mesopotamia and otheTd "^ 8° *«** *"«* 'he heals', and m f reflex of the form is found as the In southern Mesopotamia an imala-X&e eCt, therS n°ne * ' Werib/qeerib 'he is related/was diphthong *ay. reltdC vr/^ ^i°he ^^-conciled'.: appli- Similar irregular mafayt ^nJf'iZa Tt < 'house', mifiet T went' < m n°minal Pattems -ve'^th *«* (42) biet *bayt, despite :: ' «* ~' despllthe7,t/x/ vs. mzHjW"r W without. In JB that and CB, Blanc (44) notes sample points out of • twenty individual , ,,. xi „,. c«^)ththere are only about - In Behnstedt's Syrian atlas (1997. 8' ^""7 e „«,, Qariiteen, northeast of OakeOi etc., and™d one Jlarg 567 with imala in the word '3', e.g. tleeta, " This situation, in fact replicates the „ n • Syrian Sltuatlon for forrn Behnstedt's Damascus. imala, mam language atlas (1997- nl ^rbs described in imperfect verb suffix does induce ^y some di if 1 reports .tat have imala "° muUa others » Sasse ( 1971 : 55) " 8: 69). only in the imperfect. ' ""fafaaafir'he traveled/travels', ^J^^bservesnowevci, only tnaam.m (W ^ swwn/yseeliUJT*!.!'he tnem-tn you.F sleep, lastrow, reconciled", others only imala, seelah/yiedib. you.M sleep vs. ^I 220 Imala Imala 221 So far as I know, these forms, little discussed apart from Ingham (1982: 80), are not considered imala reflexes. They have, however, the same phonetic reflex as ELA imala and they play a role in the analytical discussion in sect. 7.3 below. Outside of these five regions, there are no reflexes of word-internal imala. As far as the diphthong ay goes, its most common reflex is probably ee, beet house' (the entire Sudanic region, most of Egypt), is still though ay (bayt) Figure 7.1. Eastern Libyan Arabic imala maintained (most qultu dialects, Najdi, most northern Yemen). In a number of dialects it falls together with ii (e.g. most Tunisian, Algerian, and Moroccan In Andalusian Arabic, the context is similar to ELA, though apparently dialects). there is less detail in the written texts at our disposal, so that it can be said with certainty only that the guttural context inhibits imala. Phonetically the [ee] and [ii], and 7-3- Reconstruction situation is more complicated as there are two realizations, neither of these are identical to the original reconstructed value [ie]. In these summarizing sections, I will consider a reconstruction of imala in A development such as the following needs to be proposed, with [ie] devel- Arabic from two perspectives. First, split in Andalusian I will work out lines of development for oping into [ee] or [ii]. This looks like an unconditioned each of the four dialects where imala on the basis of the occurs. Thereafter, I will bring the results Arabic. A progressive development might be imagined of this endeavor into line with attested in the earlier description of Sibawaih and present changes attested in Maltese (Fig. 7-3 below). Since [ie] is not an overall synthesis. In the following to be postulated I begin with the simpler cases and move Andalusian Arabic texts (Ferrando, May 2004, p.c), it needs to the more complex. as a reconstructed form. all In Maltese the situation gets more complicated for two reasons. First, 7.3-1. Individual dialect Secondly, when reflexes phonetic values of imala are attested in one dialect or another. Before beginning phonetic process, so former it will be useful emphasis was lost, imala was still a living to refer to the contexts where imala does or does not Original guttural con- occur by a single binary inhibiting emphatic contexts became non-inhibiting. term. In general there are two broad S appears that historic [S] im inhibitors low texts, however, remained inhibitors. Furthermore, it ' * vowel and an emphatic or guttural confer T, ^. as in Fig. 7.3. Uing differenCe was an inhibitor. The situation can be sketched is evident ^ ELA today (see sect. 7 ,Ta It T Arabic is essentially similar to C°meXt n the Finally, the situation in Mesopotamian ° °ther hand favors irnala, the vowel [i] Ld «Jk : n important complication, namely the reflex [ie] mafked by thC featUre Andalusian, except for one °! °f emphasis or backnes, I will use 2 cZ2 , 31 10 re PreSent this ^oad class of difference, PJaScon I tr"^Wd ^ ' """^ "on-emphatic favor imatZ nT, n consonants) (I V0Wd b3Ck and em not - " ' ' hatic ^sonants) d itlTJtv A T P « " * SimpkSt t0 deSCrfbe is an ^phone of/-/, wh^choccTrl - M " 131 C °nteXtS n°n conte formula- ' " ^- A negative don not in n r^ ""^ to be the most appropriate, as what sTawaTteLed e "^f ' in fon ^tr:t ch •*• are cov cxrrt Y ern ^ ' ha r r)/, ' P ti« sometimes includingt , r while an arnnw SltUation as dialect brought to the eL are, t? ^ ' *« was 1S n° nCed t0 reCOnstru of imaT « intermediate phonetic values Figure 7.2. Andalusian imala 222 Imala Imala 223 arising in four separate events. Except for the ay > *ie change, the Andalusian is tree (Fig. 7.2), for instance, is a clone of the Mesopotamian one. Rather, one dealing with a pre-diasporic phenomenon which happened once, and was spread from a central point to Andalusia, ELA, Maltese, and the Mesopota- mian qultu dialects. I oudine this development in Fig. 7.5. including [S] imala, though I have I assume that at some stage proto-Arabic had no presented no evidence in favor of this, and at this point in our research at argued that Siba- least, nothing depends on this assumption. While I have other waih's description of the imala variant is [ie], I have also included the unattested in variants among them as well. These are to be understood as imala vari- the early grammatical literature, but nonetheless reconstructible is what I term pre- ants. They are reconstructible to Sibawaih's time, which Andalusia and ie [ee] and [ii] are found in ee 11 etc. diasporic Arabic, since the variants dialects. Parallel, independent devel- Figure 7.3. Maltese imala Malta, and in the qultu Mesopotamian themselves are opment may be ruled out. Furthermore, the qultu dialects have apparently spread throughout a number of discontinuous areas, and for ay discussed in sect. 7.2.5. 1 assume the imala reflex is fairly that it is no coincidence that precisely been out of contact with each other for some time, yet the same phonetic reflex as imala one might should appear in precisely the area Sibawaih uniform throughout the region. Further and rather speculatively, described 1 1,200 years ago. What is 'intermediate imala (bayna anomalous, of course, is its very different relate the monophthongal realization [ee] to the lexical distribution. In Fig. 7.4, ay is [ie] Koranic reading tradition, and represented as converging with the bayna) noted in sect. 7.1.1. This is found in the reflex of the imala. imala, at least by the time indicates that there was more than one rendition of phonetic description Ibn Mujahid had compiled his work. Unfortunately, the 7-3-2. A synthesis for firm conclusions to be of the bayna bayna form is not specific enough Given are the same as the overlap between [ie] variant of Standard Maltese, both the realization and the contexts of imala, as drawn. ELA, as well as the well as the broad similarities with Sibawaih's phonetic variant. Sibawaih's description of imala (see below) . it is clear from a variant was [ie]. This either remained linguistic perspective It is that the original imala that imala is not to be reconstructed as assumed imala falls [ii]. In the latter instance [ie], or monophthongized to [ee] or klaab and ktiir < ktiir. In the former it together with /ii/, as in JB kliib 'dogs' < ay is usually maintained usually forms a new phoneme, as the diphthong aa ay Pre-Sibawaih A ee, u etc Sibawaih (pre diasporic) ie ee Figure 7.4. Mesopotamia!! imala Figure 7.5. Imala, a synthesis 224 Imala Imala 225 where ee imala occurs (Andalusia, the more northerly Mesopotamian qultu aa (kaatib) ay (xayr) dialects). In some dialects ee < imala merges with ee < ay, as in CB kleeb < klaab and beet bayt. < Given that this merger is mostly attested in Iraq and ie (xier, kietib) Syria where imala dialects are in close contact with dominant imala-kss dialects with the ay ee > change, it is probably best to regard the latter as a later borrowing or substrate-induced shift into a dialect originally with ay. aa aa (kaatib) ie (xier) More work needs to be done to confirm this. Figure 7.6. (43) *bayt bayt beet > > (Muslim Baghdad, borrowing influence) klteb > kleeb ay. These are the speakers of the southern Mesopotamian dialect described by Note that in as follows: ELA, while ay ee is Ingham. This can be sketched > spreading in the dialect, it remains distinct there is no rrom imala, While this accounts for the present-day facts, as it were, which has the reflex [ie]. the merger of ay and imala, As far as the monophthongization independent evidence for it, and it involves process to [ii] or [ee] goes, the detailed would probably be ruled phonetic observations of followed by their demerger. Such an explanation Aquilina et al. for Maltese are instructive. All their an unlikely process (Labov diphthongal variants have out on a priori grounds, lexical demerger being a high to low tongue in some movement, but While there variants the but for the fact that imala is allophonic, not lexical. movement is slight, e.g. 1994: 33-5). mid-high to mid-open [ee] . This perhaps been observed that imala and mdicates that monophthongization are no variational studies on the matter, it has proceeded in stages, reducing gradually in the same speaker (sect. 7.1.2). I observed (1980) ifferentiate<1 diphth non-imala usages can reside °ng [kl 3S ELA t0 [eE] ^ than contexts finaUy " ' ^ described an imala operative in more tot'e] that Mitchell (1975) Thus, de-imalization alone is not only h nCCeSSary t0 I described for Benghazi Arabic. PUt in an0ther ste in between P historical derivation Since the imala of xieyr *\t?Z 2 plausible, in fragmented ways, actually attested. 0US Sibawaih " era but "^flexes, namely (i) a conditioned imala, fo low?H K being no imala—non-imala alterna- (2).Tan would not have been allophonic, there conditioned one. imala ^ . Conditioned or allophonic survived an allophonically 3!; tion associated with these forms, they could have rCfleX f°U0Wed ' a s read to unconditioned contexts ^ P dialect. 22 rfn f ™ H °T? ' based general de-imalization of the S timC ' COnditioned and unconditioned clearly of Arabic dialects, contem- lived side b^e Looking to analogies elsewhere in the history the demerger process, at least in S porary variational studies attest to a part of hlem*tk *SP(:Ctof ^^construction is the [ie] reflex of'ay Arabic dialects throughout eastern inlouZr!r local contexts. As is well known, many undergone the change k> c in front Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and Israel have sect. 8.7.1). Abdel-Jawad (1981) mentioned above ™ ^ contexts, cammal in Jordanian (see I ^ ^ ^ kammal > almeT" "0t a coin * "dence that this is the recon- to re-merge with k, essentially under structed and Z YJ T observes in urban areas a tendency for c its variant P/k. -^ ^ ****" * how to account for sees as a dominant prestige im the influence of what Abdel-Jawad T become a ^^ remerger of ie > aa. It would This can be compared to the suggested di ^ct (otherwise) does not have imala go to completion, except for a residue refl^xeste^ ^^^ parallel if the remerger would complete 2.F.SG. a certain morpheme, e.g. the in a certain morphological pattern, or "* m *">""' Imala least ,n principle in discussed in •«*• 7-1-3 above. yet attested, though is at Stbawaih ^ suffix -ic. This of course is not n^JSZ ° Pr CeSS (Q) S SpeakerS WOuld ^ the non- * ° *«* JTitT ^^ conceivable. merged ay with tlla ^ *°°* °* "**"> *» m ^ZTTCOuld Subse( u ently contact with those who l have come into close did Z h , WOuld have their imala allophonesP into non I -"f* ^ verted non-allophomcT [aa], whUe maintaining the imala variant of possibility at this time. 226 Imala Imala 227 theoretical linguist Note that this for VII, one has to distinguish between Sibawaih as a account feeds into the further development of the As trying to accommodate many diphthong to ii (see Sibawaih as a field linguist, who was above). It could be that [ie] was a stage in the develop- and precept of Sibawaih's ment of North African observations in his grammatical description. A basic biit etc., the de-diphthongization of biit running unexplained. I believe it is in parallel to the methodology is that no observation should go de-diphthongization of imala™ Such an analysis would understand (C2) and (C3) imply that imala was an ancestor the context of this approach that one needs to of more dialects than where it is found in conditioning factor of present-day Arabic. above. Sibawaih very acutely observed that the basic or following an [aa] (Ci). He also imala was an [i] in a syllable preceding consonants. 7-3-3- The reconstruction and Sibawaih noted the inhibiting effect of various of his day was a form expand- By and Observationally, however, imala in the Basra large the reconstruction of imala based on application of the com- the change [ie] - [ee]/[u] can ing out of its basic realization. Phonetically parative method to attested post-Old Arabic variants reproduces the same notes that it occurs even postulated. Distributionally Sibawaih 111 tHat already be ^ deSCribed in Sibawaih as for - The main points of identity are is a problem ™ is present in a word. This foUows when no conditioning [i] context linguist true to his or her principles of Sibawaih, as indeed it would be for any I. /aa/ is realized as [ie] or a related Observing that imala occurred value accounting for data in a principled fashion. II. Imala is conditioned by an /i/ in a feared' and tieba 'be good, S.bawaih neighboring syllable, even in back contexts, as in xiefa 'he ill. This value is in inhibited in the such verbs have an [1] elsewhere context of emphatic consonants and solved the contradiction by observing that gutturals Ixl, that what /*/, /q/ and sometimes Fleisch (1961) I would agree hi. the paradigm (e.g. xiftu 'I feared'). With IV. The specifiable phenomenon is not completely regular, phonologically regular: many lexical and morpho- is involved here is something beyond logical pattern all, every exceptions occur. is unconvincing After variation, and that Sibawaih's explanation In addition, Indeed, this is perhaps there are points the passive form (fulila). of difference which distinguish Sibawaih's imala verb minimally has an [i] in from .with less problem one or more of the four accommodate irregular verbal imak dialects where imala is attested today. why Sibawaih could not always have cognate forms V. The class of imala, since nouns do inhibitors may differ. than irregular nominal however, that Sibawaih , VI- The the paradigm. It is clear, realization maybe [ee], with an [i] somewhere in [ii], or various other (as in Maltese). ar values This is clear in the quote to vu. According to what he observe, Sibawaih's description, rather overwhelmed by there are types of imala for which in his ultimate • • further in evidence mere ,s no direct k *„«*,,-, and it is correspondence in the dialects, (C2) for instance. such as b,eb **> and In forms « this section I expand SZLlTt^^ upon points ex epUonal V-VII /w/, not /y/, are simply ^ from roots with a medial V MdteSe « mwl) , both 8 ** inhibhs as ^abov .fldbe. " ^ imala < see sect Given that *S theoretical accountably " 7*3). who valued anSS C (faa5d) For Sibawaih, 8 nm attCSted " °^ m Maltese * should probably be seen categorization. Interesting « . taS n ! this is indeed a radical ^™™.^ T rdatiVe t0 trCe 5 <** «)• this local innovation judged pejoratively b tlolvte^T ™**« ered exceptional, but are not ^ f^'^ £Jj of these ^mons ^or^i^JC^, or the like). In the context d ab°Ve mat the the pure ^variantsvowel variarTf n f reconstruction of follows from the widespread distribution of imala in today's £5E£ allow for iTdtr^d 1 ^33— 7!Z2£Z2 war^a^ational observes without basis ™" ****** the of false by Grunert l875 : though on imrtconl^^* "W**' ( 453). seriously of 14 on an interpretation Given that it is only • .nSibaw^ob>aoy in Maltese that rsi The variahon^'^JT^^ZX^observed innovation. "" """'" inhibitor as an ^ However, ' »« sh°"M probably be seen ^ ^ given the recosn l* ^ J) °f °de traditionally belongs, S""""1 consonants (mustaSliya) to which [S] the variation in the m it is a natural^t^ t situation already initiated during the «•«»«« for mcia inhibition of continuesnut a class [x, members dialects v, q] to others to spread from some variation in the modern ^^ 228 Imala Imala 229 (cf. the Sibawaih's era. At the [ie] in Maltese is a 'new' phoneme same time, local developments reflected in regulariza- It is incorrect because the variant tions of paradigms, above). It is irrelevant because development of lexical irregularities, or the expansion of contrast sie? 'leg' vs. saa? 'drive' in (36), (37) ima/a-inhibiting synchronic status of imala which is crucial, contexts as noted for Maltese above, certainly must have for historical purposes it is not the purported occurred. A clarification similarity and/or difference between of these issues, however, requires a much closer but rather the systematic of historical treatment argued here, in both the Ci category of development in individual dialects. stages in linguistic history. As imala is allophonic, condi- Sibawaih's Old Arabic and in ELA (sect. 7.2.2) sharing the same form. ELA 7-5A- European Arabicists' accounts o/imala tioned by broadly the same conditions, as well as Sibawaih. Indeed a the Old Arabic imala as described by The historical interpretation of imala simply continues among Arabicists can be roughly evidence of close rela- similarity can provide cogent divided into two categories. systematic allophonic long periods contexts need to be maintained over In the first category tionship, since conditioning are treatments which basically recognize the identity between the Old of time. ,., Arabic imala and that , found in the modern dialects. These with the question of the note that few scholars have dealt identities are always noted for the Finally, I would individual dialect the researcher is working it were Most simply term it imala, as if on, and not generalized phonetic value of imala in Sibawaih. to the overall history of Arabic, understandably, given and he however, was an acute phonetician the specific dialectal nature an abstract entity. Sibawaih, of these works. Corriente for Spanish described above, (1977) characterization of mala, as Arabic, Aquihna and attempts a specific phonetic Isserlin (1981) for Maltese, Levin 2002), Borg Old Arab.c (1998, not completely unambiguous. (1985) and other even if ultimately his description is researchers for Mesopotamian in and Arabic can be mentioned using the comparative method this regard. imala did have a specific form, and can be description, a specific ur-form The correlations with Sibawaih's second are those where the drawing writers for one reason or another simply do the same as the realization suggested *[ie], which is also not mention that the given reconstructed. I have phenomenon is (Borg paradoxical! the related to Old Arabic imala varieties (as well as, and Azzopardi-Alexander of imala in ELA and some Maltese 1997 and Ambros on s 1998, both for Maltese). Particu- Mesopotamian dialects). Thts reconstruct My^critical reflex of *ay in southern m this regard is the summary of Fischer and Jastrow (1980: 55)- phonetic description, o^P^^ Without with Sibawaih's argumentation, they commensurate a assume that imala in Malta and Spain was an that imala and tkpother tradition, with the observation I unconditioned development, e.g. in the QiraFaat d not related to the imala of Mesopotamia or of with realizations in modern phenomena, , Sibawaih. In more than diphthong [ay] are different one place (i 8: attested Je 97 66, 1980), Jastrow misses Sibawaih's widdy 1 and phonetic logic of deriving the mentioned lects, and the phonet-c 7 tl* unconditioned nies and other 1162) does suggest ^ imala of Fleisch (1961: _ trl p v, rm variants historically from *[«]. °re FiSChCr 3nd Jastrow ' observe Aat imala in Mesopotamia or These two wTnf *« Sibawaih's imala, giving [e] W- « *^*£ dlfferent StatUS from realization for ***» in Maltese in that in referring o h< (for instance), a distinction probably MesopoMesonntamian qultu, j as strong vs. weak imala, dialects it leads to a uggesUon phonemicization of /ee/, whereas tradition. The ^^ QiraaPaat P^m^^s realization in the based t0 the Crcation This Arabicist trad Its " ^ ** * * new phoneme. in the Western statementtatetent-Tis, recapitulates that often found ^ however, (l ) incorrect and through the unp ( a ), for historical purposes, irrelevant. text, without working simply on a reading of Sibawaih's c, he for ^history ,« - cations of the interpretation "* ,aStTOW rdate found in the MesopotL^qi'dS^f;^^ Sibawaih's imala to that ^ haW a one unrelated to Sibawaih's comPletely different type of imala, i.e. Fisch.r La i . . in non-emphatic ** °f imah t0 a eneral fr°nting M contexts ^^ 1ucTfr™t °7 .f ^ & fronting ™ '" ma" dialects then that this gene can lead to [iel y - ^^ observe or [iil Th , 7 T issue. 7 MS arise addressed the historically " ' lie !