Comparative Lexical Studies in Neo-Mandaic 9004257047, 9789004257047

Table of contents :
Contents......Page 7
Preface......Page 9
Acknowledgements......Page 11
Abbreviations and Symbols......Page 13
1.1 Neo-Mandaic and Its Speakers......Page 15
1.2 The Neo-Mandaic Lexicon in Previous Studies......Page 19
1.3 Methodology......Page 23
1.3.1 Sources......Page 24
1.3.2 Transcription and Citation Forms......Page 26
2.1 Classicisms......Page 31
2.2 Inaccurate Definitions......Page 36
2.3 Ad hoc Persian and Arabic Loanwords......Page 40
2.4 Ad hoc Circumlocutions......Page 41
2.5 Ghost Words......Page 44
2.6 Aramaic Verbal Roots Based on Incorrect Etymologies......Page 46
3.1 Continuity of the Neo-Mandaic Lexicon and Old Aramaic......Page 49
3.2 Continuity of the Neo-Mandaic Lexicon and Literary Mandaic......Page 50
3.3 Some Hitherto Unattested Mandaic Lexemes Surfacing in Neo-Mandaic......Page 52
3.3.1 Genuine Aramaic Words and Forms Hitherto Unattested in Literary Mandaic......Page 53
3.3.2 Early Iranian Loanwords Hitherto Unattested in Literary Mandaic......Page 72
3.3.3 Akkadian Lexical Influences Surfacing in Neo-Mandaic......Page 76
3.4 The Importance of Neo-Mandaic for Elucidating Literary Mandaic Lexemes......Page 91
4.1 Shared Retentions of Neo-Mandaic and Other Neo-Aramaic Varieties......Page 105
4.2.1 Semantic Differences Unique to Neo-Mandaic......Page 110
4.2.2 Further Shared Retentions with Semantic Differences......Page 113
4.2.3 Shared Retentions in Neo-Mandaic, NENA and Ṭuroyo......Page 117
4.3.1 Relic Lexical Items Shared with Western Neo-Aramaic......Page 126
4.3.2 Relic Lexical Items Shared with Ṭuroyo and with Mlaḥsô......Page 130
4.4 Neo-Mandaic-NENA Isoglosses......Page 131
4.4.1 Isoglosses in Both Form and Meaning......Page 132
4.4.2 Morpho-Lexical Isoglosses......Page 137
4.4.3 Neo-Mandaic Isolexes with Some of the NENA Dialects......Page 140
4.4.4 Neo-Mandaic-NENA Isolexes with Semantic Differences......Page 152
5.1 Pre-Modern Aramaic Words and Meanings Surviving Only in Neo-Mandaic......Page 159
5.2.1 Unique Neo-Mandaic Words......Page 180
5.2.2 Unique Neo-Mandaic Meanings......Page 190
5.3 Unique Neo-Mandaic Compounds and Blends......Page 207
5.4 Some Unique Neo-Mandaic Words of Unknown or Uncertain Origin......Page 213
5.5 Various Other Unique Neo-Mandaic Words and Meanings......Page 217
Bibliographical References......Page 227
Index of Neo-Mandaic Words......Page 237

Citation preview

Comparative Lexical Studies in Neo-Mandaic

Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics Editorial board

Aaron D. Rubin and C.H.M. Versteegh

VOLUME 73

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ssl

Comparative Lexical Studies in Neo-Mandaic By

Hezy Mutzafi

Leiden • boston 2014

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Mutzafi, Hezy.  Comparative lexical studies in Neo-Mandaic / By Hezy Mutzafi.   pages cm. — (Studies in semitic languages and linguistics ; Volume 73)  Includes bibliographical references and index.  ISBN 978-90-04-25704-7 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-25705-4 (e-book) 1. Mandaean language—Grammar. 2. Mandaean language—Lexicology. I. Title. PJ5329.M88 2014 492’.3—dc23 

2013048037

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 0081-8461 ISBN 978-90-04-25704-7 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-25705-4 (e-book) Copyright 2014 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper.

For Shira and Yitav

Contents Preface ................................................................................................................. Acknowledgements ......................................................................................... Abbreviations and Symbols ..........................................................................

ix xi xiii

1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 1.1 Neo-Mandaic and Its Speakers ..................................................... 1.2 The Neo-Mandaic Lexicon in Previous Studies ...................... 1.3 Methodology ...................................................................................... 1.3.1 Sources .................................................................................... 1.3.2 Transcription and Citation Forms ..................................

1 1 5 9 10 12

2. Aspects of Previous Research ................................................................. 2.1 Classicisms .......................................................................................... 2.2 Inaccurate Definitions .................................................................... 2.3 Ad hoc Persian and Arabic Loanwords ..................................... 2.4 Ad hoc Circumlocutions ................................................................ 2.5 Ghost Words ...................................................................................... 2.6 Aramaic Verbal Roots Based on Incorrect Etymologies .......

17 17 22 26 27 30 32

3. Neo-Mandaic and Pre-Modern Aramaic ............................................. 3.1 Continuity of the Neo-Mandaic Lexicon and Old Aramaic . 3.2 Continuity of the Neo-Mandaic Lexicon and Literary Mandaic ............................................................................................... 3.3 Some Hitherto Unattested Mandaic Lexemes Surfacing in Neo-Mandaic ................................................................................ 3.3.1 Genuine Aramaic Words and Forms Hitherto Unattested in Literary Mandaic ...................................... 3.3.2 Early Iranian Loanwords Hitherto Unattested in Literary Mandaic .................................................................. 3.3.3 Akkadian Lexical Influences Surfacing in Neo-Mandaic ......................................................................... 3.4 The Importance of Neo-Mandaic for Elucidating Literary Mandaic Lexemes .............................................................................

35 35 36 38 39 58 62 77

viii

contents

4. Neo-Mandaic and Other Neo-Aramaic Varieties: Isolexes ............ 4.1 Shared Retentions of Neo-Mandaic and Other Neo-Aramaic Varieties .................................................................... 4.2 Shared Retentions with Semantic Differences ........................ 4.2.1 Semantic Differences Unique to Neo-Mandaic .......... 4.2.2 Further Shared Retentions with Semantic Differences ............................................................................. 4.2.3 Shared Retentions in Neo-Mandaic, NENA and Ṭuroyo ..................................................................................... 4.3 Peripheral Relic Lexical Items ...................................................... 4.3.1 Relic Lexical Items Shared with Western Neo-Aramaic ......................................................................... 4.3.2 Relic Lexical Items Shared with Ṭuroyo and with Mlaḥsô ..................................................................................... 4.4 Neo-Mandaic-NENA Isoglosses .................................................... 4.4.1 Isoglosses in Both Form and Meaning .......................... 4.4.2 Morpho-Lexical Isoglosses ................................................ 4.4.3 Neo-Mandaic Isolexes with Some of the NENA Dialects ................................................................................... 4.4.4 Neo-Mandaic-NENA Isolexes with Semantic Differences ............................................................................. 5. The Uniqueness of the Neo-Mandaic Lexicon within Neo-Aramaic ................................................................................................ 5.1 Pre-Modern Aramaic Words and Meanings Surviving Only in Neo-Mandaic ................................................................................ 5.2 Unique Neo-Mandaic Words and Meanings Related to Lexical Replacement ....................................................................... 5.2.1 Unique Neo-Mandaic Words ........................................... 5.2.2 Unique Neo-Mandaic Meanings ..................................... 5.3 Unique Neo-Mandaic Compounds and Blends ....................... 5.4 Some Unique Neo-Mandaic Words of Unknown or Uncertain Origin ............................................................................... 5.5 Various Other Unique Neo-Mandaic Words and Meanings 

91 91 96 96 99 103 112 112 116 117 118 123 126 138 145 145 166 166 176 193 199 203

Bibliographical References ............................................................................ 213 Index of Neo-Mandaic Words ...................................................................... 223

Preface The impetus to carry out fieldwork on Neo-Mandaic and to write this book is very much due to the late Rudolf Macuch’s own work on this language and the fascinating linguistic details revealed in his publications. Already in 1992, as a BA student at the Department of Hebrew and Semitic Languages, Tel Aviv University, I wished to learn more about NeoMandaic and its speakers, and wrote a few queries to Prof. Macuch, who kindly replied to me promptly and at length, and added intriguing details about his work on his Neumandäische Texte im Dialekt von Ahwāz (published in 1993). Had it not been for Macuch’s scholarly work on Neo-Mandaic during the second half of the 20th century, the Mandaic language would probably have been regarded by contemporary Semitic scholarship as no more alive than Jewish Babylonian and other Aramaic idioms of Late Antiquity, and no scholarly interest in delving deeper into its linguistic repositories would have been triggered. Indeed, in an article which had appeared only a year before Macuch published the first transcribed Neo-Mandaic text (Macuch 1965) and his Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic, H.J. Polotsky wrote that “. . . the two varieties of Babylonian Aramaic which were employed in writing in the Middle Ages, viz. the language of the Babylonian Talmud and Mandaean, did not leave descendants” (Polotsky 1964: 105). Even much later Neo-Mandaic was virtually ignored by other Aramaists and Semitists, and for nearly five decades, until Häberl’s publication of his dissertation on the dialect of Khorramshahr in 2009, all scholarly knowledge of Neo-Mandaic had been exclusively associated with the name and works of Rudolf Macuch. Since 1992 I had been hoping that someday I would be able to meet with Neo-Mandaic speakers and become acquainted with their language at close quarters, but the opportunity to do so came only 16 years later, in 2008, when I conducted my first fieldwork on this language, specifically on the dialect of Khorramshahr, in New York. This was followed in 2010 by another fieldwork trip in Australia which concerned both Neo-Mandaic dialects of Ahvaz and Khorramshahr. The present book deals with salient lexical features of one of the rarest and most seriously endangered modern varieties of Aramaic. Being an

x

preface

offshoot of a pre-modern vernacular closely related to Classical Mandaic, and having developed within the confines of a few isolated language-islets in the extreme southwestern part of the fragmented arc-like spectrum of Neo-Aramaic (NA) dialects, Neo-Mandaic exhibits idiosyncratic features quite unlike those of any other NA variety. It therefore constitutes a separate branch within modern Aramaic. Following Häberl’s thorough description of the phonology and morphology of the Neo-Mandaic dialect of Khorramshahr, one of the least known aspects of the Neo-Mandaic language has remained its lexicon. In view of the precarious condition and extreme rarity of Neo-Mandaic, coupled with the lack of adequate data on its lexicon, it is my hope that this volume will fill some of the lacunae in our knowledge of this aspect of modern Mandaic before the language becomes extinct and leaves no living trace. In particular, I have striven to achieve the following objectives through the present book: 1. To expand the rather limited knowledge of the Neo-Mandaic lexicon. Indeed, many lexical items adduced in this volume have hitherto been unattested. 2. To improve and refine the definitions of many of the attested NeoMandaic words. 3. To weed out ad hoc intrusions from Classical Mandaic and ghost words. 4. To explore the etymologies of various Neo-Mandaic lexical items and improve the ones offered in previous works on this language. 5. To shed light on the lexicon of literary Mandaic, and to some extent of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, through comparison with Neo-Mandaic. 6. To discuss the lexical position of Neo-Mandaic within the framework of Neo-Aramaic, both as a unique language and as one sharing cognates and isoglosses with other Neo-Aramaic varieties. In doing so, numerous hitherto unknown lexical items in a large array of other NA dialects, as well as their etymologies, are discussed in comparison with their Neo-Mandaic parallels and cognates. Hezy Mutzafi, Jerusalem, April 2013

Acknowledgements My deepest gratitude is due first and foremost to my Mandaean informants for their kindness, hospitality, assistance and patience and for everything I have learned from them: To Sam bar Sharat Simat and his family, Huwwa Simat path Mamani, the late Abdolkarim Muradi (d. 2011) and his family, Nassir and Shukrieh Sobbi, and others who would rather remain anonymous for reasons related to the political situation in the Middle East. Special and profound thanks are due to Majid and Nora Al-Mubaraki and Brian Mubaraki for their warm hospitality during my fieldwork in Australia in 2010, and for introducing me to other members of their community. All the numerous comparative data related to Jewish Neo-Aramaic in this book are derived from my project Etymological Dictionary of the Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialects, supported by the Israel Science foundation (Grant No. 339/11); and I am also much indebted to the Institute for Advanced Studies, Hebrew University, for allowing me a 10 month fellowship as part of the research group Neo-Aramaic Dialectology: Jews, Christians and Mandaeans, during the first 7 months of which I have mostly worked on this book. Furthermore, I am indebted to a number of my fellow linguists with whom I discussed various topics related to this work. In particular, Matthew Morgenstern, a foremost authority on Mandaic, carefully read the whole book and offered invaluable comments and additions. Dr. Aziz Tezel, a world authority on the Ṭuroyo lexicon, kindly discussed with me matters related to this language. Other scholars whom I consulted are Werner Arnold, Steve Fassberg, James Nathan Ford, Samuel Ethan Fox, Charles Häberl, Simon Hopkins, Geoffrey Khan and Martin Schwartz. Finally, many thanks are due to my research assistant, Jared Greenblatt, for his comments and suggestions.

Abbreviations and Symbols Akk. Akkadian Anat.Ar. Anatolian Arabic Ar. Arabic Aram. Aramaic BA Biblical Aramaic Bax. Baxʿa Western Neo-Aramaic Bet. Betanure (NENA dialect) BH Biblical Hebrew c. common (gender) C. Christian NENA dialect CA Classical Aramaic Cl. Classical CM Classical Mandaic coll. Collective (noun) CPA Christian Palestinian Aram. cstr. construct state det. determinate state dim. diminutive Egyp.Aram. Egyptian Aramaic emph. emphatic state f. feminine Gk. Greek H Hebrew Hert. Hertevin (NENA dialect) intr. intransitive J. Jewish NENA dialect JBA Jewish Babylonian Aramaic JPA Jewish Palestinian Aramaic

Jub. Khor.

Jubbʿadin WNA Khorramshahr Neo-Mandaic Kurd. Kurdish lit. literally LM Literary Mandaic m. masculine M Mandaic Maʿl. Maʿlula WNA MH Mishnaic Hebrew Mlaḥ. Mlaḥsô mng. meaning mod. modern MP Middle Persian ms. manuscript n. noun NA Neo-Aramaic NENA North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic NM Neo-Mandaic NP New Persian OA Old Aramaic Off.Aram. Official Aramaic P Persian Palm.Aram. Palmyrene Aramaic part. participle p.c. personal communication pl. plural pl. tant. plurale tantum Qum.Aram. Qumran Aramaic Qum.H Qumran Hebrew RH Rabbinic Hebrew Sam.Aram. Samaritan Aramaic sg. singular

xiv

abbreviations and symbols

st. abs. status absolutus Syr. Syriac Syr.Ar. Syrian Arabic Targ. Targum, Targumic TJ Targum Jonathan TO Targum Onqelos tr. transitive Ṭur. Ṭuroyo Ug. Ugaritic

v. var. WNA + * ** > <

verb variant Western Neo-Aramaic not exhaustive (list) reconstructed form non-existent form developed into derived from

chapter one

Introduction 1.1 Neo-Mandaic and Its Speakers Among the rarest and most seriously endangered languages of the world spoken at the present time is Neo-Mandaic. This unique Aramaic idiom, spoken by a few hundred adherents of Mandaeism, an indigenous gnostic religion of Lower Mesopotamia, was probably still the vernacular of most Mandaeans until late in the 19th century.1 Since then it has been completely superseded by Arabic in Iraq, and more recently by Khuzestani Arabic and Persian among the vast majority of Iranian Mandaeans. At least as far back as the late 15th century the vicissitudes of the Mandaean inhabitants of Khuzestan, the southwestern Iranian province where Neo-Mandaic is still barely spoken today, were often tragic and fraught with hardship.2 Records of heavy oppression and persecution of the indigenous Mandaean population at the hands of the Persian authorities and local rulers continue until the closing decades of the 19th century.3 In the more recent part of that period, persecution of the Mandaean priesthood in 1782 and 1818 by Persian rulers and, most tragically, the massacre of the Mandaeans of the northern Khuzestani town of Shushtar in 1870, were coupled with natural disasters, most notably epidemics that ravaged the inhabitants of the Shushtar in 1831 and 18324 and decimated the Mandaean priesthood of the province. The large Mandaean communities of Shushtar and Ḥoweyza (presently Hoveyzeh), which thrived as the cultural centres of the Persian Mandaeans between the 15th and early 19th centuries,5 as well as those of Dezful

1  See Mutzafi and Morgenstern, forthcoming. 2 See Buckley 2002: 6 and Buckley 2005. 3 See Lupieri 2002: 70–71, 73, 77, 104, Layard 1887, vol. 2: 162, 357–360. 4 See de Bode 1845, vol. 2: 149 and Buckley 2002: 6. 5 As regards early evidence—a source dating to 1480 testifies to large Mandaean communities in these towns, which are also the source of some of the earliest Mandaean manuscripts (see Buckley 2005 and Buckley 2010: 233–234), and in 1625 the Portuguese missionary Basil of St. Francis reported that the chief priests of the Mandaeans resided in Ḥoweyza (Chick 1939, vol. 1: 326).

2

chapter one

and Shah Vali (Shawali),6 had all been in numerical decline during—and quite possibly already before—the 19th century,7 and most of these had ceased to exist by the end of that century. Some other Mandaean communities of the area are mentioned by missionaries in lists dating back to the years 1625 and 1636,8 but there is no further record of their continued existence. These lists attest to a much wider geographical distribution of Mandaeans, and by inference of the Neo-Mandaic language, in the 17th century in comparison with the 19th century, and include locations as far flung and deep into Persian territory as Deh Dasht (188 km. south-east of Ahvaz), Behbehan (170 km. south-east of Ahvaz), Hendijan (155 km. south-east of Ahvaz), Jafarabad, which might be a village of this name near Lali (ca. 120 km. north-east of Ahvaz), Mansurabad, which seems to be a village of this name in the Khuzestani county of Masjed Soleyman (ca. 100 km. north-east of Ahvaz), Ramhormuz (ca. 90 km. east of Ahvaz), Khalafabad (near Ramshir, 80 km. south-east of Ahvaz), and some other places which could not be located on available modern maps.9 By the year 1877 fewer than 50 Mandaean families were reported to be living on Persian soil, including only 2 Mandaean families remaining in Shushtar, 7 families in Dezful, 10 in Ḥoweyza and 30 families in Moḥammara (presently Khorramshahr).10 In 1880 these 4 towns, as well as Shah Vali, Gibar (possibly Gobeyr, presently Gobeyr-e Zahir, a village 16 km. north of Ahvaz) and a few other locations in the area, were mentioned by the French vice-consul in Mosul, Nicholas Siouffi, as places where Mandaeans were to be found in Persia.11 All these communities were probably small in the extreme by that year, and, as far as is known, by the end of the 19th century only Moḥammara and Ḥoweyza were still inhabited by Mandaeans, in addition to a new community in Ahvaz. Oral tradition has it that the persecuted and dwindling northern Khuzestani communities of Shushtar, Dezful and Shah Vali had to turn southward to Moḥammara (Khorramshahr) and later to Ahvaz for a safer residence. Khuzestani Mandaeans were also moving to Ottoman controlled  6 For a map with the location of these and other Khuzestani towns see Macuch 1993: 447.  7 See Curzon 1892, vol. 2: 305–306, Layard 1887, vol. 2: 359.  8 See Chick 1939, vol. 1: 325–326, 331.  9 Although some of these towns are not near a river, which is crucial for Mandaean baptismal rituals, perhaps local water canals, such as the one that runs through Behbehan, and brooks or streams in the rural vicinity, were used for this purpose. 10 See Houtum-Schindler 1892: 665. 11  See Siouffi 1880: 159.



introduction

3

Iraq during the 19th century, and perhaps also later. By the time Rudolf Macuch visited Khuzestan in 1953, the largest Mandaean communities there were those of Ahvaz, the provincial capital, and Khorramshahr, and these may have been the only ones where Neo-Mandaic was still spoken (and even there not necessarily by all Mandaean inhabitants). The tragic upheavals in the Gulf region in recent decades have had a devastating effect on the indigenous Mandaean communities.12 Of the two major Mandaean communities of Khuzestan, Ahvaz and Khorramshahr, the latter dispersed to various places in Iran already during the Iran-Iraq war, and later elsewhere around the world, and since then its dialect has been inexorably heading towards extinction. Although at least as late as 2005 there were some Mandaeans in the lesser southern Khuzestani towns of Hoveyzeh, Susangerd, Sarbandar, Shadegan, Bandar-e Mahshahr and Hamediyeh,13 the Mandaean community of Ahvaz is by far the largest. It constitutes the cultural centre of Iranian Mandaeans and the hometown of their religious leaders, and is the only place where a Neo-Mandaic dialect is known to have survived in situ. The size of the Ahvazi Mandaean community itself, however, has been considerably reduced since the 1980s, and many of its members now live elsewhere in Iran and around the world, given the fact that in recent decades Australia, North America and Europe have been attracting mass Mandaean immigration (especially from Iraq). The prospects for the survival of Neo-Mandaic in the foreseeable future are very unfavourable. The current figure of native speakers of Neo-­ Mandaic is no more than a few hundred. C.G. Häberl (2009: 8) estimates the number of Neo-Mandaic speakers to be as tiny as 100–200. This may well be a fair estimation of the number of Mandaeans who actively speak the language on a daily basis. The number of semi-speakers and passive speakers is clearly higher, but these could only be viewed in the context of the terminal phase of Mandaic as a moribund language. Although there are still some young people who can—or even frequently do—speak Neo-Mandaic, especially in the Mandaean quarter of Ahvaz in Iran, the last stronghold of Mandaic in its native habitat, the speech of most of these, excessively admixed with Persianisms and codeswitching with Persian, is but a faint shadow of their ancestral language

12 See Lupieri 2002: 4, and for a detailed account of the ravages that the Iran-Iraq war inflicted on the Mandaeans of Khuzestan see Macuch 1993: 178–201. 13 See Buckley 2005.

4

chapter one

spoken only one or two generations ago. My own experience is that NeoMandaic speakers belonging to older generations are by far more proficient than younger ones in their 30s. A factor which appears to be detrimental to the survival of Neo-­Mandaic is its being spoken today by a small fraction of the total Mandaean population, which numbers several tens of thousands, including perhaps up to 10,000 in Iran.14 NM is therefore a minority language within the predominantly (southern Iraqi and Khuzestani) Arabic and Persian speaking Mandaean minorities of Iran and Iraq. In the Mandaean diaspora throughout the Western world, moreover, Arabic and Persian are the dominant languages within the Mandaean communities, while various European languages, chiefly English, are increasingly being used by the young generations. Many Arabic-speaking Mandaeans disparagingly consider Neo-Mandaic a sort of mongrel patois, as it were, based on corrupted Mandaic words haphazardly intermingled with Arabic and Persian.15 Hence, in the Mandaean diaspora, language shift would appear to be the inevitable fate of vernacular Mandaic among the younger members and generations of families that still hold on to their ancestral tongue. Even in Ahvaz itself the viability of the language is questionable. Young native speakers there mostly use Persian in their daily speech rather than Neo-Mandaic, which has become a minority language within the predominantly Persian and Arabic speaking Ahvazi Mandaean. Furthermore, the volatile situation of the Mandaeans of Iran, being unrecognised as members of a protected religion and subject to various pressures,16 may spur many more Mandaeans to emigrate, to the extent that Neo-Mandaic may eventually cease to be spoken in its native habitat, but be sparsely scattered throughout the far-flung corners of the Mandaean diaspora, where vernacular Mandaic is doomed to extinction.

14 A recent estimation is between 5,000 and 10,000 Iranian Mandaeans—see Buckley 2005. 15 These sentiments were also expressed by E.S. Drower (perhaps partially under the impact of the attitude of her Iraqi Mandaean acquaintances), whose term “bastard colloquial Mandaic” (Drower 1937: 214) might be intended for both the cryptic argot of Iraqi Mandaeans and Neo-Mandaic, and who wrote that “the spoken dialect, or raṭna, is a debased jargon intermixed with foreign elements” (Drower 1943: 150) and that Neo-­ Mandaic is “a modernised and debased form of the [classical] tongue, incorporating a number of Persian and Arabic words.” (Drower 1960: 1). 16 See Buckley 2005.



introduction

5

It is almost certain, therefore, that the current 21st century shall witness the demise of the very last relic of the once flourishing Lower Mesopotamian Aramaic idioms of Late Antiquity, which are reflected in the literary sources of Classical Mandaic, Jewish Babylonian and the magic bowls. 1.2 The Neo-Mandaic Lexicon in Previous Studies Neo-Mandaic was the first modern Aramaic variety to be identified as such and to have attracted the attention of learned Europeans. As early as 1604 it was identified as ‘Chaldean’ (Aramaic) by the Italian traveller Gerolamo Vecchietti who met Mandaeans in southern Iraq and noted many words in their native tongue.17 In 1622 the Italian traveller Pietro della Valle observed that the Mandaeans who lived in both Persian and Turkish (Ottoman) territories, and especially in the area of Basra, spoke ‘Chaldean’ as a vernacular,18 and in 1625 the same traveller wrote that the Mandaeans of Basra “speak crude Chaldean among themselves”.19 In the same century colloquial Mandaic was the subject of interest and study by members of the Carmelite mission in Basra. In 1624 the Portuguese friar Basil of St. Francis, who had founded the Carmelite mission in Basra a year before, wrote in his report to Rome concerning the Mandaeans, or ‘Christians of St. John’, as the missionaries of that era called them, that “their own language is Chaldean but corrupt, or, indeed, just as Italian and Spanish are different tongues, and Castilian and Portuguese, so it may be with this one [in comparison with the Aramaic variety spoken by Syrian Christians]. I have caused real Chaldeans [Syrian Christians] to converse with these Christians of St. John, and they understood very little of one another”.20 Most pertinently, around the middle of the 17th century Italian members of the Carmelite mission in Basra were engaged in attempts to document the language of the Mandaeans, as well as other local languages. The legacy of their study that has remained to this day (at Leiden University) is the Glossarium Sabaico-Arabicum-Latinum-Turcum-Persicum (henceforth

17  See Lupieri 2002: 73. 18  See Gancia 1843, vol. 2: 366: “la lingua caldea, che volgarmente parlano.” 19  See Gancia 1843, vol. 2: 821: “parlano fra di lor lingua caldea rozza.” 20 See Chick 1939, vol. 1: 325.

6

chapter one

Glossarium), where Sabaico (‘Sabaean’) refers to Mandaic, in particular colloquial Mandaic.21 Despite these early observations and studies, Neo-Mandaic remained entirely neglected until around the middle of the 20th century, and gained much less scholarly attention from linguists than other major Neo-­Aramaic varieties, whose exploration and documentation began in the second quarter of the 19th century. Even decades after the first linguistic treatments of Neo-Mandaic were published in the 1960s, this language was not part of mainstream NeoAramaic studies and was hardly mentioned at all in books related to general studies of Neo-Aramaic or Semitics. Thus in Studies in Neo-Aramaic, for instance, an excellent collection of papers published in 1990, no article is dedicated to Neo-Mandaic (it is only mentioned with a few short details in the editor’s introduction—see Heinrichs 1990: xv), whereas all other major Neo-Aramaic language-groups—NENA, Ṭuroyo and Western NeoAramaic—are well represented. The foundations of Neo-Mandaic linguistics were laid by the pioneering works of Rudolf Macuch. His fieldwork in Ahvaz in 1953, where his main informant was a ritual slaughterer by the name of Naṣir Ṣaburi, to be ordained a tarmidɔ (Mandaean priest) two years later, yielded (1) NM words and pronunciations incorporated throughout A Mandaic Dictionary (MD), which was published by E.S. Drower and R. Macuch in 1963, (2) the first NM text in phonetic transcription, the Mandaean tale ‘The Bridge of Shushtar’, published in 1965 (see Macuch 1965), (3) numerous grammatical, lexical and etymological details in Macuch’s Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic (HCMM), which was published in the same year, and (4) Neumandäische Chrestomathie (Macuch 1989) that comprises a grammatical sketch, 160 pages of annotated and translated Ahvaz-NM texts and a glossary. The same book also includes transcribed five short histoires en Mandaïte vulgaire which had been published in Mandaic script by Jacque de Morgan 85 years earlier (de Morgan 1904a). These texts appear to have hailed from Iraq, and were written either in the Iraqi dialect of NM, nearly extinct by then, or by Persian Mandaeans who sought refuge from persecution and settled in Iraq.22 21  A superb work on the contents and background of the Glossarium was written by R. Borghero as her MA thesis at the University of Turin (Borghero 1999–2000a). I am indebted to Dr. Borghero for a copy of this work. See also HCMM 1–2, Borghero 1999– 2000b, 2004. 22 See Häberl 2009: 36–37.



introduction

7

A year after the publication of his Chrestomathie, Macuch invited Sheikh Salem Choḥeili, a Mandaean yalufɔ (learned layman) and a speaker of Ahvaz-NM to Berlin, in order to spend a month conducting research on his dialect. The results of this research were published in 1993 as Neumandäische Texte im Dialekt von Ahwāz, a book on which Macuch was working until the eve of his death in the same year, and includes over 250 pages of texts and translation, a grammatical sketch and an extensive glossary. Macuch’s Neo-Mandaic publications are marred by idiosyncratic phonetic rather than phonemic transcription, by the blending of diachronic considerations into an otherwise synchronic analysis, and by the intrusion of Classical Mandaic words and verbal forms extraneous to NM lexicon and grammar; but these flaws hardly detract from the importance of his work and from its being a basis for further research. Prior to Macuch’s publications sources and documentation related to vernacular Mandaic were very scarce indeed. These included: (1) Early modern Mandaic words written in Mandaic script (often using idiosyncratic scriptio defectiva spelling) and recorded in the 17th century Glossarium. Probably written by the Italian Carmelite missionary Matteo di San Giuseppe who spent the years 1648–1651 in Basra among the Mandaeans, the Glossarium is a precious source for the lexicon of early modern Mandaic.23 Many of its contents are still present in contemporary colloquial Mandaic and typical of it, e.g. klaṯa (54:12), viz. klɔṯɔ ‘three’, the NM reflex of tlata;24 brra ‘wilderness’ (41:11) corresponding to NM barrɔ ‘wilderness, uninhabited and uncultivated area’; hdṯ, gamhadṯ ‘to speak, talk’ (48:1), hḏṯ, gamhaḏṯ (83:5) ‘to murmur’, corresponding to NM ḥdṯ, ḥaddeṯ ‘he spoke, talked, told’, qəmḥaddeṯ ‘he speaks, talks, tells’; šuhrta, šhriata ‘throat’ (75:1), NM šəhertɔ, šəhért ‘id.’; qumu (37:10) ‘why?’, NM qamu ‘ditto’. (2) A few religious terms in Neo-Mandaic form, such as chkando (NM eškandɔ, eškánd) ‘acolyte’ (cf. CM ašganda) and masouatta (NM maṣwettɔ, maṣwét) ‘Mandaean baptism’ (cf. CM masbuta) in Siouffi’s Études sur la religion des Soubbas (1880: 67, 76). (3) Jacque de Morgan’s Iraqi NM texts mentioned above.

23 See Borghero 1999–2000a, 1999–2000b, 2004. 24 See HCMM 2.

8

chapter one

(4) Modern or early modern Mandaic lexical items strewn in late manuscripts and colophons, mostly in the Drower collection (DC), e.g. hauaiiš ‘medicine’ in ms. DC 45 (30:20) and DC 46 (183:8),25 corresponding to huiš̤i ‘id.’ in the Glossarium (77:2) and to contemporary NM ḥawíj َ ‘medi‫ئ‬ َ � ‫ح‬ ‫ا‬ cine, medicament(s)’26 (< colloquial Ar. ḥawāʔij ‘spices’27 < ‫‘ و ِ�ـ�ج‬neces� ‫حَ َ ة‬ sities’, pl. of ���‫;) �ا ج‬28 and Neo-Mandaic words amidst mainly CM ones in Sheikh Nejm’s Mandaic word-list (ms. DC 4).29 The instructions for writing amulets in DC 45 and DC 46 are particularly replete with numerous early modern or modern Mandaic words and forms.30 (5) A version of the NM tale The Bridge of Shushtar recorded by E.S. Drower in an ad hoc English transcription in the 1930s, which has recently been published by Häberl (2009: 280–288, 2010, 2011) in modern transcription. (6) Perhaps also a few words in Drower’s The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran (1937), such as those in the sentence “Rabbey Sam, athi maharra usiwira aqmihi” ‘Master Sam, bring a spade and a sword and make him rise!’ (p. 369, n. 2). Words such as “siwira” (NM səwirɔ) ‘sword’ in that book might be vestiges of either the already extinct Iraqi Mandaic vernacular or of living NM still recalled by Iraqi Mandaeans of Iranian descent. The scope of (mainly lexical) data that can be extracted from these materials (1–6 above) is very meagre in comparison with the resources of the living language. This exiguous amount of material written on and in Neo-Mandaic until the second half of the 20th century was only partially available to linguistic scholarship, and even what was available, e.g. the Leiden University Glossarium, went either unnoticed or unrecognised by Semitists as samples of a living idiom.31 Thus this unique Aramaic language had remained virtually uncharted territory for Semitic dialectology until Macuch’s first publications on it in the 1960s. Macuch’s assiduous documentation of Neo-Mandaic, which inaugurated the era of modern linguistic research of this language, focused on 25 I am grateful to Dr. Matthew Morgenstern for this information and for photos of these sources. 26 And ḥawija in de Mogran’s Iraqi NM texts—see Macuch 1989: 170:1105, 214. 27 See Behnstedt and Woidich 2012: 259ff. (map 247). 28 Cf. MD 117a h̤ auaiš̤ia (read: ḥawiji). 29 See Mutzafi and Morgenstern, forthcoming. 30 See Morgenstern and Alfia 2013: 163–166. 31  Consider Nöldeke’s negative opinion of the Glossarium and of modern Mandaic words and forms in post-cl. Mandaic, which he did not recognise as genuine samples of a living vernacular (Nöldeke 1875: xxiv–xxv).



introduction

9

the dialect of Ahvaz. In 2009, 16 years after Macuch’s death, C.G. Häberl published The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr, a work based on fieldwork among the Mandaeans of New York, which offered scholars of Neo-Aramaic not only data on a hitherto unattested NM dialect, but also the first systematic and thorough phonological and morphological description of NM as a whole, as well as additional NM texts and lexical data. We owe a great debt to these two scholars for their efforts to ensure that the critically endangered NM dialects would be spared the fate of falling irretrievably into oblivion, and for salvaging many of the features of a major modern Aramaic language that has received little scholarly attention in comparison with NENA, Ṭuroyo-Mlaḥsô and Western NeoAramaic (WNA). The important contributions offered by Macuch and Häberl notwithstanding, the lexical profile of NM remains very imperfectly covered. Furthermore, some of the lexical data published thus far require revision, being diffused with ad hoc classicisms adduced by learned Mandaean informants well acquainted with CM scriptures and language, and marred by quite a few inaccurate definitions, infelicitous etymologies and ghost words. 1.3 Methodology The present study is based on two fieldwork trips—one to New York in 2008 and the other to the suburbs of Sydney, Australia in 2010. All told, 11 NM speakers were solicited: 6 speakers from Ahvaz and 5 from Khorramshahr, of whom 7 are men and 4 are women, aged between 60 and well over 90. Unlike previous research, which was entirely based on learned men well versed in liturgical Mandaean sources, 7 of my informants—4 women and 3 men—are laypeople with very little or virtually no knowledge of Classical Mandaic. Elicitation of data from laypeople was pursued in order to screen words and forms derived from literary Mandaic sources by Mandaean priests and other learned informants who wished to render their speech more elevated and less associated with the daily vernacular. Thus, as far as I can establish, this volume does not suffer from the intrusion of pure CM elements that are so prevalent in previous works on NM, especially in those of Macuch. Since there are quite a few discrepancies between my findings pertaining to the Ahvaz-NM lexicon and those of Macuch’s, in particular with

10

chapter one

regard to Macuch’s data based on his work with the late Naṣir Ṣaburi, I have undertaken to elicit data related to these discrepancies from an elderly informant of the same extended family as Ṣaburi. In this context I should like to mention Macuch’s conclusion that there were at least two Ahvaz-NM sub-dialects, one typical of the Ṣaburi clan and the other to the Choḥeili clan,32 and that the former sub-dialect was in the process of being superseded by the latter.33 Although it is not impossible that some discrepancies could be attributed to obsolete ‘Ṣaburi lexical features’ in contrast to my own findings, I trust that a member of the Ṣaburi clan would have recalled some of these problematic lexical items had they really existed the way they are presented in Macuch’s works. Apart from lexical data, my research of Ahvaz-NM yielded some new texts and observations on various grammatical facets of this dialect, all of which I hope to publish in due course. 1.3.1 Sources Classical Aramaic words and forms are mostly derived from standard dictionaries: A Mandaic Dictionary (MD) by Drower and Macuch (1963), Sokoloff ’s SL (2009), DJBA (2002) and DJPA (2002); Cook’s Glossary of Targum Onqelos (2008), Schulthess’ dictionary of CPA (1903), and Tal’s dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic (2000). Sperber’s edition of the Targumim (Sperber 1953–1979) was also used. References related to CA will regularly be given in cases where other sources where used, such as sources on Qumran Aramaic. Roman transliteration of words in the Mandaic script appears in boldface and according to the method and conventions adopted by Drower and Macuch in MD and by Macuch in HCMM. A sole deviation from this method concerns the indication of fricative bgdkpt consonants by underlined letters whenever these are marked with a superscript diacritic dot in the original manuscript of the Glossarium (e.g. klaṯa ‘three’).

32 This conclusion is based on striking differences between the idiolects of Naṣir Ṣaburi, recorded in 1953, and Salem Choḥeili, recorded in 1993, which may hark back to different NM dialects spoken in Khuzestani locations from where these families arrived in Ahvaz some generations ago—See Macuch 1993: xvi, xxviii–xxxi and Häberl 2009: 37, 39. Some of these differences, however, might be idiolectal or related to the gap between two generations and the increased influence of local Arabic. For the latter case see Häberl 2009: 38. 33 Macuch 1993: xvi–xvii.



introduction

11

The sources of most NA lexical items in this work are my informants. A considerable number of Ṭuroyo words were kindly provided by, or further discussed with, Dr. Aziz Tezel. WNA words are derived from W. Arnold’s forthcoming Das Neuwestaramäische, vol. 6 Wörterbuch, a draft of which he has kindly placed at my disposal. References concerning NA data are cited only when the sources differ from these, e.g. concerning Mlaḥsô (see Jastrow 1994, Talay 2002), a language of which I have no first-hand knowledge. Comparative studies in this volume refer to (mostly fieldwork based) data related to numerous NENA dialects, some of which are lesser known or hitherto undocumented. The distribution and names of these dialects are as follows:34 CHRISTIAN NENA VARIETIES: IN TURKEY: Baz dialect cluster and the Baz dialect of Maha Khtaya; BorbRuma (Bohtan), Gawar, Gaznakh, Halmun, Harbole, Haṣṣan, Hertevin, Ishshi, Jilu, Jinet, Lewin, MarBishu, Marga, Mer, Nochiya (Shamezdin), Nudis, Qurich, Sat, Timur; Tkhuma dialect cluster and the Tkhuma dialects of Mazra and Tkhuma-Gawaya; Ṭyare dialect cluster and the Ṭyare dialects of Ashitha, Bne Belatha, Bne Romta, Bne Shtinnara, Chamba d-Mallik, Ko d-Chalwe, Lizin and Sarspidho; Umra Ḥtaya (Dereköyü), (villages near) Van, Wasṭa. IN IRAQ: Alqosh, ʿAnkawa, Aradhin, Bahnuna, Bariṭle, Barwar, Benikhre, Birsive, Dohok, Isnakh, Iṣṣin, Karimlesh, Koy Sanjaq, Mangeshe, Peshabur, Qaraqosh, Shaqlawa, Sharanish, Sharmin, Sulemaniyya, Telkepe, Tilla, Tina, Tisqopa, Yarda. IN IRAN: Salmas, Sanandaj, Urmi. JEWISH NENA VARIETIES: IN TURKEY: Challa (Çukurca), Gzira (Cizre). IN IRAQ: ʿAmidya, Arbel, Barashe, Barzan, Dobe, Dohok, Ḥalabja, Khanaqin, Koy Sanjaq, Nerwa, Rustaqa, Sandu, Sardasht, Sulemaniyya, Zakho.

34 For the geographical distribution of many of the following dialects see the map in Mutzafi 2004: 13.

12

chapter one

IN IRAN: Bijar, Birdug, Bokan, Kerend, Naghada, Qasr Shirin, Sainqala, Salmas, Sanandaj, Saqiz, Ṣablagh, Tekab, Urmi. The above Jewish dialects belong to the following subgroups, often mentioned in this book:35 1. Lishana Deni: ʿAmidya, Barashe, Betanure, Challa, Dohok, Gzira, Nerwa, Zakho. 2. Central Jewish Neo-Aramaic: Barzan, Sandu. 3. Trans-Zab: 3a. Jewish Azerbaijan NA: Birdug, Naghada, Salmas, Ṣablagh, Urmi. 3b. Inter-Zab: Arbel, Dobe, Koy Sanjaq, Sardasht. 3c. Hulaula:36 Bijar, Bokan, Ḥalabja, Kerend, Qasr Shirin, Sainqala, Sanandaj, Saqiz, Tekab. Christian and Jewish NENA dialects are indicated with the abbreviations C. versus J. in cases where distinct dialects of these communities existed in the very same location. Other languages referred to in the comparative and etymological case studies taken up in this book and the major sources related to these languages are the following: AKKADIAN: AHw, CAD. LITERARY ARABIC: de Bieberstein Kazimirski 1860, Lane 1863–1893, Wehr 1976. MODERN PERSIAN: Steingass 1892. KURDISH: Chyet 2004, Jaba and Justi 1879, Omar 1992, Rizgar 1993, Wahby and Edmonds 1966. Kurdish words are given in Kurdish orthography in the Roman script. TURKISH: Redhouse 1995. AZERBAIJANI: Musayev 1998. 1.3.2 Transcription and Citation Forms A general principle of transcription in this volume is the notation of stress only where it is not penultimate, e.g. in NM šəqóft, a contextual variant of 35 For the subgrouping of Jewish Neo-Aramaic see Mutzafi, forthcoming. 36 For a map of the Hulaula dialects see Hopkins 1989: 432.



introduction

13

šəqoftɔ ‘disaster, misfortune’. In compounds and forms with clitics stress is marked even when it is penultimate for the sake of clarity, e.g. NM hólpye ‘it is terribly hot (weather)’, based on holpɔ ‘intense heat’ and the 3sg. form of the copula. 1.3.2.1 Transcription of Neo-Mandaic I have endeavoured to devise a phonemic and synchronic transcription for NM, and this entails 3 major divergences from previous works on this language: (1) As NM vowel quantity is synchronically predictable and therefore not phonemic, I do not use the sign ā that is part and parcel of all previous descriptions of the language. In Macuch’s publications ā stands for either /ɔ/ (with short and long allophones) or [a:], [æ:] as long allophones of /a/, whereas in Häberl’s method of transcription it stands for /ɔ/.37 The phonemic transcription used here distinguishes between /ɔ/ and /a/ and disregards allophonic variations. Thus, e.g., aryɔ ‘lion’ vs. Macuch (1993: 368) āryā (based on [ˈæ:rjɔ]); gaddɔ [ˈgæ:ddɔ], gad [gæ:d] ‘luck’, gadde [ˈgæ:dde] ‘my luck’ vs. Macuch (1989: 207) gæd, gædde; obrɔ ‘mouse’ vs. Häberl (2009: 342) obrā [ˈobrɔ]. (2) The transcription signs β, ḇ, w in previous works38 are all represented by the phoneme /w/ (realised by an array of allophones) in this work,39 e.g. šəwɔwɔ ‘neighbour’ (CM šibaba) vs. HCMM (512b) šəβāβa, Häberl (2009: 356) šəḇāḇā. The NM phoneme /v/, very marginal and of low functional load, is restricted to some unadapted recent Persian loanwords, e.g. vɔv ‘the letter ‫ ’و‬vs. wɔw (and wɔwɔ) ‘door’ (CM baba),40 does not occur in the NM materials adduced in this volume. (3) Three fricative consonantal phonemes are each split in Häberl’s transcription into two signs according to etymology: One in native words and the second in loanwords, as follows: ḡ/ġ, ḵ/x, p̄ /f;41 whereas in my method these are represented with single transcription signs, ġ, x and f, irrespective of etymology:

37 For this phoneme and its allophones in Khor.-NM see Häberl 2009: 64–65. 38 β and w in HCMM and ḇ, w in Macuch 1989, Macuch 1993 and Häberl 2009. In the latter work ḇ and w are in native words and v is in NP loanwords (see ibid.: 48). 39 For NM /w/ see Mutzafi 2010: 149–150. 40 See this minimal pair in Macuch 1993: 16. 41  Häberl 2009: 48.

14

chapter one

/ġ/, e.g. in plġ, palleġ, mpalleġ ‘to divide, distribute’ (CM plg); teġyɔ́ n ‘flood, ‫غ ن‬ spate of river’ (NP � ‫‘ ��ط��ی���ا‬id.); aġlɔ, aġəl ‘pen, cow-shed, stable’, of obscure etymology. /x/, e.g. in koxwɔ, koxəw ‘star, planet’ (CM kukba), həwexṣɔ, həwéxṣ ‘a dish made of rice flour, dates and sesame’ (CM hbiṣa ‘a kind of porridge’,42 Syr. ‫ܚܒ ̣ܝ ܵܨܐ‬ ̣ ‘honey cake’, NENA xwiṣa ‘pieces of bread in sweetened hot liquid butter’); sexčúl ‘hedgehog’s spines’ (surely foreign). /f/, e.g. in fəqottɔ, fəqót ‘neck’43 َ(CM pquta, JBA ‫ ;)אפקותא‬ftq, fatteq, mfatteq َ‫فَ ّ ق‬ ‘to undo knitting, seam’ (Ar. ���‫ ;)�ت‬farwah ‘thanks’ (< Iranian?). When quoting NM words and forms in previous works I have usually taken the liberty of emending and modifying the transcription so that it conforms with my phonological analysis and with the method of transcription generally pursued in this volume. Unaltered words quoted from previous works are given in inverted commas. 1.3.2.2 Transcription of Other Neo-Aramaic Varieties Western Neo-Aramaic words are taken unaltered from the draft of W. Arnold’s forthcoming Wörterbuch. Mlaḥsô words and forms are cited from Jastrow 1994 and Talay 2002, with one difference: The notation of ultimate stress according to my general method of transcription. Ṭuroyo is transcribed according to the principles devised in Jastrow 1992, 1993. NENA words in various dialects are transcribed according to the following rules: 1. In dialects where aspiration is phonemic k, p, t, č mark aspirated consonants and k̭, p̭, ṱ, č ̭ mark unaspirated ones. 2. Apart from the short vowel phoneme ə, the phonemes i, e, ɛ, o and u are generally short in closed syllables and open unstressed final ones, and half long or long otherwise. Vowel quantity is indicated only where it

42 For another case of iṣa > ikṣa, īṣā > exṣɔ in Mandaic consider *ḥūṣā ‘palm frond’> hūṣā (JBA ‫ > )הוצא‬post cl. M hukṣa ‘id’. 43 Pronounced [fəˈqottɔ] or [fəˈqottɔ] ~ [foˈqottɔ] by various informants. The latter pronunciation is imperfectly reflected in Machuch’s transcriptions “foqot(tā)” (HCMM 512a), “forgottâ” (MD 377a), “foqot(tā)” (Macuch 1989: 248), “foqoṭṭa/ā” (Macuch 1993: 427).



introduction

15

is phonemic, i.e. for ā vs. a in most NENA dialects as well as ū and u in some of them. 3. In NENA dialects where emphasis (pharyngealisation) embraces the whole word, word-emphasis is marked by a preceding superscript +, as in J.Urmi +amrá ‘wool’. 1.3.2.3 Citation Forms Neo-Mandaic nominal lexemes are regularly represented in both their longer and shorter alternants, e.g. šewyɔhɔ, šewyɔ́ h ‘demon’, gehyɔ, gehi ‘vomit (noun)’, since the shorter, apocopated alternants are not only used as predictable contextual forms (in the sense elaborated upon in Häberl 2009: 91–92), but often occur when not bound to following words. In contemporary Ahvaz-NM these forms are now becoming by far more prevalent than the longer alternants, and are often adduced as citation forms by Ahvazi informants. In tables, charts, headings and the index, however, only the longer alternants are adduced. NM and WNA verbs are represented by their 3sg.m. perfective and subjunctive forms, e.g. NM ṭrq, ṭəráq, ṭɔreq ‘to churn milk’ (lit. ‘he churned’, ‘he would churn’), WNA ṭʕn, iṭʕan, yiṭʕun ‘to carry’ (lit. ‘he carried’, ‘he would carry’), whereas in the other NA languages, where none of the old perfective and imperfective conjugations has survived, verbs are represented by the 3sg.m. subjunctive (irrealis) form, e.g. concerning the verbal root srq ‘to comb’: NENA sārəq, Ṭuroyo sorəq, Mlaḥsô soréq ‘he would comb’, in some NA varieties also ‘he combs/will comb’. Ṭuroyo verbal forms are in the dialect of Midin unless otherwise is specified.

chapter two

Aspects of previous research In what follows I shall demonstrate with selected examples major problematic aspects in the lexical picture of NM that is reflected by Macuch’s aforementioned works, and—to a lesser extent—also in Häberl’s book. In particular: 1) ad hoc learned classicisms, 2) misinterpretations and inaccurate definitions, 3) Persian and Arabic ad hoc loanwords instead of genuine Neo-Mandaic words, 4) ad hoc circumlocutions instead of genuine Neo-Mandaic equivalents, 5) ghost words, 6) verbal roots based on incorrect etymologies. 2.1 Classicisms Some lexical items and forms in works on NM are in fact ad hoc classicisms adduced by learned Mandaean informants and are never practically used in the spoken language. A distinction should be made between these ad hoc classicisms and vernacularised classicisms practically used in colloquial M such as košṭɔ ‘ritual handclasp’ (CM kušṭa ‘truth, ritual handclasp’), malwɔšɔ, malwɔ́ š ‘Mandaean name (vs. official name)’, from CM maluaša ‘sign of the zodiac; astrological name’. I identified ad hoc classicisms in previous publications as (1) words unknown to laypeople whom I solicited as informants and whose knowledge of CM was at best confined to no more than a few basic prayers; and as words that are either (2) unknown even to priests and other learned Mandaeans among my informants, or (3) are known to learned Mandaeans, but they themselves regarded these words as belonging to the genzɔ (a general term for Mandaean holy scriptures), or to ləšɔ́ n kədɔbí ‘literary language’ as opposed to ləšɔ́ n maḥallí ‘local (i.e. colloquial) language’. Macuch was aware of the intrusion of ‘classical tendencies’ into his NM materials (Macuch 1993: xvi), and in some cases it is specified that a word or form is classical, e.g. as regards tlɔṯɔ, the learned classical parallel of NM klɔṯɔ ‘three’ (Macuch 1989: 262) and muṯɔ, the CM parallel of NM moxtɔ ‘death’ (Macuch 1993: 413), but classicisms are overwhelmingly not marked as such in Macuch’s works, e.g. in the following examples:

18

chapter two

Gloss Classicism CM source 1. throat gængærāṯa1 gangarata 2. rainbow qaštā rāmā2 qašta rama 3. handful šolla;3 omṣa4 šula; ʿumṣa 4. Jew yahuṭāyī5 iahuṭaiia (pl.) 5. dream helma6 hilma 6. tail denβa7 dinba 7. temple mašknā8 maškna 8. to water šqy9 šqa

Genuine Neo-Mandaic šəhertɔ ṭallɔ-w-bérqɔ, qozuqadáḥ hofnɔ həḏɔyɔ šemtɔ dewrɔ, dommɔ, demmɔ bemandɔ šyt, maššet

Comments: 1. The NM word for ‘throat’, šəhertɔ, šəhért is likely a reflex of an unattested ܵ ܿ M cognate of Syr. ‫ܪܘܫܬܐ‬ ‫‘ ܸܚ‬throat’.10 Thus we might assume a process such as pre-modern Mandaic *hirroštā > *həreštā > NM šəhertɔ. If this etymology is valid, šəhertɔ has cognates in NENA: (1) xāruša which may denote a part of body such as (2) Ashitha xiroša ‘esophagus’ or (3) Lizin xiroša ‘windpipe’.11 Note that šəhertɔ as a term for ‘throat’ is, as far as can be established, unique among the NA languages: throat

NM šəhertɔ

NENA baloʔta, +baluvva +

Ṭuroyo WNA qḏolo ḳḏōla

The NENA parallels baloʔta, balöta, +baluvva etc. are feminine forms of ‘to swallow’; JBA ‫‘ בלועא‬throat (also chasm)’, derived from Aram. ‫בלע‬ ܵ ܵ whereas in Ṭuroyo and WNA the word for ‘neck’ (Syr. ‫ܩܕܠܐ‬ ̣ ‘nape of the neck’) is used for ‘throat’ as well.

 1  HCMM

45, 523a. 517a.  3 MD 454b, s.v. šula, HCMM 505a.  4 Macuch 1993: 392.  5 HCMM 508a, alongside the form “yahudāyī ”, based on, or influenced by, Arabic and �� . See, moreover, the plural form “yahaṭāyī ” (and by-forms) in Macuch 1989: 224 NP ‫ی�هود �ی‬ (alongside the Ar.-NP form “yahūdī ” in an Iarqi-NM text).  6 Ibid.: 500b.  7 MD 108b, Macuch 1965: 522b et passim, and in Macuch 1989: 59 transcribed “denḇā”.  8 Häberl 2009: 337. For more learned words in this book see Mutzafi 2010: 154.  9 Macuch 1993:439, 314: 1894. 10 From unattested Akk. *ḫaruštu ‘throat’ (cf. Neo-Assyrian ḫarurtu)—see Abraham and Sokoloff 2011: 35, and cf. Holma 1911: 42, CAD Ḫ: 121a. 11  The form xāruša is from Maclean 1901: 106a, where it is defined as ‘throat’. This meaning is unlikely, since in all known NENA dialects the word for ‘throat’ is derived from *blʕ ‘to swallow’—see below.  2 Ibid.:



aspects of previous research

19

2. There are two words for ‘rainbow’ in NM: Khorramshahr has the opaque compound ṭallɔ-w-bérqɔ, composed of reflexes of CM ṭala ‘dew’ ‫ن‬ (replaced in NM by nam ‘moisture, dew’ < NP �), u ‘and’ (NM u, w) and ‫م‬ birqa ‘lightning’ (in NM changed to tešberqɔ—see p. 199); whereas Ahvaz ‫ق ق‬ evinces the Arabic loanword qozuqadáḥ (< �‫)�و��س �ـ� ز‬. ‫ح‬ 3. The only NM word denoting ‘handful’ is hofnɔ, hofən ‘handful’, which is a close cognate of NENA xupná ‘handful’ (e.g. in Tekab) and xəpna ‘two handfuls’ (in Bne Shtinnara and some other Ṭyare dialects), and these have CA precursors such as Off.Aram. ‫חפן‬,12 JBA ‫‘ חופנא‬handful’ and CM hupna ‘hollow of palm of the hand, handful’. Another cognate, based on a different nominal pattern, is Ṭur. ḥfeto (< *ḥfetto < *ḥfento) ‘handful’.13 4. NM həḏɔyɔ, həḏɔ́ y ‘Jew’ (f. həḏeṯɔ),14 stemming from *həḏāyā < yəhūḏāyā, exhibits the same aphaeresis of y as in most other NA languages: NENA huḏāya, hədāya (and other dialectal variants), Ṭur. həḏoyo, WNA ūḏay (with loss of h as well as y), but Mlaḥsô yudoyó.15 Thus the NM form is very much related to the forms found in the rest of the NAspeaking area, and most probably reflects an old vernacular form that has been used alongside a form related to the literary pl. form iahuṭaiia ‘Jews’, which, although well-known to some learned Mandaeans, is not used in modern speech. The latter involves a folk-etymological conflation with the verb hṭa ‘to sin’ and possibly also with iahṭa ‘abortion’.16 5. NM has lost the reflex of common Aramaic ḥelmā and CM hilma ‘dream’ and replaced it with šemtɔ, šemt which is a reflex of šinta ‘sleep’ (cf. also Ṭur. šanṯo, šamṯo ‘id.’). In NM šemtɔ came to denote both ‘sleep’ ‫خ‬ and ‘dream’, probably as a calque on Persian �‫‘ �وا ب‬sleep, dream’. For ‘sleep’, however, NM mostly uses mignɔ, migən, a derivative of gny ‘to sleep’ which is modelled on the same pattern of mixlɔ, mixəl ‘food’ (postcl. M mikla) and mizgɔ, mizəg ‘a walk, stroll, trip’ (from the verbal root zgy ‘to go, walk’). Some Ahvaz-NM speakers regularly use šemtɔ for ‘dream’ and mignɔ for ‘sleep’.17 Note that most other NA varieties did not replace the inherited Aramaic word for ‘dream’, hence WNA ḥelma, Mlaḥ. ḥelmó,18 Ṭur. ḥəlmo, various 12 Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 329. 13 See Tezel 2003: 224. 14 In Macuch 1993: 385 “hodeyṯā” is a mistranscription of həḏeṯɔ. 15 Jastrow 1994: 195. 16 See Nöldeke 1875: 43, n. 2. 17 The meanings ‘bed, couch, mattress’ in HCMM 538b, s.v. migna are unknown to my informants. 18 Jastrow 1994: 177.

20

chapter two

NENA dialects xəlma, xulma, +xulma, etc. Only in Hulaula-NENA (Iranian Kurdistan) did the same semantic broadening of the reflex of Aramaic šenṯā ‘sleep’ occurred independently as a calque on Sorani Kurdish xaw ‫خـ‬ ‘sleep; dream’ (and possibly on Persian �‫‘ �وا ب‬id.’ as well), yielding šəndá or šəná ‘sleep; dream’.19 6. CM dinba ‘tail’ is no longer used in NM, but NM still exhibits two derivatives of this word with changes of meaning: (1) denwe ‘below, beneath; down, downward’, which appears to stem from *denḇáy with a nisbah ending, as is also the case of barre ‘out, outside’ from *barráy ‘outer, exterior’ (CM barai ‘outside, exterior’, JBA ‫‘ בראי‬outside’,20 and cf. various NENA dialects pl. form barāye ‘out, outside’) and (2) dewyɔnɔ, dewyɔ́ n ‘low, lower (adj.)’, from *denḇyānā < *denḇáy + -ānā. The NM dialects use two different words for ‘tail’: (1) dewrɔ, dewər ُْ which is likely an old loan from Ar. ‫‘ د ب�ـ�ر‬rump, tail’, and is already attested as dibra in DC 46,21 a manuscript replete with NM words and forms, (2) some speakers use dommɔ,22 which is probably an adapted loanword from Luri domb ‘tail’.23 7. Temple in the sense of the Mandaean cult-hut known in Mandaean Iraqi Arabic as mandi, is called bemandɔ, bemánd in NM, a compound of be ‘place of ’ (confined to compounds—see p. 36) and mandɔ ‘gnosis’. This compound is already attested in literary Mandaic as bimanda (MD 61). CM maškna ‘place of worship, Mandaean cult-hut’ is not a vernacular Mandaic word. 8. The CA use of šqy in ap̄ ʿel to express ‘to water, irrigate’ (CM ašqi ‘he watered’) is no longer found in vernacular Mandaic. šyt in ap̄ ʿel is used instead, as in aššet ‘he watered, irrigated’, maššet ‘he may water, irrigate’. In some cases publications on NM include both ad hoc classical words and corresponding genuine vernacular words:

19  Hence NM šemtɔ and Hulaula šəndá or šəná do not constitute a true isoseme that reflects a shared innovation (for such possible cases see pp. 117–137), but are rather the results of two parallel processes whose similarity is due to the heavy impact of Iranian on each of these two languages. 20 For a different etymology see DJBA 240b. 21  MD 106b, s.v. dibra 3. 22 As already in HCMM 519b. A closely related form is demmɔ in Häberl 2009: 43 et passim. 23 Anonby 2003: 188.



aspects of previous research

Gloss Classicism CM source 1. sheep tattā24 tata 2. wing gedfā26 gadpa 3. leg, foot loġrā28 ligra 4. be ashamed bhṯ30 bht

21

Genuine Neo-Mandaic émbərɔ25 gappɔ27 kərɔyɔ29 syf, sɔyef 31

Comments: 1. The NM word for ‘sheep’, émbərɔ, embər denotes also ‘ram’ and ‘Aries’, and corresponds to CM ʿmbra ‘sheep, ram, lamb; Aries’. See further on pp. 147–148. CM tata, lost in NM, may have denoted ‘ewe’ rather than any sheep. 2. NM gappɔ, gap ‘wing; feather’ is attested in CM as gapa ‘wing’, as well as, inter alia, in JBA as ‫‘ גפא‬wing; feather’ and, similarly, in Syr. as ‫ܓ ܵܦܐ‬ ܸ ‘wing; arm; fin; ell’, and already in Off.Aram. as ‫‘ גף‬wing’.32 A more ancient Semitic cognate is Akk. gappu (~ agappu) ‘wing’. CM gadpa ‘wing, limb’ and its JBA and TO cognates ‫‘ גדפא‬wing, feather; bird’ and ‫‘ גדף‬wing’, respectively, have no modern Aramaic reflexes, and their etymological affiliation with gapa is far from certain (pace MD 78, where gapa is considered a doublet of gadpa). On the basis of comparative Semitic research, gapa and gadpa apparently belong to two separate etyma.33 NM gappɔ has close cognates in NENA: Telkepe gāpa ‘flock of birds’ and many dialects, including Telkepe, gulpa ‘wing; fin’, from *gelpa < ܵ ‫‘ ܓ‬wings, feathers’.34 *geppā. The plural of *gelpa is attested in Syr. as ‫ܠܦ ܹ̈ܢܐ‬ ܸ

24 HCMM 519b. 25 Cf. already ibid: sheepskin—“meške embara”, Macuch 1989: 244 “ember”, Macuch 1993: 441 “émbera”. 26 Macuch 1993: 377, by-form gædfā. 27 MD 78a, HCMM 525 ‘wing’, and also 502 ‘feather’. 28 Häberl 2009: 41, 116, 128 et passim. 29 Ibid.: 41, 121, 128 et passim. 30 HCMM 32:30, 259, 519b. On the latter page the verb bəhéṯ ‘he was ashamed’ is defined as ‘shame’. 31  Macuch 1993: 421. 32 In Egyp.Aram. (Demotic script) ‫( גף‬DNWSI 1255) and Daniel 7: 4, 6 pl. ‫ּגַ ִּפין‬. 33 See Militarev and Kogan 2000: 70, 82–83, 130–131. ܵ ‫ ܓ‬in SL 239 is based on the form ‫ܠܦ ̈ܢܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܓ‬, the plural of what appears 34 The entry ‫ܠܦ ܵܢܐ‬ ܸ ̤ ܵ ‫ܓ‬, cf. NENA gulpa, pl. gulpāne. ܹNote also that the form ‫ܠܦ ܵܢܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܓܘ‬ to be unattested sg. ‫ܠܦܐ‬ ܼ ܸ ̈ ܵ (ibid.), or rather ‫ܓܘܠܦ ܹܢܐ‬, ܼ is not Syriac at all but NA, as already noted in Brockelmann 1928: 119b, being a NENA word in a late Syriac manuscript, and likewise concerning the entry ܵ ‫‘ ܓܘ‬wing, pinion’ in Margoliouth 1927: 75b. ‫ܠܦܐ‬ ܼ

22

chapter two

­Further cognates exist in Ṭuroyo dialects glepo (Bsorino), glefo (Midin, other dialects),35 apparently representing a metathesis of *gelpo < geppā. 3. CM ligra ‘leg, foot’ has no trace in NM, where it was replaced by kərɔyɔ in Khorramshahr and kərɔ́ in Ahvaz (see pp. 185–186). Häberl’s learned informant furnished loġrɔ as a word he knew from the liturgy. The informant misspelled this word lagra instead of ligra,36 and his unexpected pronunciation loġrɔ might be idiolectal and remains to be explained.37 4. The common Aramaic and CM verbal root bht ‘to be ashamed’ has been replaced by syf, saf, qəsɔyef (see p. 173). 2.2 Inaccurate Definitions A considerable number of inaccurate definitions in previous works on NM are mostly related to lexical materials provided by Macuch’s informant Naṣir Ṣaburi. Here are a few selected cases: Lexeme Inaccurate definition 1. rəwɔ́ hare, rabbit38 2. aġmɔ forest, mountain, swamp39 3. zapɔ́ n (al-ínɔ) eyebrow40 4. rdf persecute, maltreat41 5. šxš disturb, confuse, deceive42 6. šxw lie down, rest43 7. dyṣ to fix, pile44

Neo-Mandaic denotation fox reed-bed, thicket, forest eyelashes shiver, tremble be startled fall asleep insert (something sharp)

Comments: 1. NM rəwɔ́ ‘fox’ (from Luri ruwɔ́ , see Lorimer 1922: 125) was somehow incorrectly defined as ‘hare, rabbit’. A possible explanation to this error is that Macuch confused rəwá with the NM word “ārβa” ‘hare’ (HCMM 214:16, 35 The form “gefo” in Ritter 1979: 174, attributed to the dialect of Midin, should be corrected to glefo (as indeed in Jastrow 1993: 182). 36 See Häberl 2009: 41. 37 Perhaps *leġrɔ > loġrɔ with partial assimilation of *e to ġ. Another puzzling pronunciation is laġrɔ in HCMM 13:23 et passim, and note Macuch’s doubts concerning its authenticity on p. 109. 38 Ibid.: 505a, 516b. 39 Ibid.: 503b, 511b, Macuch 1989: 194. 40 Ibid.: 502a. 41  Macuch 1993: 434 et passim. 42 Macuch 1993: 439. 43 HCMM 259:25, 264, 517b. 44 Ibid.: 255:11, 514b.



aspects of previous research

23

215:18), in phonemic transcription arwɔ,45 which seems to be an inherited Aramaic word stemming from *ʔarnəḇā, unattested Mandaic *arnba. My own informants use árnəbɔ (attested ‫ أ‬in Macuch 1993: 368), apparently an adapted Arabic loanword (Ar. �‫)� ر ن� ب‬, as well as the unadapted Arabic loanword arnab, which is already found in post-cl. Mandaic as arnab. 2. NM aġmɔ, aġəm denotes (1) reed-bed, area of dense growth of reeds, (2) thicket, especially of rushes, and (3) forest, as in the mountainous areas of northern and eastern Khuzestan. It is first attested in the 17th century Glossarium with the Latin glosses ‘ager’ (69:15), ‘campestre’ (158:6), ‘torrens, villa’ (176:15), all of doubtful validity regarding their accuracy. The word aġmɔ is later attested in de Morgan’s NM texts (1904), where all its occurrences are rendered ‘swamp’ by Macuch, but the textual evidence may rather point to the meaning ‘thicket’, in particular a thicket of reeds, rushes and other marshland plants, or at least not to a swamp but to the terrain and vegetation surrounding it. Thus in šadder barnɔši go aġmɔ (Macuch 1989: 186:1348) ‘[the ruler] sent a man into the thicket [to fetch the hunter]’, labód alín aġmɔ hazín mu qɔmren soprɔnɔ (ibid.: 188:1381–1382) ‘I must go to the thicket and see what the birds are saying’, ezgɔ́ orka aġmɔ (ibid. 190:1414) ‘he went with her [with the snakelike monster] in the thicket’, and quite possibly also in men aġmɔ əl-áġmɔ qərɔheṭ (ibid. 168:1071) ‘he runs from one thicket to the other’. The antecedent of aġmɔ, CM agma, is glossed ‘marsh, swamp, pool, lagoon’ in MD (5b), but might have had meanings reflected in NM, possibly alongside ‘marsh, swamp’. Thus ṣaida ḏ-sliq mn agma, rendered ‘fisherman who rises from the marsh-pool’ might have referred to a ‘hunter who came up from the reed-bed (or thicket of rushes)’ and ṭuria uagmata, rendered ‘mountains and swamps’ may rather be ‘mountains and forests’, especially since this phrase is found in DC 46, a post-classical text replete with NM features. The likelihood of CM agma as ‘reed-bed, thicket, forest’ should be considered also in the light of cognate languages. These include (1) Syr. ‫ܐ ݂ܓ ܵܡܐ‬, ܲ� ‫‘ ܵܐ ݂ܓ ܵܡܐ‬meadow; swamp’; (2) JBA ‫‘ אגמא‬marsh, swamp’,46 ­possibly also ‘reed-bed, thicket of rushes’ or similar meanings in ‫קטיל קני באגמא הוה‬ ‘he used to cut down reeds in the marshes (or reed-bed?)’ and ‫מיתי ליה‬ 45 A homophone of arwɔ, arəw ‘stream, water-course’ ( ‘ferry, boat’ cf. Akk. nēberu < *maʕbaru ‘crossing, ford; ferrying; ferry’). 46 Thus according to DJBA 79.

