sign in sign up
<<
Home , Portuguese language

In the and Beyond

A History of and Muslims (15th-17th Centuries) Vol. 2

Edited by José Alberto . Tavim, Maria Filomena Lopes de Barros and Lúcia Liba Mucznik

In the Iberian Peninsula and Beyond: A History of Jews and Muslims (15th-17th Centuries) Vol. 2

Edited by José Alberto R. Silva Tavim, Maria Filomena Lopes de Barros and Lúcia Liba Mucznik

This book first published 2015

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2015 by José Alberto R. Silva Tavim, Maria Filomena Lopes de Barros, Lúcia Liba Mucznik and contributors

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-4438-7418-3 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-7418-2

As a two volume set: ISBN (10): 1-4438-7725-5 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-7725-1

JUDEO-SPANISH IN CONTACT WITH PORTUGUESE: LINGUISTIC OUTCOMES

ALDINA QUINTANA THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM*

Introduction

Besides containing Hebrew and Aramaic elements as do all spoken by Jews, modern Judeo-Spanish, whose main base is the Castilian spoken in 1492 in the kingdoms of Castile and Aragon, shows influences of Arab, Aragonese, Catalan and Portuguese origin, and also of Italian and other languages, which are the result of contact with speakers in the Balkan Peninsula, Turkey, and the Middle East, and with French and German as languages of culture since the half of the 19th century. Linguistic factors, like the nature of the relationship between languages in contact — specifically the degree of typological similarity between them — and relevant social and socio-political aspects of the contact which operated at both the individual and group level, involved varying degrees of influence of each of these languages, first on the Castilian spoken by Jews expelled from the kingdoms of Castile and Aragon in 1492, and later on Judeo-Spanish. Several grammatical patterns and lexical items from non-Castilian are detectable in modern Judeo-Spanish. Among these borrowed materials, those whose source is Portuguese stand out, although in Sephardic literature, one rarely finds references that indicate any relation of Judeo-Spanish to Portuguese.1 The contact of Judeo-Spanish speakers with Portuguese speakers involved not only those who arrived in the Ottoman Empire shortly after the expulsion from Castile and Aragon in 1492, but also ex-conversos, i.e. Jews and their descendants who, after voluntary or forced conversion to Christianity, decided in the first decades of the 16th century to return to the open practice of Judaism, and those who throughout the 17th and 18th 166 Judeo-Spanish in Contact with Portuguese: Linguistic Outcomes centuries emigrated from to the Ottoman Empire or settled in the port cities on the Adriatic Sea and the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Cases of (dia)lectal shift 2 are detectable only when the shift is imperfect.3 There is no doubt that Portuguese speakers shifting to Judeo- Spanish acquired the bulk of the target (TL) grammatical structure along with the TL vocabulary. But some of the linguistic features they carried over from Portuguese also led to slight changes in the Judeo- Spanish and lexicon, without changing, as a whole, its Castilian background.4 Other than the fact that features of Portuguese are detectable in Judeo-Spanish, we know little or nothing about the situations of contact among Judeo-Spanish and Portuguese speakers. Questions about what types of shift took place, what was the intensity of the contact, how and when Portuguese patterns were transferred to Judeo-Spanish, what was the social context in which occurred or the degree of cultural pressure to which the Portuguese Jews were subjected, have not yet been addressed in research. A description of the most salient modern Judeo- Spanish features which have been identified as Portuguese features and their analysis within the framework of language in contact theories, will allow us to deal with some of those questions.5

1. Portuguese and Castilian/Judeo-Spanish Speakers in Contact

Portuguese — together with Aragonese and Catalan — and Castilian, the base language of the Judeo-Spanish koine, belong to the same : they are historical dialects of spoken , and they constitute the geographic continuum of spoken in the Iberian Peninsula, and the typological fit is close for all grammatical subsystems, including the lexicon. Therefore, to establish to which Iberian-language specific Judeo-Spanish grammatical patterns and lexical items are related is not always easy, and in some cases it may be even impossible. According to Thomason and Kaufman,6 dialectal borrowing is very typical where the typological fit is close for all grammatical subsystems, including the lexicon.

1.1 Portuguese Speakers in the Early 16th Century

1.1.1 Historical Background

Most Portuguese Jews came to the Ottoman Empire after having undergone experiences that were quite different from the experiences of Aldina Quintana 167 the Jews expelled from Castile and Aragon in 1492 and from Navarra in 1498. Many of them were refugees from the Spanish Expulsion in 1492, who, along with the native Portuguese Jews, were baptized en masse on March 19, 1497.7 Those who managed to leave Portugal in the course of these years and after the massacre in the spring of 1506 settled in Italy and the Ottoman Empire with the rest of those expelled in 1492.8 They constituted the first group of Portuguese Jews arriving in the Ottoman Empire whose members participated in the creation of the new Sephardic communities, in the same way as had the earlier refugees. They were old Jews, who had never voluntarily left Judaism. One of the most illustrative cases was that of the famous 16th century Rabbi Levi ibn Habib, known as Ralbaḥ, who was born in Zamora in 1483, and fled with his father to Portugal in 1492, where they were forced to undergo baptism in 1497. However, they managed to escape to Salonika shortly thereafter, and to reintegrate into the Jewish community there.9 Tragic experiences like this and the expulsion of the Jews from the Iberian Peninsula — who were certainly carriers of different customs and dialects — reinforced the need for integration into a new larger and homogeneous group in the new locations.10 Besides this, the Expulsion caused the breakdown of social networks and the strong social ties that had existed within Jewish communities before 1492 and led to a situation in which weak ties predominated in the new settlements outside the Iberian Peninsula, before the new social bonds could be created.11 Such a situation implies a greater openness to change language and it encourages linguistic innovation. 12 Under these circumstances, the speech of the expelled Jews would have undergone several changes. According to Ross,

“[w]here speakers are conscious of their membership of the new group rather than the old, features in which the old lects differ are suppressed, especially where these are emblematic of a particular old group. Sometimes this levelling has only minor effects. In more extreme cases, the outcome is koineization, i.e. the levelling of differences”.13

Of course, the Judeo-Spanish koine is the result of the levelling of dialectal differences existing among Ibero-Romance dialects and their varieties. This linguistic process was part of a broader process of internal reorganization that resulted in the formation of the Sephardic communities, in which the members’ ethno-religious Sephardic identity and the definition of cultural and communal boundaries emerged via hybridization and from the assimilation of elements of diverse cultural origin. 14 Although it is not possible to reconstruct the demographic 168 Judeo-Spanish in Contact with Portuguese: Linguistic Outcomes makeup of the Sephardic communities outside the Peninsula, and therefore we cannot know what proportions of speakers used which varieties of the Ibero-Romance languages, it is likely that speakers of Castilian varieties were in the majority,15 but variants of other Iberian dialects were often selected in place of these varieties.16

1.1.2. Levelling of Dialectal Differences in the Sephardic Communities in the Early 16th Century

Dialectal levelling is a case of extreme “catastrophic change”, to which (dia)lects with a high degree of similarity are subject. This occurred because the dominant lect — in this case, Castilian — was not accessible to the shifting groups — each group of speakers of Portuguese, Aragonese, Catalan and other non-Castilian languages — to the necessary degree or for sufficient time for its members to acquire native-like mastery. In such a situation, problems of communication will arise, and they will be compensated for through new strategies of intercommunication developed in the new social network.17 In the view of Ross —

“[]atastrophe' seems always to entail the enforced melding of groups with different ingroup lects into a new larger group, where enforcement is either by intervention or by natural disaster. A new social network is abruptly created or rearranged, so that old groups are compelled to become more open, establishing multiplex relationship links with each other”.18

In such a sociolinguistic situation, in the newly established communities in the Ottoman Empire after the traumatic experience of the expulsion of 1492, non-Castilian speaking groups shifted quickly to Castilian, the language of the dominant group, but without achieving a perfect command of it. In those situations of large-scale-shift, the shift brought about change, because it was imperfect, and several of the grammatical patterns and lexical items that first were transferred from the source language (SL) of the shifting speaker groups to the TL, were eventually adopted by the whole speech community in their multiplex relationship links with each other. Where there is a degree of among the ingroup (dia)lects of the old groups, a new lect may arise out of the fusion of the old. Koineization, i.e. the levelling of differences, is one of the versions that may appear, as was the case in the Sephardic communities. In this type of process, the old (dia)lects cease to exist, usually together with the disappearance of the third generation of speakers who were involved in the process of levelling of dialectal differences.19 Aldina Quintana 169