> &ey give of Maltese, by a different f ^ the example nroL? r the Mes However, given the IdeE r"" ^ °P°t*™an dialect, ee" Meso (both have [ii] , Potamian imala and, for instance Andalusian and [ee] variants! °T °f baS basic historical fact that the ^^ 'C conditioning contexts, and the Arab diaspora l^T"°Ut surely on those ofthesamedemographic milieu, the onus of proof is who would see ^COmp 1 etely| conditions "dependent under what basically the same nhen developments to show ™omenon arose them to be different independently. Fischer and Jastrow merely claim Bound Objecf Pronoun Reconstruction 231 question is whether pausal or discussion begun in Ch. 3- A logical and key 8 basis there is no way to context forms are basic. Note that on an a priori alternative synchronic realizations, they are decide which is basic. Viewed as be advanced motivating simply conditioned alternates. Arguments need to one or the other as basic, on a comparative basis. Suffix Pronouns study of pausal forms in and Harris Birkeland (1940) made the most detailed are historically antecedent and as Arabic. For Birkeland, the non-pausal forms Reconstruction into steps by which pausal forms came seen in sect. 1.6.3 he worked out a set of poetry one alternative of pausal being. He points out that in Old Arabic position, was to recite a final vowel long. position, defined as (half-) line-final open.ng chanting'. In (2), the well-known This is termed tarannum 'reciting, 8.1. Pausal and Context on Forms and Case Endings of Imr al-Qays, the genitive suffix -« half-line tfatr) of the MuSallaqa As discussed in sects. 1.6.3 and lengthened to manzil-iy. 3.3.2.3, every Classical Arabic word has two sets manzil-i is o phonological forms, one pausal (waqf), the other non-pausal (wasl). wa manzil-iy qifaa nabki min dikraa habiybin traditionally, non-pausal (2) forms are folly inflected, lack of my lover and her abode while pausal forms 'Let us stop to bewail the memory short final vowels. These include, but are not limited case to, the grammatical (Sibawaih II: 325) end ngs on nommals and mode endings on verbs. are In (1), the translations vowels were at some stage in n0n " PaU possible if the relevant short 0rmS - In the pausal This, he says, is only variants the differences indicated by be pausal pos.t.on. thehe suffix,nffi u lengthened in what came to morpheme are lost. the proto-history 'there' to be matter, in three (1) explicit source in the foetus Non-pausal pausal Sibawaih, who is the oldest length, as in poetry. One is vowel bayt-un fo>* 'house-NOM' ways of pronouncing the final syllable vowel. al-bayt-u to drop the final short al-bayt 'the house-NOM' illustrated in (2), a second is b ayt-in fcayf'house-GEN' (3) ... manzil# al-bayt-i al-bayt 'the house-GEN' as in the line with an invariable - n, al-bayt-a the Tamim, is to close al-bayt 'the house-ACC A third, attributed to yaktub-u Mfufc'hewrites-IND' 11: 473)- !«. is » puKly pho^ca! „«« 1 *£>^£™t."wnicn o pronoun -to, added to the 2MSG possessive as simpie as *« wouid haps no obS: ** ^ * indefinite tanwin. t^zt^t: ** Qn ^ ^ old ^^ assumption M ** '"W m foUots from Ai ^ * T'^f° (Noldeke m dern dialects continue pausal forms 1897: 10 ). outtatraS^ 7P°St" °ld Arabic' from variety showing the transition • a stage where both potion of .he „o„-p.u»l f«™ « pausal forms ^ m forms exis pausal J» ^ alone is ted to ^^ exiguousxiguous and always!L ^ ^ ambiguOUS at me -— "- "- ^ In ^.^ ^ontinue tlASSESS« £* * * m Reconstruction 233 232 Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction Bound Object Pronoun documented by Sibawaih and (6b) ...wa qad badaa han-ki min miPrazi others, summarized briefly in sect. 1.6.3, and in skirt' the phenomenon of ixtilaas, 'and your private parts showed from your discussed in sect. 2.4.1.2, old Arabic sources, and tampyt/Pifbaa'i (see below). see Lisaan 15: 367). (instead of han-u-ki with nominative -h) (Sibawaih II: 325, I would therefore like to adduce the following point in further support of between a voweled and unvoweled or It thus emerges that the contrast my position, based on data from Old Arabic, and devote the greater part of throughout Sibawaih's description, neutralized [i] - [u] contrast noun runs this chapter, beginning with sect. 8.2, to the search vowel pausal position, but also in non-pausal for traces of short both in what is traditionally termed case suffixes among contemporary Arabic be summarized as follows. The dialects. ones. My conspiratorial interpretation can Concerning the lengthened pre-pausal of vowels -i and -u were un.versally vowel in (2), vowel lengthening tamtiyt oi a long vowel is unusual. If the case and N /u/is also noted in non-pausal Tamtiyt can thus be seen as position. Sibawaih (II: 324) terms the would be no need to lengthen them. phenomenon present, there tamtiyt 'pulling, lengthening' non-distinctive. In other words, in non- or PifbaaS 'satiating'. It applies to a device to highlight what normally is a HI or /u/. Instead of manzil-i-ka between the short high case 'your abode' the genitive -i can be length- pausal position there normally was no contrast ened. Importantly, in to this state ot ( 5a) the genitive normative counterweight -i is not in pausal position, as it is vowels. The tamtiyt rendition is a protected by the extension to final -ka. a normal pronunciation. By affairs. I thus consider ixtilaas to be is equally normal.* (5a) manzil-iy-ka the verse-final position, the pausal rendition be, pace B.rkeland, this interpretation. It could I can note two objections to tamtiyt would where case endings appear to produce a later stage of the language final vowel parallel to the long vowel that ixtilaas may simply reflect a version of poetic point which argues pause, as in ((2) = Birkeland suggests. My main ( 5b)). have become indistinct, as contrast as lack of nominative/gen.tive (5b) . . that the . manzil-iy against this position is of the -u/i contrast m the ™ reflected in the neutralization For metrical vowels ^in the Clas cal purposes, however, status of the high there is no motivation lengthening a final reflects the general non-contrastive vowel pre-suffix, as weak funcfonal oad\cS the in ( a). in Ch. 2. The 5 language, as documented extensively 38 ki gthe (i i, «:«** Y in8 f a case in Ch. by Cornente 97 1973 , ° s "ffix occurs in pausal and non-pausal case endings, documented as seen 3 doSL ; r short vowels n gener L sh°rtenin functional contrast in * S- * Pausal position in poetry, two of the a reflection of the lack of Aree redZ , developed mto a fully sty invoIve in Arabic never creating a final - closin the the short high vowels c > either fe s Historically, whh y terrr^ « m °r lexical or in grammatical U) deletin in ' *e In non- contrastive system, either PausJ no t '2? * 8 "nal vowel as in (3). perspective, the ^variant ^ ** l to «* °PPO*d to tamtiyt In a historical linguistic tahenin r findfT^ ^ ^"^elt -' " - C3n be red to This is SSt: -d a — vowel. interpretedasthe^ (6a) manzil-3-ka probably influenced by POetIT case in ma j Sib3Waih dtCS nominative and genitive imtances wh the vowel is deleted contrast between ^^f^^^^^^ Soother" ^ case basis of Classical Arabic. that no spoken ' argued conclusion 5 ° ° (1072- 145) broadly final PP Sed to wa of a for Zwettler s ( 97• vowel, whether '! ^ designating a short-vowel realization * much sympathy ed case endings, in pau^!"" While having damk poetry still emp|oy °Sltl°n or in tne er grammatical ", P - The short lexical or even status. Its vowel may be either of time of Mohammed simp, e a dicnotomy: opposite real' variety at the ^ ^ 1 ^^^ for ^ some examples). " ""^ " long vowd below based on early P*™" The This realization (see sect. 8.9 I interpretation not in spoken language. 'weakenine' nh believe an a ic register, attributed b was Fesem {n ^ to tteted tendencies inflection ? (see Abu SAmr, ? *> *e »r »g«tening Zwettler argues that case poetic and Koranic rendition d-ai^rfK^ l «*fcf wor^ even in and reading '" ^ grammatical pointed our traditions ' 4 above- A" in all, the directions. As jt u hard to for lenetheni™ r u terms in problem goes in two ^ Qn ^ o(her hand (these last V°Wd i ""*' the lack of two used only *• "? "Clude **/*** evidence for case system in their detailed for word fi^l '<"»%> '»« ^ Ch. 4) can be found ^~^ ^ a living grammarians are ixtilaas and tac^ "^ those for shortening or reduction of quality and the early other terrmnol"""'ogy u deny that Sibawaih quality of a such as Pifmaam vowel reduced vowel and rawm further specify the grammatical observations. Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction 235 234 Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction Epenthetic Vowels The second objection is that this interpretation flies in the face of received Endings and 8.3. Pronominal Suffixes, Case reading of the interpretations of pausal phenomena. Here, however, a careful in Dialects original texts is detailed enough description of both a case and caseless mchjing forward by prominent Arabicists This idea in fact has been put rendition of forms to throw the question of which is original into the in presence of the vowels hxghhghted Birkeland himself In discussing the interpretive arena of comparative linguistics. «, from Cairene Arabic, Birkeland (1952. boldface in the Mowing paradigm In the rest of this chapter I introduce further considerations into this -1. from the three case endings, -u, -a, 19) suggests that they derive debate, which continues the search begun in sect. 3.4 for traces of case endings in dialectal forms. (9) rigl-u-hum 'their leg' rigl-a-ha 'her leg' rigl-i-na 'our leg' 8.2. Suffix Pronouns and Case Endings anc there is an obvious As will be seen in sect. 8.7 below, Here\^^°^tmay s mplybe this epenthetic insertions. * The relevance of the preceding discussion to the main theme of explanation for these vowels as chapter of the independent motivation resides in a simple observation. Were a case variety the basis nld that Birkeland offers no case ™ case identity with CA ^^^ modem Arabic dialects, phonetic one would expect some residue of the former other than, implicitly, the ^J^ endings in some part of paradigms somewhere. There is one obvious place nwm.iiuiu to look, namely in the position before the object suffix pronouns. Object preserved before -«a,-wbetore sta£s. to non-morphological epentheUc suffix pronouns are suffixed to the case ending of a noun or to a verb, endings were converted to epen het ^ suggested that create a possessive construction in the case of nouns, a direct object with Another excellent Arabicist who . verbs. Examples are given in (see e.g. more complete endings was (7) (5) in sect. 1.6.4 for remnants of case <*^^^^1£^ tribes Arabia, paradigm). in northeast Saudi in a discussion of dialects ^™*^'_stance exp pronominal suffixes -th, of the SAnazi confederation) (7) bayt-u-ka 'house-NOM-your.M' 'your object suffix. house' -k of the 2MSG ation for the alternation -ak~ bayt-u-ki 'house-NOM-your.F', 'your house' yusaalid-u-ka 'help-IND-you.M', 'he helps you.M' (10a) raas-ak 'your head' The 'your cow'. positions before the object suffixes, here the nominative -u and the verbal (10b) bgar-at-k remnant of a case vowel (voyelle indicative ending -u, by definition are theory would u .u „«ffioaHsof (10a) is thetne non-pausal, and hence in Cantineau assumes that the -a be protected from the pausal reduction. another morpho- gets An analogy with deflexion), which in (10b) logical alternation ^f^Z^^oLr^-ak^k in Arabic will help elucidate this inference. As described in sects. 1.4 and perfect (1) 5.2.4 (1), in western Sudanic Arabic the first person suffix is 'protected' Birkeland a from deletion when a suffix added, as (8b). problem with * pronoun is First, similar to the ^ it is vowels in Cairene Arabic, this suffix, (8a) ka'tab-0 'I wrote' vs. ^J^J^^ to the *bagarat-ak, maintained . or perhaps (8b) ka'tab-t-a 'I wrote it' bgarat ak underlying«^^^foral sucn g Second, given an & ^ ^^ nQt explaining why m It is reasonable to ask no general rule whether in an analogous non-pausal, non-word final Cantineau offers seen ^ ^ be *bgart-ak). As will protected position the case (yielding suffixes did not at least leave traces of their alleged the penultimate former presence behind. is The central question I will discuss in this chapter whether there are not traces of case endings to be found in such protected positions. Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction 237 236 Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction hand, assuming the historical epentheticity of renders distribution of -a the 8.4. Syllable Structure the vowels susceptible to explanation by general rule. pronominal forms based on their In order to understand a reconstruction of Thirdly and finally, the SAnazi dialect described Cantineau has a general by basic syllable structure in the modern Arabic dialects, constraint form and distribution preventing sequences of two open syllables. Thus, bagar 'cattle' may course, referred to. Various dialects, of rules found in the dialects need to be occur, but *bagar-ih is impossible. In this case, the vowel of the first syllable is rules need to be cited. The first are characterized by different rules. Three elided, giving bgar-ih > bgir-ih 'his cattle'. The vowel-initial pronominal suffix already summarized in sect. 3-4-2 relating to epenthetic vowel insertion was -ih induces the initial vowel reduction. If -a were a remnant accusative case be repeated here in skeletal form only. (examples (14), (15)) and so need suffix, one would expect that the effect of adding -a to the stem would have induced the elision of the stem bagar, as in (11). (13) Linear epenthesis heart' vowel), galb-na - galib-na 'our (n) bagar-a (13a) CCC - CaCC (9 = epenthetic -» galbi-na *bgar-a (13b) CCC -+ CCaC, galbna syllable. After loss a low vowel in an open of the case suffixes in pausal form, this should give stems like A second widespread rule raises (12) bgar. (14) Low vowel raising — 'big' These kabiir kibiir are not attested in this dialect, however. katab —> kitab 'he wrote' Of course, one could say that the sequence of events as follows: was Given two open allowing only one open syllable. Si. Case suffixes: bagar-a A third rule is a constraint or, depending on mor- the first will be deleted 52. Loss of case syllables in sequence, either suffixes: bagar some way. This rule syllable will be altered m 53. Inception pheme and dialect, the second of 2 open syllable constraint: bagar, bagar-ih-^bgar-ih. was met in S2 above. This explains why the ostensibly identical forms in (Si) and (S3) yield different results. (Si) structure constraint existed when (S3) did not. However, if this is the case, (15) Open syllable it is unclear how the ->• 'she wrote' vowel in (10a) could historically be a reduced case vowel. katab-at ktib-at According to (Si)-(S -> 'a cow' 3 ) all case vowels need to have been deleted from the bagara bgura system, in order to syllable, according explain (S3). raised before the open Note here that the second syllable is In both Birkeland and Cantineau, therefore, the assumption that non-stem to the previous (14)- suffixal vocalic material is a residue of a short case vowel becomes problem- atic, as soon as the implications of the assumption are thought through systematically. Nonetheless, the hypothesis may be held open that case traces 8.5. A Data Survey are to be found somewhere in stem or of pr s suffixal material. In the remainder analysis the object this Por the following chapter I will attempt a in reconstruction of the object suffix pronouns, ^^^Z collected and analyzed = order to ascertain )md ^^^t definitively whether reconstructed on some aspects of the points^^^^^are indicated sections. The data forms do not in induded for their fact go back to case « ^^J^ vowels In some Appendix - listed in 4 information is avail- even-^^0^^t 1 perceived comparative value, e g n^^Ard*). ableaboutthemforacompansonalongeveryparame^^^ country, depend- two-four data points per °riginal n0minal object strove to have *? suffi*« were also carried over ,0 verbal Mostly, however, I '* ' ,aan Inli^stT; a" t : mb 1 (S£eako (19W m* Behnstedtand Woidich 2005: 25). Abdo 02)3^iSrf, ",! T^ ing on its sizeZZ£r«*«**** f°r -to metatheSis 0f*« ** vowel of the pronoun suffix, e.g. - ik£ meS HHow°WeVer> °t ^ n° "indent argument, justifying this solution are offered. T ^ 238 Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction 239 though geographically small, is extremely diverse dialectally, so four data unambiguous reconstruction. In these cases the proto-form will be identified points are included for it. In some cases I generalized to dialect areas, so that as 'proto-Arabic' and marked with a double asterisk. tor instance Nigeria, Cameroon, I give a sample paradigm from Standard and Chad, three countries, have in total only Before beginning, for orientation tour sample points, as the Arabic suffix pronouns. spoken in this region belongs to one dialect Arabic of the SG and PL area. These forty-nine dialects serve as the raw data from which a set of PL reconstructed forms will be derived. (16) SG In the process of reconstruction, I will in places allude to secondary 1 -iy, -niy -naa developments in certain dialects. However, themain tocus of the 2M -ka -kum reconstruction is to derive for each pronoun a form or in some cases, forms, winch plausibly 2F -ki -kunna needs to be postulated into pre-diasporic Arabic. These 3M -hu -hum reconstructed forms will then be examined for traces of case suffixes. ine 3F -haa -hunna methodology, end product, and immediate goal of this reconstruction should be clarified here. In sects. 8.5-7, 1 reconstruct based In the 1SG, - iy is suffixed to nouns and prepositions while -niy is suffixed to on object pronouns contemporary dialects only. There is no dependence on Classical Arabic, verbs. C aSSU d P^o-A^ic forms. In fact, it will be seen in sects. 8.8 and « ri! ;7 T 3re °ften * 3SSUmed to be Proto-Arabic, e.g. the 3FPL suffi! ~ U 7 (e - 8 Behmtedt 1991: - 235) themsel s Cases, Some Easy Generalizations Snles - •» Problematic, 8.6. Unproblematic r d> thC reconst ^tion itself is understood to be that of ore 1 n Tu- A number of analytic parameters are unproblematic. The following pronom- SeCt U) ThC '*' - thuS means 'Pre-diasporic form'. to the left ThTs wirr inal forms, for instance, show little or no variation. In the following, k 5 to be a "! variety or varieties found in the Arabian nenin.,,1, "J of the suffix for ease of of the equals sign I place the Standard Arabic rendition ,0 8 ateaS 3t the time of the Arabic-Islamic expansion. phenomena A^nXedlv * Sa T reference, not as a claim of historical origin. Note that general * ^"^ **"* thou h rel is n0t in adeZ e for ad S ** such generalizations on the FPL (sect. 8.6.3) are factored out and treated T^ reconstruction, ^ as and I would fully expect that a larger artwou H , nf individual sections. * """P^ Set of reconstructions. Totever the """f r °f eXerdse Rathe^ *? ^ is not reconstruction per se. m7nim 3,.T 1 10 Sh°W th3t T^ZZT' ""I™ Whatever d^aUed reconstructions 8.6.1. 1SG °f thm *» re traces of case Tovtr^ T^'r™ ^ Positing 1SG, -iy, niy = *-i, *'-i, *-ni °f di3leCtS form for the 1SG WhiA I ^lieve ensures the points have the same segmental M^JSfcS* ' - All forty-nine sample In most dialects the object pronoun. The only variation is the different stress. ntereStin8 10 results with of these are the sample points in the ^^ of the reconstruction suffix is not stressed. In five it is. Four the^eLtZ^ch H ^ nominal and verbal fa Arabic region. In Chadian Arabic both tradiSTn^o der ^^ ^ ** *— western Sudanic ZZgZl?*****"?** the e Were the stressed **nt to which reconstruction based on in Nigerian only the nominal. modern dialects Vr object suffix are stressed, £yeWitneSS region, they would be seen as an innov- centu^ °bSerVati0nS fr°m d8hth version restricted only to the WSA ^tZZ^Z* ^ However, reconstructed as the proto-form. ation, the unstressed variant being 1 50"16 ***** stress, and in fact " iS interestmg to reconstruc- Jordan (Petra) also has the same tion of pre-dialnrir ! go beyond a the Bdul dialect in southern one, throughout the Sinai and into northeast Egypt when tn ^^ This /done in particular stressed iSG forms are found strument 5^^of comparauve forms probably are The WSA reconstruction* leads to a fairly (de Jong 2000, Behnstedt and Woidich 1985). away, some speakers of stressed iSG forms broke related to these, i.e. ancestral 5 As opposed to cases Since the Sinai dialects are quite old- where the migrating into the WSA area. such as °f eventually substrate effects, which " ' Protofo"™ also involves ancillary problems region in pre-Islam.c enta^Td^^ their speakers settled in the contact, as outlined *' in de Jong (2000: 13) states that for instance in ^^^ circumstances of the groups sectsect. 8.6.6ajT^utheT m chscussion of the 3MPL object suffix. 