24

chapter two

‫‘ ציידא מאגמא‬a hunter used to bring him [quail] from the marsh (or reedbed, thicket?);47 (3) Rabbinic Hebrew of the Palestinian Talmud, where ‫ אגם תמרים‬is likely ‘a dense growth of palm trees’,48 (4) BH ‫ ֲאגַ ם‬, where in addition to the meaning ‘swamp’ or ‘lake’ (e.g. in Isaiah 35:7), in Jeremiah ָ ‫ וְ ֶא‬the word ‫ אגמים‬denotes ‘thickets’ or a similar 51:32 ‫ת־ה ֲאגַ ִּמים ָׂש ְרפּו ָב ֵאׁש‬ َ ‫َأ‬ ‫��ـ َ��م��ة‬ � meaning,49 and (5) Ar. ‫‘ ج‬thicket, jungle, canebrake’. Since the source of aġmɔ and CA agma, ‫ אגמא‬is Akk. agammu ‘marsh’,50 the NM word (or its precursor) appears to have undergone metonymy whereby the meaning ‘marsh, swamp’ was initially replaced by meanings related to the vegetation surrounding marshes. Such a metonymy may well have occurred to some extent already in pre-modern Aramaic, as is shown above. 3. NM zappɔ, zap, often zap al-ínɔ denote ‘eyelash’, pl. zapɔnɔ, zapɔ́ n, often zapɔ́ n al-ínɔ ‘eyelashes’ (for cognates see p. 140), whereas the NM word for ‘eyebrow’ is gəwinɔ, gəwín (for cognates see p. 101). 4. Whereas in Macuch’s NM Chrestomathie the definition of rdf, rədáf, rɔdef ‘to shiver, tremble’ is correct (Macuch 1989: 255), the same author confused it with the CM verb rdp ‘to persecute, maltreat’ in his Ahvaz texts, except for the verbal form qəradefnɔ ‘I shiver’ (Macuch 1993: 262:1546). Thus, e.g., qərɔdfɔ (ibid.: 222:1244) means ‘she (it, Adam’s soul) shivers’ rather than ‘it maltreats’, as part of the sentence əl-ménd baṭɔ́ l ke qəhazyɔli qərɔdfɔ, qəmešexšɔ u takɔ́ n qɔxel ‘on account of the evil things (doings) that is sees it shivers and is being startled and becomes unstable’. Another word from the same NM root is redfɔ ‘a shiver, trembling’.51 Macuch (1989: 255) derives the NM verb rdf ‘to shiver’ from CM rdp ‘to persecute, drive away’, but a much more plausible etymon would be CM rgp ‘to shake’. The postulated change of rgf to rdf can be readily explained

47 For the quotations see ibid. Indeed Krauss (1910–1912, vol. 2: 200) construes ‫ אגמא‬as an area with rushes. 48 See already Cohen 1924: 159, translating ‫המצית את האור בחישת קנים ובאגם תמרים‬ ‘one who sets fire to a thicket of reeds or a dense wood of palms’. 49 See, inter alia, Cohen, ibid.: ‘a dense thicket’, Ullendorff 1953: 157 ‘reeds along riverbanks’ and Gesenius 1987ff., vol. 1: 12a ‘rushes, reed-bed’. 50 See Kaufman 1974: 33. According to Lieberman (1976: 140) the Akkadian word is a Sumerian loanword. 51  Cf. HCMM 497a: ‘cold (noun)’. The latter denotation is expressed in NM by the noun qoršɔ, qorš (CM qurša) when cold temperature or cold weather are referred, and with the word məsí ~ məssí (CM misia) when ‘cold’ as an adjective or as an illness is concerned. The earliest attestation of modern M redfɔ ‘a shiver, trembling’ is possibly ms. DC 46, if ridpa ḏ-palga ḏ-pagra means ‘trembling of half of the body’ (cf. MD 361a, s.v. palga 2).



aspects of previous research

25

as a partial assimilation of the velar g to the alveolar r, yielding an alveolar d, and another phonetic motivation is the acoustic and auditory similarity of g and d. Similar cases of g > d in NENA are Ko d-Chalwe dərgəlta ‘wheel’ < *gargəlta (cf. Qaraqosh gargərta) < *galgəlta, CA galgəlā, and TkhumaGawaya dəšra ‘bridge’ < gešrā. Another case of g > d near an alveolar consonant is perhaps NM dondɔ, dond ‘penis’, post-cl. M dunda < ? NP gond or MP gund ‘testicle’.52 Another irregular change g > d is Rabbinic Hebrew ‫ דלוסקמא‬alongside the older form ‫‘ גלוסקמא‬chest, coffin’, from Gk. γλωσσόκομον.53 5. The NM verbal root šxš ‘to be startled’, from *šġš, CM šgš ‘disturb, trouble, confuse’ is inflected in eṯpəʿel, hence ešxeš (< *ʔeštəġeš) ‘he was startled’, mešxeš (< *meštəġeš) ‘he might be startled’. Macuch misconstrued this NM verb in the light of its classical meaning (Macuch 1993: 439), and, moreover, misconstrued the verbal form qəmešexšɔ ‘she (it, Adam’s soul) is being startled’, as if meaning ‘it deceives’ (Macuch 1993: 222:1244). 6. Ahvaz-NM šxw refers to falling asleep rather than lying down or resting: šəxɔ́ w ‘he fell asleep’, tom falge-lílyɔ la šexwit ‘I did not fall asleep until midnight’, qəšɔxew ‘he falls/will fall asleep’. The action or state of lying down is expressed with the phrasal verbs əríx tammɔ ~ tam ‘he lay down’,54 lit. ‘he became long’ and əríx təlɔ́ ‘id.’, lit. ‘he drew/stretched long’ (ərixɔ, əríx ‘long’). The latter phrasal verb is also used for ‘he reposed, rested’ and ‫ا ز �ش ن‬ � � ‫‘ د ر‬to lie down’, lit. ‘to draw/stretch long’. is a calque on NP � ‫ک�����ی���د‬ NM šxw ‘to fall asleep’ is closely related to CM škb which mostly denotes ‘to sleep (and also lie down, have sex with)’,55 JBA ‫‘ שכב‬to lie down, sleep; ܲ� ‘lie down, rest, sleep; die’. die; have sex with’ and Syr. ‫ܫܟ ݂ܒ‬ 7. NM dyṣ, daṣ, dɔyeṣ retains the inherited Aramaic denotation ‘to insert ܲ� TO something sharp, stick in’, as in CM daṣ, JBA ‫( דוץ‬also ‫)דצי‬, Syr. ‫ܕܥܨ‬, ‫דעץ‬. NA cognates with the same denotation are found in various NENA dialects, e.g. Ashitha dāyəṣ, Khanaqin taʕə́ s, Bijar taḥə́ s, J.Koy Sanjaq čaʕə́ s, Ko d-Chalwe č̣āʔəṣ, J.Urmi +tēs. Apart from the foregoing inaccuracies, the English-NM vocabulary in HCMM includes quite a few cases in which a NM word with a single denotation is erroneously rendered polysemic by the translations offered 52 MacKenzie 1986: 38. 53 See Jastrow 1903: 247. 54 As already attested in Macuch 1989: 244. 55 See MD 465.

26

chapter two

by Macuch’s informants. To take one example, NM sahurɔ, sahúr denotes ‘beggar’, whereas according to HCMM it also denotes ‘abject’ (419a), ‘­frugal’ (503a), ‘indigent’ (507a) ‘poor’ (486, 515a) and ‘wretched’ (526b). For some unknown reason, the word sahurɔ ‘beggar’ was chosen instead of the loanword faqír that could have been used for ‘poor, indigent’, and approximately also for the other meanings. 2.3 Ad hoc Persian and Arabic Loanwords Such ad hoc loanwords are mostly found in Macuch’s English-NM wordlist (HCMM 489ff.). In some cases Macuch’s main informant Naṣir Ṣaburi replaced genuine NM words with Persian or Arabic ones, perhaps due to the prestige of these languages as against the low status of vernacular Mandaic, as in the following examples (superscript numbers refer to pages in HCMM): Gloss Ad hoc borrowing ‫ن‬ 1. bosom sine(494b) < P ‫‘ ��س�ی���ه‬breast, chest’ ‫ز‬ 2. new tāze (512b) < P ‫ ت�ا � ه‬ ‫� �ف‬ 3. a cough ṣorfe(498a) < P ‫ �سر �ه‬ 4. key kilīd(a)(508a) < P ‫ ک��لی��د‬ ‫خ‬ 5. lettuce xaṣṣa(509a) < Ar. ‫ ���س‬

Genuine NM kappɔ haṯṯɔ nosɔ qəlidɔ hassɔ

Comments: 1. NP ‫‘ ��س�ی� ن��ه‬chest, bosom’ was borrowed and adapted by NM as sinɔ, sin ‘chest’, whereas the noun kappɔ, kap denotes ‘bosom, lap’.56 This noun takes part in the phrasal verb ləxáṭ go kappɔ ‘he carried with both arms; he embraced’, lit. ‘he held in the bosom’, lexṭi go kappi ‘he embraced him’.57 NM kappɔ might be etymologically related to CM kanpa ‘wing, arm; bosom’.58 If so, the assimilation of n in *kanpā > kappɔ is as in NM *ʔanpā > appɔ ‘face’ and *horentā > horettɔ, horét ‘other, another, sg.f.’. There are, however, by far more cases whereby n is not assimilated or appears as a dissimilatory consonant, e.g. ronzɔ, ronz ‘rice’, zangɔ, zang ‘bell’, kandi (akandia, JBA ‫‘ )אכתי‬yet, still’, anguzɔ, angúz (anguza, JBA 56 Cf. the infelicitous definition “Hand( fläche)” in Macuch 1993: 404, whereas in Macuch 1989: 140:690, 227 it is correctly rendered ‘Busen’, but mistranscribed “kāpa”. 57 See ibid.: 144:541, 174:867, 234:1351. 58 Cf. already in Egyp.Aram. knp ‘wing, hem’ (Kottsieper 1990: 201).



aspects of previous research

27

‫‘ )אמגוזא‬nut’, manzɔ, manz ‘hair’, genzɔ, genz ‘many, much, very’, pərendɔ,

pərénd ‘dried pomegranate seeds’ (see pp. 45–46), mendɔ, mend ‘thing’, mángəlɔ, mangəl ‘sickle, scythe’ and ʕenzɔ ‘goat’. The latter appears to correspond to CM ʿnza ‘id.’َ (cf. also Akk. enzu), and to have acquired its ʕ ‫ْ َ �ة‬ from the Ar. cognate �‫�ع ن���ـ� ز‬. In view of the propensity of NM to avoid assimilation of n, perhaps the direct antecedent of kappɔ was, rather, unattested pre-modern M *kappa (*kapa). Both this and the geminated form kanpa quite possibly reflect a borrowing from Akk. kappu ‘wing, arm’. ‫ز‬ 2. NP ‫‘ ت�ا � ه‬fresh, new’ was borrowed—either directly or through local Ar. tāza—by NM as tɔzá, tɔz ‘fresh’,59 whereas ‘new’ is expressed in the vernacular with the inherited Aramaic word haṯṯɔ (cf. CM hadta and see NA cognates on p. 95). This word is indeed attested in both Ahvaz (Macuch 1993: 384) and Khorramshahr NM (Häberl 2009: 324), pace Macuch’s earlier observation that it had been replaced in contemporary Mandaic by NP tāze.60 3. NM has a native Aramaic lexeme nosɔ, nos for ‘a cough’ as a single act or a medical condition, and ‘coughing’, corresponding to CM nausa ‘debility, weakliness, sick(li)ness’. NM nosɔ is essentially a verbal noun of nys ‘to cough’, whence nas ‘he coughed’61—cf. CM nus ~ nss ‘to be in trouble, be sick, grieve, repine’ (and see further on p. 170). 4. NM qəlidɔ, qəlíd ‘key’ is already attested in post-cl. M and the 17th century Glossarium as qlida (and aqlida),62 a close cognate of Syr. ‫ܩܠܝ ̣ ܵܕܐ‬ ̣ and JBA ‫אקלידא‬, of Greek origin.63 NA cognates are Ṭur. qliḏo and NENA qlida, qḏila, qdila, qzila, qlilá. 5. NM hassɔ ‘lettuce’ is discussed on pp. 72–73 below. 2.4 Ad hoc Circumlocutions The following circumlocutions are ad hoc creations that were adduced by Macuch’s informant instead of genuine NM terms (superscript numbers refer to pages in HCMM):

59 The form “tāza”, viz. tɔzá, is attested in Macuch 1989: 261. For Iraqi Ar. tāza ‘fresh’ see Woodhead and Beene 1967: 53a. 60 See Macuch 1989: 40, lines 6–7, where it is also stated that haṯṯɔ was found in NM only in 19th century texts in the extinct Iraqi NM dialect. 61  Rather than “ṣorfé əwád” in HCMM 498a. 62 See MD 34a, 413. 63 See Krauss, 1899–1898 vol. 2: 123b.

28

chapter two

Gloss Ad hoc circumlocution 1. slip ezgɔ́ kərɔyi etewrat64 ‘he went his leg broke’ 2. jump pəhár mə-dókki(508a) ‘he flew from his place’ 3. lick ləšɔ́ n məhɔ́ (508b) ‘he hit [his] tongue’ 4. sweep mašúr əwád(522a) ‘he did [with] broom’ 5. drunkard genzɔ mašrúb qəšɔyet(500b) ‘he drinks much liquor’ 6. goose zaġát fəqót ərextɔ(504b) ‘long-necked hen’

Genuine NM šrq, ašreq; liz əxál ṭly, ṭəlɔ́ lky, lakki Ɂšr, aššer65 šet baṭṭá

Comments: 1. The Khor.-NM verb šrq ‘to slip, slide’, ašreq ‘he slipped etc.’, mašreq ‘he might slip, slide’, of Aramaic legacy (see p. 87), corresponds to Ahvaz-NM liz əxál, lit. ‘he ate slipping’. The latter phrasal verb is a calque on NP �‫�لی�� ز‬ ‫ن‬ ‫خ‬ � ‫“( �و ر د‬to eat slipping”). 2. NM ṭly ‘to jump, leap,66 hop; wade’,67 ṭəlɔ́ ‘he jumped’, ṭɔli ‘he might jump’ is clearly etymologically related to JBA ‫‘ טלי‬to jump down’, and apparently also to literary M ṭla ‘to remove, lift up’. The ultimate Aramaic etymon seems to be ‫‘ טלע‬to limp’, which is attested, inter alia, in TO and JBA, and is a cognate of H ‫ צלע‬and ‫ظ‬ Ar. ‫‘ ���ل‬ditto’. A semantic change from limping to leaping and jumping, ‫ع‬ especially jumping over something, is quite plausible. Further possible semantic changes may be ‘to lift up the leg’, which perhaps occurs in JBA ‫טלע‬,68 whence a more general sense of lifting up and removing reflected in CM ṭla. A highly divergent semantic offshoot is found in Syr. ‫‘ ܛܠܥ‬to be sleepy’ and various Christian NENA dialects ṭlʔ (e.g. in Ashitha), +ṱly (e.g. in C.Salmas) ‘to fall asleep; be sound asleep, sleep’. The semantic development was assumedly ‘to limp’ > *‘to lean, recline’ > *‘to lie down’ > ‘to fall asleep, sleep’—compare the semantic development related to gny ‘to lean, recline’ > ‘to sleep’ already in CA and concerns the history of NM gənɔ́ , gɔni ‘to sleep’ (see p. 108).

64 See this 3sg.f. eṯpəʿel form in HCMM 520a. The 3sg.m. form is etwer ‘he/it broke’, and in pəʿal təwár ‘he broke, tr.’ 65 This verb was actually used by N. Ṣaburi in one of his tales—see Macuch 1989: 146:185, where the verbal root was analysed as šrr instead of Ɂšr, and see pp. 67–68 below. 66 Cf. HCMM 509a, where the verb pəhár ‘he flew’ is adduced for ‘leap’ instead of genuine NM ṭəlɔ́ . The verbal form qəṭɔlen is attested in Macuch 1993: 240:1405 fonidɔ́ n ke mə-myén qəṭɔlen ‘fish that leap out of water’, yet in the glossary (p. 395) this form was incorrectly analysed as ṭwl, a ghost by-form of ṭll ‘to play’. 67 The latter meaning is attested in Macuch 1993: 396. 68 See DJBA 505–506, s.v. ‫ טלע‬2.



aspects of previous research

29

3. The Ahvaz-NM verb lky ‘to lick’, lakki ‘he licked, qəmlakki ‘he licks’, is discussed on p. 43. 4. The NM verb ʔšr ‘to sweep (with broom)’, aššer ‘he swept’, qəmaššer ‘he sweeps’, is ultimately from Akk. ušēšir ‘id.’—see pp. 68–69. 5. šet ‘drunkard; drunk (sg.m.)’, sg.f. šit, pl.c. šiten ~ šet is a passive part. of šyt ‘to drink’, šat ‘he drank’, qəšɔyet ‘he drinks’. 6. NM baṭṭá ‘goose’ is borrowed from Khuzestani Arabic where, according to NM speaking informants, baṭṭa denotes ‘goose’, a slight change of ‫�َ َّط��ة‬ meaning vis-à-vis Ar. ��‫‘ ب‬duck’. In some cases an ad hoc periphrastic creation and its genuine vernacular Mandaic parallel are both to be found in Macuch’s publications: Ad hoc circumlocution 1. lunch69 mixlɔ qameṯɔ ‘food [of] midday’ 2. bank70 deštɔ al-náhrɔ ‘ground of river’ 3. car71 markabtɔ d-arɔ ‘ground vehicle’ 4. aeroplane72 markabtɔ d-rehwɔ ‘air vehicle’ 5. sow73 bazər ṭawweḥ qam deštɔ ‘he threw seed for land’

Genuine NM šərɔṣomɔ derkɔ mentəkɔ́ r ṭayyará zərɔ́ (zry)

Comments: 1. The NM compound šərɔṣomɔ, šərɔṣóm ‘lunch’ comprises two elements: (1) the verbal noun šərɔ́ (< *šrāyā) ‘opening’ (šry ‘to open’), and (2) ṣomɔ, ṣom ‘fast’, hence literally: ‘opening the fast’. This is related to around 5–6 hours of “fasting” between breakfast and ‘lunch’, and consider the use of the close cognates šry ‘to release’ and ṣawma ‘fast, lent’ in the Ṭyare expression, šrile ṣawmux ‘break (lit. ‘release’) your fast!’, or: ša xul xa məddi, šrile ṣawmux ‘come and eat something, break your fast!’, said to someone who did not eat for a long time or is very hungry. Furthermore, words for lunch based on the root šry are found also in some NENA dialects, e.g. Betanure šaruṯa, as well as in WNA (Jubbʿadin) šarrūṯa, and ܵ ܵ these are preceded by Syr. ‫ܪܘ ܼܬܐ‬ ܼ ‫ ܫ‬and JBA ‫‘ שרותא‬meal’.

69 See HCMM 510a vs. genuine NM in Macuch 1989: 259 “šorāṣum”, Macuch 1993: 437 “šorāṣóm” (representing the shorter alternant šərɔṣóm). 70 See HCMM 493a vs. genuine NM in Macuch 1993: 382. 71  See Macuch 1993: 412 vs. genuine NM in Macuch 1993: 415. In addition, some speakers use the form motokɔ́ r, which is closer to the English etymon motorcar. 72 See ibid. vs. genuine NM in Macuch 1993: 395. 73 See HCMM 521a vs. genuine NM in Macuch 1989: 222, 1993: 395.

30

chapter two

2. NM derkɔ, derk ‘bank (of river, stream, canal)’ is attested in literary M as dirka ‘road, path, way; bank’ and JBA ‫‘ דירכא‬road’. For NA cognates see p. 101. 3. and 4. The ad hoc neologisms markabtɔ d-arɔ ‘car’ and markabtɔ d-rehwɔ ‘aeroplane’, were coined by Macuch’s informant, the learned Mandaean Salem Choḥeili. NM markabtɔ, markábt ‘ship, boat’ is related to CM markabta ‘vehicle, ship, chariot’, and it has b rather than expected w (compare NENA marəkwa ‘boat’, e.g. in Telkepe) due to local Ar. markab ‘ship, boat’, whence the NM loanword markab ‘ditto’. Choḥeili used markabtɔ in its classical meaning as a vehicle, followed by the classical relative particle d- and CM arqa ‘land, earth’, pronounced arɔ, to form markabtɔ d-arɔ, lit. ‘land vehicle’. The neologism markabtɔ d-rehwɔ ‘aeroplane’, lit. ‘air vehicle’, is based on classical markabtɔ ‘vehicle’, d- ‘of’ and NM rehwɔ ‘air, wind’, which is already attested in post-cl. M as rihua,74 ultimately from CM ruha ‘wind; spirit’. 5. NM uses the inherited Aramaic and Semitic root zry (< zrʕ) for sowing: zərɔ́ ‘he sowed’, qəzɔri ‘he sows’ (and for ‘seed, seeds’ bazrɔ or bazirɔ are used). Another Aramaic root, štl (šətál, šɔtel), is used for planting as well as for sowing seeds of trees, such as those of a date palm.75 2.5 Ghost Words Scholarly literature on Neo-Mandaic includes several lexical items that do not actually exist in this language (or in any other Aramaic variety), and ought to be regarded as ghost words. 1. “deraxt ṣolpa pin[e]tree”76 The entry ‘pin’ in Macuch’s English-NM vocabulary has a curious sub-entry ‘pin (tree)’ which should be read ‘pine tree’ and is glossed “deraxt ṣolpa”, ‫ )د خ�� ت‬is indeed the NM word for ‘tree’, but viz. “ṣolpa tree”. deráxt (< NP � ‫ر‬ NM does not have a tree name such as “deraxt ṣolpa”, and it is, moreover, highly unlikely that pine trees grow in areas where NM speakers live. It

74 See MD 433a. 75 See forms of this verb in context in Macuch 1993: 439. 76 HCMM 514b.



aspects of previous research

31

is rather a ghost word based on a misunderstanding of “pin” as “pen” and consequently translating “pen” with the CM word ṣilpa ‘reed-pen’. The latter word was either mispronounced ṣolpa or miswritten ṣulpa by the informant. 2. “mākna cloth, apron”77 The ghost word “mākna” was considered by Macuch to be derived from the CM root knn ‘to wrap, veil, cover’. The genuine NM word is, however, maqnɔ, maqən ‘white headscarf worn by Mandaean women’, an old ‫�ق ة‬ borrowing from NP ��‫‘ �م�� ن���ع‬type of veil or coif worn by women’,78 which ‫�قْ َ َ ة‬ is itself borrowed from Ar. ��‫‘ �ِم�� ن���ع‬type of long veil’.79 The form maqni ‘a veil’ (rather than “māknī”), with the indefinite singular suffix -i, is textually attested in the context of Adam refusing to take two rials from an old lady, and suggesting that she take the money and buy herself a headscarf.80 3. “nsl drain water”81 The verbal root “nsl” is rather NM ʔṣl (< *nṣl) ‘to strain water out of cooked rice’—see p. 40. 4. “qbb adhere to, follow” This ghost-verb is based on the form qʕabtonni ‘you (pl.) worship him’, which was mistranscribed qabtonnī and qaptunni in Macuch’s Neumandäische Chrestomathie.82 The form qʕabtonni is a reduced parole form of the full form qəʕabədtonni, viz. qəʕabdetton ‘you (pl.) worship’ + 3sg.m. object suffix. Macuch analysed the ghost-form qabtonnī as derived from an assumed root qbb, and assumed that this root was affiliated with CM qba ‘to collect, gather, hold’, instead of recognising the NM verb ʕbd ‘to worship’, borrowed from Arabic.

77 Macuch 1989: 232. 78 See Steingass 1892: 1296, Haim 1997: 997. 79 See de Bieberstein Kazimirski 1860, vol. 2: 824. 80 See Macuch 1989: 120:280, and emend accordingly. 81  Ibid.: 239. 82 Macuch 1989: 252. As for the omission of ʕ, cf. likewise in the transcription ašēṯa (p. 200) instead of ʕašeṯɔ ‘supper’, alongside ʕašéṯ (p. 247) in which ʕ is not omitted.

32

chapter two

5. “šrr sweep”83 The verbal root “šrr” is rather NM ʔšr ‘to sweep (with a broom)’—see pp. 29, 68–69. 6. “š-w/y-m to perform ablutions”84 The root “š-w/y-m” instead of genuine NM ršm (rəšám, rɔšem) ‘to perform ablutions’ appears in Häberl’s glossary of the dialect of Khorramshahr on the basis of the ghost form šamni ‘we performed our ablutions’,85 whereas the correct form is rəšamni. 2.6 Aramaic Verbal Roots Based on Incorrect Etymologies Two Aramaic verbal roots, ʕll (‫‘ )עלל‬to enter’ and ybl (‫‘ )יבל‬to lead’, have not survived in NM, and yet these are presented as if they were NM verbs due to incorrect etymological analyses. 1. “ʔll to go” Macuch assumed that imperfective forms of the verb ‘to go’ in NM, such as allɔ ‘she might go’, qallɔ ‘she goes’, allen ‘they might go’, qallen ‘they go’, reflect the synchronic root ʔll, originally the pan-Aramaic verbal root ʕll ‘to enter’,86 and this etymology was adopted by Häberl.87 As is proven by Morgenstern (2010b: 519–523), however, these forms are beyond any doubt derived from ʔzl and came about by regressive assimilation of z to l, as in ʔāzlā > allɔ ‘she might go’. The latter form itself is already attested in some JBA manuscripts as ‫‘ אלא‬she goes, it follows’, alongside the common JBA form ‫( אזלא‬see ibid.: 521). A crucial point in Morgenstern’s revision of Macuch’s analysis is that had NM preserved a reflex of ʕll, this reflex would have been inflected as a II-y verb in pəʿal. Hence just as dqq ‘to pound, crush’ has yielded NM dyq ‘to crush grain (with pestle and mortar)’, and *dāyqā has yielded diqɔ ‘she may crush grain’, a *ʕyl form such as *ʕāylā would have yielded **ilɔ in NM rather than allɔ.

83 Ibid.: 261. 84 Häberl 2009: 354. 85 Ibid.: 278 (9). 86 HCMM 552b; Macuch 1989: 123, n. 14, 196; Macuch 1993: 365. 87 Häberl 2009: 196, 297.



aspects of previous research

33

2. “ybl to bring, give” Macuch assumed that the imperative from bal ‘give!’ was derived from the Aramaic verbal root ybl ‘to bring’,88 but the antecedent of the form in question is *həbal, which is in its turn a fusion of *həbā and the object marker l-. The form *həbā is attested in CM as hba (~ ahba) ‘give!’, an allomorph of hab that is the usual form used with the enclitic object marker l,89 as in hbalan ‘give us’ > NM ballan ‘ditto’. As is shown by M. Morgenstern, CM shares an isogloss with JBA, which exhibits the same allomorphic distribution of shorter, unbound ‫ הב‬and longer ‫ הבה‬or ‫ הבא‬as the usual form bound to the dative suffix l.90 The NM imperative bal, with augmentative l as in the widespread NENA parallel hal ‘give!’ (< *haḇ l-), is therefore a reflex of the historical root yhb rather than ybl. The synchronic NM verbal root can be displayed as ʔhw (as in əháw ~ haw ‘he gave’, qɔhew ‘he gives/will give’) ~ bl (bal ‘give!’).

88 MD 188a, Macuch 1989: 224; 1993: 397. 89 Nöldeke 1875: 246. 90 See Morgenstern 2010a: 466–467.

chapter three

Neo-Mandaic and pre-modern Aramaic Despite numerous Arabic and modern Iranian loanwords, the lexical profile of Neo-Mandaic is still firmly rooted in the Aramaic legacy of this language. This fact concerns especially a large proportion of the core lexicon of NM which is inherited from previous layers of Aramaic.1 3.1 Continuity of the Neo-Mandaic Lexicon and Old Aramaic NM has inherited much of the common Aramaic lexicon dating back to the times of Old Aramaic inscriptions. Of the 47 lexical and morpho-­ lexical items discussed in Kogan’s study of the common OA lexicon (Kogan 2005: 513–536), at least 33 (ca. 70%) are represented in NM, either as independent words or as parts of words, and in most cases with identical or closely related meanings to OA: (1) ‫אנפ‬, ‫‘ אפ‬face’ > appɔ, ap ‘id.’ (see p. 112), (2) ‫‘ אזל‬to go’ > ʔzl ‘id.’,2 (3) ‫‘ עבד‬to do’ > ʔwd ‘id.’,3 (4) ‫‘ עקר‬descendance’ > qɔr ‘to or at the place of someone’s house, chez’ (see pp. 211–212), (5) ‫‘ גבר‬man’ > gawrɔ, gawər ‘id.’, (6) ‫‘ גו‬interior’ > go ‘in; by means of ’, (7) ‫‘ מצעה‬interior’ > mes ‘inside’, messe ‘middle, in the middle’ (see p. 197), (8) ‫‘ נחת‬to descend’ > nhṯ ‘id.’, (9) ‫‘ נפק‬to leave’ > nfq ‘to go out’, (10) ‫‘ רחם‬friend’—the root still exists as rhm ‘to love’, (11) ‫‘ סלק‬to ascend’ > syq ‘id.’,4 (12) ‫‘ שפר‬beautiful’ > šəbirɔ, šəbír ‘good’,5 (13) ‫‘ זחל‬to be afraid’ > dhl ‘id.’,6 (14) ‫‘ אחרן‬other’ > horinɔ, horín ‘id.’, (15) ‫‘ אנש‬man’ > enši ‘someone, anyone’, barnɔšɔ, barnɔ́š ‘human being, person’, (16) ‫‘ ארח‬way, road’ > ohrɔ, ohər ‘id.’, (17) ‫‘ אתי‬to come’ > ʔṯy ‘id.’,7 1  Cf. Häberl 2009: 33–35, 39–44, where it is demonstrated that in Khor.-NM about 85% of Swadesh’s list of 207 lexical items is of native provenance. 2 The deverbal noun mizgɔ, mizg ‘going, walking; a walk, stroll’ belongs to the same root. 3 Also wɔdɔ, wɔd ‘work’ (CM ʿubada ‘work, deed, action’). 4 Also the nominal derivative masextɔ, maséxt (CM masiqta) ‘ritual intended to assist the soul of a dead person to ascend to the Lightworld’—see Buckley 2002: 87ff. 5 And the abstract derivative ešbəroxtɔ, ešbəróxt (CM šapiruta) ‘goodness, kindness; favour’. 6 And the noun dəholtɔ, dəhólt (CM dhulta) ‘fear’. 7 Also miṯyɔ, miṯi (CM infinitive mitia) ‘coming, visiting; a visit’.

36

chapter three

(18) ‫‘ בעי‬to wish’ > ʔby ‘id.’,8 (19) ‫‘ חוה‬snake’ > hewyɔ, hewi ‘id.’, (20) ‫‘ חזי‬to see’ > hzy ‘to see, find’, (21) ‫‘ קדם‬before’ > qam ‘for, to, towards’, qamɔ́ ‘before, in front’, (22) ‫‘ קטל‬to kill’ > gṭl ‘to kill, beat harshly’, (23) ‫‘ מרא‬lord’ > mɔr ‘owner of ’, mɔre ‘God’, (24) ‫‘ שהד‬to witness’ > sahdɔ ‘Mandaean man who recites the prayer anɔ sahdax ‘I am your witness’ during ritual slaughtering, shd ‘to recite the prayer anɔ sahdax’, (25) ‫‘ שרי‬to release’ > šry ‘to open, untie, release’, (26) ‫‘ יהב‬to give’ > ʔhw ~ bl ‘id.’, (27) ‫‘ בר‬son’ > ebrɔ, ebər ‘son, boy’, (28) ‫‘ בי‬house’ > byeṯɔ, byéṯ ‘house, home’, bemandɔ, bemánd ‘Mandaean ritual-house’, beftɔ, beft (< *bē tp̄ ayyā) ‘stone of fireplace’, (see p. 78), bekwɔšɔ, bekwɔ́ š ‘sunset’ (see p. 193), bidɔ ‘sleeve’ (see p. 40) (29) ‫‘ הוי‬to be’ > hwy ‘id.’, (30) ‫‘ חד‬one’ > ehdɔ ‘one’, (31) ‫‘ ליש‬there is not’ > lext(< *līṯ < *lēṯ < *layṯ), lexti ‘he is not’, ləkkɔ (< *leṯ kā) ‘there is not’,9 (32) ‫פמ‬ ‘mouth’ > pommɔ, pom ‘id.’, (33) ‫‘ תורה‬cow’ > turtɔ, turt ‘ditto’. Among other NM lexical items inherited from common pre-modern Aramaic words are ‫כרס‬, emph. ‫ > ַּכ ְר ָסא‬karsɔ, kars ‘belly, stomach, womb’, ‫ > ׁשדר‬šdr, šadder, mšadder ‘to send’, ‫ > פרח‬phr, pəhár, pɔher ‘to fly’ and ‫ > חוי‬hwy ~ hwl, ahwi ~ ahwel, mahwi ~ mahwel ‘to show’. 3.2 Continuity of the Neo-Mandaic Lexicon and Literary Mandaic NM shows a great deal of continuity with CM and post-classical M, yet this continuity, at least insofar as the lexicon is concerned, has been only partly and imperfectly recognised, since numerous NM lexical items of Aramaic antiquity that are attested in literary Mandaic have hitherto remained undocumented. A few selected examples of such NM lexical items that have not been documented in previous studies of NM are given in what follows: 1. NM pyṯ, paṯ, pɔyeṯ ‘to break and divide bread into pieces (with hands, especially for dipping in soup)’, each piece being called pəṯuṯɔ, pəṯúṯ. These correspond to CM ptt ‘to break; tear off ’,10 JBA ‫ פתת‬break (of bread); tear off away’ and Syr. ‫‘ � ܲܦ ̣ܬ‬break into pieces (of bread)’.

 8 And from the same root buṯɔ, buṯ ‘prayer’ (CM buta < ‫עּותא‬ ָ ‫‘ ָּב‬supplication’, first attested in Daniel 6:14).  9 The negated form of əkkɔ ‘there is’. 10 Furthermore, it is possible that CM patutia gilda, rendered ‘to tear of the skin’ in MD 385b, are, rather, ‘pieces of leather’.



neo-mandaic and pre-modern aramaic

37

2. NM məšetyɔ, məšeti ‘a drink, drinks; drinking’ corresponds to CM mišitia, mšitia ‘a drink’, in essence infinitive of šta ‘to drink’. CA cognates are TO ‫‘ ִמ ְׁש ִּתיָ א‬feast; a drink’, JBA ‫משתיא‬, ‫‘ מישתיא‬drinking, drink; feast’ and ݁ ‫‘ ܲ �ܡ‬a drink; drinking banquet’. NM məšetyɔ is often used in the Syr. ‫ܫܬ ܵܝܐ‬ phrase mend al-məšétyɔ (literally: ‘thing of drinking’) to denote ‘a drink (e.g. alcoholic)’, as in: go dokɔnu əkkɔ kol mend al-məšétyɔ ‘there is every kind of drink in their store’. 3. NM parpinɔ, parpín ‘purslane’ corresponds to post-cl. M parpin(a) ܲ ‫ܦ‬, ‘ditto’. CA cognates are JBA ‫פרפחינא‬, ‫פרפינא‬, JPA ‫ פרפחין‬and Syr. ‫ܪܦܚܝ ܵܢܐ‬ ̣ � and cf. also NENA porəpxina (e.g. in Ṭyare) and dialectal variants, all meaning ‘purslane’. 4. NM gədulɔ, gədúl ‘braid, plait’ corresponding to CM gdula ‘lock of ܵ hair, tress, plait’, which is cognate with Syr. ‫ܓܕܘܠܐ‬ ‘curl, braid, crown’. A ̣ NA cognate with a different pattern is Midyat-Ṭur. gəḏḏale (< Aram. gḏl ‘to plait’ and probably an Arabic nominal pattern). In various other cases the denotations of NM lexical items that have CM antecedents are reshaped by semantic changes, as in the following examples (and see many other cases throughout this volume): 1. NM dġš, dəġáš, dɔġeš occurs in the following meanings: in Khorramshahr ‘to close door’ and in Ahvaz (1) ‘to lock’11 (rarely used, since the regular phrasal verb for this is qoflɔ Ɂwd, lit. ‘to do lock’), (2) ‘to spoil a piece of jewellery in the process of making it (especially by an inexperienced goldsmith or apprentice). At least as far as the meanings ‘close door’ and ‘lock’ are concerned, the etymon is clearly literary M dgš, which is represented in A Mandaic Dictionary (MD) in three entries: dgaša ‘stabbing’ (reflected in NM as dəġɔšɔ ‘locking; closing door; spoiling forged jewel’), daguša ‘stabbing, piercing ܲ ‘to (of pain)’ and dakša (< *dagša) ‘piercing’. CA cognates are Syr. ‫ܕܓܫ‬ � dig through, pierce through’, JBA ‫‘ דיגשא‬dagesh’ (< a sign which pierces a letter) and JPA ‫‘ דגש‬to add a dagesh to a letter’. The semantic changes in NM were, therefore, from piercing and stabbing in general to piercing a keyhole with a key, i.e. ‘locking’ (Ahvaz), whence ‘closing door’ (Khor.). It is possible that dġš in the sense of spoiling an article of jewellery while forging it is etymologically the same root,

11 As in Macuch 1993: 128:296 əl-wɔ́ w doġši mə-bɔ́ ṯar ‘lock the door behind [you]!’.

38

chapter three

but the semantic affiliation to dgš ‘to pierce, stab’ is too opaque to establish an unequivocal connection. 2. Ahvaz-NM minunɔ, minún ‘victuals, food stored in house’ is in all likelihood related to CM minuna ‘wealth, possessions’, the etymology of ̇ ‫‘ ܵܡ‬wealth, money’.12 which Nöldeke considered to be related to Syr. ‫ܡܘ ܵܢܐ‬ An alternative possibility of a borrowing from—or etymological connection with—Akkadian manantu ‘type of storage building’ and mânu ‘to provide with food’ may deserve consideration. 3. NM rošmɔ, rošəm ‘foreskin’ from CM rušma ‘sign’ with semantic narrowing (see pp. 142–143). In other cases, lexical innovations based, at least partly, on genuine Mandaic words are created through processes of word formation such as compounding and blending, e.g. (1) bɔr ‘brass’ (< NP ‫‘ ب�ـ�ا ر‬alloy’) + səmɔqɔ ‘red’ → bɔrsəmɔqɔ ‘copper’, (2) bad-gáddɔ, bad-gád ‘unlucky, miserable’, a hybrid ‫ ��د �ـ� خ�� ت‬bad baxt ‘id.’, in which the first word is compound based on NP � ‫ب ب‬ taken from NP and the second is genuine NM gaddɔ (CMَُ gada) ‘luck’, and ‫ق ش‬ (3) pɔseq ‘it cuts’ (CM psq ‘to cut’) + qəmɔšɔ (< Ar. ��� ‫‘ )��م�ا‬piece of cloth’ → pasqəmɔšɔ ‘scissors’ (and see §5.3 for further compounds and blends). 3.3 Some Hitherto Unattested Mandaic Lexemes Surfacing in Neo-Mandaic The full scope, nature and particularities of the lexis of the pre-modern Mandaic vernacular that was spoken in Late Antiquity will never be known. What we do know about the lexicon of the early phases of Mandaic is first and foremost based on the literary works pertaining to Mandaic liturgy and cultural life. Further knowledge on pre-modern Mandaic lexicon can be gleaned from Mandaic incantation bowls, dating back to the late Sassanian and early Islamic periods. Thus, for instance, the Mandaic word aktata, referring to a hen or a breed of chicken, has been recently discovered in an unpublished incantation bowl,13 offering a Mandaic cognate to NENA kṯayṯa, kṯeṯa, ʔaklelá, gdeta etc. and Ṭuroyo gḏayto, gyaṯto ‘hen’, forms whose etymon ʔakḏāytā is attested in late Syriac lexicons (see pp. 192–193). 12 Nöldeke 1875: 50–56. 13 In Magic Bowl Schøyen 2054/124: 3–7 bita aktata pt aktata pt trnaula hiuara ‘egg [of ] a hen daughter of a hen daughter of a white rooster’. I owe this information to Dr. Matthew Morgenstern.



neo-mandaic and pre-modern aramaic

39

Yet another source through which our knowledge of the vocabulary of early Mandaic can be enriched is Neo-Mandaic, since “. . . modern Mandaic uses some original Aramaic expressions or good Aramaic formations which by coincidence do not occur in classical literature . . .”14 If we find a Neo-Mandaic word which is clearly related to the Aramaic heritage of the language and is not attested in literary Mandaic, we can safely attribute the precursor of this word to the Mandaic vernacular that was spoken in pre-modern phases of this language. Furthermore, certain Iranian words in Neo-Mandaic reflect early Iranian forms that were borrowed into Mandaic and did not surface until modern times. A few other Neo-Mandaic words are Akkadian words that had entered Aramaic at a very early stage and clearly existed in Classical Mandaic times, but are not known to be extant in CM sources. In what follows I shall discuss several Neo-Mandaic lexical items which, as far as is known, are not recorded in literary Mandaic but can safely assumed to have been used in colloquial Mandaic in its pre-modern stages. These are divided into genuine Aramaic lexemes, early Iranian loanwords and Akkadian substrate words (the latter are elaborated on in §3.3.3): 3.3.1 Genuine Aramaic Words and Forms Hitherto Unattested in Literary Mandaic Macuch mentioned 5 NM words which he regarded reflexes of unattested pre-modern Mandaic antecedents: apeyí ‘pink’, məhaṭṭɔ ‘needle’, sahurɔ ‘beggar’, partonnɔ ‘flea’ and rəmahrɔ ‘the day after tomorrow’.15 The first of these, however, is a modern calque on NP, i.e. a derivative of appɔ‫‘ــ‬face’ (with typical NM pretonic loss of gemination) in the same way NP ‫�صور تی‬ ‫‘ �ص ت‬face’.16 The second, məhaṭṭɔ, məháṭ is in ‘pink’ is a derivative of � ‫ور‬ fact attested in literary Mandaic and is represented as mhaṭa in MD.17

14 HCMM lvi–lvii. 15 HCMM lvi–lviii, lix, 241–242, 532b, 537b, 539b, 540b. 16 See HCMM 515a, where the transcription is “appeyyī ”. The NM suffix -eyí (surely < Iranian) is used as an adjectival suffix (e.g. in afreyí ‘dusty’, about wind, weather, from afrɔ ‘soil, dust’, and see more examples ibidem: 198) as well as an abstract suffix (e.g. in ḥonineyí ‘smallness; childhood’ from ḥoninɔ ‘small, young’) and in names of some languages: mandeyí ‘Mandaic’, arɔbeyí ‘Arabic’ (but: fɔrsí ‘Persian’, turkí ‘Turkish’). The word apeyí is known to some Ahvaz-NM informants, but in contemporary NM the word səmɔqɔ, səmɔ́ q ‘red’ is the usual word for pink as well. 17 MD 259a. The addition to MD m(a)haṭa in HCMM 537b is, therefore, redundant (and the “variant” mahaṭa is entirely based on a phonetic realisation of NM məhaṭṭɔ [məhaṭṭɔ ~ mahaṭṭɔ]).

40

chapter three

The remaining three words are indeed reflexes of unattested early Mandaic antecedents. sahurɔ and partonnɔ have transparent Aramaic etyma as well as cognates in other NA varieties, as is specified below. rəmahrɔ is clearly Aramaic as well (see below). These and other Mandaic words surfacing in NM are discussed in what follows: 1. ʔṣl < *nṣl ‘to strain water out of cooked rice’ NM aṣṣel, maṣṣel ‘to strain water out of cooked rice’ is synchronically a paʿʿel inflection of the verbal root ʔṣl.18 This verb probably harks back to the ap̄ ʿel form of the unattested Mandaic verbal root *nṣl, a cognate of Syriac ‫‘ ܢ ܲܨ �ܠ‬to pour upon’. This verbal root still survives in the sense ‘to drip, trickle’ in Ṭuroyo (noṣəl)19 and various NENA dialects (nāṣəl in, e.g. J.Zakho, Telkepe, Ashitha etc.). The quadriradical root ṣnṣl, with the same meaning, found in both NENA (e.g. in Betanure, J.Koy Sanjaq) and Ṭuroyo, may well be derived from nṣl.20 2. bidɔ ‘sleeve’ Neo-Mandaic bidɔ, bid ‘sleeve’21 is the modern form of the erstwhile Mandaic cognate of JBA ‫‘ בי ידא‬sleeve’,22 which might be postulated as *bida. In addition, NM bidɔ is cognate with NENA forms such as Borb-Ruma beyda, Betanure and Alqosh beḏa, Hertevin beda and J.Zakho beza, all denoting ‘sleeve’. 3. bošɔlɔ ‘cooked rice’ NM bošɔlɔ, bošɔ́ l ‘cooked rice, a dish of cooked rice’ is the modern reflex of *buššālā and unattested Mandaic *bušala ‘cooked dish’, a cognate of ܵ Syr. ‫ܒܘ ܵܫܠܐ‬ ̣ ‘cooked dish, broth’. The NM word has undergone semantic narrowing from ‘cooked food’ to one of the most common types of cooked food consumed in the area where NM is spoken. The earlier meaning ‘cooked dish’ is preserved, however, in the phrases bošɔ́ l al-doreštá ‘a dish of cooked wheat groats’23 and bošɔ́ l al-mággɔ ‘a dish of cooked mung beans’. 18  Cf. Macuch 1989: 239 nsl, which is unwarrantedly derived from CM nzl ‘to flow’. 19  Usually in connection with dripping laundry, as in konəṣli ám-mayanək ‘the water trickles’ (Ritter 1990: 296). 20 For the relationship between the two verbal roots see Nöldeke 1868a: 192. 21  Cf. HCMM 520a, Macuch 1993: 374. 22 DJBA 212, s.v. ‫ּבית יְ ָדא‬,ֵ meaning 3. 23 The noun doreštá appears to be borrowed from Iranian—consider Luri dorištá ‘coarse’ (Lorimer 1922: 114) and the fact that doreštá is produced by grinding wheat grain coarsely with a hand-mill.



neo-mandaic and pre-modern aramaic

41

NA cognates denoting ‘cooked food’ are: (1) WNA buššōla, biššōla, (2) Ṭur. bəššolo,24 and (3) bušāla in Alqosh and various other NENA dialects. In Trans-Zab Jewish Neo-Aramaic the form has been reduced to bšālá. Some NENA dialects evince semantic narrowing so that bušāla denotes a certain cooked dish, just as is the case in NM, e.g. ‘stew’ in ­Barwar25 and ‘dish of cooked rice, yoghurt and vegetables’ in Baz.26 4. bɔqlɔ ‘fava beans (Vicia faba)’ NM bɔqlɔ, bɔqəl is used as a generic term and as a collective noun for fava beans (the nomen unitatis is bɔqli ‘a fava bean’). It has emerged from *baqla (*bāqlā), the pre-modern Mandaic cognate of JBA ‫‘ בקלא‬fava bean (broad bean)’.27 The earliest attestation of this word in Aramaic is Egyp.Aram. ‫בקלא‬, the det. form of ‫‘ בקל‬vegetables’.28 Later nouns derived from the same root are ܵ ܲ Syr. ‫ܒܘ ܵܩܠܐ‬ � ܲ and in ̣ ‘bud, sprout’ and the Syriac plant name ‫ܕܡ ܵܝܐ‬ � ‫ܒ ̈ܩ ܹܠܐ‬,29 NENA: Barwar baqla ‘red bean’, baqəlla ‘bean; fava bean’,30 C.Urmi collective bak̭le (sg. bak̭lita) ‘fava beans’,31 Ashitha baqla ‘asphodel, eremurus; bulb of asphodel or eremurus (used for producing glue)’; WNA baḳla ‘beet leaves, chard’; and possibly also Ṭur. buqluno ‘innermost part of onion’, and its variant boquno.32 There is also a NM verbal root bql ‘to soak grain, beans’, of Akkadian origin, which is discussed on p. 68. 5. ezbɔ ‘pubic hair, hair of crotch’33 NM ezbɔ, ezb is inherited from *ʿzba, the unattested Mandaic cognate of ܵ ܸ‫ ܐ‬34 ‘pubic hair’. The main NENA cognates are zəbba in Lishana Syr. ‫ܙܒܐ‬

24 Ritter 1979: 70. 25 Khan 2008: 1082, 1254. 26 See also Maclean 1901: 28b. 27 DJBA 230 s.v. ‫בקלא‬, ‫בקילא‬, where “Vicia zaba” should be emended to Vicia faba. 28 DNWSI 186. 29 See Audo 1897:95, Löw 1881: 76, 312. 30 Khan 2008: 1237. 31  Some NENA dialects might have borrowed this word from Mesopotamian or Anatolian Arabic which had itself borrowed it from Aramaic. Ṭuroyo baqla ‘fava bean’ is clearly such a loanword, for the expected native Ṭuroyo reflex of *bāqlā would have been bəqlo or buqlo. 32 See Tezel 2003: 159. 33 Cf. HCMM 70, where it is incorrectly derived from ʿzba, a variant of ʿṣba ‘colour, dye’. Note also that “ezba” ‘colour’, listed as a NM word (ibid. 497a), is strictly confined to CM. 34 Vocalisation is based on Audo 1897: 15a.

42

chapter three

Deni and səbba35 in Haṣṣan and numerous other Christian dialects, all with the same meaning. 6. hazufɔ ‘rough, coarse; curly, shaggy’ In the light of NM hazufɔ, hazúf ‘rough, coarse; curly, shaggy’,36 its NENA cognate xazupa ‘id.’37 and Syr. ‫‘ ܲ�ܚ ̣ܙܘ ܵܦܐ‬hard, rough, adverse, shaggy’, it can safely be determined that pre-modern Mandaic had the word *hazupa which is not attested in CM and has surfaced only in the modern phase of Mandaic. Syr. ‫ ܲ�ܚ ̣ܙܘ ܵܦܐ‬and Mandaic *hazupa probably hark back to the root ḥṣp, whence, inter alia, CM haṣip, haṣipa ‘bold, impudent’ are derived.38 7. heryɔ ‘excrement’ NM heryɔ, heri ‘excrement’ stems from *hiria, the unattested Mandaic ܵ ‫ ܸܚ‬and JBA ‫‘ חריא‬excrement’. Classical Mandaic evinces cognate of Syr. ‫ܪܝܐ‬ a word for ‘excrement’ that has a different nominal pattern, hra, apparܵ ently a contraction of *hraia, Syr. ‫ܚܪ ܵܝܐ‬.39 The latter two cognates are verbal nouns, and these are reflected in NM as (*hərāyā >) hərɔ́ ‘defecating’. Furthermore, the NM verb hry, hərɔ́ , hɔri ‘to defecate’, which is cognate with Ṭuroyo and WNA ḥry and NENA xry, corresponds to MD (152b) hra, ܵ var. hira (cf. Syr. ‫ܚܪܐ‬, verbal root ‫)ܚܪܝ‬, yet these forms do not reflect an attested CM verb but an early NM verb listed in the Glossarium. 8. lahmal ‘the day before yesterday’40 NM lahmal has a striking cognate laḥmal in Hulaula-NENA dialects. Further NENA cognates are, inter alia, J.Koy Sanjaq laləmmal, Bariṭle láṯəmal and Qaraqosh láṯəmmal ~ laṯəmmal (see also p. 130). All these NM and NENA cognates hark back to *laṯmal < *lā tmāl ‘not yesterday’,41 unattested Mandaic *latmal. 35 This highly irregular change of z to s occurs also in *zeḇlā > *zəwla > sula ‘manure’ and its feminine form sulta ‘garbage dump’, both in many NENA dialects. 36 Macuch in HCMM offers the denotations ‘rude, impudent’ (70:14, 518a), coarse (497a) and ‘rough’ (418a), but only the latter two were accepted by my informants. 37 E.g. in Qaraqosh (Khan 2002: 748 and my informant), and see also Maclean 1901: 96b, Oraham 1943: 163a. 38 Cf. HCMM 70. ܵ 39 See Nöldeke 1875: 56. The Syriac form is attested in ‫‘ ܹܒ ݂ܝܬ ܚܪ ܵܝܐ‬latrine’, lit. ‘place of defecating’. 40 Attested in Macuch 1989: 230, whereas in HCMM 64, 241, 586 it is mistranscribed lehmal. 41  See this etymology for Qaraqosh in Khan 2002: 35. The Aramaic negative particle lā is reflected as la in NM (rather than **lɔ, possibly due to Ar. influence), and as for *ṯ > h, cf. *yṯw > *yṯm (early mod. M, Glossarium ytm) > NM yhm ‘to sit’.



neo-mandaic and pre-modern aramaic

43

lahmal-laḥmal-láṯəmal is an old Neo-Mandaic-NENA isogloss which ܵ stands apart from the Syriac parallel ‫ܡܢ ̣ܬ ܵܡܠܝ‬.42 9. le ‘not’ The Ahvaz-NM particle le ‘not’ is freely interchangeable with lo, as in le genzɔ ~ lo genzɔ ‘not much’, le akkoṯ ~ lo akkoṯ ‘not there’, and some speakers tend to pronounce both of these with a palatalised l, viz. lye ~ lyo.43 Khor.-NM exhibits the form lu ‘not, non’, a cognate of Ahvaz lo, as in lu mandiyɔnɔ ‘non-Mandaeans’,44 but has no form cognate with Ahvaz le. The NM particle le is clearly related to JBA ‫לאי‬, ‫*< לאיי‬lā hī ‘she is not’, which is the feminine counterpart of ‫‘ לאו‬not’ dky, dakki, mdakki ‘to extinguish’). Syr. ‫ܥܪ‬ � � ܲ NENA phr, mpāhər and Ṭur. fhr, mfahər, all denoting ‘to yawn’, Syr. ‫ܦ �ܲܗܪ‬, �

52 Cf. HCMM 518b where ‘sandal’ is glossed with the ad hoc ghost-phrase “mār kerā(yā)”, viz. “owner of foot” rather than with genuine NM pərɔmɔ. 53 See CAD P: 361a. 54 The Ahvaz parallel is the phrasal verb šemtɔ qɔṯi, lit. ‘sleep comes’, as in šemti qɔṯi ‘he is sleepy; he yawns’, šemtax qɔṯi, ezgí gəní ‘you’re yawning, go to bed (lit. ‘go sleep’)!’, šemti qɔṯi həwɔ́ ‘he yawned, was yawning, used to yawn’, cf. NENA, e.g. Betanure šənṯi wəlla biṯāya ‘I’m sleepy’.



neo-mandaic and pre-modern aramaic

47

appear to be etymologically related, although the postulated change of ʕ to h is highly irregular. 18. qallɔn ‘blue’55 Ahvaz-NM qallɔn ‘blue’ might have been an insoluble etymological conundrum had it not been for the evidence of Rabbinic Hebrew ‫קלאילן‬, denoting a type of blue or greenish-blue dye and colour.56 The occurrence of this word in RH of the Babylonian Talmud and also in Neo-Mandaic suggests that a word such as ‫ קלאילן‬existed in JBA and pre-modern Mandaic (perhaps as *qalalan) as well, but has remained unattested. The origin of ‫ קלאילן‬is Gk. καλάϊνος, καλλάϊνος ‘greenish-blue or turquoise colour’.57 19. qamṯɔ ‘louse’58 NM qamṯɔ, qamṯ reflects a syncopated descendent of unattested premodern Mandaic *qalmta [*qaləmṯā/*qalməṯā], a cognate of JBA and TO ܵ ‫‘ ܲܩ‬louse’. A closely related NA congener is qaləmtá, ‫ קלמתא‬and Syr. ‫ܠܡܐ‬ � pl. qalmé in J.Sanandaj and a few other Hulaula-NENA dialects. These are geographically the nearest NENA dialects to NM, whereas in other NENA dialects the form is qalma (or qalmá), and, similarly, qalmo in Ṭuroyo.59 20. rəmahrɔ ‘the day after tomorrow’ NM rəmahrɔ, rəmahər is, according to Macuch, derived from *ləmahrā, namely a compound comprising the preposition l and *mahrā ‘tomorrow’ ܵ (cf. Syr. ‫ܡܚܪ‬, JBA ‫)למחר‬.60 Although the semantic change *‘for tomorrow’ > ‘the day after tomorrow’ is not improbable, I would seek another etymological solution for this word which is based on parallels in CA and in 55 HCMM 494b “mēneyī” ‘blue’ could not be corroborated with my informants. It might be either an obsolete NM word or even an ad hoc creation made up by Naṣir Ṣaburi. As Macuch remarked (ibid.), meneyí is derived from menɔ ‘water’ and was coined on the model of NP ābí (cf. a similar calque related to apeyí ‘pink’—see p. 39). 56 See Jastrow 1903: 1371, Kohut 1878–1892, vol. 7: 95, Kohut and Krauss 1937: 362. 57 See Liddell and Scott 1996: 865a, Beekes 2010, vol 1: 621. Cf. also Latin callainus ‘­greenish-blue, turquoise’, borrowed from Greek. 58 The form qomolṯā in HCMM 510a and, similarly, qəmolṯā in Häberl 2009: 41 et passim, is unknown to any of my informants of both NM dialects of Ahvaz and Khorramshahr. If َْ

‫َق ة‬

such a word did exist, it would have been an Aramaicised loanword from Ar. ��‫��م�ل‬. 59 In the light of Neo-Aramaic qaləmtá (pl. qalmé), qamṯɔ etc., as well as the TO and Syr. cognates, there can be hardly any doubt that JBA ‫( קלמתא‬pl. ‫ )קלמי‬denotes ‘louse, lice’ rather than the definition ‘vermin’ in DJBA 1021a. Hence ‫( סריקותא מקטלא קלמי‬ibid.) should be translated ‘a comb (which) kills lice’. 60 HCMM 241:1 and n. 230. The schwa in rəmahrɔ is realised [ə ~ o], hence Macuch’s transcription with o.

48

chapter three

other NA varieties and does not necessitate the questionable reconstruction of *mahrā in Mandaic: rəmahrɔ likely reflects an unattested Mandaic cognate of JBA ‫ליומחרא‬ ‘a later day’, found in the phrase ‫‘ למחר וליומחרא‬sometime in the future’. The form ‫ יומחרא‬consists of ‫‘ יומא‬day’ and ‫‘ אחרא‬later, last’,61 and the latter is a contraction of ‫* ַא ֲח ָריָ א‬, with a typical JBA monophthongisation of final *āyā to ā. Assuming a pre-modern Mandaic etymon *liumahra < *l-yawmā ahrā, the postulated phonological process that yielded rəmahrɔ would be *lyumahrā >*lyimahrā > *limahrā62 >*ləmahrā > rəmahrɔ. Although a contraction of final *āyā to ā was still rare in CM,63 it is regular in Ahvaz and nearly so in Khorramshahr, as in *mḥāyā > *məhɔyɔ > məhɔ́ ‘hitting; a blow’, *qaḏmāyā > *qammāyā > *qamɔyɔ > qamɔ́ ‘before; in front of ’, *krāʕā > Khor. kərɔyɔ ‘leg, foot’ > Ahvaz kərɔ́ ‘ditto’,64 and may have been widespread already in the vernacular forebear of NM. Furthermore, very similar constructions occur elsewhere in Aramaic: Already in Egyptian Aramaic one finds the phrase ‫‘ מחר או יום אחרן‬in the future’, literally ‘tomorrow or another day’ or, quite possibly, ‘tomorrow or the day after tomorrow’,65 and there are portmanteau words derived from *l-hāhu yawmā ḥrenā (‫‘ )*לההוא יומא אחרינא‬to that other day’ in various NENA dialects, e.g. Chamba d-Mallik lomaxrena, Isnakh lawmáxena, Bahnuna lomáxena ‘the day after tomorrow’. A similar phrase is NM yum horinɔ ‘the following day’ (< yumɔ ‘day’ + horinɔ ‘other’). In view of Egyp.Aram. ‫ יום אחרן‬and the NENA parallels, perhaps the element ahrɔ in rəmahrɔ stems from a form such as *aḥrān, akin to Egyp. Aram. ‫ אחרן‬and NENA xrena ‘other’. 21. sahurɔ ‘beggar’66 Ahvaz-NM sahurɔ, sahúr (f. sahortɔ, sahórt) ‘beggar’ is related to the CM verb shr ‘to go around, move about’,67 and the NM reflex of this verb, shr, 61  See DJBA 531a, s.v. ‫יומחרא‬. 62 Similarly, the pronunciation of CM iuhana ‘John’ as ihɔnɔ, involves a change of *yu > *yi > i (cf. HCMM 3). 63 See HCMM 98 (b). 64 When a suffix is added the triphthong is dissolved and the y remains, as in məhɔyu ‘their blow’, qamɔya ‘in front of her’. The contraction of ɔyɔ does not apply to qənɔyɔ, qənɔ́ y ‘silversmith, goldsmith’ and to gentilic nouns such as həḏɔyɔ, həḏɔ́ y ‘Jew’, despəlɔyɔ, despəlɔ́ y ‘Mandaean from Dezful’ (Iran). 65 See DNWSI 42, mng. 2. 66 Cf. MD 320, s.v. shr 2, HCMM 515a, s.v. poor, 596b. 67 See MD 320, s.v. shr 2.



neo-mandaic and pre-modern aramaic

49

səhár, sɔher ‘to beg for charity’ is already attested with this meaning in early modern Mandaic, as is evident in the 17th century Glossarium.68 The semantic change ‘go around’ > *‘be a vagabond’ > ‘beg for charity, alms’ has in all likelihood occurred already in pre-modern Mandaic in view of JBA ‫ סחר‬and Syr. ‫ܣܚܪ‬ �ܲ ‘to beg for charity’,69 and this verb still survives to this day in this denotation in some NENA dialects (e.g. C.Sulemaniyya, C.Shaqlawa, Bariṭle) as sxr, sāxər and in WNA isḥar, yisḥur. NM sahurɔ ‘beggar’ represents an unattested early Mandaic *sahura,70 ܵ ܿ ܵ a cognate of Syr. ‫ܚܘܪܐ‬ ‫‘ ܣ‬ditto’. Furthermore, NM sahurɔ has cognates in two other Neo-Aramaic dialect groups: 1. saḥḥōra and ṣaḥḥōra (with non-etymological ṣ) ‘beggar’ in the WNA dialects of Jubbʿadin and Maʿlula, respectively. 2. saxora ‘beggar’ in a number of Christian NENA dialects, e.g. C.Sulemaniyya, Bariṭle, Qaraqosh, ʿAnkawa and Shaqlawa, as well as with a radical semantic change in the NENA varieties of Barashe, Alqosh, Tkhuma and Ṭyare, where saxora now means ‘stye’. This ­astonishing semantic shift, which, prima facie, looks far-fetched, is nonetheless valid. It is based, at least in some NENA-speaking communities, on a tradition of giving alms to the poor as a means of curing a stye. It is crucial to take into consideration, in this connection, the fact that the very same semantic shift has occurred also in Levantine Arabic šaḥḥā́ḏ (or šaḥḥā́d) ‘beggar; stye’, and, farther afield, in Japanese monomorai ‘id.’71 22. soprinɔ ‘small bird, sparrow’ Ahvaz-NM soprinɔ, soprín ‘(any) small bird, song-bird, sparrow’, has close NA cognates in Ṭur. safruno ‘ditto’, Mlaḥsô saprəntó ‘bird’,72 and WNA ṣafrōna ‘small bird, song-bird’.

68 See ibid. 69 Cf. also the Akk. cognate saḫāru ‘to turn, turn around, go around’ as well as to ‘to appeal, beseech a deity’ (CAD S: 37ff.). 70 As is already recognised in HCMM lvi–lvii. 71  See Grootaers 1987, where on pp. 198–199 the background of the semantic shift ‘beggar’ > ‘stye’ in Japanese is elucidated in view of the fact that “in Japan there is a recurring belief that begging a handful of rice from three neighbours and eating the gruel cures a stye . . . Hence the standard language name for the stye is monomorai “beggar”; and see also Tse 1993: 38. 72 Talay 2002: 701:80.

50

chapter three

Ahvaz soprinɔ is derived from *ṣoprinɔ, a diminutive form of Khor. ṣoprɔ, CM ṣupra ‘bird’. The feminine form ṣuprinta is attested in one of the modern Mandaic sections of ms. DC 45.73 soprinɔ is the sole case of a historical diminutive ending -inɔ in NM.74 The striking Syriac cognate ܿ ‫ܦܪܝ ܵܢܐ‬ ̣ ‫‘ ܨܘ‬small bird’ with the same irregular diminutive suffix (in Syriac, ܵ ܿ ‫)ܨ‬,75 in fact, the whole form is irregular vis-à-vis ‫‘ ܨܸܦܪܐ‬bird’, dim. ‫ܦܪܘ ܵܢܐ‬ ܸ leads to a conclusion that soprinɔ is not a new creation, but rather necessitates the assumption of an unattested pre-modern M *ṣuprina ‘small bird’,76 a cognate of the aforementioned Syriac form, as is shown in the following comparison: *ṣoprā ‘bird’ *ṣoprīnā ‘small bird’

Syriac CM — ṣupra ṣoprīnā —

NM ṣoprɔ (Khor.)77 soprinɔ (Ahvaz)

It follows that NM evinces both basic and diminutive forms, and that the latter may very well have existed in the vernacular Mandaic spoken at the time of CM as a cognate of Syriac ṣoprīnā. 23. ṣeftɔ ‘reed matting, reed mat’78 Ahvaz-NM ṣeftɔ, ṣeft refers to matting made of interwoven reeds which is used mostly as part of the inner thatch that was placed on top of beams and crossbeams in traditional roofs. It is also used as a mat for sitting on, and another use of ṣeftɔ is a container for grain, after the reed matting is rolled, appended by a reed cover, sewn and smeared with tar. This hitherto unattested Mandaic word (*ṣipta) is cognate with JBA ܵ ܿ ‫ציפתא‬, pl. ‫‘ ציפי‬mat’ and Syr. ‫ܨܸܦ ̣ܬܐ‬, ‫‘ ܨܝܦܬܐ‬mat; box (quite possibly inter̈ and is already attested as woven of reeds, as in NM)’, pl. ‫ ̈ܨ ܸ ܹܿܦܐ‬, ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ܹ ܹ ‫;ܨ‬ 73 See MD 390b where the reference should be DC 45 instead of DC 46. 74 The regular Aramaic diminutive suffix -ōnā is no longer productive in NM and occurs as fossilised -unɔ in (1) Ahvaz obrunɔ, obrún ‘mouse’ (< *‘little mouse’), alongside Khor. And obsolescent ahvaz obrɔ (Glossarium aubra) ‘id.’, and (2) zaġunɔ, zaġún, an old diminutive of zɔġɔ ‘cock’ that denotes ‘chick of hen’ in Khor. and ‘chickens’ (coll. noun) in Ahvaz. 75 See Nöldeke 1904: 80, §132. Another possible diminutive with -īnā is Syriac ‫ܦܫܝ ܵܢܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܩܘ‬ ܼ ‘lark’, which may well be etymologically related to ‫ܩܘ ܵܦ ܵܫܐ‬ ܼ ‘bird which captures flies and gnats’, or borrowed from Akk. kubšānu ‘a crested bird’ (cf. Zimmern 1917: 51) or kibšu/kipšu ‘a kind of bird’ with a change to a diminutive form. 76 Note that MD 390b ṣuprina is not really attested, but only ṣuprinta in ms. DC 45. 77 Also in de Morgan’s Iraqi NM texts as the pl. form ṣoprɔnɔ, soprɔnɔ (Macuch 1989: 250). 78 Cf. MD 510b “matting—softa”. The local Arabic name for ṣeftɔ is bārye (< Aram., cf. JBA ‫‘ בוריא‬reed mat’ < Akk. burû). For reed mats and matting in the Iraqi marshes see Salim 1962: 104–107, Ochsenschlager 2004: 155.



neo-mandaic and pre-modern aramaic

51

Egyp.Aram. ‫‘ צפא‬reed mat’.79 No cognates are known to exist in other NA varieties. The phonological processes that have yielded the form ṣeftɔ with f for *pp and t for *ṯ are unclear to me, yet exact parallel reflexes of old forms which ended with *C1C1əṯā are the norm in Neo-Mandaic, as is shown below: Etymon Classical Mandaic80 *ṣippəṯā — *squppəṯā squpta ‘threshold, sill’ *tikkəṯā tikta ‘drawstring’ *dukkəṯā dukta ‘place’

Neo-Mandaic ṣeftɔ ‘reed matting’ (Ahvaz) səqoftɔ ‘threshold’81 textɔ ‘drawstring’ (Ahvaz)82 doxtɔ ‘place (Khor.); ‘clay larder’ (Ahvaz)

24. šaṣrɔ ‘cockroach, cricket’ Ahvaz-NM šaṣrɔ, šaṣər appears to be a metathesised form of older *šarṣɔ < ܵ ‫‘ ܸܫ‬creeping pre-modern M *šarṣa, a cognate of JBA ‫שרצא‬, ‫שירצא‬, Syr. ‫ܪܨܐ‬ animal’. No cognate is known to occur in other NA varieties. Alternatively, a connection with Akk. šassūru, apparently referring to a kind of insect, might deserve consideration. 25. šdy ‘to spin yarn’ Ahvaz-NM šdy ‘to spin yarn (with a spindle)’, šədát ‘she spun yarn’, qəšidɔ ‘she spins yarn’ is already attested in JBA as ‫‘ שדי‬to spin or twist thread’.83 As for CM, šda in the sense ‘to spin’ is not attested in MD (s.v. šda 2), but šdy ‘to spin yarn’ have likely existed in pre-modern M in view of the NM and JBA findings. CM šda ‘to fasten, bind tightly’84 might be considered a valid cognate of JBA85 and an antecedent of NM šdy, and if so, the meaning ‘to spin yarn’ should be added to the semantic scope of this verb.

79 Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 711, s.v. ‫צף‬. 80 The traditional readings of CM tikta and dukta as textɔ and doxtɔ (cf. HCMM 36:27, 175:4) might only reflect the way these are pronounced in NM rather than ancient pronunciations. 81  See p. 94 below. 82 Cf. HCMM 175:4 “tikta texta—strap (now used in the Ar. form tikke)” and 521b “strap tikke”, but my informants know only textɔ, text ‘drawstring’ in NM. It might be that Naṣir Ṣaburi, Macuch’s main NM informant, did not recall the NM word when he was asked to furnish it. 83 See DJBA 1112a, s.v. ‫ ׁשדי‬2. A secondary JBA verbal root derived from ‫ שדי‬is ‫‘ שוד‬ditto’ (DJBA 1115–1116). 84 See MD 449b, s.v. šda 2, šdd, where a further definition, ‘to overpower’, is not borne out by the quoted passages adduced in the entry. 85 As in DJBA 1112a, s.v. ‫ ׁשדי‬2.

52

chapter three

If, however, CM šda ‘to fasten’ is a by-form of šdd and the etymon is šdd, as suggested in MD,86 then perhaps NM šdy reflects another pre-modern *šda unrelated to the attested CM verb. NM and JBA šdy is possibly the same common Aramaic verbal root ‫ܫܕܝ‬, ‫‘ שדי‬to throw’, which developed the meaning ‘to spin yarn’ in M and JBA since traditional spinning of yarn is performed with a drop spindle, i.e. a spindle that is dropped down in order to keep the newly spun yarn taut, and this dropping might have been seen as close enough to throwing (consider CM šda ‘to cast, throw, drop’, etc.). The connection between processing weaving material and throwing can be clearly seen in NENA šḏy ‘to card wool’ < ‘to throw’ and in English warp, which is etymologically related to old English weorpan ‘to throw’. An alternative etymology might be a development of šdy from šty, which occurs in CM (šta), Syriac (‫ )ܫܬܝ‬and JPA (‫ )שתי‬in ap̄ ʿel in the sense ‘to weave’, and in Syriac also ‘to make warp (of loom).87 This šty is a denominative of šeṯyā (or šiṯyā) ‘warp’, which is attested, inter alia, in JBA as ‫שתיא‬. A postulated process šty > šdy would entail a change of t to d by partial assimilation to the following y, and precisely this process appears to have َّ َ ََ ًَ � � � � occurred in Arabic, where ‫ �س�د ى‬and ‫‘ �س�د ى‬to make warp’, ‫‘ ��س�د �ى‬warp’ and Iraqi Ar. sida ‘warp’88 are in all probability derived َّ َ sadda (sdy) ‘to weave’, ََ from ‫‘ ��سـتى‬to lay out warp’, ‫‘ ��سـتى‬warp’, the Ar. cognate of Aramaic ‫שתיא‬.89 The possible etymology of NM and JBA šdy being derived from šty ‘to make warp’ is, however, somewhat problematic in light of the use of the verb in question in pəʿal, which is hardly used with denominative verbs, rather than the expected ap̄ ʿel as the stem attested with regard to CA šty ‘to weave’. 26. šəburɔ ‘large-scaled barb (fish)’ NM šəburɔ, šəbúr ‘larged-scaled barb, Barbus grypus’, might hark back to unattested Mandaic *šibuṭa (cf. JBA ‫שיבוטא‬, Syr. ‫ )ܫܝܒܘܛܐ‬or *šabuṭa (cf. Syr. ‫ )ܫܒܘܛܐ‬with a change of ṭ to r by analogy with another large fish called ṣəbúr, as is elaborated on below, pp. 73–75.

