A Unique Hebrew Glossary from India: An Analysis of Judeo-Urdu 9781463237349

This is the first-ever study of Judeo-Urdu, that is, the Hindi/Urdu language written in Hebrew script. It provides backg

131 91 18MB

English Pages 146 Year 2016

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

A Unique Hebrew Glossary from India: An Analysis of Judeo-Urdu

Table of contents :

Citation preview

A Unique Hebrew Glossary from India

Gorgias Handbooks

Gorgias Handbooks provides students and scholars with reference books, textbooks and introductions to different topics or fields of study. In this series, Gorgias welcomes books that are able to communicate information, ideas and concepts effectively and concisely, with useful reference bibliographies for further study.

A Unique Hebrew Glossary from India

An Analysis of Judeo-Urdu

Aaron D. Rubin

gp 2016

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2016 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. ‫ܝ‬



ISBN 978-1-4632-0613-0

ISSN 1935-6838

A Cataloging-in-Publication Record is Available from the Library of Congress.

Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents................................................................v List of Tables and Plates .................................................. vii Acknowledgments .............................................................ix Foreword ...........................................................................xi Chapter One: Introduction ..................................................1 Chapter Two: Lexical Samples ............................................9 Chapter Three: Orthography and Phonology ...................43 3.1. Consonants .........................................................43 3.2. Vowels ................................................................49 3.3. Word Division.....................................................52 Chapter Four: Morphology ...............................................55 4.1. Nominal Morphology .........................................55 4.2. Pronouns ............................................................57 4.3. Verbs ..................................................................66 4.3.1. Imperatives .................................................67 4.3.2. Past Tense ...................................................68 4.3.3. Present Tense ..............................................72 4.3.4. Future Tense ...............................................75 4.3.5. Passives .......................................................78 4.3.6. Judeo-Urdu -elā with Hebrew Participles and Statives ..................................80 Chapter Five: Conclusions ................................................83 Indices of Words ...............................................................89 6.1. Index of Hebrew and Aramaic Words ................89 6.2. Index of Hindi, Urdu, and Judeo-Urdu Words ...93 Bibliography .....................................................................97 Plates ................................................................................99



Table 1. Representation of Hindi/Urdu Consonants in Hebrew Letters

Table 2. Values of Hebrew Letters in the Judeo-Urdu Glossary Table 3. The Personal Pronouns

Table 4. The Possessive Pronouns Table 5. The Dative Pronouns

43 45 58 61



(Beginning from the back of the volume)

Plates 1–31 Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary

Plate 32 Indar Sabhā (British Library, Or. 13287) Plate 33 Indar Sabhā (Valmadonna no. 4180) Plate 34 Laila Majnu

Plate 35 Bol (Valmadonna no. 9936)


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am very grateful to the Valmadonna Trust Library for permission to publish photographs of the texts studied herein, as well as to the staff of Sotheby’s in New York for allowing me access to the collection in July 2015 and February 2016. My thanks especially to Sharon Mintz for all of her assistance. I would also like to thank Melonie Schmierer-Lee at Gorgias Press for her help in preparing the book for publication, Zaryab Iqbal for patiently answering questions about Urdu, and Lily Kahn and Kimberly Rubin for valuable feedback and corrections.


FOREWORD The present work is the first ever study of JudeoUrdu, that is, the Hindi/Urdu language written in Hebrew script. The corpus of Judeo-Urdu is very small, and much of it consists only of transcriptions of Urdu texts. One text, a glossary of Hebrew and Judeo-Urdu, is of particular linguistic value. Scholars of Hindi/Urdu will be interested in the unique dialect of Judeo-Urdu found in this text, which shows close affinities with the under-described colloquial Hindi/Urdu variety of Bombay. Scholars of Jewish languages will find that Judeo-Urdu follows the propensities of other Jewish languages, such as the use of non-standard morphology, unique lexical items, and, of course, the use of the Hebrew script. At the end of this volume is a photographic reproduction of the entire Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, as well as some photographs of other Judeo-Urdu texts. What precedes is an introduction to JudeoUrdu; a presentation of some of the contents of the glossary, with comparative data and commentary; and an analysis of Judeo-Urdu orthography, phonology, and morphology. It is hoped that the data and analysis presented herein will be of interest to scholars of Hindi and Urxi



du, as well as to scholars in the growing field of Jewish languages, and that the work will encourage other studies of Judeo-Urdu.

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION There are at least four existing texts in Judeo-Urdu, that is, in the Hindi/Urdu language written in Hebrew script. These are: 1. Indar Sabhā (‫)אינדר סבהא‬, an Urdu play transcribed into Hebrew script, known both from a manuscript version (54 pages) and from a lithograph version printed around 1880 (33 pages). 1 0F

2. Laila Majnu (‫)לילי מגנו‬, also an Urdu play transcribed into Hebrew script, published in Bombay in 1888. 2 1F


The manuscript copy of the Indar Sabhā is held by the British Li-

brary (ms. Or. 13287). Two copies of the lithograph version (not iden-

tical to the British Library manuscript) are held by the Valmadonna

Trust Library (no. 4180). One of the lithograph copies is cited by Yaari (1940: 47), who says it was printed in Calcutta. For images of the Brit-

ish Library manuscript, see Plate 32 and Rubin (2016: 749), and for images of the lithograph copy, see Plate 33 and Yaari (1940, opposite p. 48). 2

Laila Majnu is cited by Yaari (1940: 63), and a copy is held by

the National Library of Israel. See Plate 34 for an image. Both Laila

Majnu and Indar Sabhā are cited also by Musleah (1975: 426).




3. A lithograph Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu glossary of 31 pages, containing about 1000 entries. (More on this text below.) 4. A lithograph work with 31 very fragmentary pages, titled ‫( בול‬Bol ‘speech, conversation’). 3 2F

Occasional words and phrases in Judeo-Urdu can also be found in a small number of Hebrew manuscripts. 4 All the Judeo-Urdu texts appear to be products of the Baghdadi Jewish community that began to settle in India (especially Bombay and Calcutta) at the end of the 18th century. Of all these texts, it is the glossary that is linguistically the most interesting, and so that work will be the focus of this book. In Yaari’s catalogue of Hebrew printing in India (1940: 59), he described the glossary as ‘a HebrewHindustani glossary in Hebrew letters, Bombay, about 1880?. 31 pages. Octavo. 12x16 cm. Pointed square 3

This text is known from one copy, also held by the Valmadonna

Trust Library (no. 9936). For nearly all pages, less than half of the text

remains, often significantly less. Although many words and phrases are

recognizable (e.g., ‫בּוּסךּ גַּ ַרם ֵהי‬ ַ ‫ ַס ְמ‬sambūsak garam he ‘the samosa is hot’ and ‫בּוֹליגָּ א‬ ֵ ‫ ַאגַּ ר ַהם ֗גּוּתּ‬agar ham jhūṭ bole-gā ‘if I tell a lie’, both on p. 12),

the purpose of the work remains unclear. The size, script, and dialect

match that of the glossary, and both likely come from Bombay. See Plate 35 for an image. 4

For examples, see the catalogue of Sassoon (1932: 250, 253,

476, 513).



script. (Sassoon.) Lithograph without title page’. 5 His physical description is correct, although I am unsure how he determined the place and date of printing. 6 I prefer to call the second language Judeo-Urdu rather than Hindustani, for reasons described below. Yaari also provided the first four words of the glossary (2 in Hebrew and 2 in Judeo-Urdu), though without the vowel points, and with errors in the first Judeo-Urdu word (he has ‫ לילילות‬instead of ‫ ִל ִילי לוֹךּ‬lilī lok, translating Hebrew ‫ יְ רוֹקוֹת‬yǝrōqōt ‘lilies’). The copy of the glossary that Yaari saw was from the famous collection of David Solomon Sassoon (1880–1942), whose Baghdad-born grandfather was a leader of the Bombay Jewish community. When much of Sassoon’s collection was sold by Sotheby’s (through several auctions, beginning in 1975), the glossary was acquired (along with the other JudeoUrdu items now in the collection) by Jack Lunzer, to become part of the Valmadonna Trust Library. It remains in that collection (item no. 9935), which, at the time of writing (June, 2016), is held by Sotheby’s in New York. I am aware of no other extant copy. As Yaari indicated, the book has 31 pages of text, each numbered at the top of the page using Hebrew 5

31 .[?‫ לערך תר"ם‬,‫ ]במבי‬.‫הינדוסטאני באותיות עבריות‬-‫רשימת מלים עבריות‬

:‫ – מתחיל‬.‫ ליתוגרפיה בלי שער‬.(‫ )ששון‬.‫מנוקדות‬-‫ אותיות מרובעות‬.‫ ס"מ‬12:16 .8° .'‫ע‬ .‫ שני קרמזי‬.‫ירוקות לילילות‬ 6

Musleah (1975: 426) also gives the date 1880 for the publica-

tion, but it is possible that Yaari was his source.



letters. The text was handwritten, but the book is a lithograph copy. Though quite faded in parts, nearly the entire book is legible, save an occasional letter or word. No scholarly study has been made of the book, and no part of it (other than the few words in Yaari) has been published to my knowledge, though since 1999 a copy has been accessible through Brill’s Hebrew, Judeo-Arabic, and Marathi-Jewish Printing in India microfiche collection, which is now (since 2007) also available online. 7 The glossary is quite peculiar. Not only is it extremely rare (I am aware of no other copy in existence), and not only are Judeo-Urdu texts in general quite rare, but the book itself is not a typical glossary. First, the reasoning behind the choice of words is not at all obvious; common and very rare words are mixed together with little to no organization. Second, the author’s Hebrew is not perfect, as shown by many spelling and grammatical mistakes. Third, the JudeoUrdu glosses reflect a non-standard, colloquial form of the language (see Chapter 5), and also probably contain some errors. That is to say, the author does not appear to have had a perfect grasp of either Hebrew or standard Hindi/Urdu.


Although the four abovementioned Judeo-Urdu texts have been

referenced in print before (e.g., Yaari 1940: 47, 59; Anonymous 1975:

102; Moreen 1995: 78 [in a footnote written by Brad Sabin Hill]; Rubin 2016: 748–50), no scholarly study has been made of any of them.



A few words must be said about the term ‘JudeoUrdu’. As for the prefix ‘Judeo-’, the only reason for it is the use of the Hebrew script. There is no indication of any distinct Jewish dialect of Hindi/Urdu, and there is no evidence that the dialectal features, colloquialisms, or errors in this text were typical only of Jewish speakers. As for the use of the term ‘Urdu’, one might ask why I do not use ‘Hindi’ or ‘Hindustani’. Hindi and Urdu are essentially the same language, though with some lexical differences. Traditionally, Hindi is written in the Devanagari script, while Urdu is written in the Perso-Arabic script. Hindi is most associated with the Hindu religion, while Urdu is associated with Islam. One can use ‘Hindustani’ for both varieties, as well as for a number of non-standard dialects, though this term is no longer in wide use. In the present context, Judeo-Urdu seems appropriate for several reasons. First, two of the Judeo-Urdu texts of which I am aware are transcriptions of well-known Urdu texts (Indar Sabhā and Laila Majnu), and therefore are undoubtedly to be called Judeo-Urdu. 8 The glossary that is the focus of this book can be said to be part of the same (albeit very limited) tradition. Second, the Hebrew script is closely related—both historically and typologically—to Urdu’s Perso-Arabic script, and not to Hindi’s Devanagari script. Third, some of the spelling conventions 8

In fact, the word ‫ אורדו‬Urdu is used on the title page of the He-

brew-character Laila Majnu. (See Plate 34.)



used for Judeo-Urdu appear to be taken from Urdu (or at least from the Perso-Arabic script), examples of which will be seen below. Fourth, a number of the lexical items in the glossary, specifically those of Arabic origin, are more common in Urdu than in Hindi, or are found only in Urdu. The greater use of Arabic lexical items is, along with the writing system, a defining characteristic of Urdu. It is important to add that while Judeo-Urdu is useful as a cover term, the language of the various texts is not identical, nor is the orthography. The language of the plays is close to the literary Urdu from which they were transcribed, while the language of the glossary reflects colloquial speech, probably the dialect of Bombay (see Chapter 5). Still, it will be useful in the presentation below to compare the Judeo-Urdu of the glossary with standard forms of both Urdu and Hindi. Jewish languages are quite interesting because writers often did not feel bound to the non-Jewish traditions of that language. This is evident both in orthography, in that Jewish texts sometimes reflect a more phonetic spelling compared to the more historical-etymological spellings of the standard language, and in morphology, in that Jewish texts sometimes reflect more colloquial or non-standard forms. Both of these phenomena are present in this Judeo-Urdu glossary. Orthographic differences are not especially remarkable, but the differences from standard Hindi/Urdu with regards to the morphology are quite striking.



Presented below in Chapter 2 are 130 words from the glossary, with some comparative lexical data and commentary. Chapter 3 includes an analysis of Judeo-Urdu orthography and phonology, while Chapter 4 focuses on issues of morphology, including about sixty additional words (mainly pronominal and verbal forms) that appear in the glossary. Chapter 5 provides a brief summary of some of the nonstandard linguistic features of Judeo-Urdu, and offers some conclusions about the classification of this dialect with respect to other non-standard varities. A photographic reproduction of the entire glossary appears at the end of this volume (Plates 1–31).

CHAPTER TWO: LEXICAL SAMPLES The original glossary is arranged in four columns per page, each usually with eighteen lines. Columns one and three (starting from the right side of the page) contain words in Hebrew, and columns two and four contain Judeo-Urdu glosses. It is clear that one should read across a whole line of the page before proceeding to the next line. This is so because some Hebrew words appearing in column three are clearly meant to follow the Hebrew word in column one of the same line. 9 The glossary begins with the word for ‘lilies’, followed by three words denoting what might be called exotic colors (‘crimson’, ‘scarlet’, ‘azure’), and then moves to metals and other building items, followed by the names of animals. This rather random start suggests that this may not be the original beginning of the work. The page numbers could have been a later addition. Following is a rough outline of the glossary’s contents: 9

Examples are those sections which are alphabetical, pairs of

homonyms (e.g., ‘sleep’ and ‘wake up’) or related words (e.g., ‘eat’ and ‘drink’), singular/plural pairs, and masculine/feminine pairs (e.g., ‘rooster’ and ‘hen’).




p. 1: pp. 1–3: pp. 3–5: p. 5: pp. 6–8:

p. 8: pp. 8–10: pp. 10–11: pp. 11–12: pp. 12–14: pp. 14–15: p. 15: pp. 16–31:

‘Lilies’, exotic colors, metals and building materials (including ‘gold’ with a full set of pronominal suffixes) Animals Body parts Forms of the Hebrew verbs ‫ ָל ַמד‬lāmad ‘learn’ and ‫ ִל ֵמּד‬limmēd ‘teach’ A few random words; forms of the Hebrew verbs ‫ ָא ַמר‬ʾāmar ‘say’, ‫ ִדּ ֶבּר‬dibbɛr ‘speak’, and ‫ ִס ֵפּר‬sippēr ‘tell’ (all glossed by Judeo-Urdu ‫בּוֹלנָ א‬ ְ bolnā) Independent personal pronouns Prepositions (and the noun ‫ ַבּיִת‬bayit ‘house’) with pronominal suffixes Some words denoting parts of a house Forms of the Hebrew verb ‫ ִהגִּ יד‬higgīd ‘tell’ (active and passive) Forms of the Hebrew verb ‫ ָק ָרא‬qārā(ʾ) ‘read, call’ (active and passive) Forms of the Hebrew verb ‫ ָﬠנָ ה‬ʿānā ‘answer’ (active and passive) Single glosses of 13 other common verbs (e.g., ‘eat’, ‘drink’, ‘stand’) Seemingly random vocabulary, with no particular organization. For most of pages 16–27, the Hebrew words are listed alphabetically in sets. For example, pages 16–17 have 65 words from aleph to tav, and then a new list of 50 words begins at the bottom of page 17, ending with reš at



the top of page 19. Pages 22–24 include about 40 Biblical Aramaic words. Most of the words in the second half of the glossary, which has no clear method of organization (other than alphabetization in some sections), are taken from the Bible. For example, on page 29 there are a number of words from the first chapters of Genesis, but still with no apparent logic. Thus we find the word ‫ ָש ְרצוּ‬šārṣū ‘swarmed’ (Gen. 1:21), followed by ‫ ָשׁ ַבת‬šāḇat ‘he rested’ (Gen. 2:3), ‫ וַ יִ ְשׁבוֹת‬way-yišbōt ‘and he rested’ (Gen. 2:2; see #142 below), ‫ ְפּ ִרי‬pǝrī ‘fruit’ (Gen. 1:11; see #120 below), and ‫ ְתּהוֹם‬tǝhōm ‘abyss’ (Gen. 1:2). Presented in this chapter are 130 words from the glossary, with comparative lexical data from standard Hindi and Urdu. Forms are cited in their original scripts and in Roman transcription. The transcription of Judeo-Urdu is a bit speculative, since it is not clear if certain Hindi/Urdu phonemes are present or not (see section 3.1). In order to appeal to readers of various linguistic backgrounds, I have modified somewhat the traditional systems of transcription for Hindi and Urdu (e.g., using š and gh in place of the more standard Hindi/Urdu transcriptions ś and gh). As will be seen from the examples, some of the Hebrew terms (and the reasons for their inclusion) are rather obscure, and the author frequently makes errors in the Hebrew pointing. Some notes will be made on the individual entries below, though detailed comments on Judeo-Urdu orthography, phonology, and mor-



phology will be reserved for Chapters 3 and 4. In the comments regarding the pointing of Hebrew words, I have for the most part ignored a missing dagesh. The Urdu and Hindi forms given for comparison are the closest standard forms to the Judeo-Urdu glosses. 1.

Hebrew ‫ זָ ָהב‬zāhāḇ ‘gold’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ סוּנָּ ה‬sunnā


Hebrew ‫ ֵﬠץ‬ʿēṣ ‘wood’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫כּרי‬ ִ ‫ ַל‬lakṛī


Hebrew ‫ ֶא ֶבן‬ʾɛḇɛn ‘stone’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ַפ ַתּר‬patthar

Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺳﻮﻧﺎ‬sonā, Hindi सोना sonā.

Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻟﻜﮍى‬lakṛī, Hindi लकड़ी lakṛī.

Cf. Urdu ‫ ﭘﺘﮭﺮ‬patthar, Hindi प�थर patthar.


Hebrew ‫ ְל ֵבנִ ים‬lǝḇēnīm ‘bricks’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ִאינְ תּ‬ īṭ̃ Cf. Urdu ‫ اﯾﻨﭧ‬īṭ,̃ Hindi ईंट īṭ.̃

On the use of ‫ נ‬n to indicate nasalization in Judeo-Urdu (as in Urdu), see section 3.2 below. 5.

Hebrew ‫ ְב ֵה ָמה‬bǝhēmā ‘beast’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫֗ ַגנָ אוַ ור‬ janāvar Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺟﺎﻧﻮر‬jānvar, Hindi जानवर jānvar.

The Judeo-Urdu form is perhaps a mistake for ‫ ֗ ַגאנוַ ור‬jānvar, though the a-vowel under the nun precludes a simple transposition of aleph and nun. Cf. also #6.




Hebrew ‫ ְב ֵהמוֹת‬bǝhēmōt ‘beasts’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ֗ ַגנָ אוַ ור לוֹךּ‬janāvar lok Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺟﺎﻧﻮر‬jānvar, Hindi जानवर jānvar.

On the use of lok to mark the plural, see section 4.1 below. 7.

Hebrew ‫ שׁוֹר‬šōr ‘bull’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ֵביל‬bel Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺑﯿﻞ‬bail, Hindi बैल bail.

On the Judeo-Urdu vowel, see section 3.2 below. 8.

Hebrew ‫ ְשׁוָ ִרים‬šǝwārīm ‘bulls’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ֵביל לוֹךּ‬ bel lok Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺑﯿﻞ‬bail, Hindi बैल bail.


Hebrew ‫ ֶשׂה‬śɛ ‘sheep, goat’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ֵמינְ ָדא‬ mẽḍ(h)ā ं ा / मेड ं ा Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻣﯿﻨﮉھﺎ‬/ ‫ ﻣﯿﻨﮉا‬mẽḍ(h)ā, Hindi मेढ h mẽḍ( )ā.