240 Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction 241 *0 times—the two variants, stressed and unstressed, can be reconstructed into 8.6.4. Dropping the h, -*h, 6 pre-diasporic Arabic. Three suffixes begin with *h, 3FSG -haa, 3MPL -hum, and 3FPL -hunna (using Standard Arabic here as a citation form). The 3MSG form is treated separ- general 8.6.2. lPl ately. In a number of dialects the initial -h may be dropped. Two summarized here. lPL naa = -*na patterns which pertain to all h-initial suffixes may be dialects the presence of -h is phonologically con- All but two sample points have the lPL form as -na. Khorasan and Oman In many Mesopotamian represented in the grammars. Christian Baghdadi may be have -ne. The raising of /a/is quite common in Arabic. Extensive discussion of ditioned, at least as taken as typical. one aspect ofthis process is found in Ch. 6 on imala. In the present data, raising of the 3FSG suffix -ha to -he is also attested, in Hofuf, Bagirmi Arabic, and wrote it.F' (17) -ha, -hum after V-, katab-uu-ha 'they Khorasan (see next point). Oman has -ha. It is therefore possible that the -ne -a, -urn after C-, katab-a 'he wrote it.F' variant is old. However, there is otherwise little support for reconstructing a Aazex, represented with this pattern in the sample are Cypriot, unitary proto-split, say joining the ancestors of Khorasan and Oman Arabic Dialects Khorasan, Uzbekistan, Teerib (Syria). In (*na — Mardin, CB, JB, Tripoli (Lebanon), > na/ne), at least not in this data. It is equally possible that -ne arose deletion has gone so far that it occurs in all independendy - Daragozii (Jastrow 1973) -h in each area, by analogy to other a —> e changes. The systematic so the h-less forms are com- contexts, even after a vowel (e.g. katab-uu-a), ne, -he forms in Khorasan are certainly significant, though at this point can be writing about Abbeche Arabic in regarded pletely generalized. Roth-Laly (1979: 161), as a local analogical leveling. Note that since there is almost no as a conditioned variant, as in (17). In variation Chad, also represents -h deletion on this point, the starred *-na can be taken as a proto-Arabic form in Yemen and Andalusia have h-less as well. addition, two dialects, al-Mudawwar forms in the 3FSG only. a categorical or sample, twenty dialects have -h deletion as 8.6.3. Feminine plural In the current with variable phenomena, prec.se variable phenomenon. As is often the case The remaining persons may or may not have a distinct feminine plural. complex than a simple distribu- conditions governing the variation are more FPL as a morphological category is found throughout the Arabic-speaking does capture the basic situation in tion such as (17) describes. Example (17) world. If a variant has it, it has it throughout the grammatical system (e.g. variable data may be introduced here. WSA as well. However, more precise subject marking on verb, object marking in pronouns, FPL demonstratives, Nigerian Arabic (personal data), 4.995 Analyzing a 400,000 word corpus of etc.). Loss of morphological FPL is to be regarded as innovative. Those most basic contexts are as (17), after a V- tokens of -h deletion are found. The dialects which retain it are as follows, also indicated on Maps 1-3. In all and their percentages in the corpus are and after a C-. Examples of forms nineteen sample points of the verb have morphological FPL, 40 per cent of the sample: the 3FSG -ha suffixed to a form given in (18). In the examples, Khartoum, Shukriyya, applies eastern Libya, northern Israel, Ajarma, Bdul, Najdi, illustration, though the phenomenon katab 'write' is used for basic Abu Dhabi, Rwala, presence or Oman, Basra, San'a, Al-Nadhir, Suwwadiyye, al-Mudawwar, Note that in addition to simple equally to -hum and -hinlhan. Uzbekistan, Khorasan, Bagirmi, Nigeria. be completely assimilated to a preceding absence of an /h/, the /h/can also this cat- consonant. I note the statistic for obstruent, devoicing a voiceless (Table 8.1). egory without further comment even in the presence of that -h deletion occurs An It is interesting to note anonymous reader for OUP points suffix, out that Hebrew as well stresses the final - iy ofthe iSG where epenthet as in (18c, < katab-t-a-ha -j-» f° r ParaUd devel needs to epenthetic vowel insertion, ment - general, linguistics °P 1" however, Semitic in low th^ l^SZT^n"*consider the effect oflanguage contact the h-deletion rules WSA : and instance, all cases, shift when parallel features are found. A feature, for As a broad percentage of ere °f AmWc that deal of leakage. In (18b) /h/is * COntact or «•*»« "betted by shift, and spread from there is a good variety rw?H f T™T?? categorical rule in (17), though f°r or inSUnCe ' COuld have Jordan entered * variety ofArabic in southern deleted after V-. The same tendency Zh ft ft ^'T than S population plausible, more mamtained ^^P^ng contact in this being historically frequ^ fe^relhtf case than it is *L 7 even here -h is ma.ntamed more TchLrnk J (18.), though m WOUld lndeed "«* WSA *** *e """hern Jordanian/Sinaitic varieties, since the orila. tone ongmal pom,?7of entry would have been southern Jordan or the Sinai. 242 Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction 243 Table &i. Deletion and assimilation of pronominal- h in Nigerian Arabic shifting stress to all pre-object suffix stem syllables, even when the object suffix begins with a vowel. For instance, the 1SG object suffix (nominal) is Noh- Assimilated -h unstressed -i. In Mardin, normally addition of a V-initial syllable to a 'CVCVC a C- katab-ha: 'catde', 'baqar-a 'one cow'. 3,020 ' as in 'baqar katab-a: 1,842 katap-pa: 421 form has no effect on stress, CVCVC-V, WV- katab-oo-ha: pre- 5,225 katab-oo-a: 2,725 When an object suffix is added, however, stress uniformally shifts to the (c) CC- katabt-a-ha: 85 katabt-a-a*: 428 pronominal suffix, no matter what its phonological shape. "' '* pr°nOUnCed with a ** " HL 1om ""tour, aa or aa, which clearly gives each vowel a sepa^cSt,^ (20) ba'qar-i 'my cattle' ba'qar-u 'his cattle' deleted. However, the ba'qar-a 'her cattle' (< ba'qar-ha, note, minimally contrastive with distribution shows a significant association, with -A maintained significantly more 'baqara 'one cow') etc. often after a V-than after a C- (p < .000, chisq = i .i,df=i). 7 deriving from What apparently happened is that once the V-initial suffixes It would not be surprising to find that in a to all V-initial corpus analysis of Mesopota- initial *-h became stressed, the stress shift was generalized mian Arabic variation of the kind in (18) is our not also found, though for pronominal suffixes. historical purposes this point is not is found essential.? As far as the historical inter- Excepting Uzbekistan Arabic, this pre-pronominal stress shift pretation goes, pre-diasporic Arabic in WSA. It there- may be reconstructed as having both throughout the Mesopotamian area, but it does not occur dialects where -ft is always maintained, area. and those where -ft was deleted. This fore should be regarded as innovative in the Mesopotamian toilows from the basic correspondence object pronouns between qultu Mesopotamian Arabic In the following three subsections the three third person on the one hand and WSA on the other. or absence of ft-being Such identical phenomenon do not with initial ft-are discussed, the factor of presence arise independendy. here. largely factored out of the discussion, it having been treated It may also be noted that Sibawaih's description of /h/ as a 'transparent' or hidden consonant (xafiyy, see 7.1.3) may describe a state of affairs in which h was 8.6.5. 3F.SG deleted. Citing Xalil, Sibawaih says that the form rudd-a-haa is as if Ae speakers say 3FSG -haa = *ha/*he rudd-aa, without - an /h/ would - tokens), - he and present (II: 163. 15). This variants ofthe 3FSG in the data, ha (43 (4), a Pre- diaS There are three P°ric ^construction the previous of both h-and h-less suffixes. • are due to h-deletion discussed in TnTIn the M fl(ft) (3) The forms without -a Mesopotamian dialects -h deletion is related develop- without h- is al-Mudawwar in to another section, though interestingly one of the dialects °f StrCSS t0 the s Uable suffix. Khorasan, mentioned in sect. 8.6.2 H^oricT f y ^fore the object Yemen The forms with -he are found in 7 ^1S C °nditi0ned -he occurs as a a - CC se u so that in Nigerian and al-Mudawwar. In addition, Arabic u * ' beet-he. 9 ""' **.°¥ ^^ betWeen ** 3MSG and 3FSG object Sxsumx aftetalafter a recontruct consonant is the stress distribution of the -he variant, I placement. Given the wide, if relatively rare Independent development in Bahar- (19) ka 'tab-a pre-diasporic Arabic. 'he wrote it.F' both variants into Hofuf in Iran, al-Mudawwar in Yemen, iyya in Egypt, Khorasan in eastern PlaCement idemkal in Mesopota- here, once for -ce and once for " WSA "* in *e is counted twice n^iCSc^J?"mian Arabic. , • from al-Mudawwar (Yemen) Mesopotamian Arabic has The form -ee taken the stress shift a step further, U ^' 7 *SG suffix "^ In delect the distribution -fcof ^ a quantitative study M^is ^ *£2£™gkaimr-e b,g.F. of the suffix, identical Bij,-ael -e of the FSG ad,ect.ve documents «">n rule in al*> beet-e "his house" and the variant a variable realization of u a Damascene Arabic, Ismail (2004) ' " •"*• a consonant 244 Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction 245 Saudi Arabia, and Bagirmi in Chad/Cameroon/Nigeria is unlikely. It is per- In the second -hVn would be a pre-diasporic development, originating in haps tied to the imala phenomenon, discussed in Ch. 7. Sibawaih explicitly Yemen (Tihama in particular) and spreading from there. cites mala forms of the 3FSG suffix, as in Pan yanzvla-hie 'that he take it.F out (II: 282. 21 ). A complete treatment of imala including final -aa would 8.6.7. 3-F.PL shed more light on the issue. Furthermore, as seen in sect. 7.1.3, /h/ was observed 3FPL, hunna = *hin/*han by Sibawaih to be a 'transparent' consonant (xafiyy) which allows As noted above, only nineteen of the dialect samples have a feminine plural. harmonic influence from a preceding front vowel. This is the same condition- -hin, two have -ban. Despite the rarity of *han, its ing factor Seventeen of these have as behind the Bagirmi forms. distribution in Bagirmi (WSA) and al-Suwwadiyya in Yemen suggest it may have a common origin, which would be pre-diasporic. The status of a 8.6.6. 3.MPL geminate -nn, as in Standard Arabic, is discussed in sect. 8.9 below. -hum = *hum/*hun L eSSentially haS forms " hVm -hVn 8.7. Cases ^ ' (thirty-eight cases) and More Difficult few'eleven).fZThe , vowel is usually /u/, though it may also be /i/ or /o/, in one case amP C The following reconstructions are more complicated. * tem tin t0 see variant as a local develnn i ^ ^ * P 8 ^ "» devdopment characterizing many of the dialects in the Syrian and northern 8.7.1. k ~ c variation in second person forms bUt °f ^ the -» sites in the cunit sample are from SlTr^ pronouns have an initial k- or k-like element. In general bCen ° - The second person " Pr P0Sed that the hV» variant arose via contact and t Arabic S w the k ~ c alternation which characterizes aiQ this displays Whkh th£ - consonant ^ PL Suffix hon (Brockelmann 1908: 310). Respond t including all of those in Africa in this r S Ug8eStion Die dialects as a whole. Many dialects, ' ™ (1973) proposes an Arabic-internal dZlonr^ t I u Arabian, southern Mesopotamian, Jor- maSCUline sample, have invariable k-. Eastern ^ pr shifts its original -m to -n, vTv,a analogynT' toT^-the ~ and Syrian Arabic have a palatalization rule, feminine form, -hunna. danian, Israeli, Palestinian, before a front vowel (see Johnstone 9 n ° whereby, historically k - c [tj] or ts ,° ther hand observes the ^' ' d^erences between reSon of^ ^ 'how, diic (diits) 'rooster' < dnk. The 1963, 1967; Holes, 1991) as in ceef< keef " en 3nd thC M otamian/Syrian dj, " -P to the other velar consonant as well, g — ^TT^:Z7rmascullne^ palatalization often generalizes "» forms in the Mesopotamian/ front'). The palatal Syrian area ha u dz or even (giddaam, d^iddaam, dziddaam, yiddaam 'in S' beCn mfluenced y an adduces in ^ Aramaic substrate. He palatalization phenomenon and h^ s cfl ^ variants of *-k are part of this broader Himm whicb MaSlula '^ he compares to variable in this chapter. Z™£%%^ ^T therefore will not be treated as a separate h the 2FPL, which is either -kin or -kan. Variation between /i/ and /a/ was The -fa' form in many dialects when suffixed to CC-requires insertion of an already met in the FPL. 3 Contrary to what might be expected, far larger a epenthetic vowel. As seen in sect. 3.4.2 ((14), (15)) this vowel will harmonically number of sample points have /a/ in this form than in the FPL, seven of the 3 be [i] before -ki. nmeteen. Both of the -han 3FPL dialects have -kan as well, so an implication goes from -han -kan. In galb-i-ki 'your.F heart' > this instance, given the rarity of -han, one could (22) entertain the hypothesis that -han arose independently in different areas, by Given the proto-form *galb-i-ki, the final -i was lost in the majority of dialects analogy to the 2FPL -kan. (or only once in the proto-ancestor of these dialects) yielding galb-i-k. Subsequent to this, what was originally an epenthetic vowel was reinterpreted original 8.7-3. 2M.PL as the vowel of the suffix, -ik. The vowel of the -ik variant is thus an Birkeland and others would kum = *kum/*kun/*ku epenthetic vowel, not an original case vowel as ~ have it. kUn iS faUy isomorPhic with the 3MPL variant -hun (sect. « I^^T The following argues for this interpretation. First there are dialects, two in 8.6.6.3): dialects in this sample with -hun as 3MPL have -kun as 2MPL, and the present sample, where the 2FSG is simply -C, as in Rwala. vice versa (though against this see sect. 5.8.2). The discussion around -hun therefore covers this variant. -> palatalization as in sect. 8.7.1) Most sample points (thirty-three) have -kum. (23) galb-its 'your.F heart' (with *ki fs tour of the six with -ku are in the WSA area. However, the Bdul dialect in Arabian peninsular dialects, has the ordan as Rwala along with other northeastern well as Soukhne in Syria have -ku (-cu in the case of Soukhne), so following distribution of epenthetic vowels (Ingham i994«: 17): "dependent innovation can be ruled out. The -ku variant is a second sign- hcantisogloss linking the Arabian peninsular dialects WSA area with the Bdul, stressed (24) Epenthesis rule, northeast iSG the first being the object suffix (see 8.6.1), which strengthens the speakers you.F' case of WSA ->CC-3-C fift-c -* Jift-ic T saw having specific ancestral CCC links with those of Bdul. WCC — WC-3-C rijaal-c ->• rijaal-ic 'your.F men'. sequence is equivalent to a long vowel plus 8.7.4. 2F.SG In these dialects a three-consonant elsewhere, as in the two consonants, an equivalence also found sporadically ki *ik/*ki = (pre-diasporic), epenthesis occurs. proto-Arabic **-ki Bagirmi dialect of WSA. After VC sequences no 18 *""* 2FSG aMSG compli- ' « and 3MSG are the most catedeTT ^ (25) min-c 'from you.F' 8 **?* SndivWual attention - begin with the 2FSG. The reconT^ I 11 2FSG these dialects represent an intermediate °, ^ °bjeCt suffix ent two main problems, According to the present analysis, one tcZ^TAe final vowel ^ vowel -1 -ki, an epenthetic and one the form dialects which exclusively have of the consonant. I will deal with these stage between those circumstances, and those dialects being inserted before it under appropriate e S abl trUCtUre been reinterpreted as a part of the 2FSG suffix. gOCS *« are ^ms, -Ci (thirteen where the epenthetic vowel has atttation!)^r ?;l! *™ ? dialects (see below), but a short [1] before The final [i] has been lost in these ** Susa: the suffix is still epenthetic. Talmoudi ^P^i-Alexander 199r. 19* ^ variation in the 2FSG suffix. to allomorphic ^ J A second argument pertains 250, S "?* and Tunis: 325; see «* ^ sec ^ -fa. The form -fa occurs s) a ^ -k ^ nH ^ have the alternative forms ~ As ?** appua lackin A number of dialects indicated in the " ^ 8 V"****: in Cairene. secTnT T ~ before a further suffix, as h after a long vowel and proto-form & * ^ ^ Same as the constructed ThiTfo™ 1 form. ""* the StuM *** you.F' The basic arg^emfor %T V* ^ " (26) faaf-ik 'he saw prot°-fonn is form i$ otherwise derivable ^ that ** faaf-uu-ki 'they saw you.F' via ' general nSe fbe e form -iC on hand can you.F' accounted thus: ** other faaf-kii-f 'he did not see 248 Bound Object Pronoun Reconstructon Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction 249 Dialects with one or both of these a distributions of the 2FSG include Baskinta, North African varieties, there is a strong tendency to end the word with Cypnot, Alawite Turkey, Damascus, maintenance of the recon- and Shukriyya. Given original -ki, the closed syllable, which the -ik form provides. The maintenance of the final [i] in these dialects with syllable structure can be accounted for by appeal to structed proto-form may thus be broadly correlated complementary conditioning: The final the scope of this book. 11 -HI is lost only after a C-, so long as rules, though working out details is beyond no further suffix is added. follows: Turning to the affrication of the suffix, this maybe reconstructed as Third in general after a vowel no dialect has a 2FSG with -ik. This fact is accounted (28) -ki (i)ci > (lic- ic for if the [i] was originally epenthetic. It is not inserted after a long vowel, since it) fi if tins is not a context for epenthetic vowel insertion (see (24)). Ine general line of development suffix is part of a general affrication can be represented in four steps as follows. As noted above, affrication of the 2FSG this area. tendency found in northern Arabian dialects and those adjacent to carried out here, though the reader (27) -*ki — 1 ' A full reconstruction cannot therefore be ^(O-A:/ >(«>* -ik 12 The affricated forms can be referred to Holes (1991) for a detailed proposal. S { MeS tamian an earlier -ki. °P° *** Uzbekistan) maintain the original in any case would indicate kZ .1 t I C °nSOnant (Na di ste while in most the ^^ J' ' P 3)' oriZ?onginal epenthetictT' vowel [i] has been reinterpreted as a part of the morpheme shows the Prochazka 1988: 126, 140). A crosstabs correlator, » I count the Qauz form -fyas -CV (T. from the For this, I correlated two vanables [i S l0St clear tendency for -ki dialects to allow short open syllables. S°me - " dialects but not others cannot be asses, forms with final J ^ pronoun, in which there are two c ans^reH^fv 7 data set. One is the form of the 2FSG object mber f - 1 "* With ki are fairf open Affrication and other vanables were ° tol of i, without (i.e. -flfcetc). syllaTle ^^ y —t and those ^^^^J""* whetrt , T a vowel. The 3FSG suffix - V* was Sh° is added which begins with rt Wgh °r Sh°rt low four WSA the form of a CaCaC verb when a suffix ^ ™i AH sequences of twoope syUabfe creates a Sect int ,1 V-initial suffix. This potentially ' n " chosen as the representative haVe fa" Arab.c the sequence " "^ and are "beral in allowing high «t = kambat 'she wrote In Na,d, vowe in o„ "Tk/ In Nigerian Arabic the sequence stands, Utah + p es (s above). Here «rweK o her sect 2 - wrote' (.5) 4a - i} - = iktib-at "she <« I The Baha is the first vowe. is deleted, - a **«, ***** not allowed and Tbt and ; H ^ affncat.on are .gnored. Genenk™f Lt:Mu r in an open syllable and in ^an are factors such as the raising of a low vowel ! *?* the same in this regard. The as follows. The first column ^n'cefor variables (see below), the correlation is K $ across a number of further 8meral reflection while the second represents those ** * for syllable. CaCa is allowed to stand, Howevfr "^ France of a CV represents dialects where a sequence of m Y °f u qUhU didects have called for. JoZZl7? ^ "K invariably, and others have it in which reduction is katab-at katb-at/iktib-at/kitb-it etc. 7 he Same token -ki 10 3 ' dialects Yemen are very tolerant of ,, u, ™ «! 57 -ik 13 18 Sam le after a = conlLf n *« P P<** have -ki dfi, chisq 4.5, p < 034 ^ , acci u^ avors the 1111^' hand the rfSG -* formal* 8 the one ^ atl3S the gives the foUowing results. On (1985: «3) In general those of The correlation V AiZ^rnnT^ f r as exemphfied m the 3FSG '* 1Crant maintenance of short low vowels in open syllables, ^™ f SyUablCS °nC ^ yCt ch: ° L the syllable-structure types In a theXMQau > ^ forms are distributed between E t ^ mam t nan« C suffix and 2FSG J^'^J^^ AerCase variables, form of ' " of man Peninsular dialects that the two the form of the 2FSr « y significance, indicating °^*JJS 8-7-: and *^i-' rized in sect. discus s d' — do^ StmTu ^ notlceaWe that invariable is found throughoutNorthAfr, u -ik rt« tod to avoid short vowels, while j^,'^^ open synables with My "^ "* °* ™* LTv^ " ^ ^ *. «„. ^ , ,~ W^ COntext which readily " * in these dialects — ' sssssi'nssr-'siis.'si allowsows WCi (.a a e P 1S themsdves ^ussioninsm.l4. sh°»M not see . be proto-Arabic; 2 iUs pTtablvm^ part of allomorphic l re resei variants: '-ki ~ .("" ° P « the first two stages as contemporary, .-ifc J, ^J^'* less varieties. 25Q Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction 251 The affricated forms, therefore, usually indicate an earlier *i, in any which (29) *ka — *fl-fca -ait case is reconstructed as a part of the proto-form. It vowel inserted in the may be noted in passing that The [a] before the prefix was originally an epenthetic however old the change in (28) is, the the epenthetic vowel is am-ication and the loss of final same contexts as (27). In this instance the value [a] for [i] apparently occurred at about the same time, as there are are no contemporary varieties with this dialects with -ki and -c itself a reconstructed form, as there (reconstructing *ci) as well those with -ft and -ic However, the contemporary para- .There is also a dialect in the value of epenthetic vowel in this context. sample with -d, namely Soukhne in Syria. As this dialect indicates that the epenthetic vowel is basically occurs along the qultu-gilit digm in sect. 3.4.2 ((15), (16)) dialect boundary, it may be that the -a in morpheme, which in this case this case arose in part via harmonic with the vowel of the pronominal contact between original gilit-ic speakers and parallel to the loss of [i] of qultu -ki speakers (see Behnstedt would have been -[a]. The final [a] was then lost, 1994: n ). 