Most of the features of Portuguese borrowed into Judeo-Spanish should belong to patterns and lexical items selected in the process of levelling of differences among dialects, which took place in the communities of the Ottoman Empire after its creation, as a consequence of the encounter between speakers of mutually intelligible dialects. In fact, some borrowed from Portuguese are already found as incorporated to the Spanish spoken by the Jews in documents written in the 1560s. This group includes words such as the nouns apetite (HhL20, 33; SN21, 52; Cast. apetito), “appetite, desire”, bico (HhL, 72v; MA22, 48v; Cast. pico) “peak”, and the adjectives acabidada (SN, 7, 47) “advised, informed” (Port. cavidar) or contente (HhL, 141; RV23, 21, 37v, 137; MA, 78v; Cast. contento) “satisfied”. Small differences in the form of usually give rise to new hybridized forms, and as occurs in other Spanish varieties in contact with Portuguese, the free morpheme constraint is observed. This means that only stems were borrowed such as in lembraçión (HhL 54b) “act of remembering” (Port. stem lembraç- + Cast. suffix -ión). In addition, there is frequent use of the prefix tres- (tre- variant), both instead of tra()- (lat. trans; cast. trans- and tras-), but also meaning “three” (cast. tri-) in verbal formations and the corresponding deverbals: trespaça (RV, 43v) “he oversteps” (Port. trespassa), and especially in hybrid new forms such as tresquilar (MA, 131) “to scalp, to shear” (tres- + Cast. (tras)quilar), tremudaçion (RV, 77) “to change, to move”; trespone (Port. trespoer-se) “he transposes, the sun sets”; trestornose (RV, 25v) “he went crazy”, trespaçar (RV, 44v) “to transfer”, tresbariar (RV, 103) “to rave” (Port. desvairar), and tresdoblado (HhL, 96v) “to triple”. The role of this Portuguese-speaking minority in the process of levelling of dialectal differences — like the role of other Ibero-Romance- speaking minorities24 — was marked by their need to acquire the dominant language, i.e., Castilian, without abandoning their native language that undoubtedly continued to be spoken in the private domain, and which the first two generations probably still transmitted to their children. However, the largest exodus of Portuguese Jews to the Ottoman Empire occurred after 1535, and especially between 1550 and 1590.

1.2. Migration of Portuguese Jews to the Sephardic Communities

Official approval of the Inquisition in Portugal in 1535 and its establishment in 1539, the partial expulsion of the Jews from Antwerp in 1550, and the conquest of Antwerp by the Spanish army in 1585 led to the 170 Judeo-Spanish in Contact with Portuguese: Linguistic Outcomes mass migration of Portuguese Jews to Italy, North and the Ottoman Empire, especially prior to 1609, the year of the signing of the armistice agreement between and Holland, subsequent to which Amsterdam became the most important destination of Portuguese conversos.25 Once in the Ottoman Empire, the Portuguese Jews succeeded in integrating into the Sephardic communities created by the Jews expelled from the Iberian Peninsula over half a century earlier, but not without having some influence on the language of the Sephardim, which was at the beginning of the process of formation. Dona Gracia Mendes, one of the most influential Portuguese figures of this period, followed this route on her flight from one place to another: she left Portugal in 1535 after the approval of the Portuguese Inquisition, and after having passed through Antwerp and Venice, she returned openly to Judaism in Ferrara, and finally settled in Constantinople in 1553.26 During these decades many converted Jews left Portugal to settle in the most important Jewish centers of the Ottoman Empire: the Latin and philosophy professor Aaron Afia27 and the physician Amathus Lusitanus 28 are just two of the many Hispanic- Portuguese intellectuals who followed a path similar to that traveled by Dona Gracia. Like Afia and Amathus Lusitanus, many Portuguese Jews had studied in Spanish universities, and they were therefore undoubtedly proficient in Castilian.

1.2.1. The Prestige of Castilian and the Jewish-Spanish Elite in the mid-16th Century

Another factor that favored the use of Castilian among the Portuguese intellectuals was its prestige. Literary Castilian in particular, which already had a wide reputation at national level prior to 1492, 29 increased in importance in the international arena in the 16th century due to Spain’s ranking as a world power. Castilian began to acquire importance in the late 15th century among the , to the extent of becoming the of culture in Portugal:

“Between the mid-fifteenth century and the late seventeenth century Spanish served as a second language for all educated Portuguese... Sixty years of Spanish domination (1580-1640), which coincided with the most brilliant period of the 'Golden Age', accentuated this linguistics impregnation. It is only after 1640, with the Restoration and the accession to the throne of King D. João IV, that certain anti-Spanish reaction set in. The bilingualism, however, continued until the time of the disappearance of the last representatives of the generation that had grown up before 1640. Aldina Quintana 171

Thus, for approximately two and a half centuries, Spanish was a second culture language in Portugal...”30 Portuguese intellectual Jews who migrated to the Ottoman Empire during this period were also Castilian speakers; they belonged to a group that influenced a sector of the Sephardic communities in the process of creation in the Ottoman Empire. According to Nelson Novoa,31

“…the intellectual culture of the conversos who returned to Judaism in the East reflects the reality of the members of their communities, trained in and imbued with the culture of the time, which reflected the glimpses of the . Within the Sephardic communities, the humanistic, literary and medical culture of the European universities, the incipient empirical and critical spirit, the great Hispano-Jewish philosophical tradition and the rabbinic culture converged”.

This Sephardic elite, who in the middle of 16th century were also imbibing the European culture that ex-conversos transferred to the communities on Ottoman soil, included sages such as Rabbi Moshe Almosnino whose work was written and published partly in a Castilian cult style, but which already displays influences from other languages spoken in Salonika, such as Portuguese.32 As we have seen in paragraph 1.1.2., several loanwords borrowed from Portuguese are already found as incorporated in documents written by Spanish Jews in the 1560s. The question now is, to what extent did the Portuguese and Castilian spoken by the bilingual Portuguese influence the formation of Judeo-Spanish in the middle of the 16th century? In the absence of earlier texts to confirm this, we can assume that these borrowed words had been incorporated into the Castilian spoken by Sephardim before the beginning of the massive arrival of converts from 1536 onward, while nonce borrowings — most of which were also incorporated later in Judeo-Spanish, as more recent documents show — represented grammatical features and lexical items that were still candidates for incorporation into the Castilian spoken by members of the communities established earlier. Therefore, the contact with the recently emigrated Portuguese speakers would be a deciding factor in the final incorporation of these and other Portuguese elements into the new Castilian which was in the process of formation. The question that arises here is that of the transmission path of these and other features and lexical items that have been preserved until today in Judeo-Spanish. In this context, it may be suggested that the nonce borrowings included in the works of Almosnino (RV) represented elements of a new Castilian variety spoken by a particular group — the 172 Judeo-Spanish in Contact with Portuguese: Linguistic Outcomes elite of the Portuguese conversos with which Rabbi Almosnino was in close contact throughout his life — from whence they were incorporated into the new Castilian of the whole speech community, due to the prestige of this social group. One could also assume, however, that the definitive incorporation of such Portuguese elements into the new Castilian occurred as a result of contact between speakers of Portuguese and the new Castilian variety on a broader social level.

1.2.2. Borrowings from Portuguese Detectable in Documents Written in the 1560s

Portuguese nonce borrowing is well detectable in 16th Jewish texts, and not only in Almosnino's works: nouns such as alfinete (MA, 55) and alfilete (MA, 54, 55) “brooch”, amañana (MA, 83v) “very early part of the morning”, beçoç (MA, 12) “lips” (Port. beiços), çerbeja (MA, 36) “beer” (Port. cerveja), conçidrasion (HhL, 11v) “consideration”, emprestimo (RV, 102) “loan”, esnoga (MA, 7v, 10v) “synagogue”, legumes (SN, 313) “legumes”, lembrança (HhL, 34v) “remembrance”, plaina (MA, 2v) “sander”, risco (MA, 109) “line”, esturmentos (HhL, 4) “torments”, vidro (MA, 15, 57v) “glass”; adjectives: afastado (RV, 35v) “departed from, deviated”, arreigado (RV, 102v) “rooted”, enxalsado (MA, 164) “praised”, escuro (MA, 152) “dark, somber”, sequiozo (RV, 144v) “thirsty”, somenos (HhL, 53v) “minor, inferior in quality or value”; verbs such as anojar (RV, 55v) “to nauseate, to dislike”, esfriar (MA, 98) “to become less hot; fig.: to discourage”, conçidrar “to take into account” (HhL, 11v), fadar (MA, 4) “to predestine”, salprezar (MA, 80) “to salt lightly”; and the en fito (HhL, 24v) “in a fixed manner”, were all incorporated into Judeo-Spanish. Not so the words adoesto (RV 44) “misfortune, dishonour”, and natureza (RV, 31, 36, 97) “character, temperament”, which could be identified with higher registers of language.33 They are words borrowed via a cultural adstratum and not from intercommunication developed in the new social network, which explains why they have not been accepted in the Judeo-Spanish koine. One of the morpho-syntactic patterns found in documents written by Castilian-Aragonese rabbis or their descendants of them in the 1560s is the conjugated following the Portuguese model (1, 2, 3): 34