10. Hebrew ‫ צ ֹאן‬ṣō(ʾ)n ‘goats, sheep’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ַב ְכּ ִרי‬bakrī Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺑﻜﺮى‬bakrī, Hindi बकरी bakrī.

The Hindi/Urdu word means ‘she-goat’. See also #15, where the same Judeo-Urdu gloss appears. 11. Hebrew ‫ ַחמוֹר‬ḥamōr ‘donkey’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫גַּ ָדּא‬ gadhā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﮔﺪھﺎ‬gadhā, Hindi गधा gadhā.

The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ֲחמוֹר‬ḥămōr.



12. Hebrew ‫ ֶכּ ֶבשׂ‬kɛḇɛś ‘lamb’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ֵמינְ ָדּא‬ mẽḍ(h)ā

Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻣﯿﻨﮉھﺎ‬/ ‫ ﻣﯿﻨﮉا‬mẽḍ(h)ā ‘sheep, goat’, Hindi ं ा / मेड ं ा mẽḍ(h)ā. मेढ

It is possible that there was confusion between ं ा ‫ ﻣﯿﻤﻨﺎ‬/ मेमना memnā ‘lamb, kid’ and ‫ ﻣﯿﻨﮉھﺎ‬/ मेढ h h mẽḍ( )ā ‘sheep, goat’. The fact that ‫ ֵמינְ ָדּא‬mẽḍ( )ā has dagesh in this entry for ‫ ֶכּ ֶבשׂ‬kɛḇɛś, but not in the entry for ‫ ֶשׂה‬śɛ (#9), is insignificant; it is missing also in the entry for the plural ‫ְכ ָב ִשׂים‬ kǝḇāśīm (#13). 13. Hebrew ‫ ְכ ָב ִשׂים‬kǝḇāśīm ‘lambs’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ֵמינְ ָדא לוֹךּ‬mẽḍ(h)ā lok

ं े / मेड ं े Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻣﯿﻨﮉھﮯ‬/ ‫ ﻣﯿﻨﮉے‬mẽḍ(h)e, Hindi मेढ h mẽḍ( )e.

14. Hebrew ‫ ָתּיִ שׁ‬tāyiš ‘he-goat’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫בוֹכּר‬ ַ bokar Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺑﻮﻛﺮا‬bokrā, Hindi बोकरा bokrā.

Hindi/Urdu has both bakrā (F. bakrī) and bokrā (F. bokrī), the former of which is now more common in the standard language; cf. also #15. The Judeo-Urdu form bokar is either an error or a dialect variant. The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ַתּיִ שׁ‬tayiš. 15. Hebrew ‫ ֵﬠז‬ʿēz ‘she-goat’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ַב ְכּ ִרי‬bakrī Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺑﻜﺮى‬bakrī, Hindi बकरी bakrī.



16. Hebrew ‫ ִﬠזִ ים‬ʿizzīm ‘goats’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ַב ְכּ ִרי לוֹךּ‬ bakrī lok Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺑﻜﺮﯾﺎں‬bakriyā,̃ Hindi बकिरयाँ bakriyā.̃ [Page 2] 17. Hebrew ‫ גָ ָמל‬gāmāl ‘camel’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ אוּנְ תּ‬ūṭ̃ Cf. Urdu ‫ اوﻧﭧ‬ūṭ̃ , Hindi ऊँट ūṭ̃ . 18. Hebrew ‫ ַחזִ יר‬ḥazīr ‘pig’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫וּכּר‬ ַ ‫ ד‬dūkar Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺳﻮﻛﺮ‬sūkar, Hindi सू कर sūkar.

The initial d- of the Judeo-Urdu form may be an error. The more common Hindi/Urdu form of the word is ‫ ﺳﺆر‬/ सू अर sūʾar. The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ֲחזִ יר‬ḥăzīr. 19. Hebrew ‫ ֵכּ ֶלב‬kēlɛḇ ‘dog’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫וּתּא‬ ָ ‫ כ‬kuttā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻛﺘﺎ‬kuttā, Hindi कु�ा kuttā.

The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ֶכּ ֶלב‬kɛlɛḇ. 20. Hebrew ‫ ָא ְריֵ ה‬ʾāryē ‘lion’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ָבאגּ‬bāgh Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺑﺎﮔﮭ‬bāgh, Hindi बाघ bāgh.

This word in Hindi/Urdu normally means ‘tiger’, but it is also attested with the meaning ‘lion’ (Platts 1965: 124). The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ַא ְריֵ ה‬ʾaryē. 21. Hebrew ‫ קוּף‬qūp̄ ‘monkey’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ָבאנְ ְד ָרא‬ bād̃ rā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺑﺎﻧﺪرا‬bād̃ rā, Hindi बाँदरा bād̃ rā.



This is a dialectal variant of the more standard ‫ ﺑﻨﺪر‬/ बं दर bandar (Platts 1965: 127). The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ קוֹף‬qōp̄ . 22. Hebrew ‫שׁוּﬠל‬ ָ šūʿāl ‘fox’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫וֹלא‬ ָ ‫ כּ‬kolā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻛﻮﻻ‬kolā, Hindi कोला kolā.

The Hindi/Urdu word means ‘jackal’. 23. Hebrew ‫ ָחתוּל‬ḥātūl ‘cat’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ִב ָילּא‬billā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺑﻼ‬billā, Hindi �ब�ा billā.

24. Hebrew ‫ ַﬠ ְכ ָבר‬ʿaḵbār ‘mouse, rat’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ גַ ווָ א‬čawā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﭼﻮھﺎ‬čūhā, Hindi चू हा čūhā.

25. Hebrew ‫ נַ ָחשׁ‬naḥāš ‘snake’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ָצאנְ ֗ף‬ṣāp̃ Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺳﺎﻧﭗ‬sāp̃ , Hindi साँप sāp̃ . The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ נָ ָחשׁ‬nāḥāš.

26. Hebrew ‫ ַת ְרנְ גוֹל‬tarnǝgōl ‘rooster, cock’ = JudeoUrdu ‫ מ ְוּרגָ א‬murḡā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻣﺮﻏﺎ‬murḡā, Hindi मुरग़ा murḡā.

27. Hebrew ‫גוֹלת‬ ֶ ְ‫ ַתּ ְרנ‬tarnǝgōlɛt ‘hen’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ מ ְוּרגִ י‬murḡī Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻣﺮﻏﻰ‬murḡī, Hindi मुरग़ी murḡī.

28. Hebrew ‫ גוֹזָ ל‬gōzāl ‘young bird’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫בוּתּר ָכּא ַבּ ֒ ָגּא‬ ַ ‫ ַכ‬kabūtar kā baččā



Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻛﺒﻮﺗﺮ ﻛﺎ ﺑﭽﺎ‬kabūtar kā baččā, Hindi कबू तर का ब�ा kabūtar kā baččā.

The Hindi/Urdu phrase literally means ‘young of a pigeon’. 29. Hebrew ‫ ִצפּוֹר‬ṣippōr ‘bird’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫֒ ִג ְיריָ יא‬ čiryā

Cf. Urdu ‫ ﭼﮍﯾﺎ‬čiṛiyā, Hindi ची�ड़या čīṛiyā or �च�ड़या čiṛiyā.

30. Hebrew ‫ אוֹוָ ז‬ʾōwāz ‘goose’ = Judeo-Urdu �‫ ַב ָד‬badaḵ Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺑﻄﺦ‬bataḵ ‘duck’, Hindi बतख़ bataḵ.

The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ַאווָ ז‬ʾawāz. 31. Hebrew ‫וֹצה‬ ָ ‫ נ‬nōṣā ‘feather’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ַב ַדן ָכּא ַפּר‬ badan kā par

Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺑﺪن ﻛﺎ ﭘﺮ‬badan kā par, Hindi बदन का पर badan kā par.

Since Hindi/Urdu par can mean both ‘feather’ and ‘wing’, the author used the phrases badan kā par ‘body par’ and hāth kā par ‘arm par’ to distinguish this entry from the next. 32. Hebrew ‫ ַכנַ ף‬kanap̄ ‘wing’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ַהאתּ ָכּא ַפּר‬ hāth kā par Cf. Urdu ‫ ﮨﺎﺗﮭ ﻛﺎ ﭘﺮ‬hāth kā par, Hindi हाथ का पर hāth kā par.

See the comment to #31. The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ָכּנָ ף‬kānāp̄ .



33. Hebrew ‫ נֶ ֶשׁר‬nɛšɛr ‘eagle’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ נַ ַסר‬nasar, ‫ ֒ ִגיל‬čīl

Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻧﺴﺮ‬nasr ‘eagle’, ‫ ﭼﯿﻞ‬čīl ‘kite’, Hindi चील čīl ‘kite’.

This is one of the few Hebrew entries to have two Judeo-Urdu glosses. (See also #99.) The Arabicderived ‫ ﻧﺴﺮ‬nasr ‘eagle’ (cognate with the Hebrew word) is apparently attested only in Urdu, but is not widely used (Platts 1965: 1138). 34. Hebrew ‫עוֹרב‬ ֵ ʿōrēḇ ‘raven’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ָכּאגְ ָרא‬ kāgrā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻛﺎﮔﺎ‬/ ‫ ﻛﺎگ‬kāg / kāgā, Hindi काग / कागा kāg / kāgā.

The Judeo-Urdu form is perhaps a back-formation of kāglī (Platts 1965: 802), the feminine of Hindi/Urdu kāg(ā), with confusion of r/l. [Page 3] 35. Hebrew ‫ ַח ְרטוֹם‬ḥarṭōm ‘beak’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ַפ ְכ ִשי‬ ‫ ָכּא ֒גוֹ ֒ג‬pakšī kā čōč Cf. Urdu ‫ ﭘﻜﺸﻰ ﻛﻰ ﭼﻮﻧﭻ‬pakšī kī čōč̃ , Hindi प�ी क� चोंच pakšī kī čōč̃ . The gloss literally means ‘bird’s beak’. The expected nasalization is missing in the Judeo-Urdu form čōč, but this may just be a spelling error.

36. Hebrew ‫ ְסנַ ִפּיר‬snappīr ‘fin’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ַמ ֒ ִגּי ָכּא ַפּר‬ mačhī kā par



Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻣﭽﮭﻠﻰ ﻛﺎ ﭘﺮ‬mačhlī kā par, Hindi मछली का पर mačhlī kā par.

The gloss means ‘fish’s wing’, and the phrase is known in standard Hindi/Urdu (Platts 1965: 1006). The Judeo-Urdu word for ‘fish’, which appears several times in the glossary, is consistently mačhī, without the l of the standard Hindi/Urdu form; such a pronunciation is known in some colloquial dialects. 37. Hebrew ‫ ַק ְשׂ ֶק ֶשׂת‬qaśqɛśɛt ‘scale (of a fish)’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ַמ ֒ ִגי ָכּא ֒ ִג ְיל ָתא‬mačhī kā čhiltā

Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻣﭽﮭﻠﻰ ﻛﺎ ﭼﮭﻠﻜﺎ‬mačhlī kā čhilkā, Hindi मछली का �छलका mačhlī kā čhilkā.

It is not clear if the t in Judeo-Urdu čhiltā represents an error or a dialectal form. 38. Hebrew ‫ ַכּ ְר ַבּל‬karbal ‘cock’s comb’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ מ ְוּרגָ א ָכּא ַפגְ ִרי‬murḡā kā pagṛī Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻣﺮﻏﮯﻛﻰ ﭘﮕﮍى‬murḡe kī pagṛī, Hindi मुरग़े क� पगड़ी murḡe kī pagṛī.

Hebrew ‫ ַכּ ְר ַבּל‬karbal does not actually exist. The form is perhaps an erroneously presumed singular of Biblical Aramaic ‫‘ ַכּ ְר ְבּ ָל ְתהוֹן‬their turbans’ (Dan. 3:21). (See also #43.) In the Judeo-Urdu gloss, not only is kā here the wrong gender (it should be kī, agreeing with the following feminine noun), but the preceding word is in the wrong case; nominative murḡā should be oblique murḡe, because of the following postposition (see section



4.1). Also, the phrase murḡe kī pagṛī, literally ‘rooster’s turban’, is not the standard Hindi/Urdu term for ‘cock’s comb’. 39. Hebrew ‫ ַתּנִּ ין‬tannīn ‘sea creature’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ַב ָרא ַמ ֒ ִגי‬baṛā mačhī

Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺑﮍى ﻣﭽﮭﻠﻰ‬baṛī mačhlī, Hindi बड़ी मछली baṛī mačhlī.

The gloss literally means ‘big fish’. Note that the Judeo-Urdu adjective baṛā ‘big’ does not show gender agreement with the following feminine noun. See further in section 4.1.

On page 3 of the glossary, and continuing on to page 5, begins a list of body parts. Once again, the choice of words is rather bizarre, including some very obscure words. The list is ordered more or less from head to toe. The first body part listed is ‘eyelids’, followed by ‘lips’, ‘eye’, ‘skull’, ‘temple’, ‘brain’, ‘forehead’, ‘eyebrow’, ‘eyelash’, etc. Following are 25 of the 65 body parts listed in the glossary: 40. Hebrew ‫ ַﬠ ְפ ַﬠ ִפים‬ʿap̄ ʿappīm ‘eyelids’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ַﬠאנְ גְּ ָכּא ֒ ַג ְמ ָרא‬ʿāg̃ kā čamṛā Cf. Urdu ‫ آﻧﻜﮭ ﻛﺎ ﭼﻤﮍا‬āk̃ h kā čamṛā, Hindi आँख का चमड़ा āk̃ h kā čamṛā. The gloss literally means ‘eye skin’. The use of initial Hebrew ‫ ע‬ʿ in the Judeo-Urdu spelling is unexpected and unique, though it is consistently used for this word, which appears several times



in the glossary. We would expect a spelling ְ‫ַאאנְ גּ‬ or ְ‫ ַאנְ גּ‬. Spellings of an initial ā with the sequence ‫ ַאא‬are not attested in the glossary, but are found in the Judeo-Urdu version of Indar Sabhā. The spelling of ā with simple ‫ ַא‬is found on page 26 of the glossary: ‫ ַאיָ יה‬āyā ‘he came’ (Urdu ‫ آﯾﺎ‬āyā, Hindi आया āyā; glossing Hebrew ‫ ָבא‬bā(ʾ)). 41. Hebrew ‫ ָﬠיִ ן‬ʿāyin ‘eye’ = Judeo-Urdu ְ‫ ַﬠאנְ גּ‬ʿāg̃ Cf. Urdu ‫ آﻧﻜﮭ‬āk̃ h, Hindi आँख āk̃ h.

The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ַﬠיִ ן‬ʿayin.

42. Hebrew ‫ ָק ְדקוֹד‬qodqōd ‘skull’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫כוּפ ִרי‬ ְ h k upṛī Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻛﮭﻮﭘﮍى‬khopṛī, Hindi खोपड़ी khopṛī.

43. Hebrew ‫ ַר ָקּת‬raqqāt ‘temple’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ָכּאן ָכּא‬ ‫ ָבאגוּ‬kān kā bhāgū Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻛﺎن ﻛﺎ ﺑﮭﺎگ‬kān kā bhāg, Hindi कान का भाग kān kā bhāg.

The gloss literally means ‘part of the ear’. The Hebrew form is an error for ‫ ַר ָקּה‬raqqā. It is either a simple printing error, or a misanalysis of the word, which in the Bible occurs only in the suffixed form -‫ ַר ָקּת‬raqqāt- (e.g., Judges 4:21). 44. Hebrew ‫ מוַֹ ח‬moaḥ ‘brain’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ַמגַ ז‬maḡaz Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻣﻐﺰ‬maḡz, Hindi मग़ज़ maḡz.



The pronunciation maḡaz can be heard today in spoken Hindi/Urdu. The Hebrew form should correctly be �‫ מ ַוֹ‬moaḥ. 45. Hebrew ‫ ֵמ ַצח‬mēṣaḥ ‘forehead, brow’ = JudeoUrdu ‫ישאנִ י‬ ָ ‫ ִפ‬pišānī Cf. Urdu ‫ ﭘﯿﺸﺎﻧﻰ‬pešānī, Hindi पेशानी pešānī.

46. Hebrew ‫ ָב ָבת ָﬠיִ ן‬bāḇāt ʿāyin ‘pupil’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ַﬠאנְ גְּ ָכּא ִב ִיבי‬ʿāg̃ kā bībī Cf. Urdu ‫ آﻧﻜﮭ ﻛﻰ ﺑﯿﺒﻰ‬āk̃ h kī bībī, Hindi आँख क� बीबी āk̃ h kī bībī.

The gloss literally means ‘lady of the eye’, and is not standard Hindi/Urdu. The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ָב ַבת ַﬠיִ ן‬bāḇat ʿayin. It is interesting that the author included this phrase, since it occurs just once in the Bible (Zech. 2:12), while the synonymous ‫ת־ﬠיִ ן‬ ַ ‫ ַבּ‬bat-ʿayin and ‫ ִאישׁוֹן ַﬠיִ ן‬ʾīšōn ʿayin occur a couple of times each.

47. Hebrew ‫וֹבן ַה ָﬠיִ ן‬ ֵ ‫ ל‬lōḇēn ha-ʿāyin ‘white of the eye’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ַﬠאנְ גְּ ָכּא ַס ֵפ ִידי‬ʿāg̃ kā safedī Cf. Urdu ‫ آﻧﻜﮭ ﻛﻰ ﺳﻔﯿﺪى‬āk̃ h kī safedī, Hindi आँख क� सफ़ेदी āk̃ h kī safedī. The Hebrew phrase should correctly be ‫וֹבן ָה ַﬠיִ ן‬ ֶ ‫ל‬ lōḇɛn hā-ʿayin.

48. Hebrew ‫ ָאף‬ʾāp̄ and ‫חוֹטם‬ ֶ ḥōṭɛm ‘nose’ = JudeoUrdu ‫ נָ אךּ‬nāk Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻧﺎك‬nāk, Hindi नाक nāk.



The two Hebrew words are listed as separate entries on the page, but with the same gloss. (The gloss of ‫ ָאף‬ʾāp̄ is mostly concealed by damage to the page, but it is undoubtedly ‫ נָ אךּ‬nāk.) I have included both here mainly to show that the author included the rare word ‫חוֹטם‬ ֶ ḥōṭɛm (absent from the Bible) in addition to the common word ‫ ַאף‬ʾap̄ (in the text mispointed ‫ ָאף‬ʾāp̄ ), perhaps because of its use in the Mishnah. 49. Hebrew ‫ ֶפה‬pɛ ‘mouth’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ מו‬mũ Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻣﻮﻧہ‬mũh, Hindi मुहँ mũh.

It is probable, but not certain, that the JudeoUrdu form is to be read mũ (as opposed to mū), since final nasalization is regularly not indicated in the orthography (cf. #53). [Page 4] 50. Hebrew ‫ ָלשׁוֹן‬lāšōn ‘tongue’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫זַ ָבאן‬ zabān Cf. Urdu ‫ زﺑﺎن‬zabān, Hindi ज़बान zabān.

51. Hebrew ‫ גָ רוֹן‬gārōn ‘throat’ =Judeo-Urdu ‫ ָח ַלק‬ḥalaq Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺣﻠﻖ‬ḥal(a)q.

52. Hebrew ‫ ֶא ְצ ָבע‬ʾɛṣbāʿ ‘finger’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫אוּנְ גְּ ִלי‬ ũglī Cf. Urdu ‫ اﻧﮕﻠﻰ‬ũglī, Hindi उँ गली ũglī.

The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ֶא ְצ ַבּע‬ʾɛṣbaʿ.



53. Hebrew ‫ ֶא ְצ ָבעות‬ʾɛṣbāʿōt ‘fingers’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ אוּנְ גְ ִליָ יא‬ũgliyā ̃ Cf. Urdu ‫ اﻧﮕﻠﯿﺎں‬ũgliyā,̃ Hindi उँ ग�लयाँ ũgliyā.̃

The Judeo-Urdu form has no indication of the expected final nasalization, but I assume its presence (see also #49 and #61).

54. Hebrew ‫ זֶ ֶרת‬zɛrɛt ‘the little finger’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫וֹתּא אוּנְ גְּ ִלי‬ ָ ‫ ֒ג‬čhoṭā ũglī Cf. Urdu ‫ ﭼﮭﻮﮢﻰ اﻧﮕﻠﻰ‬čhoṭī ũglī, Hindi छोटी उँ गली čhoṭī ũglī.