4 as A final The epenthetic vowel was reinterpreted set of forms found in four the feminine -fa" in many dialects. peninsular dialects (Hofuf, Oman, San'a, Al-Suwwadiyya) have -//as the part of the 2MSG suffix. 2FSG suffix. These forms are cognate with the lorm one dialectal observation. In -/, discussed at some This derivation is possibly supported by length by Sibawaih." In develop- (28) this line of participial construc- ment is what was etymologically a represented as parallel to Uzbekistan Arabic there exists that of the affricate variant. variant is The -fi represent an agent. The basic attested only in Sibawaih. tion in which the original object suffixes came to -ak suffix was the subject of sect. 5.4.2. The 2MSG 1111 1 haVC indicated form of this construction two reconstructions. wide distribu- t ^j? The allows expression of J"of bothTT represent a subject. This same construction tion -fa and -ik indicates a can therefore pre-diasporic provenance of both. At the the same older in the first and second persons proto-stage I both subject and object via pronouns, assumed, for reasons given above. the suffix -ak is the subject. object pronoun series being used for both. In (30) 8.7.5. 2M.SG the cow' (30) zoorb-in-ak baqara 'you.M hit -ka 2MSG, *-k/*-ka = „ j^j^ k Qr pronominally via -nu In this case, the 2MSG ^ In object is represented (31), the C tSd ^° Varia0tS in data the ** > one and in one case form -akaa- affricatdT ™T? M, suffix, otherwise -ak, takes the [C] tS] ' CtC (SCe 8 - 7^- The **** variant -Occurs St SoTkT 'i ^ CXplained (31) hint zoorb-in-ak-aa-ni * 3S a eneral '^lin of Ae second S > *** g pne^r ^ (Zimmerman 2002: 93). r of 'You.M hit me' [cL (see sect ™s is a iocd ;riSP - »+ rzx:^ ^- pronominal object represents appears before a It could be that the -aa which V0Wd eS 8° ' thC maj °rity f the dialects thirty-four in total, of*ka. have/lT "J? ° > the reconstructed [a] Subject^Objec '" F°Ur the with this. First, when a Arabi^'n'enii^ ^ " "^ samPle **>«* have -*, all in There are two interpretive problems ^ subject the pionouns, the y eastem part> —- this construction by two Hofuf ***. sequence is represented in zin - ^ Z 21 r ^ unsuffixed the 2MPL is -hum. whereas always ends in a long vowel. Thus, form -kuu appears. when a further suffix is added the but no both involve M < ' solutions steps more arbitrarvT . t ^^ zorb-in-kum hl,hen° (32) hintu '" *« — hit-in-you.MPL ?™^ZZ«Z — ™< you.MPL have hit' '" '" **""•' *** 'You.MPL devXmem T*T as *" P'oto-fo™. Given this, the *- toe of (33) hintu zorb-in-kuu-nii - 96) (Zimmerman 2002: a^zirrp^'^i^ivf * 'You have hit me' 13 The third person plural subject Old Arabic ' Arabic variant kit d construction in Uzbekistan 1 POS ble con In this verbal (1992). She suggests &Deis "> Yemeni Arabic are discussed in Watson that -/ deriveT=,rnves !!. 1- at M stage however. «*« from -ki There area number of views on this, IAUoatteStedi an -aa may appear u« " other Uvant™ further object suffix is added, varieties, such as some rural Palestinian dialects. -aa appears to be optional. 252 Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction 253 (34a) haloo zorb-iin-aa-ha It should also be noted that the pausal form -k 2MSG is noted in Sibawaih, *hey hit-PL-aa-her bi-hukm-i-k 'by your judgment' (II: 304- 18). Interestingly, his example in 'They have hit her'. the genitive formally replicates the allomorphemic form -ik which would (34b) halaan zorb-aat-aa-hum appear after two consonants in northeast Arabian dialects, as stated in (35). 'They.F have hit them' comparative linguistic (Zimmerman 2002: 97-8) In passing, it hardly needs repeating that there is no variant -ik as arising from the genitive -i + Whereas in the masculine justification for seeing the modern form (34a) the -aa is conceivably etymological -a of cited in this pausal form -k. Note also that there are a number of instances -una, m (34b) lt has no correspondence in Old Arabic. Looking at ((30)- formally identical to citations in there book where modern dialectal attestations are (34)), is thus clearly a morpho-phonological constraint operative, accounting for them are different (see militating against Sibawaih, even if the underlying rules a C-C sequence at the subject-object suffix boundary, -aa requires resolution at the e.g. in Ch. and n. 31). This mutual shadowing insertion alleviates this 3 (19) sequence. Given this synchronic situation, the -aa which deeper level of proto-reconstruction. is inserted could derive from etymological -ka, -Una, but it could Tunis), the form -ik, equally In many North African varieties (Fez, Tripoli, Mzab, stem from a later morpho-phonological rule Uzbekistan specific to person masculine/feminine singular form probably derives Arabic which alleviates common second C-C sequences, as stated. original -ik. In most North African from the 2MSG -ait > lit, not from W°rkS PerfeCtly f°r those 2* ^"temporary dialects with -ak as the syllable is raised. omTt varieties a short low vowel in an unstressed closed 2MSG suffix, it is problematic in other cases d Ae n°rtheaSt kammil 'he finished' < kammal ^ ^ Arabian Peninsula, the 2MSG is -it alone. (36) P^uTParalkl to the!u ^l' 2FSG suffix in these dialects (all affricated -c), an epenthetic regularly raise to -ik under the same rule. vowel is The normally unstressed -ait would inserted after WC- or CC-. Example replicates exacdy. is accounting for the [a] in (35) (24) The problem for the 2MSG reconstruction *k (35) Epenthesis as epenthetic. However, rule, northeast its origin would be seen Arabian dialects, aMSG other dialects. As in (29), found. Here one C ' opposed to [i] needs to be fift k ^^-^'Isawyou.MSG' motivation for the value [a] as r independent pronouns, e.g WCC w ' with the final vowel of StyUUf k ^ 5 could to appeal to analogy '>""M'your.MSG. swords' -1* vs.vs min-k™7 iZfrom avoidance factor: all dialects with 2FSG you.MSG' 2M inta 2F inti, as well as appeal to an would be a default value to disambiguate the C have 2MSG -aV< The [a] value SSible that problem of the arbitrary U] W3S l0St and the -it left, to pick here one avoids the ^ ' s^ was 2SG object suffix. However, whereas uVlfeDrZ° , arbitrary as well. this 3S vowel [a] of -ok is partly as " * "° evidence for or a8ainst deletion of final [a], the resultant Z I can e^rII T** ^ ** Pr°P°Sed h°Wever on basi of contem- porary foist ^T^ ' > ** * n^r^ 8.7.6. 3M.SG. situation "* * "P1 the m in also *Vhu - the ^ hu = *-hu, possibly . ^ , f A ^t^JfFurthermore2 already found in the procedures > most dialects have^ reconstructed using 2MSG form -ik, all u **» The final suffix is basically L fact if t -"ternporary ^ects have Daragozu). Sampk (Cypriot AaZCX *"*** singular suffix -kL N° In additfon r! T^ ' ' 8.7.4, with the feminine *" dialects like Mardin and to 2MSG "* This f°rm is aS however, a few aultu reflex in exacdv'th ^ ^ ^^ invariable -hu. There are, Way -ftu before another the Poetically identically, though vowel and dialects with morphologically dkWt T" with the variant -hu after a long 2FSG suffix, -A -fa the alternation of the ~ suffix (Cairene). This parallels C remter -&« Preted as a part of the 2MSG suffix, now noted in (26). saw him' (37) faaf-uu-hu 'they From the region can h#» f a him faaf-uu-huu-f 'they didn't see you.M anywhere. The bullet) hits morpheme foST Tt**' '""^-tefl mskaan 'if it (a small n close juncture Wt °U vowel to prevent " y ' *** the a added *> epenthetic a CCC seouen n v m be morphologized a vocalic could and -ak have fallen together in -ik. by analogy to ,&"* m° In a few dialects, -h alone appears after a long vowel, ahamar ahmar'red', as in Najdi and Hofuf. In (41), the /h/ induces insertion of /a/ after it (similarly < following -h (38) faaf-uu-h bfiarif< bfirif'he knows' etc.). It could be that in this case the induces insertion of the epenthetic vowel [a] rather than [u], as in (42). That there was an [h] in the suffix is confirmed by the Cypriot Arabic variant -x after a long vowel. (42) *hu — a-hu —> fl/j — a contemporary dialects, (39) faaf-uu-x One problem with this suggestion is that in attested of the suffix, or has the the epenthetic vowel is either harmonic with the vowel In Cypriot Arabic, *h regularly is realized reconstruct two variants of the as Ixl. default value [i]. As an alternative, one could Most dialects have -u alone. of evidence in favor of These would be explained by the same chain as 3MSG, one a high vowel, one a low. One small piece the second person singular chains This has two variants, -ih in (27) and (35). this perspective comes from eastern Libyan Arabic. consonant and -ah or -a after a low vowel/ (40) *hu ^(u)hu^> uh-^ «i7 after a high vowel/non-guttural of dialects where [i] and [a] guttural consonant. ELA is one of a number Under this interpretation, the -„ as well, for instance harmonically of these suffixes is an epenthetic vowel alternate morpho-phonemically elsewhere etymolopcaUy.1. Note that in for instance, the preformative this interpretation the -hu variant might also with the vowel of the stem. In the following, be taken as the proto-form as the stem vowel. well. vowel has the values [a] or [i] according to Najdi, and Suwwadiyye have the J™ CaStem (43a) t-a-frab 'she drinks' "' Libyan Arabic ^cording to Mitchell has h?T-uDom -ih a , > and -ah. One explanation (43b) t-i-ktib 'she writes' for this variant will be given below. Eleven dialects in the be the sample have a low vowel, - saw pre-diasporic Arabic, which I believe to him a , as in WSA faaf-a 'he If this alternation goes back to -These include WSA, the epenthetic ELA, and Mesopctamian evidence), it could be that gilit, and Abu Dhabi and case (see sect. 2.4.2 (25) for related emi0n f the (Rwala, Bahariyya, etc.) Th^\?k 'f ° featUre "*"* for Pre-diasporic status. vowel was determined harmonically, some varieties CXP maintaining both. M Spedal co^nantal many as above, -a, and ELA dialeL tf ^ " harmony rule. In then generalizing -ih, others, "? * ^'^ gahaWa f *™* in which a guttural con- sonantsonam inducesin/'' a low -> vowel epenthetic vowel (44) WCgut-h WCgut-a-h after it (see sect. 34 .2 (17)). (i/u)C-i-h (4i) gahwa -* (i/u)C-h — gahawa coffee' two 3MSG pre-diasporic forms, distin- Under this interpretation there are vowel rule. One form, "^ «£«» guished primarily by epenthetic The other, either -to or -* » tied the epenLic vowel [u], as in (40). in this book (see Ch. length is not dealt with dialectal ,° '""^^ reconst™<*> object on the basis of Final vowel evidence to the exclm.nn if r, pronouns to the rule (44). forms. ^^ He deals only with the person singular Nishio 86- two third ( 19 „) s„",, ^ 3 nn. 25, 27). °f " dialects (e.g. Shammar 3MSG forms m various northern Arabia is Su nT^ f"^" epenthesis) vs. -hu *" ** comParaWe to m second stage, -uhu (with (without) In feet th h Y m (40) ranam-1 'his sheep'. runs into a Problem in the context -VC, as in No eoenth^i. ul a T- , C°n,eXt * Traces? (I assume the stress "* S° the form hu is ex ectod «*""-*" 8 8 Cssc without areu^ ' P ' VtrT H°WeVer context all ' such a reflex is unattested. Instead, in this results of the recor.tru. dialects go back to a general orientation the ^sufe e' w A table for a 8' Shammar rnem-o, ' Yamm -" 'hi* sheep', ELA uY'nim-ih or urnim-a, In the following etc In the nrwrn i, l VOWe'- into rule. I leave this initial s"ffix is provided by a vowel epenthesis suffix forms context open as tion of pronominal V**^^^^^ aZhl v variants out solutions ruled Arabic. I put in bold which is crucial to ™ght be proposed, but one can be forms in Classical this chanw i' T™* to the 18 evidence is compared It V d °eS recon- does not appearZstto "^ " ™ g back to a «* »»«* the current independent ^ in Clascal Arabic and 7.6.4). Given the to ** h Classical (45) Arabic Reconstruction on basis of comparative dialectal existence of case vowels in Old Arabic and their 'loss' in Neo-Arabic has been evidence used as a prime structural marker of the difference between the two varieties. 1 However, convincing instances of traces of these vowels in the SG there are few dialects. Such would be expected if a case-variety was at all an ancestor of the -iy, -niy -i, ni, 'i modern dialects. The suffix pronouns therefore are an important test case. PL. -naa na The question here is in what sense the relevant vowels are in fact a missing link 2 between Old Arabic and Neo-Arabic. MSG. -ka ka or k Problems relating to this interpretation have already been alluded to in sect. F-ki ki 8.2. In this section I will outline five reasons why the reconstruction of PL pronominal suffixes argues for an epenthetic vowel status, either in a syn- M -kum kum/ku chronic or in a synchronic and diachronic sense. They have no etymological F -kunna kin/kan relationship to an original case vowel. Furthermore, there is, in general, no 3 evidence protected stem + object suffix position which shows a trace SG from the of a case vowel. All discussion here relates to data discussed above already, so I M-hu hu will be perfunctory. The main argumentation refers to reconstructed forms, F -haa ha/he those which can be taken back to pre-diasporic Arabic. PL forms in many dialects 1. -h deletion and assimilation. In the third person M - hum hum/hun various contexts. Most frequently, F the initial -h (-hu, ha, hum, hin) is lost in -hunna hin/han vowel. Obviously, the post- they are lost after a consonant, maintained after a n CV( where there is no intervening " Pr0n°uns a consonant deletion is explicable only in a system ' ^construction of V, rather than specifying a mrHr!',J T , in above). Since the h- °r f vowel, which the case marker is (see paradigm (7) q ° CHC Where a perhaps !* ' H = h*h -we!, is L™ rT reconstructed back to pre-diasporic Arabic, it follows deletion varieties are * ^ *' *» W8h VOwds «* •» °fte" rnTtrast ^ " ^ inflectional vowel. A similar argument applies T^ case Variation that this variety lacked the *p '" " *" both in cl^al sources and in modem ^ a preceding voiceless consonant 2 n f wel length to those cases where an -h is assimilated to * is not deait *—*»* this ™£?Jt;nn ** in this chapter). :;} * (not discussed extensively has been explained above, in the 2. Stem form change. This argument assumes that the /a/of the discussion of Cantineau's observations. Cantineau £**** " * the feminine p,uraI forms where CA has ' SAnaza dialect a final na^ of the accusative case. However, in the 2MSG -ait is a remnant relativized *bagarat-a-ka, there is no explanation considerably ,n sect. in the form bgar-at-k 'your cow' from 8.9 below, however. has the outcome which it does, with the first 8 as to why the sVuabification *""" detaU vowekwlich * " ** historical StatUS °f vowel but not the other vowels deleted. Herrn ^Tepenthetlc * vowel and the case >hich either occurin various contexts before rules needed to account for the appearance the obStin 3 Epenthesis. The epenthesis other *" *** PerSOn plural fo have been in many dialects identical to those in reinteXd as a?;"/; ™> « of vowels before object suffixes are SUffix> aS in is a general rule (sea.T *» second person forms Libyan dialect, for instance, there 72/3l ***" contexts. In the eastern as CCC - CaCC. This is illustrated in which inserts a vowel in a CCC context, noted above in e discussion and 6. * sect. 8.4 above, as well as in Chs. 3 c^^SLSS^^f^°Ue f ' has that the vowels of say 2F -,* and c ^^P*™ been ,M J 'our heart' (46) galb-na - galib-na v yoo. 309J. As noted -> yikitbu 'they.M write' already in a number of places, the yi-ktb-u T p 258 Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction 259 This rule has a wide distribution in these epenthetic vowels the remnants of a among dialects, suggesting that it is a pre- and (3) there is no need to see diasporic relic which acted on caseless forms. case suffix origin, nor is there any evidence from reconstruction that the Similarly, a number of markers. In short, there is nothing in Arabian peninsular dialects have an epenthetic rule epenthetic vowels derive from old case which is sensitive only to the the origin of the dialectal object pronoun suffixes quantity of the final stem syllable. For all suffixes a comparative study of beginning with a consonant (-*, -c, hints at case traces. -ha, -no, -kum, -tin, hum, -hin) the rule is: which (47) insert an epenthetic vowel after WC- or CC- stems, otherwise do not insert. 8.9. Harris Birkeland and Old Arabic Object Pronoun This Reconstruction yields, for instance, the contrast, Birkeland's ideas. Birke- It is appropriate to end this chapter by returning to (48) rijaal-ic 'your.F men' are land reconstructs only the object pronouns to the extent that they bugar-c 'your.F cattle'. problematic within the Old Arabic literature. Four forms he deals with are The phonological follows August Fischer basis of the rule is current discussion. In these Birkeland clear, and I think it would be linguistic- relevant to the ally perverse to suggest that Reckendorf 1895/1967): 39o; Brockelmann 1908: 309- the [i] of -fcis somehow a remnant of a genitive (1926) and others (e.g. case suffix. be noted, however, that 10) assuming the following proto-forms. It should have 4- Vowel harmony. The Birkeland most heavily relied on, can hardly be said to form of the epenthetic vowels are adequately A. Fischer, whom accounted of observations for by simple rules While his 1926 article has a wealth of vowel harmony or assimilation. The value reconstructed anything. LU vs. laj in (1926: 402) has more the the following is Old Arabic sources, his conclusion straightforwardly a function of the vowel of the from a panoply of pronominal for instance that 'hu suffix. character of a census than a reconstruction. He writes, allgemeinen hut/). That more generally was realized as huii ('hu lautete im (49) darb-i-ki 'your.F road' (Nigerian Arabic) is hardly criterial in the com- sources cite huu than -hu or another variant darb-a-ha 'her road' Birkeland assumes the following parative method, however. In any case, There is no today (e.g. Fischer 1972: 126). need to see in these the proto-forms, which are also often assumed remnants of a genitive (-/) or an accusative 118 SUCh WOUld kad t0 ** 26o Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction 261 hCre the ^ 3SG forms ' There are thr plural in Sibawaih notes that in context position fn ^ forms noted For the two forms (50), or ^^the 3MSG. AfT™basic distribution for these, found for instance in Farra? there is free variation (kunta bi-1-xiyaar Pin JiPta haoafta wa Pin JiPta U. 223) and in the QiraaPaat literature (Ibn Mujahid, 130), are described as PaGbatta, II: 319. 8). being in complementary distribution, -hu and -huw: -hu occurs after a long vowel, -huw lalay-kumuw ~ Palay-kum maal 'You.MPL have wealth' after a short vowel or consonant. (55) laday-himiy ~ laday-him maal (51) daraba-huw 'he hit him'. -wtvor -iy may avoid a short variant, -kumu, - Salay-hiy on him' Sibawaih explains here that the humu, since one motivation for using the -m final form is to avoid sequences vs. of open syllables, and retaining a short vowel at the end would be counter- productive to this purpose (see Ch. 2 (21)). However, should the need for a (52) Pabaa-hu 'his father' short vowel occur, a -u or, harmonically, an -i will be appended. From xuduw-hu to the feminine plural forms, the "*»*» As noted above in sect. 8.8, in regards « «* * -y be inferred, invari- appears to differ slightly ^S^^T reconstruction in the dialect forms (see sect. 8.6.7), difference needs to represented in (57). However, this 11 ' from Sibawaih's forms, Mujahid s basic initiaI > which is to «y there are no or few s^Xt^^T^ most dialects with a feminine plural, be relativized. In vowel realization as ^ <*»• ™th tbe short morpheme can be added to an object pronoun. f^/^f* contexts where a further ^ ft7aa5 (see * (l3 sect. 8.1). However "? 8 ^ °> realization happen not to be those which suffix a bn m ^ Dialects with the FPL, for instance, n°tCS that there readerS such as KisaPi are rePorts of can look at the comparable FPL subject who' in 1 negative -/at the end of a word. One have eXpeCt '"** dialect. In WSA it is the realization **** -in or -an, depending on -hu,Ta-hl"^ U^t ^ ^ suffix on verbs, however, either lAsim a"d thers who have ' h ^ the [n] doubles, as ,n and Ibn ^ ™ ° suffix is added, Amr yj h( ? -an. When a further vowel-initial always ***** °D the ther is rep°rted to have recited ° hand with 1 1 n%^ Nigerian Arabic, e " forget ° ' - ?a me it'. In the OimnPn^v. g ™™niy-huw 'he made QnaaPaat hterature, therefore, wrote' all variants are attested. (58) katab-an 'they.F katab-an-n-a 'they.F wrote it.M' ( 262 Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction 263 The [n] also geminates before a direct Arabic, -kaa object beginning with the definite -ka and -ki are non-pausal forms and correspond to Standard article: and -kii occur among some Arabs before a pronominal suffix: (59) Pirf-ann aj-jaar (63) Pu-itiy-kaa-haa know-FPL DEF-neighbor 'I-give-you.M-it.F' 'They know the neighbor'. 