(1) …por seren ambas açerca de cozas grandes. (RV, 35) …because be-3PL both about great things. …por ser ambas acerca de cosas grandes. Cast. …because they are both about great things. Aldina Quintana 173

(2) …muchos ombres que por seren engratos… (HhL, 27) …many , that because be-3.PL ungrateful… …muchos hombre que por ser ingratos… Cast. …many humans, who because of being ungrateful…

(3) …ya se a espirmentado en muchas no seren platicas… (MA, 3) …already been experienced in many not be-3.PL practical… …ya se ha experimentado que muchas [de ellas] no son prácticas… Cast. …already been experienced that many of them are not practical…

This pattern can also be found in the occasional documents emanating from Portuguese speakers who had already learned the new Castilian variety (4, 5):35

(4) …depués de estudiare bien mirado, fall[a]ba por su escrito (Prot.) …after studying [it] well and having looked [at it], [he] found by his writing …después de estudiarlo bien y mirarlo, hallaba por su escrito Cast. seren las qe(hillot) qe(došot) en débito a él más (Prot.) be-3.PL the holy communities in debt to him more que las comunidades santas estaban en deuda con él por más Cast. de tre(s) mil áspe(ros)… (Prot.) of three thousand aspers… de los tres mil ásperos… Cast

(5) …determinamos junta mente de irmos en caza de dito Reuven (Prot.) …[we] determined also to go-1.PL to [the] home of Reuven …determinamos igualmente ir a casa del fulano dicho Cast. y mirar su escrito y ver si se averdaderían sus p[a]labra(s) (Prot.) and verify if one could confirm his words y verificar si sus palabras pudieran ser confirmadas Cast. para salirmos de su cargo… (Prot.) to come off-1.PL of his charge… con el fin de retirar nosotros los cargos contra él…36 Cast.

174 Judeo-Spanish in Contact with Portuguese: Linguistic Outcomes

However, it is uncertain whether the use of conjugated infinitive continued beyond the 16th century. In modern Judeo-Spanish it was detected only in the spoken variety of Monastir (Macedonia), as we will show below. But the existence of this structure in the Castilian interlanguage (IL) of Portuguese speakers and its transfer to the language of the Sephardic elite in the 16th century led to slight but significant changes, which resulted in Judeo-Spanish having marked forms of identity as opposed to other Hispanic linguistic varieties: the 1.PL morpheme of the infinitive constructions — mos — could lead to ambiguous interpretations, because it appears in a morpho-syntactic context in which the nos can also be found. The result was the phonetic shift of nos to mos. This confirms that beyond the impact that the language used by the Hispano-Portuguese elite might have had in the first phase of the formation period of Judeo-Spanish, it would have been the contact among speakers of Portuguese and Castilian through the new social networks which ultimately facilitated the second change tending to the simplification of forms. Although some scholars used Castilian as a language of culture, the rabbinical variety was not exactly the one that would later establish the basis of Judeo-Spanish, but popular varieties. Therefore, the intellectual class of the 16th century Sephardic community had rather limited linguistic participation in the process of koineization.37 This can also be explained by the economic decline that these Sephardic elites experienced as of the last decades of the 16th century 38 and the consequent demographic changes.39

1.3. Detectable Patterns and Lexical Items in Modern Judeo- Spanish not Recorded in the 16th Century Documents

In modern Judeo-Spanish, patterns and lexical items that were integrated from the are detectable, but they had not yet been recorded in the documents written in the 16th century.

1.3.1. The Subsystem of

One of the outstanding phonetic features that Judeo-Spanish shares with other Castilian historical dialects (Andalusian and American Spanish) is seseo. Many Sephardic emigrants arrived in the Ottoman Empire from areas in the Iberian Peninsula where the apico-alveolars /s : / and the dental sibilants /s̪ : z̪ / had merged or were in the process of merging. The Aldina Quintana 175 outcome in Judeo-Spanish in which the contrast of sonority between the pair of sibilants is maintained, and at the same time, a dental articulation is selected, is a reflection of the Portuguese norm,40 with its more stable system of sibilants than that which most of the Jews of Castilian origin living in the communities of the Ottoman Empire in the 16th century had at their disposal. In this process, the distinction between /s̪ : z̪ / of the SL — the dominant language of Portuguese bilingual speakers — was transferred through a long list of words’ cognates to the TL. This distinction, made through the lexicon, would be imitated by the Judeo-Spanish speakers in face-to-face communication, which led to the restoration of symmetry sonority in the subsystem of sibilants by all speakers of the community, including those who previously used other variants. Confusion between voiced and voiceless sibilants is documented in the 16th century Sephardic texts: cazi, casi; barajoso, barajozo; gloza, glosa; concluzion, conclusion; tempestuosos, tenpestuozo; provechoso, provechozo; prisioneros, prizion; caza, casa.41 Attitudinal factors of the Judeo-Spanish speakers must have played a crucial role in the selection of this phonological pattern by identifying the contrast of sonority made by Portuguese speakers from the viewpoint of a pre-existing structure.42

1.3.2. The Syntactic Construction se k(i)ere + Participle

Modern Judeo-Spanish shows some syntactic constructions, which, no doubt, are a consequence of contact with Portuguese, such as one of the possible ways of expressing modality of obligation in Judeo-Spanish. A way with deontic value is by the use of the impersonal phrasal verb se k(i)ere + participle (6, 7). This possibility does not exist in Spanish, but this periphrasis recalls its use in some sentences of Portuguese with the verb querer + participle in passive reflexive constructions, where the subjective complement agrees with the patient subject, as in the example, estas cousas querem-se tractadas com cuidado43 “these things must be treated with care”:44

(6) Se kere dicho JSp. se want-SG said-MASC-SG Quer-se dito Port. Hay que decirlo Cast. It must be said

176 Judeo-Spanish in Contact with Portuguese: Linguistic Outcomes

(7) Se kere tashedeado a otra kaza JSp. se want-SG moved-MASC-SG to another house Quer-se mudado para outra casa Port. Hay que mudarse a otra casa Cast. One must be moved to another house

These clauses are based on a Portuguese construction but they are preserved the Judeo-Spanish sentence constituent order.45

1.3.3. Judeo-Spanish Lexical Items Borrowed from Portuguese

Of all the units of the different levels, lexical items are the most borrowed in Judeo-Spanish from Portuguese and of these, loanwords rank first.46 However, calques and extensions of meaning were also borrowed.

1.3.3.1. Calques Transferred from Portuguese into Judeo-Spanish Calques from Portuguese, too, were transferred to Judeo-Spanish, as shown in the following examples (8, 9):

(8) Yo meldi un livro mu(n)cho interesante JSp. Eu li um livro muito interessante Port. He leído un libro muy interesante Cast. *Yo meldi un livro muy interesante JSp. *He leído un libro mucho interesante Cast. I read a very interesting book

(9) Ya es mu(n)cho tadre JSp. Já é muito tarde Port. Ya es muy tarde Cast. *Ya es muy tadre JSp. *Ya es mucho tarde Cast. It is too late now

This concerns the quantifier mu(n)cho, the of Portuguese muito, and affects only its contextual distribution with the adverb of degree muy. Mu(n)cho is used in semantic contexts in which the Spanish rule only supports the adverb of degree muy.47 The use of plural of the ora “hour” in partial intended to ask the time (10) also belong to the calques from Portuguese transferred to Judeo-Spanish.48

Aldina Quintana 177

(10) A ke oras sale el tren? JSp. At what hour-PL go-3-SG the train? A que horas sai o trem? Port. ¿A qué hora sale el tren? Cast. What time does the train leave?