On the lack of gender agreement in Judeo-Urdu, cf. #39 and see section 4.1. 55. Hebrew ‫ ֶﬠ ֶצם‬ʿɛṣɛm ‘bone’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ַה ִדי‬haḍḍī Cf. Urdu ‫ ھﮉى‬haḍḍī, Hindi हड्डी haḍḍī.

In some other entries (cf. #57), the Judeo-Urdu word is written ‫ ַה ִדּי‬haḍḍī, with dagesh. 56. Hebrew ‫ גַּ ב‬gaḇ ‘back’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ַכּ ַמר‬kamar Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻛﻤﺮ‬kamar, Hindi कमर kamar.

The Hindi/Urdu word historically means ‘middle, waist, loins’, but is commonly used for ‘back’ in the spoken language. 57. Hebrew ‫ ִשׁ ְד ָרה‬šidrā ‘spine’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ַכּ ַמר ָכּא‬ ‫ ַה ִדּי‬kamar kā haḍḍī

Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻛﻤﺮ ﻛﻰ ھﮉى‬kamar kī haḍḍī, Hindi कमर क� हड्डी kamar kī haḍḍī.



The Hindi/Urdu phrase literally means ‘middle bone’ or ‘back bone’. 58. Hebrew ‫ ֵב ֶטן‬bēṭɛn ‘belly’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ֵפּית‬peṭ Cf. Urdu ‫ ﭘﯿﭧ‬peṭ, Hindi पेट peṭ.

The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ֶבּ ֶטן‬bɛṭɛn. [Page 5] 59. Hebrew ‫ ֶל ֵחי‬lɛḥē ‘jaw, cheek’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫֗ ַג ְב ָרא‬ jabṛā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺟﺒﮍا‬jabṛā, Hindi जबड़ा jabṛā.

There are actually two (horizontal) dots visible over the gimel of the Judeo-Urdu gloss, but this must be an error. The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ֶל ִחי‬lɛḥī. 60. Hebrew ‫ זָ ָקן‬zāqān ‘beard’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ארי‬ ִ ‫ ָד‬dāṛhī Cf. Urdu ‫ داڑھﻰ‬dāṛhī, Hindi दाढ़ी dāṛhī.

61. Hebrew ‫ ֵמ ָﬠיִם‬mēʿāyim ‘entrails’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ַאנְ ַת ְריָ א‬ãtaṛyā ̃ Cf. Urdu ‫ اﻧﺘﮍﯾﺎں‬ãtṛiyā,̃ Hindi अँत�ड़याँ ãtṛiyā.̃

We might also compare ‫ اﻧﺘﺮ‬/ अं तर antar ‘interior, midst’. The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ֵמ ִﬠים‬ mēʿīm.

62. Hebrew ‫ ָב ָשׂר‬bāśār ‘flesh’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ גוֹשׁ‬goš Cf. Urdu ‫ ﮔﻮﺷﺖ‬gošt, Hindi गो�त gošt.



Platts (1965: 925) records goš for colloquial Hindi/Urdu as well. 63. Hebrew ‫ ָדם‬dām ‘blood’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ לוֹי‬loī Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻟﻮﮨﻰ‬lohī, Hindi लोही lohī.

The Hindi/Urdu word lohī means ‘redness’. The words for blood are Urdu ‫ ﻟﻮﮨﻮ‬/ ‫ ﻟﻮه‬loh(a) / lohū, Hindi लोह / लोहू loh / lohū. The same gloss appears again on page 19 of the glossary for the plural ‫ ָד ִמים‬dāmīm ‘blood’. As noted above, most of pages 11–16 of the glossary are taken up with various conjugated verb forms; some of these will be discussed below in section 4.3. There is also, on page 15, a lexical list of verbs. In each case, the Hebrew verb (3M.SG. past tense) is glossed by the Judeo-Urdu simple past (M.SG.). Some of these verbs, plus a couple of similar entries from the following page, are: [Page 15] 64. Hebrew ‫ ָא ָכל‬ʾāḵāl ‘he ate’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ָכּאיָ יה‬ khāyā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻛﮭﺎﯾﺎ‬khāyā, Hindi खाया khāyā.

The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ָא ַכל‬ʾāḵal. 65. Hebrew ‫ ָשׁ ָתה‬šātā ‘he drank’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ִפיָ יא‬ piyā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﭘﯿﺎ‬piyā, Hindi �पया piyā.



66. Hebrew ‫ ָקם‬qām ‘he got up’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫וּתּא‬ ָ ‫א‬ h uṭ ā Cf. Urdu ‫ اﮢﮭﺎ‬uṭhā, Hindi उठा uṭhā.

67. Hebrew ‫ ָﬠ ָמד‬ʿāmād ‘he stood (INTRANS.)’ = JudeoUrdu ‫אדיָ יא‬ ִ ‫ ַכּ ָר‬khaṛā-diyā

Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻛﮭﮍا ﻛﯿﺎ‬khaṛā kiyā, Hindi खड़ा �कया khaṛā kiyā.

The gloss probably means ‘he caused to stand’. Standard Hindi/Urdu khaṛā kiyā uses the auxiliary verb karnā ‘to make’, while Judeo-Urdu khaṛā diyā uses denā ‘to give’. Platts (1965: 875) records only khaṛā karnā and kar-denā for the causative. A better gloss for ‘he stood’ would be ‫ ﻛﮭﮍا ﮨﻮا‬/ खड़ा हू आ khaṛā hūā ‘he stood’. The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ָﬠ ַמד‬ʿāmad. 68. Hebrew ‫ ָל ָבשׁ‬lāḇāš ‘he wore’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ֵפּינָ א‬ penā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﭘﮩﻨﺎ‬pahnā, Hindi पहना pahnā.

One hears pehnā in modern spoken varieties of Hindi/Urdu, with the tyipcal raising of a to e before h. The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ָל ַבשׁ‬ lāḇaš. 69. Hebrew �‫ ַה ָל‬halāḵ ‘he went, walked’ = JudeoUrdu ‫ ֒ ַג ָלא‬čalā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﭼﻼ‬čalā, Hindi चला čalā.

The Hebrew form should correctly be �‫ ָה ַל‬hālaḵ.



70. Hebrew ‫ ָרץ‬rāṣ ‘he ran’ and ‫ ָר ָדף‬rādāp̄ ‘he chased’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫דוֹרא‬ ָ doṛā Cf. Urdu ‫ دوڑا‬dauṛā, Hindi दौड़ा dauṛā.

The two Hebrew verbs are listed as separate entries on the page, but with the same gloss. The second Hebrew verb should correctly be ‫ָר ַדף‬ rādap̄ . 71. Hebrew ‫ יָ ָשׁב‬yāšāḇ ‘he sat down’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫יתּא‬ ָ ‫ ֵב‬beṭhā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺑﯿﮣﮭﺎ‬baiṭhā, Hindi बैठा baiṭhā.

The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ יָ ַשׁב‬yāšaḇ. 72. Hebrew ‫ ִר ֵקד‬riqqēd ‘he danced, skipped’ = JudeoUrdu ‫ארא‬ ָ ‫כּוּדי ָמ‬ ִ kūdī mārā

Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻛﻮد ﻣﺎرا‬kūd mārā, Hindi कूद मारा kūd mārā.

The Hindi/Urdu verb phrase means ‘he jumped’.

[Page 16] 73. Hebrew ‫ יָ ָרד‬yārād ‘he went down’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫אוּתּ ָרא‬ ְ utrā Cf. Urdu ‫ اﺗﺮا‬utrā, Hindi उतरा utrā.

The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ יָ ַרד‬yārad. 74. Hebrew ‫ יָ ָדע‬yādāʿ ‘he knew’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ִפּ ֒ ָיגאנָ א‬ pič(h)ānā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﭘﮩﭽﺎﻧﺎ‬pahčānā, Hindi पहचाना pahčānā.



Platts (1965: 297) records the Hindi/Urdu variant paičhānā. The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ יָ ַדע‬yādaʿ. From page 16 on, the entries in the glossary have no obvious organization, though most—but not all—are clearly taken from the Bible. Moreover, the words are often given as they appear in the Bible. For example, some nouns appear with a prefixed conjunction or preposition, in the plural, in the construct state, or with a pronominal suffix, and verbs appear in various conjugated forms. A few of the words are repeated. For example, the word for ‘gold’, which appears on page 1, appears again on page 18 (cf. also #83 and #99). Some of the Hebrew words are very common, while others are rare. Pages 22–24 have about 40 Biblical Aramaic words, ordered (mostly) alphabetically. Below are some additional samples from the glossary, covering various parts of speech. 75. Hebrew ‫ ָאדוֹן‬ʾādōn ‘master, lord’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫אהב‬ ֵ ‫ ָצ‬ṣāheb Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ‬ṣāḥib (sāhab), Hindi साहब sāhab.

[Page 17] 76. Hebrew ‫ ָﬠ ִשׁיר‬ʿāšīr ‘wealthy’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫דוֹל ְתּוָ ואן‬ ְ dolt-vān

The Judeo-Urdu form is composed of dolt ‘wealth’ (cf. Urdu ‫ دوﻟﺖ‬daulat and Hindi दौलत daulat) and the adjective-forming suffix -vān. Cf. also Urdu



‫ دھﻦ وان‬dhan vān and Hindi धनवान dhan-vān ‘wealthy’ from ‫ دھﻦ‬/ धन dhan ‘wealth’. 77. Hebrew ‫ ְק ָראוֹ‬qǝrāʾō ‘he called him’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ארה‬ ָ ‫פּוּכּ‬ ָ ‫אוּסכּוּ‬ ְ us-ku pukārā

Cf. Urdu ‫ اس ﻛﻮ ﭘﻜﺎرا‬us ko pukārā, Hindi उसको पुकारा us-ko pukārā.

78. Hebrew ‫ ֶשׁ ֶמן‬šɛmɛn ‘fat, grease’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫֒ ַג ְר ִבי‬ čarbī Cf. Urdu ‫ ﭼﺮﺑﻰ‬čarbī, Hindi चरबी čarbī.

[Page 18] 79. Hebrew ‫ ַא ְשׁ ֵרי‬ʾašrē ‘happy, blessed’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ נִ יָ יﭏ‬niyāl Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻧﮩﺎل‬nihāl, Hindi �नहाल nihāl.

80. Hebrew �‫ ָברוּ‬bārūḵ ‘blessed’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ארךּ‬ ַ ‫ִמ ָב‬ mibārak Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻣﺒﺎرك‬mubārak, Hindi मुबारक mubārak.

81. Hebrew ‫ וְ ִאישׁ‬wǝ-ʾīš ‘and a man’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫אוֹר‬ ‫ ַמ ַרד‬or marad Cf. Urdu ‫ اور ﻣﺮد‬aur mard, Hindi और मदर् aur mard.

A colloquial pronunciation marad is recorded for Urdu by Platts (1965: 1021), and is still used by some speakers today. 82. Hebrew ‫ וְ ִא ָשּׁה‬wǝ-ʾīššā ‘and woman’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ אוֹר ָאוְ ַורד‬or avrad



Cf. Urdu ‫ اور ﻋﻮرت‬aur ʿaurat, Hindi और औरत aur aurat.

The etymologically incorrect final -d of the Judeo-Urdu form is perhaps analogous with the final -d of marad ‘man’ (#81). The form avrad appears elsewhere in the glossary (cf. #94). 83. Hebrew ‫ ָט ָﬠם‬ṭāʿām ‘taste’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ִלזַ ת‬lizzat Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻟﺬت‬lazzat.

The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ַט ַﬠם‬taʿam. The same entry appears on pages 18 and 26; on page 26, the Hebrew form is spelled ‫ ַט ָﬠם‬taʿām, and the Judeo-Urdu form is spelled ‫ ִלזַ תּ‬lizzat. 84. Hebrew ‫ ָמ ָתי‬mātāy ‘when?’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ַכּב‬kab Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻛﺐ‬kab, Hindi कब kab.

The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ָמ ַתי‬mātay. 85. Hebrew ‫ ִמ ָכּל‬mik-kol ‘from all’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ַס ְב ֵסי‬ sab-se Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺳﺐ ﺳﮯ‬sab se, Hindi सब से sab se.

[Page 19] 86. Hebrew ‫קוֹלי‬ ִ qōlī ‘my voice’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ארה‬ ָ ‫ַה ָמ‬ ‫ ַחוָ ואס‬hamārā ḥavās

Cf. Urdu ‫ ﮨﻤﺎرى آواز‬hamārī āvāz, Hindi हमारी आवाज़ hamārī āvāz.

The author may have confused the word āvāz (colloquial avāz) ‘voice’ with the Arabic-derived ḥavās(s) ‘senses’. On hamārā ‘my’, see section 4.2.



87. Hebrew ‫ ָקרוֹב‬qārōḇ ‘near’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ נַ זִ יךּ‬nazīk

Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻧﺰدﯾﻚ‬nazdīk, Hindi नज़दीक nazdīk (also नजीक najīk).

The variant ‫ ﻧﺰك‬nazik is listed in Platts (1965: 1136) as a “Dakhini” form. 88. Hebrew ‫ ִר ִיבי‬rīḇī ‘my dispute’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ארה ִד ְשׁ ָמן לוֹךּ‬ ָ ‫ ַה ָמ‬hamārā dišman lok Cf. Urdu ‫ ﮨﻤﺎرے دﺷﻤﻦ‬hamāre dušman, Hindi हमारे दु�मन hamāre dušman.

The Judeo-Urdu gloss means ‘my enemies’.

89. Hebrew ‫ ֶא ְתמוֹל‬ʾɛtmōl ‘yesterday’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ גִּ יָ יא ַכּל‬giyā kal Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻛﻞ‬kal, Hindi कल kal.

Since Hindi/Urdu kal can mean both ‘yesterday’ and ‘tomorrow’, the Judeo-Urdu gloss includes the word giyā ‘past’ (Urdu ‫ ﺟﯿﺎ‬gayā, Hindi गया gayā). 90. Hebrew ‫ ֵה ָח ָתן‬hē-ḥātān ‘the groom’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ פּוּנְ גְּ ָרא‬pūg̃ ṛā ँ ड़ा pūg̃ ṛā. Cf. Urdu ‫ ﭘﻮﻧﮕﮍا‬pūg̃ ṛā, Hindi पू ग

Platts (1965: 282) records this word as a “local” term meaning ‘boy’. It is apparently more common in Urdu, though it is not the standard term. The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ֶה ָח ָתן‬hɛḥātān.



91. Hebrew ‫ זִ ְב ֵחי‬ziḇḥē ‘sacrifices of’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ַד ָבאיֵ יח‬dabāyeḥ

The Judeo-Urdu form is clearly from Arabic ‫ذﺑﺎﺋﺢ‬ ðabāʾiḥ ‘sacrifices’, the plural of ‫ ذﺑﯿﺤﺔ‬ðabīḥa. The singular form is attested in Urdu, in which it is pronounced zabīḥa (spelled ‫)ذﺑﯿﺤہ‬. The JudeoUrdu spelling thus reflects an Arabic or Arabizing pronunciation.

[Page 20] 92. Hebrew ‫אשׁם‬ ָ ֹ ‫ ְבר‬bǝ-rōšām ‘in their heads’ = JudeoUrdu ‫וֹכּא ִס ְיר ֶמי‬ ָ ‫ ֵﭏ‬e-lok-kā sir-mẽ

Cf. Urdu ‫ ان ﻛﮯﺳﺮ ﻣﯿﮟ‬un ke sir mẽ, Hindi उनके �सर मे ं un-ke sir mẽ.

On Judeo-Urdu e-lok for ‘they’, see section 4.1.

[Page 21] 93. Hebrew ‫ ַכ ֲא ֶשׁר‬ka-ʾăšɛr ‘as’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫יסא‬ ָ ‫ ֗ ֵג‬jesā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺟﯿﺴﺎ‬jaisā, Hindi जैसा jaisā.

94. Hebrew ‫ נָ ִשׁים‬nāšīm ‘women’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ָאוְ ַורד‬ ‫ לוֹךּ‬avrad lok Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻋﻮرﺗﯿﮟ‬ʿaurtẽ, Hindi औरते ं aurtẽ.

95. Hebrew ‫ ָרטוֹב‬rāṭōḇ ‘fresh, moist’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ נַ ַרם‬naram Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻧﺮم‬narm, Hindi नरम narm.

The Hindi/Urdu word means ‘tender, soft’. Platts (1965: 1133) records the colloquial pronuncia-



tion naram, which is still used by some speakers today. The Hebrew word occurs just once in the Bible (Job 8:16). [Page 22] 96. Biblical Aramaic ‫ ֲא ַח ְשׁ ַד ְר ְפּנָ יָּ א‬ʾăḥašdarpǝnāyyā ‘satraps’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ואלה‬ ָ ָ‫ ַס ְר ָדאר לוֹך ִאנְ ָצאף ו‬sardār lok inṣāf vālā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺳﺮدار‬sardār ‘chief, officer’ and ‫اﻧﺼﺎف‬ inṣāf ‘justice’, Hindi सरदार sardār and इनसाफ़ insāf.

The Judeo-Urdu phrase means something like ‘chief justice officials’. The element vālā (Urdu ‫واﻻ‬ vālā, Hindi वाला vālā) is a common derivational morpheme that normally indicates an agent. The Biblical Aramaic form should correctly be ‫ ֲא ַח ְשׁ ַד ְר ְפּנַ יָּ א‬ʾăḥašdarpǝnayyā. [Page 23] 97. Biblical Aramaic ‫יתא‬ ָ ‫רוֹק‬ ִ ‫ ַמ ְס‬masrōqītā ‘pipe’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫יפּי‬ ִ ‫ ִפּ‬pīpī

I found no word pīpī attested in Hindi or Urdu, but Platts (1965: 295) does have Urdu ‫ ﭘﯿﭙﺎ‬pīpā, Hindi पीपा pīpā ‘pipe butt’. The Aramaic word, which occurs just three times in Daniel 3, should correctly be ‫יתא‬ ָ ‫רוֹק‬ ִ ‫ ַמ ְשׁ‬mašrōqītā.

98. Biblical Aramaic ‫ ִק ְריְ ָתא‬qiryǝtā ‘city’ = JudeoUrdu ‫ מוּלוּךּ‬muluk Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻣﻠﻚ‬mulk, Hindi मु�क mulk.

The word in Hindi/Urdu means ‘country, region’.



[Page 25] 99. Hebrew ‫ ֵד ָﬠה‬dēʿā ‘knowledge’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ָﬠ ַקל‬ ʿaqal Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻋﻘﻞ‬ʿaql, Hindi अ�ल aql.

On page 27, the same Hebrew word is glossed ‫ ִפּ ֒ ָיגאן‬pič(h)ān (cf. Urdu ‫ ﭘﮩﭽﺎن‬pahčān, Hindi पहचान pahčān). See also #74. The same Judeo-Urdu word ‫ ָﬠ ַקל‬ʿaqal is used again on page 31, to gloss Hebrew ‫ ַמ ַדע‬maddaʿ (correctly ‫ ַמ ָדע‬maddāʿ) ‘knowledge’. A pronunciation ʿaqal is used by some speakers today. 100. Hebrew ‫ ַט ָﬠם‬ṭaʿām ‘he tasted’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫֒ ַג ָכּא‬ čakhā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﭼﻜﮭﺎ‬čakhā, Hindi चखा čakhā.

The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ָט ַﬠם‬tāʿam. 101. Hebrew ‫ ַצ ָחק‬ṣaḥāq ‘he laughed’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ָח ָסא‬ḥasā Cf. Urdu ‫ ھﻨﺴﺎ‬hãsā, Hindi हँसा hãsā.

The ḥ of the Judeo-Urdu form is unexpected, but the lack of nasalization probably represents a colloquial pronunciation. The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ָצ ַחק‬ṣāḥaq. 102. Hebrew ‫ ָר ָצה‬rāṣā ‘he accepted’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ָקבוּל ִכּיָ יא‬qabūl kiyā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﻗﺒﻮل ﻛﯿﺎ‬qabūl kiyā, Hindi क़बू ल �कया qabūl kiyā.