'I give you it.F' fihim-ann al-kalaam Pu'itiy-kii-hi understood-FPL DEF-matter 'I give you.F-it.M' (II: 323- 17)- 'They.F understood the matter'. variant as well: Sibawaih cites pre-pronominal variants with the short Such forms are comparable to the CA FPL object suffix forms - kunna, -hunna in having a geminate -nn. (64) PaStaa-ka-niy In Old Arabic the pausal 'He gave you.M me' (I: 355- 19) • status of the FPL forms are somewhat puzzling. According to standard interpretation, noted as variants among the Tamim in pausal position the final short /a/ The two feminine variants -fi and -ft/ are should be lost (see (1) above). above). In discussing the cause and Banu Assad (II: 322, ch. 504; see sect. 8.7.4 motivated by the desire to (60a) Sibawaih notes that -fi and -fc/are bayt-u-kunna*-, bayt-u-kunn# for these forms, 'your.FPL house' since the masculine form is distinguish between the M and F forms in pause, (60b) bayt-u-hunna# - bayt-u-hunn* to imply that elswhere, against the realized as -it This point is elliptic. It seems but that in not fall together in pause, Pr°dUCeS 3n Unacce general rules for pause, -ka and -ki do Ptabl* double consonant sequence in pre- pausalDaultZT'position, realization of the 2F as -/. -nn# this dialect they would, but for the that looked at as a group, d n°te CXample The main point of the discussion in this section is th3t the verbal sub in * ie* *K - tunna may development, pausePausedappear beforew exceptional to Birkeland's purported an intrusive - h. object pronouns are shortened, short vowels are pausal position long vowels are (61) Sahab-tunna-te whereby in it may (62) three stages, thus: 2MSG: -ka, -kaa-, -k 2FSG:-ki,-kii-,Ji,kiJ. (65) 1. *huw 2a. huw after V uke * * h* of all pausal h™. t mfsZ — aial^cu urdud* as - Lf^ssr^™^* in the imperative ofdoubled verbs, rudd# giving -h. ! 264 Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction Bound Object Pronoun Reconstruction 265 This is a logical that evidence from the dialects is possibility, of course, but there is no independent motivation Arabic, and at the same time confirm for it. the reconstruction. On basis of stage 2, there should be pausal forms in -hu. Birkeland, directly relevant to proto-Semitic of however, takes the I should point out that the interpretation form in 3, -ft to be the normal pausal form. Taking 2b as the Before closing this chapter, expressed by Carl source, this gives the expected advocated here is at its core very close to that pausal form. Since, however, 2a, 2b, and 3 are all Arabic history contemporary, years ago. Basing his argument on Arabic Birkeland has to appeal to the deus ex machina of multiple, Vollers (1892: 154) over a hundred coexisting the vulgar Arabic, it is very probable that dialects; otherwise one would expect a pausal symmetry, -hu/h phonetics, he suggested, 'As regards the classical paralleling the context layer than the classical language, and that therefore symmetry -huw/hu. Such a pausal symmetry is no- it is an older where described point of view, the youngest prehistoric offshoot in the grammars or Koranic commentaries, however. The Arabic is, from the phonetic his argument Arabic grammarians, Vollers, to my knowledge, never developed according to Birkeland, therefore took a dialect as their of the Semitic stock.' did not work out his norm which uniformly this, and like his contemporaries he generalized 2b as the basis of pausal forms. in a more detail than in As by now should framework of a rigorous comparative methodology, be familiar, other explanations for the development of argument in the phonetic stock was as forms attested in the indicating what the older vulgar Arabic classical literature should be entertained. The easiest one, particular not argumentation in the which I Moreover, the bulk of the would adopt, in fact is as follows: compared to Classical Arabic. dialects often maintain present work only allows the conclusion that modern (66) 1. *hu attested somewhere m Old features which either are identical with forms 2a. huw after short vowel recognized as being part of Arabic but for whatever reason are not necessarily 2b. hu after long vowel into the pre-diasponc era. No claims Classical Arabic, or allow reconstruction 2c. ft in pause. 'vulgar Arabic' vs. 'Classical Arabic, are made about the ancientness of from a comparative Given a any case are dangerously a prioristic proto-form *hu, the variants - constructs which in -huw, hu and -ft follow by rule. Note the case that interpretations of that it is even Nonetheless, it appears to be possible to begin with the pausal perspective. form: were once more variegated Arabic language history in Western scholarship (67) 1. *ft and nuanced than they are today. 2a. huw after short vowel 2b. hu after long vowel 2c. ft in pause. The only preference for (66) over (67) resides in the specify the vowel need to v ' /u/ in (67). £VidenCe Whkh 1 0ffer in favor of (66) over (65) and (67) is« A* that ^T^T(66 is the same reconstruction which a consideration of modern yields directs (see sect. 8.7.6). Very probably a much closer look at Old Arabic sources, especially a closer study of the variants of the Koranic readers, would indicate how widespread the long and short vowel variants in fact are, n WOUld Shed " &rther on *e of whether *hu or *huw is a more vlT f ^ likely ™ proto-form. In the current study, in any case, *hu is preferred. re *.""'* ' " *"* HaSSdbach sourceS entireto?° ^> »™kg *" aratlVe adudin ***** includes that prl Semit 7 ^^ 8 ^ Pr°nOUnS WCTe Sh°rt for iPL, FSG. If Eos "on st ' ""* ^ xSG, 3 COrrCrt WOUld agdn Su est at A-bic dialects are in certain respects * ^ * *E™ more archaic'T' in a proto-Semitic context than is Classical Summary and Epilogue 267 reconstruction. However, The elements in this category are solely artefacts of features, at an extreme given the very wide contemporary distribution of the of Uzbekistan, independent attested both in Nigerian Arabic and in the Arabic certainty be ruled out. Pre- parallel development can in most instances with characterized by a good deal more diasporic Arabic thereby becomes an object Summary and Epilogue variation than is found Old Arabic alone. varieties of Old Arabic 3. Discontinuity with some • lack of case endings (Chs. 3, 4)- The main linguistic points of this work can be represented in three categories. The universal lack of case endings in This class has elements of the first two. The basis of the three is the comparative historical relation between Arabic in category; indications that the short the contemporary dialects is as the second what I have termed the allows an pre-diasporic period and the present-day dialects. I list in Old Arabic, however, vowel case endings were not a robust system only the issues which have been dealt with in point in Moreover, the short vowel case detail. There is no interpretation as with the first category. presenting a with longer list of potential supporting long as the than the same short vowels evidence so endings are phonologically nothing more comparative arguments are outstanding. restricted contrastive status. . categories can be graded for their Certainly the conclusions of these three an application of the com- result commensurate with 91. Reconstruction and Continuity with Old Arabic adherence both to a of the given phenomenon in Old parative method and to an interpretation In the first category mala given h are phenomena which least the interpretation of essentially are identical in at Arabic sources. In this sense for instance, some varieties of contemporary hand, my reading of th ca e Arabic and Old Arabic. will be recalled, issue. On the other As I believe is a relatively clear Old Arabic in my terminology is the corpus of written attestations between though compatible ** around endings 650-850. There are four main topics ^^^^Z^Z^for how case evolved rema which fell into this category. particular because an explanation not stand or fall on he read ng conclusions of the book do • Variation in short high vowels: out. However, the contrastive if at all only in restricted linguistic interpretation that a comparative positions, often of one issue The overall argument lexically determined (Ch. integration of 2); in the light of a serious • imala is possible only (Ch. 7); ofZZLlanguage judgment on a single topic. • suffix object dialect sources transcends pronouns (Ch. 8); contemporary • reconstruction of imperfect verb (Ch. 6). The conclusions for this 9.2. Epilogue category, it should be recalled, were reached by reconstructing pre-diasporic Arabic solely on the basis of the modern dialects, and correlating these results with the earliest grammatical descriptions. In each case, results of the reconstruction dovetailed nicely with early descrip- tions, though the correspondence need to be Integra is also based on generalized inferences in domains of research I think the broad case of the imperfect verb. interpretation. which is the reconstructioneconstruct. of Arabic, 2. Reconstructs an internal forms not identical a First, any results from ^.^ to attested Old Arabic, but on tegra*d comparative basis, at wul need o hem least as old: basis of the current work, ^ ^ so • intrusive -in, linker - comp-i^IfP^^^^^proto-Senuuc in fact n (Chs. 3, 5); is tn comparative Semitic? Or case is a • many features discussed 5.' elsewhere) that in Ch. arguments in Ui. 3 overwhelming (against the ° 268 Summary and Epilogue Summary and Epilogue 269 proto-category, and if this is so, how would this be reconciled with the The language continues to hold its secrets. The insights of linguists are as argument advanced here (sect. ninth-century legal 3.4, Chs. 4 and 8) that there is no internal relevant today as they were over 1,000 years ago, when the evidence for a transition from a case to a caseless variety of Arabic? The point scholar and contemporary of Farra?, ShafiSi (d. 204/820) stated, 'Pashaab al- here is to recognize that 1 'Scholars of different sources, different languages will claim their Sarabiyya jinn al-?uns, yubsiruuna maa laa yubsiru xayruhum', own individual histories, as it were, and that a broader comparative treatment Arabic are the spirits among men; they perceive what others don't.' needs to be open to the many nuances and imponderables internal to the individual languages whose linguistic history they explain. 1 Nabia Astutely noted in Versteegh (1989: 291). Versteegh (p.c.) himself has the quotation from Second, though I have attempted in fins is 'man, my dialect surveys, for instance in Chs. Abbot, Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri, iii. 34. from 'Adab al-Shafi'i. In the Lisaan (6: 13) and 8, to be broad and rare, but noted with the meaning, 'opposite of savagery, roughness'. An 5 representative, they are by no means detailed enough. mankind'. The variant Puns is can also be 'devils'. Ultimately there can be alternative translation would be 'the spirits of civilized society'. Jinn no reasonable synthesis of Arabic language history until far more historical comparative studies are carried out on individual features in individual dialects and dialect areas. Thirdly, it would be obtuse to claim that no significant changes are to be found among Arabic dialects. This is a perspective which I have purposely downplayed, for two reasons. First is the strategic one: it is a major argument 01 this book that Arabicists have avoided a linguistically realistic representa- tion of Arabic language history because of the facile assumption that Arabic neady dichotomizes into Old and Neo-Arabic. These, I have argued, are oasically logical, not comparative linguistic categories. It is a provisional rear on my part, expressed in a number of places in this work, that as soon as historical changes within a dialect are identified, that such changes will be cited as proof of the validity of the Old/New difference as a whole. By not addressing the 1Ssue of individual dialect change (see Kusters 2003 for this approach), this problem is avoided and broader issues in Arabic historical linguistics can be confronted. Second, and this follows from the first point, changes have to be worked out individually for individual dialects. However, StUdiCS In this howevT : direction are br°adiy absent. Eventually, Cl r idCa ab°Ut " What P-to-Arabic is, and a better historic 'l T7tre atmen' T f mdiVidual dialects > ^vidual histories can be devel- ooed and t mt thC br°ader ° fabrfc of *»* history, Fmanv ^ POm W-ge *** iS 3 Spedal chaUe namely dev 2l V Y ^ to Arabicists, S°d0lin^stics of are queSTLch T" the language. Crucial here tC eafly what rrces^vutd t° r ^ 8»™* 4^ wrote it, 9 ' ^8°^ 2 above) and how the teaching and preservation J a u f qUeSt'°n f between lluiX ° ^ there maX be discrepancies 8 ""ntructkm such as sou^ceT developed here and Old Arabic Appendix 1. Dialects Cited particular those used in In this appendix is found a listing of all the dialects cited, in included which specifies the two surveys in Chs. 5 and 8. A short commentary is also when, if this should be the time of first Arab migration to the given region and heuristics only. different, Arabicization became dominant. The dialect labels are basic labels often hide longer-range It was seen especially in Ch. 5 that geographical varieties caused by historical relationships among dialects and an overlapping of so on. migrations at different periods, post-migration contact, and the maps, those descriptions The dialects listed here are entered on Maps 1-3. On represented by a point, which are represented by a single location (village or city) are represented by name over the while those which represent an area (e.g. Najdi) are approximate area of the dialect. Western Sudanic Arabic (Map 3) Chad area beginning in the late fourteenth I term the Arabic established in the Lake includes the Arabic of northeast century 'western Sudanic Arabic'. Dialectically, it and Kordofan in the Sudan. This is Nigeria, Cameroon, and Chad, as well as Darfur Sudan, which in Islamic history practice not to be confused with the area of western nomadic Nigeria it is still expanding.as refers to Mauritania and adjoining regions. In exist permanent Arab villages in Arabs continue their spread, so that there now Adamawa state, south of Borno. Included in samples are: Bagirmi Arabic Mada Aajiri Western Nigerian Arabic Kirenawa Abbeche Ndjamena Amm Timan (2) Umm Hajar (2, nomads) Arabic of the Sudan (Map 3) Arabic wasbrought to ^S«d«p«-nendyinfc^^'*i^^ The date customardy cited » W^^£» Arabs to the Lake Chad region. Mameluke force, setting Mariis was defeated by a the northern Nubian kingdom of 2 72 Appendix 1. Dialects Cited Appendix 1. Dialects Cited 273 the stage for the rapid expansion of Arabs directly south and west. The Shukriyya Fez (Morocco) settled in their current home along the Atbara River by the eighteenth century. They Mauritania apparently have affinities with Arabs in the eastern Egyptian desert (de Jong 2002). Mzab (Algeria) Included m samples are: Djidjelli (Algeria) Shukriyya Susa (Tunisia) Khartoum Tunis Egypt (Map 1) Andalusia (Map 2) Pre-Islamic dialects until were present in Sinai Andalusia was first invaded in 711, and Arabic was spoken as a native language ( see below). Arabic spread throughout Egypt w«h the Islamic conquest. Fustat at the sixteenth century (Ferrando p.c, November 2004). Documents attesting the the site of present-day Cairo was founded in 640/1 f the most detailed reports Ched 63 UntU ab°Ut Arabic dialect become available in the tenth century, though ^ °- 90° the lar8e C tic Population main- TJ^Tained their r ^ °P own language, but thereafter are relatively late in the fifteenth. a gradual language loss set in. Upper Egypt in particular was an important demographic staging area from which large-scale 0th int N°rth Afifal (e Maltese (Map 1) ° -S- the Banu ™-l) -d into the Sudanic regionrein toTthe^tsouth. Included in samples are: cut off from the Established either late ninth century or eleventh century, it was Cairene Arabic Arabic-speaking world by the end of the eleventh century. Bahariyya Arabic (western desert oasis) Nile Valley (SaSiid) Jordan, Syria, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon (Map 1) desert regions of Arabs had spread throughout this region, particularly into the Libya (Map 1) in the wake of the Arab-Islamic Jordan and Syria, in pre-Islamic times. It was largely displaced Aramaic on a large-scale basis as the mother dU"d conquests, however, that Arabic 7° "* *= H»* »-q»«, beginning abou. 640. W««m region of Syria and Lebanon fc™ I"' tongue of most speakers of the region. The northern type. The part of the reg.on shades dialectically into a northern Mesopotamian and into southern Jordan and running from the Sinai, across the Negev desert Eastern Libyan Arabic different. Arabs have lived in the Sinai northwest Saudi Arabia is dialectally quite Tripoli (western) 2000: continuously since the third century bc (de Jong 13). Gharyan (western) Tripoli (Lebanon) Baskinta (Lebanon) *»«. Algeria, Morocco, Maurii«i, (M,p „ Soukhne (Syria) Teerib (Syria) Damascus ^-Mamic conquest, of the seventh centurv At a- completed by the end Ajarma (Jordan) nt A abic Iargdy confined a more Jordan) -mp t *%££t: z ; r «> »*« ~ Bduul of Petra (southern " °f °f eleventh centu ** HM "" * Galilee (northern Israel) ^1 HM 7^ ^ ^ «* Tunisia. In theLlfth centu^l ^ ^"^ ** * WeStem ^ central °f thdr descendants were setded in the Moroccan coastal ^^ V T Cypriot Arabic (Map 1) gKatlY increased the Arabic speakers in Morocco The Arahi T*' r number of Kbm-Bti ta nori«n Cyprus MaUritania be the Maronite community in arrival of °! 8«n in the fourteenth century with Arabic is spoken by a small the «oJT n" (Borg *nd ninth and twelfth centuries #*£<>£" and sixteen! derated considerably in ^fifteenth which was established between the SZSJ". whose wor ,s based on ^Tame- Borg (2004: 1) Cheik from forthcoming)) ' h> P-- November 2004 (Taine-Cheikh, most recent information comes they lived the Before the invasion of i 974 ,„ community of x,300 Cypriot Maronite, 274 Appendix 1. Dialects Cited Appendix 1. Dialects Cited 275 village of Kormakiti in northern Cyprus, but thereafter most migrated south of the Uzbekistan armistice line. and Khorasan (Map 1) Settled in the early eighth century and cut off from the broader Arabic dialect world by the beginning of the ninth, Uzbekistan represents an important Sprachinsel. While Mesopotamian Arabic (Map 1) often characterized as Mesopotamian, as discussed in Ch. 5, Uzbekistan in fact shares This designates the varieties significant in a of regions. The Jogari dialect spoken found in Iraq, parts of northern Syria, and Turkey. affinities with dialects number Cypnot Arabic as well can be near Bukhara is used here. reckoned as belonging to this dialect area. It is characterized by two broad dialect The Arabic of Khorasan is known through a single description (Seeger 2002). It has types (see Ch. 5). The first, the qultu dialects, are the first to have been brought interesting affinities Uzbekistan Arabic, as well as some remarkable traits of its own to the region in the immediate aftermath of the Arab- to Islamic conquests. The second, (e.g. a complete *s->6 shift in some dialects). the gilit dialects, arrived later, beginning around ad 1,000 or 1,100, probably pushing in from either the Arabian peninsula or from Jordan (Blanc 1964: The dialect 1). of the pre-Islamic tribes who lived in southern Iraq, Arabian peninsula (Map 1) such as the Tanukh, has not been speculated upon to my knowledge. More sharply than in many regions of the Arabic peninsula knew a number of languages, the closely related world, the different dialects in this area are often The pre-Islamic Arabian associated with confessional differences. includes the ancestor of Arabic (Macdonald 2000), as well It should be noted, however, that some of the North Arabian type which dialects are dying out. The Jewish dialect as various South Arabian languages, five of which are still spoken today. No significant of Hiit, for instance, is attested only through ^description carried out in Israel work has to discern evidence of language contact and shift among the of the diasporic population from that city (Khan been done ancestral historical populations, and there is not even agreement upon where the locates it in the region north of In Iraq: homeland of Arabic is. Petracek (1988), for instance, would Jewish Baghdadi the peninsula in modern Jordan and Iraq, whereas Retso (2003: 37. 48-51) and Mecca, or perhaps Christian Baghdadi appear to suggest the Arabian peninsula itself, between Yemen the history of the Muslim Baghdadi an area northwest of Medina (al-qura al-iarabiyya). Throughout movements both to the north Basra and other peninsula there have been a large number of population areas in southern Iraq ^ pre-Islamic era the dominate Hiit and to the south. It appears that in the immediate due to the effect of dryer Khaweetna movement was already out of Yemen towards the north, With the Islamic expansion, emigration increased In Anatolia: conditions (Caskel 1960/1986: 528). peninsula there continued to occur significant Siirt considerably. Within the Arabian central Arabian peninsula towards Daragozu population movements, for instance from the Oman (Wilkinson 1987: 76). Mardin Bahrain and the trucial coast, and thence into Aazex Oman Abu Dhabi Saudi Arabia South Central Turkey (Map 1) Rwala (northern Najd) Najdi Hofuf S SeVenteenth "? > " ** cen fro- Hatay. It is thus Qauz ~ST.