ّ

86 Where the comparative-etymological data refer to “Targ. and H ‫ׁשדד‬, Ar. ‫ ”�ش���د‬. 87 See Audo 1897: 607. 88 Woodhead and Beene 1967: 216b. 89 For a similar case of a change t > d near a voiced consonant consider common NENA štl, štāla ‘to plant’ > Ṭyare šdl, šdāla ‘to stick in, insert’.



neo-mandaic and pre-modern aramaic

53

27. šəhertɔ ‘throat’ Another possible case of a NM word derived from a hitherto unattested M etymon, possibly *hirušta, is šəhertɔ, šəhért ‘throat’, assuming that this ܵ ܿ is etymologically related to Syr. ‫ܪܘܫܬܐ‬ ‫‘ ܸܚ‬id.’—see p. 18. 28. šomrɔ ‘cobweb’ Ahvaz-NM šomrɔ, šomər reflects pre-modern Mandaic *šumra ‘soot’, a ܵ cognate of Syr. ‫‘ ܸܫܡܪܐ‬smoke, vapour, soot’.90 The NM word assumedly underwent the following metonymic changes: *‘soot’ > *‘cobweb attached to beams of the ceiling and overlapping—or darkened with—soot emitted from the hearth’ > ‘(any) cobweb’. For ‘soot’ NM uses səxɔ́ m,91 from َ‫��ُ خ‬ ‫س‬ Ar. ‫ ��ا‬. ‫م‬ A metonymy ‘soot’ > ‘cobweb’ has also occurred independently in some NENA cognates of šomrɔ. The basic and nearly ubiquitous meaning of these cognates is ‘soot’, e.g. Qaraqosh and Barwar šəmra,92 Barzan šəmṛa, Sandu šumṛa. A few Jewish NENA dialects evince a semantic change from soot to cobweb, which occurred due to the fact that in traditional houses in the NENA-speaking area both soot from the hearth and dark cobweb clung to the beams of the ceiling. Thus in the Lishana Deni cluster: J.Dohok šəmṛa and J.Zakho šəmṛa ~ šumṛa ‘soot; cobweb’;93 and independently in Jewish Azerbaijan, with a complete metonymy: J.Salmas šəmrá and J.Urmi +šəmrá ‘cobweb’.94 29. šɔṯɔ ‘shoulder’ Khor. šɔṯɔ, šɔṯ ‘shoulder’ is now apparently nearly obsolete due to the extensive use of the synonym šɔnɔ, šɔn, borrowed from NP ‫�ش���ا ن��ه‬.95 In Ahvaz only šɔnɔ, šɔn is used for ‘shoulder’.96 Khor.-NM šɔṯɔ has emerged by metanalysis of tuṯšɔṯɔ ‘armpit’, where tuṯ is ‘under’ and šɔṯɔ was construed as ‘shoulder’. šɔṯɔ itself descends from unattested M *šhata ‘armpit’, which

90 See Thesaurus 4221. 91  Cf. HCMM 520b “soot—okmā”, but NM okmɔ denotes ‘blackness’. 92 Khan 2002: 744, Khan 2008, vol. 2: 1407. 93 Consider Avineri 1988: 160, n. 1141 šumṛa, glossed ‘soot like cobweb’. 94 The semantic shift in J.Salmas and J.Urmi may have occurred under the impact of Azerbaijani qurum ‘soot; cobweb’. 95 One elderly Khor.-NM speaking female informant used both šɔṯɔ and šɔnɔ, three other informants furnished only šɔnɔ. The adaptation of NP šɔná to NM šɔnɔ indicates that this is no recent borrowing. 96 In Macuch 1993: 436 šɔṯ is glossed ‘shoulder, upper arm’ but in Ahvaz-NM šɔṯɔ, šɔṯ only occurs as part of the compound tuṯšɔṯɔ ‘armpit’—see ibid. 342:2133.

54

chapter three

ܵ ܵ is cognate with Syr. ‫ܫܚ ̣ܬܐ‬ ‘ditto’. For further discussion of šɔṯɔ and tuṯšɔṯɔ see pp. 125–126. 30. trewšabbɔ, klɔṯawšabbɔ, arawšabbɔ ‘Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday’ The NM names of the days of the week from Monday to Wednesday are reflexes of proto-forms which do not correspond to attested forms in literary M: Monday Tuesday Wednesday

Literary Mandaic Pre-NM etyma trin (ḏ-)habšaba *tri bšaba tlata (ḏ-)habšaba *tlata bšaba arba habšaba *arba bšaba

Neo-Mandaic trewšabbɔ, trawšabbɔ klɔtawšabbɔ, klɔtošabbɔ arawšabbɔ, arošabbɔ

In order to elucidate these NM compounds from a diachronic point of view, let us examine the days of the week in NM, compared to literary M and to a representative NENA dialect (Isnakh, Iraq): Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

Literary Mandaic habšaba, iuma qadmaia ḏ-habšaba trin (ḏ-)habšaba tlata (ḏ-)habšaba arba habšaba hamša habšaba ʿurubta, ʿurupta šapta

Neo-Mandaic97 hewšabbɔ98

NENAIsnakh xawšāba

trewšabbɔ, trawšabbɔ klɔṯawšabbɔ, klɔṯošabbɔ99 arawšabbɔ, arošabbɔ ( yum) hiwelziwɔ oroftɔ šaftɔ

trúšāba ṭḷātáwšāba ʔarbáwšāba xamšáwšāba ruta šabta

As is shown in the foregoing table, there are two major differences between NM and LM, related to (1) The days from Sunday to Wednesday, and (2) Thursday. In detail: (1) In NM days from Sunday to Wednesday are expressed by constructions stemming from a numeral followed by šabbɔ, an old st. abs. of šapta. These constructions, which have closely related cognates in NENA (see above, and, as for Sunday, also in Ṭur. dialects ḥušabo, ḥawšabo, ḥəšabo and Maʿlula ḥašoppa), are inherited from unattested pre-modern Mandaic 97 All these have truncated alternants: hewšáb, trewšáb, klɔṯawšáb, arawšáb, hiwelzíw, oróft, šaft. There is also a facultative schwa in the words for ‘Monday’ and ‘Tuesday’, hence occasionally tərewšáb(bɔ), kəlɔtawšáb(bɔ). 98 *haḇšabbā > hewšabbɔ by analogy with the e in trewšabbɔ ‘Monday’. 99 In Macuch 1993: 443 tlāṯa-heḇšabbā is a classicism (tlata habšaba), whereas the genuine NM word, klɔṯawšabbɔ, is already mentioned in HCMM 205:30 (spelled klāθa-šabba).



neo-mandaic and pre-modern aramaic

55

forms akin to JBA ‫‘ תרי בשבא‬Monday’, ‫ תלתא בשבא‬Tuesday’, ‫ארבעא בשבא‬ ‘Wednesday’. The literary Mandaic parallels, such as trin (ḏ-)habšaba are all post-classical formations where the numeral is followed by habšaba ܲ� ‫)ܚ ̣ܕ‬. ‘Sunday’100 (cf. JBA ‫חד בשבא‬, Syr. ‫ܒܫ ܵܒܐ‬ �ܲ In late Mandaic habšaba assumed the meaning ‘week’ in constructions expressing the days of the week from Sunday to Thursday, as is shown in the table above and most clearly in iuma qadmaia ḏ-habšaba ‘the first day of Sunday’, viz. of the week. Since the NM forms of the words for ‘Monday’, ‘Tuesday’ and ‘Wednesday’ are older than the literary Mandaic parallels, we may reconstruct *tri bšaba, *tlata bšaba and *arba bšaba as the pre-modern antecedents of the NM forms. Although, admittedly, a process of the type *tre hawšabbā > trewšabbɔ ‘Monday’ is not impossible, the simplest way of reconstructing the antecedent of trewšabbɔ would be *tre ḇ-šabbā, in line with the NENA cognate trúšāba (< *trəwšāba) and CA parallels like JBA ‫תרי בשבא‬, and likewise concerning ‘Tuesday’ and ‘Wednesday’. (2) As for the word for ‘Thursday’, LM hamša habšaba, there appears to be evidence for the NM reflex of earlier *hamša bšaba in an article by Albert Houtum-Schindler, who had contacts with Mandaeans in Persia in 1877 and recorded it as “Ḥamsha Shaba”.101 This phrase, plausibly pronounced [hamšawˈšabbɔ], was later replaced with (yum) hiwelziwɔ ‘the day of Hibil Ziwa’, i.e. Thursday came to be named after hibil ziua, a prominent Lightworld being in the Mandaean religion.102 31. yimb- ~ yomb- ‘be able’ The NM verboid yimb- is inflected with pronominal suffixes, as in yimba ‘she might be able’, and with the indicative prefix: qəyimba ‘she is able, she will be able’. Some NM speakers often pronounce this verboid yomb-, with partial assimilation of i to the following labial consonant. When the indicative prefix is attached to the form yomb- the result is qəyomb ~ qyomb, or the syncopated form qomb-, as in qombax ‘you are able’, qombi həwɔ́ ‘he was able’.

100 See Macuch 1965: 163, n. 90, HCMM 205:28ff. 101  The Mandaic names for the days of the week according to the same author were “Hebshaba, Atren Shaba, Thelatha Shaba, Arbâ Shaba, Ḥamsha Shaba, Urupta, Shafta” (Houtum-Shindler 1891: 668). 102 Mandaeans consider Thursday a day governed by Hibil Ziwa (cf. Drower 1937: 75), hence a favourable day and a day good for prayer. For Hibil Ziwa see Buckley 2002: 8–9, 198 et passim.

56

chapter three

The form qomb- was the only one Macuch elicited from his main informant Naṣir Ṣaburi in the 1950s. The superficial similarity of this form with the 2sg.m. imperative form qom ‘stand up!’ prompted Franz Rosenthal to suggest to Macuch the etymology qum ‘to stand!’ with an enclitic preposition b, a suggestion which Macuch readily accepted.103 Macuch later suggested a derivation from the perfective form qam ‘he stood’, i.e. a fossilised form derived from qam and the preposition b, while regarding the form ulnʿqambhun in a Mandaic lead roll, which Macuch translated ‘and they do not exercise [any] power’, as a harbinger of NM qomb-.104 The analysis of the verbal nucleus of ulnʿqambhun as a 3sg.m. imperfective form of qum ‘to stand’ is problematic, since the expected form would have been niqum rather than nʿqam. Yet even if Macuch’s grammatical analysis and meaning of ulnʿqambhun are correct, the form nʿqambhun cannot possibly have anything to do with NM qomb-, since (as Macuch found out a few decades after publishing the lead roll with that form) q in qəyimb-, qyomb-, qomb- etc. is an indicative prefix, and the irrealis (modal) forms of this verboid are based on yimb- or yomb-, like yimbi ‘he might be able’, yombu ‘they might be able’.105 The etymology of yimbi ~ yombi ‘he would be able’ should rather be sought in light of parallel verboids which exist in all other major NA languages, and can be shown to be cognates. These include: 1. WNA: Maʿl. ippe ~ uppe, Bax. uppi, Jub. eppe ‘it has, there is in it; he is able’, and Maʿl. ippe ~ uppe, Bax. yuppi ‘roughly, some’, the latter with a verbal prefix y-.106 2. NENA ʔibe ‘he is able’ in many dialects of Iraq and Turkey, mostly in the areas of Mosul, northwestern Iraq, Cudi Dağ and Bohtan. Some

103 See HCMM 161, n. 15, 1968: 71, and see also Macuch 1989: 15, 1993: 6–7. 104 Macuch 1967: 111–112, Macuch 1968: 71, Macuch 1989: 15, Macuch 1993: 6–7. 105 Cf. Macuch 1993: 6–7. Furthermore, I find Macuch’s claim (Ibid.: 6) that the form qombax ‘you can’ already appears in Draša ḏ-Yahia (Johannesbuch) unlikely. The form in context is qumbun (var. qumbak) brahmak šania ‘devote yourself to (lit. “get up in”) your sublime prayers’ (see Lidzbarski 1915, vol. 1: 111:3), where qumbun is composed of the inchoative imperative qum (lit. ‘get up!) and bun (< *bhon) ‘in them’ is a proleptic particle with the preposition b- ‘in’. Hence qumbun is etymologically and semantically unrelated to NM yomb- and qyomb- ~ qomb-. The variant qumbak (ibid., n. 4) is probably the result of miscopying, and at any rate the meaning of NM qombax ‘you can’ does not fit the context. 106 Arnold 1990: 188–189. The prefix is derived from the 3sg.m. form of the verbal prefix conjugation. Stadel (2013: 337) found textual evidence for the meaning ‘to be able’ only in the dialect of Maʿlula.



neo-mandaic and pre-modern aramaic

57

NENA dialects retain the erstwhile meaning ‘there is in it, it contains’, either as the sole meaning (e.g. Barzan) or alongside ‘he is able’ (e.g. J.Dohok). 3. Mlaḥsô hibe ‘he is able’.107 4. Ṭuroyo kibe ‘it contains; he can’ with the verbal indicative prefix k-. The negated form laybe ‘it does not contain; he cannot’< *lá-ybeh is based on the older, bare form.108 The etymon of all these forms is ʔīṯ beh ‘there is in him; he can’, which goes back to Late Antiquity, being attested in JPA as ‫אית בה‬, and in Samaritan Aramaic only in negated forms such as ‫‘ לית בי‬I cannot’.109 Thus all major Neo-Aramaic varieties have reflexes of ʔīṯ beh, and, moreover, not only Neo-Mandaic but also Ṭuroyo and WNA evince (independent) developments of forms with a verbal prefix: Etymon Bare ʔiṯ beh Prefixed –ʔiṯ beh

WNA ippe, uppi yuppi

Mlaḥsô Ṭuroyo NENA NM hibe (laybe) ʔibe yimbi/yombi — kibe — qəyimbi/q(əy)ombi

The ubiquitous presence of reflexes of ʔiṯ b- throughout Neo-Aramaic in the sense ‘to be able’ attests to a considerable chronological depth. Presumably ʔiṯ beh ‘he can’ spread as an areal feature from west (where it is attested already in JPA and Sam.Aram.) to east (where it is not attested in CA), and completed its spread all the way to Mandaic sometime before Mandaic became isolated from the rest of NA. NM yimbi is, therefore, derived from a pre-modern Mandaic form which may be reconstructed as *imbi, with a typical Mandaic dissimilatory change of *bb to mb. 32. zowdɔ ‘freshly churned liquid butter’ NM zowdɔ, zowd ‘freshly churned liquid butter’ (cf. miššɔ, miš ‘clarified butter; oil’) can hardly be a borrowing from local Ar. zibid ‘ditto’. Such a borrowing would have yielded NM zebdá or a less adapted form.110 Rather, the NM form should be considered a reflex of unattested pre-modern M 107 Jastrow 1994: 176. 108 Jastrow 1992: 107. 109 For the JPA and Sam.Aram. evidence see Stadel 2013: 337–338. 110 Cf. literary M zabad ‘foam, butter’ (MD 156b), with unexpected vowels vis-à-vis local Ar. zibid. Post-cl. M has the puzzling forms azabid, azbid, which are rendered ‘butter, cream’ in MD 11b, but this interpretation is very doubtful.

58

chapter three

*zubda, a cognate of late Syr. ‫ ܙܘ ̣ܒ ܵܕܐ‬ The ultimate origin of these ̣ 111 ‘cream’. ‫�زُْ َ ة‬ Late Aramaic forms is quite possibly Ar. � ‫‘ ب��د‬butter, cream’,112 yet, assuming this etymology, the fricative ḇ in Syriac and, likewise, *ḇ > w in NM suggest a very old borrowing (see further pp. 116–117). 3.3.2 Early Iranian Loanwords Hitherto Unattested in Literary Mandaic Iranian had a profound lexical influence on Mandaic, and NM is replete with loanwords of Iranian pedigree. Loanwords from modern Iranian are derived not only from Persian (especially the local Dezfuli and Shushtari dialects), but also from Luri, the Iranian language continuum (including Bakhtiari dialects) with which the Mandaeans had been in contact before persecution of their northern Khuzestani communities (mainly of Shushtar, Dezful and Shah Vali) drove them southward to Ahvaz and Khorramshahr in the second half of the 19th century. These loanwords, and indeed all loanwords in NM, can be divided into two chronological strata: (1) Early loanwords, which have been assimilated to NM phonology, and (2) recent loanwords, which are unadapted or adapted to a lesser extent. A major difference between early and recent Iranian (and other) loans is that the former have typical native NM penultimate stress whereas the latter’s stress in on the ultima as in Iranian. Among the older, adapted Iranian loanwords are bɔwɔ, bɔw ‘father’ (Luri dialects bəw, baβá),113 already attested in literary Mandaic as baba ‘father, daddy’,114 liškɔ, lišk ‘branch’ (Bakhtiari lišk),115 tarrɔ, tar ‘leek’ ‫ت‬ (NP ‫ �ـ�ره‬tarré), and probably əṣṭɔnɔ, əṣṭɔ́ n ‘boy (child or adolescent)’116 ‫ن‬ from NP � ‫ ا ����س�تـوا‬ustuwā́n ‘firm; trustworthy’,117 and ġazzɔ, ġaz ‘chewing gum, traditionally made of sweetened tamarisk resin’, which might be an early loan from MP gaz ‘tamarisk; tragacanth’ with a semantic shift under

111  Vocalisation follows Audo 1897: 250a. 112 For Syriac cf. SL 369a. 113 Anonby 2003: 186. 114 An alternative etymology would be to assume that Mandaic baba is an older borrowing from Iranian that was initially pronounced bābā—cf. NENA bāba ‘father’—and later changed to bɔwɔ either due to Luri influence or, if a very old loanword, according to the bgdkpt rule b > ḇ. Either etymological pathway would provide a satisfactory explanation for the occurrence of w as the second consonant of baba (cf. HCMM 33, lines 10ff.). 115 Lorimer 1922: 121b. Pace Macuch 1993: 409, this word does not occur in NENA. 116 Cf. HCMM 540a et passim oṣṭāna ‘young man, youth’. əṣṭɔnɔ [əṣˈṭɔnɔ ~ uṣˈṭɔnɔ] is occasionally pronounced ṣṭɔnɔ in external sandhi following a vowel, as in qazġɔ́ n tam qɔri ṣṭɔnɔ ‘a cauldron begot a boy’ (Häberl 2009: 292:17). 117 As already explained in HCMM 540a.



neo-mandaic and pre-modern aramaic

59

the influence of NP gaz ‘tamarix gum; type of candy, a nougat made of honeydew called gaz angobīn’.118 Examples of unadapted or less adapted Iranian loans are gerzá ‘rat’ (Bakhtiari girzá), čehí ~ čohí ‘tea’ (Dezfuli-NP čöí, Shushtari-NP čohí),119 Ahvaz-NM kollóh ‘locust, grasshopper’, which must be borrowed from modern Iranian (Luri?) in the light of Sorani Kurdish kule and MP kullag ‘locust’.120 In addition to modern Iranian loanwords, Neo-Mandaic has inherited from pre-modern Mandaic some much older Iranian loanwords. One such early Iranian loan is NM deštɔ, dešt ‘land, earth, ground’,121 which is attested in CM as dišta ‘prairie, desert etc.’, from MP dašt, or ultimately inherited from an older Aramaic stratum which had in turn borrowed it from Old Iranian *daxšta- (see pp. 177–178). In what follows I shall discuss 6 NM words that appear to have been borrowed from Middle Iranian, but have hitherto remained unattested in CM: 1. bɔdingɔ ‘aubergine, eggplant’ Ahvaz Neo-Mandaic bɔdingɔ, bɔdíng is clearly Iranian, yet it was not bor‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ rowed from NP bādinjān (� ‫)ب�ا د �ـ� ج��ـ�ا‬. The etymon is the older Persian form ‫ن ـگ ن‬ bādingān (� ‫��ا‬ � ‫)ب�ـ�ا د ��ـ‬, which, though found in some NP dictionaries,122 is probably not a modern spoken form but appears to represent the Middle Persian and early NP antecedent of bādinjān. Hence bādingān may well have been borrowed already by pre-modern Mandaic as *badingan or perhaps *badinga. This assumption is enhanced by the fact that MP

118  I owe this etymology to Prof. Martin Schwartz, University of California. For NP gaz and gaz angobīn see Maleki and Djazayeri 1972, Grami and Ghanoonparvar 2000. The postulated irregular change g > ġ has a parallel in the case of archaic Ahvaz-NM ġamṣɔ, ġamṣ ‘locust, grasshopper’ (now nearly obsolete and replaced by kollóh—see immediately below), which is cognate with Khor.-NM gamṣɔ, gamṣ ‘id.’, literary M gamṣa ‘locust’ (< *qamṣā). 119  MacKinnon 1974: 90. Native Ahvaz-NM words for ‘tea’, which were documented by Macuch (HCMM 522b, 1989: 216) are holyɔ (lit. ‘sweetness’, also used for ‘sugar’, cf. həlí ‘sweet; beautiful’) and okmɔ (lit. ‘blackness’, cf. okumɔ, okúm ‘black’). The former was recognised by my informants as a cryptic word, and the latter seems to have been used as a cryptic word as well, but my contemporary Mandaic informants recognise okmɔ only in the sense of ‘blackness’. 120 MacKenzie 1986: 52. 121  Already listed in the Glossarium in the sense of ‘land’ (see MD 109b). 122 For instance in Steingass 1892: 140a.

60

chapter three

bādingān was borrowed into another Aramaic language, namely Syriac, as ‫ܒܐܕܢܓܐܢ‬.123 2. hawuġɔ ‘co-wife, rival wife’ Neo-Mandaic hawuġɔ, hawúġ ‘co-wife’ is related to NP havū (‫ )�هوو‬and Bakhtiari dialects havū, habbū ‘id.’,124 but these modern Iranian forms are clearly not the direct sources of the NM word. The ġ in NM requires an older Iranian etymon that ended in a consonant (cf., e.g., NP ‫ بـ�يـوه‬bīva ‘widow’ and its Middle Iranian precursor wēwag).125 Such an etymon indeed exists as MP ʾbwg ‘ditto’,126 and therefore one ought to assume an unattested Mandaic form *habuga as the direct source of the NM word. Although reflexes of the final consonant of the Iranian etymon still exist in a few modern Iranian languages, such as Anaraki huwuk127 and Balochi awōx,128 these languages are spoken in areas too far geographically from NM to be considered relevant. The representation of MP final g as Mandaic ġ is, however, irregular, since the regular Mandaic reflex of final k/g in Middle Iranian nouns is qa (see jəwɔnqɔ and ṭawunqɔ below). Perhaps this irregularity can be attributed to َthe ّ َ ‫ ض‬influence of ġ in CM hambaga (hambāġā) ‘enemy, adversary’ (cf. Ar. ‫ ����ـ�ره‬and its cognates H ‫ ָצ ָרה‬, Aram. ‫‘ ָע ָרה‬rival wife, co-wife’ < ‘adversary’). CM hambaga itself was borrowed from Parthian ambāġ ‘rival, foe’ or from unattested Parthian *hambāġ (< OP *hambāga).129 Hence NM hawuġɔ might be a conflation of—or a result of the interaction between— two words of Iranian origin, *habuqa and hambaga, yielding *habuga. 3. jəwɔnqɔ ‘unmarried young man’ NM jəwɔnqɔ, jəwɔ́ nq ‘unmarried young man’ and NENA jwanqa ‘ditto’ both must be much older than the modern Aramaic period. jəwɔnqɔ and its NENA congener must have been borrowed (quite possibly as two independent borrowings) in pre-modern Aramaic times from the Iranian pre‫ن‬ cursor of modern forms such as NP javān (� ‫) ج�وا‬, Bakhtiari juwūñ.130

123 See SL 114a. 124 For the Bakhtiari forms see Henning 1940: 17–18. 125 MacKenzie 1986: 90. 126 For a discussion of this form and its cognates see Henning 1940: 17–18. 127 Ivanow 1926: 422. 128 Morgenstierne 1975: 158. ܲ 129 For the Iranian etyma see Ciancaglini 2008: 160, and see also SL 328, s.v. ‫ܗ ܵܒ ܵܓܐ‬. � 130 For the latter see Lorimer 1922: 111a.



neo-mandaic and pre-modern aramaic

61

This precursor appears in early modern Persian as jawānak (‫) ج�وا ن��ك‬ ‘youngster’ (Steingass 1892: 376). Similar cases whereby final -ag/k is reflected as qa in Aramaic is Middle Iranian *nišānak (cf. MP nīšān ‘sign, mark’) > CM nišanqa, NENA nišanqa ‘sign, mark’, and *anguš(t)-pānak (cf. MP angustbān ‘finger-guard’) > JBA ‫‘ גושפנקא‬signet, seal’, CM gušbanqa ‘ditto’.131 4. kɔxɔ ‘type of thin dry bread’ NM kɔxɔ, kɔx is a thin, dry type of bread which is baked with milk and is eaten during the Mandaean festival of dehwɔ rabbɔ ‘the Great Feast’. The word in question most probably harks back to unattested early Mandaic *kaka, and is derived from the same etymon as JBA ‫ככא‬, ‫ כעכא‬and late ܵ ‫ܟ‬,ܲ both denoting a type of bread. The etymon appears to be Syriac ‫ܥܟܐ‬ � the Middle Iranian precursor of NP kāk ‘biscuit, dry bread’.132 An etymological affiliation between NM kɔxɔ and CM kuka ‘votive cake’ (or a similar meaning)133 is hardly likely, assuming that the latter, as well as its JBA cognate ‫‘ כוכא‬loaf ’, were borrowed from Akk. kukku ‘a type of bread or cake’. Were NM kɔxɔ ultimately descended from kukku, one would have expected its form to have been **kokkɔ, whereas kɔxɔ is suggestive of Iranian provenance. 5. prds ‘finish, complete, be completed, end’ NM prds is inflected as pardes, mpardes ~ (with anaptyxis:) əmpardes134 ‘to finish, finish up (e.g. meal), complete, end (tr.)’ and epardas, mpardas ~ (with anaptyxis:) əmpardas (< *mepardas < *meṯpardas) ‘to be finished, completed, end (intr.)’. This verb is not found in literary M sources, but is already attested in JBA as ‫‘ פרדס‬to finish (tr.)’, and the etymology of the latter and of the hitherto unattested Mandaic cognate *prds is MP pardāz-, the present stem of pardāxtan meaning, inter alia, ‘to accomplish; be accomplished, finished’.135

131  See DJBA 273a. See also the account of the rendering of MP final g in Syriac in Ciancaglini 2008: 71–73. 132 See DJBA 593–594. 133 See MD 206a. 134 Thus in Ahvaz. In Khor.-NM the forms are pardas, əmpardas (Häberl 2009: 210). 135 See MacKenzie 1986: 64, DJBA 928b, and see also Nyberg 1964–1974, vol. 2: 150–151, where the form is pardaxtan and the present is pardac-. The verb pardāxtan exists also in NP in the senses of ‘to polish, gloss, furbish, give a finish to’ (Haim 1997: 170), but the semantic and phonetic similarity of NM prds to its JBA cognate and to MP all lead to a MP origin of this NM verbal root.

62

chapter three

6. ṭawungɔ, ṭawunqɔ ‘shallow wicker basket’ Ahvaz-NM ṭawungɔ, ṭawúng ~ ṭawunqɔ, ṭawúnq136 refer to a shallow wicker basket137 used for storing loaves of bread. Formerly it was also used as a tray for meals that was placed on the ground. It is likely inherited from unattested Mandaic *ṭabunqa, borrowed from MP tabangōg,138 the forerunner of NP tabangū ‘baker’s tray; a wicker basket, chest (etc.)’.139 The form ṭawunqɔ is assumedly older and ṭawungɔ is assumed to have developed from it by partial assimilation of q to n. 3.3.3 Akkadian Lexical Influences Surfacing in Neo-Mandaic Neo-Mandaic abounds with words of Akkadian and possible Akkadian origin, and nearly all of these are already attested in CM. Thus, for example, pelqɔ, pelq ‘spindle’ < pilqa < Akk. pilaqqu (see pp. 82–84); ziqɔ, ziq ‘flatulence, colic; birth pangs’ < ziqa ‘wind; flatulence’, very likely < Akk. zīqu ‘breath, breeze, blast of air’ (note the Akk. verb ziāqu, zāqu ‘to blow’, whereas Aramaic has only the noun ‫זיקא‬, and consider also the mostly eastern distribution of ‫)זיקא‬.140 Another case is Ahvaz-NM kankuzɔ, kankúz ‘chin’ < kankuza < kanzuza ‘id’, which features in Macuch’s publications as a borrowing from ܵ Akk. kanzūzu ‘chin’.141 kanzuza and its Syriac cognate ‫ܟܠ ̣ܙܘ ܵܙܐ‬, not related to any known Aramaic root or etymon, are, in all likelihood, indeed of Akkadian origin.142 Other Akkadian lexical influences on Mandaic are, e.g., NM ešqad, ašqad ‘last year’ < *eš(t)qad as a calque on Akk. šaddaqdim (see below, no. 6); and the usage of NM goṭrɔ, goṭər ‘smoke’ < guṭra ‘id.’ as a cognate of Akk. qutru ‘id.’—compare reflexes of OA ‫ תנן‬in JPA, Sam.Aram., Syriac,

136 In my data-base the distribution of these two alternant forms depends on idiolect and family, and no single speaker uses both forms. It might be that the two forms hark back to different Ahvaz-NM sub-dialects which are now untraceable or hardly so. 137 In Macuch 1989: 222 transcribed ṭawonġa, ṭawonqa and incorrectly defined as “Tuch”. 138 MacKenzie 1986: 81, s.v. tabangōg [tpngwk’] ‘box, chest’. 139 Steingass 1892: 281. 140 Cf. Kaufman 1974: 114, where the question of cognate or loan is left open. 141  Macuch 1965: 154, HCMM lvii, 536–537, MD 199a. 142 The occurrence of kanzūzu only in sources of the non-spoken and somewhat contrived Standard Babylonian ( Jungbabylonisch) should not be taken as a serious obstacle, since many older genuine Akkadian words surfaced in these sources. This argument applies to other cases of Akkadian substrate words in Aramaic which are attested only in Standard Babylonian, especially when these are confined to Eastern Aramaic varieties, e.g. NM šiṣɔ, JBA ‫‘ שיצא‬date of bad quality’ (see No. 3 below).



neo-mandaic and pre-modern aramaic

63

NENA and Mlaḥsô (see pp. 148–149), and also in CM as tana, pl. tanania ‘cosmic mist, vapour or smoke’. It goes without saying that any Akkadian substrate word or other lexical influences (in particular semantic shifts) found in modern Aramaic but not in any classical Aramaic source, must have been inherited from an unattested precursor in an early phase of Aramaic. Several such substrate words are known to exist in NENA, namely səmmalta ‘ladder’,143 baxšimə ‘storage area on roof ’ and raxiṣa ‘fine barley straw (used as fodder)’.144 Yet another case, hardly mentioned in the literature, is NENA msy, māse ‘to wash clothes, wool’ (see pp. 183–184). Likewise, there are Akkadian lexical influences and possible influences that have affected the ancestral pre-­Mandaic Aramaic of olden times and surface in NM, despite having remained unattested in literary Mandaic. These Akkadian influences (and possible influences) are discussed in what follows. 3.3.3.1 Akkadian Lexical Influences Absent from Literary Mandaic These include substrate words and loan translations that are found in NM and in literary Aramaic sources other than literary Mandaic: Akkadian Pre-Modern M NM

NM meaning(s)

Substrate words: 1. bukānu 2. uḫinnu 3. šuṣu 4. zabbilu 5. kabû

*bukana *hina *šiṣa *zabila *kabia

bokɔnɔ hinɔ šiṣɔ zabilɔ kawi

pestle unripe date; glans of penis date of bad quality type of basket fresh cattle dung

Loan translations: 6. šaddaqdim145 7. šaluššani

*eš(t)qad *taltad

ešqad, ašqad last year taltad the year before last

Comments: 1. The unattested old Mandaic antecedent of NM bokɔnɔ, bokɔ́ n ‘pestle’, reconstructible as *bukana, is cognate with JBA ‫בוכנא‬, ‫ בוכאנא‬and Syr. ‫ܒܘ ܵܟ ܵܢܐ‬. ̣ All these reflect the proto-form *bukkānā (cf. NM dokɔnɔ, dokɔ́ n

143 Kaufman 1974: 92. 144 Khan 2002: 515, Khan 2009: 230–231. 145 Or šaddagdim, and other Akkadian forms such as šaddagdi, šaddagda(m), šaddagad—see AHw 1123a, CAD Š1: 38b.

64

chapter three

‘shop’ < *dukkānā). The ultimate etymon of this word is Akkadian bukānu,146 or an unattested Akkadian form *bukkānu. 2. The ultimate etymology of Neo-Mandaic hinɔ, hin ‘unripe date; glans of penis’147 is Akkadian uḫinnu ‘unripe dates’.148 When referring to unripe, green dates, hinɔ can be used as a collective or a singular noun. It has acquired the secondary meaning of ‘glans of penis’ as a semantic loan of local Arabic xḷāḷa ‘unripe date; glans of penis’.149 The old Mandaic forerunner of this word, *hina or *ahina, was a cogܵ ‫ܚ‬, ‫ܚܢܐ‬ ܵ ‫‘ ܲܐ‬green nate of JBA ‫‘ אהינא‬unripe date’, JPA ‫‘ אהין‬id.’ and Syriac ‫ܐܢܐ‬ � ܹ date’. In addition, according to MD, s.v. sina 2 (p. 328), “sina” is probably a miswriting of aina ‘date-stone’. If aina is indeed related to the same etymon,150 it should be regarded as highly irregular, for Akk. ḫ is reflected as h in Mandaic, as indeed in NM hinɔ. At any rate, the latter form stems from Mandaic *hina, which remains unattested until the modern phase of this language. 3. NM šiṣɔ, šiṣ refers to a bad-tasting small date of poor quality which contains a soft, rudimentary seed’. As far as I can establish, the botanical definition of šiṣɔ is ‘parthenocarpic date’, i.e. fruit of an unpollinated female date-palm tree’. Such dates are discarded or used as fodder for livestock. The apocopated form šiṣ is used as a singular or collective noun as well as attributive adjective, e.g. in tomrɔ šíṣ-ye ‘the date is of bad quality’. It can readily be assumed that pre-modern Mandaic had *šiṣa as a cognate of JBA ‫שיצא‬. The latter is defined in DJBA (p. 1139b) as ‘a type of date’ with a remark that it may be inferred from the context of the word that it refers to dates of bad quality. Akk. šuṣu ‘a quality of date palms’ is most probably the etymon of the Aramaic word, and likely referred to the same type of dates.151

146 See DJBA 190 s.v. ‫בוכנא‬, ‫בוכאנא‬. 147 Cf. Macuch 1989: 218 hīna ‘unripe fruit, date’ with a comparison to CM hina ‘henna’. 148 For Akk. uḫinnu > Aram. ‫ אהינא‬etc. see Zimmern 1917: 54. 149 See these definitions in Woodhead and Beene 1967: 144b. For the semantic shift from a botanical term to the glans of the penis consider German Eichel ‘acorn; glans of penis’. 150 As suggested in DJBA 83b, 2009: 28b, but aina may refer to a spring in the context specified in MD s.v. sina 2. 151  See already Zimmern 1917: 54, where “šiṣū, šuṣu” are assumed to be seedless dates, and See also CAD Š3: 124, 277 and esp. the discussion on 377b.



neo-mandaic and pre-modern aramaic

65

An additional Semitic cognate, or, alternatively, a borrowing from Aramaic, is the Arabic word ‫‘ شِ�����ي�����ص‬type of dried up dates’,152 also found in Iraqi Arabic dialects, referring to dates of bad quality.153 4. Ahvaz-NM zabilɔ, zabíl refers to a type of large basket woven from fresh date-palm fronds. It is derived from unattested Mandaic *zabila, ܵ ܲ which is cognate with JBA ‫ זבילא‬and Syr. ‫ܒܝܠܐ‬ ̣ ‫‘ �ܙ‬basket’. These three cognates originated in Akkadian zabbīlu ‘basket’.154 Another Syriac cognate ܵ is ‫ܢܒܝܠܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܙ‬,ܲ� from the Akkadian by-form zanbilu,155 and there are Ṭuroyo and NENA cognates which hark back to the by-form zabbilu (see p. 103). Both Akkadian by-forms were ultimately absorbed in َْ‫�ز‬ َ‫ �ز‬Arabic through an Aramaic intermediary, yielding literary Arabic ‫ ب�ِ�ی�ل‬and ‫ ن�ب�ِ�ی �ل‬, Iraqi Arabic zbīl and zambīl ~ zanbīl,156 referring to types of baskets made of ‫�ز‬ palm fronds. The latter by-form was borrowed into NP as ‫ ن�ب��ی �ل‬, whence zambíl in the idiolect of Macuch’s informant Naṣir Ṣaburi157 and already znbila in early modern M (Glossarium 85:13). Since my informants reject this form as alien to NM and use only the inherited Mandaic cognate, the form zambíl seems to be restricted to some NM idiolects or even to that of Ṣaburi, who is renowned for his preference of Persianisms (see pp. 26–27). A clearer case of the reintroduction of the word in question into NA is J.Zakho zambila ‘basket woven from reeds’,158 which is borrowed either directly from Arabic or through Kurdish zembîl ‘wicker basket’.159 5. NM kawi ‘fresh dung of cattle or water buffalo’ (used as fuel when dried),160 cognate with cuvvə and čuvvə (< *kuwwe) ‘id.’ in Christian dialects of the area of Urmi,161 is not attested in literary M, but its antecedent *kabia must have existed in pre-modern M, and its ultimate origin is Akk. kabû, pl. of kabūtu ‘dung’. The NM form itself, which is a sg. collective

152 See Lane 1863–1893, vol. 4: 1630b. 153 See, e.g., Avishur 2008–2010, vol. 3: 532. 154 Kaufman 1974: 111, Abraham and Sokoloff 2011: 57a. 155 It is noteworthy that the propensity of Mandaic to dissimilate bb into mb (HCMM 42–43) is not reflected in this word, and that Mandaic borrowed the Akkadian by-form with bb rather than with nb. 156 Woodhead and Beene 1967: 201, 206. 157 Macuch 1989: 221, and already in HCMM 41:22 and 544. 158 Sabar 2002: 159b. 159 Chyet 2003: 685. 160 Dried cattle-dung cakes are collectively called meṭṭɔ́ l < local Ar. muṭṭā́l (Woodhead and Beene 1967: 441b). The origin of this word is very likely Akk. maṭṭalu ‘reeds for kindling’ (with a semantic shift), therefore Akk. > *Aram. > Ar. > NM meṭṭɔ́ l. 161  In Maclean 1901: 126a this word is glossed ‘manure, offal, garbage’, but informants know only ‘fresh cattle-dung’.

66

chapter three

noun, is in origin a plural of an obsolete sg. form cognate with JBA ‫כבותא‬, ܵ ̈ pl. ‫ כבויי‬and Syr. ‫ܟܒ ܿܘ ̣ܬܐ‬, ̣ pl. ‫ܟ ܲ �ܒ ܵܝܐ‬, both ‘dung, excrement’.162 The form kawi represents one of the very few vestiges of the pl. ending i (< *ē) in NM, where the most common plural ending is -ɔnɔ. Another case is harši ‘sorcery’ (CM haršia ‘spells, sorceries, witchcraft, magic’). 6 and 7. The NM forms ešqad (Ahvaz), ašqad (Khor.) ‘last year’ constitute a hitherto unattested Mandaic cognate of JBA and JPA ‫אשתקד‬, Syriac ݇ ‫ܫܬܩ‬ ‫ܕܝ‬ ܸ‫ܐ‬, and various NA forms: Ṭuroyo ʔəšqaḏ, Mlaḥsô išqaz,163 NENA �ܲ ištqan (Birsive), išqa (Qurich), šətqe (J.Zakho) etc., WNA dialects eščḳaḏ, ešćḳaḏ. The older NM form must be Ahvaz ešqad, harking back to unattested Mandaic *ʿšqad or *ʿštqad, whereas the form ašqad appears to have acquired its initial a by analogy with taltad ‘the year before last’. NM taltad ‘the year before last, two years ago’ is cognate with Ṭuroyo taltaḏ, təltaḏ,164 NENA, e.g. ʿAnkawa talṯa, and WNA ṯōlṯaṯ, all denoting ‘two years ago’. The pre-modern Aramaic antecedent of these formsܵ is ܲ ܵ ܵ attested in Syriac as ‫ܠܬ ̣ܬ‬ � ‫‘ ܬ‬ditto’,165 an adverb based on the root of ‫ܬܠ ̣ܬܐ‬ ‘three’ since ‘the year before last’ is the third year when counting back and starting with the present year as the first. It is most probable that ešqad and taltad, more precisely their older Aramaic antecedents, are loan translations based on Akkadian šaddaqdim and šaluššani, respectively. Kaufman (1974: 96) asserts that the Akkadian and Aramaic forms were probably independently borrowed from Amorite. Irrespective of the question of a postulated Amorite origin, an Akkadian borrowing into Aramaic is indeed hardly likely in this case, especially since an adaptation of šaddaqdim (or a similar form) as ʔeštqaḏ etc. would be quite difficult to account for. But the amalgamation of truncated forms of šattā ‘year’ and qaḏmāytā ‘first’ (or a related form) in Aramaic is, to my mind, most likely a calque on Akk. šaddaqdim. The latter’s formation is not entirely clear,166 but is in all likelihood composed of šattu ‘year’ and

162 See further Semitic cognates in Kogan 2011: 227. 163 Jastrow 2004: 179. 164 For these forms and their etymology see Tezel ܲ 2003: ܵ 243–244. 165 See Manna (and Bidawid) 1975: 840b, s.v. ‫ܠܬ ̣ܬ‬ � ‫‘ ܬ‬two years ago; two years from now’ (the latter meaning is secondary). This must be a genuine word that Manna found in (late?) Syriac sources, since although Manna’s dictionary includes quite a few NENA words, forms and meanings, as far as I can establish no NENA dialect evinces the form taltaṯ, ܲ ܵ and the only denotation in NENA is ‘two years ago’. Cf. also Thesaurus 4453, s.v. ‫ܠܬܬ‬ � ‫ܬ‬, erroneously glossed ‘three’—instead of two—‘years ago’. 166 See the discussion in Edzard 1964: 147.



neo-mandaic and pre-modern aramaic

67

qadmu ‘former time’ or very similar forms,167 hence cognates of Aramaic šattā and qdm. The affinity between šaddaqdim and ʔeštqaḏ should be considered as part of a whole series of related adverbs that show the same type of ܲ ܵ Aramaic calque on Akkadian. This series includes also (1) Syr. ‫ܠܬ ̣ܬ‬ � ‫ܬ‬, NM taltad and its NA cognates, denoting ‘the year before last’, as a calque ܲ ‫ܪܒ‬,ܲ WNA on Akk. šaluššani ‘ditto’, all based on *ṯlṯ ‘three’, and (2) Syr. ‫ܥ ̣ܬ‬ � ̣ � rēbʕaṯ and other NA cognates, denoting ‘three years ago’, as an ancient calque on Akk. rabūšene ‘id.’, all based on *rbʕ ‘four’. A detailed account of the Akkadian and selected corresponding Aramaic forms pertaining to this discussion is as follows: Language/Years ago Akkadian Syriac Maʿlula169 Ṭuroyo170 NENA (Qaraqosh) Neo-Mandaic

one šaddaqdim ʔeštqaḏ eščḳaḏ ʔəšqaḏ šətqə ešqad

two šaluššani tāltaṯ ṯōlṯaṯ taltaḏ talṯə taltad

three rabūšene raḇʕaṯ168 rēbʕaṯ rawʕaḏ roʔə (qamɔ́ -taltad)

3.3.3.2 Akkadian Substrate Words Not Attested Throughout Classical Aramaic Akkadian Pre-modern M 1. šanû *šna 2. baqālu *bql 3. ušēšir *ašr 4. mušēšer(t)u *mašura

NM šny, šənɔ́ bql, baqqel ʔšr, aššer mašurɔ

NM meaning to plaster rooftop to soak grain, beans to sweep (floor) palm broom

Comments: 1. NM šənɔ́ , šɔni ‘to plaster and level rooftop (with mortar made of mud and chopped straw) in order to seal it and prevent leakage of rainwater’ could hardly be semantically related to CM šna ‘to change, translate, remove, vanish’, nor is there a verb with a suitable meaning in other CA

167 Cf. von Soden 1995,vol. 1: 119, §72e. ܲ ‫ܪ‬,ܲ glossed ‘four years ago’, but should rather be ‘three 168 See Thesaurus 3798, s.v. ‫ܒܥܬ‬ � � ‫ �م� ن ا ��ـ ����س��ن�ي ن‬should be construed as ‘counting four years ago’. The Arabic explanation �‫ـ‬ ‫� رب‬ years back when starting with the present‫ع‬year’. 169 Arnold, forthcoming (superseding Arnold 1990: 407 ṯōlṯaṯ ‘three years ago’, rēbʕaṯ ‘four years ago’). 170 See Tezel 2003: 243–244.

68

chapter three

languages. The etymon is, rather, Akk. šanû ‘seal, plaster over, mud roof afresh’.171 A nominal derivative of the same Akkadian root is šinītu, which refers to wetting down a clay roof in order to seal it. 2. NM baqqel, mbaqqel, verbal noun baqaltɔ ‘to soak grain or beans in water (prior to cooking)’ does not appear to have an attested precursor in CA. In all likelihood, it ultimately harks back to Akk. baqālu ‘to sprout (of grain), malt’, the semantic connection being that soaking grain prompts germination and sprouting, and malting barley is carried out by steeping it in water. 3. and 4. The ultimate etymon of NM Ɂšr, aššer, maššer, verbal noun ašartɔ ‘sweeping’ (with a broom)’172 is clearly Akk. ušēšir ‘put in good condition, put in order, sweep’, a Š-stem form of ešēru ‘be well, straight, right’.173 Related to the NM verb is NM mašurɔ, mašúr ‘besom, broom made of dried palm fronds’,174 which is an Akkadian substrate word. Two Akkadian nouns related to the verb ušēšir are (1) mušēšertu, which strikingly bears the same denotation of ‘palm broom’, and (2) mušēšeru, which is glossed ‘that puts in order’175 or ‘sweeper (or caretaker)’,176 and may well be the form from which NM mašurɔ has ultimately came into being, possibly through the intermediate form *mušūšeru, with vocalic assimilation.177 The word mṣrta ‘broom’ in the Glossarium (161:12) may well reflect a misspelling of *mašurta,178 an early modern Iraqi M feminine form harking back to Akkadian mušēšertu ‘palm broom’. 3.3.3.3 Other Possible Akkadian Substrate Words Several other NM words may have emerged already in the ancient Aramaic forebear of this language as Akkadian substrate words and semantic translations based on that language. If these words and meanings, which 171  Thus according to Black 2000: 356a, s.v. šanû VI. In CAD Š1: 408b, s.v. šanû C: ‘to flood with water, to wet down a clay roof in order to seal it, in AHw vol. 3: 1167a, s.v. šanû VI: ‘Lehmdach mit Lehmwasser neuabdichten’. 172 Cf. Macuch 1989: 261 šrr ‘to sweep’, and the mistranscription “qəmašrāre” in 146:785, where a phonemic transcription of this form in context would be ləxaṭṭi l-mašurɔ qəmašrɔli l-ḥojrɔ ‘she took the broom and she sweeps (swept) the room’. 173 For Semitic cognates of this verb see HALOT 449b, s.v. ‫ישר‬. 174 Attested amidst other modern M words in ms. DC 23 (Matthew Morgenstern, p.c.). 175 See AHw, vol. 2: 683a, Black 2000: 222a. 176 See CAD M2: 268b. 177 Pace HCMM 538a, where the origin of mašurɔ is assumed to be possibly Akk. šūru ‘stick’ (cf. AHw, vol. 3: 1287a šūru ‘(Schilf-)Rohr’). 178 For a similar confusion of spelling sibilants in the Glossarium consider mša (161:15) ‘razor’ which most probably reflects early modern َ‫ُ سـ‬Iraqi M musa (not in NM), either an adaptation of Iraqi Ar. mūs ‘id.’ or the Ar. form ‫( �مو��ى‬mūsa) ‘id.’



neo-mandaic and pre-modern aramaic

69

are not attested in literary M, are indeed borrowed from Akkadian, they must have existed already in CM times. Akkadian Pre-modern M

NM

NM meaning

Possible substrate words: 1. bunnû *bani 2. ruggubu *rgb 3. misukku *msika 4. mirqu *mirqa 5. ḫassū *hasa 6. ša bûri ? *šabura?

bny, banni rgw, raggew məsekkɔ merqɔ hassɔ šəburɔ

to clean grain; choose to gather; pile up a kind of wild duck179 rice lettuce large-scaled barb (fish)

Possible semantic loans: 7. ṣemēru ṣmr 8. zēru zira 9. talālu tla

ṣmr, ṣəmár zerɔ tly, tɔli

to swell, bloat; be wet crop, cornfield; grass to pull, draw, stretch

Comments: 1. NM bny, banni, mbanni, verbal noun baneṯɔ, denote (1) ‘to clean grain (spread on tray) of tare, gravel and other dirt by picking out the dirt with the fingers’, an action performed by women (hence the actual verbal inflections of this verb are feminine, e.g. 3sg.f. past bannat, present qəmbannɔlə l-ṣondɔ ‘she cleans the grain’), and (2) ‘to choose, select, pick out’, already occurring as bani, bnni ‘to choose’ in the Glossarium (8:5, 165:5 et passim). As is shown below (pp. 131–132), the verbal root bny ‘to clean grain’ is a NM-NENA isogloss, being used in various Jewish NENA dialects, where it is inflected in neo-paʿʿel in any dialect which has not shifted this verbal stem (partially or completely) to neo-pəʿal, e.g. J.Zakho 3sg.f. past mbonela, present gəmbanya, infinitive mbanoye ‘to clean grain’. Furthermore, various Christian NENA dialects of Hakkâri (Turkey) and bordering areas have the same verbal root inflected in neo-paʿʿel as mbanoye ‘to prepare food’ (e.g. in Barwar)180 or ‘cook’ (e.g. in Ko d-Chalwe),181 which may well be etymologically related, in which case the NM-NENA isogloss is of a wider dialectal and semantic scope, as follows:

179 Cf. HCMM 514a, where the definition is “partridge”. My informants know no specific NM word for ‘partridge’. Instead, it is covered by the generic term bɔhendá ‘bird’ (from Luri, ditto, see Anonby 2006: 5). 180 More accurately ‘to prepare food for serving (without cooking)—see Khan 2008: 1111, similarly Ashitha ‘to be busy preparing food’. 181  Cf. also Maclean 1901: 34a bāni, 153b mbāne ‘to cook’.

70 precursor *mbanne

chapter three NM mbanni clean grain, choose

Selected NENA dialects J.Zakho Barwar Ko d-Chalwe mbāne mbāne mbāne clean grain prepare food cook

An etymological connection between NM banni ‘to clean grain; choose’ and NM bənɔ́ , bɔni ‘to build’ (CM bny) is highly implausible on semantic grounds, hence two different verbs, bny I and bny II should rather be posited. Yona Sabar suggests a derivation from CA byn,182 but this etymology is problematic, since CA byn or bwn refers to intelligence, understanding, observing, explaining, and in the paʿʿel stem it is related mostly to instructing (as in CM bun)183 or teaching and making understand (as in Syr. ‫)ܒ ܸܝܢ‬. �ܲ Perhaps a less improbable Aramaic etymon would be mny ‘to count’, since cleaning grain by removing small particles one by one resembles counting. Indeed in some NENA dialects, e.g. J.Koy Sanjaq, bny refers to both counting and cleaning grain. This bny, however, might reflect homophony rather than polysemy, in which case two etyma may be postulated: (1) bny1 ‘to clean grain’ and (2) bny2 ‘to count’ < mny, and note that there is no attestation of mny in a meaning related to cleaning grain in either CA or NA, thus, e.g. CM mna ‘to count’, NM mny, mənɔ́ , mɔni ‘ditto’. An entirely different approach is to examine the possibility that the verbal root in question is a substrate word. Akkadian bunnû (stem D of banû), with some of its meanings being ‘to improve’ and ‘to prepare foodstuffs carefully’184 may well be the ultimate source of NA mbanni, mbāne ‘to clean grain;185 to prepare food’, being compelling on both morphological and semantic grounds. The meaning ‘to choose’ in NM is secondary, and has emerged due to the selection and picking out of dirt performed while cleaning grain. 2. NM rgw ‘to gather, accumulate, pile up’, inflected in paʿʿel as a transitive verb: raggew, mraggew, and in ʾeṯpaʿʿal as an intransitive verb: eraggaw, meraggaw, is not attested in CM, but it occurs already in the post-classical book of Aspar Malwašia as rgb, paʿʿel ‘to combine together’,

182 Sabar 2002: 112a. 183 In MD 55b one meaning of the verbal root bun or bnn is ‘to separate’, but this is not shown in any of the examples furnished below. 184 See CAD B: 90ff., s.v. banû B, in particular 92b-93a, mng. 4c. 185 It might not be amiss to mention here the etymologically obscure JBA ‫‘ ביניתא‬seed’ (DJBA 203b) as, perhaps, related to the same etymon.



neo-mandaic and pre-modern aramaic

71

as well as in the Glossarium, i.e. in early modern M (see MD 423b, s.v. rgb II).186 This puzzling verb does not seem to be related to anything inَّCA. َ َ �‫‘ ر ك‬to The etymology suggested in MD, comparing this verb to Ar. �‫� ب‬ assemble’, is doubtful, since such a borrowing would be expected to yield **rkb, rakkeb. An alternative etymology would be Akk. ruggubu (rgb, D-stem) ‘to put on an upper story’, in light of the close semantic and morphological affinity between the Akkadian and NM verbs.187 Perhaps a possible NENA cognate is Ashitha rgāba ‘to gain weight (of sheep)’, mragobe ‘to fatten (sheep)’. If NENA rgb is indeed, b rather than w in rgāba could be explained as an analogy with mragobe.188 3. NM məsekkɔ, məsék ‘mallard, shoveler or a kindred green-headed wild duck’ might have emerged from *msika or a similar unattested Mandaic form, which was plausibly cognate with ‫ܝܣܘ ܵܟܐ‬ ݂ ‫‘ ܲ �ܡ‬a type of duck or a water bird similar to duck’ in Bar Bahlul’s lexicon.189 The striking similarity of Akk. mesukku ‘a type of edible bird’ may not be coincidental. It is mentioned in a list of fowl served for a royal banquet,190 and wild duck have presumably been hunted for their meat in the marsh areas since time immemorial.191 It is by no means implausible, therefore, that the Akkadian word mesukku was inherited in Aramaic as a substrate word, and still survives today as NM məsekkɔ. 4. NM distinguishes between ronzɔ, ronz ‘rice as a plant; unprocessed rice grain’, and merqɔ, merq ‘processed rice grain ready for marketing and 186 The meanings furnished in the Glossarium are, curiously, ‘to command, to gather’. Since the Mandaic letters for g and q are often interchanged or confused in the Glossarium, it seems that rgb and rqb in the Glossarium (both are listed in MD—see pp. 423b, 437a) were actually two different early Iraqi NM verbs:َ rgw ‘to gather’ and rqb, glossed ‘to comَ ‫َق‬ mand’ but possibly rather ‘to supervise’ (< Ar. �‫)ر �� ب‬. 187 Macuch (1976: 64), regarded an Arabic etymology preferable to Akk. rgb, since this is a late Mandaic verb, yet, pace Macuch, this would not be the only case of an Akkadian substrate word unattested in CA and surfacing in NA. 188 cf. *ṭḇāʕā > Chamba d-Mallik (Ṭyare) ṭbāʔa ‘to sink, intr.’ with b from mṭaboʔe ‘to sink, tr.’. ̈ however, 189 See Duval 1888–1901, vol. 1: 1075 (including n. 3). On p. 1660, s.v. ‫ܨܘܨܠܐ‬, ܲ ‫ܡ‬ seems to be ‘ring-dove’. The expansion of meaning to include the meaning of ‫ܝܣܘ ܵܟܐ‬ ݂ � motacilla alba (?) in Brockelmann 1928: 384a, rendered ‘white water-wagtail’ in SL 753b, seems superfluous. The Persian etymologies ‫ ماسو‬and ‫‘ ماسوچة‬turtledove, wood pigeon’ (ibid.), are very doubtful. Consider also Audo 1897: 539a, where ‫ܝܣܘ ܵܟܐ‬ ݂ ‫ ܲ �ܡ‬is defined ‘a water fowl similar to duck’. 190 See Salonen 1973: 228, where mesukku is presumed to refer to the snipe and CAD M2: 36, where, curiously, mesukku is defined, roughly, ‘a bird of prey’. The suggestion in AHw 648 that it might be a wild goose makes much more sense than a bird of prey. 191  For the hunting of mallard by the marsh Arabs see Thesiger 1964: 76.

72

chapter three

cooking’. The first lexical item is well grounded in the Aramaic legacy of NM: ronzɔ corresponds to CM runza and to cognates such as Syr. ‫ܘܪܘܢܙܐ‬, JBA ‫ ארוזא‬and NENA rəzza.192 The word merqɔ, on the other hand, is unique to NM. It is presumably related to pre-modern M mrq ‘to cleanse’, in which case the etymon of merqɔ would be related to husking and washing rice grain and then manually picking out dirt and tiny gravel. Two possible etymologies based on mrq are suggested in what follows: (1) It could be that *mirqa is an independent Mandaic creation, based on pre-modern M mrq (cf. CM marqa ‘cleansing’). The pattern CeCCɔ, CM CiCCa,193 concerns quite a few NM words that are mostly already attested in literary M sources, e.g. deqlɔ, deqəl ‘palm tree’ (diqla ~ ziqla), peršɔ, perš ‘tomorrow’ (pirša ‘daybreak, dawn’), hewyɔ, hewi ‘snake’ (hiuia), yehrɔ, yehər ‘month’ (iahra), lebbɔ, leb ‘heart; kernel of nut or seed’ (liba ‘heart, mind), ḥemṣɔ ‘chickpeas’ (himṣa), pehṯɔ ‘sacramental bread’ (pihta), zemmɔ, zem (back-formation < zimia, pl. of zimta ‘hair, thread’) ‘thin silver or gold wire used for making jewels’, merbɔ, merb ‘fish fat’ (< ?). (2) Alternatively, perhaps it would not be too bold to consider a possibility that *mirqa is not an independent Mandaic creation, but rather a substrate word harking back to Akk. mirqu ‘a type of flour’ or a similar meaning, related to marāqu ‘to rub something smooth, polish; to grind’. The precise meaning of Akk. mirqu is unknown, but it seems semantically close enough to that of NM merqɔ that the possibility of the latter’s being of Akkadian origin would warrant consideration. 5. Unattested early Mandaic *hasa (*hassā), whence NM hassɔ, has (misspelled haṣa in the Glossarium) was a close cognate of JBA ّ َ‫חסאخ‬. Further ܵ CA cognates are Syriac ‫ܣܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫ ܲ�ܚ‬and JPA ‫( חס‬whence Ar. ‫)���س‬.194 A NeoAramaic cognate is xāsa in Alqosh, Telkepe, Qaraqosh and some other NENA dialects in the area of Mosul. The ultimate etymon of these cognates might be Akkadian ḫassū ‘lettuce (pl. tant.)’, attested from Old Babylonian on, in view of the limited Semitic distribution of this word to Akkadian and languages which are 192 Ultimately from Indo-Iranian—see Ciancaglini 2008: 168. 193 See HCMM 173–174. ّ َ ‫خ‬ 194 For Aramaic > Arabic ‫ ���س‬see Fraenkel 1886: 142.



neo-mandaic and pre-modern aramaic

73

well within the sphere of Akkadian lexical influences, directly (Aramaic) or indirectly (Arabic). It is possible that the Akkadian and Aramaic forms are cognates, but it is at least as possible that the Aramaic cognates can all be traced back to Akkadian. 6. NM šəburɔ, šəbúr ‘large-scaled barb’, a large freshwater fish whose scientific name is Barbus grypus,195 corresponds in meaning, but not in its ,196 Syr. ‫ܫܝܒܘܛܐ‬, ‫ܫܒܘܛܐ‬,197 and—as an Aramaic phonetics, to JBA ‫שיבוטא‬ ُّ َ loanword—Ar. ‫ ش�����ب��وط‬, Iraqi Ar. šabbūṭ ‘large-scaled barb’.198 It would be inconceivable to consider NM šəburɔ a direct phonological development of a proto-form such as *šabbuṭā or *šibbuṭā, with a phonetic change ṭ > r (whereas loss of gemination and a reduction of the first vowel to ə, both in pretonic position, are regular in NM). Since a name of fish similar to šəburɔ is not attested in literary Aramaic sources, one may wonder if it might be a borrowing from one of the local languages. This is ostensibly possible in view of similar fish names in Arabic, but, as will َ be shown below, a borrowing from Arabic should probably be ruled out. ‫ش �أ شْ ُ شَ ُّ �شَ ُ� َ �ة‬ The Arabic fish names ‫ ���ا بور‬, ‫�����ب��ور‬,‫ �����ب��ور‬,‫ �����ب���ا ر‬199 bear striking similarity to NM šəburɔ, but a borrowing from Arabic into NM is very unlikely for two reasons: (1) An Arabic fish name such as šabbūr does not appear in any study on local fishes of the Tigris-Euphrates basin and Gulf area, including exhaustive studies,200 and (2) Arabic nominal loanwords with a final consonant are generally not adapted with an Aramaic final vowel in NM, e.g. consider the fish name gaṭṭán (< local Ar. ditto) ‘Barbus ­Xsanthopterus’

195  For a zoological account of this fish see Coad 2010: 111–116 (and photo on plate 5), and see also a photo of an item caught in the Karun river, Ahvaz, in Zivotofsky and Amar 2006: 362. 196  For the identification of JBA ‫ שיבוטא‬as Barbus grypus see Zivotofsky and Amar 2006. 197  Defined as ‘fish covered with scales’ in SL 1499b, and similarlyُin other Syriac dicَّ tionaries, and is probably the same species as JBA ‫ שיבוטא‬and Ar. ‫‘ ش�����ب��وط‬Barbus grypus’. 198 Fraenkel 1886: 122. 199 See Dozy 1881, vol. 1: 719b–720a, Lane 1863–1893, vol. 4: 1496b. Dozy’s doubtful comparison of ‫ ش�����ب���ا ر‬with Ar. ‫‘ ا ش�����ب���ا ر��س‬type of fish’, Gk. σπάρος, Lat. sparus ‘sea bream’ (or a similar fish) was not endorsed by Löw in his article on Aramaic fish names (Löw 1969: 12), where he also doubted the speculative interpretation of MH ‫ שברירים‬as some kind of fish or sea animals by some (see, e.g., Levy 1876–1889, vol. 4: 503b, Jastrow 1903: 1518b). 200 Most noteworthy are Oman 1984 and Coad 2010; nor does a name like šabūr occur among the names of local fishes in Lidzbarski 1915, vol. 2: 142ff. and in Salonen 1970: 86ff. Egyptian Ar. šabār ‘Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus’, former name Tilapia nilotica (Behnstedt and Woidich 1985–1999, vol. 4: 451a, s.v. mšṭ), is obviously not the source of NM šəburɔ.

74

chapter three

‫َ ُق‬

and ʕagúl ‘alhagi, camelthorn’ (ultimately < ‫‘ ع�ا �ول‬id.’).201 Furthermore, original penultimate stress shifts to the ultima in Arabic words borrowed into NM, as opposed to the َgeneral penultimate stress in the native NM ‫فَ ة‬ nominal system, e.g. in Ar. ��‫‘ � ْرع‬louse’, Iraqi Ar. fárʕa ‘louse nymph, small louse’202 > Ahvaz-NM farʕá ‘ditto’. These Arabic loanwords include several fish names, among which are binní (< binni) ‘Barbus sharpeyi’, and jirrí (< jirri) ‘Mesopotamian catfish, Silurus triostegus’.203 Although it is theoretically not impossible that NM šəburɔ is a very old loan from an unattested, now extinct local Arabic word such as šabbūr, such a possibility is tenuous and speculative in the extreme. Persian too does not seem to have a local fish name that might be the source of šəburɔ.204 Therefore, there is no evidence for a borrowing from Arabic or Persian, and a pre-modern Aramaic source should rather be sought. Two different possibilities for a pre-modern Aramaic source are suggested below in an attempt to solve the ‘šəburɔ conundrum’: (1) šəburɔ harks back to *šabbuṭā, and the unexpected reflex with r has arisen by analogy, (2) šəburɔ is an Akkadian substrate word. (1) If šəburɔ is indeed derived from an unattested Mandaic cognate of JBA ‫ שיבוטא‬and Syr. ‫ܫܝܒܘܛܐ‬, ‫ܫܒܘܛܐ‬, the only way to explain the change of ṭ to r would be some sort of analogy with another, similar name of fish. Such a name indeed exists in NM as ṣəbúr ‘hilsa fish, Indian shad, Tenualosa ilisha’, which is borrowed from local Arabic ṣbūr (ditto).205 An analogy whereby in a form such as *šəbuṭɔ the ṭ was replaced with the r of ṣəbúr is conceivable, since both species are large fish and (according to Mandaean informants), are fond of for their palatable meat; but it must be stressed that these are two very different fishes in various aspects of

َ ْ َ‫أ‬ ّ ُ (2) ḥoššɔ ‘vulva’, apparently from Ar. ���‫‘ �ع ش‬nest’ (whence ʿAnkawa-NENA ḥušše ‘nest’; and 201  Counter-examples are (1) Ar. �‫‘ � ر �ن� ب‬hare’ > árnəbɔ alongside unadapted arnab ‘id.’,

cf. WNA ʕašʕūša ‘pubic hair of woman’, from the same Ar. word, and Qaraqosh qənna ‘nest; vulva’). 202 Based on an Arabic-speaking Mandaean and attested, inter alia, in Weißbach 1927: 150. ‫ُ�حْ ة‬ 203 Counter-examples are (1) Ar. �‫�َر‬ ‫‘ ج‬cell, chamber’ > local Ar. ḥujra ‘room’ (Woodhead and Beene 1967: 91a) > ḥojrɔ, ḥojər ‘id.’, (2) local Ar. fāla ‘fish-spear, trident’ (Woodhead and Beene َ 1967: 343a, and for a photo see Young 1977: 138–139) > fɔlɔ, fɔl ‘id.’; and see also

َْ ‫أ‬

Ar. �‫‘ � ر �ن� ب‬hare’ > árnəbɔ in n. 201 above. 204 See Firouz 2005: 257–290. 205 See Woodhead and Beene 1967: 257a, Oman 1984: 103, No. 18, Coad 2010: 83–86.



neo-mandaic and pre-modern aramaic

75

their physiology (e.g. Barbus grypus is elongated and much larger than the roundish Tenualosa ilisha).206 (2) Another possible solution to the ‘šəburɔ conundrum’, admittedly not supported by firm evidence, might be that its origin is ultimately Akkadian. H. Holma suggested in his study on Akkadian fish names the reading ša bûri as very likely the name of a fish in one of the cuneiform tablets, adding, inter alia, that although ša bûri literally means ‘which lives in a well’, bûru may denote other types of freshwater sources.207 Indeed among the meanings of Akkadian būru are ‘pond, pool, well’ and its feminine form būrtu denotes ‘fish-pond’ in addition to ‘cistern, well’, hence the postulated name ša būri would literally mean ‘pond fish’, possibly a kind of carp or barb which was found in natural ponds or was introduced into artificial ponds.208 Although Holma’s suggestion did not gain general acceptance and the fish name ša būri is absent from Akkadian dictionaries, the plausibility of this fish name’s existence in Akkadian is enhanced by the occurrence of a fish called PÚ-ḫa in Sumerian,209 which literally means ‘pond fish’, hence the postulated Akk. ša būri would likely have been a loan translation based on Sumerian. If this suggested Akkadian etymology is ever basedَ on solid evidence, ‫�شَ ُ� �ة‬ then the affinity between NM šəburɔ and Arabic ‫ ���ا بور‬etc. could be explained as either (1) a chance similarity with no etymological connection whatsoever, or (2) a case where Arabic borrowed an unattested pre-modern Aramaic word that is the precursor of NM šəburɔ and is of Akkadian provenance. 7. NM ṣəmár, ṣɔmer ‘to swell (part of body), bloat, be bruised and swollen;210 to become wet’, ṣammer, mṣammer ‘to dip, make wet; make swollen’ and the passive part. məṣammar ‘swollen; wet’ all appear to correspond to CM ṣmr ‘to hold back, press back’,211 which is in its turn cogܲ ‘to suffer from nate with JBA ‫‘ צמר‬restrict or stop a flow’ and Syr. ‫ܨܡܪ‬ �

206 Apart from belonging to two entirely different families of fish—see Coad 2010: 82–86, 111–116. 207 See Holma 1912: II, p. 47. 208 Consider the occurrence of a fish called šabbūṭ in the Pond of Abraham in Urfa, presently Şanlıurfa, Turkey (Sachau 1883: 196). 209 See Salonen 1970: 130, 216 (transcribed Pu-ha). 210 Cf. Macuch 1989: 136:606 qəmahinax tom ṣamret, which should be translated: ‘I will beat you up until you become swollen’ or ‘bruised and swollen’. And see already HCMM 522a for the verbal root ṣmr in the sense of ‘to swell’. 211  See MD 396a, s.v. ṣmr 2, with additional meanings.

76

chapter three

ܵ s­ trangury’ (cf. also Syr. ‫‘ ܵܨ ܲ �ܡܪܬܐ‬whirlpool’). There are also NENA cognates, such as Ṭyare ṣāmər ‘to inundate; to block water by dam’, Dobe ṣamə́r ‘to clot (blood)’ and J.Urmi +sāmə́r ‘well up with tears’. Another etymological affiliation might be to the NM verb and post-cl. M ṣmr I ‘to heat, burn, inflame, be hot, inflamed, fevered, red’ (MD 396a), especially since inflammation often causes swelling. Whereas some of these CA and NA cognates evince meanings reasonably close to NM ‘to become wet’, the meaning ‘to swell’ is not attested in any Aramaic variety except NM. Yet this exact meaning is attested in Akk. ṣemēru, ṣamāru ‘to swell, be swollen (part of body), be bloated’. Thus, it might be that in the remote ancestor of NM the verbal root ṣmr acquired the meaning ‘to swell’ through loan translation based on the Akkadian cognate. Both NM meanings, ‘to swell’ and ‘to be wet’, have likely existed already in CM times. 8. NM zerɔ, zer [zye:rɔ, zye:r] ~ [ze:rɔ, ze:r] ‘crop, cornfield; grass’212 corresponds to CM zira ‘seed, semen, offspring’. According to Macuch the traditional pronunciation of zira is zerra,213 which is expected in view of the etymon zarʕā. The CM form zira [zerrɔ], a cognate of, inter alia, JBA as ‫‘ זרעא‬seed, semen, offspring, arable land’, exhibits a typical raising and fronting of a before r (cf. also NM sahrā > sarrā > serrɔ, ser ‘moon’, garmā > germɔ, germ ‘bone’, tarbā > terbɔ, terb ‘fat, suet’, garbā > gerbɔ, gerb ‘mange, scab’).214 A semantic change from ‘seed’ to ‘crop’, later extended to ‘cornfield; grass’ could easily be an internal Mandaic development (cf. zarʕā ‘seed’ > Karimlesh-NENA zaṛa ‘crop’, Hulaula-NENA zara ‘wheat’). However, since the pronunciation zerɔ (instead of expected zerrɔ) is difficult to explain as an internal phonological development, the striking phonetic and semantic resemblance of the NM word to Akk. zēru ‘seed, offspring; cornfield, arable land, acreage’ might suggest early Akkadian phonetic influence as well as a semantic loan which affected the remote proto-form of NM zerɔ. The change of meaning in NM, from seed to crop etc., its possible connection with Akkadian, and the fact that already in JBA ‫ זרעא‬had acquired 212 The first denotation is already attested in Macuch 1993, e.g. 224:1266 kandi l-zerɔ la haṣdɔti ‘I have not reaped the crop yet’, and ‘cornfield’ is possibly attested ibid. 296:1774 əl-zerɔ́ n haṣdonnu ‘they reaped the cornfields’. The plural form with indefinite ending -i, zerɔni is already attested in early modern M as zirania, zrania (MD 167b), the meaning of which is possibly ‘cornfields’, and according to MD, ‘seeds, seedlings, young plants’. 213 HCMM 91:9, et passim. As for NM “zerra” ‘seed’ on p. 172:26, both pronunciation and meaning are unknown to my informants (for ‘seed’ NM uses bazirɔ, bazír, which also means ‘semen’ and ‘offspring’, cf. CM bazira ‘seed’). 214 For the fronting and raising of a in Mandaic see HCMM 109ff.



neo-mandaic and pre-modern aramaic

77

the meaning ‘arable land’, all point to a probable reconstruction of ‘cornfield’ or a closely-related meaning like ‘arable land’ in CM. 9. NM tly, təlɔ́ , tɔli ‘to pull, drag, draw, stretch’ is already attested in the first three meanings as CM tla, which also retains the older Aramaic meanings ‘to lift, hang, suspend’, as is the case with JBA ‫‘ תלי‬to hang, suspend, stretch’. The semantic change in Mandaic (and JBA), which ended in a complete shift to the meanings related to pulling and a loss of the older meanings, could be either (1) an internal development (see my attempt to draw a semantic pathway from ‘hang’ to ‘pull’ on p. 107), or (2), an old partial loan shift related to the impact of Akk. talālu ‘to draw a bow, (roughly:) stretch out’. 3.4 The Importance of Neo-Mandaic for Elucidating Literary Mandaic Lexemes The inherited Aramaic core of the Neo-Mandaic lexis corresponds, as expected, mostly to Eastern Aramaic antecedents, in particular literary Mandaic and JBA ones. The antecedents of NM ṭll, ṭallel, mṭallel ‘to play’ and ṭəlulɔ ‘game’, for instance, are found only in CM ṭll ‘to play, sport’, ṭalula ‘play, jest, mock’ and JBA ‫‘ טלל‬to play, sport’, ‫‘ טלולא‬jest’ (in ‫חוכא‬ ‫‘ וטלולא‬laughter and jest’). Likewise, the semantic values of many NM words are closely and particularly affiliated with CM and JBA. Neo-Mandaic ziqɔ, ziq ‘flatulence, colic; birth pangs’, for instance, corresponds to CM ziqa, a cognate of JBA ‫ זיקא‬and Syr. ‫ܙܝ ܵܩܐ‬. ̣ These CA cognates basically denote ‘wind’ (in Syriac ‘storm’). A secondary meaning ‘flatulence’ emerged in the JBA-CM dialect continuum of southern and central Mesopotamia and survives to this day in NM. Unlike textual Aramaic sources, which may or may not make it possible to obtain an accurate definition of a specific lexical item, in the case of the modern Mandaic vernacular the denotation or denotations of any given word can be unequivocally recorded through careful solicitation of reliable speakers. In some cases a well-defined NM word can shed light on its antecedent attested in literary Aramaic. One example is Macuch’s treatment of post-cl. M kankuza, var. kanzuza, which he interpreted as ‘chin’ in the light of NM kankuzɔ ‘ditto’ (and consider the Syriac cognate ܵ ‫‘ ܟܠ ̣ܙܘ ܵܙܐ‬ditto’).215 215 HCMM lvii, 536–537. For the Akkadian origin of this word see p. 62. NM kankuzɔ, which is cognate with gazluzo, gagluzo, lagzuno ‘chin’ in the Ṭuroyo dialects (Tezel 2003:

78

chapter three

In some other cases a CM lexical item whose very existence is considered doubtful in the scholarly literature can be ascertained by virtue of its attestation in NM, as in the case of šrq ‘to glide, slip’ below. In what follows I shall adduce some other examples whereby the denotations of literary Mandaic (LM) and JBA words may be elucidated on the basis of NM. 1. NM beftɔ ‘stone of fireplace’: LM bitpa The meaning of post-cl. M bitpa, glossed ‘cooking-vessel’ in MD 64b should rather be elucidated in light of NM beftɔ, beft ‘one of three bricklike stones surrounding the cavity of the hearth’. In traditional Mandaean homes the fireplace (kanunɔ, kanún) was a cavity in the ground filled with twigs and coal, and surrounded by three brick-shaped stones called beftɔnɔ or beftɔ́ n al-kanúnɔ. These fireplace stones served as stands for a cooking pot or a pan. NM beftɔ is clearly a metathesised form of bitpa (*betfā), which most probably had the same denotation as in NM, especially since bitpa is attested in the phrase bitpia tlata ukanuna (MD 198b, s.v, kanuna), which should be translated ‘the three fireplace stones and the hearth’. ܲ ‫‘ ܒܝܬ‬fireplace, bitpa is cognate with JBA ‫בי תפי‬, ‫ ביתפיי‬and Syr. ‫ܬܦ ܵܝܐ‬ � ̣ ܹ hearth, stove’, composed of bē tp̄ ayyā ‘place of hearth’. tp̄ ayyā also appears ܲ ‫‘ תפיא‬fireplace, etc.’, and in Syriac and JBA as an independent word, ‫ܬܦ ܵܝܐ‬, � its modern reflexes are Ṭur. tfayo, and similarly WNA ṯiffōyṯa, ṯeffṯa and NENA kpāya (Qaraqosh), pāya (e.g. in C.Shaqlawa). In Mandaic erstwhile *tpayyā can only be detected as a fused part of the word bitpa, pl. bitpia, NM beftɔ, beft.216 The singular form bitpa appears to be derived from the plural bitpia by back-formation. The latter form itself was most probably reanalysed as plural when its pronunciation changed from *betfayyā to *betfi (cf.