1.3.3.2. Judeo-Spanish Loanwords Borrowed from Portuguese Words accommodated from Portuguese into Judeo-Spanish which are not documented in texts written in the 16th century, but which belong to the modern Judeo-Spanish dictionary, are mostly related to the objects and activities of everyday life of the speakers, transitory states of persons and things, appreciative words, etc., as shown in the following: Nouns: agrura “bitterness”, alkunya “family name” (Port. alcunha), asorva “sorb, service-berry” (Port. sorva), birra “, fury, anger”, choka “broody [hen]” (Port. choca), gozno “hinge of a door” (Port. gozno), kavako “splinter” (Port. cavaco “splinter; action of digging”), kopo “glass” (Port. copo), krosta “scab, crust of bread” (Port. crosta), merenda “slice, bit of bread” (Port. merenda), mesherico “gossip, rumors; intrigue” (Port. mexerico), milagre “miracle, wonder”, monturo “garbage dump”, movito “abort, premature termination of a pregnancy”, reskaldo “cinder, remains of a fire” (Port. rescaldo), riste “bunch” (Port. resta), shamarada “sudden blaze” (Port. chamarada), saluso “sob” (Port. soluço); Adjectives: agro “sour”, enkastonado “set with precious stones” (Port. encastoado), kontente “happy, joyful” (Port. contente), krutu vs. kurrutu “corrupt” (Port. currutu), ranyoso “snotty” (Port. ranhoso), sekiozo “thirsty” (Port. sequioso); Verbs: adiar “to postppone, to delay”, arrastar “to drag, pull”, chokar “to hatch, to incubate” (Port. chocar), djirar “to take for a walk” (Port. girar), gagejar “to stammer, to stutter” (Port. gaguejar), karpir “to whimper” (Port. carpir), karrear “to transport” (Port. carrear), mesher “to rock, to sway” (Port. mexer), mesherikear “to gossip” (Port. mexericar), resgatar “to rescue”, tokar “to stop, to put at a port” (Port. tocar); : supeto “sudden”. Other borrowings were subjected to slight changes of meaning, as we can observe in the verb tujir “to speak, to talk” (Port. tugir “to speak softly, to whisper”), which acquired a more general meaning in Judeo- Spanish. 178 Judeo-Spanish in Contact with Portuguese: Linguistic Outcomes

1.3.3.3. Hybrid Lexical Forms in Judeo-Spanish However, in situations of contact between two languages that are very close typologically, such as Portuguese and Spanish, some of the cognates will culminate in hybrid forms without changing their meaning, i.e., new lexical forms or lexical inter-dialectalisms which are accommodated to the phonetic and morphological rules of Judeo-Spanish: kantadera (Port. cantedeira; Cast. cantadora) “traditional female singer”, tanyedera (Port. tangedeira; Cast. tañedora) “traditional female musician”, fedoriento (Port. fedorento; Old Cast. fediondo) “which exudes stench; stinking”, bostejar (Port. bocejar; Cast. bostezar) “to yawn”, (des)koneser (Port. (des)conhecer; Cast. conocer) “to know, etc.”, kavakar “to excavate; to hollow [potatoes, apples, etc. to be filled later]” (a denominal of Port. kavako; Cast. cavar) or amanyana (Port. amanhã; Cast. mañana) “tomorrow”. Similarly, the transfer of the Portuguese adverbial locution amanhã de manhã “tomorrow morning’ originated in amanyana demanyana in Judeo-Spanish, and the preposition de + manyana led to the lexicalization of the noun demanyana “[the] morning”.

1.3.3.4. Semantic Change and Meaning Extensions under the Influence of Portuguese The lexical meaning integrates loan homonyms and loan synonyms, also known as false cognates. These are abundant between Portuguese and Spanish, so presumably they were a problem for Portuguese and Judeo- Spanish speakers in face-to-face communication. This may have been the case of the homonym Old Castilian verb aparar “to go to get something”, a false cognate of Portuguese aparar “to sharpen a pencil” — a meaning which Judeo-Spanish borrowed from Portuguese, and from which developed the derivative noun aparador “sharpener”, apara-lápis in Portuguese. Especially interesting seems to be lonso “bear; stupid person, idiot”: Documented as onso “bear” in the Castilian literature of the 15th and 16th centuries, but without the bear was serving as a reference point for the stupid character of humans in the Hispanic cultural framework, according to Quintana,49 the el contracted, as in ´onso, was interpreted as part of the lexical root in Judeo-Spanish. Its acoustic analogy with the Portuguese alonso “stupid person, idiot”, probably led to the reorganization of this semantic pattern, causing the expansion of its meaning borrowing from the Portuguese alonso. In this case, the reorganization of semantic patterns was not limited to lonso, but the lexical extension continues to the formation of new words such as the abstract derivative noun lonsedad “beastliness, brutishness” and the Aldina Quintana 179 adjective lonson(a) “naive; harmless”, the form of lonso before lexicalization.

1.3.3.5. Lexical Transfer from Portuguese led to New Structural Patterns All the mentioned lexical items borrowed from Portuguese were completely accommodated to the phonology and of Judeo- Spanish, and they have been retained over time in the lexicon. However, some lexical transfers from the SL to the RL may involve new structural patterns. One such case is Judeo-Spanish, in which the lexical transfer from Portuguese also had some influence on Judeo-Spanish morphology. The borrowing of words such as verbs like tresudar (Port. tressuar “to sweat much”), tresgastar “to overspend”, tresvariar “to rave; speak or act nonsensically”, etc., introduced the derivational prefix tre(s)- into Judeo- Spanish, which besides retaining the idea expressed by the prefix tra(n)s- “across; on the other side of”, and the root prefix tri- “three” in Portuguese and Castilian — documented in 16th century Sephardic texts50 — has been reinterpreted as a prefix that adds intensity to the meaning of the lexical stem, including the denoting of excess. As a prefix, it also became relatively productive, as can be seen in the following lexical Judeo- Spanish compositions: tresalir (tres- + salir “to go out”) “to be crazy” and tresalido “maddened”, probably by analogy to the Portuguese tresloucar and tresloucado; trespizar (tres- + pizar; JSp. pisar “to tread”) “to trample”; trezmudar(se) (tres- + mudar “to change”) “to change seats or domain; to transform”; trezmudar(se) (tres- + mudar “to change”) “to change seats or domain; to transform”; trespizado “trampled”, and trespizamiento “trampling action of trample”; tresboltarse (tres- + voltar- se “to roll over”) “to recant”; trezbuyir (tres- + buyir “to boil”) “to boil until the liquid is absorbed”; trezojar/se (tres- + JSp. ojo “eye”) “be very tired” because it manifests itself through the dark shadows under the eyes.51 This morphological innovation in Judeo-Spanish was introduced indirectly through lexical borrowing. 52 This fact fits with Winford's affirmation that “certain structural innovations in an RL appear to be mediated by lexical borrowing, and are therefore not clear cases of direct structural borrowing…”53 180 Judeo-Spanish in Contact with Portuguese: Linguistic Outcomes

1.4. Linguistic Consequences of Migration in the Eastern Sephardic Communities of the Ottoman Empire after the End of the 16th Century

By the mid-16th century, Judeo-Spanish had become the socially dominant language 54 of the Jews of the Ottoman Empire: spoken and written Castilian at the stage of a Judeo-Spanish nativized prekoine55 had already become the vehicular language of the Mediterranean Jews, used in businesses and in everyday communication, 56 which led to the other languages and dialects — Aragonese, Portuguese, Catalan, Judeo-Italian, Judeo-Greek, Yiddish — becoming marginalized to the familial domain before completely disappearing from the repertoire of languages used in Sephardic communities in the last years of the 16th century.57 This period also coincides with the disappearance of the generation of the expelled and their children born shortly after 1492, and with the beginning of an economic crisis within the Ottoman Empire, which especially affected the Jews, with consequent demographic changes.

1.4.1. Historical Background

Portuguese Jews who migrated to the Ottoman Empire at this time were a very dynamic entity due to their socio-religious circumstances, their economic situation and their trade relations. By the time of their arrival they had already established commercial connections with other membros da nação residing in Italy or the western European, where they were tolerated, or in the Iberian Peninsula itself, where they lived outwardly as , and also in the Jewish communities in North Africa.58 A consequence of this dual identity was that while more liberal Sephardic intellectuals admired the commercial ability of the Portuguese Jews, the more orthodox religious elites questioned their unconditional loyalty to the principles of traditional Judaism. In a conflict with a religious background similar to that which had been dominant in Iberian society, the integration of the Portuguese Jews into the Jewish communities of the Ottoman Empire not only required their sincere return to Judaism, but it demanded unimpeachable conduct as Jews. In sociolinguistic terms, the use of Portuguese recalled the questionable religious past of these Jews, since Judeo-Spanish had acquired a central role in defining an identity of true Judaism. The almost immediate displacement of their native language by the language that conferred Sephardic identity was the price they would have to pay for their social and religious integration. 59 Here, the language shift of the Portuguese Aldina Quintana 181 speakers occurred mostly in relation to individuals in mixed households, thanks to the many mixed marriages, and the borrowing may have played the central role in the transfer of lexical items through imperfect learning by the non-native Judeo-Spanish speakers, which mostly did not spread beyond the family and friends circles. As has already been noted, the characteristics of Judeo-Spanish vocabulary through which contact with Portuguese can be detected, suggests that it mostly integrated during the process of levelling of linguistic differences, i.e. in the 16th century. To the social pressure to acquire Judeo-Spanish — this was not only a question of Judeo-Spanish social status, but also a matter of attitude on the part of members of these communities, where the Judeo-Spanish koine had become one of the most prominent symbols defining identity — should be added the desire of the immigrants to fit themselves into an existing polity rather than establishing a new one, which often leads to rapid linguistic assimilation of newcomers — often only one generation. On the other hand, the influence of immigrant languages on the language to which immigrants have shifted tends to be rather limited, except when descendants of particular immigrant groups are numerically dominant, or in a position such that their speech patterns influence those of the wider community rather than the reverse.60 The emigration of Portuguese Jews to the communities located in western areas of the Balkans led precisely to this situation. However, Portuguese continued to be a language to which Judeo- Spanish speakers were still in contact for some generations, about until the late 17th century, but in a different way:61 Now through contact among Sephardic Jews and port Jews.