^ressentially a continuation Tof "i the varieties of that area (S. Prochazka 2002). Yemen Hatay (Alawite dialect) Cilicia SanSaa? Hatay essentially As-Suwwaadiyyeh continues the dialect complex of northern Syria (Arnold 1998). an-Nadhiir Al-Mudawwar J ' Appendix 2. Summary of Variables 277 The ima/fl in the Mesopotamian area has two degrees, with some dialects (e.g. JB) having a further raising to ii in some forms (e.g. nominal but not participial, kliib Appendix 2. Summary of Variables, 'dogs'). Mesopotamia, 1. beevid: CB. CCVC-V (verb); 1. CCVC-V, Western Sudanic Region, (13) r; r, baarid 'cold': Kirenawa, 2. v, (14) 2. CaCC-V ykitb-uun: Hiit, 3. CCC-V: y/'fab-o Uzbekistan, bu-ktub-u 'they write': Kirenawa, Shukriyya Daragozu. Jastrow (1973: 27) considers the stem /a/in the Daragozu form taftahe 'you.F. open' to problem. In terms of underlying ref d t0 be an epenthetic vowel. This creates an interpretive *e tCXt Under A 2 for " P "> hon or Ap 2.2 for '1'. P ^gy '3', have m^Z^TT T form this would be classified in category but in surface realization as 1 b in brackets - whkh is the -mb « * ^^ classified '3'. SSX /;r r ^ it as is ^^tl^Z^^ sect - X1A The numbering sometimes tr" them': MB, 2. CC-C, jabtna: 'you (15) CC-C (verb) 1. CaC-C, jibat-hum 'I brought S e e *™">* d themselves have brought us': Khaweetna, 3. CCs-C, jibt-u-hum: Kirenawa ano?ht surlTh addm^^1^ ° "«* °n farther ^ suffi^ often induces allomorphy of different kbiir. Hiit, CiCii, cibiir. MB ^eslypes, ^; (17) CaCii; 1. CaCii, kabiir. Kirenawa, 2. CCii, 3- Xwnicnc is ^not accountedft for here. Mardin, mfdiifclean', gbiir 'big', Sasse (1971: 238) notes that both (1) and (2) occur in 2.1. Phonology on a lexically (i.e. irregular) governed basis. bagar 'cattle': Abbeche, 2. CiCa(C), (18) CaCa(C); 1. CaCa(C), katab 'he wrote', katab-at 'she wrote': citab, bugar. MB. (19) CaCaC-V (verb); 1. CaCaC-V, CaCaC-C(V) MB, 3. CaCC-V, katb-it IB. (20) C Kirenawa, 2. CiCC-V, kitb-at *~ *lternation c basically ,* ' occurs in front vowels, the environment of Mardin, 2. CCaC-C, ktab-it. Hut, 3. or'hilhZl (verb); 1. CaCaC-C, katab-tu 'I wrote': b"d to * ^ "* < The conditions vary from area kilaab 'dogs': area, howetr ^ ^^ ktab-t). (21) CiCaaC; 1. CiCaaC, CiCaC-C, kitab-k MB (or 'sister': (noun); 1. CVCC, art JB, Kirenawa, 2. CCaaC, klaak Hiit. (22) CVCC# 'their dog MB, 1. CaC-C, calib-hum : 2. CVCVC, uxut. MB. (23) CC-C (noun); tie 'their dog S «« stayed, 2. Mardin, 3. CC-aC: kalb-uhum: *lehem 'meat', *jrf«t Bagirmi 2. CC-C: kalb-ki: 'your.F dog: Kirenawa Cgu.Ca, gahw* Mardin 2. = x, r, q < r, 5, 4 fc. P)i >• (24) Cgut Ca gahwa (guttural CVCVC, 'bagar cattle: Kirenawa. (26) CVCV(C) stress; 1. < C^aCa g«W (6) /*/; 1. y : Yflsa ; wash': 2 „™/. Emphat.c consonants, MB a- fl v Aajiri. (27) Emphasis; 1. Khenawa, 2. CVCVC, bagar. (pre-glottalized * ""* "****• G Htfl voiced v lar * Abbeche stop 0ror ln e "Y emphatic consonants, taar. P J ctive) Gasal: taar 'it flew': CB, 2. No Chad) , Awlad Eli (Cameroon/ (7) /a/- a /. fc SlaUg ' hter : Hiit 2 z Daragozu, 3. d,daba(h) > - - «*«* go': 'slaughter'- Thh , J 2.2. Morphology afcaW: '8° /e/; Kirenawa> V Vfl/",fc : siirt (8) e, 5 - no, &*-» 1. owft, * > write': Kirenawa, 2. ' ? 'they F. » 2 t feminine plural; 1. yes, b«tofc-«" w ' flta (30) ' ° Kirenawa, 3. s, salaasa: Aajiri, 4- f. (perfect fmfe. Siirt conjugations, low v, h.gh vowe (common plural): MB. (31) two verb CB, 2. no,: ktab-it I This 'they F. I wrote/I grew : correspondence verb); 1. yes, katab-tu /kbzr-tu a i es Ppl to basic vocabulary. wrote', Ibas-it 'I wore': MB (9) /d/; 1. 3, foW'remain'- Hiit vowel 2 d- 278 Appendix 2. Summary of Variables Appendix 2. Summary of Variables 279 Uded the ariant - eet which °c<^ in some southern T Mesopotamia low vowel -i, -e/-u, 0, determined by stem vowel (see 6.2 (21)): tiktub-u 'you.PL dialectsdirfm 7(e.g.MShatt al-Arab),, kitb-eet 'I wrote'. write', tigfa?-o, 'you.PL cut', Kirenawa. (61) 1 singular object suffix on noun 1. Ul) ' L " at katab ' at She wrote -i (unstressed), 'beet-i 'my house': CB, 2. '-ii, beei-i: Abbeche ' " Kirenawa 2. -it, katab-it Mardin.'J'!?' 7^ 7^ > (42) 2 plural perfect suffix; 1. -turn, ktab-tum 'you PL wrote': MB, 2. Nigerian is distinguished from Chadian Arabic in that in Nigerian Arabic the verbal -tun, katab-tun: Mardin, 3. -tu, katab-tu: Kirenawa, 4. -ft* Daragozu object suffix -ni is not stressed, whereas it is in Chadian. This difference is not The variant -aw found in southern Mesopotamia catalogued. is included under value V here. In Daragozu -to is minimally contrastive with the iSG perfect suffix -tu. (62) 2 F.SG object suffix; 1. -ik, beet-ik 'your house': CB (after C-), 2. -ki, beet-ki: (43) 3 masculine plural; (non-suffixed Kirenawa form) l -u, katab-u: 'they wrote': Khaweetna, 2. -o, katab-or. Kirenawa, 3. -aw, to*-™ Hiit A number of dialects (e.g. CB) have both variants on a conditioned basis, e.g. -ki after bef°re 3 a long vowel, otherwise -ik Pr0n°minal suffix *e ~ ZZ^-hT**' ^ant -aw may appear, katab-o 2. -kun, beeti-kun (63) 2 M.PL object suffix 1. -kum, beet-kum 'your PL. house': MB, ( object suffix; 1. -hum, beet-hum 'their (t)! " Mardin, 3. -ku, beet-kic Kirenawa. (64) 3 PL ^ l ( °r to ~7 " "*>' ^'» Hardin, 2. -t morrh^^morphologically ^ house': Hiit, 2. -hun, beet-hum Mardin conditioned, ka'tab 'I wrote': Kirenawa The distinctively front conditioning factor for I do not classify according to the vowel of this suffix, which can be (2) is complicated, (see Owens 1993 fe ). 104 preceding 2M.PL suffix. or back. In Hiit it is in fact [-him]; similarly, for the -u, W-nu, katab-uu-nu M.SG. object suffix; 1. -u, beet-u 'his house': Hiit, 1.2. MW ^ Abbeche (65) 3 ^ - Preformative vowel a, i or <») -a, a/ia/i, 1^a. 'I ' ijiib-uu-hu 'they bring him': Mardin, 2. 1. yaktubithe writes', 'they wrote it', CB, 1.3. -u, W-hu, 2. i, yiktuk Kirenawa beet-a: Kirenawa /a/(southem have "u"" "*;* Bo *»* does otherwise -a. This variable is an ?C^£7£ ™ Bagirmi Arabic has -e after a front vowel (beet-e), allomorphy. However, the allo- exception to my practice of not treating post-suffix only a suffix vowel, e.g. Safaa-nu 'his morph u ~ nu ~ hu is defined by any vowel, not aUomorph are given a per cent supper'. Variants with the -nu ~ hu post-vocalic closer '2', since the component vowel -u is classification which is closer to Y than to '2' variant classified here as Y or both have the to -u than to -a. After a vowel, dialects (both Hiit and Kirenawa, allowing for (stress shift and length), e.g. ia'faa 'his supper' pharyngeal change). s St beet-hum 'their house': 1. no h-deletion: s ,n US Spedal (66) H-deletion from object pronouns; all other StreSS is differentiated from dialects which do „ tt """ Alternative 2. h-deletion: beet-um: Kirenawa coding '3' ly. one could give it a separate Khaweetna, of Before snffi the Ihl. For example in Mardin yflb^^fc, ^ntolkn *ft«) the „ is deleted, variability in the deletion of i™™ J?"* There is a large amount of f"" so that even after a variants of "* Catal0gUe apparently completely disappeared, suffixes with ^further "" ' * "* Daragozu in Turkey the Ihl has LcL7l^. ^ vanant has not been 'I ate it.F'. This vowel only the h-less form occurs, e.g. U-tuu-a (53) 1 singular imperfect; , fl -, fl .*fH > , ^^^ ^ ^ given a different coding. >SG ^^ prefix is a, 'he grabbed In me 1. no shift, W-« mdkative ft before V-initial object pronouns; ^ ^ ^ ^ (67) Stress shift ^ ^ 2MSG object ^ Mardin. (68) Form of ^ ma'sak-u: him': Kirenawa, 2. shift: **-«* (Surt). (7.) A 'your house' (MB), 2. -ik, £L^ pronoun; .. -ak, beet-ak Lubledverbs 3MSGn. C«CG, r~^ nts-at she forgot. ICirenawa, vowel suffix; 1. -Vt, -o/u, CB (72) weak final verb, 28o Appendix 2. Summary of Variables 2. (i)y-Vt, nisy-at Mardin. (73) Initial vowel of imperfect of aCaC verbs; 1. prefix aa, yaaxud 'he takes': Kirenawa, + 2. prefix + 00, yooxud or yooxuz; Uzbekistan Dialects used in survey (number represents the code): Appendix 3. Imala in Zamaxshari Western Sudanic Arabic: 1. Kirenawa; 2. Mada; 3. Aajiri; 4. Wulaad Eeli; 5. Amm Timan; 6. Umm Hajar; 7. Abbeche; 8. Atia I; 9 Atia II. to which post-Sibawaihian Mesopotamia (dialect subgroup as in It is a general and important issue to determine the degree Table 5.4 given in brackets): 10. Christian and syntactic Baghdad. (Baghdad qultu); n. Jewish grammarians added significantly to the phonological, morphological, Baghdad! (Baghdad qultu); 12. Muslim Baghdadi of Carter (gdit); 13. Mardin (Anatolia); data Classical Arabic. In this issue I agree with the observation i . Daragozii base of 4 (Anatolia); 15. Siirt (Anatolia); 16. Kha- shortly thereafter. weetna (non-Baghdadi qultu); that the data base was largely closed after Sibawaih, or 18. Hiit (non-Baghdadi qultu); (1999), i9 . southern Mesopo-v of Sibawaih is, tamia (giht). The extent to which later grammarians depended on the description be worked out on a case-by- 30. Uzbekistan; 31. Shukriyya. however, an empirical question which, as always, needs to summarizes the method- case basis. While studies such as Alhawary (2003), which compiled by later ology of how early grammarians worked on the basis of reports between the material grammarians are interesting, an essential metric is a comparison and later ones. Alhawary found in Sibawaih (or Farra? or other early grammarians) techniques Ibn Jinni's (d. 392/1002) elicitation (2003: 14), for example, in reporting on information. The example he would imply that Ibn Jinni was actually extracting new darabtu Paxaa-ka 'I hit your brother', gives, however, an elicitation frame built around by Ibn Jinni's day was not already clearly cannot add information about Arabic which extent to which Ibn J.nni added new well known. Ultimately, the only way to know the and h.s is to compare h.s examples interpretations about Arabic based on new facts analyses thereof, with those of his predecessors. example short data comparison, based on the In this short appendix, I make such a phenomena have a physical bas.s wh.ch, ,n of imala, discussed in Ch. 7. Phonological even concrete articulator^ interpretat.on, the perspective of this work, can be given a therefore be the classical period. It will on the basis of phonetic descriptions from mimicked the phenomenon as descnbed apparent whether later grammarians merely or whether they refined them and by Sibawaih on the basis of his written description, actual aural observations. added their own interpretations based on and that of Sibawaih's descnpt.on of tmaU In these terms, a comparison between former ,s the case. Za—^ indicates that the Zamaxshari (d. 53^54) dearly observations, and ,n fact it ma adds little to Sibawaih's this instance Y^J^f«-handUund philology rather than on fir that he based his analyses on written A summary w.11 of Sibawaih's methodology. observations, which was a hallmark i*» "divides his description (pp. 335-8) "tm^ha enun *e j^J^JEis first of U app Sibawaih's description Zamaxshari basically takes over description OH-—nmg^^ cannot treat the phe and a half pages Zamaxshari clearly such subsections imala in suffixes [««**!) nature or Sitma in M« < harmonic"f^Tof baabihi 'with his door', the 282 Appendix 3. Imala in Zamaxshari m °f raiSed C°nSOnants the iTo^hortTl f\ * f^ > effects of "/ 0" *«* SUCh " ^^ » * Table Ai (cont.) variety SGi SG2M SG2F SG3M SG3F PLi PL2M PL2F PL3M PL3F 42 Qauz k ky uh References or ih and ah ha na kun — hun — 43 Hofuf k ish uh or ih and ah he 44 San'a na kum — hum — ak ish ih ha na 45 an-Nadhiir kum kin hum hin ak icr ha na kum tsin him hin 46 As-Suwwaadiyyeh ak Abbreviations: ish & ha 47 Al-Mudawwar na kum kan hum han ak ik u ee na kum kin hum hin AL Anthropological Linguistics 48 Bdul, Jordan ak ki uh or ih and ah ha na ku kin hin Oriental and African Studies 49 Ajarma, (Balqa) ak hum BSOAS Bulletin of the School of ic ha na 50 Classical kum cin hum hin edition ka ki hu EI Encyclopedia of Islam, new haa naa kum kunna hum hunna JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society ZAL Zeitschrift fur arabische Linguistik ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenldndischen Gesellschaft publication/date of reprint' Reprinted works are given in the format 'date of original Papyri, iii. Language and Literature. Abbot, N. (1972). Studies in Arabic Literary Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Arabe. la Dialectologia de la Lengua Abboud-Haggar, S. (2003). Introduction^ a Granada: Fundacion El Legado Andalusi. of the QurPaan: a Critical Study of then 'Abd Allah, A. (1984). 'The Variant Readings Edinburgh Un.vers.ty. Historical and Linguistic Origins'. Ph.D. thesis, Ilhno.s. Phonology'. Ph.D. thesis, University if Abdo, Daud (1969). 'Stress and Arabic Phonological Variation in Spoken Arabic >n Abdul Jawad, H. (1981). 'Lexical and Pennsylvania. Amman'. Ph.D. thesis, University of Munich: Lincom Europa. Abu-Absi, S. (1995). Chadian Arabic. Leiden: Brill. the Spoken Arabic ofBaskinta. Abu Ha.dar, F. (1979). A Study of Baghdad. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (1991). Christian Arabic of the Umayyad Period, Population in Xuraasaan during Agha, S. (1999). 'The Arab Arabica 46: 211-29. Vol. 20. Al-lArabiyya (1987)- . . ta CoUr^iwtinn«*on Techniques and Considerat.ons in D Alhawary M. (2003). '^citation Ungues Tradmon 1. Tradition', Journal of Arab,c in Early Arabic Grammatical Dar al-Fikr. al-Koran. Trans. YousufAli. Beirut: Cambridge: Cambridger , mhriAee Umvers.tyUniversitv Literary Heritage. Allen, R. (1998). The Arabic Sibavayhtthe Al'nIr, A. (1993). hem', Urbanization. of Bethle 'Language, Migration^^^^^and Amara, M. (2005). Linguistics 43: 883-902. . . 286 References References 287 J and ISSERUN> B S ' l (l98l) A ' ' C°ntem ' f rar Dialectal Maltese. ^LeedT ^^ P° y BergstrAser, G. (1933). 'Nichtkanonische Koranlesearten im Muhtasab des Ibn Arnold, Ginni', Sitzungsberichte der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, ii. W (1998). Die arabischen Dialekte Antiochiens. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Birkeland, H. Altarabische Pausalformen. Oslo: Norske Videnskap-Akademie. and Bobzin, (1940). H (eds.) (2002). Sprich dock mit deinen Knechten aramdisch, mr Birkeland, Structure of the Egyptian Arabic Dialect', Avhan- verstehen H. (1952). 'Growth and es. Festschnft for Otto Jastrow. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz dlinger utgitt av det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi 1: 1-57. 988) Pe Che LehnWdner im " Ambischen Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. aTo^'s £ f - Blachere, R. (1980). Histoire de la litterature Arabe, i. Paris: Librairie d'Amerique et m ' NlEDEREHE - ' H J- and Versteegh ' ' k - ( eds -) <**»> ™°ry d'Orient. Z/lthe Language 7 of Sciences. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter BA R Blanc, H. (1964). Communal Dialects in Baghdad. Cambridge Mass.: Center for "0) Bind? fr ' - °m ^ ' "»»** Rea Grammatical Middle Eastern Studies. TrZ;>Theory, in Versteeghv l^f % ^ and Carter (eds.), 17-33 Blau, (1966). A Grammar Christian Arabic (3 vols.). Louvain: Secretariat du R J. of NS ' ' J (1984) ' Cantineau, J. (i960). Etudes de Arabic'. Ph.D. thesis, linguistique arabe. Paris. Cowan, W. (i960). 'A Reconstruction of Proto-Colloquial Carbou, H. (1913) Methode pratique . pour Vetude de Varabe parle au Ouaday et a Vest Cornell University. du Tchad. Paris: Geuthner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Croft, W. (1990). Typology and Universals. Carter, M. (1972). "Twenty Dirhams in the Colloquial Arabic. Berlin: Mouton de Kitaab of Sibawaih', BSOAS 35: 485-96. Cuvalay, M. (1997). The Verb in Literary and (1973). 'An Arabic Grammarian of the Eighth Century A.D.: A Contribution to Gruyter. . the History of Linguistics', Dialects the Northern Sinai Littoral. JAOS 93: 146-57. de Jong, R. (2000). A Grammar of the Bedouin of Le.den: (1990). 'Qddi, Qadi, Qad: Eastern and Western Arab World. Which is the Odd Man Out?' in Versteegh and Carter Bridging the Linguistic Gap between the (eds.), 73-90. Brill. , , j , (1999). 'The Struggle for in Arnold and Bobzm (eds ,337-59- Authority: A Re-Examination ofthe Basran and Kuwfan (2002). 'Notes on the Dialect of the 'Ababda', ) Debate', Meridionals Le.den: in L. Edzard and M. les Dialectes de VArabe Nekroumi (eds.). Tradition and Innovation: Norm and de Landberg, le Comte. (1909). Etudes sur Deviation in Arabic and Semitic Linguistics. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 55-70. Brill. , . .... N.jmegen Caskell, W. (1960/1986). 'The Arabisch in Djogari'. MA thes.s, Expansion of the Arabs: General and the 'Fertile Dereli, B. (1997). 'Het Uzbekistaans Crescent', El i. 527-9. University. Castellino, G. (i978). 'The Case System Languages. Moscow: Nauka. of Cushitic in Relation to Semitic', in Diakonoff, I. (1988). Afrasian (jpl) und - K Fronzaroli henne 1), -kan (ed.). Atti del Secondo der Personalpronomina ( 3P Congresso Internazionale di Linguistica D,em W (1971). 'Zum Problem Camito-Semitica. Florence: Dialekten', ZDMG 123: 227-37- Institute di Linguistica e di Syrisch-Libanesischen Lingue Oriental!. hon ( 3pl) in den Caubet, der KaSusflex,on ,m Altar D. (1993). L'Arabe Marocain, Inschriften und die Frage i. Paris: Peelers (1973). 'Die nabataischen Chaudenson, R. ( 1979 ). Les Creoles francais. Paris: 227-37- Nathan. abischen', ZDMG 123: - A7 Chejne, A. (1969). The Arabic Language. Minneapolis: und Konvergenz im University of Minnesota Press. — (i978). 'Divergenz 6, Chouem,, ^T^^'^nwpyn, M. (1966). Le arabischen Aphrodite Verbe dans le Coran. Paris: zu den Klincksieck. ( 1984). 'Philologisches Clements, G. (,990). 'The Role of the Sonority Cycle in in Core Syllabification', Ansatz', in Kaye h Kingston and M. Neuarabischen. Ein neuer Beckman (eds.). Papers in Laboratory Altarabischen zum Phonology, i. Cambridge: —ZL). 'Vom Cambridge University Press, 288-333. (ed.), 297-308. , ' and Cohen, and Present,Present in Versteegh D. (1963). Le Dialecte arabe Linguistics in Past Hasaniya de Mauritanie. Paris: Klincksieck. Ditters, E. (1990). 'Arabic Corpus U972). Koine, langues communes et dialectes arabes', 129-41- Etudes de Linguistique Carter (eds.), . PHnrrton University Press. Semitique et Arabe. The Hague: Mouton, 105-25 »o^,V.(m).TheEarlyIslamicConqu^ Factor in Arabic S°Uthem Sudan l883~ Remarks on the Oral g 1898' a <*"* N Haven: Doss, M. (1995)- 'Some ^vlt*^ ' s^fi" - nen et al. (eds.), 49-6*- Reviewed Oxford: Comparative Method thC RiVm: tHe (1996)- i« ""^ S°Utkern Sudan l898 18 New Haven: Yale Durie, M., and Ross, M. (eds.) ^Jylr^l^^ ' -V - Press. Correla- Oxford University n„ttnrhronoloey against the (1983). Britain in the Southern Expectations *. — Sudan, the _ . s, 'Testing m m6. New Haven: Yale University Ehret, C. (2000). ^ m 400 Arachaeologym J^jg^• toions of Language and y des junggramma- CO N F und fruhe ( } thC Yidd °f S°me 'Die Entstehung ' " "^ Symhetk Devices Semitk E. (2001). ^Morphology,Morohl .T in -d Bnhauser, Jewish Auroux - ^ Quarterly ^ in Review ^ jn 62: 20-50 tischen Forschungsprogramms, Dia]ects; Change as ^^ FunCti0nal Yield 'Complexity of Linguistic ^ Some Synthetic Devices in Arabic and Eksell, K. (1995)- ~7emZtytSemitlC Morphology',^ ^f Jewish Quarterly and Review. 63: i51-6 parameters Amlysts 3 ArMc: currmt '" M a DigloSSia ** °" ^^ and Evidence ^reof in the Kitab al- Aghani,Aehanf/nJournalT^ i^TwSS. — of Semitic Studies 20: 38-61 to classical FE^o^^^-phatic/mArabicU^.-,^. AmWc Throu«h pre- isiamk Koine: lit^H, ! «* 325-4"- Word 15: ^GrammarianS ' 'Diglossia', S ). Attitudes «"» foals', Journal of ( 1959fl — Koine', dialec- Sr^T 'The Arabic alou: notes de — (i959«- arabe and de hason£n/£„ the "Le Morpheme^^ spanish Arahk Dtak Madrid: Ferrando, I. (2000). « —• 25-46. ~^Hi^:zt:Lt:Lri Oriente Moderno 19. tologie comparee', 290 References References 291 2° m) Intr°dUCd6n a la Hist0ria ' de la L^ua Arabe. Zaragoza: Navarro *TZl^ Harrama, A. (1993). 'Libyan Arabic Morphology: Al-Jabal Dialect'. Ph.D. thesis, University of Arizona. '°^Quantitat des Vokals des arabischen Pronominalsuffixes hu Harrison, S. (2003). 'On the Limits of the Comparative Method', in B. Joseph and ^S'inV^' riental ° StUdi£S PMished in the Commemoration of Paul R. (eds.). Handbook Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 213-43. HaLHaupt, Baltimore,R it \ u' Janda The of Johns Hopkins Press, 390-402 Harviainen, T. et al. (eds.) (1995). Dialectologia Arabica (= Festschrift for Heiki Palva). 96l) ' 8 versity of Arizona. S "L Arab State. *^ °Snabriick: Verlag. Variation and Change in a Modernising F^HJCK, Wo Holes, C. (1987). Language J.J atoTi'(,950 ). Arabiya. ^Berlin: Akadamie Verlag London: Kegan Paul International. Ph0n°l0gy Roudedge. DilS ^^ °f ^ ^ MeditOTanean (1990). GulfArabic. London: S VvX^T Velar Stops Revisited: Fronting and Affrication of the ( 1991 ) 'Kashkasha with of the Peninsular Arabic Dialects', .n A Contribution to the Historical Phonology Kaye (ed.), 652-78. .... Vanetxes. London: Longman Structures, Functions and • (1995) Modern Arabic: of i. Glossary Laden: Bnll. aanic and Society in Eastern Arabia, GLENDeitT \i **** » *«*» <«»>• -«• (2001). Dialect, Culture, 9t) rzr ,?r; Bender (ed.), The Non-Semrttc Iedm L East Cushitic', in L. Goldz.her, ?T# *- °ndon: Teach Yourself Books. Hudson, G. (1976). 