163–164), was in the time of Macuch’s visit in Ahvaz “a very common vernacular Mandaic word . . . whose meaning is known to any Mandaean child in Iran” (Macuch 1965: 154), yet nowadays it is obsolescent or obsolete, being known to one elderly Ahvazi informant, but not practically used. The common word for ‘chin’ used by my informants of both Ahvaz and Khor.-NM is kaččɔ, of obscure origin. 216 Another Mandaic derivative of *tp̄ ayyā is in all likelihood CM tpa, NM tfy, təfɔ́ , tɔfi ‘to cook’, etfɔ ‘it was cooked’. In MD 489a tpa is considered a secondary root from apa ‘to bake’ (> NM ʔfy, əfɔ́ , ɔfi), but a denominative verb from *tp̄ ayyā is more likely, especially in light of Qum.Aram. ‫‘ תפה‬to set pot etc. on stones of hearth for cooking’ (Abegg, vol. 1/2: ܲ Cf. also DJBA 944), Syr. ‫‘ ܬܦܝ‬to put pot, cauldron, kettle etc. on the hearth’, from ‫ܬܦ ܵܝܐ‬. � 1224b ‫‘ תפי‬to seethe’ CM šumia pronounced ošmi),217 a reanalysis that was followed by, or concomitant with, a semantic shift ‘fireplace’ > ‘fireplace stones’. 2. NM bɔrsəmɔqɔ ‘copper’: LM barsumaqa Literary Mandaic barsumaqa occurs only in very late sources.218 Had Drower and Macuch been aware of the Neo-Mandaic word bɔrsəmɔqɔ, bɔrsəmɔ́ q when A Mandaic Dictionary was written, the definition of the entry barsumaqa would not have been ‘a red cloth, or cloak’ but rather ‘copper’. In addition, these authors did not know what to make of DC 46 kdub ʿlẖ barsumaqa ‘write on copper’ (NM kədów ele bɔrsəmɔqɔ) and translated ‘write on something red (?)’. Mandaic barsumaqa is a compound in which the first element bar, NM bɔr, a contextual alternant of bɔrɔ ‘brass’, appears to be derived from NP ‫‘ ب�ا ر‬alloy’, since brass is an alloy of copper and zinc, and the second element is sumaqa, səmɔqɔ ‘red’. Thus bɔrsəmɔqɔ is a hybrid Iranian-Semitic compound, which NM speakers indeed construe as literally meaning ‘red brass’. A connection of bɔrɔ to CM abara ‘lead’ is hardly likely, since the ancient pronunciation of abara may very well have been with a fricative b ܵ (awārā or avārā),219 as also in Syriac ‫ ܲ �ܐ ̣ܒܪܐ‬and JBA ‫ ֲא ָב ָרא‬, in which case a change such as *awārā > NM bɔrɔ would have been highly improbable.220 Note also that the NM word for ‘lead’ is ḥeddɔ (< ?) rather than a reflex of CM abara. 3. NM əlimɔ ‘thick’: LM ʿlima NM əlimɔ, f. əlemtɔ ‘thick’ as well as the fact that the JBA cognate ‫אלים‬ denotes, inter alia, ‘thick’, should not be ignored in any reference to the literary M parallel ʿlima. According to MD (p. 351) it denotes ‘strong, firm, sturdy, vigorous’ and ‘youthful’, but the meaning ‘thick’ appears more

217  See HCMM 126–127. 218  Contrary to MD 51a, the form barsmaqa does not exist in Mandaic (Dr. Matthew Morgenstern, p.c.). 219  Cf. abara in HCMM 82, probably an ad hoc mispronunciation of CM abara, in view of such mispronunciations elsewhere in the same book, e.g. p. 36 kšaša (< *gšāšā) ‘touching’, orally rendered as xšāša, which cannot possibly reflect genuine CM, and consider Macuch’s observation that “the traditional pronunciation, however, often fails when the priests have to read texts they do not know by heart.” (HCMM lviii: 13). 220 Hence bar in manuscript DC 46, defined in MD 50, s.v. bar 3 as ‘lead’, may very well rather be ‘brass’.

80

chapter three

likely at least as regards two citations in MD: ugbinẖ ʿlimia ‘and his eyebrows are thick’ and uʿlimia spihatẖ ‘and his lips are thick’. 4. NM horfɔ ‘pungency, chilli’: LM hurpa NM horfɔ, horf denotes (1) pungency, spiciness, hot taste of food, as in ləšɔne qəlɔ́ mə-hórfɔ ‘my tongue burned of pungency’, (2) pungent or spicy substance added to food, such as saffron, pepper, chilli etc., as in bədúq horfɔ ‘add (lit. ‘put’, sg.f.) something spicy (to the food)!’, (3) chilli, chili pepper. The MD entry hurpa 1 (p. 138a), defined as ‘a kind of plant’, should be treated in the light of NM horfɔ. The literary word hurpa is found in postclassical M, where šuba ṣindia ḏhurpa ḏhiuara is literally ‘seven seeds of chilli of spices’ (for hiuara see immediately below). The M word hurpa, horfɔ is cognate with JBA ‫‘ חורפא‬pungency (also ‘sharpness, ingenuity, acumen’), and both are derived from the verbal root ḥrp ‘to be sharp, pungent’, from which also NM harufɔ, harúf ‘pungent’ and NENA xarupa ‘sharp; pungent’ (e.g. in Qaraqosh) are derived. 5. NM ḥəwɔrɔ ‘spice, spices’: LM hiuara NM ḥəwɔrɔ, ḥəwɔ́ r ‘spice’ and, as a collective noun, ‘spices’, may shed light on the meaning of hiuara in post-cl. M šuba ṣindia ḏhurpa ḏhiuara.221 In light of NM ḥəwɔrɔ as well as horfɔ ‘chilli’, it would be more likely that hiuara in that passage refers to ‘spice’ or ‘spices’ rather than to the colour white. The literal translation of the whole passage would be, therefore, ‘seven seeds of chilli of spices’. The cumbersome-looking phrase ‘chilli of spices’ is, however, admittedly difficult to account for. Perhaps the addition of ḏhiuara is not pleonastic, but is meant to clarify that the seven ‘seeds’ referred to are not seeds taken from chilli pods, but rather small fragments of coarsely ground chilli used as a spice. NM ḥəwɔrɔ probably corresponds to CM hiuara ‘acrimonious, bitter, fierce’ in connection to fighting and war222 and to JBA ‫‘ חיור‬fierce’, in which the ‫ ח‬was probably a hypercorrection for ‫( ה‬and was pronounced h).223 As for the etymology of hiuara, Macuch suggests Syr. ‫‘ �ܲܗܪ‬to quarrel, َّ dispute’ and Ar. ‫‘ �هر‬to growl’, and the nominal pattern is explained as a

221  See MD 138a, s.v. hurpa 1 and the discussion related to NM horfɔ above. 222 See MD 142a, s.v. hiuara 2. 223 See DJBA 451b, s.v. ‫ חיור‬2, where the postulated etymon is ‫היור‬.



neo-mandaic and pre-modern aramaic

81

result of analogy with hiuara ‘white’.224 Such an analogy is hardly likely, and the entire etymology remains uncertain. Assuming that NM ḥəwɔrɔ stems from hiwārā or a similar etymon, the aberrant change h > ḥ would likely be a means to distinguish this word from həwɔrɔ ‘white’. Such a differentiation can be demonstrated in the case of NM ḥwy, aḥwi (CM hba) ‘to hide’ vs. hwy, ahwi (CM hwa) ‘to show’ (~ hwl, ahwel). 6. NM ləbɔnɔ ‘bulrush’: LM lubana The definition of CM lubana as ‘frankincense’ in MD (p. 232) should be corrected in the light of NM ləbɔnɔ ‘bulrush, Typha domingensis (also known as lesser reedmace, cat’s tail)’.225 The occurrence of this word in CM in the phrase qaina ulubana, corresponding to NM qenɔ w ləbɔnɔ ‘reed and bulrush’, leaves no doubt that lubana and ləbɔnɔ represent the same Mandaic word.226 The approximate proto-form that yielded Mandaic lubana, ləbɔnɔ is ܵ ‫‘ ܲ �ܐ‬bulrush’ and Akkadian attested as JBA ‫אורבנא‬, ‫אורבאנא‬,227 Syr. ‫ܪܒ ܵܢܐ‬ urbānu ‘papyrus’.228 Since the latter is rare and late, occurring only in the somewhat artificial Standard Babylonian and in Neo-Babylonian, the direction of borrowing is claimed to be from Aramaic to Akkadian by some scholars,229 but the opposite direction might be the case, assuming that it is a genuine Akkadian word that surfaced only in late phases of Akkadian, and in view of the possibly related word urbatu ‘rush’ that occurs already in Old Babylonian.230 7. NM məharrɔ ‘spade’: LM mhara Western scholars were not certain what to make of CM mhara in connection with irrigation canals, and could only offer hesitant conjectures:

224 MD 142a, s.v. hiuara 2. 225 For botanic details and practical applications of this plant see Townsend and Guest 1966–1980, vol. 8: 211ff., Hepper 1992: 194. 226 The NM word is attested with inaccurate definition in ms. DC 4, an English-Mandaic vocabulary, as lbana ‘reed; papyrus reed’—See Mutzafi and Morgenstern, forthcoming. 227 Pace Löw 1881: 54 and DJBA 93b. JBA ‫ אורבנא‬denotes ‘bulrush’ rather than ‘papyrus reed’,َ as proven by the Geonic explanation that the Arabic name of this plant is ‫( ברדי‬viz. ‫) ب�ـ�رِد ��ي‬. 228 Dietrich (1967: 299) tentatively compares CM lubana with Akk. lupānu, lubānu, but this Akkadian lexeme clearly refers to a foodstuff, apparently sweet almond (CAD L: 251b), whereas bulrush is not part of human food. 229 See, inter alia, AHw 1428. 230 See Zimmern 1917: 19–20, Abraham and Sokoloff 2011: 56b.

82

chapter three

‘measure’,231 ‘an instrument for watering’ or ‘watering-pot’.232 The correct meaning ‘spade’, offered by NM məharrɔ, məhár233 fits all contexts of this word in the classical texts, as a tool for digging and maintaining irrigation canals. Mandaic mhara, məharrɔ is borrowed from Akkadian marru (itself from Sumerian), whence also cognates in various classical and modern ܵ ܲ WNA marra and NENA māṛa, Aramaic varieties, such as Syr. ‫ܡܪܐ‬,234 � mera, +mira (all < *marrā). The excrescent h in Mandaic, however, is of uncertain origin. The existence of Akk. maḫru ‘spade (or a similar tool)’ might be relevant in this connection: Perhaps məharrɔ represents a conflation of *marrā (< Akk. marru) and *mahrā, the expected Mandaic reflex of Akk. maḫru, if the latter word was indeed borrowed into Mandaic.235 8. NM nannɔ ‘breast’: LM nana The MD entry nana ‘an epithet of endearment for one that looks after a young child, wet nurse’ (p. 283), is attested in the very late manuscript DC 46, in which it may be a modern—or early modern—Mandaic word corresponding to NM nannɔ, nan ‘breast’. The Neo-Mandaic denotation ‘breast (of woman)’, rather than ‘wet nurse’, perfectly fits the context in DC 46: “lianqa ḏ-baki unana lamaiiṣ . . .”, referring to a remedy for a baby who cries and does not suck (his mother’s) breast. Additionally, the NM word in question occurs already in the meaning ‘breast’ in the early modern M Glossarium (54:5), spelled nna.236 The word is marked in MD as ‘childish tongue’, and indeed it seems to have emerged as a nursery word. 9. NM pelqɔ ‘spindle’: LM pilqa Whereas A Mandaic Dictionary defines CM pilqa as ‘axe, hatchet’, and alludes to an identical meaning of this word in Neo-Mandaic,237 in both Ahvaz and Khorramshahr dialects of NM pelqɔ, pelq denotes ‘spindle’, and

231 Nöldeke 1875: 11, n. 2 et passim. 232 Lidzbarski 1915, vol. 1: 49, n. 8, MD 259, s.v. mhara 2. 233 First occurring in ms. DC 4, dated 1934—see Mutzafi and Morgenstern, forthcoming; and is also documented in Drower 1937: 369, n. 2 as maharra. Indeed the schwa in NM məharrɔ is often realised as [a]. 234 See Kaufman 1974: 70 for further etymological data. 235 Another Neo-Aramaic form with non-etymological h, entirely independent from Neo-Mandaic, is dialectal Ṭur. mahro alongside the more original maro (Tezel 2003: 185). 236 See further in Borghero 1999–2000a: 130. 237 See MD 371, s.v. pilqa.



neo-mandaic and pre-modern aramaic

83

has nothing to do with ‘ax’ or ‘hatchet’. Drower and Macuch appear to have based their definition on Lidzbarski’s erroneous translation of pilqa in Draša ḏ-Yahia (Johannesbuch) as ‘ax’,238 and his translation was in its ܵ ‫‘ ܸܦ‬ax’ (see below). turn based on the entirely unrelated Syriac word ‫ܠܩܐ‬ Although the context in which this word occurs remains far from clear,239 it includes the word ʿzlak, viz. ‘your ʿzla [ʔezlā]’, which, at least in this passage, refers to a fishing net,240 and is a close cognate of JBA ‫עיזלא‬, ‫‘ איזלא‬net trap, net’, a derivative of ‫‘ עזל‬to spin’ (compare also Syr. ܵ ‫‘ ܸܥܙܠܐ‬thread, spinning’, Ṭur. ʕazlo, NENA ʔəzla ‘yarn’). Given the fact that in the Iraqi marshes fishing net cords are made of tightly spun threads,241 pilqa ‘spindle’—rather than ‘ax’—in connection to ʿzla ‘fishing net’ makes perfect sense. The JBA hapax legomenon ‫ פלקא‬is in all likelihood the same word, quite possibly a dialectal variant of the better attested and unequivocal form ‫‘ פילכא‬spindle’.242 Both variants occur in Sanhedrin 95a, where the biblical character Orpa says ‫עולימא הב לי פלקאי‬, var. ‫‘ עולימא איתי לי פלכאי‬young man, give (or ‘bring’) me my spindle!’. Sokoloff would rather construe ‫ פלקאי‬as ‘my ax’ in view of the context, whereby the implement called ‫ פלקא‬is said to have been used to penetrate Orpa’s head and kill her.243 However, if we bear in mind that in Mesopotamia and elsewhere in the Middle East a common type of spindle is equipped with a nail or hook,244 we might be able to explain how such an implement could have been used as an improvised weapon that was hurled forcefully at Orpa’s head and pierced it. The etymology of the Mandaic and JBA cognates is most likely Akkadian pilaqqu, pilakku ‘spindle’,245 especially if the origin of the Akkadian forms is Sumerian as claimed by Lieberman.246 The variant with q, at least, is found only in Akkadian, Mandaic and JBA, which is very suggestive of an Akkadian substrate word in Eastern Aramaic; whereas the 238 See Lidzbarski 1915, vol. 1: 162:5. 239 See Lidzbarski 1915, vol. 1: 162:4–6: ʿzlak lagṭit bgupta unagša (var. naqiša) upilqa litlak ʿzlak lašalib mia u la ṣbia (var. ṣabia) ḏ-nunia lagṭa; and vol. 2: 163. 240 Being dipped in water and catching fish, and Cf. MD 347b ʿzla ‘web, net, woven material’. 241  See Ochsenschlager 2004: 221, 225ff. 242 Cf. DJBA 900–901, 914, s.vv. 243 See DJBA 914; yet see an analysis of the full Talmudic story in Sasson 2010: 1–26, esp. p. 4. 244 According to NA-speaking informants, and see Dalman 1928–1942, vol. 5: 42. 245 See Kaufman 1974: 82–83. 246 Lieberman 1976: 179–180, CAD P: 372a.

84

chapter three

variant with k is found also in Eblaite, Ugaritic, Canaanite,247 JPA248 and Arabic.249 pilaqqu, pilakku and cognate Semitic forms may well represent an old culture word of unknown ultimate origin.250 At any rate the Eastern Aramaic forms, and especially the forms with q, were most probably borrowed from Akkadian. CM pilqa ‘spindle’ should not be confused with the homophonous Syrܵ ‫‘ ܸܦ‬ax’, which was borrowed from Greek πέλεκυς ‘two-edge iac word ‫ܠܩܐ‬ ax’.251 The etymologies and distribution of the two homophonous Aramaic words can be presented as follows: Etymon Classical Aramaic Akk. pilaqqu CM pilqa, JBA ‫ פלקא‬ ܵ ‫ ܦ‬ Gk. πέλεκυς Syr. ‫ܠܩܐ‬ ܸ

Neo-Aramaic NM pelqɔ —

Gloss spindle ax

Note, in addition, that NM pelqɔ, pelq ‘spindle’ is unique vis-à-vis other NA ܵ ܲ varieties which use kuša (Syr. ‫)ܟܘ ܵܫܐ‬, ̣ maʕzla (Syr. ‫)ܡܥܙܠܐ‬ � or the Kurdish loanword taší and kindred forms: spindle

NM pelqɔ

NENA kuša, taší(ya)

Ṭuroyo tašiye

WNA maʕzla

10. NM poġlɔ ‘radish’: LM puglia NM poġlɔ, poġəl ‘radish’ is cognate with WNA foġla and NENA peɁla, pella, ܵ +pəlla (etc.), all ‘radish’. CA antecedents are Syr. ‫ܓܠܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܦܘ‬, ̣ JBA ‫פוגלא‬, JPA ‫פגול‬, det. ‫‘ פוגלה‬ditto’. The pl. form of pugla is attested in ms. DC 46, 221:11 as puglia (bazra ḏpuglia ‘radish seeds’), yet this was erroneously cited in MD 367b as pulgia and was glossed ‘mugwort, wormwood’. In the light of NM poġlɔ, puglia in DC 46 should be regarded as the plural of *pugla.252 11. NM prx ‘to rub; rub ears of corn to extract grain’: LM prk NM prx, pəráx, pɔrex has the basic denotation ‘to rub body part (e.g. eyes), massage’ as well as a more specific meaning ‘to rub ears of corn (usually) 247 del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín 2003, vol. 2: 671, s.v. plk. 248 DJPA 436, s.v. ‫פלכה‬. 249 Lane 1863–1893, vol. 6: 2444a, s.v. ‫‘ َفلْ َكة‬the whirl of a spindle’. 250 Kaufman 1974: 83. 251  This etymology is uncontested since the Syriac word is pronounced with a Greek unaspirated p (see the remark in SL 2013), and note also the unadapted by-form ‫ܦܠܩܘܣ‬ (Thesaurus 3162). 252 See Mutzafi and Morgenstern, forthcoming.



neo-mandaic and pre-modern aramaic

85

between the palms of hands in order to extract grain’. The latter meaning is probably attested already in the Glossarium (127:5), where the entry aprak is glossed vellere spicas ‘to pluck—or tear pieces from—ears of corn’. Likewise, various NENA varieties and classical Aramaic languages have cognates with meanings related to crushing or crumbling plants by rubbing, in addition to the primary denotation ‘to rub’, e.g. Qaraqosh and C.Urmi prx, pārəx ‘to rub roasted ears of corn to extract grain’,253 Barwar prx, pārəx ‘to crush plant, e.g. tobacco, by rubbing’,254 and similarly in JBA, ܵ Syriac and JPA.255 A nominal derivative from the same root is Syr. ‫ܦ̈ܪܝ ̣ ܵܟ ̣ܬܐ‬ ̣ ‘crushed grain, barley groats’. The CM verb prk, occurring in the context of agricultural works and crop in Draša ḏ-Yahia (pp. 232–233), should be construed in light of the aforementioned cognates, and in particular the meanings of prx in NM. Lidzbarski’s rendition zermahlen256 (‘to grind, crush’) is, therefore, correct or quite near the mark, whereas the definition of prk in MD (p. 379) as ‘to bind (sheaves), tie together’ is unwarranted. Hence bmahu nihun nihṣdunh, bmahu nihun nipirkunh (var. niparkunh) in Draša ḏ-Yahia means, in agreement with Lidzbarski, ‘with what should they [the sons of Adam] reap it and with what should they crush it?’, although the precise nature of this crushing is not clear and might refer to threshing rather than zermahlen. 12. NM selwɔ ‘thorn; fish-bone’: LM silua, salua NM selwɔ, seləw ‘thorn;257 small thorn-like fish-bone’ is preceded by postcl. M silua, salua and by JBA ‫סילוא‬, ‫‘ סלוא‬thorn, palm-tree thorn’.258 The M cognate silua is glossed ‘shaft, rod, lance, pointed arrow’ in MD (326b), 253 In Qaraqosh there is also praxta ‘ear of corn’ and in Bariṭle praxta ‘husk of grain’ as nominal derivatives of the verbal root prx. For C.Urmi see, e.g., Şamilov 1933: 14:2 bulālə qəlyə ki-parxáxvālun go xānan ‘we used to rub roasted ears of corn on our laps’. 254 See Khan 2008, vol. 2: 1155. 255 For JBA see DJBA 934b, ʾeṯpəʿel of ‫ פרך‬in the context of crumbling a mustard stalk and eating its seeds; for Syriac—SL 1241a, paʿʿel of ‫ פרך‬in the context of pounding ears of wheat with the hand; for JPA—DJPA 447b, paʿʿel of ‫—פרך‬to remove husks by rubbing. 256 Lidzbarski 1915, vol. 2: 215. 257 First attested in the 17th century Glossarium—see MD 326b. 258 See DJBA 804, where in addition to the meaning ‘thorn’, some of the occurrences of this lexeme as well as the explanation by the Geonim point more specifically to ‘palmܵ ‫‘ ܲܣ‬thorn’ in SL 1012b does not belong to tree thorn’. Note, moreover, that the entry ‫ܠܘܐ‬ � the Syriac language. It is listed in Bar Bhalul’s lexicon (Duval 1888–1901, vol. 2: 1352) with a remark: “I found it in Aramaean proverbs in Aramaic, and in Syriac ‫”ܟܘ ܵܒܐ‬, ܼ hence salwā was used among local Aramaic speakers in 10th century Iraq, whereas the genuine Syriac word is kubbā.

86

chapter three

and the by-form salua is glossed ‘thorn-tree’ (MD 312a). As is already noted by Sokoloff, the meaning of the attested pl. forms siluania, sil(a) uata, salawata is ‘palm-tree thorns’,259 an assertion supported by the con‫�ُ َّا ءَ �ة‬ text, the JBA cognate, Ar. ‫‘ �س�ل‬palm-tree thorn’260 and Akk. ṣillû, sillu ‘thorn, thorny palm-tree leaflet’.261 The latter form is probably the source of Aramaic silua, etc., especially in view of the restriction of this word to Mesopotamian Aramaic varieties and the fact that the common and oldest Aramaic word for ‘thorn’ is kubbā (see p. 171). Other cognates are (1) plausibly BH ‫ ַסּלֹון‬or ‫‘ ִסּלֹון‬thorn or a type of ܿ ‫‘ ܣ‬boxthorn (a type of bramble)’ thorn’;262 and, questionably (2) ‫ܠܘ ܵܢܐ‬ ܹ which appears in Raphael Bidawid’s appendix to Manna’s Syriac-Arabic dictionary, where it is marked as a foreign word,263 and (3) dialectal Ṭur. salənto, salunto ‘Jerusalem thorn, Paliurus spina-christi’. These Syriac and Ṭuroyo words are of uncertain origin(s), despite their similarity to BH ܵ ܿ ‫ ܣ‬in Syriac is unclear. Ṭur. salənto, ‫סלון‬,264 and the authenticity of ‫ܠܘܢܐ‬ ܹ ܵ ‫‘ �ܲܣ‬thorn bush’,265 and be a salunto might rather be related to Syr. ‫ܢܝܐ‬ cognate of NENA saniṯa, sənniṯa ‘blackberry bramble’. Given that silua has survived down to modern times as selwɔ ‘thorn’ and that JBA ‫סילוא‬, ‫ סלוא‬have closely related meanings, the meaning ‘thorn’ (or ‘type of thorn’) must have existed in pre-modern M as well. See further on p. 171. 13. NM šəwuyɔ ‘jackal’: LM šibuia, šabuia NM šəwuyɔ, šəwúy ‘jackal’266 is attested already in the Glossarium (177:1) as šibuia, glossed, inter alia, as colloquial Ar. ‫‘ وا و��ي‬jackal’. By virtue of the clear meaning of this word in NM and early modern Mandaic, MD 459a šibuia should be revised. The latter, occurring in very late—or early modern—Mandaic sources, is marked as colloquial in MD and defined

259 DJBA 804a. 260 Consider also Iraqi Ar. silli, silla ‘thorns’, silliyya, sillāya ‘thorn’ (Woodhead and Beene 1967: 223b), which are either inherited from, or reinforced by, the Aramaic substrate. 261 See in particular AHw 1101b–1102a. The affiliation of JBA ‫ סילוא‬to Akk. ṣillû is already pointed out by Kwasman (2012: 85). 262 See HALOT 757a, Gesenius 1987ff., vol. 4: 899a. 263 Manna (and Bidawid) 1975: 946a. 264 See Tezel 2003: 167, n. 48. 265 See ibidem. 266 My NM informants reject the form šihwiya in HCMM 508a, 542a.



neo-mandaic and pre-modern aramaic

87

‘deer’. The grounds for this definition are unknown, and it appears to be conjectural. Furthermore, šabuia in ms. DC 45, defined ‘scorpion(-sting?)’ in MD (439a), is a by-form of šibuia, hence refers to the very same animal. This is evident from the context in DC 45, related to writing an amulet for anyone who was bitten by a šabuia šidana ‘possessed (or rabid) jackal’, among other animals. The Mandaic word šibuia (and šabuia), šəwuyɔ is unique to this language and its etymology remains to be unveiled. 14. NM šrq ‘slip, slide’: LM šrq The existence of the verbal root šrq in Khor.-NM, inflected in ap̄ ʿel: ašreq ‘he slipped off, slid’, mašreq ‘he might slip, slide’, corresponds to CM šrq which is glossed ‘to glide, down, slip’ in MD (p. 476. s.v. šrq 2), where it is stated that this verb is found only in corrupt form and contexts, and that its very existence is doubtful. The evidence of Neo-Mandaic is crucial for removing the doubt that this verb existed already in CM with meanings in the semantic field of sliding, and this evidence is coupled with the JBA cognate ‫‘ שרק‬to glide, slip off ’. It is not impossible, moreover, that CM šrg and JBA ‫‘ שרק‬to slip, slide’ are etymologically related, plausibly through partial assimilation of q to the preceding r. There seem to be no other Aramaic or Semitic cognates of these roots. 15. NM taqufɔ ‘sour’: LM taqupa MD (480b) lists taqup(a) as ‘strong (with the example hala taqupa ‘strong vinegar’),267 overpowering, grievous; (of an odour) pungent, acrid’, as well as ‘bitter’. The latter meaning is doubtful (note that the regular Mandaic and common Aramaic word for ‘bitter’ is marira, NM marirɔ, marír), and might rather be interpreted in the light of NM taqufɔ, taqúf ‘sour’, hence taqup(a) ‘strong; sour’. Consider also the JBA verb ‫‘ תקף‬to ferment, become sour (of wine)’ in addition to the basic meanings ‘to be strong, severe’ (see further on pp. 173–174). The root tqf is also represented in NM by the noun toqfɔ, toqf ‘sourness; sour ingredient in food (such as sumac or lemon extract)’.268 In light of tuqpa ‘strength, might’, we could readily postulate a semantic narrowing ܲ ܵ 267 Cf. Syr. ‫ܩܝ ܵܦܐ‬ ܼ ‫‘ ܲ�ܚܠܐ �ܬ‬acrid vinegar’ in Thesaurus 4491. 268 The meaning ‘vinegar’ adduced by Macuch (MD 480 and HCMM 524b), could not be corroborated by my informants. In Ahvaz ‘vinegar’ is serká (NP ‫)��سرکـ�ه‬.

88

chapter three

from ‘strength’ through ‘acridity of taste’, ‘acrid taste’ to ‘sourness, sour substance’. 16. NM ṭɔfqɔ ‘metal baking sheet’: LM ṭapqa The NM word ṭɔfqɔ, ṭɔfq signifies ‘a convex metal sheet which is placed above a fire and is used for baking’. Its forerunner is post-cl. Mandaic ṭapqa, a cognate of JBA ‫‘ טפקא‬baking surface heated from below’ and Syr. ܵ ‫‘ ܵܛ‬bread cooked in a ‫‘ ܲ �ܛ ܼܒ ܵܩܐ‬pan for baking bread or frying meat’, ‫ܦܩܐ‬ pan’. The ultimate etymon is Iranian *tābak, whence MP tābag ‘frying pan’.269 The definition of CM ṭapqa in MD (p. 175), ‘tongs, pincers; frying-pan’, should be revised in the light of the NM denotation, which is basically the same as that of JBA ‫ טפקא‬and Syr. ‫ ܲ �ܛ ̣ܒ ܵܩܐ‬, as well as by the fact that, as far as can be established, there is no CM context in which ṭapqa might be construed as ‘tongs, pincers’. Indeed in another of Drower’s publications ṭapqa is defined as ‘a shallow pan’,270 which is fairly congruent with what we now know about its NM reflex. 17. NM urɔ ‘marsh, swamp, small lake’: LM *ʿura, pl. ʿuria The word ʿuria in Draša ḏ-Yahia (Johannesbuch), occurring in the context of fishing,271 was unclear to Lidzbarski, who proposed the possibility of a plural form of JBA ‫‘ אוהרא‬fish trap’.272 Following Lidzbarski, the entry ʿuria in MD (p. 346) remains without definition and ‘doubtful’. By virtue of NM urɔ, ur ‘marsh, swamp, small lake’, we can now solve this lexical puzzle and regard CM ʿuria ‘marshes’ as a plural of the unattested sg. form *ʿura that survives to this day. Thus, for instance, the phrase nunia ḏ-ʿuria in Draša ḏ-Yahia 162:4 should be understood as ‘the fish of the marshes’. َ The Mandaic word can hardly be disconnected from Arabic ‫�ه ْور‬, Iraqi Ar. hōr ‘marsh, swamp’, but the nature of this connection and the ultimate etymon of these words remain topics for further research. 18. NM yɔyɔ ‘brother’: LM iaia MD (p. 186a) glosses iaia as ‘a family term of affection’. Ahvaz-NM offers a precise definition of this term, having yɔyɔ ‘brother, bro!’ as a special (and 269 See DJBA 514a. 270 Drower 1963: 75, n. 5. 271  Lidzbarski 1915, vol. 1: 147:11, 64:4. 272 Ibid., vol. 2: 149, n. 2; and cf. JBA ‫‘ אוהרא‬a net trap for birds or fish’.



neo-mandaic and pre-modern aramaic

89

usually affectionate) vocative related to ahɔ ‘brother’, and also as a nursery word for brother. The form iaiia cited in MD represents the ­nursery word yɔyɔ ‘bro’.273 The etymology of yɔyɔ might be yɔ (vocative particle) ahɔ (brother) > *yahɔ > *yɔhɔ > yɔyɔ.

273 Hence MD 186a baba umama uiaia is ‘papa and mama and brother’. In the same entry the passage uiaiai udadai should be translated ‘and my brother and my elder/eldest sister’, based on NM informants who adduced the word dāde ‘elder sister, eldest sister’ as being used in Khuzestani Arabic spoken by both the Muslims and the Arabic-speaking Mandaeans of the province.

chapter four

Neo-Mandaic and other Neo-Aramaic varieties: Isolexes Since the general appearance of the NM vocabulary is by and large Aramaic, many of the NM lexemes inherited from pre-modern Aramaic have cognates in most if not all major NA language-groups—NENA, Ṭuroyo-Mlaḥsô and WNA. Some other cognates constitute lexical isoglosses only with some of these language-groups, in particular NENA (or some NENA dialects), the NA language-group that is geographically nearest to NM. 4.1 Shared Retentions of Neo-Mandaic and Other Neo-Aramaic Varieties A considerable proportion of the inherited Aramaic lexis of NM is shared with all or some of the Neo-Aramaic language-groups. This is most evident in the basic lexicon of these languages, which is mostly Aramaic in nature,1 and consists of shared retentions which can, in part, be traced back to the common lexical inventory of the oldest phases of Aramaic. One of the Old Aramaic lexical items which has been retained today throughout NA is ‫‘ נחת‬to descend’, which occurs as NM nhṯ (nəhéṯ, nɔheṯ), NENA nxṯ, nxt, nḥt (e.g. in Alqosh, Ishshi and Jinet, respectively), Ṭuroyo and Mlaḥsô nḥt and WNA dialects nḥč, nḥć. Another is ‫‘ חוה‬snake’, which occurs as NM hewyɔ, hewi, NENA xuwwe (and dialectal variants), Ṭur. ḥawyo ‘a type of snake’, Mlaḥsô ḥevyó and WNA ḥūya. Many other lexical cognates, basic as well as non-basic, are also to be found amongst the shared retentions which demonstrate the affiliation of NM with other parts of the Neo-Aramaic speaking-area, as is shown by the following selected examples:2

1 As for Neo-Mandaic, see Häberl 2009: 35, 39–44 where it is shown that in Khor.-NM about 85% of the 207-word Swadesh list are reflexes of earlier Mandaic words. 2 The NM cognates refer to the dialect of Ahvaz. The verbal root cognates are inflected in pəʿal stem in all languages.

92 Etymon 1. purtaʕnā 2. kuḥlā 3. *ʔallīṯā, *ʔellīṯā 4. šrāġā 5. ʔaḥlā, ʔuḥlā 6. *squppəṯā 7. ʔīmāmā 8. šāʕṯā 9. ṭaḇyā 10. ḥaṯṯā, *ḥattā 11. *ḥurēnā, ḥrēnā 12. rḥm 13. nḥl 14. ḥṣḏ

chapter four NM partonnɔ kollɔ əlextɔ šərɔġɔ ahlɔ səqoftɔ əmɔmɔ šiṯɔ ṭawyɔ haṯṯɔ horinɔ rhm nhl7 hṣd

NENA pərṭaʔna kəxla ʔeliṯa šrāɁa ʔuxla squpṯa ʔimāma šeʔṯa ṭoya xāṯa xrena rxm nxl xṣḏ, xzd

Ṭuroyo fərṭaʕno kuḥlo heliṯo3 šroġo — squfto ʔimomo (sāʕa)4 (ġazale)Ar. ḥāṯo ḥreno rḥm nḥl ḥṣd (!)

WNA furṭaʕna xoḥla līṯa šrōġa ʔoḥla (ʕačəpṯa)Ar. imōma šaʕṯa ṭabya5 ḥačča6 ḥrēna rḥm nḥl ḥṣḏ

Gloss flea kohl fat-tail oil lamp alkaline plant threshold daytime hour, while gazelle new (sg.m.) other (sg.m.) to love to sift to reap

Comments: 1. Whereas in CA the Aramaic word for ‘flea’ is attested only in Syriac as ܲ ܵ ‫ܪܬ‬ ‫ܥܢܐ‬ � ‫ܦܘ‬, ̣ in NA it is attested in all major dialect groups. The NA forms are split between NM partonnɔ, partón and the rest. The latter are all derived from purtaʕnā, attested in Syriac. In addition, all forms other than the NM one evince a secondary pharyngealisation of t, e.g. Hertevin pərṭaʔna.8 The nominal pattern of the NM cognate is, therefore, unique and its origin is uncertain. It seems that the Mandaic form has arisen from *partuʕnā, which is in its turn either a metathesised offshoot of purtaʕnā (attested in Syriac), or possibly based on a separate Aramaic pattern akin to the pattern of the cognate Akkadian form paršuʾu.9

3 In the dialect of Bsorino (Michael Suroyo, p.c.). Other Ṭuroyo dialects use dūv, duve, dūvke (Ritter 1979: 139), from Kurdish. 4 < Arabic. A sole fossilised vestige of the pl. form šāʕīn ‘hours’ > čoʕín survives in Ṭur. čaʕčoʕín ‘afternoon’—see Tezelَ َ‫غ‬2003: 122–123. 5 Alongside ġazōla < Ar. ‫‘ � ز�ا ل‬gazelle’. 6 Determinate form. Maʿlula ḥačč(i) ‘new’, ḥačča ‘the new’, in Bax. ḥaćć, ḥaćća, respectively, Jub. ḥāč ‘new’. 7 Cf. HCMM 519b “moholθa eβad”—i.e. NM məholtɔ ‘sieve’ and əwád ‘he did’—which was not corroborated by my NM informants. 8 Either due to partial assimilation with ʕ or, at least in some NENA dialects, possibly due to partial assimilation with r which had undergone spontaneous pharyngealisation, e.g. Betanure *pəṛtaʔna < pəṛṭeʔna. NENA dialectal forms such as J.Sanandaj pərtaʕná evince recycling: t > ṭ > t, for these evolved from *pəṛṭaʕna, in which ʕ had been retained by virtue of the vicinity of ṭ and at a later phase ṭ change to t due to dissimilation from ʕ (see this process in a closely related dialect in Mutzafi 2004: 28–33). 9 See this form in AHw p. 855, s.v. perša⁠ʾu.



neo-mandaic and other neo-aramaic varieties: isolexes

93

2. NM kollɔ, kol ‘kohl’ is attested in de Morgan’s texts of vernacular Mandaic, collected near the end of the 19th century, as part of the phrase kollɔ l-inɔ ‘kohl of the eye’.10 It has cognates in all other NA languages (see the table above), and its CM antecedent kula is cognate with JBA and ܵ Qum.Aram. ‫כוחלא‬,11 JPA ‫כחל‬, and Syr. ‫ܟܘܚܠܐ‬, ̣ all ‘kohl’. 3. The precursor of NM əlextɔ, əléxt ‘sheep’s fat-tail’ should be reconstructed in light of CM alita and later Mandaic alikta. The two forms ܲ represent a development from *ʔalliṯā (Eastern Syriac ‫)ܐܠ ̣ܝ ̣ܵܬܐ‬12 to � *allextā, with a typical late Mandaic and NM shift of īṯ to ext. Some other cases of this striking shift13 in NM are *ṣeḇʕīṯā (cf. Syr. ‫)ܨ ̣ܒ ܵܥܐ‬ ܸ > *ṣəḇīṯā (CM ṣbita)14 > ṣəwextɔ, ṣəwéxt ‘finger, toe’, *mīṯat (CM mitat) > mextat ‘she died’ (myṯ, meṯ ‘he died’), *ʔīṯeh (cf. CM aitẖ)15 > exti ‘he is’, and possibly also *maṣḇīṯā > *maṣwextɔ > maṣwettɔ ‘Mandaean baptism’.16 The postulated process *allextā > əlextɔ entails two additional major processes: 1. Regular de-gemination in unstressed syllable, as, e.g., also in *šammīnā, f. *šammīntā > NM šaminɔ, šamín, f. šamentɔ, šamént ‘fat (adj.)’. 2. a > ə in unstressed syllable, as in some other cases in NM, e.g. *yabbīšā (LM iabiša) > *yabišɔ > yəbišɔ ‘dry’.17 The NENA and Ṭuroyo cognates reflect the proto-form *ʔellīṯā, which is akin to Western Syriac as ‫ܐܠ ̣ܝ ̣ܵܬܐ‬, ܸ and it seems that this is the origin of WNA līṯa as well. 4. NM šərɔġɔ, šərɔ́ ġ is cognate with NENA šrāɁa (and dialectal variants such as šrāya), Ṭur. šroġo, Mlaḥ. šroġó18 and WNA šrōġa, all denoting ‘oil lamp (traditionally made of clay)’, and corresponding to CM šraga, JBA ܵ ܵ ‫שרגא‬, ‫שראגא‬, Syr. ‫ܓܐ‬ ̣ ‫‘ ܫܪ‬lamp’, ultimately from MP čirāγ ‘ditto’. 5. NM ahlɔ, ahəl and (according to my informants) the local Arabic equivalent šnān refer to an alkali-rich shrub, Seidlitzia rosmarinus and to its extract. In former times the leaves of ahlɔ were dried and soaked in 10 See Macuch 1989: 170:1103, 228, where “kollā” is misconstrued as ‘eye-drops’. 11 Abegg 2003, vol. 1/2: 851. 12 See Brockelmann 1928: 21b, Manna (and Bidawid) 1975: 21b. 13 Most probably a result of diphthongisation and fortition, as in *ʔalliṯā > *ʔalliyṯā > *ʔalliçṯā > *allixtɔ > *allextɔ > əlextɔ, əléxt. 14 See this form in MD 389b, s.v. ṣbata. 15 Nöldeke 1875: 403, HCMM 441. 16 This noun, which is already recorded by Siouffi (1880: 162), is now rarely used, its place being taken by the verbal noun ṣəwɔ́ (< *ṣḇāyā) ‘baptizing; baptism’. 17 In Khor.-NM yəbišɔ (my informant) ~ yabušɔ (Häberl 2009: 363). Cf. HCMM 501a yæbōš(a), unknown to my informants. 18 Jastrow 1994: 191.

94

chapter four

water to extract alkali or a detergent that was used for washing clothes and dishes.19 The NM form is already attested in CM as ahla ‘soapwort’, which is cognate with JBA ‫אחלא‬, ‫אהלא‬, ‫‘ אוהלא‬alkaline plant; alkali’ and Syriac ܵ ܲ ܵ ‫ܐܚܠܐ‬, � ‫ܐܘܚܠܐ‬ ̣ ‘alkaline plant; lye’,20 all from Akkadian uḫūlu ‘alkaline plant’.21 Modern Aramaic cognates, found in NENA and WNA, all stem from ܵ ʔuḥlā (‫)ܐܘܚܠܐ‬: NENA ʔuxla ‘alkaline plant and substance extracted from ̣ it for polishing copperware and brass utensils’ in the Ṭyare dialect of Chamba d-Mallik and ʔəxla ‘alkaline plant and substance extracted from it and used for washing clothes and dishes’ in the dialects of Alqosh, Tisqopa and Telkepe. The precise botanical definitions of these NENA cognates are uncertain, as is that of the WNA (Baxʿa) cognate ʔoḥla ‘alkaline plant’.22 6. NM səqoftɔ, səqóft ‘threshold’ corresponds to CM ʿsqupta, squpta and the closely related cognates Targ. 1Samuel 5:4 ‫ סקופתא‬and JBA ‫איסקופתא‬. Aramaic inherited this word from Akkadian askuppatu ‘slab, threshold, doorsill’,23 and it seems that NENA squpṯa (e.g. in Ṭyare) has preserved the oldest NA reflex, where ṯ represents the fricativisation of t following a in the earliest form. In NM səqoftɔ and Ṭur. squfto24 there might have been a change of the fricative back to t as a dissimilation from the preceding fricative f. The only major NA variety that has not preserved an Aramaic ‫َ ََ ة‬ word for ‘threshold’ is WNA, which has ʕač əpṯa, from Ar. ����‫�عت�� ب‬. 7. NM əmɔmɔ, əmɔ́ m ‘daytime’ is pronounced by various informants [ʔə'mɔ:mɔ], [ʔɔ'mɔ:mɔ] or [ʔə'mɔ:mɔ ~ ʔɔ'mɔ:mɔ]. The pronunciation [ʔɔ'mɔ:mɔ]25 corresponds to CM ʿumama ‘daytime’ where erstwhile i shifted to u by partial assimilation to the following labial (see Nöldeke 1875: 19). All other NA cognates—Ɂimāma, Ɂimomo and imōma—preserve the vowel i of the antecedent proto-form ʔīmāmā (attested, e.g., as Syriac ‫)ܐ ̣ܝ ܵܡ ܵܡܐ‬. The NENA form ʔimāma is apparently obsolete in contemporary dialects, in which it has been replaced by yoma, yuma, yawma (etc.) ‘day; 19 See Hadi 2009, Mandaville 2011: 143–144, 253. For the use of this plant in Mandaean marriage rituals see Drower 1937: 69. 20 In Audo 1897: 20: ‘a herb used for laundering clothes’. 21 See Sokoloff 2005: 578. 22 For this word in context see Arnold 1989: 40:29. ܵ ‫ܣܟܘ‬ ܿ ‫ܐ‬, JBA ‫ איסכופתא‬and JPA ‫איסכופה‬, det. ‫—איסכופתה‬see 23 Whence also Syr. ‫ܦܬܐ‬ ܸ Kaufman 1974: 37, Sokoloff 2005: 578. 24 In the Raite Ṭuroyo dialects the form is sqafto (Ritter 1979: 469). 25 Attested in Macuch 1989: 245, 1993: 392 as omāma.



neo-mandaic and other neo-aramaic varieties: isolexes

95

daytime’. It does occur, however, in Ṭyare oral poetry, where many lexical archaisms are preserved,26 and in Maclean’s dictionary (1901: 10b), where it is also mentioned that the plural form ʔimāme is used adverbially to denote ‘by day’. It is likely that Maclean recorded a dialectal NENA lexeme that was still used at least until the end of the 19th century.27 Furthermore, the word imāma occurs in Duval’s C.Salmas texts in the adverbial phrase b-lili u b-imāma ‘day and night’,28 yet it is not quite clear whether this represents late 19th century vernacular C.Salmas imāma (which was later ousted by yuma), or a learned phrase employed by Duval’s informant, who was almost certainly the scholar and missionary Paul Bedjan.29 8. NM šiṯɔ, šiṯ ‘moment, short while’, usually occurring with the indefinite singular suffix i as šiṯi, corresponds to CM šita ‘hour’,30 a cognate of ܵ ܵ JBA ‫ שעתא‬and Syr. ‫ܥܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫‘ ܫ‬moment, hour, time’. NA cognates are WNA šaʕṯa ‘hour’ and NENA šeʔṯa (Nerwa Texts) ‘hour’; šəʔṯa (Qaraqosh), šeṯa (Bariṭle, Telkepe) ‘hour; wrist watch’. A related NM lexeme is šɔyɔ ‘hour’,31 which has emerged by backformation from šaiia [šāyi] ‘hours’, the plural of šita (cf. JBA ‫שעי‬, ‫שאעי‬, ܵ Syr. ‫)ܫ ܹ̈ܥܐ‬.32 9. NM ṭawyɔ, ṭawi ‘gazelle’ and its cognates WNA ṭabya and NENA ṭoya, f. ṭawiṯa (in the area of Mosul, e.g. Telkepe, Qaraqosh, and in ʿAnkawa), are the modern representatives of CA ṭaḇyā (CM ṭabia, JBA ‫טביא‬, ܲ Syr. ‫ܛ ̣ܒ ܵܝܐ‬ � ). 10. The direct forebear of NM haṯṯɔ, haṯ ‘new, anew’, NENA xāṯa and Ṭur. ḥaṯo ‘new’ is *ḥaṯṯā, and that of WNA ḥačča ‘new’ is *ḥattā; cf. CM hadta and Syr. ‫ܚ ̄ܕ ̣ܵܬܐ‬.�ܲ

26 See Ashitha Giwargis and Qasrata 1998: 176:724 pṛele poṛya ʔimāme ‘[daybreak] light filled daytime (lit. its daytime) with light’. 27 Note that Maclean marked ‘ecclesiastical or literary’ words with an asterisk (Maclean 1901: xxii), and that the absence of this sign in the entry ‫ ܐ ܼܝ ܵܡ ܵܡܐ‬indicates that Maclean considered it a colloquial word. 28 Duval 1883: 32:9–10. 29 For biographical details see Murre-van den Berg 2006: 339–369, and for the likelihood of Bedjan’s contribution to Duval’s texts of C.Salmas see ibid.: 348–349. 30 Since the expected NM reflex is **šextɔ, the form šiṯɔ appears to be a vernacularised classicism. 31 Rarely used in contemporary NM, where the (ultimately) Arabic loanword saʕát is predominant. 32 HCMM §1, 90. Cf. bita ‘egg’, pl. biia > NM biyyɔ ‘egg’, zimta ‘hair, thread’ pl. zimia > NM zemmɔ ‘thin wire used by silversmiths’.

96

chapter four

11. Unlike NENA xrena (and xena, xen etc.), Ṭur. ḥreno, WNA ḥrēna and ̄ Syr. ‫ܚܪ ܵܢܐ‬ ܹ ‫‘ ܐ‬other, another’, the Mandaic cognates horinɔ, horín, hurina ‘id.’ exhibit a back rounded vowel after the initial consonant, as, inter alia, in BA ‫ ָא ֳח ָרן‬and Sam.Aram. ‫חורן‬,33 and can plausibly be reconstructed as *ʔuḥurēnā > *ḥurēnā > *ḥorīnā > horinɔ. 12. All major groups of NA retain reflexes of CA rḥm ‘to love’, which is attested since the period of Off.Aram.34 NM has rəhám, rɔhem and forms such as qərahemnex ‘I (m.) love you (sg.f.)’, qərahmɔnax ‘I (f.) love you (sg.m.)’. Likewise, Ṭur. roḥəm, WNA irḥam, yirḥum and dialectal NENA cognates such as Qaraqosh rāxəm and literary Arbel raxə́ m.35 Similarly, Ṭyare rāxəm evinces the meaning ‘to have sexual intercourse’, and Maclean (1901: 292a) listed rāxəm ‘to love; to have a lover’. In the vast majority of NENA dialects rxm has been superseded by bʔy or ʔby (< ‫)בעי‬ ‘to want, like, love’. 13. Reflexes of the verbal root nḥl, attested in Eastern CA languages such as Syr. ‫ܢܚܠ‬, �ܲ JBA ‫ נחל‬and CM nhl, are preserved in all major NA dialect groups. Thus NM nəhál, nɔhel is cognate with NENA nāxəl (and dialectal variants like naxə́ l), Ṭur. noḥəl and WNA inḥal, yinḥul. 14. The common Aramaic verbal root ḥṣd ‘to reap’, attested since the period of OA,36 has been retained throughout NA. Thus NM hṣd (Glossarium hsḏ), həṣád, hɔṣed (CM hṣd) ‘to reap’, verbal noun həṣɔdɔ, həṣɔ́ d (Glossarium hsaḏa) ‘reaping, harvest’, are cognate with NENA xāṣəḏ, xāzəd, ġāẓəd, xaṣə́ l etc., and with Ṭur. ḥoṣəd and WNA iḥṣaḏ, yiḥṣuḏ, Mlaḥsô ḥsodó ‘harvest’.37 4.2 Shared Retentions with Semantic Differences 4.2.1 Semantic Differences Unique to Neo-Mandaic In some cases of lexical retention shared throughout Neo-Aramaic NM exhibits a semantic shift and thereby a unique and innovative meaning vis-à-vis all other NA groups:

33 See Tal 2000: 20–21. 34 See Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 753b. 35 For the latter see Rees 2008: 286. 36 See DNWSI 398. 37 Jastrow 1994: 178.



neo-mandaic and other neo-aramaic varieties: isolexes

Etymon 1. deḇšā

NM dowšɔ

NENA duša

Ṭuroyo dawšo

Mlaḥsô devšó38

WNA ḏebša, ḏepša

honey

date syrup

honey

honey

honey

honey

wash

smear, rub

wash

wash

wash

wash

dip, dye

baptize

dye

dye

cook

fry, roast

cook

cook



fry, roast

burn

fry

fry, roast



spread

cover

spread

spread

2. 3. 4. 5.

šwġ ṣbʕ bšl

qly

6. prs

šyġ

ṣwy bšl

qly

prs

šyʔ

ṣwʔ bšl

qly

prs

šyġ

ṣwʕ bšl

qly

frs, prs

šyġ ? ? bšl

cook, bake

? ? prs

spread

97

šyġ ṣbʕ

dye

bšl

cook

ḳly

fry, roast

frs

spread

Comments: 1. CA cognates such as Syr. ‫ ܸܕ ̣ܒ ܵܫܐ‬and CM dubša, dupša ‘honey’ have further Semitic cognates with this very same meaning, such as Akk. dišpu, epigraphic Geʿez dbs, Gafat dəbsä, Harari dūs and Jibbali dɛbš.39 Closer to NM in both form and meaning is JBA ‫‘ דובשא‬honey, syrup’, ‫דובשא דתמרי‬ ْ ‘date syrup’, and cf. also Akk. dišip sulupi ‘ditto’. Classical Arabic ‫ ِد ب���س‬as well denotes ‘honey’, but a more common meaning is ‘syrup of dates, grapes or raisins’,40 and this is the only modern meaning of this Arabic word in the area. As for NM dowšɔ, dowš, although the meaning ‘date syrup’ might be as old as JBA ‫דובשא דתמרי‬, a loan shift ‘honey’ > ‘date syrup’ based on the local Arabic cognate dibis ‘date syrup’41 is quite likely, and at least the loss of the common Semitic meaning ‘honey’ can certainly be attributed to the impact of Ar. dibis.َ Note also that for ‘honey’ NM uses the Arabic َ � loanword ʕasál ( ṭṛs ‘gain weight’ (e.g. in C.Aradhin), *qšṭ ‘be in order’ > Alqosh qšṭ ‘gain weight’; and cf. Tezel 2003: 82.



neo-mandaic and other neo-aramaic varieties: isolexes

101

2. The CA word gḇīnā ‘eyebrow’ (attested, e.g., as Syr. ‫ܓܒ ̣ܝ ܵܢܐ‬ and JBA ̣ ‫)גבינא‬, survives in all major NA dialect groups, yet not all of these preserve the erstwhile meaning: NM gəwinɔ, gəwín and NENA gwina (e.g. in Halmun, Qurich and dialectal variants such as C.Urmi gniva) do preserve the meaning ‘eyebrow’,54 whereas in Ṭuroyo gwino displays a change of meaning to ‘forehead’, and WNA ġbīna displays the same semantic change alongside retention of the old meaning ‘eyebrow’. The new meaning ‘forehead’ in Ṭuroyo and َ WNA is very likely a seman‫ي�ن‬ � tic loan based on the Arabic cognate ���� ‫( ج‬Anat.Ar. jbēn, Syr.Ar. žbīn, ِ‫ب‬ jabīn) ‘forehead’.55 3. NM derkɔ, derk ‘bank (of river, stream, canal)’ is etymologically related to CM dirka ‘road; bank’ and JBA ‫‘ דירכא‬road’, from the Aramaic root drk, in essence ‘to tread’, as, e.g. in Syr. ‫ܟ‬ ܸ (cf. also H ‫‘ ֶּד ֶרְך‬road, way’). ̣ ‫ܕܪ‬ NA cognates are (1) WNA ḏerxa ‘threshing’, which most likely developed from *derkā with a change k > x by analogy with the x in the verb aḏrex ‘to ܲ thresh’ (cf. Syr. ‫ܟ‬ ̣ ‫‘ �ܐ ̣ܕ ܸܪ‬id.) and, probably, (2) NENA (Bariṭle) darka ‘large dry pressed cake of cow-dung (for fuel)’56 and (3) Ṭur. darko ‘clod of earth formed when ploughing, dry piece of earth; piece of dung’.57 Further NA derivatives of drk are NENA madraxta ‘horizontal cross-bar of spade (pressed with foot)’, found in a few dialects, e.g. Alqosh, Mer, Harbole and Sarspidho (in the dialect of Benikhre pronounced madraqta); and Ṭuroyo mdarəx ‘to press a shoot of grapevine into the ground with the foot (as a method of growing a new grapevine)’,58 dorəx lí-arʕo ‘to knock someone to the ground’,59 and the noun draxto ‘an amount of crop trodden and threshed by oxen’.60 4. NM dɔrṯɔ, dɔrṯ (pl. darɔṯɔ, darɔ́ ṯ) ‘roof ’ has undergone a marked semantic shift vis-à-vis older meanings preserved in both CA and NA

54 In some NENA dialects gwina is part of the compound begwina (e.g. in Jinet) or ̈ ‫‘ ܒܝܬ ܓܒ‬space between bəgwina (e.g. in ʿAmidya) ‘eyebrow’, which correspond to Syr. ‫ܝܢܐ‬ ܼ ܹ ܹ ܼ the eyebrows’. In a few NENA dialects, e.g. Qaraqosh and Sharmin, bəgwina refers to the forehead. Various NENA dialects have replaced the erstwhile word for ‘eyebrow’, gwina, with a loanword or an independent Aramaic creation, e.g. Qaraqosh gārəd ʔena, lit. ‘roof of the eye’. 55 See Vocke and Waldner 1982: 83, Behnstedt and Woidich 2011: 95–96. 56 Consider also Maclean 1901: 70a dārək ‘to beat down earth’, with a problematic k if the verb is genuine Aramaic. 57 Ritter 1979: 117. 58 This definition is based on Dr. Aziz Tezel’s clarification of Ritter 1990: 177 (p.c.) and Tezel 2003: 49. 59 Tezel 2003: 49. 60 Ritter 1979: 136, Tezel 2003: 49, n. 65.

102

chapter four

cognates. Major CA antecedents are post-cl. M darta ‘dwelling’ (?),61 JBA ܵ ‫‘ דרתא‬residence, property, courtyard’ and Syr. ‫‘ ܵܕܪܬܐ‬house, dwelling, courtyard, hall’. The erstwhile Aramaic meaning may have been ‘house with courtyard’, as indeed in WNA dialects ḏōrča, ḏōrća. NENA darta and Ṭur. durto, dərto evince a semantic narrowing to ‘courtyard’, whereas the highly divergent meaning ‘roof ’ in NM seems to have developed in connection with local flat rooftops which were traditionally used for various activities, particularly for sleeping in summer, hanging laundry and laying out fruit to dry. In two further cases, both related to the Semitic root prd, the NM cognate has a unique meaning when compared with each of the other NA cognates: prd as: 1. verb

NM prd

NENA prḏ

2. noun

pərendɔ

pərḏa, pərda freḏo





flee

Ṭuroyo —

Mlaḥsô ?

elude (sleep)

dried seeds grain, unit of pomegranate

grain, seed

predó

unit, person

WNA frḏ

crumble +

frettṯa +

grain, unit

Comments: 1. The semantic value of the old Semitic root prd, which is in essence related to separation, was since olden times split into various meanings, viz. mainly (1) ‘to separate’ as, e.g., in BH ‫‘ נִ ְפ ַרד‬he separated’, CM prd ‘break through, tear apart’, (2) ‘to flee’ as, e.g., in CM prd, and (3) ‘to be fearful’, related to Akkadian parādu ‘to be terrified’ (possibly from *‘flee ܲ out of fear’ < *‘flee’ < *‘separate’). Other Aramaic cognates are Syr. ‫ܦܪ ̣ܕ‬ � ‘to ܲ flee; fly away; elude (sleep)’, CPA ‫ܦܪ ̣ܕ‬ ‘to flee’. � The NA languages preserve reflexes of the first two major meanings: NM and NENA both evince meanings related to fleeing: NM pərɔ́ d, pɔred ‘to flee’ (see further on pp. 187–188) and NENA pārəḏ (and dialectal variants such as parə́ z) which is confined to phrases with šənṯa ‘sleep’, e.g. Betanure prədla šənṯi ‘sleep eluded (< *fled) me’, viz. ‘I woke up unexpectedly (due to noise, nightmare etc.) and cannot get back to sleep’, mopərḏāle šənṯi ‘he ruined my sleep’ (< *made my sleep flee), viz. ‘he disturbed me and I can’t get back to sleep’.

61 Thus defined in MD 101a, but the precise meaning is not clear from the textual evidence.



neo-mandaic and other neo-aramaic varieties: isolexes

103

The meanings of WNA ifraḏ, yifruḏ, on the other hand, are ‘to crumble (tr.); enumerate one by one’; and—involving a more pronounced semantic change—‘to soften by soaking’; all derived from erstwhile ‘to separate’. 2. For a discussion on NM pərendɔ and its NA cognates see pp. 45–46. 4.2.3 Shared Retentions in Neo-Mandaic, NENA and Ṭuroyo Some NM lexical items are part of Eastern Neo-Aramaic isolexes, being shared with NENA and Ṭuroyo and are absent in WNA. 4.2.3.1 Shared Retentions Where All Cognates Preserve the Old Meaning Etymon 1. šġr 2. zabbīlā

NM jɔġer zabilɔ

NENA šāʔər zabira

Ṭuroyo joġər zabilo

Gloss to heat oven type of basket

Comments: 1. NM jġr, jəġár, jɔġer refers to heating and stoking a tanurɔ, tanúr ‘earthenware oven’ (used mainly for baking), both as a transitive verb, e.g. joġri l-tanurɔ ‘heat the oven up (sg.c.)!’ and as an intransitive verb, e.g. tanurɔ jəġár ‘the oven heated up (to the point that baking was possible)’. The NENA and Ṭuroyo cognates šʔr, šāʔər62 and jġr, joġər, respectively, refer to the same action of heating up and stoking an oven. As for classical Aramaic, CM šgr ‘to burn, kindle, heat, etc.’ was used in pəʿal in a similar or identical denotation as can be learned from the quotation šgur tanura ‘kindle an oven’ in MD (p. 448b), and, likewise, JBA ‫ שגר‬pəʿal refers to heating up an oven or a cauldron (DJBA, p. 1109) and ‫ תנורא שגירא‬is a heated oven (DJBA, p. 1108). A wider scope of meanings ܲ is found in the Syr. cognate ‫ܫܓܪ‬ � ‘to heat up, inflame, incite, burn, seethe’. The NM verbal noun jəġɔrɔ, jəġɔ́ r 63 ‘heating up oven, stoking oven’ is also used as a noun denoting ‘fuel for an oven (mostly firewood and twigs)’.

62 E.g. in Lishana Deni dialects, and other and more innovative dialectal NENA cognates: šyr, +šyr. 63 Some speakers pronounce this form [ʤɔ'ʁɔ:r] or [ʤə'ʁɔ:r] ~ [ʤo'ʁɔ:r], hence Macuch 1989: 258 “ğoġār”. Macuch’s comparison to NP zoġāl ‘live coal’ cannot be endorsed in view of CA šġr.

104

chapter four

2. NM zabilɔ, zabíl is cognate with Ṭur. zabilo ‘large basket made of twigs’64 and NENA zabira ‘ditto’, used in the area of Mosul (e.g. in Alqosh,65 Tisqopa) and in Peshabur (see further on p. 65). Since šġr ‘to heat’ and zabbīlā ‘basket’ are absent from JPA, Sam.Aram. and CPA, their restriction to the eastern NA languages and absence from WNA appear to antedate pre-modern Aramaic times. 4.2.3.2 Shared Retentions with Semantic Differences Neo-Mandaic preserves the old—or older—meaning: Etymon 1. smḵ

NM smx

NENA smx

Ṭuroyo smx



support, lean

lean

wait, stand, stop + lean



wash head

wash head

wash body



breathe, blow

breathe, blow blow nose; sniff

2. ḥpp

3. nšm

hyf

nšm

xyp

nšm

ḥyf

wash body

nšm

blow nose

Comments: 1. NM səmáx, sɔmex and Ṭur. soməx ‘to lean (e.g. oneself against a wall)66 preserve a meaning that is attested in CA smḵ, among other old meanings of this verb. Consider, e.g. Syr. ‫ܣܡ ݂ܟ‬ � ܲ inter alia ‘to support, prop up, lean, recline’ and CM smak ‘to support, reassure, rely on’ and its passive part. smik ‘supported’ or ‘leaned on’.67 It should be mentioned that the NM passive part. səméx has two quite different meanings: (1) ‘leaning, leaned on’ (as CM smik) and (2) ‘thick, dense’, concerning soup, dish, related to JBA ‫‘ סמיך‬thick, viscous’ and CM sumka ‘thickness’. The verbal root smx has also survived in various NENA dialects, yet with new meanings. Most of these dialects, e.g. C.Koy Sanjaq, Saqiz, evince a semantic change from ‘to lean’ to the meanings ‘to stand, stop’ or ‘to wait, stand, stop’, apparently through an intermediary meaning *‘to

64 Ritter 1979: 577. 65 Attested already in a text dated 1812 (Mengozzi 2011, vol. 1: 86:26 et passim), and later in Lidzbarski 1896, vol. 2: 461. 66 Note that the meanings ‘sich stützen, vertrauen auf ’ in Macuch 1993: 422 is not corroborated by my informants. It is most likely a classicism based on the CM verb estmik ‘to be reassured’, since it appears in Macuch’s learned informant’s rendition of a CM text that includes the verbal form mistamikna (see Macuch 1993: 254:1501–1502). 67 MD 333a, s.v. smk.



neo-mandaic and other neo-aramaic varieties: isolexes

105

lean on something while waiting’, which yielded ‘to wait’, followed by ‘to stand’ and, finally, also ‘to stop’. A semantic innovation unique to the Jewish varieties of Lishana Deni, Barzan and Sandu is smx ‘to conceive, become pregnant’, as in sməxla ‘she conceived’ and sməxta ‘pregnant’. The semantic process related to this change may have been ‘to lean’ > ‘to lean while waiting’ > ‘to wait, expect’ > ‘to expect a child’ (cf. English expectant and expecting in connection with pregnancy) > ‘conceive’. Another possible semantic pathway is ‘to lean’ > ‘to wait,ََ stand’ > *‘to bear’ > ‘to carry a child, be pregnant’ َ > ‘conceive’ (cf. Ar. ‫‘ ح�م�ل‬to bear, carry, be pregnant’ > NENA ḥml, xml ‘to stand, wait’).68 2. NM haf, hɔyef, verbal noun hofɔ, hof ‘to wash the head, hair’ preserve the old Aramaic meaning of this verb, as is borne out by JBA ‫‘ חפף‬to wash or clean the hair; to rub’ and Syr. ‫‘ ܲ�ܚܦ‬to wash’, often in the context of washing the head,69 as well as Mishnaic Hebrew ‫‘ חפף‬to wash the head, hair’. CM hup mostly refers to washing the head and hair, but has a wider scope of meanings related to washing and scraping.70 In almost all NENA dialects and in Ṭuroyo the meaning of xāyəp and ḥāyəf, respectively, has been expanded so as to denote ‘to wash the whole body, to bathe, take a bath’. Yet in NENA there are vestiges of the older meaning: In the Jewish dialects of Saqiz, Bokan and Bijar xēp still retains its old meaning, as in (reší) xipli ‘I washed my head’. In J.Sulemaniyya xēp ‘to wash the body, bathe’ is used for girls and women, whereas ṣaxé (< sḥy) is used for boys and men. Similarly, according to Maclean’s dictionary (1901) in C.Urmi xāyəp was usually related to women, whereas sāxə usually referred to men.71 In both J.Sulemaniyya and C.Urmi the restriction or strong relation of xyp to women is an echo of the erstwhile meaning of this verb. As xyp was strongly associated with women, who washed their long hair more often than men washed their heads, it had become marked for gender by the time its meaning was broadened and referred to washing the whole body. 3. NM nəšám, nɔšem ‘to breathe’ and, in paʿʿel naššem, mnaššem ‘to blow (of wind)’, rehəw qəmnaššem ‘the wind blows, is blowing, it’s windy’ is, as far as is known, the only contemporary NA variety to preserve the 68 A connection with JBA ‫ סמיך‬and NM səméx ‘thick’ is highly unlikely, since smx does nor occur in such a meaning throughout NENA. 69 See Thesaurus 1342, SL 481b. 70 See MD 136b: ‘to wash, rub, cleanse, scrape’. 71 Maclean 1901: 90b, 224a.