1.4.2. The Portuguese Language in the Western Communities of the Balkans

Portuguese was the dominant language of the Portuguese Jews living outside the Ottoman Empire, who were dedicated to transoceanic trade, and defined as 'port Jews', especially regarding to the 17th and 18th centuries.62 In particular, those living in the Italian port cities, including the cities on the Adriatic Sea, and then under Venetian sovereignty, developed trading ties within the Ottoman Empire. Their trade relations were particularly close with other port Jews residing in cities such as Salonika or Smyrna, and with those Sephardic Jews occupied in similar activities within the Ottoman Empire, but who used Judeo-Spanish their in the Mediterranean trade. For Western Jews who wished to 182 Judeo-Spanish in Contact with Portuguese: Linguistic Outcomes join the Sephardic communities of the Ottoman Empire, the best guarantee of integration was their linguistic integration, as noted. On the western border of the Ottoman Empire, on the other hand, in the port cities of Dalmatia, for example, which were then controlled by the Venetian authorities, Italian was the language of government, and the Portuguese Jews moved in a continuum of varieties between Italian, Portuguese and Castilian with transmission of features from one language to another, as shown by records of Split and Dubrovnik, written in a in the mid-17th century.63 Greater intensity of contact in general means more borrowing.64 The latter was the situation in these communities of the Balkans. These conditions facilitate the transfer of the structural features from the SL to the TL both through borrowing and through shift. These factors explain why, in addition to lexical items, phonetic and grammatical features were also imposed only in the Judeo-Spanish western varieties, as we shall now see.

1.4.2.1. Elevation of [o] and [e] in Unstressed Syllables Although in modern Portuguese we find only the elevation of unstressed [o], and [e] became [ə], their pronunciation as [u] and [i] respectively in unstressed syllables is well documented in Old- Portuguese,65 and in word-final position was still documented by Caetano de Lima in 1734 as one of the most salient features of the Italian spoken by Portuguese Jews.66 This pattern was observed in Judeo-Spanish spoken in north and western areas of the Balkans with the exception of Salonika’s Judeo-Spanish.67 It may be assumed that this phonetic transference from Portuguese SL was not only found in the Italian spoken by Portuguese Jews, but also in the Judeo-Spanish spoken by them, as occurs today in the IL of Portuguese-Spanish learners. 68 The language contact of Judeo- Spanish speakers with the Portuguese spoken by Jews in the referred area should not be ignored as a case of contact-induced changes. The result of the influence of Portuguese speakers on Judeo-Spanish was simplification through the loss of the marked feature of contrast between [e] > [i] and [o] > [u] in unstressed syllables, e.. semejante [simi'ʒan̪ ti] (Old Cast. [seme'ʒan̪ te]), or poderozo [pudi'ɾoz̪ u] (Old Cast. [pođe'ɾoz̪ o]).69 Here, the language transfer from Portuguese into Judeo-Spanish might have belonged to the type of imposition under SL agentivity, 70 i.e. the SL speaker is the agent for material language transfer. Because the SL is his dominant language, from which materials are transferred into an RL in which the speaker is less proficient, transfer of this type tends to involve mainly phonological features, though imposition in the TL may occur. Aldina Quintana 183

1.4.2.2. Past imperfect of the verb ir “go” A morphological marked feature observed in Judeo-Spanish used in the above-mentioned Judeo-Spanish geographical area 71 — also documented in Portuñol72 — is the past imperfect of the verb ir “go”: ia, ias, ia, iamos, iash, ian. These forms, in their origin the of the indicative imperfect of the verb haber “have”, which in the 16th century Castilian texts were still generally used as the auxiliary verb of the extinct analytic conditional: ia, ias, ia, iamos, iades, ian, were always postponed to the infinitive main verb, and intercalated between them was the corresponding clitic: “…y si los tales, que así renegasen, fuesen salteadores de camino, etc., tener los ian por buenos cristianos cuanto a lo que se debe creer”73 (modern Spanish: tendríalos). These forms of the auxiliary verb were preserved in Judeo-Spanish in the said area, but in a new function: they replaced the unmarked standard Judeo-Spanish indicative imperfect of ir, like in Portuguese and Galician, and in some varieties of the adjacent Leonese language.

1.4.2.3. Judeo-Spanish loke wh-Operator An imposition under SL agentivity from Portuguese was the structural element o que wh-operator, first reinterpreted through the heterophonic lo que in Judeo-Spanish, whose function is that of neutral relative pronoun. Like the Spanish qué wh-operator and the modern Judeo-Spanish loke/ke/kualo,74 Portuguese o que [-human] and [+ / - animate] introduces the clause, in which the interrogative constituent bears the nuclear and may be classified as the expression of a type of narrow focus.75

(11) Loke fazes? JSp. (north & west) O que fazes? Port. ¿Qué haces? Cast. What are you doing?

It seems to follow that due to homophony between the borrowed lo qué (wh-operator) and the lo que (neutral relative pronoun) preexisting in Judeo-Spanish, at least in subordinate partial interrogatives clauses, qué was replaced by lo qué not only as an wh-operator in main interrogative clauses (11), but also in subordinate interrogative nominal relative clauses dependent on a transitive verb (12), which previously had required a type of nominal relative clause.

184 Judeo-Spanish in Contact with Portuguese: Linguistic Outcomes

(12) Yo li dimandi luke el dimandava JSp. (Yo) le pregunté qué es lo que preguntaba él Cast. (Yo) le pregunté lo qué preguntaba él Cast. I asked him what he had asked

Here the result is that borrowing of a wh-operator triggered a structural change: lo que (< Port. o que) in the IL version of the Portuguese shifting group, then spread to the TL as a whole, and replaced the equivalent Judeo-Spanish wh-word; finally lo que engendered changes in relative clauses.76 Western Judeo-Spanish dialects also exhibit a greater number of lexical items than the eastern dialects.77 Many of the former were also part of the everyday language of the Jews of Salonika. This is the case with respect to the following words: Nouns: bezba “bee” (Port. bespa), datle “date” [fruit] (Port. datile), fijon “haricot bean” (Port. feijão, Gal. feijó), fronya “pillow-cover” (Port. fronha), shambashuga “leech” (developed from Port. sambesuga), tremp(e)/(-is) “trivet”; Verbs: amoiser “to soften” (Mod. Port. amolecer), and bostijar “to toyawn” (Port. bocejar); Adverbs: endagora “just now” (Port. indagora), logu “immediately” (Port. logo), meyu “half, partially” (Port. meio), lonjde “far, far away, far off” (Port. longe). Other lexical items are documented only in one or two dialects, such as almesha “plum” (Port. ameixa) in Sarajevo and almeshe in Monastir or sardinya “sardine” (Port. sardinha) in Bucarest. To these lexical items we could add others that may attest to very intense contact between Judeo-Spanish and Portuguese in Western communities. It may be suggested that these innovations and changes occurred fist in the Portuguese mixed with Castilian and Italian elements spoken by the Portuguese port Jews living in the port cities of the Adriatic Sea, and from there these spread to the Sephardic communities of the interior of the Balkans. In this context, the nearly extinct Judeo-Spanish spoken in Monastir deserves special mention as the only Judeo-Spanish variety in which the role of Castilian as its language base can be questioned.

Aldina Quintana 185

1.4.2.4. The Special Case of the Judeo-Spanish Spoken in Monastir (Macedonia) When the Venetians occupied Valona in 1688, the Jews fled to Berat, and in 1740, after a series of epidemics, those of Spanish and Italian origin settled in Kastoria, and Greek Jews in Janine; the Portuguese Jews moved to Monastir.78 In the absence of research on the matter, it may be suggested that the arrival of this group of port Jews, numerically important and of a marked sociological nature, led to the levelling of dialectal differences, i.e., among the local Judeo-Spanish speakers and the Portuguese fugitives, who spoke Portuguese mixed with Castilian and Italian elements. As expected, these historical events have left their imprint on the language of the Jews of Monastir, which contains several peculiar features by which it is clearly identified vis-à-vis other varieties of Judeo-Spanish. The feature that most characterized the Judeo-Spanish of Monastir was not only the elevation of [o] and [e] in unstressed syllables, as occurs in the Western dialects (see § 1.4.2.1.), but also the elevation of the [a] to [e] in the final syllable of the word. This led to a system of three unstressed in this word context [i, e, u]. The elevation of [a] to [e] seems be a consequence of the elevation of the other two vowels, a change that also occurred in Portuguese, although there the result was a central vowel [ɐ]. Thus, in Monastir words like kaza “house” or pera “pear” were pronounced [kaze] and [pere]. The Judeo-Spanish of Monastir also had no diphthongized forms as did Portuguese: kumendo, durmindu, sintindu, kerendu, kurrendu. This feature would be transmitted through the wave of migrants arrived from Valona via Berat. But the most remarkable pattern of the Judeo-Spanish spoken in Monastir — no doubt transmitted by those who spoke Portuguese — was the personal infinitive (13, 14, 15, 16), following the Portuguese model.