'Highland L ( 4 ) 8X ot Michigan State University 232-77^ ed Ethiopia. East Lansing: Devenvi and "™* *" *»* ' ** Languages of tZ/^j^Z 533-53- runs,leraarn. Benjamins.^ ^T^ Arabic in Khuzistan, BSOAS 6: . Rural Gordon r c„* \ „ Ingham, B (1976). 'Urban and International: London. W: p0ntificum Arabian Dialects. Kegan Paul Instuutum BMcum . (1982). Northeast Arabian. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ^^S:^," * du Arabic, Central Greenberg, '" Mzaak id ** 1994fl). Najdi J. (i972f Li'n^^ ^^ ^ ^ ( Dialect of Afghanistan S^^Evidence Re ar Contact on the Arabic ding . Language History 8 Bantu Origins', /<*„«/ 4ft 'The Effect of 13: l8 . oM/W^ — 6 Internacwnal ^ (eds.). Actas delCongreso and M. Marugan (19782 in JXuade, F. Corriente, ). 'Some Universal* nfr r~~ Wth Parti«ilar of solr^enciasLinguisUcasArabo-R^^ Meaningful Elements' inTG V"™* Reference to the Order reenber e Jankowsky, K. (2ooi). 'The Crisis of Historical-Comparative continuum?', Linguistics in the 1860V, (2005a) 'Arabe preislamique, Arabe coranique, Arabe classique: un in Auroux et al. (eds.), 1326-38. Neue forschung zur in K.-H. Ohlig and G. Puin (eds.), Die dunklen Anfdnge: Jastrow, O. (1973). Daragbzu. Nuremberg: Hans Carl. Entstehung undfruhen Geschichte der Islam. Birlach: Schiler. (1978). Die mesoptamisch-arabischen Qiltu-Dialekte. sources sur la luva al-fushaa\ Wiesbaden: Steiner. (2005b). 'D'Ibn Faris a al-Farra? ou un retour aux — 'Zur (1998). Position des Uzbekistan-Arabischen', - in H. Preissler and H. Stein Asiatische Studien/Etudes Asiatiques 59: 797-814- (eds.). Annaherung an das Fremde. XXVI Deutscher Orientalistentag. 'Neuf traditions sur la langue coranique Wiesbaden: Larcher, P. and Gilliot, C. (forthcoming). Steiner, 173-84. at 22 Congress of European Arabicists rapportes par al-Farra? ', Paper presented Johnstone, T. M. (1963). 'The Affrication of "kaaf" Louvain: Peeters. and "qaaf" in the Arabian Dialects and Islamicists. Cracow, September 2004. of the Arabian Peninsula', Journal in Ashtiany, of Semitic Studies 8: 210-26 al-MuqaffaS and Early Abbasid Prose', J. Latham, J. D. (1990). 'Ibn - Eastern (1967). Arabian Dialect Studies. and G. R. Smith (eds.). The Cambridge London: Oxford University Press. A. Beeston, T. M. Johnstone, R. B. Serjeant, PkCe Univer- ' Assimilation in B- Cambridge: Cambridge > Hayes, R. Kirchner, 'Abbasid Belles Lettres. pl 1 L and D. Steriade (eds.). History ofArabic Literature. Phonetically-based Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 58-86. sity Press, . , Kahle, 48-77. c , P. (1948) The Qur an Nigeria and of the Lake and the 'Arabiyya', in S. ShuWa Dialect ofBorno, Lowinger and Samogyi, J. (eds.), Lethem, G. (1920). Colloquial Arabic: Ignace Goldziher Memorial Volume I. - Colonies. Budapest, i63 l82 Region. London: Crown Agent for the Kaye, Chad A (i976X Chadian and Salayhi Jerusalem Studies Sudanese Arabic in the Light Arabic Technical Term Al-Mabniyy , of Comparative Lev,n, A. (1985 ). 'The Syntactic Dialectology. The Hague: Mouton. 6: - 299-352- . in and Islam . . , . Arabic , „ , -— (ed.) Studies in Arabic and (1991). Semitic Studies in Honor PAkaluni 1-BaraviOu', Jerusalem of Wolf Leslau. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, (1989 ). 'What is Meant by Koinization and Accommodation', in Chambers, P. Trudgill, J. . Islam 12: 40-65. . ,. „, i>>> ;_ rJTt uT^- SChl"lng Estes eds Description of the Imaala .n ( -)" Handbook of Sibawaiyhi's • Authenticity ^ of Language Variation and Change. \iyyo) (1992).\iyy^/. 'The"«• ' Ovf a R , (1998) i„ . institute nf Asian uxrord: Blackwell, 669-702. m A DeSCriptiVe Grammar ^H^Moutoli °f Sa Cambrid , Abridge 147-82- Kn^op U ''ZTt^ ^ ^ University Pre s, reSSC Mundarten und die Dia- > " GrundTegung der lekoloti W T r ^ %^Z££Z£r:- Putschke> and H Wiegand (L)Dtalekto- XS^^SST;^ ^Zettschriftfardie^dedes tnMen - ^Ll:Dl^T^ Ursprungs in ^ »-b^ Frieder KU ' 2 3) L ngUiStk COmpleXi Ph - D - «**> Netherlands Graduate SooloaLr ; ; ^ ° fL utsttc Ch"»ge. Larcher P Oxford: Blackwell. (2000 M n 3rabe^ Ct A"be m Arab Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. „....„- — (200!) 'd! °^ ™ 48: 578-6o9 . ..„;„„. Cellunaf. r nnd arabC ClaSSiqUC: ***** d^Vati°n- M^a.s, P. <«*«>. el^Z Ma^nneuve. ^ ^ ^^grammatimlek*J»££%de Esquisse Martin, J^^Z^3^ (i977). ' D. Gaubet, A. by £j*^dcollected and edited arabes du Fezzaan, -eSe^Sy^tst:^ RekCtUre ^ teXt£ (2001). Parlers of ^r and L. Denooz for the Subgrouping autoritaires"', of01 G1ottochronology ^ ^ 'On the Uselessness 2000. ^^^^ C^^^t^^""" Matisoff J. Renfrew et al., 333-372- Tibeto Burman'. In 294 References References 295 Matras, Y. (2000). 'How Predictable is Contact-Induced Change in Grammar?' In — (i997). 'Arabic-based Pidgins and Creoles', in S. Thomason (ed.), Contact Renfrew et al. (eds.), 563-85. Languages: A Wider Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 125-72. Merx, A. (1891). 'Reflections historiques sur Arabic Maidu- l'origine de la grammaire arabe', Bulletin (19980). Neighborhood and Ancestry: Variation in the Spoken of de I'Institut Egyptien, 13-26. guri, Nigeria. Amsterdam: Benjamins Miller, C. (2005). 'Between Oriental and Africur, Accommodation and Resistance: Upper Egyptian (1998b). 'Case and Proto -Arabic', Bulletin of the School of Migrants in Cairo', Linguistics 43: 903-56. Studies 61: 51-73 and 217-27. Mitchell, T. (i960). 'Prominence Characterization of Speech and Syllabication in Arabic', BSOAS 23: 369-89. (1999). 'Uniformity and Discontinuity: Toward a (i975)- Principles ofFirthian Linguistics. London: Longmans. Communities', Linguistics 37: 663-98. (1986). "What is Lehmann, and Educated Spoken Theory',nu-uij, in ~-G. ~~~Booij,, C.~. Arabic?' International Journal the Sociology 'MedievalMeaievai ArabicAraDic Morphologicalivioipuuiugn^u " v — — , — of (2000.).(2000). ...., if a rr 11 *- __ ru^^^« /i*t/I TA/i-itvi' Vnrmntirtn of Language. 61: 7-32. A Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation. J. Mugdan, (eds.). Morphology: Mol, M. (2003). Variation in Modern Standard Arabic in Radio News Broadcasts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 67-75. Leuven: Peeters. 419-69- (2001a). 'Arabic Sociolinguistics', Arabica 48: Linguistics. Molan, P. (1978). Medieval Western all Orphans', Anthropological Arabic. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms. (aooifc). 'Arabic Creoles: the Orphan of Moscati, S. (1958). 'On Semitic Case Endings', Journal ofNear Eastern Studies. 17: 142-4- 43: 348-78. and Bobz.n Spitaler, A., Ullendorf, E., and 2 the History of Arabic', in Arnold Von Soden, W. (1980 ). An Introduction to the (2002). 'Al-Idghaam al-Kabiyr and Comparative Grammar the Semitic of Languages. Wiesbaden: . Harrassowitz. (eds.), 503-20. , Muller, W. (1982). 'Das Altarabische Historical Linguistic Mythology, Journal of der Inschriften aus vorislamischer Zeit', in — (2003). 'Arabic Dialect History and W. Fischer (19820), 30-6. the American Oriental Society. 123: 7V-40. V.ew Nettle, D. (1999). Linguistic and Arabic Language Teaching: A Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (2005). 'The Grammatical Tradition Nishio, T. (1986). 'On the Pronominal 103-16. Suffixes in Proto- Colloquial-Arabic', Linguistic from Here', in A. ElgibaU (ed.), aarma Tribe Research 5: 1-24. Arabic Dialect of the Semi-Nomadic ^A} Palva, H. (1976). Studies in the Gotheburgens.s. Noldeke, T. (1897/1963). Zur Acta Universitatis Grammatik des classischen Arabisch. Darmstadt: Wis- (al-Balqaa District, Jordan). Goteberg: 605-10. senschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. al-SAamma', EI v. Leiden: BnU, Pellat, Ch. (1960/1986). 'Lahn Umverzita Karlova. (1910). 'Zur Sprache des Hamitosemitisch Prague: KorPaans', Neue Beitrage zur semitischen Sprachwis- Petracek, K. (1988). Altagyptisch, senschaft. Strasburg: Triibner. iv. Ndjamena: CEFOD^ Pommerol, J-C. (1990). Da Hayyin, Owens, langue veh.cula.re. Pans. Karthala. J. (1980). 'The Syllable as Prosody: tchadien: emergence d'une a Reanalysis of Syllabification in Eastern 1997 ). L'Arabe ( Pans: Karthala. Libyan Arabic', BSOAS 48: practique de I'arabe tchadien 277-87. 1999). Grammaire Islamica 290-331^ (1985). A Grammar ofHarar Wissenschaft der Koranlesung', 6: Oromo. Hamburg: Buske. Pretzl O (1934). 'Die Cukurova (SMturke,. W.esbaden. (1988). The Foundations arabischen Dialekte der of Grammar: An Introduction to Medieval Arabic Gram- pZIzka! S U002). Die matical Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. their Relationship to the (1989). 'Zur Pidginisierung Dialects of Bahrain and und Kreolisierung im Uber- 'The Shii'i Arabischen', Afrika und PRorAz"T(i98i). of al-Ristaaq, ZAL 6. see. 72: 91-107. and the Omani D.alect Eastl Arlbian Dialect of Muharraq — (1990). Early Arabic - Grammatical Theory: Heterogeneity and Standardization. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Arabian -^88). Saudi S. Wud in San'a' ', in — (i993«). 'Nigerian Arabic ^^^^tcriptson the Early Uur an m - in Comparative Perspective', in (1996). 'Observations Sprache und Geschichte PuIN , G. Afrika. 14: 85-176. Leiden: Brill, 107-12. (ed.) The Qur'an as Text. (1993&). A Reference Grammar ofNigerian Arabic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. QaLeh, H. 199, EaStem Ubyan ^f^-'t'ZT^^oT^. Arabk m 0tt and HartmUt B0b2in Rab:n, C. (195D. 4: 19-37- I I ' ° J*"™ (ed*).aVYvA Festschrift2^ ^^^^SltoSClassical Arao.c, for Wolfdietrich Fischer Beginnings of (= Zeitschriftfur Arabische Linguistik 25: ( 1955 ). 'The i 'Arabiyya', EI , (1960/1986). 5^ £ Proceedings of the (1 'Minority "5); Languages and Urban Norms', 'The Structure Scences Linguistics 33: 305-58. — (1969). Israel Academy of je StrUCtUrC on^^^^^Semitic Studies, TbemY °f - International Conference "^ *" GenCtiC RelationshiP> Mr0 ~ica 13Tx^T** and Humanities, 190-204. 296 References References 297 Rawi, R. (i 990 ). Studien zum arabischen Dialekt von Abu Daby. Heidelberg: Groos Smart, (1990). 'Pidginization in Gulf Arabic: a First Report', AL 32: 83-119. Reckendorf, H. J. (1895/1967). Die syntaktischen Verhdltnisse des Arabischen. Leiden: Spitaler, A. (1953). 'Rezension von Fuck, Arabiyyd, Bibliotheca Orientalis 10: 144-50. Brill. Spuler, B. (1952). Iran in den friih-islamischen Zeiten. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Reichmuth S. (i 8 9 3 ). Der arabische Dialekt der Shukriyya im Ostsudan. Hildesheim: Suleiman, Y. (1999). The Arabic Grammatical Tradition: a Study in TaSliil. Edinburgh: Georg Olms. Edinburgh University Press. Reinhardt, C. (1894/1972). Ein arabischer Dialekt gesprochen in Oman und Zanzibar. Taine-Cheikh. C. (forthcoming). 'Mauritania', in K. Versteegh, M. Woidich, Amsterdam: Philo. A. El-Gibali, M. Eid, and A. Zaborski (eds.). Encyclopedia of Arabic Language Renfrew, C, McMahon, A., and Trask, R. (eds.) ( 20oo). Time Depth in Historical and Linguistics. Leiden: Brill. 8e MCD°nald InSthUte f Harrassowitz. ° r ^-logical ^search. Talay, S. Der arabische Dialekt der Khaweetna. Wiesbaden: - (1999). Retso,Ret rt««?pJ. (1988) , Pronominal Suffixes with -*(„)- Interpretation of an Obscure in Arabic dialects and other Semitic Talmon, R. (1990). "The Philosophizing Farra?: an Languages', ZAL 18: 77-94. Saying Attributed to the Grammarian GaSlab', in Versteegh and Carter (eds.), —- (1994). 'HSrab in the Forebears of Modern Arabic Dialects', in D. Caubet and 265-80. ACt€S remi Lake: Eisenbrauns. ^ P ™J°»™<* Internationales de dialectologie arabe (2003). Eighth-Century Iraqi Grammar. Winona 2de Parts.In ,x'T . TPans: INALCO, Gothe- 333-42. The Arabic Dialect ofSusa. Goteborg: Acta Universitatis ,? Talmoudi, F. (1980). St3te ln ° C U0quial AxMg A Diachronic Attempt', in burgensis. The Ethnologue (2003), internet version. ~H~aSn'Hamainen etTTTTfal. (eds.), 183-92. 'Before the Lingua Franca: Pidginized Arabic Thomason, S., and El Gibali, A. (1986). —- (2003). 77* Arabs in Antiquity. London: Kegan Paul. in the eleventh century', Lingua 68: 317-49- Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics. and Kaufman, S. (1988). Language < ' Ve ™' '""P****- Aldershot: Ashgate. Berkeley: University of California Press. Rogers , * n S della ^ e of Panini the Ethiopian Language Area', Am f on ^onard moomfieid 'Z***** Tosco, M. (1993). 'On Case Marking in > X££IS e Indoeuropei. Milan. Giornata di Studi Camito-Semitici E ( edouin Arabic. Oxford: Oxford Univers.ty Press. Amhk Diakcts- Sudan Colloquial wiesbad owit2. Tr.m.ngham, J. (1946). ! - h™ Sr o ; Q Tt TJ? Press. Arabic. Oxford: Oxford Univers.ty ^ * *» -ito-hamitischen Spra- (1959). Sudan Colloquial Ten; ZOMG 100: ^^ Ausnahmesatzen: Absolutakku- 'Kasusverhaltnisse in Arabischen ^ Tropper, J. (1999). u ' phonolo8ie du parier Pillaa', ZAL yj: 25-31- arabe d Abbech6; A- ta sativ nach . ^LotX2rj^ Kitaab de Sibawayhu Pans: Kl.nckse.ck. Troupeau, G. (1976). Lexique-Index du Harrassowitz. maltaise. Wiesbaden: P«- Geuthner. Vanhove, M. (1993). La Langue SaeedH?!??^ Thinking. in Arabic Linguistic I-WWL Versteegh, K. (1977). Greek Elements in K Versteegh K Grammarian: Qujrub on Declens.on ( 198 ). 'A Dissenting 3 Near East. The History of Linguistics in the KoerneJ and H-J. Niederehe (eds.). i67"93- Amsterdam: Benjamins, . Amsterdam.. m ..„^. m Ben,.n«,ia «» S4) Grammatik - amMsche" *«»*« Tg^ ^ * Medina Von Tunis. Berlin: References 299 298 References Versteegh, K. (1997). The Arabic Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. (1999). 'Zayd ibn Ali's Commentary on the Qur'aan', in Y. Suleiman (ed.), Arabic Grammar and Linguistics. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 9-29. c-* c- — (2004). 'Pidginization and ^rr-ns, - Creolization Revisited: The Case of Arabic', in w^--set,: ^ M. Haak, R. de Jong, and K. Versteegh (eds.). bridge University Press. . . and A Festschrift for Manfred Woidick th gn f Arabic Leiden: Pronouns in Arabic m Brill, : 343-58. Zaborsk., A. (1995). 'First Person —- (2005). 'Breaking the Rules Dialectology'^ without Wanting To: Hypercorrection in Middle Hamito-Semitic ^^^gtomeot en Arabic Texts', in A. [1971). jmxx v Elgibali (ed.), 3-18. Zeltner, J-C. and Fournier, I-C. ^^ — and Carter, - M. (eds.) (1990). Studies in the History of Arabic Grammar, ii. Amsterdam: H. (1986). ^Araoe Benjamins. Zelter, J-C, and Tourneux, V0 T ( ) • (no date). al-Ilmiyyah, 1997- , . Dar Sadir PattemS fa R t Alam a ReSP°"Se t0 **»* Abu Fad, Lisaan al.qudfcyma. Beirut: TnSStuS^ ^^^ Ibn ManL, SAbd M-M^tadab,^f**^^ed. W Al-Mubarrad, Ibn Yaz.d. ***" ArM MUt0n C Cairo: Dar al- Beiru" 1^^,5,2^*^^^^ - > ~ al-Kutub (no date). Shawqi Dayf. ^ i.QiraaPaaUQ«aar ed. Al-Sab i aal bs Mujah.d, Abu Bakr. fiy (no date). . MaSarif, 1972- _.. . al-MaSrifa ,, r,:^. Dar Dar " 1 ^^^-** — S^nLtv^ r^ MUDkh: wZcT W LinCOm E-Pa Q^^ ^w" Q . ftn Be.ru "« fc *» *» Kb***™****- Dialekts von u^^„*. aJ-Husayn al-Fath. Mmtk Mtosten ^"^ TibaSa wa al-Nashr, ^ Abd Abu Bakr. Al-?Usuwl Jiy 1987 Ibn al-Sarrai, *"""* date). ^ ^ *"**" Uni- al-Risala (no Olms, 1970. ^Pi! ^°^ Abridge: Cambridge MuZassasat HUdesheim: 1 ad-Din- Jw»" Al-Suyutl Ja^ - ^ *«"#*** Oasen: westliches oder osdiches Arabisch?', ZU ^ 34^ SaSada, 1976. 300 References Al-Zajjaji, Abu Al-Qaasim. Al-fydaah fi lllal al-Nahw, ed. Mazin Mubarak. Beirut: Dar al-Nafafts (no date). Ai-Zamaxshari, Abu Qas.m. Al-Mufassal Vim fiy al-Urabiyya, ed. Muhammad al- Index of Places Halabi. Beirut: Dar al-Jil (no date). Aajiri 141, 145, 271, 276 Bangui 141 Abbeche 141, 176, 271, 276-80, 283 Banki 145 Abu Dhabi 139, 240, 275, 283 Baskinta 273, 283 227, 240, 274, 283 Adamawa State 143, 271 Basra 3, 61, 68, 124, 139, Adana 274 Borno 15, 27, 141, i43» 271 Aden 161 Bukhara 146, 162, 275 Afghanistan 105-6, 139 Cairo 2, '09. 272, 283 Africa 36, 138, 245 39, 45. Cameroon 27, 48, 141, 143. 145. 238, 244, Ajarma 139 271, 276 Aleppo 6, 165, 244 Central African Republic 141 Algeria 51, 140, 272-3, 283 Arabia 68, 106, 275 Algiers 120 Central Central Asia 106 America 36 Central Morocco 49-50, 272 Am(m) Timan 141, 146, 271, 280 212-13, Central Turkey 2 Andalusia 2, 28, 105-6, 140, 198, Central Yemen 74 223-4, 241, 246, 273, 283 Chad 27-8, 48, 138-9. 141. 143. 145-6, 162, Anatolia 49, 143~4> 218, 274, 280 177, 238, 241, 244, 271, 276, 278 Antakya 283 China 2 Arabia 143 68 Cilicia 2, 139. 218, 274 Arabian Peninsula 3, 14. 29, 3L 4L > 238, Cyprus 217 106, 150, 155, 161, 166, 168-9, 244, 248, 250, 274-5 Daaxila Oasis 173 Armenia 139 DalaAxderi 57 Asia 36 248, Damascus 6, 18, 123-4. 139. 217. Aswan 2, 141, 162, 272 273. 283 Asyut 108-9 Dambua Road 57 Atbara River 143. 146. 272 Darfur 271 Atia 141, 146, 280 Dathina 161 Awlad Eli see Wulaad Eeli Dikkeceri 56 Azerbaijan 139 Djidjelli 140, 246, 273, 283 Baghdad 124, 139 Eastern Arabia 61,225,282 182, 240, 271. Bagirmi 57, 141. 161, 170, 272 Eastern Egyptian Desert 276, 283 Eastern Iran 243 283 Bahariyya Oasis 17. 139. 212, 220, Eastern Libya 28, 50, 139. W, Bahrain 139, 160, 165, 275 240, 283 Balqa 284 3Q2 Index of Places Index of Places 303 Eastern Sudan 102, 143, 146, 153, 185 108, 141, 147, 162, Lebanon 52, 198, 217, 273, 283 Northeast Saudi Arabia 235 Sudan 18, 31, 52, 139, Eastern Syria 18 Levant 48 Northern Arabian Region 73 244,271 Egypt 28, 50, 105, 109, 141, 146-7, 105-6, 138, 149-50, 156, 173, Libya 272 Northern Bagirmi Area 145 Sudanic Region 147, 190, 220, 243, 272, 283 Northern Cyprus 273-74 192, 220, 272 El-Fasher 141 140, 246, 273, 283 Mada 141, 145, 271 Northern Israel 240, 273, 283 Susa El-Obeid 141 Syria 52, 150, 165, 177, 198, 224-5, Mafa see Muba Northern Iraq 138, 217 14, 49, Emirates 160 241, 244-6, 250, 273 Magonari 57 Northern Jordan 108 235, Euphrates River 14,165 Syrian Desert 156 Maiduguri 54-7, 117, 141, 145-6, 171 Northern Mesopotamia 217, 244 Europe 17 Syrio-Mesopotamian Area 244 Mali 140 Northern Najd 275 Malta 139-40, 198, 212, 215, 226, Northern Sinai Littoral 192 Fez 217, 223, 140, 253, 273, 283 Tamanrasset 141 228, 246 Northern Syria 6, 217, 274 Fustat 2, 45, 162, 272 Tarsus Mariis 271 Northern Yemen 52,165,220 274 Transoxiana 146, 156, 163 Mauritania 2, 15, 138, 140, 271-3, 283 Northwest Saudi Arabia 273 Gambaru 56-7 Tripoli (Lebanon) 139, 241, 273. 283 Mecca/Mekka 12, 124, 275 Germany 167 Tripoli (Libya) 139, 182, 253, 272, 283 Medina 3, 12, 124, 275 Oman 139, 160, 240, 275, 283 Gharyan 283 283 Tunis 17, 140, 246, 253, 273, Mersin 274 Oxus River 146 Gozo 217 272-3 Mesopotamia Tunisia 18, Gwange 50, 109, 138, 141, 143-4, 56-7 Turkey 139, 274, 279, 283 150, 153, 157, 159, 169-70, 175, 177, Palestine 272 Turkmenistan 139, 146 Hatay 219, 228, 243-4, 276-7, 280 Petra 239 Province 217, 274 Middle East 2, 18 Port Sudan 141 Hiit 280 274 Umm Hajar 141, 146, 271, 278, Mississippi River 27 182, HiJaz 3, 12, 74 Upper Egypt 18, 146-49, 156, Mitene 57 Qatar 139 272 Morocco 185, 272-3 i53> Iran 139, 162, 282 Uzbekistan 2, 105-6, 139, 146-8, Muba 57 Red Sea 27 Iraq 160, 162-3, 169, 175, 240-1, 12, 27, 29, 49, 143-5, 224, 274-5 155-7, Mule Shuwari 57 Israel 225, 273-4 275-6, 283 Mzab 140, 253, 273, 283 Saliidi 283 SanSa? 139, 240 Jerusalem 18 Wadi Haifa 141 Nabataea 86-7 Saudi Arabia 102, 105, 244, 275 Jogari (Jugari, Chad 117, 145 Djogari) 139, Western 146 Ndjamena Arabia Coastal Area 149 Jordan 271, 283 Saudi Egypt 28 14, 225, 235, 246, 248, 273-5 Western Negev (Desert) Shia Bahama 160 192, 273 Western Hadramaut 160 283 Ngaoundere 141 Shukriyya Area 147, 272, 276, Kanem 141 Western Libya 272 Niger 140-1 Sicily 198 Kano 141 Western Nigeria 283 Nigeria 272-3 Khartoum 15, 29, 99, 141, i43> 145> 148, 171, Sinai 14, 239, Sahara 2 141, 240, 272, 283 Western Area 145 176-7, 238, 240, Southern Bagirmi (Arabic) Region 2, 29, Khaweetna 274 244, 271 Western Sudanic Niger-Congo Egypt 138 155-7, Khorasan 79 Southern 141, 143, 145-9- 153, 139,160,162,240-1,243,275,283 138, Nile 169 Southern Iraq 3, 274 169-70, 172, 175, 177, 182, Kinyande 57 159-60, 273 Nile Delta 108-9 Jordan 6, 86, 192, 239, Kirenawa Southern 239, 246, 271, 276 141, 145> 147> _ 1?7 8> ^ Nile 219,224, ^ Valley 15, i39> 272 Southern Mesopotamia 280 Kordofan 143, 271 Wulaad Eeli 141, Kormakiti Ndjamena 141 276, 278 139, 218, 273-4 North Africa Nigeria 145 Kufa 2, 18-9, 28, 140, 149-50, Southern 141 3, 45, 61, 124, 162 Yaounde 248,272 Sudan 17 102, 105, 109, Southern Yemen 12, 50, 70, 113, 217, 274 Northeast Arabian Southern-central Turkey 171, 237, 241, 243-5, Lagos 141 Peninsular 252 138, 149, Northeast 18, H3 Lake Chad Egypt 239 Southern Turkey 248,275 2, 18, 141, 145> l62j ^ Northeastern 212-13, 228 Nigeria 27, 48, 117, 271 Spain 2, 140, Subject Index 305 towards Arabic Holistic entity vs. individual European attitude tradition in 19' features 111-3 linguistic Subject Index Homogeneity hypotheses 169-71 century 35 n. 1 In Old Arabic-Neo Arabic Kasra 89-90 dichotomy 43-7 Fatha, Damma, Active Functional yield 86-7 participal + object suffix in Inventory and summary of Vs. assimilation 122 historical reconstruction dialects 271-5 159-62 See also functional yield Analytic Gahawa syndrome 25, 37, 46, vs. synthetic 27, 111-3 Inventory of dialect features 276-80 Classical Arabic 77, 80, 114-8, 206, 265 Table of history 8 254-5. 