106

chapter four

erstwhile meanings of the Aramaic verbal root nšm—consider CM nšm pəʿal ‘to breathe’, paʿʿel ‘to blow (of wind)’ and Syr. ‫‘ ܲ�ܢܫܡ‬to breathe, puff, pant, blow’.72 Nominal derivatives of NM nšm are nəšemtɔ (CM nišimta), nəšémt ‘soul’ and nišmɔ, nišəm ‘breathing, breath’, which also means ‘breeze’ in Khor.-NM. NENA and Ṭuroyo exhibit a semantic narrowing, from blowing to blowing and cleaning the nose, hence, e.g. Ashitha nšumle naxirəx ‘blow your (sg.f.) nose!’ or ‘wipe and clean your nose!’73 and Ṭur. nšəmle naḥire ‘he blew (or wiped) his nose’ (consider also Ṭur. šume, pl. tant. ‘nasal mucus, snot’, from *nšume). Additionally, in the Ṭyare (NENA) dialects of Chamba d-Mallik and Bne Romta nāšəm is used in two meanings: (1) blow or wipe nose, (2) inhale deeply, sniff (e.g. fragrant odour, tobacco; whereas māyəx is used for smelling in general). In addition to blowing the nose, Maclean (1901: 219a) adduces the meanings ‘to breathe in, to blow softly; to inspire; to possess (of evil spirits)’, but these meanings are not found in my data of contemporary NENA. Neo-Mandaic diverged from the old meaning: Etymon 1. gʕy

NM ghy

NENA k̭ʔy

Ṭuroyo gʕy



low, bellow

vomit, retch

bleat

low, bellow



hang

pull, draw

hang

hide



roar

thunder (v., n.)

a roar

roar



recline

sleep, set (sun)

set (sun), lean +

recline, set (sun)



arrow

bullet

arrow, rolling-pin

gun-shot, bolt, strip of land



chick

cock

chick, offspring

cock

2. tly

3. nhm 4. gny

5. gerrā 6. zāġā

tly

nhm, nəhamtɔ gny

gerrɔ zɔġɔ

tly

nhəmṯa gny

gera

zāʔa, +zāya

tly

nhm gny

gero

zoġo

72 The meaning ‘to clean the nose’ in SL 953b, is based on the book of medicines, which is replete with NENA words, forms and meanings, and most probably does not belong to Classical Syriac but to the native NA dialect of the author or copier(s). The same meaning also appears in Audo 1897: 117a and Manna (and Bidawid) 1975: 469b, two dictionaries that are to some extent influenced by the native NENA speech of their authors. 73 The same meanings apply to Barwar nšm, nāšəm according to my informants (cf. Khan 2008: 1148).



neo-mandaic and other neo-aramaic varieties: isolexes

107

Comments: ܵ 1. CA gʕy ‘to low, bellow’, e.g. Syr. ‫ܓܥܐ‬ and JPA ‫( געה‬cf. also the BH cognate ‫‘ ּגָ ָעה‬id.’), is preserved in the same meaning in Ṭur. goʕe. A closely related form and meaning is Ṭyare-NENA k̭āʔe ‘to bleat’, in which k̭ developed from g by assimilation to the following ʔ, as in *gʕēleh > *gʔele > *kʔele > *k̭ʔele > k̭ele ‘he bleated’. Already in CA gʕy acquired other meanings related to loud sounds, ܵ hence Syr. ‫ܓܥܐ‬ also ‘to shout, cry out, implore’, JPA ‫‘ געה‬to shout’ and CM gha ‘to (utter a) cry, make a convulsive sound or sudden noise, sob’. NM gəhɔ́ , gɔhe ‘to vomit, retch’ is very plausibly a metonymic change from making an unpleasant noise of lowing to retching and, finally, vomiting. The meaning ‘to retch’ may have existed in CM as the ‘convulsive sound or sudden noise’ made when one makes an effort to vomit. ܵ 2. The basic denotation of CA ‫תלה‬, ‫‘ ܬܠܐ‬to hang’, is retained in NA only in NENA tāle. The semantic change exhibited in NM təlɔ́ , tɔle ‘to pull, drag, draw, stretch’ has occurred by CM times in the form tla, which has these innovative meanings alongside the older meanings ‘to lift, hang, suspend’. The same is true of JBA ‫‘ תלי‬to hang, suspend, stretch’. The semantic pathway that led to the highly idiosyncratic change ‘hang’ > ‘pull’ is uncertain. Perhaps the sequence of changes was ‘to hang’ > ‘to suspend with a string or rope’ > ‘to pull up with a rope (e.g. a bucket from within a well)’ > ‘to pull or drag with a rope’ > ‘to pull, drag, draw’ (otherwise a semantic influence of Akk. talālu ‘to draw bow, stretch’ should perhaps be taken into consideration—see p. 77). Ṭur. tole ‘to hide (tr.)’ is yet another semantically divergent offshoot of tly ‘to hang’. A possible semantic process in this case is ‘to hang’ > ‘to suspend, remove’ (cf. Sam.Aram. ‫‘ תלה‬to remove a sin or punishment’) < ‘to take something away’ > ‘to hide’. 3. CA nhm ‘roar’ ( JBA ‫נהם‬, of a lion), or ‘roar, groan’ and similar meanܲ ings (CM nhm, Syr. ‫)ܢܗܡ‬ � is preserved in Ṭuroyo as nohəm ‘to roar’, as in ú-šēr nhəmle aʕli ‘the lion roared at me’.74 NENA has not preserved this verb, but it still retains the Ṭyare noun nhəmṯa ‘a roar (of a bear, lion)’, ܵ which is akin to CM nhimta ‘groan(ing), moaning’ and Syr. ‫ܗܡܬܐ‬ ‫‘ ܸܢ‬roar, ̣ rumbling’. Another NENA nominal form might be Borb-Ruma nahoma ‘flood’. In NM the verbal root nhm has undergone a semantic change to the closely related sense of ‘to thunder’, and it is inflected as impersonal 3sg.f. 74 Ritter 1990: 207.

108

chapter four

forms, as in nehmat ‘it thundered’. NM also has the noun nəhamtɔ, nəhámt ‘thunder’,75 which is essentially a verbal noun (cf. post-cl. M nhamta ‘roaring, groaning, moaning’) on the same pattern of, e.g., gəraftɔ, gəráft ‘skimming off (scum, foam etc.)’, related to grf, gəráf, gɔref ‘to skim off ’ and, similarly, blq, balleq, mballeq ‘to swallow’, balaqtɔ, baláqt ‘swallowing’. 4. The meanings of gny in CA and its Semitic cognates allow us to ܵ reconstruct the earliest Aramaic meaning as ‘to recline’ or, as in Syr. ‫ܓܢܐ‬ ‘to recline, lie down’, which is cognate with Geʿez ganaya ‘to bow down’, َ

‫َ َأ‬

Ar. ���‫‘ ج� ن‬to bend over something’ and Soqoṭri ʔignin ‘bend, bow down’.76 The NA varieties exhibit both conservative and innovative meanings of gny. To the conservative meanings belong various Christian NENA dialects gāne (e.g. Ashitha), jānə (C.Urmi) ‘to recline, lean body or head on something’ and Ṭur. gone ‘to recline, e.g. with head on the palm of hand while leaning on the elbow’. Meanings that developed from the denotation ‘to recline’ include ‘to sleep’ in NM and a few Hulaula-NENA dialects, e.g. Khanaqin (see p. 129) and ‘to set’, concerning the sun, in NM, NENA and Ṭuroyo. Thus NM gənɔ́ , gɔne and Khanaqin (and closely related Jewish dialects) gané are used in the sense ‘to sleep’; and NM šɔmeš gənát, NENA yoma gnele, in some dialects šəmša gnela, and Ṭur. yawmo gani all mean ‘the sun set’. The chain of semantic changes related to gny in the history of Aramaic might have been from (1) ‘reclining’ through (2) ‘lying down’ and ‘sleeping to (3) ‘the setting of the sun’. This assumption is based on the fact that CM gna and JBA ‫ גני‬already have the meanings ‘to lie down, repose, sleep’ as well as on the parallel semantic change from ‘sleep’ to ‘set (of the sun)’ in Ṭur. ṭowəʕ ‘to fall asleep; set (šəmšo ṭawiʕo ‘the sun set’)’. The latter verb is cognate with NENA ṭāwəʔ ‘to fall asleep, be sound asleep (in ܵ Qaraqosh: ‘to sleep’)’, and consider Syr. ‫ܢܬܐ‬ � ܲ ‘to sleep heavily’ (lit. ̣ ‫ܒܫ‬ ܸ ‫ܛܒܥ‬ ‘sink into sleep’)’. The typologically latest meaning of gny, i.e. ‘to set’, although found in all three eastern NA dialect-groups, is not attested for the CA verbal root gny. The occurrence of ‫‘ ܓܢܝܐ ܕܫܡܫܐ‬sunset’ in a Syriac source (see SL 247b) may well be a vernacular infiltration (cf. NENA gnāyəd yoma ‘sunset; west’) rather than a genuine lexical feature of Syriac, where the 75 My informants reject qɔl erqihɔ ‘thunder’, lit. ‘sound of the sky’ and erqihɔ qɔl əháw ‘it thundered’, lit. ‘the sky gave sound’ (which appear in HCMM 92, n. 202 and p. 523). These must be ad hoc ghost phrases adduced by Macuch’s main informant Naṣir Ṣaburi. 76 For these cognates َsee Nöldeke 1900: 158, Brockelmann 1928: 123a and Leslau 1991: َ‫� ئ‬ 199b. Consider also Ar. � �ِ‫‘ ج ن‬to have a hunched back’.



neo-mandaic and other neo-aramaic varieties: isolexes

109

regular verb related to the setting of the sun is ‫ܥܪ ̣ܒ‬. ܸ The latter verb, rather than ‫ܓܢܝ‬, was the common Aramaic verb for ‘to set’, being also attested in CPA, JBA and CM (arb, ʿrb), and in other Semitic languages, as early as Ug. ʕrb77 and Akk. erēbu, both mainly ‘to enter; to set (of the sun)’. It is still preserved in WNA as ʕrb ~ ʕrp, e.g. in šimša wayba ʕrība ‘the sun had already set’ and ʕirpaṯ šimša ‘the sun set’. ܵ 5. CA ‫גירא‬, ‫ܓܐܪܐ‬ ܹ ‘arrow’ has undergone metonymic changes in any contemporary Aramaic language in which it has been preserved. NM gerrɔ, ger evinces a change from ‘arrow’ (as in CM gira) to ‘bullet, cartridge’, reflecting the transition from arrows to bullets as projectiles and means of shooting.78 In archaizing NENA texts and in translations of the scriptures into some Jewish NENA dialects gera still denotes ‘arrow’,79 but in the vast majority of contemporary NENA dialects gera, geṛa, jerá, gira etc. means ‘thin rolling-pin’ as a result of a metonymic change and a calque on Kurd. tîr ‘arrow; thin rolling-pin’. In some Christian NENA dialects the transitional double denotation ‘arrow’ (used mostly in folk-tales and tales of bygone times) and ‘thin rolling-pin’ is still retained, e.g. as regards Ṭyare jeṛa, but most NENA dialects use tir or tira (< Kurd. tîr) for ‘arrow’. Ṭuroyo displays its own metonymic or metaphorical changes with several innovated meanings of gero (< *gerrā). The meaning gun-shot occurs in late 19th texts,80 but is nowadays unknown to informants and may well be obsolete. Midin-Ṭuroyo gero evinces a semantic change into ‘bolt of door’, clearly in view of the common traits of arrows and bolts in traditional houses as long, thin pieces of wood (and cf. English bolt as a type of arrow). Another dialectal meaning is ‘narrow strip of land in a cultivated field’81 which in Midin is called tire (< Kurd.), the basic meaning of which is ‘arrow’. 6. NM zɔġɔ, zɔġ and Midyat-Ṭuroyo zoġo ‘cock’ correspond to JBA ‫זגא‬ and post-cl. M zaga, both ‘cock’, whilst NENA exhibits zāʔa in the sense 77 See del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín 2003: 179–181. 78 Cf. HCMM 492a “ger(ra)” ‘arrow’ and Macuch 1993: 377 “gerra” ‘arrow, cartridge’. The meaning ‘arrow’, however, does not belong to vernacular Mandaic but is rather a CM meaning adduced by learned Mandaean informants. For ‘arrow’ NM َّ ُ‫ ن‬uses niššɔbá, bor‫����ا َ��ة‬ rowed from local Ar. niššāba (Woodhead and Beene 1967: 458a) < �‫‘ � ش ب‬arrow’. 79 Consider, e.g., gerá ‘arrow’ in J.Urmi Bible translations (as in Sabar 2006: 88:12) and gere ‘arrows’ in Jewish texts from Nerwa (Sabar 1984: 202:21 et passim) and Zakho (Sabar 1983: 125:23). 80 Prym and Socin 1881, vol. 1: 63/15 and pl. gere on 257:24. 81 Dr. Aziz Tezel discovered this word in the Ṭuroyo dialect of Bequsyono.

110

chapter four

‘chick’ (as in J.Zakho) or ‘chick, offspring of animal’ (e.g. in Chamba ­d-Mallik), +zāya (e.g. in C.Salmas) ‘ditto’. It is noteworthy that in Qaraqosh and Bariṭle zāʔa refers to a male chick of hen and a cockerel, the f. forms zaʔta (Qaraqosh), zeta (Bariṭle) refer to a pullet, and the pl. zāʔə (Qaraqosh), zāye (Bariṭle) refer to chicks of hen and young chickens. The NENA meanings are, therefore, closely akin to ܵ ‫‘ ܵܙ‬chick’. Furthermore, Ṭuroyo (at least in the dialect of Midyat) Syriac ‫ܓܐ‬ ݂ exhibits the diminutive form zəġuno ‘male chick of hen, cockerel’ as well as the form zuġto, zəġto ‘female chick of hen, pullet’, and another cognate might be Mlaḥsô ziġané ‘chicks’.82 In the light of these meanings, it stands to reason that the earliest Aramaic meaning was either ‘chick’ or ‘chick of hen’, and that the meaning ‘cock’ developed independently in Mandaic and Ṭuroyo into *‘cockerel’, and finally ‘cock’. Conversely, in many NENA dialects there occurred a semantic broadening to ‘offspring’. The ultimate etymon of the NENA cognates is Iranian, either Middle ‫ز ق‬ Iranian *zāg, the precursor of NP � ‫‘ �ا‬offspring’, or MP zahag ‘child, offspring.83 4.2.3.3 Morpho-Lexical Isoglosses In addition to lexical items shared by NM, NENA and Ṭuroyo, the following morpho-lexical isoglosses bind the Eastern NA languages as opposed to WNA: 1. fly (noun) 2. deep 3. salty

NM dedwɔ amuqɔ + maluhɔ

NENA dədwa, diḏwa ʔamuqa + maluxa +

Ṭuroyo dədwo(no) ʕamuqo maluḥo

Mlaḥsô pl. dedvé ? ?

WNA ḏappōba ʕammeḳ + malleḥ

Comments: 1. NM dedwɔ, dedəw, NENA dialects dədwa, diḏwa etc., Mlaḥsô pl. dedvé (unattested sg. probably *dedvó) are cognates with common Ṭuroyo dədwono, and are even more closely related to the form dədwo in the Ṭuroyo dialects of Bsorino and Zaz, which appears to refer to a type of fly, possibly a fruit fly in Bsorino and a large type of fly in Zaz.84 The Ṭuroyo

82 Cf. Jastrow 1994: 195, where it is assumed to be borrowed from Arabic. 83 See DJBA 399a and SL 364b, respectively. 84 The Bsorino and Zaz forms are based on Michael Suroyo, p.c. Other dialectal forms are dədwənto, dədwanto, dədwoniṯo (Ritter 1979: 128).



neo-mandaic and other neo-aramaic varieties: isolexes

111

form dədwono might be a back-formation from dədwone, if this was originally the plural form of dədwo. Another possible explanation of the suffix ono would be analogy with šəšwono ‘ant’.85 The ancestral form of all these modern Aramaic cognates is attested in JBA as ‫ דידבא‬and in CM as pl. didbia (sg. *didba). The ultimate Aramaic etymon is the reduplicated form *diḇdiḇā,86 which has later undergone haplology. Contrary to eastern NA, the WNA cognate ḏappōba (Bax. ḏappūba) harks back to a geminated rather than reduplicated form, attested in ܲ Syriac as ‫ܕ ܵܒ ܵܒܐ‬.87 � The distribution of the originally reduplicated as opposed to the geminated form of the Aramaic noun denoting ‘fly’ can be summarised as follows: Distribution Etymon Cl. Aramaic Neo-Aramaic *diḇdiḇā > didḇā CM, JBA NM, NENA, Ṭur.-Mlaḥ. dabbāḇā Syriac WNA

2. The common CA form ‫ ַע ִּמיק‬, emph. ‫( ַע ִּמ ָיקא‬as, e.g., in various Targumic sources, and already in BA as pl.f. ‫ ) ַע ִּמ ָיק ָתא‬survives today only in WNA as ʕammeḳ, det. ʕammīḳa (WNA also has ġammeḳ ‘deep’ < local Ar. َ‫غ‬ ‫ق‬ � � ġamīq ‘id.’ < Ar. �‫‘ �مِ��ي‬dark, of colour’). Elsewhere in NA another pattern, *ʕammūq, has emerged, which is reflected in Ṭur. as ʕamuqo; in NENA, wherever the inherited Aramaic word was not replaced by an innovation or a loanword, as ʔamuqa, Ɂamüqa, ʕamuqa, yamuqa, +emuk̭a, etc. (except for the innovated C.Urmi pattern +amk̭u); and in NM as amuqɔ, amúq as well as the by-forms əmúqɔ, əmúq,88 with vowel reduction. These by-forms correspond to ʿmuqa in the Glossarium and ʿmuq in post cl. M. 3. The modern Eastern Aramaic varieties evince reflexes of *mallūḥā ‘salty’—NM maluhɔ, malúh, NENA dialects maluxa, malüxa etc.,89 Ṭur. maluḥo—whereas WNA malleḥ, det. mallīḥa derive from *mallīḥ, *mallīḥā. CA forms are with ī, e.g. Syr. ‫ ܲ �ܡܠ ̣ܝ ܵܚܐ‬and ‫‘ ܡܠ ̣ܝ ܵܚܐ‬salty’ and, as ‘salted’ or

85 See ibid. 86 See Nöldeke 1904: 119–120, Růžička 1909: 108. 87 Related forms are ‫ דיבבא‬in Targ. Ecclesiastes 10:1 and pl. ‫דבביא‬, var. ‫ דיבביא‬in Targ. Isaiah 7:18. 88 The Arabic form “ʕamīq” in HCMM 499a is unknown to my informants as a NM word. 89 In Ṭyare and Mer replaced by məlxāna.

112

chapter four

‘salty’, e.g. Qum.Aram.90 and JBA ‫מליח‬. Evidence for the form with ū in CA, however, is offered by Syr. ‫ܚܘ ̣ܵܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܠܘ‬ ̣ ‫‘ ܲ �ܡ‬salinity’. 4.3 Peripheral Relic Lexical Items 4.3.1 Relic Lexical Items Shared with Western Neo-Aramaic In quite a few instances NM and WNA constitute two peripheral relic areas that preserve an erstwhile Aramaic lexeme which was lost in NENA and in the Ṭuroyo-Mlaḥsô group: Gloss 1. face 2. tooth 3. husband 4. silver 5. slaughter 6. now

NM appɔ šennɔ bellɔ kaspɔ + nxs eštɔ́

NENA pāṯa, ṣalma + kāka, keka gawra, gora sema nxr, prm + daha, ʔatta +

Ṭuroyo foṯo, poṯo ʕaršo gawro semo nḥr ʔuʕdo

Mlaḥsô91 posó ʕaršó gavró ? nxr hando

WNA ffō, ffōya šenna beʕla xesfa + nxs hōš(i)

Comments: 1. NM appɔ, ap and WNA ffō, ffōya ‘face’ preserve reflexes of the erstwhile Aramaic word for face, attested already in OA as ‫( אפ‬sg. cstr.) and ‫אפי‬ ܲ (dual cstr.),92 and, lately, in Eastern Aramaic, as CM anpia (pl.), Syr. ‫ܐ ܲ�ܦ ܵ̈ܝܐ‬ � ܲ as well as JBA ‫אפא‬, ‫( אנפא‬sg.), ‫אפי‬, ‫( אנפי‬pl.).93 The NM form and ‫ܐ ܹ̈ܦܐ‬, � evinces assimilation as also in *horentā (cf. CM hurintia) > NM horettɔ ‘other, another (sg.f.; cf. sg.m. horinɔ) and perhaps also in CM kanpa > NM kappɔ ‘bosom, lap’ (see pp. 26–27). An assimilated form also occurs in the WNA cognates, the direct precursor of which is *ʔaffōya. Most NENA dialects and Ṭuroyo-Mlaḥsô replaced *ʔappe with reflexes ܲ ܵ ܲ of *pāṯā ‘cheek’,94 a proto-form closely related to Syr. ‫ܦ ̣ܵܬܐ‬, � ‫ܐܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫‘ �ܦ‬appearance, side, edge of beard, etc.’, thus Ṭuroyo dialects foṯo, poṯo, Mlaḥsô posó, and note that in various NENA dialects (e.g. Alqosh, Ashitha, Betanure) 90 Abegg 2003, vol. 1/2: 895. 91 Jastrow 1994: 186, 167, 174, 160, 175. 92 DNWSI 83, and see also Kogan 2005: 518. 93 For additional CA varieties and forms see Militarev and Kogan 2000: 10. 94 Vestiges of ʔappe in NENA are Ṭyare dialects bāpe, pāpe and Barwar pāpe (< *b-ʔappe, ܲ Syriac ‫)ܒܐ ܲ�ܦܝ‬ ‘beyond and unseen’ (e.g. Lizin-Ṭyare xzura bāpe ʔisā́rɛ-le ‘the wild boar is � beyond the rock’ < ‘*facing the rock’), Borb-Ruma pe ~ pēd (< *ʔappe d-) ‘toward’, and in Ṭuroyo laf, laff- (< *l-ʔaffe < *l-ʔappe) ‘ditto’.



neo-mandaic and other neo-aramaic varieties: isolexes

113

pāṯa (or pāsa, pāta) denotes both ‘face’ and ‘cheek’. Trans-Zab and a few other varieties of NENA (e.g. Bariṭle) exhibit a different lexical replacement, whereby the word for ‘face’ is ṣalma, ṣalmá or salmá, originally ‫ַצ ְל ָמא‬ ‘image’.95 There is also yalma, of unknown origin, in some NENA varieties (e.g. in Barwar, alongside pāṯa). 2. Whereas NM and WNA preserve reflexes of Aramaic šennā ‘tooth’, both NENA and Ṭuroyo-Mlaḥsô replaced this word with a word that initially denoted ‘molar tooth’, i.e. kāka (and dialectal forms such as keka, čiča) in NENA,96 a cognate of NM kakkɔ, kak ‘molar tooth’ (cf. CM kaka ‘molar tooth, tooth’); and ʕaršo, ʕaršó in Ṭuroyo97 and Mlaḥsô, the WNA ܵ ‫‘ ܲܥ‬ditto’). cognate of which is ʕerša ‘molar tooth’ (Syr. ‫ܪܫܐ‬ � The synecdoche ‘molar tooth’ > ‘tooth’ is an areal feature in the Semitic languages of Upper Mesopotamia. Apart from its occurrence in NENA and ْ� Ṭuroyo-Mlaḥsô, it is also manifest in Anat.Ar. ḍərs ‘tooth’98 (< ‫ضِر��س‬ � ‘molar tooth’), the Arabic cognate of Aramaic ʕaršo.99 3. NM and WNA preserve reflexes of the Aramaic word for husband, ܵ ܲ Syr. ‫ܒܥܠܐ‬, � JBA ‫בעלא‬, CM bila, whilst in the more central NA varieties reflexes of gaḇrā ‘man’ expanded their denotation to ‘husband’ as well and superseded the genuine Aramaic word for ‘husband’. Thus only in peripheral NA is the old distinction between gaḇrā ‘man’ and baʕlā ‘husband’ preserved:

95 The same semantic shift occurred, independently, in Sam.Aram. ‫‘ צלם‬image, statue; ܵ ‫ܨ‬ face’, and note that SL 1290a ‫ܠܡܐ‬ � ܲ in the sense ‘face’ is one of numerous NENA words and meanings in the Syriac book of medicines. 96 Vestiges of Aramaic šennā in NENA are šənna ‘cliff, crag, steep place’ according to Maclean 1901: 309b (where the first definition, ‘a tooth (rare)’, is probably unwarranted), šənna as a name of a mountain with a cliff at its summit in Hakkâri, Turkey, and apparently also Ashitha ṣyāra šnāne l-gəxka ‘to smile’ (said about a baby) < *‘to draw the teeth to laughter’. 97 Vestiges of šennā in Ṭuroyo are šeno ‘steep rock’ and, at least in one Ṭuroyo dialect, šeno ‘molar tooth’ (Tezel 2003: 233, n. 95). 98 For this form and other dialectal variants see Vocke and Waldner 1982: 253, Jastrow 2005: 91. 99 The same semantic change has also independently affected south Semitic cognates of ḍərs and ʕaršo, i.e. Amharic and Argobba ṭərs ‘tooth’ (Geʿez ḍərs ‘molar tooth’—see Leslau 1991: 153a) as well as Mehri məźrāḥ and Ḥarsusi meźréḥ ‘tooth’ (< *maś ̣rah < *maś ̣raš), but still ‘molar tooth’ in Jibbali məźrɛ́ š and in various Soqoṭri dialectal cognates (see SimeoneSenelle and Lonnet 1991: 1480, Militarev and Kogan 2000: 246–247).

114 man; husband

chapter four Neo-Mandaic gawrɔ; bellɔ

NENA gawra

Ṭuroyo gawro

Mlaḥsô gavró

WNA100 ġabrōna; beʕla

This state of affairs might be explained in the light of the lexical parallels in adstratal languages: NM and WNA are influenced by Arabic, where ‘man’ and ‘husband’ are lexically distinct, e.g. rayyā́l and zōj in Khuzestani َُ Arabic (according to NM informants), reflecting classical Ar. ‫ ر ج��ل‬and َ ْ‫ز‬ �‫ ;� و ج‬whereas in NENA and Ṭuroyo-Mlaḥsô the reflexes of gaḇrā ‘man’ may have come to denote ‘husband’ too due to the impact of the Iranian adstratum, where ‘man’ and ‘husband’ both stem from the same etymon that initially denoted ‘man’ (and ‘mortal’), as in Middle Persian mard ‘man’, mērag ‘young man, husband’, Sorani mirov ‘man’, mêrd ‘husband’ and especially mêr ‘man, husband’ in many Kurmanji varieties.101 4. The classical Aramaic word for ‘silver’ has survived in peripheral NA, viz. as NM kaspɔ, kasp (CM kaspa), pronounced kasbɔ, kasb by some ܵ ‫)ܟ‬. In NENA and Ṭuroyo the erstspeakers, and WNA xesfa102 (Syr. ‫ܣܦܐ‬ ܸ while word was replaced with an early borrowing of Middle Iranian sēm ܵ ‫ܣ‬.103 that is attested in Syriac as ‫ܐܡܐ‬ ܹ 5. The erstwhile Aramaic verb denoting ‘to slaughter’ (e.g. CM nks, Syr. ‫ )ܢܟܣ‬has survived in the two opposite poles of the NA spectrum of varieties: NM nəxás, nɔxes, WNA inxas, yinxus. The other NA major varieties replaced this verb with reflexes of a verb which seems to have originally denoted ‘to stab’ (JBA ‫‘ נחר‬to stab’, CM nhr ‘to pierce’): NENA nāxər, surviving mainly in the Christian dialects of the area of Mosul, Ṭuroyo noḥər, and the unexpected reflex noxér with x in Mlaḥsô.104 Various NENA dialects replaced nxr with another Aramaic verb—notably pārəm, basically ‘to cut’ in the Christian dialects of Hakkâri and Iranian Azerbaijan, as well as qāṭəl, basically ‘to kill’ (e.g. in Harbole), qāṭe reša ‘to cut the head’

100 ġabrōna ‘man’ is originally a diminutive of *gabra. Prof. Werner Arnold informed me that it can occasionally be used in the sense ‘husband’, but the regular word for husband is beʕla. 101 See MacKenzie 1986: 54, Omar 2005: 911b, 955b, Chyet 2003: 381b. A very late innovation in some Christian NENA dialects, e.g. Bahnuna, is a renewed and idiosyncratic differentiation between ‘man’ and ‘husband’ as zalāma and gawra, respectively, the former being borrowed from Kurdish zelam ‘man, fellow’. 102 See Bergsträsser 1921: 47; by now nearly obsolete, the common word being fiḏ̣ḏ̣a ‫� ض َّ���ة‬ (< Ar. ���ِ‫) ف‬. 103 See SL 958b. 104 Jastrow (1994: 160) suggests that it might be a conflation of nḥr and nxs.



neo-mandaic and other neo-aramaic varieties: isolexes

‫�ذ‬

115

(e.g. in Marga)—or with the Arabic loanword �‫ ب‬in all Jewish dialects, ‫ح‬ e.g. J.Salmas dābé. 6. With regard to the NA words for ‘now’, only NM and WNA manifest continuity with pre-modern Aramaic, while in all other NA varieties new and idiosyncratic lexical creations have emerged. Both NM and WNA evince a word that was originally a compound constructed of reflexes of the presentative particle hā and the word for ‘hour, moment, while’, CA šāʕā, det. šāʕṯā (for reflexes of this word in NA see pp. 92, 95). NM eštɔ́ ‘now’ corresponds to CM hašta ‘id.’, which is cognate with JBA ‫השתא‬. The initial e can be regarded as either a prosthetic vowel appended to *štɔ < *aštā < hāštā or a result of raising a > e by partial assimilation to š. The cognates hōš and hōš(i) ‘now, soon, immediately’ in the WNA dialects are derived from hāšā, Syr. ‫‘ ܵܗ ܵܫܐ‬now’.105 Ṭur. uʕdo ‘now’106 is probably derived from the (sg.m.) definite article u and waʕdo, cf. NENA: J.Zakho waʕda, Sardasht waʕdá ‘time’,107 WNA ܵ ‫‘ ܲܘ‬specific time’.108 Mlaḥsô hando is of waʕta ‘appointment’ and Syr. ‫ܥܕܐ‬ � unknown etymology, and may well be a compound of deictic particles. The NENA dialects exhibit a wide variety of words and forms denoting ‘now’, and these fall into two primary types: (1) ʔatta and variants thereof, which are found in all Jewish NENA dialects as well as ʔata in the Christian dialect of Shaqlawa and—if indeed etymologically related—ʔada in the Christian dialect of Iṣṣin. This enigmatic word might stem from *hā danta, viz. a presentative particle followed by a feminine form of dāna (< *ʕeddānā) ‘time’. Both hā and danta are attested in NENA.109

105 The Maʿlula variant hōši is a secondary by-form related to the dialect’s propensity to append non-etymological i (see Spitaler 1938: 5–6). 106 According to Ritter 1979: 526 also ʔöʕdo. 107 I am grateful to Prof. Simon Hopkins for his recordings of the (by now extinct) Jewish NA dialect of Sardasht. 108 Cf. Tezel 2003: 248–249, where a connection to Western Syriac hōšō is also examined. In contemporary Ṭuroyo waʕdo ‘promise’ is either the same Aramaic word (*waʕdā), َْ used according to the meaning of Ar. ‫‘ وع�د‬promise’, or an Arabic loanword. 109 For danta ‘time’, which emerged as a back-formation from the pl. danāṯa, consider, e.g., Halmun go dáy-danta ‘at that time’ (Talay 2009: 68:6), C.Urmi é-+danta ‘id.’ (Tsereteli 1965: 134:19 et passim). Furthermore, Maclean 1901: 67b lists Tkhuma dintâ and Alqosh düntâ in the sense ‘now’. Although the latter two forms and meaning are not corroborated by contemporary speakers, they may offer a clue to the etymology of ʔatta. The etymological affinity between dinta and ʔatta has already been suggested in Sabar 1976: 72, n. 344.

116

chapter four

(2) Various Christian NENA compound forms that mainly include the deictic particle d, and in most dialects also reflexes of the presentative hā, such as Alqosh daha, Baz hadiya (< *hādehā), Sat hādé, Ashitha deyya (< *dehā), Hertevin dehan, etc. 4.3.2 Relic Lexical Items Shared with Ṭuroyo and with Mlaḥsô In the following cases NM and Ṭuroyo-Mlaḥsô or NM and one of these two languages constitute relic areas that preserve lexical items which have been lost in all other known NA varieties: Gloss 1. ache, hurt 2. be afraid 3. wipe, mop 4. butter

NM kyw dhl kpr zowdɔ

NENA mrʔ zdʔ mšy, mrq karʔa

Ṭuroyo kyw zyʕ kfr (zəbdo)Ar.

Mlaḥsô kyv110 dḥl ? zudó

WNA (wkʕ, wžʕ)Ar. zwʕ šṭf (zobətṯa)Ar.

Comments: 1. NM kyw is used in the imperfective inflection, as in riše qəkɔyew ‘I have a headache (lit. ‘my head hurts’)’, riše qəkɔyew həwɔ́ ‘I had a headache (lit. ‘may head was hurting’)’, and from the same root kowwɔ ‘pain’. NA cognates are Mlaḥ. kyv ‘to hurt’ and the Ṭuroyo verbal root kyw, which refers both to pain and to illness, as in kokoyu (< *kā kāyeḇ) ‘it hurts; he falls ill’. Nominal forms of this root in Ṭuroyo are kayiwo ‘ill’ and kewo ‘pain; illness’. All these correspond to the CA root ‫ܟܐܒ‬, ‫כאב‬, CM kib, kab. The NENA parallel is mrɁ, māreɁ (and dialectal variants) ‘to hurt, ache, feel pain’, corresponding to CA ‫ܡܪܥ‬, ‫‘ מרע‬to be ill’. In some NENA dialects mrɁ also denotes ‘to become or be ill’. Thus NENA lost *kyw ‘to hurt’ and replaced it with mrɁ which underwent semantic expansion: ‘to be ill’ > ‘to be ill; to feel pain’, and in some dialects only ‘to feel pain’. The WNA parallels were borrowed from Arabic. Both wkʕ (awkaʕ, yawkaʕ ) ‘to hurt, ache’ and wžʕ (iččžaʕ, yiččžaʕ) ‘to feel pain; become ill’ derive from Ar. ��‫‘ و ج‬to hurt’, the former being an old loan while ‫ ج‬was � ‫ع‬ still pronounced g, whereas the latter is a recent loan from Syrian Arabic. 2. NM dəhél, dɔhel ‘to fear’, dəholtɔ, dəhólt ‘fear’ and Mlaḥsô doḥél ‘to fear’ are the only NA representatives of the old Aramaic root ‫ܕܚܠ‬, ‫‘ דחל‬to fear’. Everywhere else in Neo-Aramaic *dḥl was replaced by reflexes of the Aramaic root ‫ܙܘܥ‬, ‫זוע‬, originally ‘to move; tremble’, which occurs in the 110 Jastrow 1994: 158.



neo-mandaic and other neo-aramaic varieties: isolexes

117

context of fear already in BA: ‫מֹוהי‬ ִ ‫ן־ק ָד‬ ֳ ‫( ֲהוֹו זָ יְ ִעין וְ ָד ֲח ִלין ִמ‬Daniel 5:19) ‘they trembled and feared before him’. Ṭur. zoyəʕ and WNA azaʕ, yīzuʕ, active part. zōyaʕ ‘to fear’ are in the (neo-)pəʿal stem, whereas the NENA verb zdɁ, zādeɁ (and dialectal cognates) is synchronically inflected in the neo-pəʿal stem and historically belongs to an eṯpəʿal inflection of zwʕ, attested in Syriac as ‫ܐ ̇ܬ ̇ܬܙ ܼܝܥ‬,111 the ̤ passive/reflexive of ‫‘ ܵܙܥ‬to be in motion, tremble, be afraid’, thus: *Ɂettəzīʕ > *Ɂetzīʕ > *Ɂeztīʕ >*Ɂezdīʕ >*zdīʕ, yielding a new verbal root *zdʕ > zdɁ ‘to fear’. 3. NM kapper, mkapper and Ṭuroyo mkafər are reflexes of kpr in paʿʿel, denoting ‘to wipe’, as in CM kpr (cf. also post-cl. M kapar ʿda ‘hand towl’), JBA ‫ כפר‬and Syr. ‫‘ �ܲܟ ܸܦܪ‬id.’, which are cognate with Akk. kuppuru ‘wipe’. No other NA variety is known to preserve this verb in this meaning. The NENA parallels are (1) in most dialects māše or mašé, the antecedܵ ent of which is attested, inter alia, in JBA as ‫‘ משי‬to wash’ and Syr. as ‫ܡܫܐ‬ ‘to sweep up; stroke, caress; destroy; remove’;112 (2) in Halmun, Marga, Birsive, Harbole and a few other dialects of western Hakkâri and northܲ ernmost Iraq mārəq—cf. Syr. ‫ܡܪܩ‬ � ‘to rub off, wipe off, polish, cleanse’. The WNA parallel išṭaf, yišṭuf is likely inherited from Aramaic (cf. JPA respectively), and its preservation and Sam.Aram. ‫‘ שטף‬to wash’, ‘to َ‫َ ف‬rinse’, َ‫ش‬ � in WNA was induced by Ar. ���‫‘ ����ط‬to rinse’, which is itself a borrowing from Aram. ‫‘ שטף‬to wash’. 4. As is shown on pp. 57–58, The direct antecedent of NM zowdɔ, zowd ‘freshly churned liquid butter’ can be postulated as unattested Mandaic *zubda (*zuḇdā), a cognate of late Syr. ‫‘ ̣ܙܘ ̣ܒ ܵܕܐ‬cream’, which is likely an َ ْ ُ ‫ز ة‬ old borrowing from Ar. � ‫‘ �ب��د‬butter, cream’. The only other NA reflex of *zuḇdā is Mlaḥsô zudó ‘butter’. Ṭuroyo zəbdo and WNA zobətṯa ~ zobəṯṯa (Bax.), zebdṯa (Jub.) are borrowings from (colloquial) Arabic zibid ‘id.’, whereas NENA karʔa (e.g. in Betanure) and ܵ which are by-forms ܵ ‫ �ܲܟ‬or ‫ܪܥܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܟ‬, dialectal cognates are related to Syriac ‫ܪܥܐ‬ ܵ of ‫‘ ܟܪ ܵܥܐ‬butter’. 4.4 Neo-Mandaic-NENA Isoglosses Neo-Mandaic and NENA (or some NENA dialects) are linked by a number of lexical, semantic and morpho-lexical isoglosses that stand in contrast to 111 Vocalisation is based on Audo 1897: 266a. 112 See further in Greenfield 1991: 594 and pp. 182–185 below.

118

chapter four

other NA parallels, and can readily be attributed to a distant past where NM and NENA were geographically contiguous as part of a pre-modern Aramaic dialect continuum. A number of these isoglosses are shared innovations, whilst others already occur in Classical Aramaic. 4.4.1 Isoglosses in Both Form and Meaning The following are lexical isoglosses shared by NM and NENA as against different parallels in Ṭuroyo and WNA: 1. play 2. sneeze 3. heal (intr.) 4. bore, perforate 5. frog, toad 6. fever

NM ṭll tpṯ bsm bzy paqeṯṯɔ šɔṯɔ

NENA ṭʔl tpṯ bsm + bzʔ pəqʕa + šāṯa +

Ṭuroyo štʕy ʕṭš nyḥ nqw gurdaʕ(d)a + ḥəmta

WNA šṭʕy ʕṭš yṭb fḥč wartaʕna + ḥemma

Comments: 1. The NA languages evince reflexes of two different pre-modern Aramaic verbal roots denoting ‘to play’, ṭll and šʕy. The former, inflected in paʿʿel and eṯpaʿʿal, is attested in CM and JBA; and the latter, inflected in paʿʿel, eṯpəʿel and eṯpaʿʿal, is found in Syriac. NM ṭallel, mṭallel and NENA mṭāʔəl (< *mṭāyəl < *mṭalləl) and cognate dialectal forms113 constitute an isolex corresponding to CM and JBA ‫ טלל‬in paʿʿel, whereas Ṭuroyo məštaʕe and WNA išṭaʕ (Jub. išṭʕay), yišṭaʕ constitute an isolex closely related to the Syriac parallel in either eṯpəʿel ܲ (‫)ܐܫܬܥ ̣ܝ‬ � ‫)ܐ‬. ܸ Thus a fairly neat geographically-bound disܸ or eṯpaʿʿal (‫ܫܬܥ ̣ܝ‬ tribution of ṭll and šʕy emerges, as follows: Distribution Etymon Cl. Aramaic Neo-Aramaic ṭallel CM, JBA NM, NENA ʔeštʕi/ʔeštaʕʕi Syriac Ṭuroyo, WNA

2. In a similar fashion to the former case, in the case of the NA verbs for ‘to sneeze’ NM and NENA are bound by one isolex whilst Ṭuroyo and WNA are connected by another, and both isolexes correspond to attested verbal roots in geographically proximate CA languages, as is shown below:

113 For the NENA verb and its dialectal variants see Mutzafi 2006.



neo-mandaic and other neo-aramaic varieties: isolexes

119

Distribution Etymon Cl. Aramaic Neo-Aramaic tpt CM NM, NENA ʕṭš Syriac, JPA Ṭuroyo, WNA

Already in CM the Aramaic verbal root ʕṭš (a cognate of Hebrew ‫ עטש‬and Arabic and Geʿez ʕṭs) was replaced by an onomatopoeic root tpt. The same root is found in Bar Bahlul’s 10th century dictionary,114 which is replete with vernacular words of early NENA or other Iraqi Aramaic provenance. CM and Bar Bahlul’s tpt constitute the earliest evidence for a verbal root which likely emerged in Mesopotamian Aramaic varieties spoken to the south-east of Syriac, and is still extant today in NM and NENA. CM and NENA inflect this root in (neo-)pəʿal, as in NENA tāpəṯ (and dialectal variants), whereas in NM it occurs in paʿʿel: tappeṯ, mtappeṯ, which may well be an innovation that supplanted the older pəʿal inflection. Syriac, JPA115 and, later, Ṭuroyo and WNA, all preserve the genuine ܵ ‘sneezSemitic root. In Syriac, however, only deverbal forms such as ‫ܥܛ ܵܫܐ‬ ing’ are attested, and by virtue of these forms we can postulate a Syriac cognate of JPA ‫‘ עטש‬to sneeze’. Ṭuroyo mʕaṭəš is cognate with WNA iʕṭaš, yiʕṭuš (WNA has also borrowed the Arabic cognate ʕṭs in the same sense). 3. The semantic value of the verbal root bsm is essentially related in CA to pleasantness of smell, taste or mood, e.g. Syr. ‫ܒܣܡ‬ ܸ ‘be fragrant, pleasing, agreeable; rejoice’ and its cognates are CM bsm ‘be fragrant, pleasing, agreeable’ and JBA ‫‘ בסם‬be pleasing, sweet, cheerful; intoxicated’. Such meanings still appear in NENA bāsəm and the Ṭuroyo cognate bosəm, basically ‘to be or become pleasant; be pleased’. Yet unlike CA and Ṭuroyo, NM and NENA share a semantic innovation ‘feel pleasant, good’ > ‘recover, heal, be healthy’. In NM this is the only meaning of the verb bəsám, bɔsem (although a more common way of saying ‘to recuperate’, at least in Ahvaz, is the phrasal verb šəbír tam, lit.: ‘he became good’), and there is also a paʿʿel inflection: bassem, mbassem ‘to heal (tr.)’. NM also has an uninflected adjective basím ‘healthy (also tasty, fragrant)’, used in the greeting basím hɔwet (addressed to a male), basím hɔwit (addressed to a female), basím hawettɔn ‘be healthy!’ (pl.), which is strikingly akin to Trans-Zab-NENA basimá hawét, elsewhere in NENA hāwət basima ‘be well; thanks!’. NM basím is originally a contextual form 114 See Duval 1888–1901, vol. 1, p. 340 ‫‘ ܐܬܦܬ‬to sneeze’. 115 Cf. also Qum.Aram. ‫‘ עטישה‬sneezing’ (Abegg 2003, vol. 1/2: 895).

120

chapter four

of basima ‘healthy’, attested as a modern (or early modern) M word in ms. DC 46116 and in the Glossarium (106:3), misspelled bṣima ‘healthy’. In NENA the usage of bāsəm ‘to recuperate’ is found in many if not most dialects, from J.Sanandaj in the far south (basə́ m) to C.Salmas, Van and Nudis in the far north, and further areas to the west. Some other NENA dialects replaced the proto-NENA verb bāsəm ‘to recuperate’ with ṭāṛəs (< trṣ, ‫)תרץ‬, whose oldest meanings in the NENA dialects are ‘to fix, mend; be right, correct’, but even in some of these dialects the older verbal root bsm still appears in early manuscripts (e.g. in Ṣablagh and some Inter-Zab Jewish dialects),117 oral literature (e.g. in Rustaqa) or vestigially in compounds (e.g. J.Koy Sanjaq basma-kāká ‘spleen’ < *‘tooth-healer’). In some other NENA dialects, mostly in the northwestern peripheries of this group (e.g. in Yarda, Gaznakh), bsm ‘to heal’ was replaced by the verb nyx, nāyəx ‘to rest’, which was semantically expanded to mean also ‘to recuperate, heal’, as also across the Tigris in Ṭuroyo (noyəḥ) and similarly in Mlaḥsô tnḥ, metnéḥ ‘to recuperate’,118 the latter corresponding to Syr. ‫ܐܬܬܢ ̣ܝܚ‬ ܸ ‘to rest, be soothed’. An entirely different verb is WNA yṭb, inflected in ap̄ ʿel: ayṭeb, yayṭeb,119 related to ṭabb ( Jub. ṭāb) ‘healthy, alive’, from pre-modern Aramaic ṭāḇ ‘good’. NM and NENA are further bound by the usage of bsm in the (neo-)paʿʿel stem for the causative meaning ‘to cure, heal’, as in NM mɔre mbasemlax, Tkhuma ʔalāha mbasəmlux ‘May God heal you (sg.m.)’. Another way of wishing health to someone ill in NM is bosmɔ hawilax (sg.m.) ‘may you have health’ and the reply is bɔsem ruhax ‘may you yourself be healthy (lit. ‘may yourself heal’)’. 4. NM bəzɔ́ , bɔzi and NENA bāzeʔ (and dialectal variants) are the only modern reflexes of pre-modern Aramaic bzʕ ‘to tear, split, bore’, and in both NM and NENA its basic denotation has been narrowed to denote ‘to bore a hole, perforate’. In Ahvaz-NM it also denotes ‘to have sex with a woman’, and its usage is restricted to men’s speech and considered rather obscene, as in bezya ‘he had sex with her’.120 Nominal derivatives of the same root are NM bəzuyɔ, bəzúy ‘hole’ (< *bazzūyā ‘punctured’) and NENA bəzɁa (also bəzza, +bəzza etc.) ‘ditto’. Among the CA antecedents are CM

116 See Mutzafi and Morgenstern, forthcoming. 117 As, e.g., in Rees 2008: 278. 118 Jastrow 1994: 164. 119 In Baxʿa ayṭep, yayṭep (Arnold 1990: 105). 120 See already HCMM, 290, esp. n. 296.



neo-mandaic and other neo-aramaic varieties: isolexes

121

ܲ bza ‘to split, cleave, rend, make a hole’, JBA ‫‘ בזע‬to split, pierce’, Syr. ‫ܒܙܥ‬ � ‘to split, cleave, tear, perforate’ and Egyp.Aram. ‫‘ בזע‬to tear’.121 Among ܵ ‫‘ ܸܒ‬crack, hole’.122 Nominal CA forms are JBA ‫ביזעא‬, ‫ ביזא‬and Syr. ‫ܙܥܐ‬ Parallel NA verbal roots are divided between Ṭuroyo-Mlaḥsô noqu, noqév123 and WNA ifḥač, yifḥuč. The precursors of these verbs, nqb and pḥt respectively, denote ‘to bore a hole, pierce’ already in CA, e.g. in Syr. ܲ� ‘to pierce, make a hole, implant’, ‫ܦܚ ̣ܬ‬ ‫ܢܩ ̣ܒ‬ �ܲ ‘to perforate; dig a pit’. 5. Ṭuroyo gurdaʕda ~ gurdaʕa (both only in the dialect of Midyat)124 and WNA wartaʕna (Maʿl.), burṭaʿnṯa (Jub.) are the only NA varieties known to preserve reflexes of the inherited Aramaic and Semitic َ ْ‫ ضَ ف‬word ܵ ‫ܐܘ‬, ‫�د‬ ��� ְ , Syr. ‫ܪܕܥܐ‬ H ‫ע‬ ַ ‫ּד‬ ֵ ‫ר‬ ְ ‫פ‬ ַ ‫צ‬ ְ , Ar. for ‘frog’—cf., inter alia, TO ‫עּור ְּד ָען‬ ̣ ‫� ع‬. The Ṭuroyo form, is however, highly irregular and the phonological processes that shaped it remain uncertain.125 WNA wartaʕna and the more progressive form burṭaʿnṯa, on the other hand, are strongly akin to JPA ‫ אורדען‬and ‫ארדען‬, CPA and Sam.Aram. ‫ארדען‬.126 NM paqeṯṯɔ, paqéṯ and NENA cognate dialectal variants such as pəqʕa and paqeʔṯa replaced the inherited word with a word whose antecedent is already attested in Bar Ali’s and Bar Bahlul’s lexicons of the 9th and 10th ܵ ‫‘ ܸܦ‬frog’. Since both lexicons were composed centuries, respectively, as ‫ܩܥܐ‬ in Iraq, where the early vernaculars which later developed into NENA were spoken, and since both dictionaries include many vernacular words that appear to be closely related with NENA rather than with Classical ܵ ‫ ܸܦ‬is Syriac (see, e.g., tpt, pp. 118–119 above), it may very well be that ‫ܩܥܐ‬ not a Syriac word at all but an early NENA one. ܵ ‫ ܸܦ‬is very likely an imitative one, perhaps related to Syriac The word ‫ܩܥܐ‬ ܵ ܵ ‫‘ ܦܩܥܐ‬noise, din, thunderbolt’. Its most archaic representatives in NENA are Qaraqosh pəqʕa and Hertevin pəqʔa ‘frog, toad’. Some Lishana Deni dialects evince feminine forms: Betanure paqeʔṯa, ʿAmidya paqqeʔṯa and literary Nerwa paqeʔsa,127 all ‘frog, toad’. These can plausibly be

121 For the latter cognate see Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 134a. 122 Note that the entry bzuia ‘hole’ in MD 58a has nothing to do with literary M and is based on NM bəzuyɔ. 123 For Mlaḥsô see Talay 2002: 711 nqv, preterite nqivle ‘he bore a hole’. 124 The former is the common Midyat form. The latter is listed in Ritter 1979: 180. Rural dialects use baqqe < Kurdish. 125 See Tezel 2003: 221–222. 126 Whereas Baxʿa displays the loanword ḳurtəlmay < local Ar. qird il-mayy, lit. ‘water ape’. 127 For the latter see Avidani 1958: 36.

122

chapter four

r­ econstructed *peqʕā > *pəqʕa > *pəqʕaṯa > *paqaʕṯa > paqeʔṯa, etc.128 This very reconstruction applies, in all likelihood, to NM paqaṯṯɔ as well. If the very limited distribution of paqeʔṯa in NENA is due to an internal development of a morphologically-marked feminine form only in Lishana Deni, then paqeʔṯa and NM paqaṯṯɔ must have evolved independently from an antecedent such as *peqʕā or *paqʕā. If, on the other hand, paqeʔṯa is a relic of an early NENA feminine by-form of *peqʕā that survives only in Lishana Deni, then the isogloss binding NM and NENA is not only related ܵ ‫ܦ‬, to an old form akin to ‫ܩܥܐ‬ ܸ but reflects a shared innovation whereby both NM and NENA exhibit a feminine form of this word ending in *-ṯā. 6. As regards the NA words for ‘fever’, NM šɔṯɔ, šɔṯ and NENA šāṯa (and dialectal variants such as šālá) preserve reflexes of CA ʔeššāṯā, attested in CM ʿšata ‘fire; fever’, JBA ‫אישתא‬, ‫‘ אישאתא‬id.’, Syr. ‫ܐ ܵܫ ̣ܵܬܐ‬ ̤ ‘fever’, and already in Qum.Aram. ‫‘ אשה‬fire; fever’.129 The erstwhile meaning of these is ‘fire’, as is the meaning of BA ‫( ֶא ָּׁשא‬Daniel 7:11) and of cognate Semitic words such as H ‫ ֵאׁש‬. Ṭur. ḥəmta and WNA ḥemma are derived from the Semitic root ḥmm ‘to be hot’, whence also forms such as ḥəmma, ḥəmme ‘fever’ in local Arabic َّ ُ dialects,130 corresponding to Classical Ar. ‫‘ ح�مى‬ditto’. It seems to be that Ṭuroyo and WNA selected genuine Aramaic words—consider Syr. ‫ܚܘ ܵܡܐ‬, ̣ ܵ ܵ ‫ܡܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫‘ ̤ܚ‬heat’, ‫ܡܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫‘ ܲ�ܚ‬heat; fever’ and JBA ‫‘ חמא‬a sickness (fever?)’—under the influence of Arabic. A direct borrowing of WNA ḥemma from Arabic is, however, also possible. An independent derivation of the word for ‘fever’ from the root xmm < ḥmm is xamxamta in a few Christian NENA varieties, such as Baz and MarBishu, which ousted the common NENA word šāṯa. This is clearly a late, dialectally-restricted innovation which is not a representative feature of NENA.

128 *aʕ > eʔ is a regular process in Lishana Deni, e.g. in saʕrā ‘hair’ > seʔra ‘goat hair’, and a very similar case to that of paqeʔṯa is Betanure *qurʕ aṯā > *quraʕṯā > qureʔṯa ‘coarse ܵ ‫ܩܘ‬, sack’—cf. Syr. ‫ܪܥܐ‬ ܼ WNA ḳorʕa ‘sack’ and Chamba d-Mallik-Ṭyare qurāṯa ‘small woolen sack’. 129 Abegg 2003, vol. 1/2: 795. 130 Barthélemy 1935-1939, vol. 1: 178 and Vocke and Waldner 1982: 125, respectively.



neo-mandaic and other neo-aramaic varieties: isolexes

123

4.4.2 Morpho-Lexical Isoglosses 1. go! 2. inadequate, few131 3. daughter 4. wild boar, pig 5. camel 6. armpit 7. (some)thing

NM ezgí baṣúr bərattɔ həzurɔ gomlɔ tuṯšɔṯɔ mendi

NENA si, sāgi baṣór, baṣora brāta xzura gumla txušxāṯa məndi

Ṭuroyo (i)zux, izolux (noquṣo)Ar. barṯo Mlaḥ. ḥziró gamlo taḥtəšʕo mede

WNA zēx ~ zellax baṣṣer berča, berća ḥzīra ġamla (nebṭa)Ar. mett +

Comments: 1. NM and NENA are connected by reflexes of the Aramaic root sgy ‘to go, walk, move on’, which is first attested in Egyp.Aram. as ‫סגי‬132 and later mostly in JBA and CM.133 In Targ. Psalms 18:30 ‫ אסגי‬translates H ‫‘ ָא ֻרץ‬I run’. In both NM and NENA this verb is inflected in the imperative, the sg.m. of which being NM ezgí ‘go, walk (sg.m.)!’ and in NENA dialects mostly the neo-pəʿal form si (< *sʔi < *sġī), in a few dialects neo-paʿʿel sāgi (e.g. in Qaraqosh), sagi (ʿAnkawa) or sāgi ~ say (C.Sanandaj). NENA exhibits suppletion of *sgy in the imperative of ‘to go’ and ʔzl in all other tenses (in some NENA dialects, e.g. C.Urmi, reflexes of rḥš ‘to crawl, move’ crept into the verb ‘to go’ and replaced some of its conjugations); whereas in NM zgy is used in the past (ezgɔ́ ‘he went’) and imperative (ezgí ‘go!’) and ʔzl is used elsewhere (e.g. qɔzi dd, which was either retained or simplified: *medde > Ṭuroyo mede, Mlaḥsô medé ‘thing, something’ and WNA *medd > Bax. mett Maʿlula mett(i),150 Jub. mēt, mīt ‘matter, something, someone, some’. This gemination, or former gemination, dd (> d), tallies well with forms in most CA varieties and sources, e.g. JPA ‫מידעם‬, JBA ‫מידי‬, ‫ מידא‬and Syr. ‫ܡ ܸܕܡ‬. ܸ Note that məndi, one of very few Aramaic words which end in NENA in the vowel i, would be expected to have a final -e as in CA and in ṬuroyoMlaḥsô. Perhaps the explanation for this puzzling ending is contact with Mandaic, if the indefinite singular suffix i emerged early on in pre-modern Mandaic and spread north into NENA territory. 4.4.3 Neo-Mandaic Isolexes with Some of the NENA Dialects Several additional shared lexical innovations occur in NM and in some NENA dialects, whereas other NENA dialects exhibit their own Aramaic lexemes for the same semantic values. In several cases (No. 1–7 below) the presently discontinuous NM-NENAṬuroyo territory shows a split between two lexical isoglosses, one con-

145 See Tezel 2003: 123. 146 I owe this explanation to Prof. Werner Arnold. 147 Pace Macuch (MD 267b, HCMM 48), where mendi ‘a thing, something, anything’ is assumed to be derived from mindia, the pl. of CM minda. 148 Also məddi in most Ṭyare dialects, yet this is a late development from məndi (as still in Ashitha-Ṭyare). 149 Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 529. 150 The Maʿlula variant metti is most probably a secondary by-form of mett in light of the dialect’s propensity to append non-etymological i (see Spitaler 1938: 5–6).



neo-mandaic and other neo-aramaic varieties: isolexes

127

necting NENA with NM to the south and the other connecting it with Ṭuroyo to the west. Some of the NENA-Ṭuroyo isoglosses are also shared by Mlaḥsô and WNA. The distribution of these isoglosses is such that allows a reconstruction of contiguous geographical divisions going back to times of Aramaic territorial continuity: NM

Selected NENA dialects J.Dohok Telkepe Yarda 1. lay egg(s) rmy rmy rmy yld 2. almond šeġdɔ šeʔḏa šeḏa luza 3. mad, insane šidɔnɔ šiḏāna dewāna daywāna

Ṭuroyo

WNA

lyd ylḏ, ylt luzo luza daywono (mažnū́n)Ar.

The following are cases in which NM shares an isolex mostly or only with the southernmost NENA dialects, more precisely with Jewish dialects of Iranian Kurdistan and bordering areas in Iraq (represented below by Kerend); whereas other NENA dialects (represented below by Ṭyare) share a parallel isolex with Ṭuroyo or with the latter and WNA: NM 4. to sleep gny 5. skin, leather miškɔ 6. two days ago lahmal

NENA dialects Kerend Ṭyare gny dmx məšká gəlda laḥmal bomaxrena

Ṭuroyo

WNA

dmx ḏmx galdo ġelta bumǝḥreno rumšər rumiš151

Comments: 1. The verbal root rmy has the basic meaning ‘to throw’ in CA as well as in BH, Arabic and Akkadian. Already in CM, JBA and Syriac this verb evinces an innovative meaning ‘to lay egg(s)’ that was added to the basic meaning, ܲ ‘to throw; namely CM rma, JBA pəʿal of ‫רמי‬152 and (late) Syriac ap̄ ʿel ‫ܐܪܡ ̣ܝ‬ � lay eggs’. Given the use of Akkadian nadû ‘to throw’ also in connection with laying eggs,153 it is likely that this development in Eastern Aramaic was a semantic calque on Akkadian. The semantic shift ‘to throw’ > ‘to lay egg(s)’ has been completed in NM, where this is the sole meaning of rəmɔ́ , rɔmi, as in zaġā́t rəmát ‘the hen laid an egg/eggs’. The same denotation of rmy, rāme occurs also in various NENA dialects, in particular in Lishana Deni (e.g. J.Dohok, Betanure), in

151 In Baxʿa baṯar ruməš. 152 As in ‫‘ תרנגולתא דרמיא‬a hen which lays an egg’ (DJBA 1087a). RH of the Babylonian Talmud ‫‘ ֵה ִטיל‬to throw; lay eggs’ is surely a calque on JBA. 153 See ibid., referring to Akk. pilî nadû ‘to lay (< throw) eggs’.

128

chapter four

Christian dialects of the areas of Mosul (e.g. Telkepe, Qaraqosh),154 Arbel (e.g. C.Shaqlawa) and in ʿAqra, C.Sulemaniyya and C.Sanandaj. Other NENA dialects as well as Ṭuroyo and WNA evince a reflex of erstwhile yld ‘to give birth, lay eggs’.155 Trans Zab-NENA dialects replaced yld or rmy with beta ʔwl, lit. ‘to make egg’. 2. NM and most NENA dialects evince the isolex šeġdā ‘almond’ > NM šeġdɔ, šeġd, NENA šeʔḏa, šeḏa, šezá etc. CA antecedents are TO ‫שגדא‬, ܵ JBA pl. ‫שיגדי‬,157 Sam.Aram. ‫שגד‬, CM šigda, Syr. ‫( ܸܫ ݂ܓ ܵܕܐ‬also ‫ܕܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫)ܫܓ‬,156 ܸ and, with an aberrant spelling, ‫ סיגדא‬in Qumran Aramaic.158 Another Aramaic word for almond (and also ‘almond tree’), lūz, lūzā, binds attested, inter alia, in TO, JPA, Sam.Aram. (‫ )לוז‬and Syriac (‫)ܠܘ ܵܙܐ‬,159 ̣ the northwestern dialects of NENA, such as Yarda, Benikhre, Mer and Hertevin luza, further west with Ṭuroyo luzo and WNA lūza. Perhaps the two isolexes covering the words for ‘almond’ in NA originally denoted two distinct kinds of almond, in particular in languages such as Syriac where both are known to exist. Additionally, whereas lūz, lūzā is a genuine erstwhile Aramaic term, šeġdā might not be so: In view of the Ugaritic cognate ṯqd, one would have expected the Aramaic cognate to be **tqd, hence the Aramaic forms with š are possibly borrowed from Akkadian šiqdu or from Canaanite (cf. BH ‫)שָׁ ֵקד‬. 3. NM šidɔnɔ, šidɔ́ n ‘mad, madman’ is part of an isogloss to which many dialects of NENA are connected, as is shown by the cognates šiḏāna (e.g. in J.Dohok, Betanure), šəzāna (J.Zakho) etc. Ṭyare preserves the most archaic NENA form, šeḏāna, as well as (in some Ṭyare dialects) the noun from which it is ultimately derived, šeḏa ‘demon’. Hence šeḏāna and its ܵ ‫ܫ‬ NA cognates are in origin ‘possessed by demons’, as found in Syr. ‫ܐܕ ܵܢܐ‬ ݂ ܹ ܵ ‘demonic; possessed by demons’ (from ‫ܐܕܐ‬ ݂ ‫‘ ܹܫ‬demon’ < Akk. šēdu ‘protective deity’). Similarly, post-classical or early modern M šidana (from šida ‘demon’) denotes ‘possessed by a devil, demoniac, diabolic’ as well as ‘mad, insane’. Other NENA dialects, mostly in the area of Mosul and in the northwestern peripheries, employ the word daywāna, dɛwāna or dewāna, 154 Note that the Arabic etymology given in Khan 2002: 720a should be revised in the light of the absence of such a meaning in Iraqi Arabic and its existence in CA. 155 For the meaning ‘to lay eggs’ in Syriac see Payne Smith 1903: 191b. 156 For the former form see Audo 1897: 545b, Thesaurus 4051. 157 See DJBA 1108b, s.v. ‫*שגידתא‬. 158 See Morgenstern 1996: 63, Muraoka 2011: 5. 159 Note that MD 232b luza does not denote ‘almond’ but is a misinterpretation of luzan ‘a name of a spirit’ in DC 46 (Matthew Morgenstern, p.c.).



neo-mandaic and other neo-aramaic varieties: isolexes

129

which binds them with Ṭuroyo daywono.160 As in the previous isolex, the erstwhile, and now obsolete meaning of daywāna etc. is ‘possessed by demons’, being a derivative of obsolete *daywā ‘demon, evil spirit’ (< Old ܵ ‫‘ ܲܕ‬demonic; possessed, Persian daiva ‘an evil spirit’)—compare Syr. ‫ܝܘ ܵܢܐ‬ � ܵ ܲ madman’, and Syr. ‫ܕܝܘܐ‬,� CM daiua ‘demon, evil spirit’. 4. In both NM and the southern dialects of Hulaula-NENA, represented in the table above by Kerend,161 the verbal root gny (NM gənɔ́ , gɔni, Hulaula gané) exhibits semantic changes: ‘to recline’ > ‘to lie down’ > ‘to sleep’ (see further pp. 108–109), and replaced the erstwhile Aramaic verbal root dmx, which is still used in nearly all other NA varieties as dmx or ḏmx, including dmx in the northern Hulaula dialects such as the dialect of Bokan.162 Hence the Hulaula language itself is split into northern dialects that have dmx ‘sleep’ and southern dialects that use gny for this denotation. Whereas southern Hulaula dialects share an isogloss with NM where dmx ‘to sleep’ has been replaced by gny, northern Hulaula dialects conform with all other NENA dialects except Qaraqosh and Bariṭle, as well as with Ṭuroyo-Mlaḥsô and WNA, in their use of dmx ‘to sleep’. Qaraqosh and Bariṭle stand out in NENA, and indeed amongst all other NA dialects, in their use of ṭāwəʔ and ṭāwe ‘to sleep’ and in their replacement of dmx with ṭwʔ ( ‘to choose between grain and dirt’ > ‘clean grain’, confined to some NENA dialects, seems to be the latest among the three verbs under discussion to appear in the sense ‘to clean grain’. In Hakkâri the erstwhile verb replaced by gby was likely nqy, as in neighbouring Christian dialects, whilst in Hulaula gby has probably replaced earlier bny (which itself replaced nqy), since (1) nearly all other Jewish varieties have bny, (2) in Hulaula itself bny still survives in the dialects of Sulemaniyya and Ḥalabja. Assuming that gby is a recent ‘interloper’ into the semantic field of cleaning grain, it is plausible to assume an earlier split between NM-dialectal NENA bny and dialectal NENA-Ṭuroyo-WNA nqy.

132

chapter four

To sum up the geographically-based, cross-corresponding isoglosses shared by NM and dialectal NENA on the one hand and by dialectal NENA and Ṭuroyo on the other: NM-NENA 1. rmy 2. šeġdɔ-šeʔḏa 3. šidɔnɔ-šiḏāna 4. gny 5. miškɔ-məšká 6. lahmal-laḥmal 7. bny

NENA-Ṭuroyo yld-lyd (and variants) luza-luzo daywāna-daywono dmx gəlda-galdo bomaxrena-bumǝḥreno nqy

Further cognates WNA ylḏ, ylt WNA lūza Mlaḥsô dmx, WNA ḏmx WNA ġelta WNA nḳy

In some other cases NM shares a lexeme only with some NENA dialects, whilst the remaining NENA dialects do not share isoglosses with Ṭuroyo but have their own independent lexemes. In what follows selected dialects represent the major lexical variation in NENA for each case (Bet. = Betanure, Hert. = Hertevin): NM Selected NENA dialects Bet. Saqiz Mer 1. shirt, tunic ṣodrɔ ṣudra ṣurá šuqta 2. mix hwṭ xwṭ ʔrw xwx

Ṭuroyo

WNA

qməsto (xlṭ)Ar.

ḳameṣča ʕrb

NM Selected NENA dialects Hert. Mer Ṭyare 3. cold (noun) qoršɔ qorša qarta qaṛṯa 4. urine tinɔ tine tine joṛe

Ṭuroyo

WNA

quro mazruqe

ḳorṣa šayšūra

NM Selected NENA dialects Lizin Gawar Alqosh 5. belch gsy gsy +gwṱ jʕṣ

Ṭuroyo

WNA

(dšy)Ar.

(bʕj)Ar.

Comments: 1. NM and many NENA dialects, including the southernmost JNA dialects of Iran, share the isogloss *ṣudrā > NM ṣodrɔ, ṣodər ‘shirt, tunic’, NENA, e.g. Ṭyare ṣudra ‘shirt, tunic’, Khanaqin ṣurá ‘man’s shirt; woman’s long undergarment’. It is attested as ṣudra ‘shirt, tunic’ in one of the ­modern M sections of ms. DC 46 (see MD 390b) and as sdra or ṣdra in the Glossarium. The proto-form *ṣudrā, shared by NM and NENA, was probably related ܵ to JBA ‫(‘ צדרא‬coarse?) garment’ and Syr. ‫ܨܕܪܐ‬ ܸ ‘a type of garment’,168 168 See Thesaurus 3367.



neo-mandaic and other neo-aramaic varieties: isolexes

133

hence the vowel o/u in NM and NENA is unique in Aramaic. The same ‫ُ ْ َة‬ vowel occurs in Ar. �‫‘ �ص�د ر‬vest, waistcoat, bodice’. The ultimate origin of all these is in all likelihood Middle Iranian, cf. MP čādur ‘sheet, veil’, the precursor of NP čādar ‘mantle, scarf, veil’.169 Other NENA dialects, spoken in the area of Mosul and in the northwestern peripheries of NENA have another word for ‘shirt, tunic’, e.g. Telkepe šoqta, Alqosh šaqta ~ šoqta, Mer šuqta, Borb-Ruma šuxta (all < *šuqta), which are surely cognate with Ṭuroyo šuqo ‘linen fabric’, since light shirts and tunics where mostly made of linen. Aziz Tezel suggests two alternative etymological solutions for Ṭur. šuqo: (1) his preferred etymology ‫ُ خ‬ is a foreign word from the same origin as that of Ar. ‫‘ ج�و‬broadcloth’, � which apparently stems from Turkish çuka, çuha ‘smooth, fine, closely woven woolen fabric’; (2) an ellipsis of kētōnō d-šūqō ‘market (or street) linen’.170 The first possibility indeed seems more plausible, yet the etymology remains uncertain. Semantic differences notwithstanding, the isoglosses related to NENA’s two distinct words for shirt are NM-NENA ṣodrɔ-ṣudra and NENA-Ṭuroyo šuqta-šuqo. Ṭur. qməsto and the dialectal variants qaməsto, qeməsto ‘shirt, undershirt’171 are, like WNA ḳameṣča ~ ḳamesča ‘men’s shirt; women’s underܵ ‫ܲܩܡܝ‬ garment’, derived from the same etymon reflected in Syriac as ‫ܣܬܐ‬ ̣ � and variants such as ‫‘ ܩܘܡܝܨܬܐ‬shirt, night gown’, ultimately from Gk. καμίσιον. 2. Yet another NM-dialectal NENA isolex is NM hwṭ, həwáṭ, hɔweṭ ‘to mix (tr., intr.); stir’ and the NENA cognate xāwəṭ ‘to mix (tr., intr.)’ in various northerly NENA dialects (e.g. in Betanure, MarBisho, and dialectal variants such as C.Salmas +xāvəṱ), both of which are from ḥāḇeṭ ‘to strike, pound, beat’, as, e.g. in Syriac ‫ܚܒܛ‬, � ܲ WNA iḥbaṭ, yiḥbuṭ ‘ditto’, and similarly in CM hbṭ ‘to cudgel, batter down, strike upon’ and Ṭuroyo ḥowəṭ ‘to beat laundry with a washing bat; to dash, thrash someone to the ground’.172 The semantic process pertaining to the NM and NENA cognates may have been ‘strike, beat’ > ‘beat liquid with a spoon etc. in order to stir it, strike ingredients with a spoon etc. in order to mix them together’ > ‘stir, mix, mingle’.

169 See Shaked 1994: 108. For cases of MP č > Syriac ṣ see Ciancaglini 2008: 244–245. 170 Tezel 2003: 120–122. 171 See Ritter 1979: 416. 172 Tezel 2003: 51; Tezel 2011: 90.