(13) Pur seris disḥinadu, ti cayi il pantalón79 JSp. By be-2.SG careless in dress, [you] drop your pants Por ser descuidado en el vestido, te cae el pantalón Cast.

(14) Pur trayeris pan, peshi trayis80 JSp. To bring-2.PL bread, [you] bring fish Por traer pan, traes pescado Cast.

(15) Si stan maraviyandu di verin el tipsin solu a la meze81 JSp. [They] are amazing to see-3.PL the tray alone at the table Se están asombrando de ver la bandeja sola en la mesa Cast. 186 Judeo-Spanish in Contact with Portuguese: Linguistic Outcomes

(16) Ke non me eches en olvido de me mandares letras82 JSp. Do not forget [you] to send-2.SG me letters Que no te olvides de mandarme cartas Cast.

Such a transfer of verb occurs in cases of close typological fit between the languages in contact.83 The absence of relevant historical data for this contact situation in the past makes it difficult to determine which mechanisms underlie this type of convergence. We can only suggest that here, the mechanisms involved Portuguese bilinguals first language (L1) speakers who — in a situation of language shift or of mutual accommodation between the linguistic groups — retained the verb inflections in the IL variety because the counterpart in the second language (L2 were non-existent. This IL innovation was later imitated by recipient language speakers, i.e. by local Judeo-Spanish speakers. Here the existence of a gap in the infinitive constructions in Judeo-Spanish compared to the same pattern in the Portuguese language facilitated the transfer of the verb inflections from one language to the other. The Judeo-Spanish of Monastir was also characterized by its inclusion of more lexical items borrowed from Portuguese than any other Judeo- Spanish variety. The following list contains part of the inventory of Portuguese loanwords integrated in this variety: Nouns: almeshe “plum” (Port. ameixa), alsireje “cherry” (Port. cereja), akusar “to scratch” (Port. acoçar), fadariu “fate, luck” (Port. fadario), kaderno “paper notebook” (Port. caderno), kavako “landmark; boundary stone; milestone” (Port. cavaco “splinter; action of digging”), meyudye “noon, midday” (Port. meio-dia), meyason “division into two equal halves” (Port. meyação), urse “bear” (Port. urso); Adjectives: fedorento “stinking”; Verbs: achar “to find; to locate” (Cast. hallar), maniar “to handle” (Port. manear); Adverbs: inde “still, yet” (Popular Port. inda).

2. Final Evaluation

The Portuguese influence on Judeo-Spanish was easily detectable, although it was not pervasive, but the contact was intimate enough to cause language shift as well language borrowing. Generally, in the 16th century, Portuguese influence on Judeo-Spanish was not a kind of prestige borrowing for the purpose of enrichment, but the outcome of imperfect language shift by the entire speaker group in a situation in which Castilian Aldina Quintana 187 was acquired in face-to-face communications, perpetuating structural features from Portuguese and interlanguages in the speech of monolingual descendants; among these, children descended from monolingual and bilingual Portuguese would play a decisive role in the transmission of some of the new features to the dominant population of the Sephardic communities. The fact that Portuguese and Judeo-Spanish were so similar structurally and lexically made it possible to understand the other language without any prior knowledge, and to acquire it partially with only the most rudimentary notions of systematic differences. However, the problems are also inevitable:

“if a person happens to discover, in two separate languages, perfectly parallel series of words designating a great many everyday objects and general concepts such as: house (casa), table (mesa), dresser (armario), country (país), wheat (trigo), month (mes), hour (hora), uncle (tío), friend (amigo), blue (azul), green (verde), to like (querer), to eat (comer), to ask (pedir), to sleep (dormir)…, he naturally feels inclined to put up a kind of equation between the two languages. He gladly admits the existence of slight phonetic variations, e.g., ciudad — cidade; contento — contente. He goes so far as to discover the effectiveness of a “law” in the alternation of -/f-, ll-/- (hierro — ferro, harina — farinha; llegar — chegar, llave — chave), but, then, he is quite certain to be puzzled and to shrink back from any unexpected deviation, incongruence and “irregularity”.84

The results of code-mixing configurations qualitatively and quantitatively were different from those produced when two mutually unintelligible and genealogically divergent languages are in contact. Quantitatively, Judeo- Spanish and Portuguese contact may have produced a much higher density of switch, which had a greater effect on the lexicon. In fact, Judeo- was more influenced than morphology, in which contact with Portuguese impacted very slightly, and syntax was practically unaffected. Portuguese influence in Judeo-Spanish is said to be confined almost exclusively to loanwords, change and extensions of meaning or the addition of new ways of saying old things, often by replacing Castilian or Judeo-Spanish items similar in nature and form like false cognates. Often, contact with Portuguese led to the hybridization of words whose pronunciation in Portuguese and Castilian was slightly different. Contact of Judeo-Spanish to Portuguese did not modify the basic typology of Judeo-Spanish because the two languages were highly similar in 188 Judeo-Spanish in Contact with Portuguese: Linguistic Outcomes all sub-systems, even though some Portuguese-marked grammatical patterns were transferred into Judeo-Spanish. As Thomason has observed —

“in ordinary shift situations there is no negotiation among shifting speakers, because they all share the same L1; and if they learn the TL imperfectly, they are likely to make similar or identical “errors.” These “errors” may include (among other things) marked features of their original L1”.85

The fact that borrowed words from Portuguese in Judeo-Spanish belong to the everyday life register supports my previous statement that the transfer of linguistic material from one language to another took place in daily intercommunication face-to-face. Thomason and Kaufman86 argued that prestige seems to be irrelevant in cases of dialect transfer. That as far as the social prestige of Portuguese is concerned, it seems not to have been relevant in selecting the material borrowed in Judeo-Spanish. However, the prestige of Castilian among members of the first two generations of the expellees, and the Sephardic identity-defining role later assigned to Judeo-Spanish, makes clear that the degree of prestige assigned by Iberian Jews to each language was an important factor in determining language shift. Cultural pressure of the dominant Castilian group led to a rapid shift to the social dominant language, and consequently the abandoned languages, as spoken by the different groups, died. If the Judeo-Spanish speakers were in contact with Portuguese speakers until at least the 18th century, it was not because of a particular attitude of their speakers during the process of levelling of differences, but due to the immigration of new speakers arriving from outside, who also finally shifted to Judeo-Spanish, and through contact to the Port Jews. This is well emphasized in the Judeo-Spanish varieties spoken in the western communities of the Balkans and especially in the variety of Monastir.

Bibliography

Almosnino, Moshe. 1564. Sefer Hanhagat Hahayim. Libro entitolado Regimiento dela vida. Salonika: Yosef Yaabets. Neta, Nair Floresta. 2012. Aprender español es fácil porque hablo portugués: ventajas y desventajas de los brasileños para aprender español. Cuadernos Cervantes de la Lengua Española 3. http://www.cuadernoscervantes.com/lc_portugues.html (last access June 12, 2012). Aldina Quintana 189