277 suggested differences 112 As Importance for Arabic substitute for language history 9, 10 Arabic Ghain [7] reflex 165-6 expansion 2, Arabic dialects 11, 12, 27 n. 19, 3 Characterized Old Arabic 5 Gilit and qultu dialects, grammars 6 69 n. 38 Comment (xabar) Arabic 91 Mesopotamian 144 inscriptions 20, 21 Need to reconstruct individual Comparative method Aramaic 9, 21-3, 28 substrate influence 244-5 histories 268 And cultural history 60, 100, 186 Assimilation; 14, 15 High vs. low vowels 58, see al-idgham al-kabiyr Reification of 137 And language complexity 100; see also Axfaa 24-7 Deletion of high vowels (xafiyy, xafaa? etc.) "hide, be And Sociolinguistic status of 12 logical matrix 37 short high vowels transparent" 210-11,211^14,242 Types of dialects, pace Birkeland and object pronoun vowel of verb 70 Case endings Preformative 60, 72, 76, 79-1^ Kiparsky 189-90 reconstruction 259-65 Arabic 40-3. 77 And object stages in Holistic 34. suffix pronouns 234 See also short high vowels, Development in nineteenth And pausal forms 96-101 Arabic; linker-« century 34-5 al-kabiyr , "major Arguments linguistics 137 al-idgham against changing into Dialectology vs. historical Future issues 267-9 assimilation" 119-36 epenthetic vowels 235-6, Drift 165 n. 17 256-8 Illustrated declension 134-5 Caseless 13 as nominal Nabataean Arabic 71-2 87 Illustrated Dual inherently Case with reconstruction of interpreted as epenthesis 92-3, 97-8 imperfect verb vowelless 133-6 Case traces 184-96 102-6 Educated spoken Arabic 5 In Hebrew tradition interpretation 129-34 Case variation 35 n. 2 linear in Sibawaih 87-96 Emphasis (phonological) 25, Opposed to concepts vs. minor 124-5 Case vs. of Old Arabic, major caseless Arabic 114-8 175-6, 200 Neo Arabic phonological attributes 125-9 Coexistence 47-74, 166-8 of case and caseless Epenthesis 107-11, 175. 193-4 Reconstruction and imala 220-8 187 varieties 117-8,136, And extended sonority hierarchy Reconstruction and suffix imala 197-229 233 n. 2 109, 185. 191 pronouns And sonority [ie]asbasisofproto-form 199-201, Genitive 230-65 variation 95 And vowel deletion 188-90 Status of minority forms 223 In Cushitic 81-3 172-3 origin of 3MSG suffix 255 197-212 Vs. contact As classical tradition In Semitic 14 In the 83-5 Blocked by stem constraint 194 Arabic 162-4 the Arabic tradition and pre-diasporic Lack of case 75-7 as epenthetic traces 238, 253, vowels interpreted 199-201 255-9 see also Case falling diphthong Mixture of object suffixes, short high as lexical and morpho- vowels 235-6 vowels, characterized 197 syntactic stages in Arabic, terminology 89-90 Guttural 109, 185. 192 factors 202-5 statistical conditioning Model comparison of dialects, suffix 247. development of 115 2MSG object In 2FSG and exceptional imala 209 Nominative, syllable structure accusative, genitive 252-3 reading traditions 199 Creoles 16, in Koranic 83, 17, 23-4 104 Arabic 194-5 281-2, 210 n. 13 In Old in Zamaxshari Nominative/accusative variation 184-5. 190-1. 237 summary 202 in Dialect, Linear 107, Levin's distributional topic Arabic 80 position 91-7 epenthesis in Najdi (bayna bayna) 201, Characterized Linear medial variant Stylistic, 5, 11 sociolinguistic, dialectal 110 Emerging Arabic 223 variation information about 70-1 analysis 184-5 97.200 Differences Mitchell's of Palifmaqsuwra quantified 151-7 representation 185 Simplification of 306 Subject Index Subject Index 307 imala (cont): Influence of foreign language mushaf, Koranic Nabataea 20 of text 120 short /a/ 209-12 learners 100 Koranic reading tradition Nunation (tanwiyn) 90; see also phonetics (QiraaPaat) 3, and phonology Pausal position in text sample 6, 119-36 linker -n of 197-206 99-100 loer version of al-Jazariy 123-5 phonetic inhibiting for object pronoun factors 200-1 see also Problem Imala 163, 199, 201 Object suffixes 18, 106, 237-65; phonetic quality of 198-201 reconstruction 261-3 Object pronouns 260-1, 264 pausal forms phonological variationist Terminology 232 n. 1 Summary of linguistic attributes 124 Birkeland's reconstructions account 206-9 Three types 231-4 Without cases 120 criticized 259-65 Sibawaih vs. Zamaxshari dialects 29 198-9 Koranic Peripheral Arabic 7 n. 2, In proto-Semitic 264-5 Sociolinguistic 58 pronouns 18, 80, 92, 158, variation 207-9 Person markers, Lack of evidence for case traces type of assimilation see also 197 Language 174, 177, In transmission 15-19 255-9 European tradition 228-9 object suffixes In Inheritance and independent Loss of /h/ 241-3 modern dialects 212-20 Phonological differences change 148-51 Reconstructions 239-55 Allophonic and lexical quantified 151-7. 171 212, 218 Linguists tmala as spirits 269 1SG 239-40 23,44-6 (Cont): Pidginization of Arabic Linker -« Andalusia 102, 104-6, 158 1PL 240 68 213 Pre-classical Arabic 39. In various dialects 103-6 2FPL 245-6 137-83. 166-8. And stress 215-6 Pre-Diasporic Arabic 105, Lack Eastern of correlation with other 2FSG 246-50,262-3 Libya 213-5 266-7 features 116 n. 2MPL 246, 259, 261 Malta 215-7 40 Characterized 2-4 Opposed to case endings 103-6 2MSG 250-3, 263-4 comparison ot Mesopotamia 217-9 Derived via statistical Reconstructed in 3FPL 240, 245. 261-2 Southern pre-diasporic 74, 155 Mesopotamia, imala- dialects Arabic 105 3FSG 243-4.259 like 219-220, 224 /h/deletion 243-4 Logical 260 -in on Reconstruction matrix 37 3MPL 244, 259. for intrusive and Sibawaih 226-8 Reconstructed Modern logical matrix 253-5. 259-60 162 Reconstruction based 74-5 3MSG active participal on 283-4 of dialect forms 162-4 dialects 220-8 Summary Significance of imala Mass and Neo- Individual comparison, morphology and Old Arabic (Altarabisch) vowel of imperfect dialect regions 220-2 Pre-formative phonology (Neuarabisch) 1, 2, 27, 37. Synthesis 222-6 138-9 Arabic verb 69-70, 255 Features see also Dialect, Imperfect used in comparison 42-3, 69, 77-8. 80, 2,80 verb 140, 158 Proto-Arabic And 276-80 Arabic 115 reconstruction 184-96 And case endings Statistical synthetic Chronology of stem treatment 151-7 And analytic vs. Neo-Arabic 73 changes 190 Proto Mergers and near 113 Mode endings 195-6 mergers 225 distinction See ako Mesopotamian dialect regions dialects 43~7 22, 133 sonority, epenthesis 144-5, And rawm "labialization" Arabic 266-7 general 3, 4 *fbaa Compared to 6-8 Arabic 27 210-12 Western Sudanic Arabic, Early sources Rural vs. urban Internal passive Uzbekistan Arabic, Epigraphic 4 n. 1 113, i5s Shukriyya character of Old epenthesis no Intrusive -in in active 151-7 Non-unitary and participle l6o Segolates Innovations i-67 Ixulaas furtiveness, in 243 Arabic 67-70 high vowels 5 short, centralized Short Internal 4 pronunciation differentiation 154-5 Old Arabic characterized EUsionofi3i.i33.i88 of short high 61-63 Middle Arabic pre-Islamic manuals vowel" 60-!, (Mittelarabisch) Old Arabic and In old didactic 68 n. 37, 233, 260 tradmon 63-7 41, 6 lexicographical 46-7 inscriptions I„ 52-7 /k/~ Migration and dialect modern dialects /c/variation 245, 250 spread 156 In Morphological 96-»01 Arabic 53-7 Koine Arabic differences Pausal forms 22, 23. 85. Nigerian 8, 45, 58 , 62 In quantified 107-1" 151-7, 17!, And epenthesis 308 Subject Index Short high vowels (cont.): Taxfiyf "weakening, lack of distinctive In Old Arabic sources 57-67 vowel quality" 128 Personal In Sibawaih and Farra? Index of Names 59-61 Tamtiyt "pulling, lengthening" 232 Non-contrastiveness in Classical Topic (mubtadaP) 91, 93 Arabic 57-9, 132-3, 233 Behnstedt 26, 28, 48, 52, 67, 70, 102, Shukriyya Arabic 146; see also Abdel-Jawad 225, 245 Uzbekistan Arabic 146, 275; see also Mesopotamian Abu Amr/Abu 'Amr/Abu SAmr Ibn 108-9, 117, 157-8, 165, 173. 177. 182, dialect regions Mesopotamian dialect regions 238-9, 248, 250 Social identities of SAlaa? 61, 120-2, 124-6, 128-34, 244, speakers in imala, And 2MSG reconstruction 251-2 noun Bell 134 modifiers 207-9 And imala 163-4 163, 199 20-1 Sonority 98 Abu Haidar 144 Bellamy 6, 8, Compared to Mesopotamian, WSA, Belnap In Nigerian Arabic Abu Hanifa 65 27 191 Shukriyya 157-9 Beneesan see Banu Hassan Sonority hierarchy among Abu Ja'far 124 Birkeland 21-3, 71. 96, 106, 231, 233, consonants Plstlaaq 208 186-9 Variation 179-81 Abu 235-6, 247, 256, 259, 261, 263-4 Stages in Arabic 38-43 Agha 156 In /h/deletion from pronouns 241-2 Blachere 8, Literary Arabic 38-40 Al-?Ahmar 89 14 In short vowels, dialects 52-7 Blanc, Haim 97, 108, 144, 212. 218-19. 274 Old, Middle, New 40-3 Al-PASmash 40, 260 /k/~ Id 245 Blau, Joshua 46-7, 80, 86-7, 96, ioo, 102, Statistical comparison Al-Anbari 1 of dialects Number of variants 181-2 104, 106-7, 110-3, ]67 142-59 Alcala de 213 Of imala 206-9, 227 Bohas 76 And hypothesis testing Alhawary 281 168-71 Short vowels in Old Arabic Borg 216-19. 228, 246, 273 And innovations 172 Al-Kalbi 90 sources 59-67 43-4, 58, 62, 73, Coding Brockelmann 8, 11, 23, problems 173-83 Verb Al-Maliki 120 paradigms 29, 74 256, 259 Index 77, 96, 167, 244, of linguistic features Vowel Al-Nassir 75 deletion see epenthesis, short high Brugmann used 276-80 34 vowels Al-Yazidi 128 Of 2FSG object suffix 249 n. 11 Amara 28 Cantineau 201, 213, 235-6, 256-7 Structural logic in Sibawaih 216-17, 228 95 wasl 'connected Ambros speech' 99, 230 Caskel 275 Syllable structure 48-50, 67-70, 237 waq/"'pausal form' Antilla 79 230 Carbou 71, i°6 Final vowel length 104 n. Aquilina 215-17. 224. 228 27 Western 281 Sudanic dialect region 145-6, Carter 88, 92, 204, 208, Consonantal sequences 107-8 Arnold 274 271; see also Mesopotamian Castellino 81 Of 2FSG suffix -ki 248-9 'Asim/SAasim/Asim 40, 124. 260 dialect regions Caubet 49, 51 Sonority factors 109-10 AsmaSi 8 h-deletion quantified 241-2 Chaudenson 17 Syllable sequences 67-8, 130 PAxfash 76 Innovations in 13, 164-5 Chouemi 58 Azhari 64 Clements 187 Azzopardi-Alexander 216-17. 219. Cohen 47 228, 246 100, 102, 104, 106, 109, Corriente 5, 85-7. 114, 201, 213, 228, 233 Baalbaki 88-9, 93. »6 Cuvalay 112 Beneesan Banu Hassan 15 see also BanuMaSqil 272 DabbaS/Al-DabbaaS 123-6, 129-30 Barth 161 Dani 199 Barthold 146 Dereli 146 Bazzar 124 DiakonofF 81 Beck 122 310 Index of Personal Names Index of Personal Names 311 Diem 86-7, 96, 104, 114-5, Ibn Al-MuqafM 38 Levin 91, 112, 198, 202, 205, 217, 228 Rossler 81 117, 244 Ibn Al-Nadim 168 Lewis 156 Roth/Roth-Laly 145, 241 Ditters 88 Ibn Al-Sarraj 1, 88 Donner 14 Ibn Jinni 1, 281 Macdonald 275 Saeed 83 Doss 46 Ibn Kathir 124, 260 Mahdi 9, 46 Sakkaki 1 Duri 125 Ibn Mandur 58, 63, 65 Mahra 123 Sarraj 11 Dune 14 Ibn Mujahid/Mujahid 6, 38, 59, 61, 120, Malaika 144 Sasse 49, 81-3, 144, 182, 218-19, 277 Dussaud 20 122-6, 128-9, 132-3, 163, 199, 201, Marcais 51, 246 Schaade 198 211, 223, 260 Matisoff 16 Schabert 217 Ehret 16 Ibn Muslim 156 May 221 Schleicher 34 Eksell 113 IbnYaSish 88 Miller 28 Seeger 160, 275 El-Gibali 44 Ibn 'Amir/Ibn SAamir 124, 163, 260 Mitchell 5, 52, 184, 214, 225, 254 ShafiSi 269 Imr Al-Qays 231 Molan 62 Sibawaih 3, 5-8, 11, 21-3, 31, 38-9, 58-61, Farra? 5, 7> 11, 38, 40, 59, 61-3, 65-6, 70, Ingham 49, 102, 105, 108-10, 144, 220, Moscati 10, 79, 83-5, 105 63, 67-8, 74-5, 80, 86-100, 102, 89-90, 260, 135, 269, 281 225, 247 Mubarrad 282 105, 107, 109, 111-12, 115-16, 118, Farrukhi/Al-Farruxi 62 Isserlin 217, 228 Murray 187 121, 125, 130-3, 135, 163, 171, Ferguson 9, 24-5, 27, 45-7 Slysaa 209 174-5, 192, 194-5, 197-215, 217, Ferrando 102, 221, 273 Nafi' 124 220, 222-4, 226-9, 231-3, Fischer, A. 259 Jahid 44-5 Nassir 198 242, 244, 250, 253, 258, Fischer, W. 11, 17, 29, 39-41, 46-8, 260-3, 281-2 43, Jankowsky 34 Noldeke 39-40, 68, 96, 120-2, 129, 230 50-2, 57, 67, 69-74, 77, 80, 85, 102, Singer 246 Jastrow 47-8, 50-2, 57, 67, 69-72, 77, 107, 107, 111, 146, 259 Smart 111, 144, 146, 158-9, 162-4, 167, 170, Osthoff 34 44 Fleisch 96, 198, 227, 229 Soden von 85, 110 179, 182, 198, 218-9, 228, 241, 277 Owens 11, 14, 17-18, 28, 44, 51, 57, 75-6, Fleischer 34, 38, 40-3, 45-6, 77 Spitaler 9, 114 Jawhari 64 89, 94, 102, 105-6, 112, 117, 143, Fournier 145 Suleimann 75 Jazari/Ibn Al-Jazariy 6, 122-4, 126, 145-7, 157, 170, 180, 184-5, 189, Fuck 8-9, 23, 44-5, 62, 80 Susi 125 129-30, 133 204, 214, 225, 278 Suyuti 75-6 Johnstone 245 7, Gee 27 Swadesh 16 Jong de 14, 192, 239, 272-3 Pellat 62 Gordon 83 Petracek 84-5, Greenberg 275 14 Kahle Taine-Cheikh 272 120, 134 Pommerol 143 Griinert 198-9 Talay 144, 180-82 Kaufman 15-16, Prochazka, S. 113, 218, 274 Guillaume 137 76 Kaye Talmon 89, 199, 209 71 Prochazka, T. 74, i73> 191, 193 Guillot 70, 122 Talmoudi 246 Khan 90, 144, 180-1, 217, 274 Puin 6 Guthrie 14 Thomason 15-16, 45, 137 Kiparsky 185, 189-90 Kisa?i Tosco 81-3 58, 63-4, 121, 124-5, 133, 163, 199 Qutrub 58, 61-3, 134-5 Hamza 124-5 Tourneux 145 Kofler 58 Harrison 35 Trirningham 71 Koop 35 118 Rabin 5, 12, 84-5, 87, Hasselbach 264 Troupeau 211 Kusters 268 Reckendorf 259 Haywood 63 108, 146-7 Reichmuth 52, 102, 105-6, Heath 51 Vanhove 216-17 Labov 225 Renfrew 16 Hecker 35 Vennemann 187 Landbergde 161 i6l l68) 275 Retso 3, 14, 72, 112, 114, > 89-90, Hetzron 79, 82, 17, 23, 28, 46-7, 7C 76, 106, 150, 171 Larcher Versteegh 6-7, 21, 47, 62, 70, 76, 122 108 Holes Rosenhouse 146 17, 29, 68, 104, 160, 165, 112, 135, 245, 249 Lethem 71 Ross 14 312 Index of Personal Names Voigt 81 Xalil 208, 209, 242 Vollers 62, 114, 119-22, 135-6, 265 Arabic dialect names, Ya'qub 124 Index of Wallin 41-2 Yunus 209 languages and language families Wansbrough 119, 134 Wehr 210 Zaborski 114 Wellens 23 Zamaxshari 198-9, 281-2 Weninger no Aajiri 276-7, 280 Bahariyya Arabic 48-50, 139, 190, 243, Zeltner 145 248, 252, 254-5, 272 Werbeck 48 Aazex 139, 219, 241, 252-3, 274, 283 Zimmermann 251-2 52, 146, Bantu Wilkinson Abbeche Arabic 141, 145, 148, 150, 176-7. 14 275 Zwettler 8 Banu Assad 263 Woidich 179, 182, 241, 271, 276-80 28, 48, 108-9, 173, 182, 239 Baskinta 139, 248, 273 Wright 64 Abu Dhabi 254 239-40, 246, 248, 273, Afghanistan Arabic 102, 105, 106 Bdul Dialect 139. 284 Afroasiatic 72, 79-80, 83-5, 101, 115, 118 Arabic 215, 225 ?Ahl Al-hijaz 208 Benghazi Berber 80, 101 Ajarma 240, 273, 284 Akkadian 10, 30, 83-5, no, 114, 150 Cairene Arabic 13, 17-18, 24, 26, 108, 149, Alawite 283 160, 235, 247, 253, 272 Alawite Turkey 248, 274 Cameroonian Arabic 145 Algerian 220 Central Cushitic 82 Al-Mudawwar 139. 240-1, 243, 275, 284 Central Morocco 49-50 Al-Nadhir 240 see also An-Nadhiir Chadian Arabic 28, 106, 108-9, 112, 145. Anatolian 18, 217 148, 151. 239. 279 Anatolian Qiltu 278 Chadic 80-1 Anatolian Qultu 144. 154-5. i7°-i> *79> Christian Baghdadi 144. 147. 149. 170. 218 218-19, 224, 241, 274, 276-7, SAnaza Dialect 236, 257 279-80, 283 Ancient West Arabian 12 Arabic 113, 218 223 Cilician Arabic 31. 163, 213, 221, Andalusian 23-5. 32. Classical Arabic 5. 8, 9-12. 20, 284; see also Al- An-Nadhiir 139. 275, 70-3. 80, 39-43, 45. 47. 57. 68, Nadhir 96, 98-100, 102, l6o 84-6, 90, Arabian Peninsular Dialects 18, 41. > 104-7, 109-16, 119. 13L 134, 163. 190, 258 206, 230, 167, 174. 190, 194-6, SArabiya 23 260, 262, 233, 235. 238, 255-6, Arabkhona 52 264-5, 281, 284 273 Aramaic 83, 86, 110, 244. 28 Creole 13, i6-7> 23> Asiatic Arabic 28 Cushitic 80-3 250, 275. As-Suwwadiyya 139. 240. 245. 248, 252, 254, Cypriot Arabic 218-19, 241, 284 273-4, 283 Awngi 82 Daaxila 182 l 1/2 ' 177, i59-<^ ? ' Bagirmi Arabic 145. Damascene Arabic 48, 69 271. 276, 279 182, 240, 243-5. 247. 314 Index ofArabic dialect names Index ofArabic dialect names 315 Daragozii 139, 144, 149, 182, Arabian Dialects 252-3 241, 252, 274, Northern Iraqi Qultu 170 Mada 280 Northeast 276-80, 283; see also Kozluk Northeastern Arabian Peninsular Tigris Qultu 144 Maltese 17-18, 139, 163, 201, 215-17, 219, Group Dialects 247 Gozitan 217 221-4, 226, 228-9, 273, 283 Djeinau 52 Gulf Dialects Northern Arabian Dialects 249, 275 182 Mardin 49-50, 139, 144. 149, 175, l82 > Djidjelli 17, 51, 246 Northern Mesopotamian 273 Gulf Pidgin Arabic 44 218-19, 241, 243, 252-3, 274, Northern Rural Palestinian 245 276-80, 283 East African Nubi 23-4 Sinaitic Littoral 185 Hatay 139 Mauritanian Arabic 165 Northern Eastern Arabian 245 Hebrew 83, 110, 115 MaSlula Aramaic 244 Eastern Arabic 14-15. 20, 22-4, 60 Old Arabic 2, 4-6, n-12, Highland East Cushitic 82 Mesopotamian 31, 140, 152-9, 164, 166, Eastern 41-8. 50-3- Libyan Arabic 52, 66, 107-11, 26-7, 30-2, 34. 37-8. 139, Highland Yemeni 48-9, 67, 109, 111 169, 171, 175-7. 179. 212, 219> 221-3, 77-8. 80, 160, 163, 184, 190-4, 201-2, 212-16, 59, 61, 63, 66-74. Hiit 139, 144, 151, i78, 181, 217, 276-80 228, 241-2, 274-5 57, 219-21, 103-4. 107, m-13, 223-24, 229, 254-5, 257, Hijazi 86-7, 89, 97. Arabic 67, 109, 136, 190, 193, 207 Middle Arabic 7-8, 41, 46-7. 87. m> "5 135-6, 159, 161. 272 115, 118-19, 129, 133, Hofuf 18, 139, 240, 243, 250, 254, Middle Egyptian 36 Eblaitic 194-5, 197, 84 163, 167, 184, 192, 275> 284 Middle English 36 Egyptian 238, 252, 257, 259, Arabic 26, 28, 81, 106, 109, 228-9, 231-2, 147, Holistic Arabic 34, 38, 40-1, 77 Modern English 36 185 262, 264-8, 282 Horan 50, 108 Modern Hebrew 150 English 151 Old Egyptian 36 Modern Standard Arabic 5, 9 Ethiopic Semitic Languages 84, 150 Icelandic Old English 36 36 Morrocan Arabic 51, 220 Indo-European Old Semitic 114 34-5, 79 Morrocan Koine 51 Faarisi 64 Arabic 50, 240, 250 Iraqi 2 Oman 29, 108-9, 185 Muslim Baghdadi 144. 147. 15L 224, 74. Fulfulde 19 81-2 Israeli Oromo 245 276-80, 283 Fushaa 11 Jewish Baghdadi Palestinian 245 97, 144, 149, 170, 175, Nabataean Arabic 20, 87 250 Galilee 108, 139, 273 Peninsular Dialects 248, 178, 218-19, 60, 102, 223, 241, 274, 276-7, Najdi Arabic 13, 41-2. 48-9. German 198 Persian 65 i92-94> 283 105-6, 108-11, 113. 136. 139. Germanic 36 Persian Gulf Dialects 173 Jewish Hiit 2 274 220, 240, 248, 250, 254. 27L 75. GaSaz 84, 101, 83 110, 115 Jewish Middle Phoenecian Arabic 106 283 Ghaamid 74 Pidgin Arabic 13 Jogari 52, 3<>-2 37-8- 139, 275 Neo-Arabic 2, 20, 24, 27. > 34> Gharyan 139, 272 Poetic Arabic 21 Jordanian 86, 107, 225, 245 50-2, 69-74, 77-8. also Koine Gilit/Gabt, 41-8, 73; see Qultu dialects 49, Poetic Koine 2, 109, 144-5, 257, 111-13, 156-7. 167. 185. 190, 46-7 147. Arabic 41, 43, 149-50, 154-5, 158-9, 162-64, Khaweetna Post-Classical 139, 144, 178, 180-2, 274, 268 31, 137 170-1, 181-2, Post-Diasporic Arabic 219-20, 223, 248, see 250, 277-80 78. »3> 268; New Arabic 2, 23, 47, m> 226, 230 252-3, 274, 278, 280, 282 Post-Old Arabic Khorasan Arabic 139, 237, 240, 243, 254, also Neo-Arabic 39-40,68 Baghdad Qultu 154-5,280 Pre-Classical Arabic 275 New Egyptian 36 Literary Arab.c 40 Euphrates Qultu 144 Pre-Classical Kirenawa 276-80 2 -3°' 29. Nigerian Arabic 13, i?-i9> 25-6, 9 Arabic 2-4, 14, 24, Iraqi Gilit 164, 192 Pre-Diasporic Koine 47, 171; see also 139-40, poetic koine _ 105, 114- 137. Iraqi Qultu 5L53.55-7.59.63-7.103-5.107-9. 31 2, 69, 13, 164, 167, 171, 180 Vfc Koranic Arabic 58 157^,171- 238, 240, 242-3, 111, 113, 145, 149-50, 169. 223, Kurdistan Qultu 144 l6i-7, Kozluk Group 6 2°5> 144; see also 184-5, 187, ifc-* ' 266-7 Mesopotamia 179-81, 245, 255, 257, Gilit 149, 154, 254 Daragozii 2 261, 267, 279 see also ^c Mesopotamian 239, 241-2, 58, Pre-lslamic Koine & Qultu 154, 162-4, 177, Sudanic Pre-lslanuc Poetry Non-Bagirmi Western koine and 212, 223-4, 228, 242, 248 Levantine Arabic ui 48 Arabic 150,160 Old Arabic Non-Baghdadi Qultu Dialects Pre-lslamic 154-5, Lingua 1*5. 19°> Franca 17 49, 5L 20, 3» 280 North African 17-18, 28, Pre-lslamic Poetry Literary Arabic 38 192-3, 226, 253 « 316 Index ofArabic dialect names Pre-Western Sudanic Arabic 149 Spanish Arabic 102, 104-5, i°9> m> 213, Proto-Afroasiatic 114 228 Proto-Arabic io, 2, 4-5, 14, 19, 31, 72, 77, Standard Arabic 5, 12, 20-1, 24-5, 38, 80, ioi, in, 85, 87, 113-16, 118, 129, 46-7, 74-5. 165, 171. 174-7. 239. 135. 151. 159. 165, 167-8, 223, 241, 245-6, 263, 276 238-40, 267-8 Standard Classical Arabic 39 Proto-Cushitic 81 Standard Maltese 217, 223 Proto-Neo-Arabic 2, 73-4 Sudanic Arabic Dialects 71, 102, 105, 108, Proto-Nigerian Arabic 190 161, 166 Proto-Peripheral Arabic 2 Susa 17-9, 246 Proto-Semitic 72, 80, 83-4, 105, 110, Syrian Arabic 185, 245 114-15, 264-5, 267 Proto-Southern Hijazi 190 Tamimi 60, 98-9, 207-8, 263 Proto-Yemeni 190 Teerib 139, 241, 273, 283 Tihama 149, 245 Qauz 139, 248, 275, 284 Tihama Yemeni 26, 50, 102, 104, 106, 109, Qaysi 200-1, 208 111, 117 Tripolitanian 139, 173, 182 Rwala 110, 240, 247, 250, 254-5, 275, 283 Tunisian 17, 220 Saharan ' Dialect 51 // Ugaritic 83-4 SanSaa? 250, 254, 275, 28^! I' Upper Egypt Dialect 146 $AV ' Saudi Arabian 42 V* - t Urban Baghdadi 109, 111 Saudi Arabian Tihama V.*,,, 74 ..,.'/' Urban Neo-Arabic 42 Semitic 10, 30, 35, 43-4, 72, 79-857160-1, Ur-Semitic 110 105, 110-11, 115, 118, 150, 264-5, 267 Uzbekistan Arabic 31, 50, 52, 102, 106, ShattAl-Arab 278 109, 142-4, 146-7, 149-50, 152-5, Shukriyya Arabic 31, 52, 66, 102, 105, 108, 157-67, 169, 171-2, 175-6, 182, 243, 141, 143. 146-7, 152-5, 161, 165-6, 248, 251-2, 267, 275, 280 171, 179, 183, 185, 240, 244, 248, 272, 280 Vulgar Arabic 265 Sidamo 82 Siirt 139, 144, i 149, 79) 274, 276, 279-80 Western Arabic 28 Sinai Dialects 192, 239 Western Libyan Arabic 26 Somali 82 Western Nigerian Arabic 271 Soukhne 18, 139, 244-6, 250, 273, 283 Western Sudanic Arabic 13, 31, 48-50, South Arabian Languages 84, 275 108, 140, 145-50, 152-7, 159-60, Southern Borno Arabic 278 164-6, 169-73, 175-6, 181, 191-2, Southern Hijazi Dialects 190, 193-6 234. 239. 241-3, 245-8, 254, 261, Southern Jordanian 192 271, 280 Southern Mesopotamian (Dialects) 144, 165, 224-5, 229, 245, 278, 280 Yemeni 109, 117, 190, 194, 244