134

chapter four

Despite the great geographical distance between the NM and dialectal NENA cognates, the latter being restricted mainly to Hakkâri and Iranian Azerbaijan, these cognates might represent relics of a formerly much wider distribution of this word and meaning, in the light of Iraqi Ar. xabaṭ, xubaṭ ‘to mix’173 < ‘to strike, beat’. It stands to reason that the very same semantic shift in three languages spoken in the same Mesopotamian area, NM, NENA and local Arabic, did not emerge as independent parallel semantic developments, but is the result of an older, Eastern Aramaic semantic change which is still represented in some NA languages as well as in the local Arabic superstratum. An early evidence for this semantic change might be JBA ‫חבט‬, which possibly denotes ‘to mash’ in addition to its basic meanings ‘to strike, throw down’.174 Other NENA dialects employ xwx, xāwəx < ḥāḇeḵ (Syr. ‫‘ ܚܒܟ‬mix’), mostly Christian dialects, from the area of Mosul northwards to Cudi Dağ, Bohtan and Ṭyare, and also in the Jewish dialects of Dohok and Barashe. The oldest and probably erstwhile Aramaic verbal root related to mixing, ʕrb, as, inter alia, in Syr. ‫ܥܪܒ‬, and earliest in Egyp.Aram. as ‫מערב‬ ‘mixed’,175 survives in most Jewish NENA dialects as ʔrw, e.g. Saqiz ʔarú (inr.), maʔrú (tr.), and also in WNA as ʕarreb, yʕarreb ‘to mix, mingle (tr.)’. In NENA these are relic areas where *ʕrb was not replaced by xwṭ or xwx. Unlike these genuine Aramaic verbs, the Ṭuroyo parallel xoləṭ ‘to mix’ is an Arabic loanword.176 3. The NM noun qoršɔ, qorš ‘cold (referring to temperature or weather)’ is cognate with the NENA dialects of Hertevin and Borb-Ruma qorša ‘ditto’. Various other northern NENA varieties, e.g. Ṭyare, Betanure and Mer, evince the cognate qurša ‘crust of frost or ice formed on snow’.177 All these constitute relic areas, where reflexes of an Aramaic word appearing ܵ ‫‘ ܩܘ‬coldness, in post-cl. M as qurša ‘cold, freezing, hard frost’ and Syr. ‫ܪܫܐ‬ ̣ cold’ are preserved. The geographical pattern of the NM-NENA isogloss qoršɔ-qorša is that of two relic areas, one in southernmost NA and the other in the northern and northernmost dialects of NENA. All known NENA dialects except Hertevin and Borb-Ruma exhibit a reflex of *qarrəṯā for ‘cold’, e.g. Ashitha qaṛṯa, Mer qarta, Marga qarsa,

173 Avishur 2008–2010, vol. 2: 250, Woodhead and Beene 1967: 128b. 174 See DJBA 424. 175 Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 668b. 176 See Tezel 2011: 96. 177 Another NA word from the same root is the Ṭuroyo adjective qarušo ‘cold’ (Tezel 2003: 155, 257).



neo-mandaic and other neo-aramaic varieties: isolexes

135

Bijar qardá. Ṭuroyo-Mlaḥsô quro, quró ‘cold (noun)’ are derived from the ܵ same root qrr and their antecedent is attested in CA as Syriac ‫ܩܘܪܐ‬ ̣ ‘cold’ and JBA ‫‘ קורא‬cold, frost’. The different nominal patterns in NENA and Ṭuroyo-Mlaḥsô exclude a NENA-Ṭuroyo-Mlaḥsô isogloss in this case. The WNA parallel ḳorṣa and verbs from the same root such as ḳarreṣ, yḳarreṣ ‘to get cold’ are derived from pre-modern Aramaic qrṣ ‘to bite, sting, prick’ (as in Syriac and JBA), whence in many NENA dialects (e.g. Telkepe) qārəṣ ‘to pinch’. The semantic shift reflected in WNA was ‘to pinch, nip’ > ‘to nip (bite) as severe cold, become bitingly cold’ > ‘to get ܵ ‫‘ �ܲܩ‬hoarfrost, cold’ cold’.178 The same semantic process underlies Syr. ‫ܪܨ ܵܢܐ‬ ܵ ܲ and ‫‘ �ܩܪܨ ̣ܝ ̣ܬܐ‬frost’;179 and perhaps also J.Urmi +qāsər ~ +qārəs ‘to suffer from severe cold, be freezing cold’, but the latter may rather be derived َ ‫َق‬ from Kurdish qerisîn ‘to be cold, freeze’, and ultimately from Ar. ‫‘ � ��س‬to ِ‫ر‬ be severe (of cold)’. 4. NM tinɔ, tin ‘urine’ is related to the verb tyn, tan, tɔyen ‘to urinate’, which is found as taiin in the post-classical ms. DC 46,180 probably as a modern verb. The Aramaic verb tāyen ‘to urinate’, which is attested in the CA phase only in Syriac, is part of various Semitic cognates (e.g. Akk. šânu) inherited from Proto-Semitic.181 The NENA cognate tāyən is found in a considerable number of Christian NENA dialects, mostly those spoken in the area of Mosul (e.g. Tisqopa) and the northwestern peripheries (e.g. Hertevin).182 These NENA dialects use a pl. tant. form tine or tinə for ‘urine’. Many other NENA dialects, including all the Jewish ones, have replaced this verb with jāyər (and cognate dialectal forms), which is of uncertain origin. It may well be genuine Aramaic,183 and if so a possible etymon

178 See Arnold 2008: 309–310. 179 Vocalisation and meaning are based on Audo 1897: 467b. 180 MD 483b, s.v. tun. 181 See Militarev and Kogan 2000: 331. 182 The first scholarly mention of this verb in NENA is credited to Sachau 1895: 31: tḗnin ʿállā (read tenən ʔəlla) ‘I urinate on her’. 183 Garbell’s suggestion that the origin of this verb might be Armenian (Garbell 1965: 286b, s.v. j-y/ø-r ‘pass water’)—referring to Western Armenian čur ‘water’ or even Eastern Armenian jur ‘id.’—is tenuous and unlikely, if not utterly untenable, in view of the lack of evidence of any other Armenian word having entered NENA without a Kurdish or Azerbaijani intermediary, and of the very limited exposure of NENA speakers to Armenian (since Azerbaijani or Kurdish were mostly used during interactions between Aramaic and Armenian speakers in the northern fringes of NENA). It is, moreover, highly implausible that NENA dialects would have replaced inherited Aramaic tyn with a denominative verb based on a noun in a language that only few NENA speakers understood.

136

chapter four

ܲ would be *gyr < grr—consider Syr. ‫ܓܪ‬ � ‘to leak, trickle’ (cf. the Ṭuroyo and WNA parallels below). For ‘urine’ these dialects use the pl. tant. form joṛe. The Ṭuroyo parallels mazruqe ‘urine’ and mazrəq ‘to urinate’ are derived from zrq, a verbal form that exhibits the meaning ‘to sprinkle’ in Off. Aram.,184 ‘throw, sprinkle’ in JBA and JPA and ‘scatter, trickle’ in Syriac. WNA šayšūra ‘urine’ is related to the verb šayšar, yšayšar ‘to urinate’, which seems to be imitative, and is probably related to Syr.Ar. šaršar ‘drip, ooze’.185 5. NM gsy, gassi, mgassi ‘to belch’ is cognate with mgāse ‘id.’ in Lizin-Ṭyare and some other NENA dialects (consider also the cognates NM gaseṯɔ, gaséṯ, Lizin mgasɛša ‘belching; a belch’, both ultimately < *gassayṯā). Apart from these paʿʿel forms, certain NENA dialects have a neo-pəʿal inflection of gsy, viz. gāse (C.Salmas gāsi), which means ‘to belch’ in Sharmin, ‘to regurgitate, disgorge undigested food’ (of animals) in Lizin and Barwar and ‘to vomit’ in MarBishu and C.Salmas. The verbal root gsy is attested in various CA varieties, including Qum. ܵ ‘to spit out, belch, vomit’, Aram. ‫( גסה‬pəʿal) ‘to spew, vomit’,186 Syr. ‫ܓܣܐ‬ ܲ ‫ܓܣ ̣ܝ‬ � ‘to disgorge, vomit’ and CM gsa ‘to vomit, belch, disgorge’.187 Two other prominent dialectal NENA verbs denoting ‘to belch’ are (1) +gawwəṱ (and cognate forms)188 and (2) jāʕəṣ. The former is found in Gawar and some other Hakkâri dialects and in C.Urmi (as javvəṱ), and ‘to vomit’.189 The verb jāʕəṣ, its etymon gʕṭ is attested in Syriac as ‫ܓܥܛ‬ �ܲ found in Christian NENA dialects in the area of Mosul such as Alqosh and ‘to loathe, despise’ and the Telkepe, stems from gʕṣ—consider Syr. ‫ܓܥܨ‬ �ܲ CM cognate gaṣ ‘to loathe; vomit’.190

184 Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 294. 185 Barthélemy 1935–1969, vol. 2: 386. 186 Abegg 2003, vol. 1/2: 807. 187 MD 84b, s.v. gus, gsa. 188 According to Maclean 1901: 157a (m)gâwiṭ means ‘to hiccough, belch’, but the former meaning is unknown to my informants. Note also Oraham 1943: 75a gu-vooty, 92a gu-voo-ty (read: +gavuṱə) ‘to belch’, as well as the verbal noun ge-aa-taa which is most ܵ ‘to vomit’, ‫ܓܥ ܵܛܐ‬ ‘pressure on the heart’ with a change probably taken from Syriac ‫ܓܥܛ‬ �ܲ of meaning, as part of the dictionary’s ‘enrichment’. 189 Nöldeke (1875: 73, 126), followed by Brockelmann (1908–1913, vol.1: 242e; 1928: 127b) َ َ‫ضَ غ‬ considered this verb as cognate with Ar. ‫‘ ������ط‬to press’, whereas recently Militarev and َ‫َ �ظ‬ Kogan (2000: 283) referred to Ar. ��‫‘ ج� ��ع‬one who lifts up nose at, one who is difficult to satisfy with food’ and Amharic gwaggwäṭä ‘to stimulate the throat in order to induce vomiting’ as its Semitic cognates. ‘to 190 For the semantic connection between loathing and vomiting cf. Syr. ‫ܓܥܛ‬ �ܲ ܲ ‫ܐ ݂ܬ‬ ‘to be abominable’, CM giuṭa (< *giʕʕūṭā) ‘disgrace, anger, anathema’. vomit’, ‫ܓ ܲ�ܥܛ‬ ܸ �



neo-mandaic and other neo-aramaic varieties: isolexes

137

َ‫َ َّ أ‬

Ṭuroyo dšy, mdaše ‘to belch’ is borrowed from local Arabic dašša,

derived from ����‫ ج� ش‬, both meaning ‘to belch’.191 Likewise, the WNA parallel verb bʕj, baʕʕej, ybaʕʕej must be an Arabic loanword. Although no such verb with a meaning related to belching could be found in colloquial or classical Arabic sources, Ṭur. boʕəj ‘to strangle, choke,192 suffocate’ displays a meaning close enough to that of WNA, and is surely a borrowing from the same colloquial Arabic verbal root. Among the 25 foregoing NM-NENA or NM and dialectal NENA isoglosses 15 are shared retentions, being attested already in Classical Aramaic sources, that are unique to NM and NENA within Neo-Aramaic, and 10 are innovations unique to NM and NENA or dialectal NENA. In detail: (1) Shared retentions binding NM and NENA (or NENA dialects): Lexical isoglosses: 1. NM ṭll, NENA ṭɁl ‘to play’, 2. tpṯ ‘to sneeze’, 3. NM bzy, NENA bzʔ ‘to bore, perforate’, 4. NM šɔṯɔ, NENA šāṯa ‘fever’, 5. NM šidɔnɔ, NENA šiḏāna ‘mad, madman’, 6. NM šeġda, NENA šeʔḏa ‘almond’, 7. gny ‘to sleep’, 8. NM miškɔ, NENA məšká ‘skin, leather, hide’, 9. NM and NENA rmy ‘to lay eggs’, 10. NM qoršɔ, NENA qorša ‘cold (noun)’, 11. NM tinɔ, NENA tine ‘urine’ and the shared verbal root tyn ‘to urinate’, 12. NM and NENA gsy ‘to belch’. Morpho-lexical isoglosses: 13. NM ezgí, NENA si, sāgi ‘go!’, 14. NM bərattɔ, NENA brāta ‘daughter’, 15. NM həzurɔ, NENA xzura ‘wild boar’. (2) Shared innovations binding NM and NENA (or NENA dialects): Lexical isoglosses: 1. NM paqeṯṯɔ, NENA pəqʕa, paqeɁṯa ‘frog, toad’, 2. NM and NENA bny ‘to clean grain’ (having replaced nqy). Morpho-lexical isoglosses: 3. NM lahmal, NENA laḥmal ‘the day before yesterday’, 4. NM baṣúr, NENA baṣór, baṣora ‘inadequate, few’, 5. NM tuṯšɔṯɔ, NENA txušxāṯa ‘armpit’, 6. (possibly) NM mendi ‘thing, something, anything’, NENA məndi ‘thing, something’, 7. NM ṣodrɔ, NENA ṣudra ‘tunic, shirt’, 8. NM gomlɔ, NENA gumla ‘camel’. Semantic isoglosses: 9. NM and NENA bsm ‘to heal’, 10. NM hwṭ, NENA xwṭ ‘to mix’. 191 See further Tezel 2011: 64–65. For dašša see Avishur 2008–2010, vol. 1: 357a. 192 Ritter 1990: 68.

138

chapter four 4.4.4 Neo-Mandaic-NENA Isolexes with Semantic Differences

Some shared retentions unique to NM and all or some NENA dialects throughout Neo-Aramaic evince semantic differences between NM and NENA. Of the following 10 cases, there are 7 in which Neo-Mandaic preserves—or is closer to—the old meaning, and 3 in which NENA preserves the old meaning: 4.4.4.1 Cases Where Neo-Mandaic Preserves—or is Closer to—the Old Meaning Etymon 1. kakkā ‘molar’ 2. buʕtā ‘pustule’ 3. ṣīḇā ‘firewood’ 4. panyā ‘evening’ 5. *zappā ‘eyelash, bristle’ 6. buṭā ‘crucible, anus’ 7. ḥḇy ‘hide’

NM kakkɔ ‘molar’ buyɔ ‘abscess’ ṣiwɔ ‘firewood’ pyenɔ ‘evening’ zappɔ ‘eyelash’ buṭɔ ‘buttocks’ ḥwy, maḥwi ‘hide’

NENA kāka, keka, kika ‘tooth’ boʔta, boya ‘roasted seed’ ṣiwa ‘wood; piece of wood’ panya ‘shade, shadow’ zopa ‘a hair’ buṭa ‘penis’ xwy, xāwe ‘be dark, hoarse’

Comments: 1. NM kakkɔ, kak ‘molar tooth’ preserves a pre-modern Aramaic meaning of this word, attested as CM kaka and JBA ‫ככא‬. Already in CA this word underwent semantic broadening, so that in CM it can mean ‘molar ܲ although still especially tooth’ or ‘tooth’ (MD 197a), and, likewise, Syr. ‫ܟ ܵܟܐ‬, � ‘molar tooth’, also appears in the senses ‘tooth’ and ‘tusk’;193 Targ. Psalms 3:8 renders ‫‘ שִׁ נֵּ י ְרשָׁ ִעים שִׁבַּ ְר ָּת‬thou hast broken the teeth of the wicked’ with ‫ ;ככי רשיעי תברת‬and JBA ‫ככא‬, which generally denotes ‘molar tooth’, refers in some of the JBA magic bowls to the tusks of a wild boar or a pig.194 In NENA this broadening was taken to the extreme and kāka ‘tooth’ replaced erstwhile šənna (see further on p. 113). In NM kakkɔ can only mean ‘molar tooth’, and does not manifest the semantic broadening exhibited in CM and other CA sources. 2. NM buyɔ ‘abscess’ is already attested in literary M as buia ‘boil’, which has itself emerged as a back-formation from buiia, the plural of 193 Consider the definitions in Payne Smith 1903: 214a ‘a tooth, especially a molar tooth, tusk’ and in Audo 1897: 461a (referring to the plural) as ‘teeth and especially molars’, as well as the Syriac phrase ‫‘ ܟܟܐ ܕܦܝ�ܠܐ‬elephant tusk’ (Payne Smith 1903: 214a). 194 See Morgenstern and Ford, forthcoming: ‫‘ ככיה ככיה דברזא‬his tusks are the tusks of a wild boar’ and Ford and Ten-Ami 2012: 223 ‫‘ בככיה דסימור חזורא‬with the tusk(s) of Simur the pig’.



neo-mandaic and other neo-aramaic varieties: isolexes

139

*buta.195 JBA is more conservative in this respect, preserving sg. ‫בותא‬, ‫‘ בועתא‬abscess’, pl. ‫בויי‬, ‫בועיי‬. Further classical Semitic cognates appear to be Syr. ‫ܥܒܘܥ ̣ܝ ̣ܵܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫‘ ܲ �ܒ‬bubble; boil, pustule’,196 Akk. bubuʾtu ‘inflammation, boil, pustule’ and BH ‫‘ ֲא ַב ְע ֻּבעֹת‬blisters’.197 The NENA dialectal reflexes, mainly boʔta, botá (pl. boɁe, boé, respectively) and boya (the latter, unique to J.Zakho, is the result of the same back-formation as in NM), all display a metonymic change ‘boil’ > ‘pip, pit of fruit; roasted seed’, and, similarly, the Alqosh cognate buʕča means ‘kernel of edible or roasted seed; husked seed’. The metonymy involved is based on the roundish, granular or berrylike shape of pustules, pits of fruit and various seeds.198 3. NM distinguishes between gowɔzɔ, gowɔ́ z ‘wood (as material), piece of wood, stick’ (CM gauaza ‘staff, stick, rod, stem’) and ṣiwɔ, ṣiw (sg. tantum) ‘firewood’. Such a distinction, involving a cognate of ṣiwɔ, is found also in C.Sanandaj, where ṭula ‘(piece of ) wood, stick’ is distinct from ṣiwa ‘piece of firewood’, pl. ṣiwe ‘firewood’. Elsewhere in NENA the word ṣiwa (all Jewish NENA dialects and a handful of Christian ones) occurs in the wider sense of ‘(piece of) wood, including of firewood; stick’.199 In light of CM ṣibia and JBA ‫( ציבי‬both are pl. forms) ‘firewood’, as well as the Aramaic ideogram CYBA (viz. ‫‘ )ציבא‬ditto’,200 NM ṣiwɔ preserves the older and more restricted meaning of ‘firewood’, whereas NENA ṣiwa has undergone semantic expansion (except for C.Sanandaj). The ultimate etymon of ṣiwɔ appears to be *ṣīb ‘piece’, whence Syriac ܵ ‫‘ ܨ ̣ܝ ̣ܵܒܐ‬piece’ in ‫ ܨ ̣ܝ ܹ̈ܒܐ ܕ ܸܒܣܪܐ‬pieces of meat’ as well as ‘piece of wood, chip, firewood’.201 4. Contemporary Mandaic pyenɔ, pyen ‘evening’ has developed from penɔ, pen, forms that occur in Macuch’s publications of Ahvazi NM based 195 Cf. CM bita ‘egg’, pl. biia, NM biyyɔ, bi (Ahvaz), beyyɔ (Khor.) ‘egg’ (the modern form biia is already attested in ms. DC 46—see MD 60a). 196 See Audo 1897: 87b. 197 See further in Militarev and Kogan 2000: 29–30, where, however, Syriac is excluded as belonging to another etymon, and where the cognate būʕā ‘swelling, abscess’ is a ghostform based on Jastrow 1903: 147. 198 For a discussion on the etymology of the NENA cognates, with additional cases demonstrating the semantic connection between boils, pustules and seeds, see Mutzafi 2005: 90–92. 199 Another NA language that distinguishes between ‘wood, stick’ and ‘firewood’ is WNA, which exhibits, idiosyncratically, ḳīsa and ḏlūḳa, respectively’. 200 See MacKenzie 1986: 31, s.v. ēzm ‘firewood, fuel’. 201 See Thesaurus 3373, Audo 1897: 372a. Cf. also JPA and CPA ‫‘ ציבחד‬small amount, a little bit’ < ‫ ציב חד‬and CPA ‫ ܒܨܝܒ ܒܨܝܒ‬for BH ‫( ְמ ַעט ְמ ָעט‬DJPA 462b, s.v. ‫)ציבחד‬, and the etymological notes on ‫ ציבחד‬in Nöldeke 1868b: 516 and Kutscher 1976: 76.

140

chapter four

on his recordings of Naṣir Ṣaburi in 1953.202 The antecedent penɔ emerged from paynā, CM paina ‘id.’, which is a metathesised offshoot of JBA ‫פניא‬, Syr. ‫‘ ܵܦ ܵܢܝܐ‬evening’. The NENA cognate panya exhibits a change of meaning to ‘shade, ܵ ܵ ‫ܛܠ ܵܠܐ‬ shadow’ (cf. Syr. ‫ܕܦ ܵܢܝܐ‬ ‘evening shadow’) and exists in Ṭyare and possibly in some other Hakkâri dialects.203 5. NM zappɔ, zap ‘eyelash’ is cognate in NENA with Borb-Ruma zopa ‘a hair’ and Hertevin zapta ‘id.’ (pl. zāpe). It is already attested in CM as zapa ‘eyelash’ and perhaps also ‘eyelid’,204 which is cognate with JBA ‫זיפא‬ ܵ ܲ ̈ ܲ ‘eyelash, hair’ and Syr. ‫ܦܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫( �ܙ‬pl. ‫‘ �)ܙ ܸܦܐ‬eyelash, hair of eyebrow, bristle’.205 The earliest attestation of this Aramaic word appears to be ‫ זפה‬in Egyp. Aram. (Aḥiqar), which might denote ‘eyelash’, as in other Aramaic languages.206 All these cognates are possibly borrowed from Akk. zappu ‘bristle, hair (of animal)’. 6. NM buṭɔ, buṭ ‘buttocks’ is cognate with NENA buṭa ‘penis’, which is found in many Christian dialects (e.g. in Ṭyare, where it is usually used for children until they reach puberty). Pre-modern antecedents of this word are late Syr. ‫ܒܘ ܵܛܐ‬ ̣ ‘crucible, buttocks, anus’207 and post-cl. M buṭa ‘anus, bottom (of receptacle)’. As will be shown below, the earliest meaning of these cognates is ‘crucible’. The word in question is ultimately Iranian. It was either borrowed ‫ة‬ directly from (early) NP ���‫( ب�وت‬bōta) ‘crucible’208 or through the intermedi‫َُة‬ ary of Arabic ��‫‘ ب�وط‬ditto’ early in the history of Arabic-Aramaic contacts. Sometime after this word was borrowed into Aramaic it underwent semantic changes. The first change was apparently from crucible to 202 HCMM 388:18f. et passim, Macuch 1989: 248. The intrusive y preceding a stressed e [ē] in penɔ > pyenɔ appears also in Ahvaz-NM beṯɔ, recorded in 1953 (e.g. in Macuch 1989: 206) > contemporary NM byeṯɔ, byeṯ ‘house, home’, and has emerged through the impact of local Arabic forms like byēt ‘house’, zyēn ‘good’—see further about this feature in Häberl 2009: 87–88. 203 According to Maclean 1901: 254 the word occurs in “Kurdistan”, i.e. in Hakkâri and northernmost Iraq, and in Shamizdin, i.e. Nochiya in eastern Hakkâri. Another NENA noun from the same root is pnayta (e.g. in Bahnuna), pneta (e.g. in Haṣṣan) ‘lunch’ ܵ ‫ܦܢ‬ ܵ ‘afternoon meal’). (cf. Syr. ‫ܝܬܐ‬ 204 See MD 160. 205 Vocalisation and definition according to Audo 1897: 287b. 206 Cf. Kottsieper 1990: 200, followed by Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 292b, s.v. ‫‘ זף‬eyebrow’. 207 The meanings ‘buttocks, anus’ are taken from Cardahi 1887–1891, vol. 1: 93 and Audo 1897: 63. To be precise, Audo’s definition is ‘haemorrhoids, buttocks, cavity’ (with a remark that in the vernacular it means ‘penis’). The definition “haemorrhoids” might be a substitute or euphemism for ‘anus’, as is also the euphemism ‘cavity’. 208 See Ciancaglini 2008: 122.



neo-mandaic and other neo-aramaic varieties: isolexes

141

buttocks, as attested in Syriac and NM, and presumably already in premodern M. This change was facilitated by the roundish shape of both objects, and by the fact that (according to informants) local crucibles have a hole in their middle part, hence bearing some resemblance to buttocks and anus. From there it was no giant leap to the post cl. M meanings ‘anus’ and ‘bottom (of thing)’—compare ʿAnkawa-NENA šurma ‘buttocks; bottom (of thing)’. The latest semantic change, which affected NENA, was from ‘buttocks, anus’ to ‘penis’. This semantic shift can be compared to a considerable number of cases in other languages where the same word can mean either ‘buttocks/anus’ or ‘genitals’, or both. To take a few examples, consider CM šata ‘buttocks; pubic region’; Arabic: (1) Cypriot Ar. ist ‘genitals; backside’,209 (2) Algerian Ar. zokk ‘anus, buttocks’,210 cognate with Hassaniya Ar. zukk ‘penis’;211 and Ethio-Semitic: (1) Selṭi məskät ‘female genitals’, Wolane məskät ‘anus, buttocks’, Harari miskät ‘buttocks’,212 and (2) various Gurage languages ḳ’ən, ḳ’ənn, ḳ’in, ʔən ‘anus, buttock (also bottom of thing)’, Tigre ḳən ‘vulva; lower or back part’.213 Two selected examples from IndoEuropean languages are Polish dupa ‘arse; vagina’ (< ‘hole’),214 and Old Prussian peisda ‘buttocks’ and its Lithuanian cognate pyzdá ‘vulva’.215 7. NM aḥwi, maḥwi ‘to hide (tr.)’, ap̄ ʿel of the verbal root ḥwy, preserves the basic‫ أ‬meaning of CM hba and JBA ‫( חבי‬cf. also the cognates BH ‫חבא‬ and Ar. ���‫ خ� ب‬, both with the same meaning). The ḥ, however, is hardly the original pre-modern Aramaic consonant. It has rather been reintroduced, apparently for the sake of distinction from ahwi, mahwi ‘to show’, CA ‫חוי‬. The NENA cognate xāwe appears only in meanings that evolved metaphorically from the sense of hiding. In some dialects, e.g. Ṭyare, this verb denotes ‘to be or become dark’, and, similarly, in Chamba d-Mallik Ṭyare in the context of eclipse: xwele yoma ‘there was a solar eclipse’, xwele sāra ‘there was a lunar eclipse’. In many other NENA dialects, including most Jewish ones, xāwe occurs with qāla as subject to denote ‘to become

209 Borg 2004: 140, s.v. ʾ-s-t. 210 Behnstedt and Woidich 2011: 180 (and see ibid.: 178–181 for further lexical items connecting ‘buttock, anus’ and ‘genitalia’). 211 Heath 2004: 295 (where it is remarked that zukk means ‘anus’ in Morocco). 212 See Leslau 1979, vol. 1: 1003a, 1165a, vol. 3: 428a. 213 Militarev and Kogan 2005: 333. 214 Derksen 2008: 124–125. 215 Mallory and Adams 1997: 507b.

142

chapter four

hoarse’, as in Khanaqin qālí xəwe ‘I lost my voice’. A closely related denotation, ‘to lower one’s voice’, already appears as JBA ‫חבא‬.216 Less common NENA dialectal meanings are ‘to faint’ (e.g. Ṭyare, Barwar; Betanure xwele ləbbe ‘he fainted’), ‘to become dizzy’, ‘to become dim-sighted, to have difficulty seeing’ (Chamba d-Mallik, as in xwelɛ ʔɛni m-tənna ‘I can hardly see anything due to the smoke’) and—according to Maclean—‘to be blinded’.217 4.4.4.2 Cases Where Neo-Mandaic Changed the Old Meaning Etymon 1. deḇḥā ‘sacrifice’ 2. rušmā ‘sign’ 3. nqš ‘to strike’

NM dehwɔ ‘festival’ rošmɔ ‘foreskin’ nqš ‘to panic’

NENA duxa ‘sacrifice’ ṛošma ‘sign of the cross; earmark’ nqš ‘to hit; touch’

Comments: 1. NM dehwɔ, dehəw ‘religious festival’ corresponds to CM dihba (and dihua) ‘id.’, a metathesis of deḇḥā, Syr. ‫‘ ܸܕ ̣ܒ ܵܚܐ‬animal sacrifice, sacrificial offering’, Off.Aram. ‫‘ דבח‬id.’ (e.g. Ezra 6:3 pl. ‫) ִּד ְב ִחין‬. The semantic change in Mandaic was facilitated by the fact that rams are slaughtered in the Mandaean high festivals. Contrary to Mandaic, the NENA cognate duxa,218 which is mainly used in the Hakkâri dialects, still preserves the old meaning, in particular in connection with the (now virtually obsolete) custom of slaughtering a sheep as a sacrifice to God in fulfilment of a vow. 2. Whereas the basic sense of CA rušmā is ‘mark, sign’, already in some of the CA languages new and more restricted meanings emerged alongside the older meanings, e.g. concerning CM rušma ‘sign (especially sacramental), imprint, mark; daily ablution’ and JPA ‫רושם‬, det. ‫‘ רושמה‬incision, mark, trace’. The NA reflexes of this word evince various cases of semantic narrowing, as follows: NM rošmɔ, rošəm is restricted to the sense of ‘foreskin’,219 216 In DJBA 425b considered a separate verb from ‫‘ חבא‬to hide’. The NENA denotation ‘to become hoarse’ is recorded in Audo 1897: 300a. 217 Maclean 1901: 90b. A different verb xwy ‘to bring animal into a sheltered place’, is attested in the dialect of Barwar (Khan 2008: 1204). In view of Telkepe ḥāwe ‘to give shelter’ and Anat.Ar. ḥawa ‘to host, offer shelter’ (Vocke andَ Waldner 1982: 131), I would consider � ‘to gather, contain’. this Barwar verb an adapted borrowing from Ar. ‫ح َو�ى‬ 218 *deḇḥā > *dəwḥa > duxa with a regular monophthongisation as also in *dəwša > duša ‘honey’. 219 The CM meaning of ‘daily ritual ablution’ is not used in the vernacular, in which the verbal noun rəšɔmɔ, rəšɔ́ m is used in this sense.



neo-mandaic and other neo-aramaic varieties: isolexes

143

being the unique physiological trait which distinguishes Mandaean males from their Muslim neighbours. In NENA the dialectal forms ṛošma and rušma are, as far as can be established, found in Christian dialects in two senses: (1) the sign of the cross, as when a priest makes it on a baby’s forehead before baptism, and (2) in Ṭyare ṛošma also denotes ‘earmark’, in relation to sheep and goats, mainly an incision in a shape chosen by the owner of the herd (or, less commonly, a brand burnt on a sheep’s ear).220 3. The basic Aramaic denotation of nqš, ‘to strike’ (as, e.g., in Syriac), has still survived in a few NENA dialects, e.g. Bariṭle nāqəš ‘to strike, hit’. In J.Nerwa and Challa nāqəš has come to mean ‘to touch’, by metonymy, and in some other NENA dialects the only vestige of this verb is the fixed verbal phrase naqša l- which is used in greetings such as naqša l-brātox ‘may your daughter marry too (like my own daughter)’ < *‘may it (such a happy event) strike your daughter’. NM nəqáš, nɔqeš in the idiosyncratic sense ‘to panic, be terrified’ is preceded by meanings related to shaking and quivering in post-cl. M nqš, which have possibly arisen from a figurative intermediary meaning ‘to be stricken with fear’, whilst CM sources still retain the meanings ‘to strike, knock, beat’, etc.’. Consider also nqš in the context of fear in BA ‫וְ ַא ְר ֻכבָּ ֵתּה‬ ‫‘ דָּ א ְל ָדא נָ ְק ָׁשן‬and his knees smote one against another’ (Daniel 5:6 ‫ֱא ַדיִ ן‬ ‫נֹוהי וְ ַרעיֹנ ִֹהי יְ ַב ֲהלּונֵּ ּה וְ ִק ְט ֵרי ַח ְר ֵצּה ִמשְׁ ָּת ַריִ ן וְ ַא ְר ֻכבָּ ֵתּה דָּ א ְל ָדא נָ ְק ָׁשן‬ ִ ‫) ַמ ְל ָּכא זִ יו ִֺהי ְׁש‬, which might be a clue to the metaphoric background of the semantic change from CM ‘strike’ to post-cl. M ‘shake’ and then NM ‘panic, be terrified’. For another isolex pertinent to this paragraph, *quṭṭaypā ‘cluster of grapes’ > NENA quṭaypa ‘ditto’, NM gəṭefɔ ‘grape, grapes’, see pp. 181–182.

220 The meanings ‘sign, mark’, listed in Maclean 1901: 291a (as part of the semantic scope of rušma), David 1924: 236, 342, and similarly ‘mark’ in Oraham 1943: 476b, are not corroborated by my informants and are in all probability taken from Syriac (in NENA: nišanqa). Furthermore, the meaning ‘signature’ in Maclean, ibid., is very doubtful. It is not found in other dictionaries and sources and speakers of dialects studied by Maclean do not use it in this sense.

chapter five

The uniqueness of the Neo-Mandaic lexicon within Neo-Aramaic As is shown in the following selected case studies, Neo-Mandaic preserves a sizable number of unique inherited Aramaic lexemes that are unknown to exist in any other Neo-Aramaic variety. Some of these go back to the earliest (or very early) phases of the Aramaic language, viz. Old and Official Aramaic, while others first appear in later Aramaic phases. Some of these lexemes have undergone semantic shifts, but these shifts are seldom far-reaching. 5.1 Pre-Modern Aramaic Words and Meanings Surviving Only in Neo-Mandaic 1. ʔrs ‘to marry’, ərɔsɔ ‘wedding’ NM ərás, ɔres ‘to marry, get married’, arres, marres ‘to marry off ’ preserve the verbal root ʔrs which originally denoted ‘to betroth’, as in JBA ‫ארס‬. An earlier Semitic cognate is BH ‫‘ ארׂש‬to betroth’. In CM ars denotes ‘to marry, betroth’, and the restriction of its meaning to that of ‘marry’ is first attested in the 17th century Glossarium (see MD 38a). Other NA varieties employ entirely different verbs for the meaning ‘to marry’, as is shown in the following comparison: NM NENA Ṭuroyo marry ʔrs gwr gwr

Mlaḥsô WNA gvr ʔhl, nkḥ, ʔsb, šḳl, kll

NENA and Ṭuroyo-Mlaḥsô share an innovation whereby the verb meaning ‘to marry’ is a denominative of gawra (NENA), gawro (Ṭuroyo), gavró (Mlaḥsô) ‘man, husband’ (therefore, gwr was first applied to the marriage of young men). WNA has a whole host of verbs denoting ‘to marry’: (1) Ɂhl, čɁahhal, َ

َ َّ ‫َأ‬

yičɁahhal, derived from Ar. ‫‘ ت�� �ه�ل‬to get married’, (2) nkḥ, ikkaḥ, yikkaḥ (in

ََ ‫ح‬

�‫‘ ن�َ ك‬to marry’, (3–4) the verbs Ɂsb, asab, Baxʿa and Jubbʿadin), from Ar. �� yīsub (< ‫ )נסב‬and šḳl, išḳal, yišḳul (< ‫)שקל‬, which basically denote ‘to take’

146

chapter five

are also used in the sense of ‘to take a wife, marry, get married; and (5) a verb with a more restricted sense is kll, kallel, ykallel ‘to get married or marry off in church’, derived from klila ‘wreath of bridal couple; wedding ceremony in church’ (< ‫‘ ְּכ ִל ָילא‬crown’). The NM verbal noun ərɔsɔ, ərɔ́ s, denoting ‘wedding’, is likewise unique among the NA languages: NM NENA Ṭuroyo Mlaḥsô WNA wedding ərɔsɔ xlula + məštuṯo + meštisó maščūṯa +

ܵ NENA xlula, xlüla, +xlola etc. are preceded by Syr. ‫ܚܠܘܠܐ‬ ̣ ‘wedding feast, banquet, festivity’ and, if cognates, JBA ‫‘ הילולא‬festivity, wedding feast’ and CM hilula ‘wedding’. Ṭur.-Mlaḥ. məštuṯo, meštisó and WNA (Maʿl., Jub.) ܵ maščūṯa reflect earlier Aramaic ‫( משתותה‬JPA and Qum.Aram), ‫ܫܬܘ ̣ܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܡ‬ ܸ (Syr.), ‫ܡܫܬܘܬܐ‬ (CPA) ‘wedding, wedding feast’. ̣ Additionally, some NA varieties exhibit loanwords: NENA daʕwa (e.g. J.Zakho), daʔwa (e.g. Alqosh),َ dāwəṭa (Barzan) and Midin-Ṭuroyo daʕwe ‫ْ ة‬ are ultimately from Ar. �‫‘ د �ع َو‬invitation’, via Kurdish, and Baxʿa-WNA ‫‘ ن� ك‬to nakkaḥūṯa is an Aramaicised form based on the Arabic verbal root ��� ‫ح‬ marry’ (see above). 2. amṯɔ ‘maidservant, female slave; black woman’ ܵ ܲ NM amṯɔ, amṯ is the only NA reflex of amta, ‫( אמתא‬JBA), ‫ܡܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫‘ �ܐ‬maidservant’, first attested in Off.Aram. as ‫אמה‬, det. ‫אמתא‬.1 In NM the meaning of this word was expanded by the influence of local Ar. ʕabda ‘female slave; black woman’.2 Indeed in contemporary Mandaic spoken in the diaspora amṯɔ mostly refers to a black woman, and in Australia it is even used to refer to an indigenous Australian (aborigine) woman as well as to a black woman of African descent. Other NA dialects denote ‘maidservant, female slave’ either by loanwords or by Aramaic-based innovations: NM NENA Ṭuroyo WNA maid, female slave amṯɔ k̭arāvaš + graʕto ʕabətṯa

1  See Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 50–51. 2 See Woodhead and Beene 1967: 300a, and cf. also Dickson 1951: 620 ʕabd ‘slave (negro)’, ʕabda ‘woman slave’.



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

147

NENA exhibits various dialectal loanwords for ‘maidservant, female slave’, one of the most common among them being k̭arāvaš (e.g. in C.Urmi), qarāwaš (e.g. in Baz) from Azerbaijani qarabaş. Other common loanwords َ‫خ‬ ‫� َّ�د ا �َم��ة‬ ) in various NENA dialects, are xaddamta, xəddamta, xadəmṯa (< Ar. َ ُ‫غ‬ mostly in Iraq, and xolamta, f. of xolāma ‘slave, servant’ (< Ar. ‫‘ ��لا‬boy, ‫م‬ lad’) in Chamba d-Mallik and some other Hakkâri dialects.3 The Ṭuroyo parallel graʕto is the feminine form of greʕo ‘male servant or slave’, which is derived from the Aramaic verbal root grʕ ‘to shave’, as ܿ ‫‘ ܓܪ‬boy, servant’, and is probably related to an old also in late Syr. ‫ܥܘ ܵܢܐ‬ ܹ custom of shaving the heads of slaves.4 The WNA innovation ʕabətṯa is a feminine form of ʕapta ‘male slave’,5 which appears to be a reflex of Aramaic ʕaḇdā (through the intermediaryَ ْ form *ʕabtā) whose retention was reinforced by the influence of Ar. ‫�ع ب���د‬ ‘slave’. 3. émbərɔ ‘sheep’ NM is the only NA variety which has a reflex of CA ʔimmar, det. ʔimmərā,6 which is already attested in Old Aramaic as ‫‘ אמר‬lamb’7 and lives on in ܵ later Aramaic languages such as Palm.Aram. ‫אמר‬8 and Syr. ‫‘ ܐ̤ ܡܪܐ‬ditto’. In some other varieties of Aramaic the same word also assumed the meaning ‘sheep’ or ‘male sheep’, as in CM ʿmbra ‘sheep, lamb’, and possibly also JBA ‫ אימרא‬and JPA ‫אימר‬, ‫אימרא‬, since the feminine forms of these, JBA ‫אימרתא‬, JPA ‫אימרה‬, ‫ אימרתה‬denote ‘ewe’, i.e. the female counterpart of a male sheep.9 Consider also the Akkadian cognates immeru, emmeru ‘sheep, male sheep’, immertu ‘ewe’. The broadening of meaning to include ‘sheep’ in CM and perhaps in other Aramaic varieties may have been induced by the influence of Akk. immeru.

3 For further NENA parallels see Maclean 1901: 57a, s.v. jariya, 273a, s.v. qulita, Sabar 2002: 128, s.v. jeriye, jeri. 4 See Davis 2003, p. 59, Sherrow 2006: 296. 5 Note that in Bergsträsser’s glossary of Maʿlula (1921: 2) these are glossed ‘(Schwartze) Sklavin’ and ‘(Schwartziger) Sklave’. 6 The Ṭuroyo ghost-word ʕemro ‘lamb’, adduced in Kuipers 1983: 145, is not corroborated by informants and is most probably an imperfect classicism based on Western Syr. ʔamro, especially given the fact that many other classicisms are adduced for Ṭuroyo in the same work. 7 Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 57b. 8 Hillers and Cussini 1996: 340. 9 Cf. DJBA 117b, DJPA 50b, where the definition in both languages is ‘lamb’.

148

chapter five

In NM émbərɔ, embər10 is both a generic name for ‘sheep’ and the word for ‘male sheep, ram, wether’ (other NM words related to sheep are naʕjá ‫ن�َ�ْع�� َ���ة‬ ‘ewe’ < Ar. ‫ ج‬and barrɔ ‘lamb’ < NP ‫ب�ره‬, barrá). NM is unique among the NA languages not only in preserving émbərɔ < ʔimmərā, but also in its lack of distinction between ‘sheep’ in general and ‘male sheep’ in particular, as is shown below: NM NENA Ṭuroyo Mlaḥsô WNA sheep émbərɔ ʔərba ʕwono ʕerbó11 reḥla, reḥəlṯa, xarōfa male sheep émbərɔ barāna, dəxra barā́n ? čepsa, kabša, kapša

ܵ ‫‘ ̤ܥ‬sheep, ram, lamb’, NENA and Mlaḥsô use reflexes of ʕerbā (Syr. ‫ܪܒܐ‬ JBA ‫ערבא‬, ‫‘ ארבא‬lamb’) as the general term for ‘sheep’; Ṭur. ʕwono ‘sheep’ ܵ ‫ָענָ א‬ (a close cognate of NENA Ɂwāna, wāna ‘ewe’) is derived from ‫ܥ ܵܢܐ‬, ‘sheep, flock of sheep’12 (whence also WNA ʕōna, coll. noun for ‘sheep’); and WNA displays genuine Aramaic reḥla (Bax.), reḥəlṯa (Jub.) as reflexes ‫َُ ف‬ of ‫‘ ֶר ְח ָלה‬sheep’13 as well as the loanword xarōfa (Maʿl.), from Ar. ��‫خ��ا ر و‬ ‘sheep’. For ‘male sheep, ram, wether’ both NENA and Ṭuroyo use the Kurdish loanword barāna, barā́n, respectively, and some NENA dialects, e.g. Sat, preserve genuine Aramaic dəxra (as, e.g. in BA ‫‘ ְּד ַכר‬ram’, pl. ‫ ִּד ְכ ִרין‬, and similarly CM dikra ‘male animal, ram, bull’). Inَ WNA kabša (Maʿl.) and ْ kapša (Bax.) are clearly borrowed from Ar. ���‫���ب ش‬ ‫‘ ك‬ram’,14 whereas čepsa (Jub.) might reflect *keḇsā, an unattested Aramaic cognate of that Arabic word and of H ‫‘ ֶּכ ֶבׂש‬sheep’. 4. goṭrɔ ‘smoke’ The NM word for ‘smoke’, goṭrɔ, goṭər,15 is the only NA reflex of *quṭrā, JBA ‫קוטרא‬, CM guṭra ‘id.’ (cf. also Akk. qutru ‘id.). Any other NA variety that preserves an Aramaic word for ‘smoke’ exhibits a reflex of *tennānā

10 First attested as anbra in the Glossarium (69:8) which may be a misspelling, alongside a diminutive form anbruna (68:13) which, despite its glossing ‘sheep’, may well have denoted ‘lamb’. The latter early modern form did not survive in contemporary Mandaic. 11 On the basis of the pl. ʕerbé (Jastrow 1994: 168). 12 The origin of w in ʕānā > ʕwono, Ɂwāna awaits satisfactory explanation. 13 DJPA 520b, s.v. ‫רחיל‬. ܵ ‫‘ ܸܟ‬wether’ (Barth 1893: 50). 14 This Arabic loanword already appears in Syr. as ‫ܒܫܐ‬ 15 Note that in Macuch 1989: 128:432 goṭrɔ is used as a collective term for cigarettes (cf. informal English smokes ‘cigarettes’). This usage, recorded in 1953, is unknown to my NM informants and might be obsolete.



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

149

or a closely related form, Syr. ‫ܬ ܵܢ ܵܢܐ‬, ̤ an Aramaic word first attested as ‫תנן‬ in the OA inscription from Bukan:16 NM NENA Ṭuroyo smoke goṭrɔ tnāna, tənna + dexono +

Mlaḥsô WNA tenunó17 tuxxōna

The two most widespread NENA dialectal forms, tnāna (e.g. in Isnakh) and tənna (e.g. in Jilu) are derived from *tnānā. In some dialects the latter form yielded tənnāna (e.g. in Hertevin, with typical NENA epenthesis followed by gemination, as also in *tmāl > most NENA dialects təmmal ‘yesterday’), which in various dialects ultimately ended up as tənna by haplology. Other NENA forms, all harking back to *tnānā or the pl. *tnānē, are tanona (Borb-Ruma), təna (e.g. C.Shaqlawa) and tnānə (e.g. Alqosh). All these are cognate with Mlaḥsô tenunó (< *tennōnō < *tennānā). Ṭuroyo and WNA assumedly replaced their own derivatives of *tennānā ‫ُ َّ ن‬ (or a similar form) with adapted borrowings of Ar. � ‫‘ د خ��ا‬smoke’, i.e. Ṭur. dexono, duxono and WNA tuxxōna. 5. hɔlɔ ‘sand’ NM is the only NA variety which preserves a reflex of the erstwhile Aramaic word for ‘sand’, namely hɔlɔ, hɔl ‘sand’, corresponding to CM hala ‘ditto’. Older forms are found in other CA varieties such as TO ‫ ָח ָלא‬, and as far back as OA ‫חל‬,18 both meaning ‘sand’. The words for ‘sand’ in the other NA varieties are mostly of foreign origins: NM NENA Ṭuroyo Mlaḥsô WNA sand hɔlɔ xiza, sehla + qūm, ramlo raməl ramla

NENA xiza is borrowed from Kurdishْ َxîz ‘sand’, Ṭuroyo-Mlaḥsô and WNA ramlo, raməl, ramla are from Ar. ‫‘ ر �م�ل‬id.’,19 whence also raməl in some NENA dialects (e.g. Tisqopa). Ṭuroyo and ʿAnkawa-NENA qūm is a Turkic loanword (consider Turkish kum, dialectal Turkish and Azerbaijani qum ‘id.’).

16 Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 838b. 17 Jastrow 1994: 191. 18 Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 314a. 19 For Mlaḥsô see Talay 2002: 711 raməl ‘sand, dust’. It is possible, however, that this is an ad hoc usage by an informant who did not recall the genuine Mlaḥsô word.

150

chapter five

Some NENA dialects evince the word sehla (as in J.Zakho ‘sand’, Tisqopa ‘fine sand or dust descending on ground following a sandstorm’) or sela (e.g. in Ṭyare oral poetry and in C.Dohok seləd yamāṯa ‘sand of seas’ as an expression for a huge number or amount), sila (C.Urmi ‘sand’). In Chamba d-Mallik sela refers to a powdery whitish soil (possibly precipitated chalk), which was one of the materials used for removing verdigris off copperware. The etymon of these NENA cognates is most likely attested in a Geonic responsa where Rabbinic Hebrew ‫ גרתקין‬or ‫ גרתקון‬is explained as JBA ‫סהלא‬,20 a substance used for polishing silver; and ‫סהלא‬, in its turn, is explained by some rabbis as a type of soil found on mountains, which is called ‫ סיחליה‬in Arabic.21 In DJBA (798a) the word in question is presented as ‫‘ סחלא‬a powdered ُ ‫�َ َة‬ ‫‘ ��س‬filmineral employed for polishing metal’, with a comparison to Ar. ��‫ح�ا �ل‬ ings, file dust’. The ‫ ח‬is based on an editorial emendation22 and on the Arabic parallel, yet the genuine form ‫סהלא‬, attested in the Genizah (see above), is supported by NENA sehla.23 The meaning of JBA ‫ סהלא‬should be viewed in the light of the following facts: (1) The Greek loanword ‫גרתקון‬, interpreted as JBA ‫סהלא‬, is found in Mishnaic and Talmudic Rabbinic Hebrew manuscripts also as ‫קרקטין‬, ‫קרטיקון‬24 and refers to chalk used for polishing silverware,25 (2) an efficient method of preventing silverware from tarnishing is polishing it with a paste made of precipitated calcium carbonate (soft white limestone, chalk),26 and (3) Chamba d-Mallik NENA sela (< *sehla) means ‘powdery soil used for polishing copperware’. It can therefore rather safely be assumed that JBA ‫ סהלא‬was ‘precipitated calcium carbonate (used for polishing silverware)’, and that it is the forebear of NENA sehla, sela, sila

20 See http://genizah.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/fragment/MS_Heb_d_48/11b for this word in context in a Genizah fragment. 21 Brody 1994, vol. 2: 590:1. 22 Ibid. ُ ‫�َ َة‬ ‫‘ ��س‬filings’, the NENA parallel would 23 If JBA ‫ סהלא‬were etymologically related to Ar. ��‫ح�ا �ل‬ have been expected to be *sexla (or a similar form with x). h as a reflex of *ḥ in sehla might be accounted for if we were to consider sehla a culture-word that penetrated early NENA from the south, but the process *sehlā (rather than *seḥlā) > NENA sehla is much more likely. 24 See http://hebrew-treasures.huji.ac.il s.v. ‫ קרטקון‬and Krauss 1898–1899, vol. 2: 567, s.v. ‫קרטיקון‬. 25 See ibid. and Jastrow 1903: 273b. 26 See Canadian Conservation Institute Notes 9/7 (2007) at http://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/ publications/notes/9-7-eng.aspx.



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

151

‘sand’, a meaning that emerged due to the similarity of calcium carbonate to whitish sand. To sum up, NM alone amongst the NA languages preserves a reflex of ḥālā, the erstwhile Aramaic word for ‘sand’. All other major NA languagegroups evince borrowed parallels. In addition, NENA sehla is of Aramaic descent, albeit of obscure ultimate origin, and its meaning ‘sand’ appears to have developed from ‘calcium carbonate, soft powdery limestone’. 6. hyw ‘to be ritually impure’ The NM verbal root hyw is the only NA reflex of CA ḥwb, and the NM meaning developed from the widespread CA sense ‘to be guilty’, as in CM hub and, earlier still, in Qum.Aram. ‫חוב‬.27 NM hyw is mostly inflected in eṯpaʿʿal and refers to human beings: eheyyaw (< *ehayyaw, CM ʿthaiab), məheyyaw ‘to became ritually impure’, e.g. following sexual intercourse, nocturnal ejaculation, touching a corpse or eating food unlawful to Mandaeans. The participle forms are sg.m. məheyyaw,28 sg.f. məhéw(ɔ), and pl.c. məhewen ~ məheyyaw. The f. form məhewɔ, məhéw denotes ‘menstruating’ in addition to ‘defiled, impure, ritually unclean’ due to other causes related to Mandaean laws of impurity. The verbal noun of this verb, hayaftɔ, hayáft denotes ‘ritual impurity, defilement, menses’,29 in particular a state of impurity which necessitates ṭəmɔšɔ, ṭəmɔ́ š ‘ablution’. The causative form is not the expected paʿʿel but rather ap̄ ʿel: ahyew, mahyew.30 Elsewhere in NA the concept of ‘ritual impurity’ is mostly used in the context of Muslim and Jewish values and practices, and many Jewish NENA dialects use the Aramaic verbal root ṭmy to express this, e.g. in J.Koy Sanjaq ṭmele ‘he became ritually impure’, ṭəmyá ‘ritually impure, َ ‫‘ ح‬id.’ for the sense of ritual defiled’. Other NA varieties borrowed Ar. ‫�َرا‬ ‫م‬ impurity (mostly related to Muslims and Jews), e.g. Ṭuroyo ḥarā́m, Ṭyare xaṛāma, and some dialects have also a verb from the same Arabic root, e.g. J.Zakho ḥrəmle ‘he/it became ritually impure’.

27 Abegg 2003, vol. 1/2: 831. 28 Already attested in Macuch 1993: 248:1475 where it should be translated ‘impure’ rather than “faulty”. 29 Rather than “Schuldhaftes” (Macuch 1989: 248:1475). 30 The form “mehyeḇ” in Macuch 1993: 316:1911 may well be an ap̄ ʿel sg.m. participle mahyew ‘defiling, causing impurity’.

152

chapter five

7. ḥwy ‘to hide’ NM aḥwi, maḥwi ‘to hide (tr.)’, ap̄ ʿel of ḥwy, is unique amongst the NA languages both in preserving the original meaning of this verbal root (as opposed to the NENA cognate xwy, see p. 138), and since all other NA languages expresses this meaning by another Aramaic verbal root, as is shown below: NM NENA Ṭuroyo Mlaḥsô WNA hide ḥwy ṭšy tly ṭšy ṭmr

NENA ṭāše (intr.), mṭāše (tr.) and Mlaḥsô ṭašé31 (intr.;< *mṭašše) reflect pre-modern Aramaic ‫טשי‬, ‫‘ ܛܫܝ‬to hide’; Ṭur. tole is most probably to be derived from ‫תלי‬, ‫‘ ܬܠܝ‬to hang’, and the rather radical semantic change was possibly facilitated by a process such as ‘to hang, suspend’ > ‘remove from place’ > ‘hide’. The WNA parallel iṭmar, yiṭmur ‘to hide (tr.)’ is already ܲ attested with this sense in CA, e.g. as regards Syr. ‫ܛܡܪ‬ � and JPA ‫טמר‬. An old ܲ meaning of ṭmr attested, for example, in Syr. ‫ܬܛܡܪ‬ ܸ‫‘ ܐ‬to be covered, hid� den, buried’, is currently reflected in Ṭuroyo ṭomər ‘to conceal by burying; to bury a person (euphemism)’ and in some (mostly archaizing) NENA dialects such as Ṭyare mṭāmər ‘ditto’. 8. mənɔṯɔ ‘portion, part, share’ Only NM amongst the NA languages preserves a reflex of CA mənā, det. mənāṯā ‘portion’, which is first attested in Off.Aram. (‫מנה‬, ‫)מנתא‬,32 and is later attested, inter alia, in CM as mnata. Unlike NM mənɔṯɔ, mənɔ́ ṯ, nearly all other NA languages evince a loanword for the same meaning, as is elaborated on below (the word in Mlaḥsô is not attested): NM NENA Ṭuroyo WNA portion mənɔṯɔ sahma, pəšk, pəlʔa + sahmo ḳesma

The parallel words in all other NA varieties but one are borrowed: In NENA َْ � sahma (e.g. in J.Dohok) or sāma (e.g. in Timur) < Ar. �‫‘ ��س�ه‬share’, whence ‫م‬ also Ṭuroyo sahmo, or pəšk, pəšká (e.g. as free alternants in J.Sanandaj), from Kurd. pişk. Yet another NENA parallel, of unknown origin but most likely a loanword, is guja.33 To the best of my knowledge, the sole 31  Jastrow 1994: 164. 32 Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 530–531. 33 Maclean 1901: 45b.



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

153

NENA dialect which has a genuine Aramaic word for ‘portion’ is Chamba d-Mallik, where the innovation pəlʔa is derived fromْ the verbal root plʔ < *plġ ‘to divide, distribute’. WNA ḳesma is from Ar. ‫‘ قِ���س‬part’.

‫م‬

9. myx ‘spread bedding’, moxɔ ‘bedding’ The CA verbal root mkk (CM mkk, JBA ‫)מכך‬, denoting ‘to spread, spread out’ and closely related meanings, has a modern reflex only in NM as myx, max, mɔyex ‘to spread bedding (on the floor of a traditional house). Additionally, NM preserves the nominal form moxɔ, mox ‘bedding (which was spread on the floor in traditional Mandaean houses)’, as is already attested in early modern M as muk̤ a (k̤ = x), in post-cl. M as mauka ‘bedding’,34 and in MH and in RH of the Babylonian Talmud as ‫מֹוְך‬, ‫( מְֹך‬pl. ‫‘ )מוכין‬soft, spongy substance, hackled wool, rag, lint’. 35 The latter is probably an Aramaic loanword that is not attested in JBA by mere chance. Other NA varieties use entirely different verbs and nouns for the aforementioned denotations, as is shown below: NM NENA spread bedding myx šwy

Ṭuroyo Mlaḥsô WNA frs prs frs, frš

Whereas NM uses the verb max, mɔyex for spreading out bedding, making bed (traditionally on the floor), NENA uses mšāwe, which occurs in Syriac ‫ �ܲܫܘ ̣ܝ‬in the same meaning; Ṭuroyo-Mlaḥsô has forəs, porés36 (as, e.g., in JPA ‫ ;)פרס‬and the WNA parallels are a doublet comprising the genuine Aramaic verb ifras, yifrus used َ ‫ فَ َ ش‬interchangeably with ifraš, yifraš, the latter from the Arabic cognate ���‫‘ �ر‬to spread out’. NM NENA bedding moxɔ šwiṯa, nvin +

Ṭuroyo WNA gāle, nvine tišwīṯa, frōša +

The parallels of NM moxɔ, mox ‘bedding, bed’ in other NA languages belong to three different chronological strata: The oldest word is WNA tišwīṯa (Bax.), čišwīṯa (Jub.) and the NENA cognate šwiṯa, šwilá (and other ܵ dialectal variants), corresponding to Syr. ‫ܫܘܝ ̣ܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫‘ ̤ܬ‬bed’. A form without t, ‫שויא‬, ‫‘ שוויא‬couch’ exists in Targ.Aram.,37 and possibly already in Off. 34 MD 240, 261 respectively. 35 See Jastrow 1903: 741 and http://hebrew-treasures.huji.ac.il, s.v. ‫מוך‬. 36 Jastrow 1994: 160. 37 Jastrow 1903: 1533.

154

chapter five

Aram., if ‫ שוי‬there indeed refers to a papyrus-reed bed or a couch.38 A newer word for ‘bedding, bed’, gale in dialectal Ṭuroyo, is a plurale tantum of a form attested in NENA as gāla, which refers to a kilim carpet or ܵ ܲ a simple covering. Derived from *gallā, Syr. ‫ܓܠܐ‬ � ‘covering, cloak’, Ṭur. gale originally referred to articles of covering, then in particular to bedding. The latest NA words denoting ‘bedding’ are the loanwords nvine in dialectal Ṭuroyo and nvin, ləvine in some NENA dialects, from Kurdish nivîn ‘ditto’;َ and frōša, farəšṯa ‘mattress, bedding’ in WNA, from Arabic ‫ � َ ا ش‬and ‫‘ ف�َْ �ش����ة‬ditto’. �� � ‫فِر‬ ‫ر‬ 10. psq ‘to cut’ The pre-modern Aramaic verbal root psq ‘to cut, cut off ’ (as, e.g., in Syr. ܲ is preserved today only in NM, where it is inflected in pəʿal: pəsáq ‫)ܦܣܩ‬ � (CM psaq), pɔseq ‘to cut’ and in eṯpəʿel: epseq (CM ʿpsiq), mepseq ‘to be cut, be cut off, sustain a cut’, e.g. in the 3sg.f. past form: ida epesqat ‘her hand was cut (accidentally)’. In NENA there are only nominal derivatives of psq, namely pəsqa ‘flock of sheep and goats’ (e.g. in MarBishu), pəsqe ‘haemorrhoids’,39 pasuqa ‘axe’ (in Jinet and some other dialects in Bohtan, Turkey) and pasuk̭ta (< *pāsoqtā) ‘a slab of stone used for blocking the course of an irrigation canal while diverting it to another course’ (in Jilu). Unlike NM psq, all other major NA languages use reflexes of CA ‫ܩܛܥ‬, ‫‘ קטע‬to cut’, and some NENA dialects evince a reflex of CA ‫ܦܪܡ‬, ‫פרם‬: NM NENA Ṭur.-Mlaḥsô WNA to cut psq qṭʔ, prm qṭʕ ḳṭʕ

Most NENA dialects use qāṭeʔ (and dialectal variants) for ‘to cut, cut off ’, which is cognate with Ṭuroyo qoṭəʕ, Mlaḥsô qoṭéʕ40 and WNA iḳṭaʕ, yiḳṭuʕ. The Christian NENA dialects of Hakkâri and adjoining areas in northernmost Iraq and Iranian Azerbaijan distinguish between pārəm ‘to cut, be cut (also slaughter)’ and qaṭṭe, qaṭe (and other variants) ‘to cut off (e.g. thread, road), be cut off, lop off (also decide)’.41

38 DNWSI 1117–1118, Muraoka and Porten 2003: 83 et passim. 39 Maclean 1901: 254b. 40 Jastrow 1994: 161. 41  For further meanings see Maclean 1901: 277a, Khan 2008: 1164–1165.



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

155

11. qarqəwɔnɔ ‘gizzard’ NM NENA Ṭuroyo WNA gizzard qarqəwɔnɔ pesurta, ksənta + ḥawṣalto ?

NM uniquely preserves an eastern Aramaic word for ‘gizzard’, qarqəwɔnɔ, qarqəwɔ́ n, which is found in CM as qarqbana, qarqubana ‘ditto’,42 and, ‫ܪܩܒ ܵܢܐ‬ similarly, JBA ‫קרקבנא‬, ‫קורקבנא‬, Syr. ‫ܪܩܒ ܵܢܐ‬ ̣ܵ ‫ܩܘ‬, ̣ܵ ‫‘ ܲ �ܩ‬craw’. These ̣ CA forms were very likely borrowed from Akkadian quqqubānu (and kukkubānu) ‘part of animal’s stomach’.43 MH and late RH ‫קרקבן‬, ‫ קורקבן‬is ‫قُ ُق‬ likely an Aramaic loanword, and another cognate appears to be Ar. �‫� ْر�� ب‬, ‫َق َق‬ �‫‘ � ْر�� ب‬stomach, belly’.44 The NENA dialects evince three major types of words for ‘gizzard’: 1. In various Christian dialects pesurta (Sat), pisurta (C.Salmas) etc.,45 ܵ ܲ which are etymologically related to Syr. ‫ܝܣܘܪܐ‬ ܼ ‫‘ �ܦ‬gizzard’,46 plausibly from Akk. pisurru ‘ditto’. 2. In various NENA dialects, mostly Jewish, kanəssa (Betanure), kənəssa (Tilla), ksənta (J.Koy Sanjaq) and similar forms, of unknown origin. 3. The forms gurməsta (C.Shaqlawa), garnuṣta (Bariṭle) and similar variants in certain Christian dialects of Iraq. These are likely derived from the widespread NENA verb mgarməz ‘to wrinkle, shrink or shrivel (especially leather near heat)’, since gizzards are typically wrinkled in appearance. The verb mgarməz itself is possibly borrowed from Kurd. germijin ‘to warm up, heat’. In yet some other NENA dialects there is no specific word for ‘gizzard’ and this meaning is covered by the word for ‘stomach, belly’, e.g. MarBishu kāsa; whilst various other NENA dialects evince a loanword, e.g. C.Sanandaj čəqəldā́n (cf. Sorani Kurdish çikillane ‘craw’), Marga hawsalta

42 In MD 410a it is defined ‘stomach (of birds), craw’. The examples adduced there and the meaning of the NM reflex all point to the meaning ‘gizzard, stomach of fowl’, whereas the meaning ‘craw’ (as a pouch in the gullet of a bird) remains doubtful. 43 See these forms in CAD K: 499a. This etymology was already suggested by Zimmern (1917: 51), and later by von Soden (AHw 500b, s.v. kukkub(b)u). 44 For a discussion of these and other Semitic cognates of this word see Militarev and Kogan 2000: 143–144, 150–151. 45 For further variants see Maclean 1901: 254b, s.v. pasra. ‫َق ن َ ة‬ 46 Cf. SL 1188–1189 ‘belly of birds’, but ‘gizzard’ is supported by the Ar. gloss ��‫( ��ا �ِ���ص‬ibid.).

156

‫َ َ َة‬

chapter five

� ‘craw, crop of bird’, cf. Iraqi Ar. ḥōṣla ‘craw, ‘gizzard’ (from Ar. ��‫ح ْو�ص�ل‬ gizzard’),47 whence also Ṭuroyo ḥawṣalto ‘gizzard’. 12. ṣlf ‘to be crooked, twisted’ The Aramaic verbal root slp ‘to be crooked, twisted, distorted’ is first attested in late Targumic Aramaic48 and is listed in MD 331b as slp ‘to twist, pervert, bend round’, based on a reading silpa ‘he twisted it’ in ms. DC 43. However, since the actual form in the manuscript is sipla, the existence of slp in literary M is not secured. Semitic cognates are BH ‫‘ סלף‬to distort’ and quite possibly also Akk. ṣalāpu ‘cancel; distort, pervert’. The Modern M verb first occurs in the Glossarium in ap̄ ʿel as aslp (and related forms) ‘to bend, twist, pervert’. In contemporary Neo-Mandaic, the only NA variety to have a reflex of slp, the s has irregularly changed to ṣ, possibly as an assimilation to the following l which acquired spontaneous pharyngealisation (slf > *[sḷf ] > [ṣḷf ] = /ṣlf/). The verb is inflected in eṯpəʿel as eṣlef, meṣlef ‘to become crooked, twisted, distorted’ and in ap̄ ʿel as aṣlef, maṣlef ‘to twist, make crooked’. There is also a pəʿal-based passive part. ṣəléf ‘crooked, twisted’. In what follows the NM verbal root ṣlf and passive participle are compared with parallels in the other major NA varieties: NM NENA Ṭuroyo WNA be crooked, twisted ṣlf plm, pč̣l + ʕwj ʕwž, ʕwž crooked, twisted ṣəléf plima, pč̣ila + ʕwijo iʕwuž, iʕwuj

The NENA dialects overwhelmingly use one of the following two verbal roots: (1) pāləm, in some dialects with spontaneous pharyngealisation: pāḷəm, (2) pāč̣əl, +pāč ̭əl and, correspondingly, (1) plima, pḷima and (2) pč̣ila, +pč ̭ila for ‘crooked, twisted’. The former verbal root already occurs in Syriac as ‫‘ ܐ̤ ̣ܬܦ ̤ܠܡ‬to be crooked, curved’, ‫ܦܠܝ ܵܡܐ‬ ̣ ‘crooked;49 foolish’. The latter, pč̣l, is in all likelihood Aramaic, and may well hark back to pšl, Syr. ‫‘ ܐ̤ ̣ܬܦ ̤ܫܠ‬to be twisted’, ܵ ‫ܦܫܝܠܐ‬ ̣ ‘spun, twined’, CM pšl ‘to twist, twine’ JBA ‫‘ פשל‬to spin, twist’. The postulated change *š > č̣ in NENA could be accounted for as a two-phase process: (1) spontaneous *š > č, as in other cases in NENA, e.g. Hertevin

47 Woodhead and Beene 1967: 123b. 48 See Jastrow 1903: 996b. 49 See Audo 1897: 299a.



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

157

*nāšəq > nāčəq ‘to kiss’, Mazra-Tkhuma *šarṯā > čarṯa ‘navel’; (2) partial assimilation of č to an adjacent l which gained spontaneous pharyngealisation (as very often with l in NENA) and remains emphatic in dialectal forms like +pč ̭ila, but in various dialects l later became de-pharyngealised under the influence of the preceding front vowel i. A similar case of *š > č̣ is *gumšā (cf. Ashitha gušma ‘fist’) > *guṃča > J.Zakho guṃč̣a ‘handful, fistful’. A small number of NENA varieties replaced the native word for ‘crooked’ with a loanword, e.g. Tekab lār ‘crooked’ (< Kurdish), and a phrasal verb lār xar ‘to become crooked’, whereas in Tekab manuscripts one finds plima ‘unjust (person), sinner’< *‘crooked’. Finally, Ṭuroyo and WNA exhibit a borrowing of Ar. ‫‘ �عو ج‬to be or � become crooked’, hence Ṭur. ʕowəj, WNA inəʕwaž, yinəʕwaž ‘ditto’ (Bax. with j), Ṭur. ʕwijo, WNA Maʿl. iʕwuž, Jub. uʕwuž, Bax. iʕwuj ‘crooked’. 13. prds, sqm ‘to finish’ Among the NA languages, NM has two unique verbal roots in the semantic field of finishing, namely prds, pardes, mpardes ‘to finish, complete’, epardas, mpardas be completed, end’ (discussed on p. 61), and sqm, inflected in paʿʿel as saqqem, msaqqem ~ (with anaptyxis:) əmsaqqem ‘to finish (tr.)’50 and in eṯpaʿʿal as esaqqam, msaqqam ~ (with anaptyxis:) əmsaqqam ‘to be finished’.51 Both verbs are ultimately of foreign origin: The former is derived from pre-modern M *prds < MP pardāz-, and the latter is attested in CM as saqim ~ saqam ‘to complete, ʿstaqam ‘to be completed’ (and related meanings)52 and likewise concerning Syr. ‫ܣܩܡ‬, which is a denominative ܿ ‫‘ ܣ‬amount, thing measured, calculation, period’, verb derived from ‫ܝܩܘ ܵܡܐ‬ ܹ from Gk. σήκωμα ‘a weight in the balance’.53 A comparison of the verbs denoting ‘to finish’ in the NA languages underscores the uniqueness of NA in this lexical respect: 50 Pace Macuch (HCMM 518) the meaning ‘to save’ is not expressed by sqm, but by prq (as indeed in Macuch 1993:427), parreq, mparreq. 51  In addition MD 217b, following the Glossarium, has klṣ ([xlṣ] *safirā (haplology) > səfirā (Glossarium) > NM səwirɔ is, however, highly irregular. Whereas NM lost the inherited Aramaic word for ‘sword’, attested in CM as sipa, in favour of an Iranian loanword, all other NA languages preܵ ‫ܣ‬, ܲ ‫ ַסיְ ָפא‬: serve reflexes of Aramaic ‫ܝܦܐ‬ � NM NENA sword səwirɔ saypa, sepa59

Ṭuroyo Mlaḥsô WNA sayfo seyfó60 sayfa

15. ṣondɔ ‘a grain’ NM ṣondɔ, ṣond ‘a grain’, e.g. of wheat, pomegranate, is the sole modern reflex of an Aramaic word that is attested in CM as ṣinda (inter alia) ‘seed, grain, pip; fennel’ and as ‫‘ ܨܘܢܕܐ‬fennel’ in Bar Bahlul’s lexicon.61 The latter lists many words that are akin to modern parallels in NENA and NM, hence ‫ ܨܘܢܕܐ‬can plausibly be attributed to the vernacular of 10th century central Iraq, the author’s homeland, rather than to classical Syriac. Thus the fact that the NM form is more closely related to ‫ ܨܘܢܕܐ‬than to CM ṣinda does not necessitate a Syriac-NM isogloss, but may rather represent preservation in NM of an old vernacular form, attested in 10th century Iraq.62 Other NA languages use entirely different words for ‘a grain’: NM NENA Ṭuroyo WNA a grain ṣondɔ xabta, pərda, pərṣənta + ḥapṯo, freḏo frettṯa, freṯṯa

As is shown above, NENA and Ṭuroyo share two isolexes in the sense ‘a grain’: In the northwestern NENA dialects, in the regions of Bohtan, Cudi Dağ and Zakho, various Christian dialects use xabta (< *ḥabbəṯā), pl. xābe, e.g. in Yarda and Haṣṣan, whereas pərda is used in some other Bohtan dialects, such as Hertevin, Jinet and Umra Ḥtaya; and Borb-Ruma has parda

58 Ciancaglini 2008: 225 (where the question mark concerning the etymology is unnecessary), SL 1032. 59 Also sepá, sɛpa, sāpa, depending on dialect. 60 Jastrow 1994: 189. 61  Duval 1888–1901, vol. 1: 209, s.v. ‫ܐܢܝܠܘܣ‬. 62 Although it is not impossible that NM ṣondɔ developed from* ṣindā with a lowering and rounding of i following an emphatic consonant, this process is unlikely, since no other instance of such a phonological change is known in NM, e.g. CM ṣihia ‘thirst ’is reflected as ṣehyɔ (and ṣehi) in NM and not as **ṣohyɔ.