Arbell, Mordehay. 2002a). Los djudios de Avilona (Valona) en Albania. Aki Yerushalayim 69: 13-14. —. 2002b). The Jewish Community of Vlora (Valona, Avilona) and its Roll in the Adriatic. The Fourth Conference Society and Culture of the Jews on the East of the Adriatic Coast, Dubrovnik, August 2002. Unpublished paper. Ariza, Manuel. 1994. Sobre fonética histórica del español. Madrid: Arco/Libros. Barnai, Jacob. 1993. Los judíos del Imperio Otomano en los siglos 17 y 18. In Beinart, Haim, ed. El legado de Sefarad. Jerusalén: Magnes Press, vol. 2, 138-170. Bashan, Eliezer. 1989. The Rise and Decline of the Sephardi Communities in the Levant – The Economic Aspects. In Barnett, David and Walter Manfred Schwab, eds. The Sephardi Heritage. Grenddon (Northants): Books Ltd., vol. 2, 349-388. Beinart, Haim. 1993. La expulsión de España: causas y consecuencias. In Beinart, Haim, ed. El Legado de Sefarad. Jerusalén: Magnes Press, vol. 2, 11-43. Benbassa, Esther and Aron Rodrigue. 1993. Juifs des Balkans. Paris: Éditions la Découverte. Benvenisti, Meir ben Shemuel. Ca. 1565. Seder Nashim. Salonika: s.n. —. 1568. Sefer Shulhan Hapanim yamado en ladino Meza de el alma. Salonika: s.n. Brito, Ana Maria. 2003. Frases interrogativas. In Mateus, Maria Helena, Ana Maria Mira, Inês Duarte, and Isabel Hub Faria, eds. Gramática da Língua Portuguesa. Lisboa: Editorial Caminho, 460-479. Crews, Cynthia. 1935. Recherches sur le Judéo-Espagnol dans les Pays Balkaniques. Paris: Droz. Curnow, Timothy Jowan. 2001. What Language Features Can Be “Borrowed”? In Aikhenvald, Y. and Malcolm Ward Dixon, eds. Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 412-436. David, Abraham. 2005. Iberian Exiles in the Sixteenth-Century Ottoman Empire. In Zucker, George K., ed. Sephardic Identity: Essays on a Vanishing Jewish Culture. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co., 43-53. Dubin, Lois C. 1999. The Port Jews of Habsburg Trieste: Absolutist Politics and Enlightenment Culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press. —. 2002. Researching Port Jews and Port Jewries: Trieste and Beyond. In Cesarani, David, ed. Port Jews. Jewish Communities in Cosmopolitan Maritime Trading Centres, 1550-1950. London: Frank Cass Publishers, 47-58. 190 Judeo-Spanish in Contact with Portuguese: Linguistic Outcomes

—. 2006. 'Wings on their Feet ... and Wings on their Head': Reflections on the Study of Port Jews. In Cesarani, David and Gemma Romain, eds. Jews and Port Cities 1590-1990. Commerce, Community and Cosmopolitanism. London, Portland: Vallentine Mitchell, 14-30. Encyclopaedia Judaica. 1997. Edición CD-ROM, version 1.0. Gross, Abraham. 1995. Iberian Jewry from Twilight to Dawn, The World of Rabbi Abraham Saba. (Brill's Series in Jewish Studies 10). Leiden: Brill. Kaplan, Yosef. 1993. Los sefardíes en el noroeste de Europa y en el Nuevo Mundo. In Beinart, Haim, ed. El legado de Sefarad. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, vol. 2, 298-325. Kerswill, Paul and Ann Williams. 2000. Creating a New Town koine: Children and language change in Milton Keynes. Language in Society 29: 65-115. Lehmann, Mathias B. 2005. A Livornese "Port " and the Sephardim of the Ottoman Empire. Jewish Social Studies 11/2: 51-76. —. 2007. "Levantinos" and other Jews: Reading H.Y.D. Azulai's Travel Diary. Jewish Social Studies 13/3: 1-34. Lipski, John M. 2012. Geographical and social varieties of Spanish: An overview. In Hualde, Ignacio, Antxon Olarrea, and Erin O'Rouke, eds. The Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics. Malden, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1-26. Luria, Max A. 1930. A Study of the Monastir Dialect of Judeo-Spanish based on Oral Material collected in Monastir, Yugo-Slavia. New York: Instituto de las Españas. Malkiel, Yakov. 1941. Difficulties in the Simultaneous Study of Spanish and Portuguese. The Modern Language Journal 25/1: 853-856. Medina, Shemuel de. 1595. Sheelot uteshuvot. Hoshen Mishpat section. Salonika: Avraham Migeza Batševa (In Hebrew). Minervini, Laura. 1999. The Formation of the Judeo-Spanish Koiné: Dialect Convergence in the Sixteenth Century. In Benaim, Annette, ed. The Proceedings of the Tenth British Conference on Judeo-Spanish Studies, 29 June - 1 July 1997. London: Queen Mary and Westfield College, 41-52. —. 2006. EI desarrollo histórico del judeoespañol. Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana (RILI) 8: 13-34. Monaco, Chris S. 2009. Port Jews or a People of the ? A Critique of the Port Jew Concept. Jewish Social Studies 15/2: 137-166. Nehama, . 1977. Dictionnaire du Judéo-Espagnol. Madrid: C.S.I.C. Aldina Quintana 191

Nelson Novoa, James W. 2008. Las opiniones sacadas de los más auténticos y antigos philósofos que sobre la alma escrivieron y sus difiniciones, de Daniel Arón Afia. Sefarad 68/1: 89-103. Palachi, Abraham, 1862. Sefer Vehoxiah Avraham. Salonika: Defus Saadi Halevi Eshkenazi. Vol. 2. Paquda, Bahye Ibn. 1569. Sefer Hovat Halevavot. Constantinople: s.n. Penny, Ralph. 1992. Dialect Contact and Social Networks in Judeo- Spanish. Romance Philology 46/2: 125-140. —. 1996. Judeo-Spanish varieties before and after the Expulsion. Donaire 6: 54-58. —. 2000. Variation and Change in Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Quintana, Aldina. 2001. Concomitancias lingüísticas entre el aragonés y el ladino (judeoespañol). Archivo de Filología Aragonesa 57-58: 163-192. —. 2002. Geografía lingüística del judeoespañol de acuerdo con el léxico. Revista de Filología Española 82/1: 105-138. —. 2004. El sustrato y el adstrato portugueses en judeoespañol. Judenspanisch VIII (Neue 31): 167-192. —. 2006. Geografía lingüística del judeoespañol. Estudio sincrónico y diacrónico. Bern: Peter Lang. —. 2009. Aportación lingüística de los romances aragonés y portugués a la coiné judeoespañola. In Bunis, David M., ed. Languages and Literatures of Sephardic and Oriental Jews. Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim, Bialik Institute, 221-255. —. 2014. Judeo-Spanish in contact with Portuguese: A historical overview. In Amaral, Patrícia and Ana Maria , eds. Portuguese-Spanish Interfaces: Diachrony, sinchrony, and contact. Amsterdam - Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 65-94. Ray, Jonathan. 2008. New approaches to the Jewish Diaspora: The Sephardim as a sub-ethnic group. Jewish Social Studies 15/1: 10-31. Révah, Israel.-S. 1965. Formation et évolution des parlers judéo-espagnols des Balkans. In Straka, Georges, ed. Actes du Xe Congrés International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes. Paris: Klincksieck, vol. 3, 1351-1371. Romeu Ferré, Pilar, ed. 1998. Moisés Almosnino (1568). Crónica de los Reyes Otomanos. Barcelona: Tirocinio. Ross, Malcolm, 2001. Contact-induced Change in Oceanic Languages in North-West Melanesia. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Robert Malcolm Ward Dixon, eds. Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 134-166. 192 Judeo-Spanish in Contact with Portuguese: Linguistic Outcomes

Sankoff, Gillian. 2003. Linguistic Outcomes of Language Contact. In Chambers, [ack] K., Peter Trudgill and Natalie Schilling-Estes, eds. The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, Blackwell Reference Online. 31 December 2007: http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/tocnode?id=g97814051 16923_chunk_g978140511692334 (last access January 23, 2013). Siegel, Jeff. 1985. Koines and koineization. Language and Society 14: 357-378. Sorkin, David. 1999. The Port Jews: Notes Toward a Social Type. Journal of Jewish Studies 1: 87-97. —. 2002. Port Jews and the Three Regions of Emancipation. In Cesarani, David, ed. Port Jews. Jewish Communities in Cosmopolitan Maritime Trading Centres, 1550-1950. London: Frank Cass Publishers, 31-46. Soyer, François. 2007. The Persecution of the Jews and Muslims of Portugal. King Manuel I and the End of Religious Tolerance (1496–7). Leiden - Boston: Brill. Talavera, Fray Hernando de. 1487. Católica impugnación del herético libelo maldito y descomulgado. Francisco Martín Hernández, ed. Barcelona: Juan Flors 1961. REAL ACADEMIA ESPAÑOLA: Banco de datos (CORDE) [in-line]. Corpus diacrónico del español. http://www.rae.es (last access February 11, 2013). Tavares, Maria José P. Ferro. 1987. Judeus e conversos castelhanos em Portugal. Anales de la Universidad de Alicante. Historia Medieval 6: 341-368. Teyssier, Paul. 1984. História da língua portuguesa. Lisboa: Sá da Costa Editora. Thomason, Sarah Grey. 2001. Contact-induced language change and /Creole genesis. In , Norval and Tonjes Veenstra, eds. Creolization and Contact. Amsterdam - Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 249-262. Thomason, Sarah Grey and Terrence Kaufman eds. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Várvaro, Alberto and Minervini, Laura. 2007. Orígenes del Judeoespañol: Textos. Revista de Historia de la Lengua Española (RHLE) 2: 147-172. Wagner, Max Leopold. 1930. Caracteres generales del judeoespañol de Oriente. Madrid: Hernando. Winford, Donald. 2003. An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. —. 2005. Contact-induced Changes. Diachronica 22/2: 373-427. Aldina Quintana 193

Zemke, John M. ed. 2004. Moše ben Baruk Almosnino, Regimiento de la vida. Tratado de los suenyos. Tempe, Arizona: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies.