103. Hebrew ‫ ָתּ ָﬠה‬tāʿā ‘he went astray; erred’ = JudeoUrdu ‫וּכּגִּ יָ יא‬ ְ ‫ ֒ג‬čūk-giyā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﭼﻮك ﮔﯿﺎ‬čūk gayā, Hindi चू क गया čūk gayā.

Standard Hindi/Urdu also has a simple verb ‫ ﭼﻮﻛﺎ‬/ चू का čūkā ‘he went astray; erred’. The form giyā for ‘went’ (vs. standard Hindi/Urdu gayā) is found elsewhere in the glossary (cf. #89 and #162). [Page 26] 104. Hebrew ‫ ֵה ִבין‬hēḇīn ‘he understood’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ָס ְמ ֗ ָגא‬samjhā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺳﻤﺠﮭﺎ‬samjhā, Hindi समझा samjhā.

105. Hebrew ‫ ָצ ַבר‬ṣāḇar ‘he collected’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ֗ ַג ָמע ִכּייָ א‬jamaʿ kiyā

Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺟﻤﻊ ﻛﯿﺎ‬jamʿ kiyā, Hindi जमा �कया jamā kiyā.

Platts (1965: 388) records the colloquial pronunciation jamaʿ for Urdu, and one often hears jamā in modern spoken varieties. 106. Hebrew ‫ ָק ַרץ‬qāraṣ ‘he pinched’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫וּמ ִתּי ִדיָ יא‬ ְ ‫ ֒ג‬čumṭī diyā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﭼﻤﮣﻰ دﯾﺎ‬čimṭī diyā, Hindi �चमटी �दया čimṭī diyā.

The gloss means ‘he gave a pinch’. Platts (1965: 441) records the dialectal form čumṭī.



[Page 27] 107. Hebrew �‫ ִקנְ יָ נֶ י‬qinyānɛḵā ‘your possessions’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ארה ַא ְמ ָלאךּ‬ ָ ‫תּוּמ‬ ָ tumārā amlāk Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺗﻤﮭﺎرى اﻣﻼك‬tumhārī amlāk.

This Hebrew form appears only in Psalm 104:24, spelled � ֶ‫ ִקנְ יָ נ‬qinyānɛḵā (lacking the second yod) in good manuscripts. On the Judeo-Urdu possessive tumārā, see section 4.2. 108. Hebrew ‫ ֵה ִכין‬hēḵīn ‘he prepared’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ְטיָ יאר ִכּיָ יא‬ṭeyār kiyā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺗﯿﺎر ﻛﯿﺎ‬taiyār kiyā, Hindi तैयार �कया taiyār kiyā.

The ‫ ט‬ṭ of the Judeo-Urdu form reflects the Arabic source ‫ طﯿﺎر‬ṭayār, rather than the Urdu spelling. 109. Hebrew ‫ ַח ָמּה‬ḥammā ‘sun, heat’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫דוּב‬ dhūb Cf. Urdu ‫ دھﻮپ‬dhūp, Hindi धू प dhūp.

110. Hebrew ‫ ֶס ָלה‬sɛlā = Judeo-Urdu ‫ישׁה‬ ָ ‫ ַה ֵמ‬hamešā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﮨﻤﯿﺸہ‬hamešā, Hindi हमेशा hamešā.

The Hindi/Urdu word means ‘always, perpetually’, but the exact meaning of the Hebrew word is unclear. It is used 74 times in Biblical poetry, all but three times in the Psalms, and seems to have some sort of closing function. The same JudeoUrdu gloss is used on page 28 for the word ‫ָלנֶ ַצח‬ lā-nɛṣaḥ (mistakenly written ‫ ָלנֵ ַצח‬lā-nēṣaḥ).



[Page 28] 111. Hebrew ‫רוּרים‬ ִ ‫ ְב‬bǝrūrīm ‘clear, pure’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ָצאף לוֹךּ‬ṣāf lok Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺻﺎف‬ṣāf, Hindi साफ़ sāf.

The masculine plural form ‫רוּרים‬ ִ ‫ ְבּ‬bǝrūrīm occurs just three times in the Bible (1Chr. 7:40, 9:22, 16:41), and in all three cases actually means ‘chosen, select’. However, the normal meaning of the adjective ‫ ָבּרוּר‬bārūr is indeed ‘clear, pure’ (cf. Zeph. 3:9 and Job 33:3). 112. Hebrew ‫ ִשׁיר‬šīr ‘song’ and ‫ זִ ְמ ָרה‬zimrā ‘song’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ גִּ יד‬gīd Cf. Urdu ‫ ﮔﯿﺖ‬gīt, Hindi गीत gīt.

The two Hebrew words are listed in separate entries on the page, but have the same gloss. 113. Hebrew ‫ עוֹל‬ʿōl ‘yoke’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫בוֹג‬ ֗ bojh Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺑﻮﺟﮭ‬bojh ‘burden’, Hindi बोझ bojh.

In the Bible, the Hebrew word is always spelled ‫ עֹל‬ʿōl. 114. Hebrew ‫ ִﬠ ָיקר‬ʿīqār ‘root, origin’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ַא ַצל‬ aṣal Cf. Urdu ‫ اﺻﻞ‬aṣl, Hindi असल asl.

115. Hebrew ‫ ַל ַהט‬lahaṭ ‘flame’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ֗ ַג ַלק‬jalak Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺟﻮﻟﻜﺎ‬jvalakā, Hindi �वलका jvalakā.



116. Hebrew ‫ ֶבן‬bɛn ‘son’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫וּכּ ָרא‬ ְ ‫ ֒ג‬čhukrā

Cf. Urdu ‫ ﭼﮭﻮﻛﺮا‬čhokrā ‘boy’, Hindi छोकरा čhokrā.

The feminine form ‫ ֒גוֹ ְכּ ִרי‬čhokrī is used as the gloss for ‫ ָבת‬bāt ‘daughter’ (properly ‫ ַבּת‬bat) on page 29. The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ֵבּן‬bēn. 117. Hebrew ‫ ָאח‬ʾāḥ ‘brother’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ֵבן‬b(h)en or bhenn

I am confident that ‫ ָאחוֹת‬ʾāḥōt ‘sister’ was intended here, since the next few entries are forms of ‫ ָאחוֹת‬ʾāḥōt with pronominal suffixes. If so, then the Judeo-Urdu form should be read ben or bhen, to be compared with the Urdu and Hindi forms given in #118. If ‘brother’ was indeed intended, then the Judeo-Urdu form can be read bhenn and compared with Urdu ‫ ﺑﮭﻦ‬bhinn and Hindi �भ� bhinn ‘half-brother’.

[Page 29] 118. Hebrew ‫ ֲאחוֹתוֹ‬ʾăḥōtō ‘his sister’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫אוּס ָכּא ֵבן‬ ְ us-kā b(h)en

Cf. Urdu ‫ اس ﻛﻰ ﺑﮩﻦ‬us kī bahin, Hindi उसक� ब�हन uskī bahin.

Platts (1965: 191) includes a vulgar pronunciation bhain, and Chernyshev (1971: 128) records ben for the colloquial dialect of Bombay. 119. Hebrew ‫ ֵח ֶרב‬ḥērɛḇ ‘sword’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫טרוָ וﭏ‬ ְ ṭarvāl Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺗﻠﻮار‬talvār, Hindi तलवार talvār.



Platts (1965: 335) records talvār and tarvār, but not tarvāl. The use of ‫ ט‬ṭ in the Judeo-Urdu form is unexpected. The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ֶח ֶרב‬ḥɛrɛḇ. 120. Hebrew ‫ ְפּ ִרי‬pǝrī ‘fruit’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ַפּל‬phal Cf. Urdu ‫ ﭘﮭﻞ‬phal, Hindi फल phal.

121. Hebrew ‫ ְמאוֹר‬mǝ-ʾōr ‘from light’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫אלא ֶסי‬ ָ ‫אוּג‬ ָ ֗ ujālā se Cf. Urdu ‫ اﺟﺎﻟﮯ ﺳﮯ‬ujāle se, Hindi उजाले से ujāle se.

The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ֵמאוֹר‬mē-ʾōr. 122. Hebrew ‫ ְכּאוֹר‬kǝ-ʾōr ‘like light’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫אלא ָכּא ָמא ִפיךּ‬ ָ ‫אוּג‬ ָ ֗ ujālā kā māfik

Cf. Urdu ‫ اﺟﺎﻟﮯ ﻛﺎ ﻣﻮاﻓﻖ‬ujāle kā muāfiq, Hindi उजाले का मुआ�फ़क़ ujāle kā muāfiq.

Platts (1965: 1085) records māfiq as a colloquial pronunciation of muāfiq. 123. Hebrew ‫ ְל ָה ִאיר‬lǝ-hāʾīr ‘to give light’ = JudeoUrdu ‫אלא ֵדינֵ כּוּ‬ ָ ‫אוּג‬ ָ ֗ ujālā dene-ku

Cf. Urdu ‫ اﺟﺎﻻ دﯾﻨﺎ‬ujālā denā, Hindi उजाला देना ujālā denā.

The postposition ku (= Hindi/Urdu ko) in the Judeo-Urdu gloss is a literal translation of the Hebrew preposition lǝ- ‘to’. Note that the infinitive dene shows the correct oblique case ending -e.



124. Hebrew ‫ ְלזֹאת‬lǝ-zōt ‘to this (one)’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ִאיס כּוּ‬is ku Cf. Urdu ‫ اس ﻛﻮ‬is ko, Hindi इसको is-ko.

[Page 30] 125. Hebrew �‫רוּ‬ ַ ‫ ְבּנַ ָחת‬bǝ-naḥāt rūaḥ ‘in contentment, in rest’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫אחת ֶמי‬ ַ ‫ ָר‬rāḥat mẽ Cf. Urdu ‫ راﺣﺖ ﻣﯿﮟ‬rāḥat mẽ, Hindi राहत मे ं rāhat mẽ.

The first word of the Hebrew phrase should correctly be ‫ ְבּנַ ַחת‬bǝ-naḥat. 126. Hebrew ‫ ֶשׁ ָכּל‬šɛk-kol ‘that all’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫גוֹ ַסב‬ jo sab Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺟﻮ ﺳﺐ‬jo sab, Hindi जो सब jo sab.

The relative pronoun jo occurs a number of times in the glossary, sometimes written ‫( גוֹ‬with no diacritic), and other times written ‫( ֗גוֹ‬with a diacritic). [Page 31] 127. Hebrew ‫חוֹטא‬ ֵ ḥōṭē(ʾ) ‘sinner’=Judeo-Urdu ‫גוּנָ א ָדאר‬ gunā dār Cf. Urdu ‫ ﮔﻨﺎه ﮔﺎر‬gunāh gār, Hindi गुनाहकार gunāhkār / गुनाहगार gunāhgār.

The Judeo-Urdu form combines the noun gunā ‘sin’ with the adjective-forming element dār. In standard Hindi/Urdu, the agentive element gār/kār is used instead.



128. Hebrew ‫ ַח ֵבירוֹ‬ḥaḇērō ‘his friend’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫אוּס ָכּא דוֹ ְס ָדאר‬ ְ us-kā dosdār Cf. Urdu ‫ اس ﻛﺎ دوﺳﺘﺪار‬us kā dostdār, Hindi उसका दो�तदार us-kā dostdār.

Though the form dost is more frequent in standard Hindi/Urdu, the longer form dostdār (with the same element dār met in #127) is attested in both Hindi and Urdu. Platts (1965: 534) records the colloquial pronunciation dosdār. The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ֲח ֵברוֹ‬ḥăḇērō. 129. Hebrew �‫ תּוֹ‬tōḵ ‘middle of, midst of’ = JudeoUrdu ‫ ִבּ ֒ ְג ֶמי‬bīč-mẽ Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺑﯿﭻ ﻣﯿﮟ‬bīč mẽ, Hindi बीच मे ं bīč mẽ. The gloss means ‘in the middle’.

130. Hebrew ‫ ַﬠ ְצמוֹ‬ʿaṣmō ‘himself’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫אוּס ָכא‬ ְ ‫ ֗ ִגכּוּ‬us-kā jī-ku

Cf. Urdu ‫ اس ﻛﺎ ﺟﻰ ﻛﻮ‬us kā jī ko ‘to himself’, Hindi उसका जी को us-kā jī ko.

The form ʿaṣmō occurs just twice in the Bible (Job 2:5, Ezek. 37:7), both times in the phrase ‫ֶאל־ ַﬠ ְצמוֹ‬ ʾɛl-ʿaṣmō (‫ ֶאל‬ʾɛl ‘to’). Perhaps that is why the gloss includes the postposition ku here. Curiously, in those two biblical passages, the word ‫ ַﬠ ְצמוֹ‬ʿaṣmō is usually translated ‘his/its bone’, not ‘himself’.




Tables 1 and 2 provide an overview of the represention of Hindi/Urdu consonants in Hebrew script. The tables are based only on the glossary, and not the other Judeo-Urdu texts. Some explanations and additional comments follow. Table 1. Representation of Hindi/Urdu Consonants in Hebrew Letters



b b



čh d

dh ḍ

ḍh f


Urdu Hindi Judeo-Urdu

‫ع‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ﺑﮭ‬ ‫چ‬ ‫ﭼﮭ‬ ‫د‬ ‫دھ‬ ‫ڈ‬ ‫ڈھ‬ ‫ف‬ ‫گ‬

ब भ च छ द ध ड ढ फ़ ग 43

‫ע‬ ‫ בּ‬,‫ב‬ ‫ בּ‬,‫ב‬ ‫ ג‬,‫֒ג‬ ‫ ֒גּ‬,‫֒ג‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ דּ‬,‫ד‬ ‫ דּ‬,‫ד‬

(not found)

(‫פ )ף‬ ‫ גּ‬,‫ג‬





Table 1 (cont.)

‫ﮔﮭ‬ ḡ ‫غ‬ h ‫ه‬ ḥ ‫ح‬ j ‫ج‬ h j ‫ﺟﮭ‬ k ‫ك‬ h k ‫ﻛﮭ‬ ḵ ‫خ‬ l ‫ل‬ m ‫م‬ n ‫ن‬ p ‫پ‬ h p ‫ﭘﮭ‬ q ‫ق‬ r ‫ر‬ ṛ ‫ڑ‬ h ṛ ‫ڑھ‬ s ‫س‬ ṣ ‫ص‬ š ‫ش‬ t ‫ت‬ t (Arabic ṭ) ‫ط‬ th ‫ﺗﮫ‬ ṭ ‫ٹ‬ h ṭ ‫ﮢﮭ‬ v/w ‫و‬ y ‫ى‬ z ‫ز‬

घ ग़ ह

ज झ क ख ख़ ल म न प फ क़ र ड़ ढ़ स

श त

थ ट ठ व य ज़

‫גּ‬ ‫ג‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ ג‬,‫֗ג‬ ‫֗ג‬ (‫ כ )ך‬,(‫כּ )ךּ‬ ‫כּ‬ (�) ‫ כ‬,‫֗כ‬ ‫ל‬ (‫מ )ם‬ (‫נ )ן‬ (‫)ף‬ ֗ ‫ פּ‬,‫פ‬ ‫פּ‬ ‫ק‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ס‬ ‫צ‬ ‫ שׁ‬,‫ש‬ ‫ תּ‬,‫ת‬ ‫ט‬ ‫תּ‬ ‫ תּ‬,‫ת‬ ‫תּ‬ ‫ וו‬,‫ו‬ ‫ יי‬,‫י‬ ‫ז‬



Table 2. Values of Hebrew Letters in the Judeo-Urdu Glossary

Hebrew letter

Heb. value



‫בּ‬, ‫ב‬ ‫גּ‬, ‫ג‬

b, ḇ


‫ ֒ג‬, ‫֒גּ‬ ‫דּ‬, ‫ד‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ו‬, ‫וו‬ ‫ז‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ט‬ ‫י‬, ‫יי‬ ‫)ךּ( כּ‬


Heb. value


‫ ֗כ‬, ‫)�( כ‬

k, ḵ, kh

b, bh

‫ל‬ ‫מ‬



j, jh



č, čh

‫ס‬ ‫ע‬


n, nasal vowel



‫) ֗ף( פּ‬ ‫)ף( פ‬ ‫צ‬ ‫ק‬ ‫ר‬ ‫שׁ‬, ‫ש‬ ‫תּ‬, ‫ת‬


p, ph



w z

ḥ ṭ



silent, long a

Hebrew letter

g, g , ḡ, č, j h

d, dh, ḍ, ḍh v/w z

ṭ (Ar.) y

k, k




q r š t



ʿ, silent

p, f q

r, ṛ, ṛh š

t, th, ṭ, ṭh

*The digraph ‫ ﭏ‬is often used for the sequence ‫אל‬.

Hindi/Urdu distinguishes aspirated consonants from non-aspirated ones (e.g., th vs. t, and dh vs. d). It also has a series of retroflex consonants (ṭ, ḍ, and ṛ, plus aspirated ṭh, ḍh, and ṛh). In Hindi, all of these consonants are written with distinct letters. In Urdu, the retroflex consonants are indicated with diacritics, while the aspirate consonants are indicated by adding a special form of letter h (‫)ھ‬. In the Judeo-Urdu glos-



sary, however, the aspirated consonants (if they are even pronounced as such) are not distinguished from unaspirated ones, and the retroflex consonants are not distinguished from dental ones. 10 So, for example, t, ṭ, th, and ṭh, can all be written with Hebrew ‫ תּ‬t. Retroflex and/or aspirated versions of t and d (i.e., ṭ, ṭh, ḍ, and ḍh), and aspirated versions of b, g, k, and p (i.e., bh, gh, kh, and ph) are often indicated with a dagesh in the Hebrew letter, but there is no consistency. Moreover, dagesh can also sometimes be found in unaspirated, non-retroflex consonants. The consonants b, d, g, k, p, t, which should have a dagesh in pointed Hebrew, can be written with or without; in fact, in the text samples above, d is found only without dagesh. Not only are the aspirated consonants not clearly distinguished, but the consonant h in postconsonantal or post-vocalic position is also not present. For example, we find Judeo-Urdu tumārā for 10

It is possible that the aspirates were also not distinguished in

Judeo-Urdu speech, as reportedly in some substandard varieties of Hin-

di/Urdu (see further in Chapter 5). In the two versions of the Judeo-

Urdu Indar Sabhā, aspirates are usually indicated (except word-finally)

with a following ‫ ה‬he (e.g., ‫ בה‬for bh), and retroflex consonants are usu-

ally indicated with a rafe (e.g., � for ṭ). However, this is not the case for

the Judeo-Urdu edition of Laila Majnu. A spelling like ‫אוּל ְתּ ָתּא ֶהי‬ ְ ulṭtā-he shows that the author intended ṭt, and not a geminate tt. My transcrip-

tions of Judeo-Urdu assume the use (or at least awareness) of both the

aspirate and retroflex consonants, in part because dagesh tends to be used for these sounds.