160

chapter five

~ pərda (see further on pp. 102–103). These correspond to the cognates ḥapṯo in rural-Ṭuroyo and freḏo in Midyat-Ṭuroyo. Further cognates of the ܵ latter are WNA frettṯa, freṯṯa. Kindred CA forms occur in Syriac as ‫ܒܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܲ�ܚ‬ ܵ ‘twigs, brushwood’ and ‫ܕܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܦܪ‬ ܸ ‘grain, seed, unit’. A NENA word for ‘a grain’ which has no cognates in other NA languages is pərṣənta (as in Lizin) and cognate dialectal forms, which in CA is found, ܵ inter alia, in Syriac as ‫‘ � ܲܦܪܨܸܢܬܐ‬ditto’. Additionally, some NENA dialects replaced their Aramaic word for ‘a grain’ (whatever that may have been) with a borrowing of Kurdish dan ‘grain, seed, kernel’ or dendik ‘pip of fruit’, e.g. Tekab dāná, Betanure dəndənkṯa, Sharmin dəndənksa. 16. šənartɔ ‘cat’ The NM feminine form šənartɔ, šənárt is the generic name for ‘cat’, and the masculine form šənɔrɔ, šənɔ́ r is used for ‘tom-cat’. The other NA languages evince entirely different parallels which all go back to the same ultimate source: NM NENA cat šənartɔ qāṭu, qaṭuṯa

Ṭuroyo qaṭən

Mlaḥsô63 WNA qaṭənto ḳeṭṭa

NM preserves a reflex of an ancient Semitic word, which is already attested in Akkadian as šurānu ‘wild cat, cat’ and in OA (Sfire) as ‫‘ שרן‬wild cat’.64 Among later Aramaic cognates are CM šunara, f. šinarta ‘cat’ and Syr. ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵܵ ‫ܫܘ ܵܢܪܐ‬, ̣ ‫ܫܘܪܢܐ‬, ̣ f. ‫ܫܢܪܬܐ‬.65 The other NA languages evince a much later word for ‘cat’: NENA qāṭu, qaṭuṯa (and dialectal variants) ‘cat’, qāṭa ‘tom-cat’, Ṭuroyo qaṭən ‘cat’, qaṭuno ‘tom-cat’ and Mlaḥsô qaṭənto ‘cat’ are closely related to Syr. ‫ܲ �ܩ ܵܛܐ‬ ܵ ܿ ܲ ܿ ‫ܩ‬,ܲ dim.f. ‫ܢܬܐ‬ ‘cat’, dim.m. ‫ܛܘ ܵܢܐ‬ ‫ܩܛܘ‬,� and these Syriac forms are probably � connected to Byzantine Gk. κάττος, κάττα and late Latin cattus, all ultimately from an unknown foreign etymon.66 WNA ḳeṭṭa is from (late) Ar.

63 Talay 2002: 711. The structure and penultimate stress of this word is, however, typical ܵ ܿ ܲ of Ṭuroyo, and it might be that the genuine Mlaḥsô form was qaṭuntó as a reflex of ‫ܛܘܢܬܐ‬ ‫�ܩ‬ ‘small female cat’. 64 Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 823a. 65 For further Semitic cognates and the possibility of Akk. > Aram. borrowing see Militarev and Kogan 2005: 268–269, Kaufman 1974: 154, Huehnergard 2008: 411–412. 66 For the Greek and Latin words for ‘cat’ with references see Buck 1949: 181–182, and for further etymological discussion see Huehnergard 2008: 413–414.



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

161

ّ ‫‘ قِ���ط‬cat’, which ultimately stems from the same foreign source, and might be considered a borrowing from Aramaic.67

17. šoṯɔ ‘wax’ NM šoṯɔ, šoṯ ‘wax’68 is apparently derived from *šaʕwəṯā, whence CM šauta ‘ditto’. It is first attested in OA (Sfire) as ‫שעותא‬.69 The absolute state of this form is found in JPA as ‫ שעווה‬and in Sam.Aram. as ‫שעבה‬,70 and ܵ ܿ another CA cognate is Syr. ‫ܫܥܘ ̣ܬܐ‬.71 َْ All other attested NA parallels are borrowed from Ar. ‫‘ �ش�����م‬wax’, as is ‫ع‬ shown below: NM NENA Ṭuroyo WNA wax šoṯɔ šamʕa, šamʔa + šamʕo šamʕa

Ṭur. šamʕo also means ‘candle’, and likewise in some NENA dialects, e.g. J.Zakho, šamʕa. Similarly, WNA šamʕa is also a collective noun for ‫�شَ��� ْ��م�َع��ة‬ ‘ditto’. Most of these are likely early loancandles—consider Ar. words, especially with regard to NENA, given the ubiquity of the word in addition to its being adapted in various ways to dialectal phonology and morphology, e.g. šamʔa in Hertevin, +šamma in C.Urmi and +šāmá in J.Urmi.72 Conversely, Ahvaz-NM šamʕáَ and Khor.-NM šaməʕ ‘candle(s)’ ‫َْ ة‬ are unadapted recent loanword (< Ar. ��‫)�ش�����م�ع‬. 18. šxw ‘to fall asleep’ The Aramaic verbal root škb is already attested in Off.Aram., denoting ‘to lie down, lie, sleep with (cohabit)’.73 These and closely related meanings

67 But see Fraenkel 1886: 113. 68 Pace Macuch HCMM 496a, 542a, the meaning is not ‘candle’, for which the word šamʕá is used (see below). 69 Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 811a. 70 See Tal 2000: 918a. 71 And from the same root Ṭur. šaʕuṯo, Mlaḥ. šaʕusó (Talay 711), NENA (e.g. ܵ 2002: Qaraqosh, Birsive) šaɁuṯa, all ‘yellow’ (and Audo 1897: 587b ‫ܥܘ ܼܬܐ‬ ܼ ‫‘ �ܲܫ‬wax-coloured’, possibly < NENA). ܵ ‫‘ ܲܫ‬wax’ in the Syriac book of medicines 72 Note, however, that the occurrence of ‫ܡܥܐ‬ � (Budge 1913: 581:8) does not necessarily mean that this word ever existed in the Syriac language, given the fact that the manuscript is teeming with NENA words and forms. It is, therefore, quite probably one of many vernacular words that crept into this text rather than an Arabic loanword in late Syriac. 73 Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 782.

162

chapter five

appear in later Aramaic varieties, as in CM škb ‘lie down, sleep, sleep ܲ both ‘lie down, sleep, sleep with; die’. with’, JBA ‫ שכב‬and Syr. ‫ܫܟ ̣ܒ‬, � The NM verb šxw, šəxɔ́ w, šɔxew ‘to fall asleep’ is found in the dialect of Ahvaz (see also pp. 22, 25), and has not survived in any other NA variety.74 NM NENA fall asleep šxw ṭwʔ, ṭlʔ

Ṭuroyo WNA ṭwʕ ḏmx, ġrḳ

Ṭur. ṭowəʕ ‘to fall asleep’ (also ‘to set’, regarding the sun) and the NENA cognates ṭāweɁ, ṭawe (and dialectal variants) ‘to fall asleep, be sound ܵ asleep’ (in Qaraqosh ‘to sleep’) are preceded by Syr. ‫ܢܬܐ‬ � ܲ ‘to sleep ̣ ‫ܛܒܥ ܒ ܸܫ‬ heavily’ (lit. ‘sink into sleep’)’. The etymon of the verb ṭlʔ, ṭalle, +ṱallə, ṭale, etc. ‘to fall asleep; be sound asleep, sleep’ in various Christian dialects (mainly in Hakkâri and Iranian Azerbaijan) can be found in Syr. ‫‘ ܛܠܥ‬to be sleepy’ and its cognate JBA ‫טלי‬ ‘to jump down’ (see further on p. 28). The semantic development involved in the etymology of NENA ṭlʔ was assumedly ‘to limp’ > *‘to lean’ > *‘to recline, lie down’ > ‘to fall asleep, sleep’—compare NENA dialects gny ‘to recline, lean’ (e.g. in Ṭyare), ‘to sleep’ (e.g. in Bijar), NM gny ‘to sleep’ (see p. 108). In WNA the native verb ḏmx ‘to sleep’ is used in the present perfect to denote falling asleep, being asleep, hence iḏmex, f. ḏmīxa, Baxʿa also ḏammex, f. ḏammīxa; and, additionally, the borrowed verbal root ġrḳ ‫غ ق‬ (< Ar. � ‫‘ � ر‬sink, plunge’) in ap̄ ʿel—aġreḳ, yaġreḳ—serves for the same meaning of falling asleep. 19. wɔwɔ ‘door, gate’ Aramaic bāb, bābā ‘gate, door’, a borrowing from Akk. bābu that dates back to the period of Official Aramaic,75 never superseded the native CA equivalent traʕ, tarʕā, not even in Eastern Aramaic. In the period of Late Aramaic JBA had ‫בבא‬, CM baba alongside tira (< tarʕā), and in the central ܵ ‫ܬ‬.ܲ and western Late Aramaic varieties such as Syriac exhibited only ‫ܪܥܐ‬ � In the south-easternmost corner of NA there is continuity of the typical eastern word baba, reflected in NM as wɔwɔ, wɔw; whereas elsewhere in 74 As far as can be established, the only other reflex of the Aramaic root škb survives today in Maʿlula as the noun muškapṯa (pl. ‘a plot irrigated with trenches’ (see ܵ ܵ muškabōṯa) ܲ further Spitaler 1938: 85), and cf. Syr. ‫ܫܟܒ ܼܬܐ‬ ܼ ‫‘ �ܡ‬small irrigated vegetable garden beds’ and ܲ ‫ܫܟܒܐ‬ ܼܵ ‫‘ �ܡ‬bed, couch’. 75 See Kaufman 1974: 40.



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

163

NA, namely in areas that extend or exist to the north-west of NM, a reflex of tarʕā is preserved: NM NENA gate, door wɔwɔ tarʔa

Ṭuroyo tarʕo

Mlaḥsô WNA tarʕó ṯarʕa

20. yɔnqɔ ‘child, boy’ NM yɔnqɔ, yɔnq ‘child, small boy, baby boy’, pl. yɔnqɔnɔ, yɔnqɔ́ n ‘children’, derived from the verbal root ynq ‘to suck milk’ (lost in NM),76 are employed alongside the more recent import from Arabic, jihəl, pl. jihlɔnɔ, jihlɔ́ n ‘ditto’. Precursors of yɔnqɔ are Off.Aram. ‫ינק‬, det. ‫ינקא‬,77 which conܵ ‫‘ ܵܝ‬suckling child’, in CM as tinues in later Aramaic, notably in Syriac as ‫ܢܩܐ‬ ianqa ‘infant, small child’ (and related meanings), and in JBA as ‫‘ ינקא‬child’. Other NA varieties use entirely different words for ‘child’: NM NENA Ṭuroyo Mlaḥsô78 WNA child, boy yɔnqɔ ʔyāla, yalüda + naʕimo, zʕuro zʕuró, ṭafló + ṭefla

The forms in the foregoing table denote ‘male child, small boy, baby boy’. In each case the pl. form denotes ‘children’ of both genders, e.g. NENA ʔyāle, yāle, yalüde (etc.), Ṭur. naʕime, zʕure, WNA ṭiflō. The oldest NENA word for ‘child’, yaluḏa (preceded by Syr. ‫ܠܘ ̣ ܵܕܐ‬ ̣ ‫‘ �ܲܝ‬infant, small child’) occurs in a 17th or 18th Jewish text from Nerwa,79 and is still used as yalüda in Borb-Ruma. A plurale tantum form (‘children’) is used in MarBishu and Nochiya as yallüde, in Sat as yallude, and in Ṭyare oral poetry and proverbs as yalluḏe or yallude depending on dialect).80 In all these plural forms gemination (rather than typical NENA de-gemination) is an evidence of the influence of Syriac or of the emergence of these forms as vernacularised classicisms.81

76 The verbal root ynq still exists in WNA as ineḳ, inaḳ ‘to suck milk’ and ayneḳ, yayneḳ ‘to breast-feed’. Another reflex may be Ṭyare nyq, nāyəq ‘to gulp, quaff’ (and perhaps also Barwar nqnq ‘to knock back a drink—see Khan 2008: 1147). 77 Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 372b. 78 Jastrow 1994: 192, 193, Talay 2002: 697:4, 697:8. 79 Sabar 2002: 177b. 80 See also Maclean 1901: 119b where yaluḏa ‘boy’ is said to occur, especially in the plural form, in “Kurdistan”, viz. mostly if not only in Hakkâri. 81  As also in other cases in the same dialects, e.g. the vernacularised classicism šmayya ‘sky’ as opposed to genuine NENA šmāya in Hertevin and some other dialects in the regions of Bohtan and Cudi. Another Syriac influence related to ‘child’ in NENA is the

164

chapter five

In nearly all NENA dialects the inherited Aramaic word, apparently yaluḏa (at least in some areas), was superseded by an old borrowing from Arabic, which occurs as ʔyāla in 17th-18th century NENA texts,82 and remains so in Alqosh and Qaraqosh, and, with metathesis, yʔāla in ʿAmidya. Elsewhere the glottal stop was elided and the most common NENA form is yāla (there are also newer forms based on yāla, such as the augmented yalunka, e.g. in J.Zakho, and the portmanteau word yāzora < *yāla zora ‘little child’ in C.Koy Sanjaq). َ The Arabic etymon of ʔyāla (and cognate variants) is ‫‘ ِ�عي���ا ل‬family members dependent on َّ َ provider’, Anat.Ar. ʕyāl ‘wife and children’,83 which is the pl. form of ‫�عي���ل‬,84 and note that in some modern Arabic dialects ʕiyāl or ʕyāl denote children.85 The Arabic plural form was initially adapted as ʔyāle ‘children’, and then the singular form ʔyāla was derived by back-formation. Anotherَ َNENA word for ‘child’ is Hertevinَ saxla, which was borrowed ْ �� ‫�ْ ة‬ ‫‘ ��س‬lamb’, or rather from the pl. �‫�خ‬ ‫س‬ from Ar. ��‫�خ�ل‬ ‫ � ل‬.86 Ṭuroyo and Mlaḥsô use zʕuro, zuʕró ~ zʕuró, respectively, in the sense ‘child’. Whereas Mlaḥ. zʕuró ~ zuʕró also retain the original meaning ܵ ܿ ‘small, little’ (Syr. ‫)ܙܥܘܪܐ‬, as is the case with NENA zʔora, zora, sʔora, sura etc. and WNA izʕur, Ṭur. naʕimo, which basically means ‘little, small’, is َ borrowed from Ar. ‫‘ ن�ا ِ�ع‬soft, tender, delicate’. ‫م‬ Mlaḥ. ṭafló (also ṭáf əlko ‘small child’) and WNA ṭefla might reflect genuܵ JPA ‘child’), JBA ‫טפלא‬, Syr. ‫‘ ܛ̤ܦܠܐ‬child’. A ine Aramaic ‫( טפל‬TO ‘children’, ْ‫�ف‬ borrowing from Ar. ‫ ِط�� �ل‬is possible, but note that local colloquial Arabic dialects do not preserve a reflex of this literary word.87

classicism ṭalya, pl. ṭlāye in early literature from the area of Mosul (Mengozzi 2002: 222b, Poizat 2000: 177:244) and Ṭyare oral poetry and proverbs. Cf. Maclean 112a where ṭlāye ‘children’ is attributed to Alqosh and Ṭuroyo, whereas the colloquial words in these are ʔyālə in the former and naʕime and zʕure in the latter. 82 Sabar 2002: 92, Mengozzi 2002: 181a, Poizat 2000: 175:152 et passim. 83 Vocke and Waldner 1982: 296. 84 This etymology was first suggested by Nöldeke (1883: 605, n. 4), and see also Sabar 1976: 39, n. 22. 85 See Behnstedt and Woidich 2011: 34, 36 (map 17). 86 Had it been derived from CA saḵlā ‘fool’ the expected reflex in Hertevin would have been saḥla. 87 See Behnstedt and Woidich 2011: 34–36 (map 17).



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

165

21. zifɔ ‘lie, falsehood’ NM zifɔ, zif ‘lie’88 is also used as part of the phrasal verbs zif əháw (lit. ‘to give lie’) and zif əmár (lit. ‘to‫گ‬say lie’), both denoting ‘to lie’89 (the latter is ‫‘ د غ � �ف ت‬to lie’, lit. ‘to say lie’). CM zipa ‘falsity, probably a calque on NP �‫��� �� ن‬ �‫ر و‬ ܵ ‫‘ ܙ‬lie, falsehood; deceit, fraud’ is cognate with JBA ‫‘ זיפא‬falsity’ and Syr. ‫ܐܦܐ‬ ̣ ܹ dross’ (and related meanings). All these probably stem from Akk. zeʾpu, zīpu ‘mould for casting metal; cast coin’, as is also Targ.Aram. ‫‘ זיפא‬case, mould’,90 whence, assumedly, ‘forgery’ and later ‘deceit, lie’ in Aramaic. 91 NM zifɔ stands out as unique in NA. All other NA languages use forms of dgl for ‘a lie’, and WNA also has a form derived from the Arabic root kḏb: NM NENA lie, falsehood zifɔ dugla

Ṭuroyo duglo, dəglo

Mlaḥsô92 WNA (verb dgl) ḏukkōla, čeḏba +

NENA dugla and its close cognate Ṭur. duglo, dəglo share the proto-form *duġlā with a change of *ġ to g by analogy with the verb mdāgəl (< *mdagܵ gel) ‘to lie’. This reconstructed proto-form diverges from Syr. ‫ܕܘ ܵܓܠܐ‬ ̣ ‘lie’,93 ܲ which is essentially a verbal noun of ‫ܓܠ‬ ܸ ‫‘ �ܕ‬to lie’.94 The Syriac noun, i.e. duggālā, represents the forerunner of WNA ḏukkōla (var. ḏikkōla, Jub. ḏuččōla), whence also the form ḏukkalīṯa ‘a lie’. An entirely different WNA ْ‫ذ‬ parallel is Jub. čeḏba, which is a rather recent borrowing from Ar. �‫��� ب‬ ‫ ِك‬, and is synonymous with native Aramaic ḏuččōla in the same dialect.

88 Note that “koḏba, kæḏbā” ‘falsehood, lie’ in Macuch 1993: 403 et passim are ad hoc classicisms (< CM kadba) rather than vernacular forms. 89 For some examples of these phrasal verbs in context see Macuch 1989: 108:61, 130:498–499. 90 Dalman 1922: 127b. 91  As suggested hesitantly by Zimmern (1917: 27), and see Brockelmann 1928: 195a, where this suggestion is adopted as valid. 92 Jastrow 1994: 156. The unattested Mlaḥsô word for ‘a lie’ is in all likelihood derived from the same root dgl. ܵ 93 Note that Manna (and Bidawid) 1975: 137b ‫ܓܠܐ‬ ܼ ‘lie’ is a NENA weed in a Syriac ܼ ‫ܕܘ‬ dictionary. 94 According to Kottsieper (1990: 196), the verbal root ‫‘ דגל‬cheat, deceive’ and the noun ‫‘ דגל‬deceit, lie’ already appear in Off.Aram. (Aḥiqar).

166

chapter five 5.2 Unique Neo-Mandaic Words and Meanings Related to Lexical Replacement 5.2.1 Unique Neo-Mandaic Words

1. erqihɔ ‘sky’ Contemporary Mandaic does not have any vestige of the common Semitic word for sky, which is found in CM as šumaia, an offshoot of šmayyā ܲ ‫) ְׁש ַמּיָ א‬. Unlike all other NA dialects, NM replaced the inherited (‫ܫܡ ܵܝܐ‬, � Aramaic word with erqihɔ, erqíh, which stems from rqiha ‘sky, firmament’, ܵ ‫‘ ܪܩܝ‬firmament’, TO ‫‘ רקיע‬ditto’. a cognate of JBA ‫‘ רקיעא‬sky, heaven’, Syr. ‫ܥܐ‬ ̣ Apart from NM, the form rqiya is found in Ṭyare oral literature as part of the phrase rqiyəd šəmme ‘high up in the sky’, which is a vernacularised classicism derived from Syriac.95 It should be noted that whereas today the only NM word for ‘sky’ is erqihɔ, NM or one of its dialects formerly had the word bušmi ‘sky, air’ as well (possibly only in oral literature), as is evident from its occurrence in a tale recorded in the 1930s.96 This odd-looking word is derived from the preposition b- and ušmi, and the latter form is based on *šmi (with the pl. suffix i < *ē, ousting the opaque ending -ayyā, cf. NENA šəmme ‘sky’), to which a prosthetic vowel was appended. The basic form without b- is found in the traditional pronunciation of CM šumaia as ošmi,97 and yet an older form, ‫שמי‬, occurs twice in a Jewish magic bowl.98 The following comparison with the other NA languages shows the uniqueness of NM in discarding the reflex of šmayyā (notwithstanding the obsolete word bušmi) in favour of erqihɔ: Neo-Mandaic NENA Ṭur.-Mlaḥsô WNA sky erqihɔ, (bušmi) šəmme, šmayya + šmayo, šmayó99 šmō(ya), išmō +

In NENA the two common forms are (1) šəmme (e.g. in Benikhre) and dialectal variants like šəmmə (Qaraqosh), šəmé (e.g. in Kerend), which

ܲ ܲ ܵ ‫( ܲܒ‬BH ‫)ּב ְר ִק ַיע ַה ָּׁש ַמיִ ם‬ 95 From the Pshiṭta to Genesis 1:17 ‫ܫܡ ܵܝܐ‬ ִ ‘in the firmament � ‫ܪܩܥܐ �ܕ‬ ܼ � of the sky’. Cf. also bərqiyət šmayya in a tale in the dialect of Barwar (Khan 2008: 1868:11), which is translated there ‘lightning of the sky’, but, even if understood so now by Barwar speakers, it is obviously derived from the same Syriac source. 96 Häberl 2009: 286:141, transcribed bušme. 97 HCMM 126–127. 98 Morgenstern 2004: 208:4, 209:9, 210:4, 211:9, 212. 99 Jastrow 1994: 190.



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

167

evolved from šmē (see the form ‫ שמי‬above, and cf. šmā > NENA šəmma, šəmá ‘name’), and (2) šmayya, a classicism (influenced by Syriac liturgy), which has gained much currency among Christian NENA speakers and is now very widespread. Another NENA form, (3) šmāya, the inherited NENA reflex of šmayyā, is typical of Bahnuna and the areas of Cudi and Bohtan, and has a variant šmoya in Borb-Ruma. The closest cognates of these inherited NENA forms are šmayo and šmayó in Ṭuroyo-Mlaḥsô. The WNA cognates are Maʿl. šmō and its archaic or obsolete variant šmōya, Jub. šmū(ya) and Bax. išmō, with a prosthetic vowel and elision of ya. 2. fonidɔ ‘fish’ One of the most enigmatic words in NM is fonidɔ, foníd ‘fish’, which replaced Aramaic nuna, ‫ נּונָ א‬as the generic name for a fish (nunɔ is still vestigially used in priestly and learned NM registers in the sense ‘Pisces’). fonidɔ is in all probability derived from a native Mandaic source, since no such word for fish or fish name is found in neighbouring languages.100 F.Rosenthal suggested a connection with the JBA fish name ‫ביניתא‬,101 and Macuch suggested that fonidɔ might have been a conflation of ‫ביניתא‬ with another JBA fish name, ‫פוטיתא‬, or connected with the CM fish name brunda, prunda.102 The phonetic similarity of fonidɔ to these fish names notwithstanding, the etymology of NM fonidɔ remains highly uncertain. In all other NA dialects which did not borrow a word for ‘fish’, some derivation of Aramaic nūnā is used, as is shown below: NM NENA fish fonidɔ nunta, masitá +

Ṭuroyo WNA nənto, maṣi saməkṯa, saməčṯa

Like Ṭur. nənto, nunto,103 most NENA dialects evince a feminine form of ‫ܢܘ ܵܢܐ‬, ̣ ‫נּונָ א‬, ‘fish’, e.g. Sat nunta, ʿAnkawa nuniṯa, Khanaqin nənilá, whereas some Christian dialects preserve forms without a feminine ending, e.g. Jilu nuna, Nochiya nüna, C.Urmi nuyna, C.Salmas nuġna. Some Ṭuroyo dialects (e.g. Midin) use the Kurdish word masî ‘fish’ instead, and an adapted form of the latter is found in some Jewish NENA dialects, such as Arbel

100 For names of fishes in local Arabic and in NP see Oman 1984, Coad 2010, Firouz 2005: 257–290. 101 See HCMM 37, n. 10. 102 See ibid. and MD 70a. brunda, prunda, however, may well rather refer to ‘bird, fowl’—consider Glossarium 87: 15 brnda ‘sparrow’, NP ‫‘ پ�ر ن��د ه‬bird, fowl’. 103 The form nunto is according to Ritter 1979: 370.

168

chapter five

masitá and Barzan masiya. WNA replaced the Aramaic َword for fish with ‫�َ�س� َ��م � ة‬ saməkṯa (Maʿl, Bax.), saməčṯa (Jub.), adapted from Ar. ��� ‫ ك‬. 3. gəlɔlɔ, gəlaltɔ ‘stone’ NM gəlɔlɔ, gəlɔ́ l and gəlaltɔ, gəlált ‘stone’ are unique amongst the NA languages, as is shown below: NM NENA stone gəlɔlɔ, gəlaltɔ kepa

Ṭuroyo Mlaḥsô104 WNA kefo, kepo kifó xēfa

Thus all NA varieties except NM preserve reflexes of CA kēp̄ , det. kēp̄ ā ‘stone, rock’. Its earliest meaning may have been ‘rock’, as in TO, where ‫ ֵּכיף‬also means ‘shore, bank’ (possibly < *‘rocky shore, bank’), and was later expanded to assume the meaning ‘stone’, as, e.g., in Sam.Aram. ‫ כיף‬and JBA ‫‘ כיפא‬stone, rock’. Already in CM, however, the meanings ‘rock, stone’ were discarded, and kipa denotes ‘bank, shore, border, edge’, while glala ‘rock, stone’ and glalta ‘stone’ evince a semantic broadening from a type of stone or rock, apparently ‘hewn stone, slab of building stone, ashlar’ (cf. BA ‫‘ ֶא ֶבן ּגְ ָלל‬hewn stone’105 and Palm.Aram. ‫‘ גלל‬stone slab, stele’).106 It is likely that in Mandaic kipa lost the meanings ‘stone, rock’ following the semantic broadening of glala, glalta, viz. the latter replaced kipa in these meanings. Thus NM inherited glala and glalta as ‘stone’ and does not retain a reflex of kipa. The conformity of reflexes of kēp̄ ā in nearly the entire NA area, from WNA to NENA, alludes to considerable antiquity as regards the semantic narrowing from ‘stone, rock’ to ‘stone’. 4. hṯr ‘to rejoice’ The NM verbal root hṯr ‘to rejoice’, corresponding to CM htr ‘show pride, rejoice’, and, further, to Syr. ‫‘ ܚܬܪ‬to be proud, boast’, occurs as eṯpəʿel ehṯer, mehṯer ‘to rejoice’, pəʿal participle sg.m. həṯér, sg.f. həṯertɔ, həṯért, pl.c. həṯiren ~ həṯér ‘happy’.107

104 Jastrow 1994: 180. 105 Rosenthal 2006: 85 et passim. 106 Hillers and Cussini 1996: 353. 107 Nominal representatives of this root are heṯroxtɔ, heṯróxt (< *heṯrūṯā) and heṯrɔ, heṯər (CM hitra), both ‘joy’.



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

169

NM hṯr that, as far as can be established has no NA cognates,108 drove out the erstwhile Aramaic root related to rejoicing, attested, inter alia, as CM hda, JBA ‫ חדי‬and Syr. ‫ܚܕܝ‬, which remains very much alive in various (mostly Christian) NENA dialects as xāḏe (and variants) and in WNA as ḥḏy, iḥəḏ ~ iḥḏi (Maʿl.), iḥḏay (Jub.), yiḥəḏ. Other NA parallels are related to Syr. ‫‘ ܦܨܚ‬to rejoice’, viz. various NENA dialects pāṣəx, paṣə́ x, etc. and Ṭuroyo dialects foṣəḥ, foṣaḥ, poṣaḥ. In addition, some NENA dialects replaced xḏy or pṣx with a phrasal verb comprising kēf ‘pleasure’ and a reflex of ʔṯy ‘to come’, e.g. Umra Ḥtaya kēfu tele ‘he rejoiced’. The NA parallels are therefore: NM NENA Ṭuroyo WNA rejoice hṯr xḏy, pṣx, kēf ʔṯy fsḥ, psḥ ḥḏy

5. kədirɔ ‘heavy’ A lexical hallmark of NM is its use of kədirɔ, kədír ‘heavy’ (sg.f. kədertɔ, kədért,109 pl.c. kədiren ~ kədirɔ). Elsewhere in NA derivatives of Aramaic yqr are used: NM NENA heavy kədirɔ yaqura

Ṭuroyo Mlaḥsô WNA yaquro yaqiró110 iḳḳer

Another word from the same NM root is kodrɔ, kodər ‘heaviness, load’. These words correspond to CM kadira, kudra ‘ditto’ and kdr ‘to be heavy’, ܲ ‘to be ܲ which are cognate with Syr. ‫ܕܝܪ‬ ̣ ‫‘ �ܟ‬heavy; weak, tired; thin’ and ‫ܟܕܪ‬ � tired; thin’. Derivatives of the Aramaic root kdr are a singular feature of NM amongst the NA languages. It seems that already in CM kadira replaced iaqira in the sense ‘heavy’. Unlike the rare and late CA root kdr, the Aramaic root yqr, from which NA yaqura, yaquro, yaqirá and iḳḳer are derived, is widespread in CA and is much older, being attested already in Off.Aram. as ‫‘ יקר‬honour’, hap̄ ʿel ‫‘ הוקר‬to honour, harden’ and ‫‘ יקיר‬heavy’.111 Among the CM representatives of yqr are iaqir(a) ‘honoured; precious’ (< *heavy) and ʿqar(a) ‘honour’.

108 Note that Qaraqosh xtira ‘beautiful’ (Khan 2002: 749a) is from xtyr ‘to choose’ (Khan َ ْ‫خ‬ ܵ 2002: 723b) > Ar. ‫‘ �ِت��ي���ا ر‬choice’ rather than related to Syr. ‫ܚܬ ܼܝܪܐ‬ ܼ ‘proud, boastful’. ِ‫�إ‬ 109 Also ‘heavily pregnant’ (while bəṭentɔ, bəṭént is the regular word for ‘pregnant’). 110 Jastrow 1994:194 pl. yaqiré. 111 Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 374b.

170

chapter five

6. mašwɔ ‘rope’ NM is the only NA variety which lost the erstwhile Aramaic and common Semitic word for rope, which is attested, inter alia, as CM habla and Syr. ܵ ‫ܚ ̣ܒܠܐ‬,�ܲ with Semitic cognates such as Akk. eblu, Ug. ḥbl, H ‫ ֶח ֶבל‬, Geʿez and Tigre ḥabl and Soqoṭri ḥabehol.112 The stark difference between NM and all other major NA varieties in this respect is shown in what follows: NM NENA Ṭuroyo Mlaḥsô WNA rope mašwɔ xawla, xola ḥawlo ḥavló113 ḥabla

NM mašwɔ, mašəw ‘rope’ is ultimately derived from *māšōḥā ‘measuring ܿ ‫‘ ܵܡ‬measurer, surveyor’, JPA ‫משיחה‬ rope’ < ‘measurer’—consider Syr. ‫ܫܘ ܵܚܐ‬ ‘rope’ and CM mašihta ‘measure’.114 All these are related to the Aramaic verbal root mšḥ ‘to measure (size)’, which occurs already in Egyptian Aramaic115 and still survives in Ṭyare-NENA as māšəx.116 7. nys ‘to cough’ The NM verb nys, nas, nɔyes ‘to cough’ corresponds to CM nus ~ nss ‘to be in trouble, be sick, grieve, repine’. Closely related cognates are, inter alia, JBA ‫‘ נסס‬to become seriously ill’ and TO ‫‘ נְ ִסיס‬downcast’. Other possible cognates are JBA ‫ נוס‬and Syr. ‫‘ ܵܢܣ‬to tremble’. In the light of CM šaula ܵ ̇ it is very plausible that NM nys replaced an and JBA ‫שעולא‬, Syr. ‫ܫܥܘܠܐ‬, ܲ unattested pre-modern M verb *šal (šyl), a cognate of JBA ‫שעל‬, Syr. ‫ܫܥܠ‬ � ‘to cough’. Elsewhere in NA the pre-modern Aramaic verb šʕl, or reflexes thereof, are preserved, i.e. NENA šāɁəl, +šāl (etc.), Ṭur. šoʕəl, WNA išʕal, yišʕul, also in paʿʿel šaʕʕel, yšaʕʕal. NM NENA cough nys šɁl, +šyl

Ṭuroyo WNA šʕl šʕl

112 For these and other Semitic cognates see Leslau 1991: 223a. 113 Talay 2002: 709. Note that the variant ḥabló is not a genuine Mlaḥsô word, but an ad َ ْ� ‘rope’. hoc or idiolectal adaptation of Ar. ‫ح ب���ل‬ 114 Cf. Macuch (HCMM 538a) where mašwɔ is infelicitously considered a derivative of šwa ‘to be smooth, level, equal’. 115 Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 549a, and from the same root ‫‘ משחה‬measurement’, cstr. ‫( משחת‬ibid.: 550b). ܵ 116 For the connection between rope and measuring cf. Syr. ‫‘ ܲ�ܚ ܼܒܠܐ‬rope, measuring rope; area’ (< *‘area measured by rope’), Ṭyare xawla ‘rope; ca. 5 meters, ca. 5 square meters (as a measure of land)’.



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

171

8. selwɔ ‘thorn’ NM evinces a replacement of the earliest known and widespread Aramaic word for ‘thorn’, first attested in Off.Aram. as ‫כב‬,117 as well as, inter alia, as CM kuba and Syr. ‫ܟܘ ܵܒܐ‬. ̣ In NM *kubbɔ was ousted by selwɔ, seləw, which, as is shown on pp. 85–86, already occurs in CM as silua, apparently in the sense of ‘palm-tree thorn’ or ‘palm-tree thorn; thorn’. The ultimate etymology of this word is very likely Akk. ṣillû, sillu ‘thorn, thorn of palmtree leaflet’. All other major NA language-groups preserve reflexes of *kubbā: NM NENA Ṭuroyo WNA thorn selwɔ kətwa, kuba kubo xoppa

In NENA the predominant word for ‘thorn’ is kətwa (and dialectal variants like čitwa), which is of uncertain etymology; yet the erstwhile Aramaic word kuba, küba survives in Christian dialects of the northwestern peripheries of NENA, such as Gaznakh and Qurich, respectively. Cognates further west are Ṭur. kubo and WNA xoppa. 9. suṯɔ (asuṯɔ) ‘salutation, greeting’ NM has lost the common Aramaic word found in CM as šlama ‘peace; salutation, greeting’ and in the greeting šlama ʿlak (var. alak) ‘peace be upon you (or: well-being upon you)’, JBA ‫שלמא עלך‬, ‫‘ שלמא לך‬ditto’. Instead, NM uses the word suṯɔ as part of the greeting suṯɔ nehwilax (2sg.m), suṯɔ nehwilex (2sg.f), suṯɔ nehwilxon (2pl.) ‘well-being be upon you’.118 The older form asuṯɔ, corresponding to CM asuta (and JBA ‫‘ )אסותא‬healing, remedy’, is occasionally used by priests and other learned Mandaeans as part of the greeting asuṯɔ nehwilax,119 whereas the common colloquial Mandaic is suṯɔ nehwilax.120 Already in the 17th century Glossarium (98:5)

117 Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 383b. 118 A similar idiom, suta hauilkun is found in a late 19th century text in vernacular Iraqi Mandaic (de Morgan 1904a: 278:5), but not in the contemporary NM of Iran. Another variation, “suṯ ehwīlax” according to Macuch (HCMM 199:34, 419:18, 460:24 et passim), was rejected by my informants. 119 Cf. asuṯɔ nehwilxon ‘greetings to you (pl.)’ in a written speech by the learned Mandaean Nasir Sobbi (Häberl 2009: 174:2). 120 Note also the classicisms asuṯɔ ‘healing’ and the construct form thereof in the name of the Mandaean salutation prayer asúṯ malkɔ in Macuch 1993: 320:1943, 304:1827, 304:1828. These too are not used in modern speech.

172

chapter five

the shortened colloquial form, misspelled ṣuṯa and glossed ‘salutatio’ appears alongside the classical one aṣuṯa ‘pax’. The strictly salutatory usage of NM suṯɔ is probably derived from the common CM greeting asuta uzakuta nihuilak ‘may healing and vindication be with you’, or ‘may health and purity be yours’,121 whence suṯɔ nehwilax as a vernacularised classicism. Note in this connection that nehwilax is a fossilised vestige of the old imperfective inflection in NM (nehwi, from CM nihuia ‘he will be). Furthermore, the fact that suṯɔ is a vernacularised classicism is borne out by the CM ending uṯɔ (uta) instead of the regular NM reflex oxtɔ (**soxtɔ). 122 The greeting suṯɔ nehwilax is answered by swɔṯɔ d-heyyi nehwilax, which can roughly be literally rendered ‘the greetings of the (Great) Life be upon you’. The first word, swɔṯɔ, stems from asuata, a by-form of asauata ‘remedies’;123 and heyyi stands for CM hiia ‘Life’, in full hiia rbia, NM heyyi rabbi ‘the Great Life’, which is the primary and primaeval lightbeing (or Lightworld entity) of the Mandaeans.124 Unlike NM, some other NA varieties still preserve older formulae of greeting: NM NENA Ṭuroyo WNA greetings to yousg.m. (a)suṯɔ nehwilax šlāma Ɂəllux + šlomo aʕlux márḥaba

Ṭuroyo šlomo aʕlux (< ‫ )שלמא עלך‬corresponds to NENA šlāma Ɂəllux (e.g. in Alqosh), šlā́ma-lux (in numerous Christian dialects), šlāma-lóx (sic, J.Sanandaj). Most Jewish dialects replaced this with a Hebrew or Hebrew-based borrowing: šālom ʕalexem or šalomí. Another NA variety that resorted َ ْ َ to borrowing is WNA, where márḥaba is identical to the Ar. ‫�َ ة‬ source ����‫ح ب‬ ‫�مر‬.

121  See MD 28b, 158b, HCMM 199:29ff., 419:17f. Note also HCMM 460:24f. asuta nihuilak, but the existence of this phrase already in CM is hardly likely, since the expected CM idiom would have been asuta tihuilak. 122 Cf. *mūṯā (CM muta) > NM moxtɔ, moxt ‘death’, *gannaḇūṯā > *ganawuṯā > NM ganwoxtɔ, ganwóxt ‘theft, thievery’ (derived from ganɔwɔ, ganɔ́ w ‘thief’. The underlying phonological process most probably involved diphthongisation and fortition, as in *mūṯā< *muyṯā* < moçṯā < moxtɔ. 123 MD 28b, HCMM 221:23f. 124 See Drower 1937: xxi, Buckley 2002: 36, MD 143a.



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

173

10. syf ‘be ashamed’ NM saf ‘he was ashamed’, qəsɔyef ‘he is ashamed’ and sofɔ, sof ‘shame’, all unique in NA, are reflexes (with a slight semantic change) of pre-modern Aramaic ‫‘ ספי‬to be afraid’, which is attested in CM, JBA and late Targ. Aram.125 Since in all these sources the verb is inflected only in eṯpəʿel, a simple metathesis sfy > syf, namely a derivation of saf form *səp̄ ā in pəʿal, is hardly likely. It is more likely that an eṯpəʿel form *estfi (*ʿstpia, ‫)*איסתפי‬ was reduced to *esfi by syncope of t, which yielded a new verbal root *sfy, later to be inflected in pəʿal. The final phase of this reconstructed process was metathesis: *sfy > syf (cf. šty > NM šyt ‘to drink’). It is important to point out, in this connection, that in NM t-stem verbs regularly lose their t, and even when the first radical is s, e.g. esaqqam ‘it was finished’ (for NM sqm see p. 157), as opposed to CM ʿstaqam ‘it was completed’. Other NA varieties preserve genuine Aramaic lexemes that already in CA denoted ‘to be ashamed’: NM NENA Ṭur.-Mlaḥ.126 WNA be ashamed syf nxp nkf bhč, bhć

NM syf replaced CM bht, which is the common pre-modern Aramaic verb denoting ‘to be ashamed’, being attested, inter alia, also as ‫ בהת‬in Qum. Aram.,127 TO and in later Aramaic varieties, e.g. Syr. ‫ܒܗ ̣ܬ‬ ܸ (cognate with Ug. bhṯ ‘shame’, BH ‫ בוש‬and Akk. bâšu ‘to be ashamed’). This earliest Aramaic verb still exists in WNA as ibheč, yibhač (in Bax. with ć). NENA dialects nāxəp, naxə́ p and Ṭuroyo-Mlaḥsô minakəf, mnakéf (< *meṯnakkap̄ ), respectively, preserve a later Aramaic verb for ‘to be ashamed’, which in CA is only found in Syriac as ‫ܢܟܦ‬. 11. taqufɔ ‘sour’ As is shown on p. 87, LM taqup(a) already appears to have had the meaning ‘sour’ in addition to ‘strong’, especially in the light of NM taqufɔ, taqúf ‘sour’. No other word for ‘sour’ is adduced in MD, and it may well be that the pre-modern Mandaic vernacular lost the inherited Aramaic word for ‘sour’, which was likely from the root ḥmṣ, in view of Syr. ‫ܡܘ ܵܨܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܚ‬,�ܲ NENA ܲ xamuṣa (and variants), and Ṭur. ḥamuṣo ‘sour’, as well as Syr. ‫ܚܡܨ‬ � and 125 See MD 334b, s.v. spa, DJBA 825, Jastrow 1903: 1013a. 126 For Mlaḥsô see Jastrow 1994: 160. 127 Abegg 2003, vol. 1/2: 798.

174

chapter five

JBA ‫‘ חמץ‬to turn sour’.128 Other CA varieties preserve the verbal root ḥmʕ (e.g. JPA ‫‘ חמע‬to become leavened, sour’, WNA iḥmeʕ, yiḥmaʕ ‘to become sour’), which is the erstwhile Aramaic root related to sourness (cf. the Ar. ‫ض‬ cognate ����‫ ;)ح�م‬whereas ḥmṣ in Aramaic is either borrowed from Canaanite129 or influenced by the Akkadian cognate emeṣu ‘be sour’, emṣu ‘sour’. Note that unlike Mandaic, which has undergone a process of lexical replacement, all other NA languages preserve reflexes of older Aramaic words for ‘sour’: NM NENA sour taqufɔ xamuṣa

Ṭuroyo WNA ḥamuṣo ḥammeʕ

12. zehwɔ ‘light’ The basic and most common forms of the word for ‘light’ in the CA languages are derived from the root nhr ‘shine, illuminate’: BA ‫נהירא‬, qəre ܵ ‫הֹורא‬ ָ ְ‫נ‬, JPA ‫נהור‬, det. ‫נֹוה ָרא‬ ְ , Syr. ‫ܢܘܗܪܐ‬, ̣ CM nhura, etc. In NM nhurɔ is a classicism confined to the religious term ɔlmɔ da-nhurɔ (alma ḏ-nhura) ‘the World of Light’. Otherwise the word nhurɔ was replaced in vernacular Mandaic by zehwɔ, zehəw,130 and in Ahvaz there is also use of rošné for ‘light’. Whereas rošné is a borrowing from NP �‫‘ ر و ش����� ن‬light, clear, luminous’ (cf. ‫ئ‬ post-cl. M ruš(a)naiia ‘light, radiance’ < NP �‫‘ ر و ش�����ن���ا �ي‬light’), zehwɔ is an inherited Aramaic word. Two possibilities may be considered as regards the etymology of zehwɔ: (1) CM zihua, defined ‘pomp, splendour, magnificence’ in MD (166a, s.v. zihua 2), and derived from zha ‘to be bright, shine, radiate’131—compare ܵ ‫‘ �ܲܙ‬shining’, JBA ‫‘ זיהיא‬brightness, glow’, JPA ‫‘ זהי‬to shine, be happy’ Syr. ‫ܗܝܐ‬ and Sam.Aram. ‫‘ זהי‬to rejoice’, ‫( זהו‬det. ‫‘ )זהותא‬joy’; and for the postulated

128 In DJBA 470a it is regarded as a Hebrew loanword, yet it seems more likely to be genuine in JBA as indeed in Syriac, NENA and Ṭuroyo (and only ultimately related to Canaanite or Akkadian influence—see below). 129 See Brockelmann 1928: 240b. 130 See HCMM 43, n. 25, 535b, but note that zehwɔ as ‘splendour’ in HCMM 521a is a CM meaning, and in HCMM 535b the remark that CM zihua ‘splendour’ is still used in NM lacks the NM meaning ‘light’. 131 Indeed MD 162bb, s.v. zha 2 includes a reference to zihua 2. In MD 166a, however, ܵ ‫‘ ܵܙ‬solemn procession’. the etymology of zihua 2 is infelicitously claimed to be Syr. ‫ܘܚܐ‬



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

175

morphological affinity of zha and zihua compare the derivation of CM hidua ‘joy’ (MD 116a) from the same root of hda ‘to rejoice’.132 Since zihua is related to zha ‘to radiate’, its denotation is expected to be strongly associated with light, hence the MD definition ‘splendour’ should be construed in the sense of ‘radiance, brilliance, glow’. Indeed the context in which zihua is found, zihua malbišnunẖ, uzihua nikasnunẖ, translated in MD (166a) ‘they clothe him in splendour, they cover him in splendour’ points to ‘splendour’ in the sense of ‘radiance’, in light of Mandaean motifs of spiritual beings clad in radiant garments and of water as ‘robes of radiant light’ during baptism.133 It follows that CM zihua probably denoted ‘radiance, radiant light, splendour’ (and not pomp or magnificence), and that it would therefore make a compelling etymon for NM zehwɔ ‘light’. (2) Macuch (in HCMM 43, n. 25) considered the etymon of NM zehwɔ to be CM ziua ‘radiance, brilliance, countenance’.134 The latter is a cognate of JBA ‫‘ זִ יוָ א‬glow, splendour, radiance, Syr. ‫‘ ̣ܙܝ ܵܘܐ‬splendour, beauty; appearance, sight’ and BA ‫‘ זִ יו‬facial features, appearance, radiance’, all ultimately from Akk. zīmu ‘face, appearance’.135 This etymology lacks an explanation for the assumed emergence of h. A conflation of ziua with the verb zha or its nominal derivatives zhia, zihia ‘shining’ and especially zihua ‘radiance’, yielding NM zehwɔ, is not impossible, but, applying Occam’s razor, the most likely etymology is zihua > zehwɔ. Whereas, as is shown above, NM replaced nhura ‘light’ with a noun which originally denoted ‘radiance’, and in Ahvaz also with an Iranian loanword, the other NA languages exhibit either retention of the inherited Aramaic word based on the root nhr or a replacement with an Aramaic word derived from bhr ‘to be bright’: NM NENA Ṭuroyo Mlaḥsô136 WNA light zehwɔ, rošné behra, +bāra + bahro, (nuhro) nuhró nohra

132 Furthermore, the derivation of zihua from zha (root zhy) might have been facilitated by the existence of the similar noun ziua ‘radiance’ (for which see No. 2 below). 133 See, e.g., Buckley 2002: 36, 83, 90. 134 Note, in this connection, that ziwɔ ‘splendour’ in Häberl 2009: 51 et passim is not an independent word in NM but occurs as part of hiwelziwɔ (ibid. 274:9) < CM hibil ziua, the name of a prominent Mandaean lightbeing. 135 See Zimmern 1917: 47, Kaufman 1974: 113. 136 Jastrow 1994: 185.

176

chapter five

Mlaḥsô and WNA preserve an erstwhile Aramaic word for ‘light’. NENA behra, +bāra (and cognate dialectal forms) and Ṭuroyo bahro constitute a shared innovation, viz. replacement of *nuhrā with *bahrā—compare ܵ Syr. ‫‘ ܲ �ܒܗܪܐ‬dawn, twilight’ and CM bhr ‘to shine, be illuminated’. Another dialectal NENA form based on *bhr is poṛya < *bhoryā. The older word for light, nuhro, is recorded in Ṭuroyo alongside bahro,137 but nowadays this word is marginal, and is mainly preserved in religious contexts to refer to divine light and halo. In Bsorino-Ṭuroyo, moreover, it is still used in the phrase nuhro d-ʕayno ‘eyesight’ (cf. NM zehəw al-ínɔ ‘id.’, both lit. ‘light of the eye’) and, metaphorically, in the idiom ú-nuhro d-ʕáyni-hat ‘you are the light of my eyes!’138 In Christian NENA dialects nuhṛa, noṛa ‘divine light’ is a vernacularܵ ised classicism (< Syr. ‫)ܢܘܗܪܐ‬, ̣ used in phrases such as nuhṛa bəṣlāya mən šmayya (Baz) ‘divine light descending from heaven,139 qariṯəd noṛa (Lewin) ‘a beam of divine light’,140 and Tkhuma-Gawaya noṛəd maṛya ‘God’s divine light’ and bāṭíbāṭo d-noṛa ‘firefly’ (< bāṭíbāṭo of divine light’, cf. Bahnuna bāṭibāṭo ‘firefly’).141 5.2.2 Unique Neo-Mandaic Meanings The following are selected cases whereby NM words with cognates (or probable cognates) in other NA languages have unique meanings, and these words superseded other Aramaic words in the history of Mandaic. 1. bdq ‘to put, place’ NM did not preserve the erstwhile and ubiquitous CA verbal root denoting ‘to put, place’, ‫ׂשים‬, which dates back to OA142 and is reflected in CM as sum, sim. 143 Instead, NM exhibits the unique innovation bdq (Glossarium: bḏq), bədáq, bɔdeq, which is of uncertain etymology. It appears in post-cl. M as bdq ‘to put, place, insert’, and is etymologised in MD (52b) as a semantic development of bdq ‘to split, penetrate, keep apart’, through meanings such as the ones of the JBA cognate ‫‘ בדק‬to make a breach, 137 See Ritter 1979: 370 and 46, respectively. 138 See also Ritter 1967: 70:69. 139 See Talay 2009: 654:4. 140 Ibid. 114:47. See further in Maclean 1901: 210b, s.v. nuhrā and 299b, s.v. šabtā. 141 Other NENA derivatives of the same root, occurring in Barwar and some Hakkâri ܵ ܲ dialects, are nahira, nahiṛa ‘sesame or terebinth oil used for clay lamps’ (cf. Syr. ‫ܗܝܪܐ‬ ܼ ‫�ܢ‬ ‘bright, clear; light, lamp’) and neṛa, nāṛa (< *nahrā) ‘eyesight, vision’. 142 See DNWSI 1126–1127. 143 See MD 321b–322a. Another CM verb meaning ‘to put, place’ is atnah (MD 43).



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

177

insert’. An etymological affinity between bdq, ‫ בדק‬and JBA ‫‘ פתק‬to pierce, penetrate, insert’144 is very likely. A NA cognate of NM bdq appears to be NENA bḏq, bāḏəq ‘to scatter seeds when sowing’ (e.g. in Betanure), apparently < ‘to insert’. Entirely different parallel innovations related to the verb ‘to put’ occur in the other NA languages: NM NENA Ṭuroyo Mlaḥsô145 WNA to put bdq dry nḥt (maḥət) nḥt (maḥét) rnḥ, šwy

NENA uniquely uses the verb dry, dāre (and dialectal variants) for ‘to put’, as well as ‘to pour; throw, shoot’ in some NENA dialects. The proto-meaning of this verb was ‘to scatter’, as is the basic denotation of drā in Syriac, JBA and CM, and the semantic development in NENA may have been ‘to scatter’ > ‘to throw’ > ‘to put’146 or ‘to scatter’ > ‘to spill’ > ‘to pour’ > ‘to put’—compare the Mlaḥsô cognate doré ‘to throw, drag, thrust, pour’.147 Ṭuroyo-Mlaḥsô maḥət, maḥét ‘to put’ are neo-ap̄ ʿel forms of nḥt, noḥət, noḥét ‘to descend’. WNA has its own unique verbs for the meaning ‘to put’: (1) rnḥ in ap̄ ʿel: arnaḥ, yarnaḥ, which is highly likely derived from *nwḥ in ap̄ ʿel: *Ɂannaḥ < Ɂannīḥ ‘to place, lay down’ with dissimilatory r—consider Syr. ‫ܲ �ܐ ̣ܢܝܚ‬ (inter alia) ‘to put down, lay aside’ and JBA ‫ נוח‬ap̄ ʿel ‘to place, set down’;148 and (2) šwy, Maʿl. išw, yišw (and cognate dialectal forms) ‘to do; put, place’, derived from ‫שוי‬, ‫‘ ܫܘܝ‬to be equal’, َwhence ‘to do’, probably as a calque on َ (colloquial) Ar. sawa ‘to do’ < �‫‘ ��سو �ي‬to be equal’ (cf. the semantic shift ‘to ِ put, place’ > ‘to do’ in Ṭuroyo-Mlaḥsô sym, soyəm, soyém). This WNA verb is semantically and etymologically most closely related to JBA ‫שוי‬, paʿʿel ‘to place; make into’. 2. deštɔ ‘land, ground’ NM deštɔ, dešt has replaced the common Aramaic word for ‘land, ground’, which is attested in CM as arqa ‘earth, land, field’, an archaizing spelling which does not affect the traditional pronunciation [arɔ], from older

144 See Epstein 1948, vol. 2: 700 and DJBA 187a, s.v. 2 ‫ בדק‬and 949a. 145 Jastrow 1994: 160. 146 Cf. German stellen ‘put, place’ and its Albanian cognate shtjell ‘to fling, toss, hurl’ (Mallory and Adams 2006: 295). 147 Jastrow 1994: 156. 148 Cf. Nöldeke 1917–1918: 222, where the comparison is to H ‫‘ ֵהנִ ַיח‬to place’.

178

chapter five

Aramaic Ɂarʕā. A sole vestige of ara in NM is part of the opaque Ahvazi compound artiwel ‘the world, earth’, which is composed of ar ‘land of ’ and tiwel (CM tibil ‘earth, earthly world’), both obsolete in NM as independent words, and the whole compound is closely related to arqa tibil ‘the earth’.149 Among the NA varieties, all except NM and a couple of NENA dialects retain a reflex of Ɂarʕā: NM NENA Ṭuroyo Mlaḥsô150 WNA land, ground deštɔ ɁarɁa, mədra Ɂarʕo Ɂarʕó Ɂarʕa

In the NENA dialects ɁarɁa, Ɂara, +arra etc. are nearly ubiquitous, and only in 2 known dialects in the region of Bohtan was the inherited Aramaic word for ‘land, ground’ superseded by modern representatives of Syr. ܵ ‫ܡ ̣ܕܪܐ‬ ̤ ‘soil, earth, mud, dust’, JBA ‫‘ מדרא‬clay’, namely Qurich mədra and Borb-Ruma mədra ~ madra ‘land, ground, earth, soil’.151 The precursor of NM deštɔ, attested in CM as dišta ‘prairie, desert’ (and ܵ kindred meanings), is cognate with JBA ‫דישתא‬, ‫‘ דשתא‬field’ and Syr. ‫ܕܫܬܐ‬,ܲ� ܵ ‫‘ ܸܕܫܬܐ‬id.’.152 All these were either borrowed from MP dašt ‘plain’ or inherited from an older Aramaic stratum which had in turn borrowed it from Old Iranian. The latter possibility is likely in light of Qum.Aram. ‫דחשת‬, from Old Iranian *daxšta.153 NENA dašta, dəšta ‘plain, field’ and Ṭur. dašto ‘plain’154 preserve older meanings, as opposed to the NM cognate. 3. dɔrṯɔ ‘roof’ As is shown on pp. 101–102, the NM word for ‘roof ’, dɔrṯɔ, dɔrṯ, is etymologically related to post-cl. M darta, perhaps ‘dwelling’,155 JBA ‫‘ דרתא‬resiܵ dence, property, courtyard’ and Syr. ‫‘ ܵܕܪܬܐ‬house, dwelling, courtyard, hall’.

149 See MD 39a, s.v. arqa and HCMM 54. Ahvaz-NM artiwel might be a vernacularised learned word. It is less common than ɔlmɔ, ɔləm ‘world’, which is the only word used in Khorramshahr. 150 Jastrow 1994: 169. 151 Further NENA dialectal cognates are Hertevin mədra, Maha-Baz +mədra ‘soil’ and Chamba d-Mallik (Ṭyare) məḏṛa ‘type of fine soil’, yet these dialects preserve reflexes of ʔarʕā ‘land, earth’. 152 For the latter form see Thesaurus 958. 153 See Greenfield and Shaked 1972: 38–39, and for the Syriac and other Aramaic cognates and their Iranian sources see Ciancaglini 2008: 159. See also the Iranian word in Hinz 1975: 80. 154 For the latter see Ritter 1979: 120. 155 Thus defined in MD 101a, but the precise meaning is uncertain.



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

179

Following a semantic change to the sense of ‘roof ’, dɔrṯɔ replaced the inherited M word for ‘roof’, which is attested in pl. as ʿngaria, angaria, and ܵ is derived from ʔeggārā as, e.g., in Syr. ‫‘ ܐܸ ܵܓܪܐ‬roof ’ and earlier, ‫‘ אגר‬wall’ in Egyp.Aram.,156 ultimately from Akk. igāru ‘wall’.157 All other NA languages preserve reflexes of the inherited Aramaic word for ‘roof’: NM NENA roof dɔrṯɔ gāre

Ṭuroyo goro, nigoro

Mlaḥsô158 WNA goró ʕakkōra, ʕaččōra

NENA gāre and Ṭuroyo-Mlaḥsô goro, goró evince aphaeresis of the initial syllable, and the form in NENA is originally plural. The initial n in dialectal Ṭuroyo nigoro has emerged by metanalysis of án-nigore (*hánn-igore) ‘the roofs’ as nigore, whence the sg. form was derived by back-formation.159 WNA ʕakkōra (Maʿl., Bax.), ʕaččōra (Jub.) are most probably derived from *ʕa-kkōra ‘on the roof’ < *ʕal ʔeggārā.160 4. dry ‘to take, take away’ NM exhibits a loss of 2 common CA verbal roots that denoted, among other meanings, ‘to take’ or ‘to take away’. These were represented in CM as (1) nsb ‘to take (away), take up, assume’, first attested in Off.Aram. as ‫‘ נסב‬to take, take away’,161 and (2) šql ‘to take away, remove, carry’ (etc.), first attested as ‫ שקל‬in Middle Aramaic (according to Fitzmyer’s stratification),162 denoting ‘to lift’ in TO and Qumran Aramaic,163 and ‘to take, charge’ in Palmyrene Aramaic.164 Both verbs still linger on in various NA varieties, whereas the parallel NM is dry, dərɔ́ , dɔri ‘to take, take away, take along’.165

156 Muraoka and Porten 2003: 73. 157 Kaufman 1974: 57. 158 Jastrow 1994: 160. 159 See Tezel 2003: 164. 160 See Arnold, forthcoming, s.v. ʕkr. 161  See Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 571a. 162 See Fitzmyer 1979. 163 Fitzmyer 2004: 311. 164 See DNWSI 1187, Hillers and Cussini 1996: 417. For further discussion of this Aramaic verb and its Akkadian and Ugaritic cognates see Greenfield 1979. 165 A secondary meaning is ‘to have sex with (lit. ‘take’) a woman’, e.g. derya ‘he had sex with her’. A semantically related verb is lxṭ (CM lgṭ), ləxáṭ, lɔxeṭ ‘to hold, grasp, seize, catch’. The passive (eṯpəʿel) elxeṭ, melxeṭ is also used in the context of lunar or solar eclipse, as in serrɔ elxeṭ ‘there was a lunar eclipse’, šɔmeš elexṭat ‘there was a solar eclipse’ (cf. MD

180

chapter five

In NM nsb and šql were superseded by a much later verb in the history of Aramaic, which is found in CM as dra ‘to take, carry, bear, wear, sustain’, JBA ‫‘ דרי‬to carry, bear, sustain; stretch out the hand or arm’166 and ܲ ܵ ܵ ‫ܕܪ‬ ‘arm’. Syr. ‫‘ �ܕܪܥ‬to lead; take by the arm’, all denominative from ‫ ְּד ָר ָעא‬, ‫ܥܐ‬ As is shown in the following comparison, NM dry ‘to take (including taking away or along)’ is unique among the NA languages: NM NENA take dry šql; nty +

Ṭuroyo Mlaḥsô167 WNA myd, (šql) šql šḳl; ʔsb, ʔsp

The erstwhile NENA verb šāqəl (and dialectal variants, e.g. šaqə́ l, +šāk̭əl) is very widespread, and only in Hulaula and the Jewish Azerbaijan dialect cluster, where šāqə́ l or šaqə́ l acquired the meaning ‘to buy’, did a reflex of ܲ the verbal root *ntʕ (Syr. ‫ܢܬܥ‬ � ‘to draw, pull’) replaced šql in the sense ‘to take’. Thus, e.g. J.Sanandaj nty, naté, Bana nnty, nanté, J.Urmi ønty, anté, all ‘to take, he takes’—cf. an older meaning in Chamba d-Mallik: nāta (infinitive ntāʔa) ‘to haul, extract or uproot forcefully (e.g. tooth, rock).’ Whereas in Mlaḥsô šoqél ‘to take’ is regular, Ṭur. šoqəl in the meaning ‘to take’ is now obsolescent.168 Contemporary Ṭuroyo َّ َ speakers regularly use the verb moyəd ‘to take’, probably from Ar. ‫‘ �م�د‬to stretch out (one’s hand)’,169 while šoqəl is usually used in Midyat-Ṭuroyo in the sense ‘to buy’. The WNA parallels are the cognates išḳal, yišḳul and reflexes of ‫‘ נסב‬to take’ (as, e.g. in JPA)—Maʿl asab, yīsub, Jub. asab, yūsub, Bax. asap, yūsup. 5. dyš ‘to enter’ NM lost the inherited Aramaic verbal root ʕll ‘to enter’, which is attested already in OA.170 Thus whereas CM has all, aul and closely related forms,171 NM replaced these with dyš, daš, dɔyeš. The NENA and Ṭuroyo cognates dāyəš (in some dialects dāʔəš), doyəš ‘to tread upon, step over, trample’ retain the inherited meanings, as in CA antecedents such as CM duš ‘to tread down, trample’ and JBA ‫‘ דוש‬to tread, trample, thresh’. 231a), and with qɔlɔ ‘voice, sound’ in connection with hoarseness: qɔli elxeṭ ‘he (has) lost his voice’ qɔli ləxéṭ-ye ‘he is hoarse’. 166 Audo 1897: 216b. 167 Jastrow 1994: 163. 168 For examples of the use of Ṭur. šql in former decades see Ritter 1990: 319–322. 169 For the postulated change Ar. mdd > myd cf. Ar. lmm ‘to gather’ > Ṭur. lym ‘id.’ and Ar. lff ‘to wrap’ > Ṭur. lyf ‘ditto’. See, however, Tezel 2003: 134. 170 See Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 654b, Kogan 2005: 520. 171  See MD 20.



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

181

Parallel NA verbs are reflexes of erstwhile ʕll and of ʕbr ‘to pass’: NM NENA Ṭuroyo Mlaḥsô172 WNA enter dyš ʔyl, yʔl, ʔwr ʕbr ʕyl ʕll, ʕbr

WNA ʕll, which is used in forms such as ʕillaṯ ‘she entered’, ʕōlla ‘she enters’,173 is cognate with Mlaḥ. ʕoyél and the dialectal NENA forms ʔāyəl in Qaraqosh and Bariṭle, yāʔəl in Lishana Deni and Haṣṣan and yāl in Sandu. Other NENA dialects replaced this root with ʔāwər, ʔōr etc., which, like Ṭur. ʕobər, harks back to ‫עבר‬, ‫ܥܒܪ‬ � ܲ ‘pass, cross over’.174 Likewise, the WNA cognate ʕbr, iʕber, yiʕbar is used alongside ʕll. 6. gəṭefɔ ‘grape(s)’ NM lost the genuine M word for ‘grapes’, ʿmbia, ʿnbia (sg. *ʿmba, *ʿnba)175 and replaced it with gəṭefɔ, gəṭéf.176 The latter is used both as a collective noun for grapes and for a single grape (the pl. form gəṭefɔnɔ, gəṭefɔ́ n is use for several single grapes). Literary M guṭaipa (MD 83a) reflects a modern or early modern M word found in a caption to an illustration of a grapevine, yet JBA ‫‘ קטופא‬cluster of grapes’ as well as NENA cognates (see below) allude to the probability that modern M gəṭefɔ, guṭaipa reflect a much older forebear. NENA cognates from the same etymon *quṭṭaypā are quṭaypa (Sat), quṭayfa (Wasṭa), qunṭaypa (Maha d-Baz etc.) and similar dialectal variants, all meaning ‘cluster of grapes’ (in some dialects also clusters of other fruit, such as terebinth nuts).177 In view of the JBA and NENA cognates, the semantic development in NM was, apparently, ‘cluster of grapes’ > ‘grapes’ > ‘grapes, grape’. Unlike the lexical replacement in NM, NENA ʔənwe (sg. varies according to dialect, e.g. Betanure ʔənuṯa), Ṭur. ʕanwe (sg. ʕanwo), Mlaḥ. ʕenvé and WNA ʕinbō (sg. ʕenəpṯa, ʕinbīṯa) descend from the genuine Aramaic word for ‘grapes’, ‫ܥ ̈ܢ ̤ܒܐ‬, ̤ ‫ ִעינְ ֵבי‬. The only exceptions are Trans-Zab NENA basiré

172 Jastrow 1994: 155. 173 See Arnold, forthcoming, s.v. ʕll1. 174 The b in Ṭur. ʕbr, ʕobər can be explained as a levelling of b according to the past form ʕābər < *ʕabbīr. 175 See MD 352a. 176 As already observed by Macuch (see HCMM 41). 177 The fact that some NENA dialects have forms with f, a foreign consonant in this dialect-group, should be attributed to the impact of the verb qāṭəf ‘to pick (grapes, other ‫ق ف‬ fruit, flowers)’ in some NENA dialects (e.g. J.Zakho), where it is borrowed from Ar. ���‫���ط‬.

182

chapter five

and Barzan besire, which originally referred to sour or unripe grapes, as still in other NENA dialects, such as Mangeshe bassire,178 J.Dohok basire— cf. Syr. ‫ܣ̈ܪܐ‬ ܹ ‫‘ ܸܒ‬sour grapes’,179 Late Targ.Aram. ‫‘ בוסרא‬unripe’:180 NM NENA grapes gəṭefɔ ʔənwe, basiré

Ṭuroyo Mlaḥsô181 WNA ʕanwe ʕenvé ʕinbō

7. hwr ‘to wash, rinse’ NM hwr, paʿʿel howwer, mhowwer (< *hawwer, *mhawwer) hark back to ḥwr, a denominative verb from ḥiwwār (NM həwɔrɔ, həwɔ́ r) ‘white’ which in paʿʿel initially denoted ‘to whiten’ and later ‘to whiten; wash clothes’, as in Syr. ‫ܚ �ܲܘܪ‬.�ܲ The denotation ‘to wash clothes’ also occurs in TO and JPA,182 whereas in JBA and CM the meaning of this verb was expanded to washing in general, hence ‫ חוור‬means ‘to wash, rinse off; whiten’ and hwr denotes ‘to wash; whiten’. NM inherited the meaning ‘to wash’ only, whereas the meaning ‘to whiten’ was discarded and the association to həwɔrɔ, həwɔ́ r ‘white’ was lost. Furthermore, NM hwr superseded other Mandaic verbs in the semantic field of washing. These appear in CM as saa (< *sḥy) ‘to wash oneself (also perform ablutions)’ and šwg, ap̄ ʿel ašig ‘to wash’. The former has left no trace in NM and the latter, reflected in NM as šyġ, šaġ, šɔyeġ, became restricted to the meanings ‘to smear, rub, polish’, inherited from the post-cl. M meaning ‘to rub’ (see pp. 97–98). All other major NA languagegroups preserve reflexes of šwġ, ʔaššīġ in its erstwhile meaning ‘to wash’. Contrary to NM hwr, Ṭur. ḥwr, ḥowər and NENA xwr, xāwər ‘to be or become white’ preserve the oldest meaning of this verbal root. NM uses the verbal root hwr for washing in general and for rinsing, except for washing the head and hair, for which hyf is regularly employed (see p. 104). Unlike the general use of hwr in the semantic field of washing in NM, the

178 The sg. form of which, bassira, is attested in Sara 1974: 54. 179 Thesaurus 555. 180 Jastrow 1903: 147a. 181  Jastrow 1994: 168. 182 For a discussion of the verb ḥwr ‘to wash’ in CA see Greenfield 1991: 588–589; and compare Akk. puṣṣû ‘to clean, bleach, launder’, from peṣû ‘white’. The striking similarity of a derivation of a verb in stem D denoting ‘to whiten; wash clothes’ from the adjective for ‘white’ in both Akkadian and Aramaic raises the possibility that the Aramaic verb ḥawwar, hawwar arose as a calque on Akk. puṣṣû.



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

183

other NA languages evince entirely different and specific verbal roots for washing clothes, washing the body or body part, and for rinsing:183 NM NENA wash (unmarked) hwr xll, šyʔ rinse hwr prpʔ, prpy wash clothes, wool hwr msy, xll wash body, bathe hwr xyp, sxy, (msy) wash part of body hwr xll, šyʔ wash head, hair hyf xyp, xll, šyʔ

Ṭuroyo šyġ prpʕ šyġ ḥyf, sḥy šyġ šyġ

Mlaḥsô WNA šyġ184 šyġ ? šyġ ? šyġ, rḥʕ ~ rḥḥ ? šyġ, mšy, ḥmm ? šyġ, mšy ? šyġ, mšy

Thus all major NA groups except NM use a reflex of ‫ܫܘܓ‬, ‫‘ שוג‬to wash’ (see pp. 97–98), in addition to several other, more specific verbal roots. The unmarked, generic verb denoting ‘to wash’, referring to various objects such as dishes, fruit, the face or a dead body before burial, is in most NENA dialects xll, mxallel or (e.g. in Bokan) xalə́ l. The earliest occurrences of this verb are in TO, where ‫ חלל‬is related to ritual washing and cleansing of parts of sacrificial animals.185 Likewise, JBA ‫ חלל‬is used in connection with washing meat,186 and CM hll is related to ritual rinsing, purifying and cleansing, whence NM hll, hallel, mhallel ‘wash hands and knife after slaughter; recite a prayer right after having slaughtered, while washing hands and knife or while someone else pours water on the hands and knife of slaughterer’. In Syriac ‫ ܲ�ܚ ̤ܠܠ‬denotes ‘to cleanse; wash’, and a similar semantic broadening has occurred in NENA as well. In various Christian dialects in the northwestern parts of NENA the unmarked verb is šyʔ, māšeʔ (thus in Hertevin) or maše (e.g. in Birsive), mašše (in Borb-Ruma, and see also pp. 97–98), which are cognate with Ṭur. šyġ, mašəġ, Mlaḥ. šyġ, mašíġ and WNA šyġ, ōšeġ, yōšeġ. For rinsing (soap or dirt off dishes, mouth) NENA and Ṭuroyo share the isolex maprpəʔ, maprpəʕ (in some NENA dialects mparpe, mparpé, etc.), ܲ ‫‘ ܲܦ‬to wash’; whereas WNA uses the generic from *mpaʕpaʕ, late Syr. ‫ܪܦܥ‬ � � verb šyġ. 183 Verbs related to ritual washing and baptism are beyond the scope of the present discussion. Among these are NM ršm, rəšám, rɔšem, verbal noun rəšɔmɔ ‘to perform rəšɔmɔablutions’ (See Drower 1937: 102–104, and see also MD 437b, s.v. ršm) and ṭmš, ṭəmáš, ṭɔmeš, verbal noun ṭəmɔšɔ ‘to perform ṭəmɔšɔ-ablutions (See Drower 1937: 105, and see also MD 181a, s.v. ṭmš), ritually wash and cleanse, e.g. kitchen utensils’; and J.Zakho nṭl, mnāṭəl (< H) ‘to perform a ritual washing of the hands’. 184 Jastrow 1994: 163–164. 185 For a discussion on the verb ḥll ‘to wash’ in CA see Greenfield 1991: 589–590. 186 DJBA 464b–465a.