Notes

*This research was funded by the Israel Sciences Foundation (ISF Grant 473/11), and has been carried out within the framework of the project From to Judeo-Spanish: Formation of New Linguistic Varieties Not Subjected to Standardizing Pressure in the Context of Migration (16th - 17th Centuries) at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 1 One of those rare references was formulated by R. Abraham Palachi (1809-1899) from Smyrna, who wrote “. . . i el espanyol ke avlamos ke el shoresh [roots] es de Portugal, lo tenemos mesklado de otros leshonot [languages] komo , arami, sarfati, yevani, , sefaradi, aravi, parsi, ashuri, misri vexadome . . .” [… and the Spanish that we speak, whose base is Portuguese, is mixed with other languages such as Italian, Aramaic, French, Greek, Latin, Spanish, , Persian, Assyrian, Egyptian, etc. . . ] (Palachi 1862, 71). 2 Ordinary language shift refers to the process whereby a group of persons that speaks a common language or the members of a language community are in contact with another language, and in this situation the TL as a whole is available to them and is, for the most part, already acquired. 3 Ross 2001, 157-158. 4 Quintana 2014, 67. 5 The lack of a historical corpus of Judeo-Spanish and the impossibility of access to the few documents written in Portuguese by Portuguese Jews living in the Sephardic communities of the Ottoman Empire in the 16th and 17th centuries do not permit, at least at present, a more detailed study of this issue. 6 Thomason and Kaufman 1988, 95. 7 Tavares 1987, 354, estimated that around 50,000 Castilian Jews fled to Portugal, of whom 20,000 would be distributed in the communities of Évora and Lisbon. As opposed to this, Gross (1995, 7), believes that the number of Spanish refugees in Portugal could have reached between 90,000 to 120,000. 8 For an overview of the situation, see H. Beinart 1993 and Soyer 2007. 9 See Encyclopaedia Judaica 1979, s.. Habib ben Levi. 10 Ray 2008, 18. 11 Penny 1992, 125-127. 12 Penny 1992, 135 and 1996, 58. 13 Ross 2001, 158. 14 Ray 2008, 18. 15 Penny 1992, 127; Minervini, 1999, 42 and Quintana 2002, 137-138. 16 Ibero-Romance non-Castilian features are discussed by Penny 2000, 187-190 and also by Quintana 2001, 2004, 2006, 242-276, 2009. 17 Quintana 2014, 69. 194 Judeo-Spanish in Contact with Portuguese: Linguistic Outcomes

18 Ross 2001, 157. 19 Quintana 2014, 70. 20 HhL refers to Paquda 1569. 21 SN refers to Benvenisti ca. 1565. 22 MA refers to Benvenisti 1568. 23 RV refers to Almosnino 1564. 24 For the role played by the Aragonese speakers see Quintana 2001. 25 Kaplan 1993, 253. 26 David 2005, 49-50. 27 Nelson Novoa 2008. 28 See Encyclopaedia Judaica 1979, s.v. Amathus Lusitanus. 29 Revah 1965, 1353; Quintana 2002, 132-133 and Quintana 2004, 171. 30 Author's tanslation of “[E]ntre meados do século XV e fins do século XVII o espanhol serviu como segunda língua para todos os portugueses cultos ... Os sessenta anos de dominacao espanhola (1580-1640), que se situam no periodo mais brilhante do «Século de Ouro», acentuaram esta impregnação linguistica. É somente depois de 1640, com a Restauração e a subida ao trono de D. João IV, que se produz uma certa reacção anti-espanhola. O bilinguismo, todavia, perdurará até o desaparecimento dos últimos representantes da geração formada antes de 1640. Assim, durante aproximadamente dois séculos e meio, o espanhol foi em Portugal uma segunda lingua de cultura...” (Teyssier 1984, 37). 31 Translation by the author from Nelson Novoa 2008, 90: “la cultura intelectual de los conversos vueltos al judaísmo en el Oriente refleja la realidad de los miembros de sus comunidades, formados en Europa e imbuidos de la cultura del momento que reflejaba los atisbos del Renacimiento. En el seno de las comunidades sefardíes confluían la cultura humanística, literaria y médica de las universidades europeas, el incipiente espíritu empírico y crítico, la gran tradición filosófica hispano-judía y la cultura rabínica.” 32 Nelson Novoa 2008. On the life and work of Rabbi Almosnino, see Romeu Ferré 1998 and Zemke 2004. 33 Quintana 2014, 75. 34 The three examples are also quoted in Quintana 2014, 73-74. 35 Parts of an oral testimony whose protocol included in a response was drawn up in Salonika before 1589. This was published with other orthographic criteria by Várvaro and Minervini 2007, 156-157. 36 Translation: “…[we] also determined to go to the home of Mr So-and-so, and examine his writing, and verify if his words could be confirmed, in order for us to withdraw the charge against him…” 37 Quintana 2006, 301. 38 Bashan 1989, Barnai 1993, 141 and Benbassa & Rodrigue 1993, 108-109. 39 Barnai 1993, 140-148. 40 Ariza 1994, 218. 41 These occurrences are found in Almosnino 1564. 42 Quintana 2014, 76-77. Aldina Quintana 195

43 Crews 1935, 233 and Wagner 1930, 76. 44 The hereinafter quoted Judeo-Spanish material comes from oral and written texts, and dictionaries. See Quintana 2006, 315-329. 45 On the impersonal pragmatic funtion of these sentences, see Quintana 2014, 77. 46 This is not surprising. Curnow 2001, 426, asserts that the “most traditional of all borrowed items is the .” 47 Quintana 2014, 78. 48 Quintana 2014, 78. 49 Quintana 2006, 271, [2014], 23-24. 50 For example, tresquilar (MA, 131r) “to scalp, to shearʼ (Cast. trasquilar), trespaça (MA, 43r) “he overstepsʼ (Port. trespassa) and tremudaçion (MA, 77v) “change, moveʼ. 51 See Quintana 2014, 76. 52 More aspects of this Judeo-Spanish innovation are discussed in Quintana 2014, 80. 53 Winford 2005, 386. 54 According to Winford 2005, 377, linguistic dominance “refers to the fact that a speaker is more proficient in one of the languages involved in contact, which is typically his first or primary language. Social dominance refers to the social and political status of a language.” 55 Following Siegel's (1985, 373-374) stages of the process of koineization, a prekoine stage is where “various forms of the varieties in contact are used concurrently and inconsistently. Leveling and some mixing have begun to occur… but few forms have emerged as the accepted compromise.” 56 Minervini 2006, 21. 57 Quintana 2002, 133-134, [2014], 8. 58 Kaplan 1993, 251. 59 Quintana 2014, 83. 60 Sankoff 2003, 4. 61 Quintana 2004, 172. 62 For a definition of 'port Jew', see Dubin 1999, 1-9, 2006, 15-17 and Sorkin 1999. For a critical exposition of this concept, see Monaco 2009. About Port Jews, in general, see Sorkin 2002, Dubin 1999, 1-9, 2002. On differences in mentality, customs, etc., among Levantine Jews – Sephardi living in the Ottoman Empire – and the Western Sephardim, especially, the Livornese – more representatives of the port Jew –, see also the works of Lehmann 2005 and 2007. 63 Quintana 2004, 171-172, Quintana 2014, 87. 64 Thomason and Kaufman 1988, 72 and Sankoff 2003, 4. 65 See Teyssier 1984, 24-25. 66 Teyssier 1984, 57-58. 67 Quintana 2006, 40-57, Quintana 2014, 84. 68 Andrade Neta 2012. 69 Quintana 2014, 84-85. 70 Winford 2005, 376-377, considers it fundamental to distinguish between phonological borrowing under RL agentivity, and phonological imposition under 196 Judeo-Spanish in Contact with Portuguese: Linguistic Outcomes

SL agentivity. According to his definition, borrowing under RL agentivity refers to a situation in which the direction of transfer of material is always from the SL to the RL, and the agent of the transfer is the RL speaker. 71 Quintana 2004, 182, and 2006, 398. 72 Lipski 2012, 16. 73 Talavera 1487, 152. 74 These forms are geographical variants. See Quintana 2006, 182. 75 Brito 2003, 464. 76 Quintana 2014, 85-86. 77 Luria 1930, Crews 1935 and Nehama 1977. 78 Arbell 2002a),13-14 and 2002b). 79 Luria 1930, 93. 80 Luria 1930, 55. 81 Crews 1935, 107. 82 Crews 1935, 246, § 932. 83 Windorf 2003, 63. 84 Malkiel 1941, 854. 85 Thomason 2001, 255. 86 Thomason and Kaufman 1988, 44.