Hindi/Urdu tumhārā (e.g., #107; see also section 4.2 below), and forms like čawā (#24), loī (#63), and penā (#68), all with loss of h. A glide may be inserted where an intervocalic h was, as in čawā < čūhā and niyāl < nihāl (#79). Gemination is also often indicated with the Hebrew dagesh (e.g., #19, #23, #28), but again this is not consistent (cf. #83). In many cases, a word is attested in the glossary both with and without dagesh (cf. #55 and #57). Moreover, because dagesh can have other functions, as described above, presence of dagesh does not necessarily mean presence of gemination. In short, gemination is not clearly indicated. This matches more closely with Urdu (in which gemination is not normally indicated), rather than with Hindi (in which gemination is indicated by two separate letters). A spelling like ‫ ַפ ַתּר‬patthar (#3), in which t plus th is written as a geminate, also aligns with Urdu spelling against Hindi. Gemination is occasionally indicated in Judeo-Urdu where it is not expected; cf. ‫ סוּנָּ ה‬sunnā (#1), which occurs in the glossary about a dozen times and consistently has dagesh. The phonemes /č/ (IPA [tʃ]) and /j/ (IPA [dʒ]), along with their aspirated counterparts, are usually represented by the Hebrew letter ‫ ג‬g plus a diacritic. The use of ‫ ֒ג‬for č or čh is an imitation of Persian ‫څ‬, undoubtedly via the same use in Urdu. The use of ‫֗ג‬ for j or jh is known in the Judeo-Arabic tradition (and in that of some other Jewish languages). In the glossary, both č and j are also occasionally represented by



‫ ג‬without a diacritic (e.g., #24 and #126), which can also represent g, gh, or ḡ (IPA [ɤ]). Just as the use of dagesh and the diacritics above ‫ג‬ are inconsistent, the dot of ‫ שׁ‬šin appears only sometimes. Hebrew ‫ שׂ‬śin is not used for Judeo-Urdu words. The consonant v (which alternates with w in Hindi/Urdu) is usually indicated with a double ‫וו‬, and the consonant y is usually indicated with a double ‫יי‬. When used singly, ‫ ו‬and usually ‫ י‬are usually matres lectionis, that is, letters indicating vowels. Finally, it should be noted that the consonant ḍh is not attested in the above samples (except possibly #9 and #12), but no doubt it would be written the same as ḍ. Some other consonants known from Hindi (e.g., ण ṇ, ञ ñ, ष ṣ) are also not attested in the glossary. Occasionally, an unexpected consonant is found in Judeo-Urdu. Examples are the initial d- of dūkar (#18), corresponding to initial s- in Hindi/Urdu; the final -d of avrad (#82), corresponding to -t in Hindi/Urdu (see also #30 and #112); the initial ʿ- and final -g of ʿāg̃ (#41), corresponding to āk̃ h in Hindi/Urdu; the initial ṣ- of ṣāp̃ (#25), corresponding to s- in Hindi/Urdu; the final -k of lok (#6 and passim), corresponding to -g in Hindi/Urdu; the initial ḥ of ḥasā (#101), corresponding to h- in Hindi/Urdu; and the final -b of dhūb (#109), corresponding to -p in Hindi/Urdu. Some of these may be errors, while others likely reflect dialectal pronunciations. In a few words a consonant cluster has been simplified, as in Judeo-Urdu goš < gošt (#62; cf. also



#128), mačhī < mačhlī (#36), jalak < *jvalak (#115), and samālā < sambhālā (#140). Often such simplifications are attested in dialectal Hindi/Urdu as well. 3.2. VOWELS

The representation of vowels in Judeo-Urdu is fairly straightforward. The Hebrew vowel ◌ַ pataḥ tends to be used for short a, and ◌ָ qameṣ is normally used for long a, though it is not rare to find the latter used for short a as well. 11 The vowels ◌ֶ segol and ◌ֵ ṣere are both used for e, and in many cases the same word is spelled with segol in one place, but ṣere in another (cf. the auxiliary he in #145 and #146). The vowel ◌ְ shewa normally indicates only the lack of a vowel, but in a few places it is used for e (e.g., #108; cf. also the spelling of e-lok in #144, compared with #140 and #155). It is possible that shewa was meant to represent e in the sequence ‫( יְ י‬e.g., #165 and #168), but I think it is more likely that the sequence instead represents y at the end of a syllable. In at least one word (juvāb; cf. #160 and section 4.1), the vowel ◌ְ shewa is consistently used word-finally, against Hebrew convention. Vowels are also normally accompanied by a mater lectionis (vowel-indicating consonant), with the exception of short a and, sometimes, e and i. Final ā is normally indicated with 11

In Hebrew words in the glossary, the two a-vowels are often

confused; cf. #25, #32, #69, and #73.



‫ א‬aleph, but ‫ ה‬he is occasionally used instead. The vowels o and u/ū are normally represented by ‫ וֹ‬and ‫וּ‬, respectively. In the word ‫ ו ֺא‬vo ‘he/she/it’, the final o is indicated unexpectedly with the vowel point ֹḥolam plus a final ‫ א‬aleph, no doubt because of the preceding ‫ ו‬vav. As for the phonology of Judeo-Urdu, there are a number of remarks that can be made about the vowels. The traditional Hindi/Urdu diphthongs /ai/ and /au/ are normally pronounced as /ɛ/ and /ɔ/, respectively, in the modern spoken language. In JudeoUrdu, the two vowels are normally represented as e and o, and so are not distinguished from the historical vowels /e/ and /o/. Cf. Judeo-Urdu bel (#7), jesā (#93), doṛā (#70), and or (#81). The Hebrew pointing thus reflects pronunciation, rather than the native etymological spelling. There may be unusual reflexes of a diphthong in rare cases; for example, Judeo-Urdu pič(h)ānā (#74) perhaps corresponds to Hindi/Urdu dialectal paič(h)ānā. Nasalized vowels inside a word are normally indicated with a following letter nun, as in ‫ ִאינְ תּ‬īṭ̃ (#7) and ‫ ָבאנְ ְד ָרא‬bād̃ rā (#21). This practice is clearly borrowed from Urdu orthography (cf. Urdu ‫ اﯾﻨﭧ‬īṭ̃ and ‫ ﺑﺎﻧﺪرا‬bād̃ rā). However, unlike Urdu, word-final nasalization is not indicated, e.g., ‫ אוּנְ גְ ִליָ יא‬ũgliyā ̃ (#53; cf. Urdu ‫ اﻧﮕﻠﯿﺎں‬ũgliyā)̃ and ‫ ֶמי‬mẽ (#125; cf. Urdu ‫ﻣﯿﮟ‬



mẽ). 12 The reason for this is perhaps because a nasal consonant is often heard preconsonantally, but not word-finally; for example, a native speaker may hear ̃ a consonant n in a word like īṭ̃ (i.e., īnṭ). Sometimes the expected indication of nasalization within a Judeo-Urdu word is absent; see #35 and #101 for possible examples. Several words show raising of /o/ to /u/, e.g., sunnā (#1), khuprī (#42), and ku (#124 and passim). For some words there may be variation; cf. JudeoUrdu masculine čhukrā, but feminine čhokrī (#116). The corresponding raising of /e/ to /i/ is much less frequent (cf. pišānī, #45). Judeo-Urdu orthography indicates the raising of /a/ to /e/ when adjacent to /h/, typical of spoken Hindi/Urdu; cf. #68 and #75. Several words show a shift of /u/ to /i/, including mibārak (#80) and dišman (#88). The opposite shift is also attested once (čumṭī, #106), before a nasal consonant, though in that case the vowel of the JudeoUrdu form is also attested in dialectal Hindi/Urdu. The shift of the vowel /a/ to /i/ is found in lizzat (#83), while the opposite shift is found in haltā (#151). The shift of /a/ to /i/ in the form giyā (see the comments to #162 and #163) is probably due to


In the manuscript version of Indar Sabhā held by the British Li-

brary (see Chapter 1), final nasalization is usually indicated with a final

‫ ן‬or ֿ‫( ן‬nun with or without rafe). This is not the case for the lithograph version of Indar Sabhā.



the following palatal y, 13 just as the shift of /a/ to /u/ in juvāb (e.g., #160) is likely because of the following labial v. Words of the shape CVCC in Hindi/Urdu regularly surface as CVCVC in Judeo-Urdu, in which the epenthetic vowel is identical to the preceding vowel. There are numerous examples above, including marad (#81), muluk (#98), jamaʿ (#105), and ʿaqal (#114). These are colloquial pronunciations that in most cases are attested in other varieties of Hindi/Urdu. The loss of penultimate short a in the environment aC(C)V#, typical of spoken Hindi/Urdu, is clearly indicated in Judeo-Urdu orthography, whereas the Hindi and Urdu scripts are ambiguous on this point; cf. Judeo-Urdu ‫אוּתּ ָרא‬ ְ utrā < *utarā (#73) and h h ‫ ָס ְמ ֗ ָגא‬samj ā < *samaj ā (#104). 3.3. WORD DIVISION

Judeo-Urdu word divisions (or lack thereof) sometimes differ from standard Hindi/Urdu spelling conventions. For example, postpositions are sometimes written as part of the preceding word, though they are written as separate words in the standard Hindi and Urdu orthographies, e.g., ‫ ַס ְב ֵסי‬sab-se ‘from all’ (#85). The same goes for phrasal verbs, e.g., ‫וּכּגִּ יָ יא‬ ְ ‫֒ג‬ čūk-giyā ‘he went astray’ (#103). In some cases, both 13

It is also possible that the Judeo-Urdu form giyā (the

past/perfective of jānā) was made on analogy with kiyā (past/perfective of the verb karnā ‘to do’).



Judeo-Urdu and Hindi write a postposition or particle as part of the same word, while traditional Urdu orthography keeps them separate. Examples are the postposition ku, as in ‫אוּסכּוּ‬ ְ us-ku ‘to him’ (#77), and the future-tense particle gā (cf. #153–60). Since Judeo-Urdu orthography is clearly heavily influenced by Urdu, this link between Judeo-Urdu and Hindi is almost certainly just coincidental. Also, Judeo-Urdu is also not consistent on this point when it comes to postpositions; cf. ‫ ִאיס כּוּ‬is ku (#124), and the examples given at the end of section 4.1.


Looking at the lexical samples in Chapter 2, several morphological features are quite striking. One is the use of lok to indicate plurality. In standard Hindi/Urdu the word log (lit. ‘people’) can be used with humans to indicate plurality, but it cannot be used with non-humans. 14 In this glossary, there are many cases where it is used with non-humans. Since Hindi/Urdu nouns often exhibit no plural morphology (at least in the nominative case), we might think that the translator is using lok (in a non-standard way) to make the plural form clear (e.g., #8). However, the author of the glossary used lok even where a morphological plural exists, such as with masculine nouns ending in -ā and feminine nouns. Note forms like mẽḍ(h)ā lok (#13), bakrī lok (#16), and avrad lok (#94), and compare them with the morphological Lebedeff (1801: 23), in his description of substandard Calcutta Hindi/Urdu, records the form lok as a general plural marker, but all of his examples are with animate nouns. Chatterji (1972) reports that lok (in place of log) is heard among native Bengali speakers of the Calcutta Hindi/Urdu; his few examples are also all with animate nouns. 14




plurals (masculine -e, and feminine -īyā ̃ or -ẽ) of standard Hindi/Urdu. A small number of feminine nouns in the glossary do have a morphological plural, e.g., ũgliyā ̃ (#53) and ãtaṛyā ̃ (#61), but these are words that are often or always used in the plural. A second notable feature throughout the glossary is the lack of gender agreement, both with adjectives and in genitive constructions. In Hindi/Urdu the postposition kā is used to mark a genitive, as in mačhlī kā čhilkā ‘fish’s skin’ (lit. ‘fish-of skin’, #37). The postposition kā declines for gender and number: M.SG. kā, M.PL. ke, and F.SG./PL. kī. The agreement is not with the preceding noun, but rather with the thing possessed. So in the phrase mačhlī kā čhilkā, the postposition kā agrees with masculine singular čhilkā ‘skin’, not feminine singular mačhlī. In the glossary, the postposition does not show the expected agreement, and so we find phrases like ʿāg̃ kā safedī ‘the white of the eye’ (#47), with masculine singular kā used before the feminine noun safedī ‘whiteness’. See also the comment to #38 above. We also find lack of gender agreement between adjectives and nouns, as in the phrase ‫וֹתּא אוּנְ גְּ ִלי‬ ָ ‫ ֒ג‬čhoṭā ũglī ‘little finger’ (#54). Here the masculine adjective čhoṭā ‘little’ is paired with the feminine noun ũglī. See #39 for another example. The pronominal system also shows some peculiarities with regard to gender; see further in section 4.2. For some issues of gender agreement in the verbal system, see section 4.3. A third notable feature of Judeo-Urdu nominal morphology is the near total lack of case marking.



For example, when a noun in standard Hindi/Urdu is followed by the abovementioned postposition kā, that noun should be in the oblique case. Some nouns are not marked for the oblique, but among those marked are masculine nouns ending in -ā, which changes to -e in the oblique. Yet in the glossary we find phrases like murḡā kā pagṛī ‘cock’s comb’ (lit. ‘rooster-of turban’, #38), with nominative murḡā, to which we can compare Hindi/Urdu murḡe kī pagṛī, with oblique murḡe. Only in a few cases (almost all infinitive verbs plus the postposition ku) is case marking found in the glossary; an example is dene-ku (#123). Curiously, infinitives usually show no case marking with other postpositions; cf. ‫אב ֵדינֵ י כּוּ‬ ְ ָ‫ ֗גוּו‬juvāb dene-ku for Hebrew ‫ ַל ֲﬠנוֹת‬laʿănōt ‘to answer’, but ‫אב ֵדינָ א ֶמי‬ ְ ָ‫ ֗גוּו‬juvāb denāmẽ for ‫ ַבּ ֲﬠנוֹת‬baʿănōt ‘in answering’, and ‫אב ֵדינָ א ֶסי‬ ְ ָ‫֗גוּו‬ juvāb denā-se for ‫ ֵמ ֲﬠנוֹת‬mē-ʿănōt ‘from answering’ (all on page 14 of the glossary). An exception is ‫יסי‬ ֵ ֵ‫ַ֗כ ַבר ֵדינ‬ ḵabar dene-se ‘from telling’ on page 12. 4.2. PRONOUNS

On page 8 of the glossary, we find a list of the independent personal pronouns, the forms of which clearly illustrate the colloquial dialect used by the author. These pronouns are reproduced in Table 3, following the author’s ordering. The table includes the standard Hindi and Urdu equivalents of the Hebrew pronouns, rather than the direct counterparts of the Judeo-Urdu forms; some non-standard, but commonly used forms are given in parentheses. Some discussion follows the table.







‫ ָאנִ י‬ʾānī

you (M.SG.) you (F.SG.) you (M.PL.) you (F.PL.) they (M.)

‫ ַא ָתּה‬ʾattā ‫ ָאתּ‬ʾāt ‫ֲא ֶתּם‬ ʾăttɛm ‫ ֲא ֶתּן‬ʾăttɛn ‫ ֵהם‬hēm

they (F.)

‫ ֵהן‬hēn


‫ ָאנוּ‬ʾānū ‫ָאנָ ְחנוּ‬ ʾānāḥnū ‫ הוּא‬hū ‫ ִהיא‬hī

we he she



‫ ָהם‬ham

‫ ﻣﯿﮟ‬maĩ (‫ ﮨﻢ‬ham)

मैं maĩ (हम ham)

‫ תּוּם‬tum

‫ ﺗﻮ‬tū (‫ ﺗﻢ‬tum)

तू tū (तुम tum)

‫תּוּ ְמלוֹךּ‬ tum-lok

‫ ﺗﻢ‬tum (‫ﺗﻢ ﻟﻮگ‬ tum log)

तुम tum (तुम लोग tum log)

‫ַא ַפּן לוֹךּ‬ apan lok*

‫ وه‬vo (‫وه ﻟﻮگ‬ vo log) ‫ ﮨﻢ‬ham (‫ﮨﻢ ﻟﻮگ‬ ham log)

वे ve (vo) (वे लोग vo log) हम ham (हम लोग ham log)

‫ ו ֺא‬vo

‫ وه‬vo

वह vo

‫ ֵאלוֹךּ‬elok

*Elsewhere in the glossary, ham (lok) and apan are more com-

mon for ‘we’. Cf. #139 and #158 below.

FIRST PERSON: In some varieties of spoken Hindi/Urdu, the first-person plural pronoun ham replaces first-person singular maĩ. Because this can cause ambiguity between the singular and plural, the plural can be specified with the addition of log ‘people’, among other ways (cf. English ‘you all’, ‘you guys’, etc.). Judeo-Urdu ham-lok appears in #158 below.



The pronoun apan is a colloquial/dialectal form used most often for the singular; its use for the plural is attested in the colloquial dialect of Bombay, likely due to the influence of the Marathi first-person plural inclusive pronoun āpaṇ (Apte 1974: 28). The addition of lok in apan lok makes the plural sense unambiguous. Note that the Hebrew variant forms ‫ ָאנוּ‬ʾānū (post-biblical only) and ‫ ֲאנַ ְחנוּ‬ʾănāḥnū (incorrectly pointed ‫ ָאנָ ְחנוּ‬ʾānāḥnū) are listed as two separate entries, both with the same gloss. The singular form ‫ָאנִ י‬ ʾānī is pausal; more common in the Bible is ‫ ֲאנִ י‬ʾănī. SECOND PERSON: The grammatical equivalent of the Hebrew singular pronouns ‫ ַא ָתּה‬ʾattā (M.) and ‫ ַאתּ‬ʾāt (F.; pausal form ‫ ָאתּ‬ʾāt) in Hindi/Urdu is tū, with no gender distinction. In practice, however, tū is reserved for intimate use, and it is the grammatically plural form tum that can be considered the default form for ‘you’, either singular or plural. Yet another pronoun, āp, is commonly used as a polite secondperson pronoun. So the translator’s choice to use ‫תּוּם‬ tum in Judeo-Urdu reflects actual pragmatic use, and not the morphology. In three glosses of second-person feminine verb forms (pages 6, 7, and 12 of the glossary; cf. #135 below), we find ‫ תּוּ‬tū in place of ‫ תּוּם‬tum. If not errors, these could be attempts to distinguish the genders of the second person (as in Hebrew), but such usage is not regular in the glossary; elsewhere ‫ תּוּם‬tum is used for the feminine. As with the first-person pronoun, the plural can be indicated with the addition of log in Hindi/Urdu. Thus the Judeo-Urdu form ‫ תּוּ ְמלוֹךּ‬tum-lok is essential-



ly standard spoken Hindi/Urdu, except for the final consonant of lok (vs. standard log). Note also that in Hindi and Urdu, the element log is typically written as a separate word, while in the glossary it is often written as one. In the glossary, the Hebrew plural pronouns have the wrong pointing; they should correctly be ‫ ַא ֶתּם‬ʾattɛm and ‫ ַא ֶתּן‬ʾattɛn. THIRD PERSON: For the third-person pronouns, Hindi/Urdu uses the demonstrative pronouns, of which there are two (near and far). Gender is not distinguished. Judeo-Urdu ‫ ו ֺא‬vo corresponds to the Hindi/Urdu far demonstrative vo (spelled ‫ وه‬/ वह vah). And although there exists a plural form of this demonstrative in Hindi, correctly ve, in practice vo is most often used instead. Dialectally, there exist other forms of the third-person pronouns, including e. And it is this pronoun e that serves as the base for the Judeo-Urdu plural pronoun ‫ ֵאלוֹךּ‬e-lok. In addition to the independent pronouns that appear in the glossary, we also find possessive and other oblique forms of the pronouns. In two places in the glossary we find a complete set of forms of a Hebrew noun followed by possessive pronominal suffixes. These are ‫ זָ ָהב‬zāhāḇ ‘gold’ (cf. #1), near the beginning of page 1, and ‫ ַבּיִת‬bayit ‘house’ on page 10. The forms of ‘gold’ are given in Table 4, illustrating the Judeo-Urdu possessive pronouns. The ordering is that of the glossary. As in Table 3, standard Hindi and Urdu forms are presented in the table, with colloquial variants in parentheses; discussion follows.



my gold

your (M.SG.) gold

Table 4. The Possessive Pronouns



‫זְ ָה ִבי‬ zǝhāḇī

‫ארה‬ ָ ‫ַה ָמ‬ ‫סוּנָּ ה‬ hamārā sunnā

�‫זְ ָה ָב‬ zǝhāḇāḵ*

‫ארה‬ ָ ‫תוּמ‬ ָ ‫סוּנָּ ה‬ tumārā sunnā

your (F.SG.) gold

�‫זְ ָה ִבי‬ zǝhāḇīḵ*

his gold

‫זְ ָהבוֹ‬ zǝhāḇō

her gold

‫זְ ָה ָבה‬ zǝhāḇāh

their (M.) gold

‫זְ ָה ָבם‬ zǝhāḇām

their (F.) gold

‫זְ ָה ָבן‬ zǝhāḇān

‫ארי‬ ִ ‫תוּמ‬ ָ ‫סוּנָּ ה‬ tumārī sunnā

‫אוּס ָכּא‬ ְ ‫ סוּנָּ ה‬uskā sunnā ‫אוּס ִכּי‬ ְ ‫ סוּנָּ ה‬uskī sunnā

‫ֶאלוֹךּ ָכּא‬ ‫סוּנָּ ה‬ e-lok kā sunnā

‫ﭏוֹכּי סוּנָּ ה‬ ִ e-lok-kī sunnā




‫ﻣﯿﺮا ﺳﻮﻧﺎ‬ merā sonā (‫ﮨﻤﺎرا ﺳﻮﻧﺎ‬ hamārā sonā)

मेरा सोना merā sonā (हमारा सोना hamārā sonā)

‫ﺗﯿﺮا ﺳﻮﻧﺎ‬ terā sonā (‫ﺗﻤﮩﺎرا ﺳﻮﻧﺎ‬ tumhārā sonā)

तेरा सोना terā sonā (तु�हारा सोना tumhārā sonā)

‫اس ﻛﺎ ﺳﻮﻧﺎ‬ us kā sonā

उसका सोना us-kā sonā

‫ان ﻛﺎ ﺳﻮﻧﺎ‬ un kā sonā

उनका सोना un-kā sonā



your (M.PL.) gold your (F.PL.) gold

our gold

‫זְ ָה ְב ֶכם‬ zǝhāḇǝḵɛm**

‫זְ ָה ְב ֶכן‬ zǝhāḇǝḵɛn**

‫זְ ָה ֵבינוּ‬ zǝhāḇēnu**

‫תוּמלוֹךּ‬ ְ ‫ָכּא סוּנָּ ה‬ tum-lok kā sunnā ‫וֹכּי‬ ִ ‫תוּמל‬ ְ ‫סוּנָּ ה‬ tum-lokkī sunnā ‫ַא ְפּנָ א‬ ‫סוּנָּ ה‬ apnā sunnā

‫ﺗﻤﮩﺎرا ﺳﻮﻧﺎ‬ tumhārā sonā ( ‫ﺗﻢ‬ ‫ﻟﻮگ ﻛﺎ ﺳﻮﻧﺎ‬ tum log kā sonā)

तु�हारा सोना tumhārā sonā (तुम लोग का सोना tum log kā sonā)

‫ﮨﻤﺎرا ﺳﻮﻧﺎ‬ hamārā sonā

हमारा सोना hamārā sonā

* These are Rabbinic Hebrew forms (influenced by Aramaic). The Biblical Hebrew forms are M. �‫ זְ ָה ְב‬zǝhāḇǝḵā and F. �‫זְ ָה ֵב‬ zǝhāḇēḵ. ** The 2PL. and 1PL. forms should correctly be ‫ זְ ַה ְב ֶכם‬zǝhāḇǝḵɛm, ‫ זְ ַה ְב ֶכן‬zǝhāḇǝḵɛn, and ‫ זְ ָה ֵבנוּ‬zǝhāḇēnu.

The forms of the possessive pronouns are consistent with those of the personal pronouns given in Table 3: FIRST PERSON: The first-person plural possessive hamārā for ‘my’ corresponds to the use of ham for ‘I’, and apnā ‘our’ corresponds to apan (lok) for ‘we’. In the standard language, Urdu ‫ اﭘﻨﺎ ﺳﻮﻧﺎ‬apnā sonā and Hindi अपना सोना apnā sonā can have various other meanings depending on context. SECOND PERSON: For the second-person singular, the use of tumārā corresponds to the use of tum for ‘you (SG.)’. Quite noteworthy in the glossary are the



distinct forms tumārā ‘your (M.)’ (referring to a masculine possessor) and tumārī ‘your (F.)’ (referring to a feminine possessor). In standard Hindi/Urdu, as, for example, in French or German, the possessive pronoun agrees with the thing possessed; gender of the possessor is not marked. But here, the author is clearly distinguishing the gender of the possessor, as in Hebrew. The author’s glosses may reflect a desire to capture the gender distinction in Hebrew, or may be a misunderstanding of Hindi/Urdu grammar; it is also conceivable that such distinction could be present in some dialectal forms of Hindi/Urdu. For the secondperson plural ‘you’ (tum lok), since lok is a noun meaning ‘people’ and not historically a pronoun, the possessive is indicated with the postposition kā. For the second-person feminine plural, we have the same non-standard distinction of the gender of the possessor that is used for the singular. Moreover, the author chose to spell ‫וֹכּי‬ ִ ‫תוּמל‬ ְ tum-lok-kī with a geminate ‫כּ‬, following a more Hebraized spelling. Throughout the glossary, the author varies such spellings somewhat, so we find, for example, both ‫וֹכּא‬ ָ ‫ ל‬lok-kā and ‫לוֹךּ ָכּא‬ lok kā (see also Table 5). On the lack of h in tumārā, see section 3.1. THIRD PERSON: In the third person, we again see a distinction made for the gender of the possessor. The singular possessive pronouns correspond to standard Hindi/Urdu, while the plural forms are the expected genitive forms of the dialectal e-lok that was presented in Table 3.



On pages 8–9 of the glossary, following the forms of the independent pronouns, we find forms of the Hebrew preposition -‫ ְל‬lǝ- ‘to, for’ followed by pronominal suffixes. This paradigm corresponds to the Hindi/Urdu dative pronouns. The forms are given in Table 5, which is followed by some discussion.


Table 5. The Dative Pronouns


to me

‫ ִלי‬lī

to you (M.SG.)

�‫ ָל‬lāḵ*

to you (F.SG.)

�‫ ִלי‬līḵ*


‫ לוֹ‬lō


‫ ָלהּ‬lāh

to you (M.PL.)

‫ָל ֶכם‬ lāḵɛm

to you (F.PL.)

‫ָל ֶכן‬ lāḵɛn


‫ַה ְמכּוּ‬ ham-ku

‫תוּמכּוּ‬ ְ tum-ku

‫אוּסכּוּ‬ ְ us-ku ‫תּוּמלוֹכּוּ‬ ְ tum-lokku


‫ ﻣﺠﮭﮯ‬mujhe / ‫ﻣﺠﮭ ﻛﻮ‬ mujh ko (‫ ﮨﻤﯿﮟ‬hamẽ / ‫ﮨﻢ ﻛﻮ‬ ham ko) ‫ ﺗﺠﮭﮯ‬tujhe / ‫ﺗﺠﮭ ﻛﻮ‬ tujh ko (‫ﺗﻤﮩﯿﮟ‬ tumhẽ / ‫ﺗﻢ‬ ‫ ﻛﻮ‬tum ko) ‫ اﺳﮯ‬use / ‫اس ﻛﻮ‬ us ko

‫ ﺗﻤﮩﯿﮟ‬tumhẽ / ‫ﺗﻢ ﻛﻮ‬ tum ko ( ‫ﺗﻢ‬ ‫ ﻟﻮگ ﻛﻮ‬tum log ko)


मुझे mujhe / मुझको mujhko (हमे ं hamẽ / हमको hamko)

तुझे tujhe / तुझको tujhko (तु�हे ं tumhẽ / तुमको tum-ko)

उसे use / उसको us-ko तु�हे ं tumhẽ / तुमको tumko (तुम लोग को tum log ko)


‫ָל ֶהם‬ lāhɛm

to us

‫ָלנוּ‬ lānu

to them (F.)

‫ָל ֶהן‬ lāhɛn


‫ֵﭏוֹכּוּ‬ e-lok-ku

‫اﻧﮩﯿﮟ‬ unhẽ / ‫ ان ﻛﻮ‬unko

उ�हे ं unhẽ / उनको un-ko

‫ָא ְפּנָ אכּוּ‬ apnā-ku

‫ ﮨﻤﯿﮟ‬hamẽ / ‫ﮨﻢ ﻛﻮ‬ ham ko

हमे ं hamẽ / हमको ham-ko

* These are Rabbinic Hebrew forms (influenced by Aramaic).

The Biblical Hebrew forms are masculine �‫ ְל‬lǝḵā and feminine �‫ ָל‬lāḵ.

The forms of the dative pronouns are totally consistent with what we saw above in Table 3 and Table 4. That is, the historical first- and second-person plural forms serve for the singular, and the plural forms are augmented with lok. The third-person singular aligns with standard Hindi/Urdu, while the thirdperson plural is based on the colloquial e plus the plural marker lok. There is no attempt to distinguish gender in the second and third persons, as was seen with the possessive pronouns presented in Table 4. 15 Noteworthy is the fact that where standard Hin15

In other cases, where a Hebrew preposition is translated with a

Judeo-Urdu compound postposition whose first element is ke or kī, then

the Judeo-Urdu pronoun (a possessive pronoun in this case) does show

gender distinction. For example, on page 9 of the glossary we find

‫סאתּ‬ ָ ‫אוּס ָכּא‬ ְ us-kā sāth ‘with him’ (= Hebrew ‫ ִﬠמּוֹ‬ʿimmō) and ‫סאתּ‬ ָ ‫אוּס ִכּי‬ ְ us-

kī sāth ‘with her’ (= Hebrew ‫ ִﬠ ָמּהּ‬ʿimmāh); cf. Urdu ‫ اس ﻛﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮭ‬us ke sāth,

Hindi उसके साथ us-ke sāth ‘with him/her’.



di/Urdu has two variant dative pronouns, one morphological (e.g., hamẽ) and one analytical (e.g., ham ko), only the analytical form is attested for JudeoUrdu in the glossary. Also, the standard form ko appears consistently as ku in the glossary, reflecting a raised vowel; see section 3.2 for discussion and further examples of this phenomenon. 4.3. VERBS

As mentioned above in Chapter 2, several lists of verbal forms (i.e., sets of paradigms) appear in the glossary. These are: p. 5:

Forms of the Hebrew verbs ‫ ָל ַמד‬lāmad ‘learn’ and ‫ ִל ֵמּד‬limmēd ‘teach’ (partly mixed together) pp. 6–8: Forms of the Hebrew verbs ‫ ָא ַמר‬ʾāmar ‘say’, ‫ ִדּ ֶבּר‬dibbɛr ‘speak’, and ‫ ִס ֵפּר‬sippēr ‘tell’ (all glossed by Judeo-Urdu ‫בּוֹלנָ א‬ ְ bolnā) pp. 11–15: Forms of the Hebrew verbs ‫ ִהגִּ יד‬higgīd ‘tell’, ‫ ָק ָרא‬qārā(ʾ) ‘read, call’, and ‫ ָﬠנָ ה‬ʿānā ‘answer’ (active and passive) pp. 24–25: Forms of the Hebrew verbs ‫ ָבּ ַחר‬bāḥar ‘choose’, ‫ גִּ ַדּל‬giddal ‘raise’, and ‫ ָשׁ ַמע‬šāmaʿ ‘hear’. These are paradigms, more or less, but for many of the sets some persons are missing, and the ordering of the various tenses and forms is somewhat inconsistent. In addition to these sets of paradigms, indi-



vidual verb forms appear throughout the glossary. Most of these individual forms are in the third-person past tense, but some are conjugated as they appear in the Bible. Twenty simple, third-person past tense forms (#40 [in the comment], #64–74, #100–106, and #108), a third-person past tense form with a pronominal object (#77), and an infinitive form (#123) were given already in Chapter 2. Some infinitive forms were also cited at the end of section 4.1. Additional verb forms will be given below, within the discussion of the various verb tenses. When comparing the Judeo-Urdu verbal forms with Hindi/Urdu counterparts, only the nearest cognate forms are presented, unlike in the pronoun tables in section 4.2. So, for example, for ‘I will learn’ (#153), I have given only the colloquial Hindi/Urdu forms with the grammatically plural pronoun ham, since that is what is used in Judeo-Urdu. 4.3.1. Imperatives

Hebrew distinguishes singular and plural imperatives, as does Hindi/Urdu. As discussed in section 4.2, the glossary uses the second-person plural pronoun tum for the singular. Therefore the grammatically plural imperative, with the suffix -o, is consistently used to gloss both singular and plural Hebrew imperatives. To make the plural sense clear, the pronoun tum-lok is added. Hebrew feminine imperatives are glossed exactly like their masculine counterparts.



[Page 5] 131. Hebrew ‫ ְלמוד‬lǝmōd ‘learn! (SG.)’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ ִסיכּוֹ‬sīkho Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺳﯿﻜﮭﻮ‬sīkho, Hindi सीखो sīkho.

The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ְל ַמד‬lǝmad. This error is consistent in the glossary; cf. #153– 54, #156, and #158. 132. Hebrew ‫ ִלי ְמדוּ‬limdū ‘learn! (PL.)’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫תוּמלוֹך ִסיכּוֹ‬ ְ tum-lok sīkho Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺳﯿﻜﮭﻮ‬sīkho, Hindi सीखो sīkho.

The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ִל ְמדוּ‬limdū, without the ‫ י‬yod. 4.3.2. Past Tense

The Hebrew past tense (sometimes called the perfect) is always glossed in Judeo-Urdu with the simple past (also called the indicative past, perfective, or perfective participle). While the Hebrew past tense conjugates for person, number, and (for second persons and third-person singular) for gender, the Hindi/Urdu simple past has just four forms: masculine singular and plural, and feminine singular and plural. In the Judeo-Urdu glosses, however, the plural forms are not used. Since person is not marked in the JudeoUrdu past tense, the pronouns are used for first and second persons. Standard Hindi/Urdu exhibits ergativity in the simple past tense. With most transitive verbs, the logical subject is marked with the postposition ne. In the



glossary, however, there is no evidence of ergativity (see especially #141). Glosses of twenty-one third-person masculine singular forms are listed above in Chapter 2 (#40 [in the comment], #64–74, #77, #100–106, and #108). Below are some sample glosses of other Hebrew pasttense forms: [Page 7] 133. Hebrew ‫ ָא ְמ ָרה‬ʾāmǝrā ‘she said’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫בוֹלי‬ ִ bolī Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺑﻮﻟﻰ‬bolī, Hindi बोली bolī.

134. Hebrew ‫ ָא ַמ ְר ָתּ‬ʾāmartā ‘you (M.) said’ = JudeoUrdu ‫בוֹלא‬ ָ ‫ תוּם‬tum bolā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺗﻢ ﺑﻮﻟﮯ‬tum bole, Hindi तुम बोले tum bole.

Even when the plural pronoun tum is used with a singular reference, the verb agreement is still plural in standard Hindi/Urdu. Judeo-Urdu bolā, however, is the masculine singular form. 135. Hebrew ‫ ָא ַמ ְר ְתּ‬ʾāmart ‘you (F.) said’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫בוֹלי‬ ִ ‫ תּוּ‬tū bolī Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺑﻮﻟﻰ‬bolī, Hindi बोली bolī.

This is one of the few cases where tū is used to gloss a second-person feminine singular pronoun instead of tum. It is unclear if the form is used intentionally (see further in section 4.2). 136. Hebrew ‫ ָא ְמרוּ‬ʾāmǝrū ‘they said’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ﭏוֹךּ‬ ‫בוֹלא‬ ָ e-lok bolā



Cf. Urdu ‫ وه )ﻟﻮگ( ﺑﻮﻟﮯ‬vo (log) bole, Hindi वे (लोग) बोले ve/vo (log) bole.

Note again that Judeo-Urdu has the masculine plural form in -ā, rather than the plural form in -e.

137. Hebrew ‫ ָא ַמ ְר ֶתּם‬ʾāmartɛm ‘you (M.PL.) said’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫בוֹלא‬ ָ ‫ תוּ ְמלוֹךּ‬tum-lok bolā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺗﻢ ﺑﻮﻟﮯ‬tum bole, Hindi तुम बोले tum bole.

Note again that Judeo-Urdu has the masculine plural form with -ā, rather than the plural form with -e. The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶתּם‬ʾămārtɛm. 138. Hebrew ‫ ָא ַמ ְר ֶתּן‬ʾāmartɛn ‘you (F.PL.) said’= JudeoUrdu ‫ תוּ ְמלוֹךּ בוֹלי‬tum-lok bolī Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺗﻢ ﺑﻮﻟﯿﮟ‬tum bolī,̃ Hindi तुम बोलीं tum bolī.̃

It is possible that the Judeo-Urdu form should be read with a final nasal -ī,̃ since nasalization is not indicated word-finally in the orthography of this glossary. However, I assume the feminine singular form with non-nasal -ī was intended, since the plural forms are not used for the masculine in the glossary. The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶתּן‬ʾămārtɛn.

139. Hebrew ‫ ָא ַמ ְרנוּ‬ʾāmarnū ‘we said’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫בוֹלא‬ ָ ‫ ַא ַפן‬apan bolā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﮨﻢ ﺑﻮﻟﮯ‬ham bole, Hindi हम बोले ham bole.

As discussed in section 4.2, the pronoun apan can be used with a first-person singular meaning in



certain types of colloquial Hindi/Urdu, but its use for the plural is found in the substandard dialect of Bombay. See also #158, where the Judeo-Urdu pronoun ham lok is used instead for ‘we’. [Page 20] 140. Hebrew ‫ ָשׁ ָמרוּ‬šāmārū ‘they guarded’ = JudeoUrdu ‫אלה‬ ָ ‫ ֵﭏוֹךּ ַס ָמ‬e-lok samālā

Cf. Urdu ‫ وه )ﻟﻮگ( ﺳﻤﺒﮭﺎﻟﮯ‬vo (log) sambhāle, Hindi वे (लोग) सँभाले ve/vo (log) sambhāle.

A Hindi/Urdu form with simple m (< mbh) is also attested (Platts 1965: 672). The Hebrew pointing reflects the pausal form, which appears five times in the Bible. [Page 21] 141. Hebrew ‫ נַ ָת ִתּי‬natāttī ‘I gave’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ַהם ִדיָ יא‬ ham diyā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﮨﻢ ﻧﮯ دﯾﺎ‬ham ne diyā, Hindi हमने �दया hamne diyā.

The standard forms use an ergative construction. The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ נָ ַת ִתּי‬nātattī. The Hebrew waw-consecutive past tense (very rare in the glossary) is also glossed with the Hindi/Urdu simple past, as we would expect, for example:



[Page 29] 142. Hebrew ‫ וַ יִ ְשׁבוֹת‬way-yišbōt ‘and he rested’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ אוֹר ַדּמ ָכּאיָ יה‬or dam-khāyā Cf. Urdu ‫ اور دم ﻛﮭﺎﯾﺎ‬aur dam khāyā, Hindi और दम खाया aur dam khāyā.

The Hindi/Urdu phrase means ‘and he was silent’ (lit. ‘and he ate [his] breath’). 4.3.3. Present Tense

The Hebrew active participle, which functions as a present tense in post-biblical forms of Hebrew, is translated with the Hindi/Urdu present habitual (also called the imperfect present). In Hindi/Urdu, as in Hebrew, this verb tense is conjugated for gender and number only. The standard Hindi/Urdu masculine singular and plural are distinguished, but the feminine singular and plural forms are identical. In JudeoUrdu, however, as in the past tense, the masculine singular form is consistently used in place of the masculine plural. Some examples are: [Page 5] 143. Hebrew ‫לוֹמד‬ ֵ lōmēd ‘learns (M.SG.)’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫יכּ ָתּא ֵהי‬ ְ ‫ ִס‬sīkhtā-he Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺳﯿﻜﮭﺘﺎ ﮨﮯ‬sīkhtā hai, Hindi सीखता है sīkhtā hai.

144. Hebrew ‫לוֹמ ִדים‬ ְ lōmǝdīm ‘learns (M.PL.)’ = JudeoUrdu ‫יכּ ָתּא ֵהי‬ ְ ‫ ְאלוֹךּ ִס‬e-lok sīkhtā-he



Cf. Urdu ‫ وه )ﻟﻮگ( ﺳﯿﻜﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ‬vo (log) sīkhte haĩ, Hindi वे (लोग) सीखते हैं ve/vo (log) sīkhte haĩ.

It is possible that the Judeo-Urdu auxiliary could be read as hẽ, but this seems very unlikely. [Page 12] 145. Hebrew ‫ ַמגִּ יד‬maggīd ‘tells (M.SG.)’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫אהי‬ ֵ ‫יתּ‬ ָ ‫ וֺא ַ֗כ ַבר ֵד‬vo ḵabar detā-he

Cf. Urdu ‫ وه ﺧﺒﺮ دﯾﺘﺎ ﮨﮯ‬vo ḵabar detā hai, Hindi वह ख़बर देता है vo ḵabar detā hai.

The same verb form (but with the pronoun ‫ ֵﭏוֹךּ‬elok) is used to gloss the masculine plural ‫ַמגִּ ִידים‬ maggīdīm in the next line of the glossary. 146. Hebrew ‫ ַמגֶּ ֶדת‬maggɛdɛt ‘tells (F.SG.)’ = JudeoUrdu ‫יתּי ֶהי‬ ִ ‫ וֺא ַ֗כ ַבר ֵד‬vo ḵabar detī-he Cf. Urdu ‫ وه ﺧﺒﺮ دﯾﺘﻰ ﮨﮯ‬vo ḵabar detī hai, Hindi वह ख़बर देती है vo ḵabar detī hai.

The same verb form (but with the pronoun ‫ ֵﭏוֹךּ‬elok) is used to gloss the feminine plural ‫ַמגִּ ידוֹת‬ maggīdōt in the next line of the glossary. [Page 13] 147. Hebrew ‫קוֹרא‬ ֶ qōrɛ(ʾ) ‘calls (M.SG.)’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫אר ָתּא ֵהי‬ ְ ‫פּוּכּ‬ ָ pukārtā-he

Cf. Urdu ‫ ﭘﻜﺎرﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ‬pukārtā hai, Hindi पुकारता है pukārtā hai.

The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫קוֹרא‬ ֵ qōrē(ʾ).



[Page 14] 148. Hebrew ‫קוֹראת‬ ֵ qōrē(ʾ)t ‘calls (F.SG.)’ = JudeoUrdu ‫אר ִתּי ֵהי‬ ְ ‫פּוּכּ‬ ָ pukārtī-he

Cf. Urdu ‫ ﭘﻜﺎرﺗﻰ ﮨﮯ‬pukārtī hai, Hindi पुकारती है pukārtī hai.

149. Hebrew ‫קוֹר ִאים‬ ְ qōrǝʾīm ‘calls (M.PL.)’ = JudeoUrdu ‫אר ָתּא ֵהי‬ ְ ‫פּוּכּ‬ ָ pukārtā-he

Cf. Urdu ‫ ﭘﻜﺎرﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ‬pukārte haĩ, Hindi पुकारते हैं pukārte haĩ.

150. Hebrew ‫קוֹראוֹת‬ ְ qōrǝʾōt ‘calls (F.PL.)’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫אר ִתּי ֵהי‬ ְ ‫פּוּכּ‬ ָ pukārtī-he

Cf. Urdu ‫ ﭘﻜﺎرﺗﻰ ﮨﯿﮟ‬pukārtī haĩ, Hindi पुकारती हैं pukārtī haĩ.

In a couple of places, a Hebrew feminine form is glossed with a masculine one: [Page 29] 151. Hebrew ‫ ְמ ַר ֶח ֶפת‬mǝraḥɛp̄ ɛt ‘hovers, moves (F.SG.)’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫אהי‬ ֶ ‫ ַה ְל ָתּ‬haltā-he Cf. Urdu ‫ ﮨﻠﺘﻰ ﮨﮯ‬hiltī hai, Hindi �हलती है hiltī hai.

152. Hebrew ‫ ַה ִמ ְת ַה ֵפּ ֶכת‬ham-mithappēḵet ‘that turns ְ ulṭtā-he around (F.SG.)’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫אוּל ְתּ ָתּא ֶהי‬ Cf. Urdu ‫ اﻟﮣﺘﻰ ﮨﮯ‬ulṭtī hai, Hindi उलटती है ulṭtī hai.

The Hebrew form (from Gen. 3:24) should correctly be ‫ ַה ִמ ְת ַה ֶפּ ֶכת‬ham-mithappɛḵet.



4.3.4. Future Tense

The future tense in Hindi/Urdu is made up of two elements: a subjunctive verb, which is conjugated for person and number, plus an auxiliary particle gā, which is declined for gender and number. In the glossary, all future tense verb forms (corresponding to the subjunctive form of the standard language) have a verbal suffix written -e, which could be read either -e (correct for third-person singular only in standard Hindi/Urdu) or -ẽ (correct for first- or third-person plural only in standard Hindi/Urdu). The auxiliary appears nearly always as gā, though in a few places a second- or third-person feminine form (singular or plural) has the correct standard form gī. Since gā is singular, and since singular forms dominate in other tenses, I assume the verb suffix is to be read -e, even where -ẽ is expected in the standard language; see also the comment to #153. 16 When the stem ends in a vowel, -egā becomes -ygā. [Page 5] 153. Hebrew ‫ ֶא ְלמוֹד‬ʾɛlmōd ‘I will learn’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫יכּיגָּ א‬ ֵ ‫ ַהם ִס‬ham sīkhe-gā

ं े Cf. Urdu ‫ ﮨﻢ ﺳﯿﻜﮭﯿﮟ ﮔﮯ‬ham sīkhẽ ge, Hindi हम सीखेग h ham sīk ẽ-ge.


Chernyshev (1971: 129) records a leveled future form in -ẽgā

for the colloquial Bombay dialect, but Apte (1974) records no nasalization. Chatterji (1972: 239) records -egā for Calcutta.



As noted above, it is possible that the Judeo-Urdu form could be read sīkhẽ-gā. However, if that were the case, we might expect the nasalization to be indicated, since it is (in this orthography) in nonfinal position. Also, the Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ֶא ְל ַמד‬ʾɛlmad. This error is consistent in the glossary; cf. #131, #154, #156, and #158. 154. Hebrew ‫ יִ ְלמוֹד‬yilmōd ‘he will learn’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫יכּיגָּ א‬ ֵ ‫ ו ֺא ִס‬vo sīkhe-gā Cf. Urdu ‫ وه ﺳﯿﻜﮭﮯ ﮔﺎ‬vo sīkhe gā, Hindi वह सीखेगा vo sīkhe-gā.

155. Hebrew ‫ יִ ְל ְמדוּ‬yilmǝdū ‘they will learn’ = JudeoUrdu ‫יכּיגָּ א‬ ֵ ‫ ֶאלוֹךּ ִס‬e-lok sīkhe-gā

Cf. Urdu ‫ وه )ﻟﻮگ( ﺳﯿﻜﮭﯿﮟ ﮔﮯ‬vo (log) sīkhẽ ge, Hindi वे ं े ve/vo (log) sīkhẽ-ge. (लोग) सीखेग

As with #153, it is possible that the Judeo-Urdu form could be read sīkhẽ-gā.

156. Hebrew ‫ תּ ְלמוֹד‬tilmōd ‘you (SG.) will learn’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫יכּיגָּ א‬ ֵ ‫ תּוּם ִס‬tum sīkhe-gā

Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺗﻢ ﺳﯿﻜﮭﻮ ﮔﮯ‬tum sīkho ge, Hindi तुम सीखोगे tum sīkho-ge.

157. Hebrew ‫ תּ ְל ְמדוּ‬tilmǝdū ‘you (PL.) will learn’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫יכּיגָּ א‬ ֵ ‫תוּמלוֹךּ ִס‬ ְ tum-lok sīkhe-gā

Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺗﻢ )ﻟﻮگ( ﺳﯿﻜﮭﻮ ﮔﮯ‬tum (log) sīkho ge, Hindi तुम (लोग) सीखोगे tum (log) sīkho-ge.



158. Hebrew ‫ נִ ְלמוֹד‬nilmōd ‘we will learn’ = JudeoUrdu ‫יכּיגָּ א‬ ֵ ‫ ַה ְמלוֹךּ ִס‬ham-lok sīkhe-gā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﮨﻢ )ﻟﻮگ( ﺳﯿﻜﮭﯿﮟ ﮔﮯ‬ham (log) sīkhẽ ge, Hindi ं े ham (log) sīkhẽ-ge. हम (लोग) सीखेग

As with #153 and #155, it is possible that the Judeo-Urdu form could be read sīkhẽ-gā. Also note that here ham-lok is used here for ‘we’, but in the translation of ‫ נְ ַל ֵמּד‬nǝlammēd ‘we will teach’, a few lines below this one, we find the gloss ‫יכּאיְ יגָּ א‬ ָ ‫ַא ַפּן ִס‬ h h apan sik āy-gā (Urdu ‫ ﮨﻢ ﺳﻜﮭﺎﺋﯿﮟ ﮔﮯ‬ham sik āẽ ge, Hindi हम �सखाऎंगे ham sikhāẽ-ge), with apan used for ‘we’ (cf. also #139). [Page 13] 159. Hebrew ‫ ִתּ ְק ָרא‬tiqrā(ʾ) ‘she will call’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫אריגָּ א‬ ֵ ‫פּוּכּ‬ ָ ‫ וֺא‬vo pukāre-gā

Cf. Urdu ‫ وه ﭘﻜﺎرے ﮔﻰ‬vo pukāre gī, Hindi वह पुकारेगी vo pukāre-gī.

On the next line, the second-person feminine plural ‫ ִתּ ְק ֶראנָ ה‬tiqrɛ(ʾ)nā has the gloss ‫אריגִ י‬ ֵ ‫פּוּכּ‬ ָ ‫תּוּ ְמלוֹךּ‬ tum-lok pukāre-gī, with the correct feminine gī, but still with the non-standard verb ending -e. [Page 14] 160. Hebrew ‫ ַתּ ֲﬠנֶ ה‬taʿănɛ ‘she will answer’ = JudeoUrdu ‫אב ֵדיגִּ י‬ ְ ָ‫ וֺא גוּו‬vo juvāb de-gī Cf. Urdu ‫ وه ﺟﻮاب دے ﮔﻰ‬vo javāb de gī, Hindi वह जवाब देगी vo javāb de-gī.



4.3.5. Passives

A small number of forms of Hebrew passive stems (niphʿal, hophʿal, hithpaʿel) are translated with a passive construction using, as in standard Hindi/Urdu, the verb jānā ‘to go’ in conjunction with a perfective participle. Examples are: [Page 7] 161. Hebrew ‫יִת ַד ֵבר‬ ְ yitdabbēr ‘it will be spoken’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫אגאיְ יגָּ א‬ ָ ֗ ‫אתּ ַכּ ָר‬ ְ ‫ ָב‬bāt karā-jāy-gā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺑﺎت ﻛﺮى ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﮔﻰ‬bāt karī jāe gī, Hindi बात करी जाऎगी bāt karī jāe-gī.

The Judeo-Urdu form jāy can be compared with the pronunciation jāye that is sometimes used (and written) in Hindi/Urdu. The Hebrew form ‫יִת ַד ֵבר‬ ְ yitdabbēr is incorrect. Both the Biblical and Rabbinic forms of this hithpaʿel verb should correctly be ‫ יִ ַדּ ֵבּר‬yiddabbēr, though imperfect forms of this verb do not actually occur in the Bible. [Page 11] 162. Hebrew ‫ ֻהגָּ ד‬huggād ‘it (M.) was told’ = JudeoUrdu ‫ ַ֗כ ַבר ִדיָ יא גִ יָ יא‬ḵabar diyā giyā

Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺧﺒﺮ دى ﮔﺌﻰ‬ḵabar dī gaī, Hindi ख़बर दी गई ḵabar dī gaī.

The non-standard form giyā (the past/perfective of jānā) is found elsewhere in the glossary (cf. #89 and #103). The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ ֻהגַּ ד‬huggad.



[Page 12] 163. Hebrew ‫ ֻהגָּ ָדה‬huggādā ‘it (F.) was told’ = JudeoUrdu ‫ ַ֗כ ַבר ִדיָ יא גִּ יִ י‬ḵabar diyā giyī Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺧﺒﺮ دى ﮔﺌﻰ‬ḵabar dī gaī, Hindi ख़बर दी गई ḵabar dī gaī.

As noted above (#162), the base gi- differs from standard ga-. If the standard form were in fact based on gi- (cf. di- from the verb denā ‘to give’), then the expected feminine form of giyā ‘went’ would be gī, rather than giyī (cf. standard diyā ‘he gave’, feminine dī ‘she gave’). The use of the feminine form giyī seems to have been used in an attempt to capture the Hebrew feminine sense, since in the previous entry (#162) the corresponding verb is masculine. In standard Hindi/Urdu, both verbs agree with the feminine noun ḵabar. The Hebrew form given would be a pausal form, though no such form occurs in the Bible. The non-pausal form (also not in the Bible) would be ‫ ֻהגְּ ָדה‬huggādā. [Page 13] 164. Hebrew ‫ יִ ָקּ ֶרא‬yiqqārɛ(ʾ) ‘he will be called’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫אגאיְ יגָּ א‬ ָ ֗ ‫אר‬ ָ ‫פּוּכּ‬ ָ ‫ וֺא‬vo pukārā-jāy-gā Cf. Urdu ‫ وه ﭘﻜﺎرا ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﮔﺎ‬vo pukārā jāe gā, Hindi वह पुकारा जाऎगा vo pukārā jāe-gā.

The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫יִ ָקּ ֵרא‬ yiqqārē(ʾ).



165. Hebrew ‫ יִ ָקּ ְראוּ‬yiqqārǝʾū ‘they will be called’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫אגאיְ יגָּ א‬ ָ ֗ ‫אר‬ ָ ‫פּוּכּ‬ ָ ‫ ֵﭏוֹךּ‬e-lok pukārā-jāy-gā

Cf. Urdu ‫ وه )ﻟﻮگ( ﭘﻜﺎرے ﺟﺎﺋﯿﮟ ﮔﮯ‬vo (log) pukāre jāẽ ge, Hindi वे (लोग) पुकारे जाऎंगे ve/vo (log) pukāre jāẽ-ge.

4.3.6. Judeo-Urdu -elā with Hebrew Participles and Statives

The non-standard element -elā (or -ylā for a stem ending in a vowel), perhaps taken from Marathi, turns up in the glossary in a few interesting places. The first is in the glosses of two Hebrew passive participles: [Page 5] 166. Hebrew ‫ ָלמוּד‬lāmūd ‘learned (PASSIVE Judeo-Urdu ‫יכּ ָילא ֵהי‬ ֵ ‫ ִס‬sīkhelā-he



Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺳﯿﻜﮭﺎ ﮨﻮا‬sīkhā hūā, Hindi सीखा हू आ sīkhā hūā. The gloss (like the standard forms given) must mean something like ‘is learned’.

[Page 6] 167. Hebrew ‫ ָאמוּר‬ʾāmūr ‘said (PASSIVE Urdu ‫אהי‬ ֵ ‫בוֹל ָיל‬ ֵ bolelā-he


= Judeo-

Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺑﻮﻻ ﮨﻮا‬bolā hūā, Hindi बोला हू आ bolā hūā.

The second place this element turns up is in the glosses (all phrasal verbs) of a few Hebrew active participles from derived stems, in which the glosses have a form of the verb honā ‘to be’. These are:



[Page 27] 168. Hebrew �ַ ‫ ַה ְמּ ַשׁ ֵבּ‬ham-mǝšabbēaḥ ‘who praises’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ גוֹ ַתּ ְﬠ ִריף הוֹיְ ָילא ֶהי‬jo taʿrīf hoylā he

The Hebrew verb is transitive, and so the gloss (which uses a form of the verb honā ‘to be’) is odd. We expect something comparable to Urdu ‫ﺟﻮ‬ ‫ ﺗﻌﺮﯾﻒ ﻛﺮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ‬jo taʿrīf kartā hai, or Hindi जो तारीफ़ करता है jo tārīf kartā hai ‘who praises’. To the Judeo-Urdu form hoylā < *hoelā, we can compare jāy-gā < *jāe-gā (#161).

169. Hebrew ‫פוֹאר‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַה ְמּ‬wǝ-ham-mǝp̄ ōʾār ‘and who is glorious’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ גוֹ ַתּ ְפ ִכיר הוֹיְ ָילא ֶהי‬jo tafḵīr hoylā he

Though the root fḵr is well known in Arabic in a variety of forms, it is not known in the pattern tafḵīr, except perhaps dialectally. In Urdu only the form ‫ ﺗﻔﺨﺮ‬tafaḵḵur ‘glory, pride’ is attested. Nevertheless, the meaning of the Judeo-Urdu element tafḵīr is clear.

170. Hebrew ‫ וְ ַה ִמּ ְתנַ ֶשּׂא‬wǝ-ham-mitnaśśɛ(ʾ) ‘and who is exalted’ = Judeo-Urdu ‫ גוֹ אוּנְ ֒ ָגא הוֹיְ ָילא ֶהי‬jo ūč̃ ā hoylā he

Possible standard equivalents to this phrase are Urdu ‫ ﺟﻮ اوﻧﭽﺎ ﮨﮯ‬jo ūč̃ ā hai, and Hindi जो ऊँचा है jo ūč̃ ā hai. The Hebrew form should correctly be ‫ וְ ַה ִמּ ְתנַ ֵשּׂא‬wǝ-ham-mitnaśśē(ʾ).



The third place that the element -elā occurs is in the gloss of a Hebrew past-tense stative verb: [Page 21] 171. Hebrew ‫ ָמ ְל ָאה‬mālʾā ‘it (F.) was filled’ = JudeoUrdu ‫ ָב ֵר ָילה‬bharelā Cf. Urdu ‫ ﺑﮭﺮا ﮨﻮا‬bharā hūā, Hindi भरा हू आ bharā hūā.

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS The samples from the glossary given in the preceding chapters make it clear that the Judeo-Urdu of the glossary reflects a substandard, spoken variety of Hindi/Urdu. It can be grouped with the dialects sometimes referred to as Bazaar Hindustani, which also includes Bombay Hindi/Urdu and Calcutta Hindi/Urdu (also called Bombay Hindustani and Calcutta Hindustani). 17 Within that group, the language of the glossary appears to have a special affinity with the dialect of Bombay, which would not be at all surprising if the glossary was in fact printed in Bombay, as suggested by earlier scholars (see Chapter 1). Also, in the late 19th century, as still today, Bombay was home to the largest Jewish community in India. Consider the following list of some of the phonological and morphological features found in the


The use of “Hindustani” in these terms helps distinguish them

from standardized Hindi and Urdu.




Judeo-Urdu glossary, all of which are shared by the substandard Hindi/Urdu dialect of Bombay: 18 Phonology:

1. Loss of post-vocalic and post-consonantal /h/, and perhaps also the aspirated consonants (e.g., #68 and #107). 19

2. Raising of /o/ to /u/, including in the postposition ku (e.g., #124). Morphology:

1. Lack of gender agreement between nouns and adjectives (e.g., #39). 20 2. Lack of gender and number agreement with the postposition kā (e.g., #35).


Data for the Bombay dialect come from the very short descrip-

tion of Chernyshev (1971) and the more detailed, but still rather brief, description of Apte (1974). 19

In both Bombay and Calcutta, the aspirated consonants some-

times lose aspiration (Chernyshev 1971: 128; Chatterji 1972: 224), but

this seems to vary among speakers. As noted above in section 3.1,

Judeo-Urdu orthography does not indicate the aspirates, but this does not necessarily mean that they were not pronounced. That is, the presence of aspirated consonants in Judeo-Urdu is undetermined. 20

Chernyshev (1971: 128) cites the example of baṛā mačhī ‘big

fish’, matching #39 in the glossary.



3. Postpositions used with the nominative case, rather than the oblique (e.g., #38). 4. The independent third-person plural pronoun elok (e.g., #92), and lok used with the other plural pronouns (ham-lok, tum-lok; e.g., #157 and #158). 5. The use of apan as a first-person plural pronoun (e.g., #139). 21 6. Past and present tense verb forms ending in -ā for masculine singular and plural, i.e., no indication of number in the verb form (cf. #64 and #136, or #143 and #144). 7. Future tense forms ending in -e-gā, regardless of person or number (cf. #153–60). 8. Lack of ergativity in past-tense verb constructions (e.g., #141). Most of the features listed above also apply to Calcutta Hindi/Urdu. One common point between JudeoUrdu and the Calcutta dialect, to the exclusion of the Bombay dialect, is the use of lok (in place of log) to mark some plurals. Chatterji (1972: 230) identifies 21

In Bombay, the use of this pronoun is likely due to the influence

of the Marathi first-person plural inclusive pronoun āpaṇ (Apte 1974:




the use of lok in Calcutta with native speakers of Bengali, which itself has the form lok. However, this is probably just a coincidental point of similarity. It should also be noted that the use of lok/log is far more extensive in the glossary than in the dialects of Bombay or Calcutta, neither of which seem to use it with inanimate nouns, at least according to the limited descriptions available. Some scholars have described Bazaar Hindustani as a pidgin, given the reduction in morphological complexity and varying levels of influence from other local languages. 22 However, it is not clear that we should call Judeo-Urdu a pidgin; it certainly is not simplified to the degree of, say, the Pidgin Hindustani of Fiji, which shows a near total loss of verbal morphology (Siegel 2013). It is enough to say that Bombay Hindi/Urdu (as an example of Bazaar Hindustani) is a simplified version of Hindi/Urdu, and that it is spoken largely by native speakers of other languages, most of whom have not had formal education in Hindi or Urdu. In sum, the Indian Jews for whom this glossary was intended—almost certainly members of the Baghdadi Jewish community—spoke a colloquial dialect like that of many of their non-Jewish neighbors in Bombay and Calcutta. The Baghdadi Jews continued to speak (and publish in) Judeo-Arabic, but Hin22

See especially the discussion in Apte (1971), who also provides

a nice explanation of the different registers of Hindi/Urdu in Bombay.



di/Urdu was used for interactions with the greater urban community. The two Urdu plays transcribed into Judeo-Urdu, Indar Sabhā and Laila Majnu (see Chapter 1), show that some Jews could also understand and appreciate a more literary variety of Urdu.

INDICES OF WORDS In the indices, a simple number between 1 and 130 refers to an item number within Chapter 2 (“Lexical Samples”), while a number 131 or higher refers to an item number within Chapter 4 (section 4.3). Numbers preceded by the symbol § refer to a section number. 6.1. INDEX OF HEBREW AND ARAMAIC WORDS

Hebrew verbs are indexed under the 3M.SG. past tense form. Other words are listed as they appear in the glossary. ‫ אבן‬ʾɛḇɛn 3 ‫ אדון‬ʾādōn 75 ‫ אווז‬ʾawāz 30 ‫ אור‬ʾōr  ‫ מאור‬mē-ʾōr, ‫ כאור‬kǝ-ʾōr ‫ אח‬ʾāḥ 117 ‫ אחות‬ʾāḥōt 117 ‫ אחותו‬ʾăḥōtō 118 ‫אחשדרפניא‬ ʾăḥašdarpǝnayyā 96 ‫ איש‬ʾīš  ‫ ואיש‬wǝ-ʾīš ‫ אכל‬ʾāḵal 64 89

‫ אמר‬ʾāmar 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 167 ‫ אף‬ʾap̄ 48 ‫ אצבע‬ʾɛṣbaʿ 52 ‫ אצבעות‬ʾɛṣbāʿōt 53 ‫ אריה‬ʾaryē 20 ‫ אשה‬ʾīššā  ‫ ואשה‬wǝʾīššā ‫ אשרי‬ʾašrē 79 ‫ אתמול‬ʾɛtmōl 89 -‫ ב‬bǝ- 92, 125 ‫ בא‬bā(ʾ) 40



‫ בבת עין‬bāḇat ʿayin 46 ‫ בהמה‬bǝhēmā 5 ‫ בהמות‬bǝhēmōt 6 ‫ בטן‬bɛṭɛn 58 ‫ בן‬bēn 116 ‫ בנחת רוח‬bǝ-naḥat rūaḥ 125 ‫ בראשם‬bǝ-rōšām 92 ‫ ברוך‬bārūḵ 80 ‫ ברורים‬bǝrūrīm 111 ‫ בשר‬bāśār 62 ‫ בת‬bat 116 ‫ גב‬gaḇ 56 ‫ גוזל‬gōzāl 28 ‫ גמל‬gāmāl 17 ‫ גרון‬gārōn 51 ‫ דם‬dām 63 ‫ דמים‬dāmīm 63 ‫ דעה‬dēʿā 99 ‫ האיר‬hēʾīr  ‫ להאיר‬lǝhāʾīr ‫ הבין‬hēḇīn 104 ‫ הגיד‬higgīd 145, 146 ‫ הוגד‬huggad 162, 163 ‫ הכין‬hēḵīn 108 ‫ החתן‬hɛ-ḥātān 90 ‫ הלך‬hālaḵ 69 ‫ הדבר‬hiddabbēr 161 ‫ התהפך‬hithappēḵ 152 ‫ התנשא‬hitnaśśē(ʾ) 170 -‫ ו‬wǝ- 81, 82, 169, 170

‫ ואיש‬wǝ-ʾīš 81 ‫ ואשה‬wǝ-ʾīššā 82 ‫ זאת‬zōt  ‫ לזאת‬lǝ-zōt ‫ זבחי‬ziḇḥē 91 ‫ זהב‬zāhāḇ 1, §4.2 ‫ זמרה‬zimrā 112 ‫ זקן‬zāqān 60 ‫ זרת‬zɛrɛt 54 ‫ חברו‬ḥăḇērō 128 ‫ חוטא‬ḥōṭē(ʾ) 127 ‫ חוטם‬ḥōṭɛm 48 ‫ חזיר‬ḥăzīr 18 ‫ חמה‬ḥammā 109 ‫ חמור‬ḥămōr 11 ‫ חרב‬ḥɛrɛḇ 119 ‫ חרטום‬ḥarṭōm 35 ‫ חתול‬ḥātūl 23 ‫ חתן‬ḥātān  ‫ החתן‬hɛḥātān ‫ טעם‬ṭaʿam 83 ‫ טעם‬ṭāʿam 100 ‫ ידע‬yādaʿ 74 ‫ ירד‬yārad 73 ‫ ירוקות‬yǝrōqōt §1 ‫ ישב‬yāšaḇ 71 ‫ כאור‬kǝ-ʾōr 122 ‫ כאשר‬kă-ʾašɛr 93 ‫ כבש‬kɛḇɛś 12 ‫ כבשׂים‬kǝḇāśīm 13 ‫ כל‬kol  ‫ מכל‬mik-kol, ‫ שכל‬šɛk-kol


‫ כלב‬kɛlɛḇ 19 ‫ כנף‬kānāp̄ 32 ‫ כרבל‬karbal 38 -‫ ל‬lǝ- 110, 123, 124, §4.2 ‫ לבנים‬lǝḇēnīm 4 ‫ לבש‬lāḇaš 68 ‫ להאיר‬lǝ-hāʾīr 123 ‫ להט‬lahaṭ 115 ‫ לובן העין‬lōḇɛn hā-ʿayin 47 ‫ לזאת‬lǝ-zōt 124 ‫ לחי‬lɛḥī 59 ‫ למד‬lāmad 131, 132, 143, 144, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 166 ‫ למד‬limmēd 158 ‫ לנצח‬lā-nɛṣaḥ 110 ‫ לשון‬lāšōn 50 ‫ מאור‬mē-ʾōr 121 ‫ מאזניא‬mōznayyā ‫ מדע‬maddāʿ 99 ‫ מוח‬moaḥ 44 ‫ מכל‬mik-kol 85 ‫ מלא‬mālē(ʾ) 171 ‫ מעים‬mēʿīm 61 ‫ מפואר‬mǝp̄ ōʾār 169 ‫ מצח‬mēṣaḥ 45


‫ משרוקיתא‬mašrōqītā (‫ מסרוקיתא‬masrōqītā) 97 ‫ מתי‬mātay 84 ‫ נוצה‬nōṣā 31 ‫ נחש‬nāḥāš 25 ‫ נחת‬naḥat  ‫בנחת רוח‬ bǝ-naḥat rūaḥ ‫ נקרא‬niqrā(ʾ) 164, 165 ‫ נשר‬nɛšɛr 33 ‫ נתן‬nātan 141 ‫ סלה‬sɛlā 110 ‫ סנפיר‬snappīr 36 ‫ עול‬ʿōl 113 ‫ עורב‬ʿōrēḇ 34 ‫ עז‬ʿēz 15 ‫ עזים‬ʿizzīm 16 ‫ עין‬ʿayin 41 ‫ עיקר‬ʿīqār 114 ‫ עכבר‬ʿaḵbār 24 ‫ עם‬ʿim §4.2 (fn. 15) ‫ עמד‬ʿāmad 67 ‫ ענה‬ʿānā §4.1, 160 ‫ עפעפים‬ʿap̄ ʿappīm 40 ‫ עץ‬ʿēṣ 2 ‫ עצם‬ʿɛṣɛm 55 ‫ עצמו‬ʿaṣmō 130 ‫ עשיר‬ʿāšīr 76 ‫ פה‬pɛ 49 ‫ פרי‬pǝrī 120 ‫ צאן‬ṣō(ʾ)n 10



‫ צבר‬ṣāḇar 105 ‫ צחק‬ṣāḥaq 101 ‫ צפור‬ṣippōr 29 ‫ קדקוד‬qodqōd 42 ‫ קולי‬qōlī 86 ‫ קוף‬qōp̄ 21 ‫ קם‬qām 66 ‫ קניניך‬qinyānɛḵā 107 ‫ קרא‬qārā(ʾ) 77, 147, 148, 149, 150, 159 (see also ‫נקרא‬ niqrā(ʾ)) ‫ קרוב‬qārōḇ 87 ‫ קריתא‬qiryǝtā 98 ‫ קרץ‬qāraṣ 106 ‫ קשקשת‬qaśqɛśɛt 37 ‫ ראש‬rōš  ‫ בראשם‬bǝrōšām ‫ רדף‬rādap̄ 70 ‫ רוח‬rūaḥ  ‫ בנחת רוח‬bǝnaḥat rūaḥ ‫ רחף‬riḥēp̄ 151 ‫ רטוב‬rāṭōḇ 95 ‫ ריבי‬rīḇī 88 HIDE TEXT

hide text hide

‫ רץ‬rāṣ 70 ‫ רצה‬rāṣā 102 ‫ רקד‬riqqēd 72 ‫ רקה‬raqqā (‫ רקת‬raqqāt-) 43 ‫ שבח‬šibbaḥ 168 ‫ שבת‬šāḇat 142 ‫ שדרה‬šidrā 57 ‫ שה‬śɛ 9 ‫ שועל‬šūʿāl 22 ‫ שור‬šōr 7 ‫ שורים‬šǝwārīm 8 ‫ שיר‬šīr 112 ‫ שכל‬šɛk-kol 126 ‫ שמן‬šɛmɛn 78 ‫ שמר‬šāmar 140 ‫ שתה‬šātā 65 ‫ תוך‬tōḵ 129 ‫ תיש‬tayiš 14 ‫ תנין‬tannīn 39 ‫ תעה‬tāʿā 103 ‫ תרנגול‬tarnǝgōl 26 ‫ תרנגולת‬tarnǝgōlɛt 27




Words are arranged according to the order of the English alphabet. Aspirated consonants follow their unaspirated counterparts (e.g., th follows t), retroflex consonants follow their dental counterparts (e.g., ḍ follows d), ḡ follows g, ḥ follows h, ḵ follows k, and ṣ and š follows s. The letter ʿ is ignored in alphabetization, as is vowel length and nasalization. Plural forms are normally indexed under the singular form, an oblique form is indexed under the absolute, a feminine adjective is indexed under the masculine singular, and verbs are indexed under their infinitives. Pronouns (treated in §4.2) and some auxiliary verbs and particles are not indexed. Some variant forms are included in parentheses. āk̃ h (ʿāg̃ ) 40, 41, 46, 47, §3.1, §4.1 amlāk 107 ānā 40 antar 61 ʿaq(a)l 99, §3.2 aṣ(a)l 114 ãtṛiyā ̃ (ãtaṛyā)̃ 61, §4.1 aur 81, 82, 142 ʿaurat (avrad) 82, 94, §3.1, §4.1 āvāz 86 baččā 28 badaḵ 30 badan 31

bād̃ rā (bandar) 21, §3.2 h bāg 20 bahin (bhain) 118 bail 7, 8 baiṭhnā 71 bakrī 10, 15, 16, §4.1 baṛā 39 bāt karnā 161 bataḵ 30 b(h)en 117, 118 bībī 46 bīč 129 billā 23 bojh 113



bokrā (bokar) 14 bolnā 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 167 h b āg(ū) 43 bharnā 171 bhinn 117 čakhnā 100 čalnā 69 čamṛā 40 čarbī 78 čawā 24, §3.1 čīl 33 čimṭī (čumṭī) denā 106, §3.2 čiṛiyā 29 čōč̃ 35 čūhā 24, §3.1 čūk jānā 103, §3.3 čūknā 103 čhilkā (čhiltā) 37, §4.1 čhokrā 116, §3.2 čhokrī 116, §3.2 čhoṭā 54, §4.1 dabāyeḥ (Arabic ðabāʾiḥ) 91 dam khānā 142 -dār 127 dāṛhī 60 daulat 76 dauṛnā 70

denā 67, 106, 123, §4.1, 141, 145, 146, 160, 162, 163 dolt(-vān) 76 dos(t)dār 127, 128 dūkar 18, §3.1 dušman (dišman) 88, §3.2 h d an(-vān) 76 dhūp (dhūb) 109, §3.1 gadhā 11 -gār 127 gayā (giyā) 89, §3.2 gīt (gīd) 112 goš(t) 62, §3.1 gunā(h) 127 haḍḍī 55, 57 hamešā 110 hãsnā 101, §3.1 hāth 32 hilnā (halnā) §3.2, 151 ḥal(a)q 51 ḥasnā 101, §3.1 ḥavās(s) 86 inṣāf (insāf) 96 īṭ̃ 4, §3.2 jabṛā 59 jaisā 93 jam(a)ʿ karnā 105, §3.2 jānā 103, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165


jānvar 5, 6 jī 130 jo 126, 168, 169, 170 javāb (juvāb) denā §3.1, §4.1, 160 jvalakā (jalak) 115, §3.1 kā 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 43, 46, 47, 57, 92, 118, 122, 128, 130, §4.1 kab 84 kabūtar 28 kāg(ā) 34 kāglī 34 kāgrā 34 kal 89 kamar 56, 57 kān 43 -kār 127 karnā 67, 102, 105, 108, 161 ko (ku) 77, 123, 124, 130, §3.2, §3.3, §4.1, §4.2 kolā 22 kūd(ī) mārnā 72 kuttā 19 khānā 64, 142 khaṛā denā/karnā 67 khopṛī (khupṛī) 42, §3.2


ḵabar denā §4.1, 145, 146, 162, 163 lakṛī 2 lazzat (lizzat) 83, §3.2 lilī §1 log (lok) §1, 6, 8, 13, 16, 88, 92, 94, 96, 111, §4.1, §4.2, §5 loh(a) (lohū) 63 lo(h)ī 63, §3.1 mačh(l)ī 36, 37, 39, §3.1, §4.1 maḡ(a)z 44 mar(a)d 81, §3.2 mẽ 92, 125, 129, §3.2, §4.1 mẽḍ(h)ā 9, 12, 13, §4.1 memnā 12 milk  amlak muāfiq (māfik, māfiq) 122 mubārak (mibārak) 80, §3.2 mũ(h) 49 mul(u)k 98, §3.2 murḡā 26, 38, §4.1 murḡī 27 nāk 48 nar(a)m 95 nas(a)r 33 naz(d)īk 87



nihāl (niyāl) 79, §3.1 pagṛī 38, §4.1 pahannā (pennā) 68, §3.1 pahčān (pič(h)ān) 99 pahčānnā 74, §3.2 pakšī 35 par 31, 32, 36 patthar 3, §3.1 pešānī (pišānī) 45, §3.2 peṭ 58 pīnā 65 pīpā (pīpī) 97 pūg̃ ṛā 90 pukārnā 77, 147, 148, 149, 150, 159, 164, 165 h p al 120 qabūl karnā 102 rāḥat 125 sab 85, 126, §3.3 sāf 111 safedī 47, §4.1 sāhab 75 samajhnā 104, §3.2 sam(bh)ālā §3.1, 140 sāp̃ 25, §3.1 sardār 96 sāth §4.2 (fn. 15) se 85, 121, §3.3, §4.1 sikhānā 158

sīkhnā 131, 132, 143, 144, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 166 sir 92 sonā (sunnā) 1, §3.1, §3.2 sūkar (sūʾar) 18, §3.1 ṣāḥib 75 ṣāf 111 ṣāp̃ 25, §3.1 ṣāḥib 75 taʿrīf 168 tafḵīr (tafaḵḵur) 169 taiyār karnā 108, §3.2 talvār (ṭarvāl, talvār, tarvār) 119 ̃ ūčā 170 ũglī 52, 53, 54, §3.2, §4.1 ulaṭnā 152, §3.1 (fn. 10) ujālā 121, 122, 123 utarnā 73, §3.2 ūṭ̃ 17 uṭhnā 66 vālā 96 -vān 76 zabān 50 zabīḥa 91

BIBLIOGRAPHY Anonymous. 1975. Department of Oriental Manuscripts and Printed Books: Select Manuscript Acquisitions January 1970 to June 1973. British Library Journal 1:99–104. Apte, Mahadev L. 1974. Pidginization of a Lingua Franca: A Linguistic Analysis of Hindi-Urdu Spoken in Bombay. In Contact and Convergence in South Asian Languages, ed. Franklin C. Southworth and Mahadev L. Apte, pp. 21–41. Special issue of the International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics. Trivandrum, India. Chatterji, Suniti Kumar. 1972. Calcutta Hindustani: A Study of a Jargon Dialect. In Select Papers (Āṅglanibandha-chayana), Volume 1, ed. Suniti Kumar Chatterji, pp. 204–56. New Delhi: People’s Publishing House. (Originally published in Indian Linguistics 1 [1931]:177–233.) Chernyshev, V.A. 1971. Некоторые Черты Бомбейского Говора Хиндустани (на Материале Современной Прозы Хинди) [Some Features of the Bombay Hindustani Dialect (in Modern Hindi Prose Material)]. In Индийская и Иранская Филология. Вопросы Диалектологии [Indian and 97



Iranian Philology: Questions of Dialectology], ed. Nikolai Dvoriankov, pp. 121–41. Moscow: Nauka. Lebedeff, Herasim. 1801. A Grammar of the Pure and Mixed East Indian Dialects. London: J. Skirven. Moreen, Vera Bosch. 1995. A Supplementary List of Judaeo-Persian Manuscripts. British Library Journal 21:71–80. Musleah, Ezekiel N. 1975. On the Banks of the Ganga: The Sojourn of the Jews in Calcutta. North Quincy, MA: The Christopher Publishing House. Platts, John T. 1965. A Dictionary of Urdū, Classical Hindī, and English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Originally published in 1884.) Rubin, Aaron D. 2016. Other Jewish Languages, Past and Present. In Handbook of Jewish Languages, ed. Lily Kahn and Aaron D. Rubin, pp. 748–51. Leiden: Brill. Sassoon, David Solomon. 1932. ‫( אהל דוד‬Ohel David): Descriptive Catalogue of Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the Sassoon Library, London. London: Oxford University Press, Humphrey Milford. Siegel, Jeff. 2013. Pidgin Hindustani. In The Survey of Pidgin and Creole Langauges, ed. Susanne Maria Michaelis et al., vol. 3, pp. 114–18. Oxford: Oxford University Press Yaari, Abraham. 1940. ‫ חלק‬.‫הדפוס העברי בארצות המזרח‬ ‫ בגדאד‬,‫דראס‬ ַ ‫מא‬ ַ ,‫ קוג׳ין‬,‫ פּוּנה‬,‫ במבי‬,‫ כלכתה‬:‫[ שני‬Hebrew Printing in the East. Part II: India and Baghdad]. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press.





35. Bol (Valmadonna no. 9936), p. 12. Image courtesy of

the Valmadonna Library and Sotheby’s



34. Laila Majnu, front cover. Image courtesy of the National Library of Israel, Jerusalem.



33. Indar Sabhā (Valmadonna no. 4180), p. 1. Image courtesy of the Valmadonna Library and Sotheby’s.



32. Indar Sabhā (British Library, Or. 13287), p. 1 (f. 7r). By permission of the British Library.



31. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 31.


30. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 30.




29. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 29.


28. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 28.




27. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 27.


26. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 26.




25. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 25.


24. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 24.




23. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 23.


22. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 22.




21. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 21.


20. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 20.




19. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 19.


18. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 18.




17. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 17.


16. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 16.




15. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 15.


14. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 14.




13. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 13.


12. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 12.




11. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 11.


10. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 10.




9. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 9.


8. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 8.




7. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 7.


6. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 6.




5. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 5.


4. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 4.




3. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 3.


2. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary, p. 2.




1. Hebrew–Judeo-Urdu Glossary (Valmadonna no. 9935),

p. 1. Images courtesy of the Valmadonna Library and Sotheby’s.