184

chapter five

NENA has a specific verb for washing clothes and in many dialects also wool, msy, māse, which is in all likelihood ultimately borrowed from Akk. mesû ‘to wash’.187 The latter is probably cognate with Aram. mšy ‘to wash’ ََ and Ar. ‫‘ �م��سى‬to wipe something clean’.188 Some NENA dialects replaced this verb with the unmarked generic verb xll. In Maʿlula the specific verb for washing clothes and wool is rḥʕ ~ rḥḥ, which is used in Jubbʿadin for ‫�ض‬ washing wool, and is first attested in Egyp.Aram. as ‫( רחע‬cf. H ‫רחץ‬, Ar. ����‫ح‬ ‫ر‬ ‘to wash’), and occurs later in JPA and Sam.Aram.189 Baxʿa and Jubbʿadin use the unmarked generic WNA verb šyġ for washing clothes. For washing the body, bathing, many NENA dialects and Ṭuroyo evince reflexes of ‫‘ חפף‬to wash the hair, head’ (as, e.g., in JBA ‘to wash or clean the hair; to rub’ and see p. 104), while some NENA dialects use sxy, sāxe or ṣxy, ṣāxe and Midyat-Ṭuroyo uses soḥe, all of which also denote ‘to swim’, as in Syr. ‫‘ ܣܚܝ‬wash oneself, bathe, swim’, and cf. JBA ‫‘ סחי‬wash oneself, bathe’ (and H ‫‘ ׂשחי‬to swim, bathe’). Additionally, in some NENA dialects msy, which is regularly used for washing clothes, is used in hendiadys with xyp for washing oneself thoroughly, as in Ashitha xipli mseli ‘I washed myself thoroughly, scrubbed the dirt off myself’, and in 17th–18th J.Nerwa texts msy, māse is used for washing both clothes and the body.190 These are relics of an older stratum of NENA where msy was used in both these meanings. The WNA verbs for washing the body are, apart from the unmarked verbal root šyġ, the Arabic loan-verb ḥmm, čḥammam, yičḥammam ‘to take a bath’, ḥammem, yḥammem ‘to give a bath, bathe someone in hot water’ (< Syr.Ar. tḥammam and ḥammam, respectively),191 and in Maʿlula also mšy, iməš, yiməš, which is preceded by, inter alia, TJ and JBA ‫‘ משי‬to wash’.192 For washing part of the body such as the hands, face or head the NENA dialects generally use xll or šyʔ, Ṭur. šyġ and WNA šyġ, mšy. In a handful 187 As already noted in Sabar 2002: 65. 188 See Greenfield 1991: 594 and de Bieberstein Kazimirski 1860, vol. 2: 1108a. 189 For more details regarding the CA and the modern verb rḥʕ and for textual examples of WNA see Fassberg 2000: 289–291, and for CA see also Greenfield 1991: 592–593. Pace Fassberg 2000: 290 and Sabar 2002: 299b, the J. Zakho verb xrāɁa ‘to rub body with loofah ܲ while bathing’ is unrelated to ‫ רחע‬but rather stems from *ḥrāġā—consider Syr. ‫ܓ‬ ܼ ‫ܚܪ‬ � ‘to rub, polish’, CM hrg ‘to rub, grate’, NM hrġ, həráġ, hɔreġ ‘to crush, mash, pulverize’. There is no vestige of ‫ רחע‬in any NA language other than WNA (as is shown in Mutzafi 2005: 103–104). 190 Sabar 1984: 352, 2002: 221. 191 Barthélemy 1935–1969, vol. 4: 692. 192 See further DJBA 712b–713a.



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

185

of NENA dialects, e.g. Saqiz, xyp preserves the meaning of pre-modern Aramaic ḥpp ‘to wash the head and hair’, as is the meaning of NM hyf, haf, hɔyef. Marginal verbs related to washing are َṬur. mṣawəl, WNA ṣawwel, ََ yṣawwel ‘to pan and wash grain’, from Ar. ‫‘ �ص ّو ل‬to pan, wash out’; and J.Zakho kāyəs ‘to wash (clothes) thoroughly, wash and scrub off a stain’, of unknown origin. 193 8. kərɔyɔ, kərɔ́ ‘leg, foot’ Already in CM the inherited Semitic word for ‘leg, foot’, ligra (< reġlā, Syr. ܵ ‫ܓܠܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܪ‬,̤ and cf. H ‫ ֶרגֶ ל‬, Ugaritic and Sabaic rgl, etc.)194 was used alongside the partly synonymous word kraia ‘leg, foot, paw’, and by modern times the latter had completely taken the place of the former, hence Khor. kərɔyɔ and Ahvaz kərɔ́ ‘leg, foot’.195 The closest cognate of kraia, kərɔyɔ is JBA ‫‘ כרעא‬leg, foot’, whereas other cognates show that the original meaning of this anatomical term was restricted to the leg (or part of the leg) of animals, inter alia Syr. ܵ ܵ ‫ܟܪ‬ ‫ܥܐ‬ ‘shin, shank, leg of animal’,196 BH, Qum.H and MH ‫‘ ְּכ ָר ַעים‬lower leg ُ َ‫� ا‬ or fibula of animal’,197 Ar. ‫‘ كر‬trotter of sheep or oxen; shank, tibia’, Akk. ‫ع‬ kurītu ‘shin of animal’ and Sabaic krʕ ‘leg of a camel’.198 Similarly, consider the NENA cognates krāʔa (Bariṭle) ‘leg of mutton’, krāʔə (Qaraqosh, sg. kraʔta) ‘shanks of animal’,199 kraʔə (Telkepe, pl. tant.) ‘trotters and head of sheep (served as a dish)’. The etymon of NM kərɔyɔ, kərɔ́ was, therefore, an anatomical term pertaining to animals that had been semantically broadened and applied to humans as well already in CM and JBA, and in NM superseded ligra to become the only term for ‘leg, foot’.200

193  Sabar 2002: 185a raises the possibility of derivation from older Aramaic ‫*כבס‬, but such a verb is not attested in CA. 194 For these and further cognates see Militarev and Kogan 2000: 201–202. 195  For the contraction of the triphthong ɔyɔ see p. 48. 196  See Thesaurus 1837. 197  See HALOT 500a and http://hebrew-treasures.huji.ac.il, s.v. ‫כְּ ָרע‬, ‫כֶּ ַרע‬. 198  For these and further cognates see Militarev and Kogan 2000: 141–143. 199  Khan 2002: 735b. 200 Cf. the replacement in various Romance languages of Latin crus ‘leg, shank’ by words that originally denoted parts of the legs of animals (see Wartburg 1969: 118): (1) Spanish pierna, Portuguese perna ‘leg’, from Latin perna ‘leg of mutton, ham’, and (2) Italian gamba, French jambe ‘leg’, from post-classical Latin gamba ‘pastern’.

186

chapter five

As is shown below, lexical replacement of reġlā occurred in NENA as well, but in a unique way, whilst Ṭuroyo-Mlaḥsô and WNA preserve reflexes of the oldest Aramaic, and indeed Proto-Semitic, word for ‘leg, foot’: NM NENA leg, foot kərɔ́ (yɔ) ʔaqla, ʕaqlá

Ṭuroyo Mlaḥsô WNA raġlo, (ʕuqlo) reġló201 reġla, reġra

NENA has lost the reflex of reġlā (> Ṭur. raġlo, Mlaḥ. reġló, WNA reġla, reġra) and replaced it with *ʕaqlā > contemporary NENA dialects ʔaqla, ʕaqlá, which have a dialectal Ṭuroyo cognate, ʕuqlo ‘foot’.202 The word ܵ ܲ ‫ܥܩܠܐ‬ � ‘shank, leg’ already occurs in a native Syriac lexicon of anonymous authorship,203 but this is surely a vernacular, possibly early NA word rather than a classical Syriac one.204 ܵ ܲ The etymon of ʔaqla, ʕaqlá, ʕuqlo is related to Syr. ‫ܩܘܠܐ‬ ̣ ‫‘ �ܥ‬curve’ and JBA ‫‘ עקולא‬cove’, and semantically in particular to MH ‫‘ ִע ֵיּקל‬bandy-legged, bowlegged’.205 The proto-form *ʕaqlā denoted, therefore, a curve of the foot, shank or leg or, perhaps, a crooked foot or leg.206 If the latter sense is valid, the use of *ʕaqlā in the sense of ‘leg, foot’ may have started as a slang or jocular word. 9. mɔre ‘God’ NM NENA God mɔre ʔalāha, ʔilāha +

Ṭuroyo aḷó(ho)

Mlaḥsô207 WNA aló alō, alō(ya) +

NM mɔre ousted the inherited Aramaic word for ‘God’, attested, inter alia, ܵ ܲ in BA as ‫ ֱא ָל ָהא‬, JBA as ‫ ִא ָיל ָהא‬and Syr. as ‫ܐܠ ܵܗܐ‬, � and consider also CM alaha

201 Jastrow 1994: 188. 202 See Ritter 1979: 24 ʕuqlo, which is a corrected transcription based on Prym and Socin 1881, vol. 1: 148:8. This word appears to have formerly existed in the dialect of Midyat, where it is now obsolete (cf. Tezel 2003: 180, where ʕuqlo is followed by a question mark). 203 See Thesaurus 2965. ܵ ܲ ܵ ܲ 204 Cf. also Audo 1897: 746a ‫ܐܩܠܐ‬, � ‫‘ �ܥܩܠܐ‬shank’, which clearly represent a vernacular word, especially given the by-form with ‫ܐ‬. 205 See Jastrow 1903: 1074b and http://hebrew-treasures.huji.ac.il, s.v. ‫ע ֵּקל‬.ִ 206 For words for ‘leg’ etymologically related to ‘curve’ or ‘crooked’ in other languages cf. (1) Gk. σκέλος ‘thigh, leg’, related to σκoλιός ‘crooked, bent, twisted’ and cognate with, inter alia, Albanian çalë ‘lame’ (Beekes 2010, vol. 2: 1346); and (2) English shank which is probably related to Old Icelandic skakkr ‘askew, crooked’ (Barnhart 1988: 993a). 207 Jastrow 1994: 168.



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

187

‘a god, false god’. Already in CM mara referred to both ‘lord, master’, as generally in Aramaic (cf., inter alia, NENA māra ‘owner, master’), and to ‘Lord’ as a divine being. A semantic parallel in Syriac is the (emphatic) ܵ ‫‘ ܵܡ‬the Lord’, whence Christian NENA maṛya, Ṭur. moryo, muryo form ‫ܪܝܐ‬ ‘ditto’. The NM form mɔre is derived from *mārā with the 1sg. pronominal suffix -e, viz. ‘my Lord’ (CM marai),208 and note the striking parallel development in Mehri, Ḥarsusi and Baṭḥari, where reflexes of *baʕlī ‘my lord, my master’ (mostly with a fossilised definite article) are used for ‘God’,209 and likewise H ‫‘ ֲאד ֹנָ י‬the Lord, God’, from *‘my lords’. All other NA varieties preserve reflexes of the old term for ‘God’, i.e. NENA ʔalāha, ʔālaha, ʔālá, ʔilāha, ʔəlhá, ʔəḷa etc.; Ṭur. aḷó, aḷoho, Mlaḥ. aló; and WNA alō, Jub. also alōya, both from the det. pl. form *ʔalāhayyā (and marginally in Maʿlula are also the Ar. loanwords ilōha, alla(h) َ

ٰ

ٰ‫أ‬

‘God’, from ‫ �ل�ه‬and ‫ � �ل�ل�ه‬, respectively).

ِ‫�إ‬

10. prd ‘to flee’ NM prd, pərɔ́ d, pɔred, Glossarium prḏ ‘to flee’, correspond to CM prd id.’, ܲ which is cognate with Syr. ‫ܦܪ ̣ܕ‬ � ‘to flee; fly away; elude (of sleep)’, CPA ܲ ‫ܦܪ ̣ܕ‬ � ‘to flee’. As is shown on p. 102, it also occurs in NENA as pārəḏ (and dialectal variants) ‘to elude (of sleep)’. The usage of prd in the sense ‘to flee’ is late in the history of Aramaic. In Mandaic it replaced the erstwhile and common Aramaic root ‫ערק‬, whose OA precursor was spelled ‫קרק‬.210 Unlike NM, reflexes of ʕrq occur in most other NA groups: NM NENA flee prd ʔrq, ʕrq

Ṭuroyo ʕrq, hzm

Mlaḥsô211 WNA ʕrq šmṭ

Thus in NENA Ɂārəq, ʕarə́ q etc., Mlaḥsô ʕoréq and Midin-Ṭuroyo ʕorəq, which is being largelyَ replaced nowadays in Ṭuroyo by the Arabic loanَ َ ‫ْن‬ word mahzəm (cf. ‫‘ ���ه�ز‬to be defeated, be put to flight’). Another unique

‫م‬

ِ‫�إ‬

208 As is elucidated in HCMM 162–163 and Macuch 1989: 109, n. 59. The literal meaning of mɔre, ‘my lord, sir’, occurs in Macuch 1989: 110:100 et passim, but this is either a dated usage which is now entirely obsolete, or a learned usage that is not really relevant to vernacular Mandaic, where the contemporary word in question is ɔġɔye ‘sir’ (< ‘my lord, ‫آق‬ my master’, from ɔġɔ́ ‘master, sir’ < NP ‫‘ � ��ا‬id.’). 209 Thus bǟli, abɛ̄ li (Mehri dialects), abāli (Ḥarsusi), ebēli (Baṭḥari)—see Sima 2009: 224:16 et passim, Johnstone 1987: 41, Johnstone 1977: 14. 210 For the OA etymon see Kogan 2005: 522. 211  Jastrow 1994: 155.

188

chapter five

verb for ‘fleeing’ in NA that superseded ʕrq is WNA šmṭ, išmaṭ, yišmuṭ, which is etymologically related mostly to JPA ‫‘ שמיט גרמיה‬to slip away, escape’212 and to Syr. ‫ܫܬܡܛ‬ ܸ‫‘ ܐ‬to withdraw oneself, go away’ (cf. also Ṭur. ܸ šoməṭ ‘to slip’, Alqosh šāməṭ ‘to slip from hand’, and especially Qaraqosh šāməṭ ‘to slip off; draw, pull out; escape’). 11. ryf ‘to tie’ Already in post-cl. Mandaic the verbal root rup was used in roughly the same meanings as the older Mandaic verbal roots asr and gṭr ‘to tie, fasten, etc.’213 (cf. JBA ‫אסר‬, ‫)קטר‬, and by modern times ryf, raf, rɔyef ‘to tie’ superseded the latter two verbs altogether. The etymology of M rup, ryf is uncertain. Two possible etyma should be taken into consideration: (1) ryf ‘to tie’ possibly evolved from rfy ‘to loosen’214 (cf. šty > M šut, šyt) with inversion of meaning. If this etymology is valid, M rup would be a byform of rpa (i.e. rpy) ‘to loosen, relax, slacken, weaken, undo’ (cf. JBA ‫רפי‬ ‘to be loose, etc.’); (2) ryf may well stem from lyf < lff,215 corresponding to CM lpp, lup ‘to join, unite to, connect, knit together’, and cf. also Syr. ‫ܠܦܦ‬, ‫‘ ܠܘܦ‬to join’, JBA ‫לפף‬, active part. ‫‘ לייף‬to join, wrap, swaddle’. The change r < l can be compared with kārōzā ‘herald’ (BA ‫ > ) ָּכרֹוזָ א‬CM kaluza ‘proclamation’.216 The other NA languages are more conservative vis-à-vis NM ryf: NM NENA to tie ryf ʔsr, ysr +

Ṭuroyo WNA ʔṣṛ ḳtr

NENA dialectal cognates such as ʔāsər, ʔāṣəṛ, yāsər and Ṭur. maṣəṛ (ʔṣṛ in neo-ap̄ ʿel) are modern reflexes of common pre-modern Aramaic ‫‘ אסר‬to tie’. WNA, on the other hand, lost this verb and uses ḳtr, iḳtar, yiḳtur for ܲ the meaning ‘to tie’. The latter verb, which developed from ‫ ְק ַטר‬, ‫ܛܪ‬ � ‫‘ ܩ‬to tie, fasten’ with dissimilation of ṭ from ḳ, is cognate with NENA qāṭər ‘to tie

212 DJPA 556b. 213 See MD 432a, 29b, 88a. 214 As suggested by Macuch (HCMM 254, n. 263). 215 As suggested by Dietrich (1967: 303b). 216 For this and other cases of r > l (and vice versa) in CM see Nöldeke 1875: 54–55, HCMM 53.



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

189

with a knot, make a knot (in some dialects also ‘to build an arch’)’217 and Ṭur. qoṭər ‘to tie with a knot’ (among other meanings).218 12. ṣyṯ ‘to hear, listen’ NM is the only Aramaic variety that lost any trace of the Proto-Semitic verbal root which yielded Aram. ‫ ְׁש ַמע‬, šma ‘to hear’. Instead, NM uses the verb ṣyṯ, ṣaṯ, ṣɔyeṯ ‘to hear, listen’, which was restricted to the sense of listening in earlier Aramaic, as is ‫( צות‬ap̄ ʿel) in Egyp.Aram.,219 and in later Aramaic varieties such as JPA (ap̄ ʿel) ‘to listen, heed’, JBA (pəʿal, ap̄ ʿel) ‘to listen, obey, heed’ and Syr. ‫‘ ܨܘܬ‬ditto’. Already in CM ṣut and šma appear to have assumed the meanings ‘to hear’ and ‘to listen’, respectively, in addition to their earlier meanings,220 whilst in NM this apparent synonymity was resolved by the complete take-over of ṣyṯ and disappearance of šmy. All other NA varieties preserve the verbal root šmʕ (or a reflex of it), and, moreover, the bulk of NA dialects, to be precise NENA and Ṭuroyo, retain the old distinction between šmʕ ‘hear’ and ṣyṯ ‘listen’: NM NENA hear ṣyṯ šmɁ, šmy, +šmy listen ṣyṯ ṣyṯ, ṣyt, +syt, ṣyl

Ṭuroyo šmʕ ṣyṯ, ṣnṭ

Mlaḥsô221 WNA šmʕ šmʕ ? šmʕ, nṣṭ

Hence it is evident that in each of the eastern and western poles of NA the lexical Aramaic distinction between ‘to hear’ and ‘to listen’ was lost: NM lost *šmy and uses ṣyṯ for both meanings, whereas WNA lost *ṣyṯ and generalised išmeʕ (Bax. išmaʕ), yišmaʕ for both meanings. In addition, WNA َ‫نَ َ ت‬ �‫‘ �����ص‬to listen’ whence the verbs anṣeṭ, yanṣeṭ ‘listen, later borrowed Ar. � eavesdrop, be silent’ (Jub.) and čnaṣṣaṭ, yičnaṣṣaṭ (Maʿl.) ‘ditto’. The NENA dialects firmly retain the distinction in question, e.g. in Ashitha šame vs. maṣyəṯ, Arbel šamé vs. maṣíl. The same applies to the rural Ṭuroyo dialects, where šoməʕ (or šomaʕ) is distinct from maṣəṯ (or

217 Some NENA dialects use qṯṛ (or > qsṛ, qtṛ) for ‘to tie with a knot, make a knot’, but its affiliation with qṭr is not quite certain and requires satisfactory clarification. 218 For the semantic scope of this Ṭuroyo verb see Ritter 1990: 255. 219 Kottsieper 1990: 228 and Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 709a define this verb as ‘hear’, but the context of the form ‫ הציתו‬clearly points to ‘listen! (pl.)’, as correctly translated in Cowley 1923: 221:57 (‘hearken’) and in Porten and Yardeni 1986–1999, vol. 3: 33:57 (‘listen’). 220 MD 392, 469. 221 Jastrow 1994: 163.

190

chapter five

maṣaṯ). In the dialect of Midyat (and perhaps some rural dialects) maṣəṯ َ‫نَ َ ت‬ �‫)�����ص‬.222 was replaced by mṣanəṭ ‘to listen’ (< Ar. � 13. šomxɔ ‘onion’ 3. NM šomxɔ, šomx ‘onion’ is not attested in CM sources, and its earliest occurrence in Mandaic is in the 17th century Glossarium (see MD 455b). *šumka must have antedated modern times, however, in the light of JBA ̈ ‫ܫ‬, ‫‘ ܲܫ ̈ܡܟܐ‬type of onions, type of bulbous ‫‘ שמכא‬bulbous plant’, Syr. ‫ܡ ܹܟܐ‬ ܹ � ̤ roots’223 and NENA cognates such as šəmxa ‘wild garlic’, and consider also Akk. šumkū (and šamakāta) ‘onions’, which may have been borrowed from Aramaic.224 The precursor of NM šomxɔ probably denoted a type of onion or a similar bulbous vegetable (perhaps scallion or leek), and at some point in the history of Mandaic assumed the meaning ‘onion’225 and drove out any trace of the erstwhile generic term for ‘onion’, attested in TO as pl. ‫ּבּוצ ֵלי‬ ְ , and in various Western and Eastern Aramaic varieties, e.g. JPA ‫בצל‬, ܵ det. ‫ביצלא‬, Syr. ‫ ̤ܒܨܠܐ‬, JBA ‫בוצלא‬, ‫( בצלא‬cognate with H ‫ ָּב ָצל‬and Ar. ‫صل‬ َ َ ‫)ب‬. Reflexes of *beṣlā are preserved elsewhere in NA: NM NENA Ṭuroyo WNA onion šomxɔ bəṣla, bəṣlá, pəṣlá, pəslá baṣlo beṣla

13. šry ‘to open; untie; release’ NM is one of very few Aramaic varieties that lost all trace of the inherited Aramaic and common Semitic verb ptḥ, CM pth, pta, pht ‘to open’. Instead, NM resorts to šry, which is also still used in its erstwhile meanings ‘to untie, undo’ and ‘to release, set free’, as CM šra. NM šry is inflected in pəʿal, šərɔ́ , šɔri, for ‘to open (tr.); to untie, release’, and in eṯpəʿel, ešrɔ (CM ʿštra, ʿštria), mešrɔ, for ‘to open (intr.), to blossom’. The semantic broadening of NM šry from untying and opening a knot to ‫ن‬ ‫‘ ب�ا�ز ک‬to open; opening in general, which was likely a calque on NP � ‫�رد‬ untie’, was followed by the replacement of *pth by šry. The uniqueness of NM in the framework of NA in connection with the semantic scope of the verb šry is shown in the following comparison: 222 For Ṭur. ṣnṭ and ṣyṯ see Tezel 2003: 88–89. 223 See Thesaurus 4209–4210, SL 1573b. See further Löw 1881: 75. 224 See Abraham and Sokoloff 2011: 52b. 225 Another Mandaic word related to the onion is CM kauara ‘onion used in ritual ‫‘ ك‬leek’ (cf. MD 196a). meals’ < P ‫�وا ر‬



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

NM NENA open šry pṯx +; Ɂwl, xør untie šry šry, štr; Ɂwl release šry rpy

Ṭuroyo fṯḥ, pṯḥ šry rfy, rpy

191

Mlaḥsô226 WNA psḥ fṯḥ ? fkk ? nfḳ

ܲ Almost all NA varieties retain reflexes of ‫ܦܬܚ‬, � ‫‘ ְּפ ַתח‬to open’: NENA pāṯəx (and dialectal variants: palə́ x, pātəḥ, pāsəx, etc.), Ṭuroyo dialects foṯəḥ, foṯaḥ, poṯaḥ, Mlaḥ. poséḥ, WNA ifṯaḥ, yifṯuḥ. The only exceptions are the majority of Hulaula-NENA dialects, which use the verbal roots Ɂwl ‘to do’ ( *haṣṣɔ > ḥaṣṣɔ, probably due to partial assimilation to the following ṣ. Another such recycling is *ḥnq > *hnq > ḥnq, ḥənáq, ḥɔneq ‘to choke, tr., strangle’, eḥneq, meḥneq ‘to suffocate’, quite possibly due to partial assimilation to q.



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

195

NM NENA Ṭuroyo WNA belt, girdle ḥaṣrofɔ xāṣa, šibāqa + ḥāṣo, qāyiše zunnōra

NENA xāṣa, xāṣá (e.g. in Qaraqosh, Dobe) and Ṭur. ḥaṣo, which are cognate with NM ḥaṣṣɔ, ḥaṣ ‘back’, refer to both ‘back’ and ‘cummerbund, belt’ (the traditional girdle also worn by the Kurds). Some NENA dialects (e.g. Betanure, Lizin) use xərxāṣa242 for ‘cummerbund’, which seems to be a hybrid of Kurdish xir̄ (as in xir̄ ve ‘gathered’) and native xāṣa ‘back’. Some other NENA words are šibāqa (e.g. in Mer ‘cummerbund, belt’, Alqosh ‘belt’), šəbāqa (Harbole ‘cummerbund, belt’), šəbbāqa (Barwar243 ‘ditto’), of obscure etymology; in many NENA varieties kamar, kamara (and similar dialectal forms) ‘ditto’, from Kurdish kemer ‘belt’; and qāyiš (Barwar), qāyə́ š (J.Urmi) ‘belt’, from Azerbaijani and dialectal Turkish qayış ‘belt’, whence also Ṭur. dialects qayiše, qariše, qariš (etc.) ‘belt’. 3. kerehwɔ ‘quickly’ NM kerehwɔ, kerehəw ‘quickly’244 replaced the older M adverb (b)ligal (cf. ܲ ܲ ‫ܓܓܠ‬ ܲ ‘id.). The compound kerehwɔ comprises: (1) a JBA ‫לעגל‬, Syr. ‫ܥܓܠ‬ � � ‫ܒ‬, � comparative preposition ke ‘like, as’, and (2) NM rehwɔ ‘wind’ (also ‘air, weather’), hence kerehwɔ ‘like the wind’245 > ‘quickly’. The first part of the compound, ke, is not used independently as a comparative preposition, but only in kerehwɔ and probably in the NM comparative preposition hemke ‘like, as’. The latter has the forms hamka, hamkia in the Glossarium (see MD 123b) and appears to correspond to CM ham kḏ ‘at the same time as’.246 A non-reduced reflex of kḏ [kaḏ] occurs in the NM compound keṯkem ‘how much?’, and kem is probably the very frequent short variant of kemmɔ ‘how’ (CM kma ‘how, how much, how long’).247 242 Possibly also xarxāṣa (see Maclean 1901: 106). 243 Khan 2008: 1405. 244 This word is listed in MD 215b as kirihua ‘immediately, on time’, since it occurs in literary M, more accurately in ms. DC 46, and is correctly labeled a modern word. The MD definition should therefore be ‘quickly’. In HCMM kerehwɔ denotes both ‘early’ (501a) and ‘soon’ (520b) in addition to ‘quickly’ (234 et passim), yet only the meaning ‘quickly’ could be corroborated with my informants. In Ahvaz-NM the adverb meaning ‘early’ is gehi ~ mə-géhi, of uncertain origin, perhaps ultimately from ngh ‘to dawn’, whence, probably, Syr. ܵ ‫ܓܘ‬ ‫ܗܓ ܵܗܐ‬ ܼ ‘dawn, morning light’ and Chamba d-Mallik gāha ‘dawn’, assuming *guhgāhā > *gugāha > reanalysis: *gu (‘in’) gāha > ellipsis gāha. 245 As already explained in HCMM 167:5, and cf. English swift as the wind. 246 For the latter phrase see Nöldeke 1975: 465:15–16, MD 122b, s.v. ham 1. See HCMM 24:32–25:3. 247 First recognised in HCMM 24:32–25:3.

196

chapter five

The reduction of *kaḏ to ke may have been influenced by the assumedly Iranian loanword ke (cf. NP ‫��ه‬ ‫ ك‬, ki ‘that, who’) which is used as (1) a conjunction, denoting ‘that, in order that; because; when’, (2) a relative particle, denoting ‘that, which, who’.248 The second part of kerehwɔ, kerehəw is NM rehwɔ, rehəw, which replaced CM ruha in the sense ‘wind’ and is found in the Glossarium and in post-cl. or early modern M as rihua. However, it appears to be much older, since the word ‫‘ ריחואה‬wind’ was recently discovered in two unpublished JBA magic bowls.249 The origin of rehwɔ, rihua, ‫ ריחואה‬is not quite certain. Macuch derives rihua from rhw ‘to be set at large, be relieved’ < rwh ‘id.’ < ‫;רוח‬250 but an etymological affiliation with ruha ‘wind; spirit’ is highly likely. The NA parallel adverbs denoting ‘quickly’ are given in what follows: NM NENA quickly kerehwɔ hayya, qalula +

Ṭuroyo xayifo

Mlaḥsô WNA xayfó251 ḳawwō(m)

Quite unlike the NM innovation, various NENA dialects preserve reflexes of *hayyā ‘quickly’ (JBA ‫)הייא‬, e.g. Gzira hayya, Sandu hayyo, C.Shaqlawa hāya. Some other NENA dialects, e.g. Alqosh, use the adjective qalula ‘light, quick’ adverbially to denote ‘quickly’ as well, and reduced forms thereof are found in some other dialects, e.g. C.Sulemaniyya qala. Many other NENA dialect use a loanword for ‘quickly’, inter alia J.Salmas tēz, from Azerbaijani ‘id’, MarBishu jalde, from NP ‫ ( ج��ل�د‬jald) ‘quick’. A NENA parallel of obscure etymology, found in some northwestern Christian dialects is dahude (e.g. in Benikhre and Ishshi), dahüde (Jinet, Haṣṣan). All other NA parallels are borrowed from Arabic: Mlaḥsô xayfó ‘quickly’, Ṭur. xayifo ‘light, quick(ly), early’ are derived from *xafifo < Anat.Ar. xafīf ‫َ ف‬ ‘id.’252 < Ar. ���‫‘ خ����فِ ي‬light, quick’; and WNA ḳawwō(m) is borrowed from

248 Macuch (HCMM 234, MD 211b) considered ke a reduced form of CM kḏ ‘when, as, like’, which assumed also the function of NP ‫��ه‬ ‫( ك‬ki) ‘that, who’, whereas Häberl (2009: 332) derives NM ke from the NP relative particle ‫��ه‬ ‫ ك‬as well as from NP ‫( كى‬kai) ‘when?’. Although the resemblance of NM ke to NP ki in form and meaning is too obvious to be ignored, it is also very similar to JBA ‫‘ כי‬like, as’ and to Akk. kî, kê ‘like, according to’, perhaps by sheer coincidence and perhaps not. 249 Dr. Matthew Morgenstern, p.c., and see Morgenstern 2013: 49. 250 Macuch 1993: 426a, 427b, and esp. 433a. 251  Jastrow 1994: 194. 252 See these meanings and others in Vocke and Waldner 1982: 142.



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

‫َق‬

197

Syr.Ar. qawām ‘quickly, immediately’253 < Ar. ‫‘ � َوا‬right (measure, quan‫م‬ tity), what is right’. 4. meskappɔ ‘breast pocket, space between shirt and breast’ NM NENA Ṭuroyo WNA breast pocket meskappɔ ʔubba, gubba + ʕubo (ʕoppa)

Ahvaz-NM meskappɔ, meskáp ‘breast pocket; space between shirt and breast (used for hiding valuables)’ is a compound constructed of the preposition mes ‘inside’ and kappɔ ‘bosom, lap’ (for the latter see pp. 26–27). Its literal meaning is therefore ‘inside the bosom’. The preposition mes is a truncated form of messe ‘middle, in the middle’.254 The latter form, ܵ ‫‘ ܡ‬middle’, cstr. ‫ܨܥܝ‬ ܵ ‫)ܡ‬, related to CM miṣai, miṣaia ‘middle’ (cf. Syr. ‫ܨܥ ܵܝܐ‬ ܸ ܸ is obsolescent in contemporary NM, being rarely used and nearly superseded by the Iranian loanword minjá ‘middle’ and go minjá ‘in the middle’, except for the fixed phrases messe gyeṭɔ ‘midsummer, midsummer heat’ and messe setwɔ ‘midwinter, midwinter cold’. In Macuch’s publications the preposition in question is usually transcribed meṣ (rarely mes) and translated ‘middle, in the middle, in’.255 It may be that mes or meṣ still retained the meaning ‘in the middle’ when Macuch conducted his earliest fieldwork on NM in the 1950s.256 Contemporary NM speakers, however, use mes in the sense ‘inside’ only. Words parallel to meskappɔ elsewhere in NA reflect *ʕubbā ‘bosom’, which occurs in CA as Syr. ‫ܥܘ ܵܒܐ‬, ̣ JBA ‫ אובא‬and CM ʿumba: In NENA the cognates (all meaning ‘breast-pocket, space between garment and breast’) are ʔubba, e.g. in Umra Ḥtaya, ʔəbba in Hertevin and gubba (< *gu ʔubba ‘in the breast-pocket’) in Barwar and some Hakkâri dialects, e.g. Bne Belatha. Ṭuroyo has ʕubo ‘ditto’; and the meaning of the WNA cognate ʕoppa expanded to include any pocket. Additionally, in NENA there are borrowings from the Arabic cognate ّ ُ �‫‘ �ع� ب‬breast pocket’: J.Zakho ʕubba and Alqosh and other Mosul dialects ʕəbba ‘ditto’. 253 See Barthélemy 1935–1969, vol. 4: 692. 254 My informants rejected the form meṣṣa in Macuch 1993: 415 and furnished messe instead. 255 See, e.g., Macuch 1989: 236. 256 Consider, e.g. Macuch 1965: 170, 2nd line from bottom: nešqa se daḥfá meṣ fotta ‘he kissed her three times in the middle of (or: ‘on’, lit. ‘in’) her forehead’, and see ibid. 172, n. 281: meṣ ‘in the middle’.

198

chapter five

5. mɔrqɔlɔ ‘rifle’ Ahvaz-NM mɔrqɔlɔ, mɔrqɔ́ l ‘rifle’, a compound of mɔr ‘owner of ’ and qɔlɔ ‘sound, voice’, is now used only by some elderly speakers alongside the Persian loanword tofáng,257 which is presently commonly used in Ahvaz and the only word for ‘rifle’ in Khor.-NM. mɔrqɔlɔ is the only native Aramaic term for ‘rifle’, all other NA languages exhibiting a loanword for this object:258 NM NENA Ṭuroyo WNA rifle mɔrqɔlɔ, tofáng top, tupanj + tfənge buntḳōyṯa +

NENA top, tupanj, təffaq (etc.) and Ṭuroyo tfənge are of Iranian origin— ‫ت �ف گ‬ compare Kurdish top ‘bullet, shell’, tifing ‘rifle’ and NP ���‫( ��� ن‬tofáng) ‘id.’; and WNA dialects buntḳōyṯa, buntḳa, mintoḳṯa, muntoḳṯa are borrowed ‫�ُنْ� ُ�د � ّ��َ��ة‬ from Arabic ‫ ب قِ ي‬. 6. pasqəmɔšɔ ‘scissors’259 NM pasqəmɔšɔ, pasqəmɔ́ š is a unique hybrid blend, the components of which being (1) pasq, apparently a reduced form of pɔseq ‘it cuts’, from the Aramaic verbal root psq ‘to cut’ (see p. 154) and (2) qəmɔšɔ, qəmɔ́ š ‘piece of cloth, fabric, textile; article of clothing’, the sg. form of qəmɔšɔnɔ, qəmɔšɔ́ n

‫قَُ ش‬

‘clothes’, from Ar. ��� ‫‘ ��م�ا‬cloth, textile’. Parallels in other NA languages are as follows: NM NENA Ṭuroyo WNA scissors pasqəmɔšɔ maqqaṣ, qayčí + maqaṣ, maqaṣe maṣfarča

257 Both are attested in Macuch 1993: 412 and 443, respectively. Additionally, according to HCMM 502, 202:2 mɔrqɔlɔ means ‘fart’, surely referring to a loud or audible fart, but this could not‫گ‬be corroborated with my informants, who only know guz for an audible fart ‫ ) � �ز‬and tos for a silent fart (< imitative). It might be that mɔrqɔlɔ once also had (< NP ‫�و‬ the meaning ‘audible fart’, at least dialectally or in the Ṣaburi sub-dialect of Ahvaz-NM, but this is now obsolete. 258 Except for some cryptic terms in a few NENA dialects, e.g. Tina Ɂadroša, from Ɂāy d-roša ‘that of the shoulder’ (as rifles are often slung over the shoulder), whereas the regular Tina term for ‘rifle’ is the loanword təffaq (for which see below). 259 Cf. HCMM 519a ‘scissors’—“pəsāqa”, yet NM pəsɔqɔ, pəsɔ́ q is a verbal noun denoting ‘cutting’.



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

199

WNA maṣfarča (Bax. maṣfarća) is the only inherited Aramaic word for ܵ ܲ ܲ ‘scissors, shears’ in NA—cf. JBA ‫‘ מספרתא‬scissors’, Syr. ‫ܣܦܪܬܐ‬ � ‫‘ �ܡ‬scissors;260 razor, sharp knife’. NENA maqqaṣ, maqqəṣ, maqaṣta, məqqaṣta etc. are ّ َ‫َ �ق‬ ّ َ‫�ق‬ from Ar. ‫�م�� �ا �ص‬, the pl. of ‫‘ �ِم�� ���ص‬scissors’, and so are Ṭur. maqaṣ, maqaṣe. Some NENA dialects in Iran borrowed qayčí (e.g. J.Urmi, Saqiz), k̭eč ̭i (C.Urmi) from the local dominant languages: Azerbaijani qayçı, Kurdish ‫ق‬ ����‫‘ ���ی‬scissors’. qeyçi and NP ‫چی‬ 7. tešberqɔ ‘lightning’ NM NENA Ṭuroyo WNA lightning tešberqɔ bərqa + barqo barḳa

NM tešberqɔ, tešbérq is a hybrid compound, based on the inherited word ܵ ‫)ܒ‬ for ‘lightning’ (CM birqa, cf. Syr. ‫ܪܩܐ‬ � ܲ to which teš, borrowed from Iranian, is augmented. The latter clearly corresponds to Luri taš,261 and NP ‫( �آ �ت ش‬ɔtéš), both ‘fire’. The inherited Aramaic form, berqɔ, still survives in �� � Khor. ṭallɔ-w-bérqɔ ‘rainbow’ (< *‘dew and lightning’), the components of which are now opaque to the speakers (and see p. 19). Other NA varieties preserve the inherited Aramaic forms bərqa, bərqá (NENA), barqo (Ṭuroyo) and barḳa (WNA). Some NENA dialects, moreover, replaced the Aramaic word with a loanword, e.g. Bijar barq, from ‫ق‬ NP � ‫ < ب�ر‬Arabic ‘ditto’. 5.4 Some Unique Neo-Mandaic Words of Unknown or Uncertain Origin NM NENA 1. body tombɔ gušma, paġra, lāša + 2. fee, wages pɔlɔ Ɂāṛa, ora, ḥaqq + 3. cock’s comb qornɔsɔ, golɔlɔ tāɁa, tāta + 4. alley kəpilɔ Ɂalola, kolāna + 5. rib litɔ Ɂəlla, parsuwa + 6. cut hair gby grɁ, qyṣ, gyč̣, qrṭ 7. shave gby grɁ, gry, +gry

Ṭuroyo WNA gəšmo, laše žesma ḥaqq aġra ḥarire, ḥalile ʕorfa šquqo, zabuqo + zaḳzūḳa Ɂalʕo, parsuwe ʕalʕa qyṣ ḥlḳ ḥlq ḥlḳ

260 Vocalisation and meaning are according to Audo 1897: 661a. 261  See Anonby 2003: 188.

200

chapter five

Comments: 1. A possible etymological solution to the enigmatic NM word tombɔ, tomb ‘body (of a living creature, especially human)’ is to (hesitantly) consider it a reflex of LM tunba, whose earliest meaning can be reconstructed as *‘rigidity,262 stiffness’, based on JBA ‫‘ תנב‬to become stiff ’ and NA (NENA, Ṭuroyo) tnw ‘to go numb (limb)’, e.g. in Kerend aqlí tniwa, Ṭur. raġli taniwa ‘my leg went numb’. The semantic change from ‘rigidity’ to ‘body’ may not be radical in a culture that stresses the distinction between the sphere of the soul and spiritual beings (lighbeings, demons) and that of matter and the material world, hence the human body might have been perceived as a rigid entity as opposed to the soul and the spiritual world. Furthermore, this postulated semantic shift may have been induced or facilitated by similar sounding Middle Iranian words denoting ‘body’, namely tanbār and tambār.263 If tunba and tombɔ are indeed etymologically related and the semantic change ‘rigidity’ > ‘body’ has to do with the influence of (coincidentally) similar Middle Iranian parallels, then tunba would have been used in the unattested meaning ‘body’ already in pre-modern Mandaic as a language contemporaneous with Middle Iranian. The etymology of NM tombɔ remains, however, highly uncertain.264 Among the NA parallels are NENA gušma in the area of Mosul and the dialectal Ṭuroyo cognate gəšmo. The precursor of these is attested ْ in CA ܵ ‫ܓܘ‬. languages such as JBA ‫גושמא‬, Syr. ‫ܫܡܐ‬ ̣ The Arabic cognate ‫‘ جِ���س‬body’ ‫م‬ is the source of the WNA parallel žesma (Bax. jesma) ‘ditto’. Another dialectal NENA parallel is qalwa, essentially ‘mould’ (whence ‘form, shape’ > ‘shape of human body, figure’ > ‘human body’), e.g. in Betanure. Thisَ harks back to *qālḇā, which is either a very early borrow‫ق‬ ing of Ar. �‫‘ ��اِ�ل� ب‬mould’ or the NENA cognate of the latter. The Christian NENA word paġra (e.g. in Sat), paxra (e.g. in Barwar) can hardly be an inherited NENA word in light of the NENA sound shift ġ > ʕ > ʔ/zero. It is in all likelihood a vernacularised classicism derived from Syriac liturgy. 262 In MD 483b this meaning is part of the definition of tunba, but it is not borne out from the textual sources, where it appears to denote a certain illness and pathogenic spirit. 263 Thus (Manichaean) Parthian tanbār, tambār ‘body’ (see Durkin-Meisterernst 2004: 324), Pehlavi tanbār ‘physique’ (adduced by Prof. Martin Schwartz, p.c., as a correction of MacKenzie 1986: 82, 127 tan-bahr, tanbahr) and, farther afield, Sogdian tambār ‘body’ (Gharib 1995: 387–388). 264 It is also unclear whether the JBA lexical oddity ‫‘ תובא‬body’ (see DJBA 1196b) is etymologically related.



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

201

Various other NENA dialects exhibit Iranian loanwords such as Ṣablagh gyāná < Kurd. giyan ‘soul’ and C.Koy Sanjaq lašša, Birsive lāša < Kurd. leş, laşe ‘body’. The latter Kurdish word is the source of dialectal Ṭuroyo laše as well. 2. NM pɔlɔ, pɔl ‘fee, wages, salary’ is yet another word of uncertain origin, perhaps an early borrowing from local Ar. pwāla, pl. of pūl ‘small Persian coin’265 < NP ‫‘ پ�و ل‬money’. All other NA parallels have transparent etyma: WNA aġra preserves CA ‫‘ ַאגְ ָרא‬fee’, and its NENA cognates are still in the same meaning in a few dialects, such as Lizin Ɂāṛa, BorbRuma ora. In many other NENA dialects the forms Ɂāra (e.g. in Isnakh, Betanure), Ɂāṛa (Benikhre, etc.) have undergone a semantic narrowing and denote ‘multure’, and in a few Ṭyare dialects (e.g. Bne Shtinnara) Ɂāṛa denotes ‘fee given to hired herder’. Most NENA dialects, as well as Ṭuroyo, + replaced َ the native word for ‘fee’ with ḥaqq (in NENA also hāq, haquṯa) ّ‫� ق‬ < Ar. �‫‘ ح‬right, fee’. 3. In Ahvaz-NM some say qornɔsɔ, qornɔ́ s for ‘cock’s comb’ and some others say golɔlɔ, golɔ́ l266 (whereas Khorramshahr informants were unable to furnish any word). Both are of obscure origin. The word qornɔsɔ is reminiscent of JBA ‫קורנסא‬, which refers to one of the antennae or proboscis of a gnat, and is perhaps a diminutive form of ‫‘ קרנא‬horn’.267 Kwasman regards this word and JBA ‫‘ קורנסא‬hammer, mallet’ as one and the same ܵ ‫‘ ܩܘ‬ditto’. Although word,268 hence a cognate of CM qurnasa and Syr. ‫ܪܢ ܵܣܐ‬ ̣ a semantic shift ‘little horn’ > ‘cock’s comb’ is not far-fetched, to my mind, the etymology of JBA ‫ קורנסא‬itself is not certain, and its affiliation with NM qornɔsɔ would be rather conjectural. ܵܵ As for golɔlɔ, an affiliation to Syr. ‫ܟܘܠܠܐ‬ ̣ ‘coronation’ may be taken into consideration, but a more secure etymology should rather be sought. NENA has the dialectal cognates tāʔa (Alqosh), tāta (e.g. MarBishu), +tāta (e.g. Sat) etc., from ‫ ָּתגָ א‬, ‫‘ * ָּתגְ ָּתא‬crown’ (< Iranian tāg), as well as various loanwords such as Tekab popá < Kurd. pop ‘crest, cock’s comb’, and J.Urmi kakültá < Az. kəkil ‘tuft, crest’. 265 Woodhead and Beene 1967: 53b. 266 Possibly two dialectal NM words that were brought to Ahvaz by Mandaeans from Shahvali, Shushtar and other communities who founded the Ahvazi Mandaean community around the end of the 19th century. 267 See Epstein 1960: 116, DJBA 1003, s.v. 2 ‫קורנסא‬, in both defined ‘little horn’. However, the expected form of such a diminutive of ‫‘ קרנא‬horn’ would be ‫—*קרנוסא‬cf. Syr. -ōsā (Nöldeke 1904: 80) and -usa in CM, attested in the pl. form ʿmbrusia ‘little lambs’ (HCMM 197)—or ‫( *קרנוסתא‬for JBA f. diminutive suffix -ustā see Epstein 1960: 116). 268 See Kwasman 2012: 87 and DJBA 1003a, s.v. 1 ‫קורנסא‬.

202

chapter five

Ṭur. ḥarire, ḥalile are clearly foreign, but their etymology is unknown to ‫ُ ف‬ me; and another loanword is WNA ʕorfa < Ar. ��‫‘ �ع ْر‬crest, comb, mane’. 4. NM kəpilɔ, kəpíl ‘alley’ is of unknown origin and has, as far as is known, no Aramaic cognates. In NENA some dialects use the native word Ɂalola, +Ɂalula (in C.Urmi +Ɂalula also denotes ‘street’), from ‫‘ עלל‬to enter’, while most resort to loanwords, such as Sandu kolāna, Ṭyare k̭olāna < ‫ ک‬, Azerbaijani küçə, all ‘alley, Kurd. kolan, Bijar kučá, J.Urmi küčá < NP ‫�و چ��ه‬ street’. ‫�زُ َق ق‬ Most other NA parallels ultimately hark back to Ar. � ‫‘ ��ا‬alley’ or are influenced by this word. These include Qaraqosh zuqāqa, WNA zaḳzūḳa, Midin-Ṭur. skake, via some Kurdish intermediary, and dialectal Ṭur. ָ ‘street; market’ (ultimately šquqo269 which is derived from ‫ܫܘ ܵܩܐ‬, ̣ ‫ׁשּוקא‬ ‫�زُ َق ق‬ from Akkadian)270 with morphological influence of � ‫ ��ا‬. Midyat-Ṭur. ‫�زَ ُ َق ة‬ zabuqo ‘alley’ is from Anat.Ar. zābṓq ‘id.’, related to literary Ar. ���‫ا ب�و‬ ‘secluded place or corner in house’.271 5. NM litɔ, lit ‘rib’ could hardly reflect *ʕelʕīṯā, a diminutive of a form ܵ ̤‫)ܐ‬, attested as WNA ʕalʕa, TO ‫( ִע ְל ָעא‬and cf. also BA pl. ‫ ִע ְל ִעין‬, Syr. ‫ܠܥܐ‬ since such a proto-form would have yielded **lextɔ (for -īṯā > -extɔ see p. 93, n. 13). Furthermore, Akk. lītu, a by-form of lētu ‘cheek; side of person, object’ would also be a rather tenuous source, especially since the expected reflex of such an etymon would have likewise been (*līṯā >) **lextɔ. No other potential source was found for litɔ, and its etymology remains a conundrum. Apart from WNA, the inherited Aramaic word for ‘rib’ survives in some NENA dialects, e.g. MarBishu Ɂəlla, Sat +Ɂella, Tisqopa Ɂəla and Qaraqosh ləlʔa ~ ləʔəlṯa. Other cognates are Midyat-Ṭuroyo Ɂalʕo, and according to Ritter (1979: 31), Ɂalʕo ‘rib with meat’ in the Ṭuroyo dialect of ʿIwardo. A unique innovation of some Lishana Deni dialects, e.g. colloquial Nerwa, is ܲ qaṭāra, related to ‫ ְק ַטר‬, ‫ܛܪ‬ � ‫‘ ܩ‬to tie, fasten’. As far as can be established, elsewhere in NA the Aramaic word was replaced by a Kurdish loanword, e.g. Barwar parsuwa, Midin-Ṭur. parsuwe, or by the Azerbaijani word qabırğa ‘rib’ > J.Urmi +qaburqa, J.Salmas qaburqa, C.Urmi +k̭aburġa, +k̭abuġra.

269 The latter is according to Ritter 1979: 501. 270 See Kaufman 1974: 93. 271  See Tezel 2003: 121



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

203

6 and 7. NM gby, gabbi, mgabbi ‘to cut hair (of the head, beard), have a haircut; shave’272 is of uncertain origin. An affinity with CM gba ‘to choose out, gather’ is highly improbable on semantic grounds. Perhaps it is ultimately related to the same root of Syr. ‫ܓܒ ܵܚܐ‬ ̣ܵ and BH ‫‘ ּגִ ֵּב ַח‬bald in the front of the head’ (cf. also Akk. gubbuḫu ‘bald’), and harks back to an Aramaic cognate of the Mishnaic Hebrew verb ‫ גבח‬in piʿʿel: ‫( והמגבח לגודגדון‬var. ‫‘ )והמגבה‬and the one who shaves a bald-pate’ (in the Tosefta),273 but such an etymon requires the assumption of unattested ‫ *ּגַ ַּבח‬in pre-modern Aramaic. Most parallel NA verbs are related to clear or less obscure etyma: NENA ܲ gāreɁ, gare etc. from ‫ܓܪܥ‬, � ‫‘ ּגְ ַרע‬id.’ and Ṭur. ḥoləq, WNA iḥleḳ, yiḥluḳ < Ar. َ‫َ َق‬ �‫ح��ل‬. In addition, various NENA dialects use reflexes of ‫ ּגְ ַרע‬for the sense of shaving only and other verbs for cutting hair or cutting with scissors in general: gyč̣, gāyəč̣ in Ṭyare (etymology?) and qrṭ, maqrəṭ (e.g. in Barwar), +k̭rṱ, +mak̭rəṱ (C.Urmi), apparently from the same root as qārəṭ ‘to nibble ܲ or bite loudly’, cf. Syr. ‫ܩܪܛ‬ � ‘to gnaw, wound with beak, split, engrave’; and qyṣ, qāyəṣ (< ‫‘ )קצץ‬to cut with scissors (including hair)’, e.g. in Umra Ḥtaya, which is cognate with Ṭur. qoyəṣ ‘ditto’. 5.5 Various Other Unique Neo-Mandaic Words and Meanings The following are unique NM lexemes that do not fall into the categories in the previous paragraphs §5.1–§5.4, and are compared with various parallels in other NA varieties: Gloss NM NENA 1. dung beetle gɔlɔ xarpušta + 2. testicle kəluyɔ, biyyɔ ʔišəkṯa + 3. thread tɔlɔ gədda + 4. narrow zalilɔ ʔiqa, ʕiqa 5. slender, thin zalilɔ nəqḏa, daqiqa 6. search bqy ṭɁy, blbl, čyr + 7. find hzy, bqy štx, xzy, tḥy + 8. where? eli ʔayka, ka- 9. to, chez qɔr geb, kəs +

Ṭuroyo ḥaršəfto šeko, bəḥto + ḥuṭo ʕiqo rafiʕo krx ḥzy ayko gab, se

Mlaḥsô WNA ? ḥluffašīṯa + ? beʕṯa ? ḥūṭa ? ḏuḥḥuḳ + ? marfuʕ krx274 twr ḥzy275 ščḥ eyko276 hōn, anik + geb277 ġapp-

272 The meaning ‘to choose’, attributed to NM in MD 79a and HCMM 496b, is restricted to CM gba. 273 See Jastrow 1903: 205b and http://hebrew-treasures.huji.ac.il, s.v. ‫גבח‬. 274 Talay 2002: 710. 275 Jastrow 1994: 158. 276 Jastrow 1994: 173. 277 Jastrow 1994: 174.

204

chapter five

Comments: 1. The NM term for ‘dung beetle’ and similar black scarabs, gɔlɔ, gɔl, stands out from those in the other NA languages. The latter exhibit the cognates xarpušta ‘dung beetle’ (NENA, e.g. in Tisqopa, Karimlesh, while some NENA dialects replaced it with innovations such as gambəl-ə́ xre, literally ‘shit-roller’), ḥaršəfto (Ṭuroyo) and ḥluffašīṯa (WNA, where a metathesised form fuləḥšīṯa also exists) ‘ditto’.278 The NENA, Ṭuroyo and WNA cognates are etymologically related to ܵ JBA ‫חפושתא‬, ‫ חפושיתא‬and to ‫ܪܦܘܫܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫ ܲ�ܚ‬in Bar Bahlul’s lexicon, all denoting ‘beetle’.279 NM rather exhibits a reflex of CM gala ‘tortoise, turtle’, which ܵ ܵ is also attested in Syr. as ‫ܓܠܐ‬280 ‘id.’, and these are cognate with MH pl. ‫ּגַ ִּלים‬. The latter is possibly already attested in BH, if ‫ ּגַ ִּלים‬in Hosea 12:12 is to be construed as ‘tortoises’.281 The change of meaning ‘tortoise’ > ‘dung beetle’ in NM is based on the superficial similarity of these two creatures, especially since both are covered with an upper shell. The lexical connection between tortoise and ܵ ܵ beetle is also evident in Syriac ‫ܪܝ ̣ܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫‘ ܩ‬weevil; tortoise’, as well as in some Ṭyare dialects, where qrāya (e.g. in Sarspidho) or ʔəqrāya (Bne Belatha) signifies ‘tortoise’, and the feminine-diminutive form derived from it, i.e. qrɛṯa or ʔəqrayša (both < *qrayṯa), respectively, signifies ‘beetle (in particular large beetle)’.282 The only other vestige of CA gālā ‘tortoise’ in NA is found in Ṭuroyo dialects as part of the compound qaḥpugulo (Bsorino), qaḥfogulo (other rural dialects). Although the form gulo deviates from *golo, the expected reflex of gālā in Ṭuroyo, it can hardly be doubted that its ancestral form is indeed gālā. The first word in the Ṭuroyo compound is qaḥfo ‘skull, cranium, flower pot, potsherd’,283 which also occurs in NENA, mostly as qaḥfa, e.g. in J.Zakho ‘clay flower pot, potsherd (also ugly woman)’.284 The ori278 Further, Maʿl. ḳašīša ‘priest’ (Syr. ‫ܫܝ ܵܫܐ‬ ̣ ‫‘ ܲ �ܩ‬id.’) refers to the same or a similar black beetle. ܵ 279 Note also Syr. ‫ܒܫܘܫܬܐ‬ ܼ ‫‘ ܲ�ܚ‬ditto’. 280 Vocalisation is according to Audo 1897: 138b, Manna (and Bidawid) 1975: 105a, Cardahi, 2007, vol. 1: 171a. 281 See Talshir 2012: 93–94. 282 For further lexical connections between ‘tortoise’ and ‘beetle’ consider Greek χελώνη ‘tortoise’, and its derivative χελωνιάσ ‘a kind of beetle’ (Liddell and Scott 1996: 1987b, s.v. χελώνη) and English tortoise beetle, which is a type of leaf beetle. 283 Ritter 1979: 392. 284 Sabar 2002: 277a. It is also attested in a NENA text from the area of Mosul as [qaḥfa], pl. qaḥfe ‘pots’ (Lidzbarski 1896, vol. 1: 404:6, vol. 2: 553).



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

205

‫قِ ْ ف‬

� � gin of qaḥfo, qaḥfa is local Ar. qiḥf ‘potsherd’,285 corresponding to Ar. ���‫ح‬ ‘skull, cranium’. qaḥfa was adapted into some NENA dialects as qāpa, e.g. in Betanure ‘large potsherd’ and, most notably, in Ko d-Chalwe Ṭyare ‘tortoise-shell’.286 The latter meaning is crucial evidence for the semantic shift ‘potsherd’ > ‘tortoise-shell’ which probably lies behind the first part of the Ṭuroyo compound qaḥpugulo, qaḥfogulo, although it is possible that, despite the evidence of NENA, the first component of the compound (qaḥpu, qaḥfo) rather meant ‘skull, cranium’ when the compound was formed.287 2. Both NM dialects use the word for ‘egg’ in the sense of ‘testicle’ as well—Ahvaz biyyɔ, bi ‘egg’ (pl. biyyɔnɔ, biyyɔ́ n), Khor.-NM beyyɔ. Speakers of the latter dialect, moreover, use the NM word for ‘kidney’, kəluyɔ, kəlúy, pl. kəluyɔnɔ, kəluyɔ́ n in that sense as well (whereas in Ahvaz kəluyɔ can only mean ‘kidney’), apparently as a euphemistic term. Both words have CM precursors: biyyɔ is a back-formation from biia (which was presumably pronounced biyyi), the pl. of bita ‘egg’;288 and kluiia is one of the variant forms of the CM lexeme for kidney (MD 207a). Among the CA cognates of these two lexemes are JBA ‫ביעתא‬, ‫‘ ביתא‬egg, ܵ ̈ eggshell’, pl. ‫‘ ביעי‬eggs, testicles’, Syr. ‫ܝܥܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫‘ ܹܒ‬egg’, pl. ‫‘ ܹܒ ܹܥܐ‬eggs, testicles’; ܵ ܿ and JBA ‫כוליתא‬, Syr. ‫ܟܘ ̣ܠܝ ̣ܬܐ‬, both ‘kidney’. Furthermore, JPA ‫( כולייה‬det. ‫‘ )כוליתא‬kidney’ denotes ‘testicle’ in the translation ‫ דחסיר כולייה‬for BH ‫רֹוח ָא ֶׁשְך‬ ַ ‫‘ ְמ‬one with a missing testicle’.289 A similar case is Akk. kalīt birki ‘testicle’, lit. ‘kidney of the knee’. The semantic change ‘egg’ > ‘testicle’ in NM may very well have occurred already in pre-modern Mandaic, given the JBA and Syriac cognates and the fact that, cross-linguistically, the same metonymic change, related to the similarity of theseَ roundish objects, has operated in various ‫�َْ� �ض ة‬ ��‫‘ بي‬egg; testicle’, MH ‫‘ ֵּב ִיצים‬eggs; testicles’ other languages, such as Ar. �� � (e.g. in Mishnah, Nedarim 6:6), Azerbaijani yumurta ‘egg; testicle’; and, in 285 See, e.g., Avishur 2008–2010, vol. 3: 400a. 286 Consider also qapqāpa ‘tortoise’ in the NENA dialect of ʿAnkawa, a partially reduplicated derivative of the same qāpa. 287 As assumed by Tezel (2011: 32, 60), and cf. Russian черепаха ‘tortoise’, which is derived from череп ‘skull, cranium’ < old Russian чрепъ ‘shard’ (Vasmer 1953–1958, vol. 3: 323, Wade 1996: 244–245). 288 Likewise šita ‘hour’, pl. šaiia (HCMM 90:13 šāyī), back-formation > NM šɔyɔ ‘hour’— cf. HCMM 178, nn. 62, 63, MD 47a, 60a, 64b, 441a, where biyyɔ and šɔyɔ are incorrectly assumed to be pl. forms used as sg. Note also that baia and biia ‘egg’ in DC 45 and DC 46 (MD 47a, 60a) are (early?) modern Mandaic intrusions in these manuscripts, which are heavily influenced by the vernacular. 289 DJPA 254a.

206

chapter five

non-standard usage, German Ei, Spanish huevo and Serbo-Croatian jaja ‘egg; testicle’. NM biyyɔ, bi ‘egg; testicle’ is cognate with Ṭur. bəḥto and WNA beʕṯa ‘id.’, and the emergence of at least some of these was perhaps induced or ‫�َْ� �ضَ ��ة‬ reinforced by the influence of the cognate ���‫‘ بي‬id.’ in the neighbouring regional Ar. dialects. The word for ‘testicle’ or ‘testicles’ in CM is not quite clear. It is doubtful whether MD (90a) gilda ‘testicle’ (in addition to ‘leather’), according to Macuch’s informant, a Mandaean priest, is accurate. It stands to reason that its occurrence in the context of the buttocks, anus and penis prompted the said informant to assume that its meaning was ‘testicle(s)’. It may, however, rather denoted ‘scrotum’ or perhaps ‘foreskin’, two meanings that indeed apply to the Ṭyare-NENA cognate gəlda. Therefore, it is unclear whether NM biyyɔ replaced an older, pre-modern Mandaic word, or that already in the pre-modern period the only Mandaic word for testicle was bita ‘egg’. The erstwhile Aramaic word for ‘testicle’, found for example in JBA as ‫אשכתא‬, pl. ‫אשכי‬, is not attested in CM. Modern reflexes of this or a similar form exist in NENA as ʔišəkṯa, šəkkiṯa, škaltá, etc., as well as in Ṭur. dialects as šeko, šakṯo, šakwo.290 Although the semantic change ‘kidney’ > ‘testicle’, reflected in Khor.NM kəluyɔ, may be pre-modern, in the light of JPA ‫ כולייה‬and Akk. kalīt birki ‘testicle’, an independent NM innovation, based on the similarity of kidneys to testicles, is also quite possible.291 3. The NM word for ‘thread’, tɔlɔ, tɔl, is of uncertain origin. It may well be related to the NM verb tly, təlɔ́ , tɔli ‘to pull, drag, draw, stretch’, discussed elsewhere in this work (pp. 77, 107). The other NA varieties preserve reflexes of two main Aramaic words for ‘thread’: (1) Ṭur. ḥuṭo and WNA ḥūṭa hark back to the oldest Aramaic word for ‘thread’, being attested already in Off.Aram. as ‫חוט‬.292 (2) NENA gədda in various Christian dialects and gḏāḏa (and regional forms such as gzāza, glālá), mostly in Jewish dialects. Both exist in Ṭyare as gədda ‘thread’ and gḏāḏa ‘string made of several threads twisted 290 The latter is according to Ritter 1979: 485. 291 Cf. Middle Welsh arenn ‘kidney, testicle, stone’ (Matasović 2009: 42), Latin nefronēs ‘kidneys, testicles’ (de Vaan 2008: 404) and the cognates Old Church Slavonic istesa ‘kidneys’ and Old Icelandic eista ‘testicle’ (Derksen 2008: 215). 292 See Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 302. Aram. ḥūṭā has no reflex in Mandaic (note that MD 117a hauṭa ‘thread, sewing, part where sewn together’ should be emended to ‘sewing; sewn part’, and cf. NM hoṭɔ, hoṭ ‘sewing’ hyṭ, haṭ, hɔyeṭ ‘to sew’).



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

207

together’; and both are related to the CA verbal root ‫גדד‬, ‫‘ ܓܕܕ‬to cut off ’. The former, gədda, may well be a NENA innovation, and its occurrence in the dictionaries compiled by Audo (117b) and Manna (91b) could readily be attributed to the influence of the vernacular. The form gḏāḏa is, apparently, in essence a verbal noun, since already ܵܵ in late Syriac ‫ܓܕ ̣ܪܐ‬ ̣ ‘cutting off’ underwent substantivisation, yielding the additional meaning ‘thread’. The same Aramaic root gdd and the same nominal pattern of gḏāḏa yielded the NM cognate gədɔdɔ, gədɔ́ d ‘piece of white cloth (made of pure cotton) which is used to separate between what is ritually pure and ritually impure’,293 and this word is attested in literary M as gdada (var. gadada). 4 and 5. NM zalilɔ, zalíl means (1) ‘narrow’ (antonym: paṯi), (2) ‘thin, slender’ (antonym: əlimɔ), used for inanimate objects such as a stick or a stalk (whereas ‘thin’ for humans and animals is ḏ̣aʕíf ‘thin, weak’ < Ar. ‫َ ف‬ ‫‘ �ض‬id.’).294 ���‫� ِ�عي‬ The antecedent of this NM adjective is attested in literary Mandaic as zalil, zalila ‘light, slight, downy (hair), slender, fine; eager, passionate, ܵ greedy’. There is also a semantically divergent Syriac cognate ‫‘ �ܲܙ ̣ܠܝܠܐ‬tendril; small, despised; lacking; shameless, wanton’, and among the derivatives of ܵ this word is ‫ܠܘ ܵ ̣ܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫‘ �ܲܙ ̣ܠܝ‬lightness; shamelessness; gentle gait’. The participial forms zalila, ‫ �ܲܙ ̣ܠܝܠܐ‬are derived from the verbal root zll, which is essentially related to lightness, CM zll ‘to be of light value, of light weight; to despise, degrade’, Syr. ‫‘ �ܲܙܠ‬to lack weight, become light, be of little value, contemptible (and kindred meanings)’. The earliest attestation of a word from the same root in Aramaic is possibly OA ‫זלה‬, if the meaning is indeed ‘cheapness’.295 Apart from NM zalilɔ, NA derivatives of the Aramaic root zll are NENA ܵ zāla (and dialectal variants) ‘reed, bulrush’ (cf. Syr. ‫‘ �ܲܙܠܐ‬sedge, reed’), and perhaps Bne Belatha zalile and Ṭuroyo dialects zalile, zayile ‘limpid’ (pl. forms, related to water), if these reflect *zallīlē ‘light (not heavy)’ with a semantic change induced by the impact of Kurd. zelal, zulal ‘limpid’

293 It is, e.g., used as a place-mate, separating food from the ground or a table (hence “tablecloth” in MD 80a, HCMM 180:27, 522b) and is used by ritually impure Mandaeans (e.g. menstruating women) as a means of touching objects in order not to pollute other people. 294 Note that “gaṭina” ‘thin’ in HCMM 523a is not a genuine NM word but reflects CM gaṭina, and cf. NM gəṭɔnɔ, gəṭɔ́ n ‘short (human, object, time)’. 295 DNWSI 331, Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 284b.

208

َ ُ‫�ز‬

chapter five

(< Ar. ‫‘ لا ل‬id.), and possibly through the notion of “light water” as against murky water heavy with silt or other dirt.296 Entirely different words for ‘narrow’ and ‘thin, slender’ (for inanimate objects) are used in other NA languages, and, furthermore, unlike NM, where one term refers to both, elsewhere in NA the two terms are lexically distinguished: NM NENA Ṭuroyo WNA narrow zalilɔ ʔiqa, ʕiqa ʕiqo ḏuḥḥuḳ, ḏaḥḥeḳ thin, slender zalilɔ nəqḏa, daqiqa rafiʕo marfuʕ

Whereas NENA and Ṭuroyo preserve reflexes of older Aramaic ‫ִע ָיקא‬ ‘narrow’, in Mandaic it was already obsolete in the classical phase (consider CM ʿliṣ(a),297 zalil(a) for ‘narrow’), and in the WNA dialects it was replaced by ḏuḥḥuḳ, ḏaḥḥeḳ, forms derived from the Aramaic root ‫דחק‬ which is essentially related to pressing. As for the words for ‘slender’, NENA nəqḏa, naqiḏa (and dialectal variants such as Arbel nəqlá) are in most dialects restricted to inanimate ܵ ‫‘ ܲܢ‬clean; thin (voice)’ and ‫‘ ܐ̤ ܬܢܩܕ‬to objects, and are related to Syr. ‫ܩܕܐ‬ � ̣̤ ̣ become thin’.298 Some NENA dialects in the areas of Cudi and Bohtan in Turkey (e.g. Haṣṣan, Hertevin), use daqiqa (or َdāqiqa) for ‘thin, slender’ ܲ (cf. Syr. ‫ܩܝ ܵܩܐ‬ ̣ ‫‘ �ܕ‬flat’). Ṭur. rafiʕo is from Ar. ‫‘ ر فِ�ي��ع‬high, tall, fine, slender’, and WNA marfuʕ is from the same Arabic root. It is noteworthy that there exist other terms for ‘thin’ in NM, namely ‫خَ ف‬ � �� � � Ahvaz qaṣṣíf (etymon?) and Khor. xafíf 299 (< Ar. �‫‘ �فِ ي‬light’).300 These NM terms are used for ‘thin’ in connection with (1) flat objects, e.g. paper, thin loaf of bread, leather, (2) sparse vegetation, (3) the hair of the head, (4) soup, yoghurt, paint and other liquid or viscous materials. Whereas all these meanings are covered by one term in each of the NM dialects, different terms are used at least for some of these meanings in NENA, Ṭuroyo and WNA:

َّ‫َ ق‬

296 For the semantic connection between ‘thin’ and ‘limpid’ cf. Ar. � ‫‘ ر‬to be(come) thin, limpid’. 297 MD 21a, 351b. 298 For the latter form see Thesaurus 2450. 299 In Häberl 2009: 34 et passim read xafíf instead of hafif. 300 See also Iraqi Ar. xafīf in Woodhead and Beene 1967: 140–141, esp. 141b.



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

‘thin’ for: NM NENA flat object qaṣṣíf, xafíf raqiqa, nāzək vegetation qaṣṣíf, xafíf dalila, dayla hair qaṣṣíf, xafíf dalila, dayla liquid qaṣṣíf, xafíf rəpyá, mayāna

209

Ṭuroyo WNA raqiqo raḳḳeḳ badoyo ḏallel badoyo ḏallel, iḥlus, xaffef + mayono iḥlus, xaffef, xafíf

The WNA, Ṭuroyo and genuine NENA words related to ‘thin’ for flat ܲ objects are all etymologically related to Syr. ‫ܩܝ ܵܩܐ‬ ̣ ‫‘ �ܪ‬thin, tender’. Some NENA dialects replaced this word with the Iranian loanword nāzək (e.g. ‫ا�ز‬ in Nochiya), +nāzəč (C.Urmi) < NP ‫‘ ن� ك‬thin, fine’. NENA dalila, dayla in various dialects (e.g. Betanure and Baz, respectively) denote first and foremost ‘thinned out’ or ‘sparse’ as regards crops or vegetation, and also refer to thinness of the hair of the head. Its WNA cognate ḏallel (det. ḏallīla) is likewise derived from *dallīlā, which is ̈ ̣ ‫‘ �ܲܕ‬few’. Other WNA parallels referring attested in Syriac in the pl. form ‫ܠܝ ܹܠܐ‬ to thin hair are iḥlus, of obscure origin, and xaffef (Maʿl., Jub.), xafíf (Bax.) ‫َ ف‬ which stem, like NM xafíf, from Ar. ���‫ خ����فِ ي‬. The Ṭuroyo parallel badoyo is of uncertain etymology.301 Regarding ‘thin’ for liquids, the NENA dialects use rəpyá (e.g. in Bijar), ܵ ‫‘ � ܲܪ‬soft, dissolute, the basic meaning of which is ‘loose, lax’ (cf. Syr. ‫ܦܝܐ‬ lazy’); or mayāna, miyāna (e.g. in Sandu and Ashitha, respectively, cf. Syr. ‫‘ ܲ �ܡ ܵܝ ܵܢܐ‬watery’), which is cognate with Ṭur. mayono. The WNA parallels are the Arabic loanwords xaffef, xafíf and the enigmatic iḥlus. 6. NM bqy, baqqi, mbaqqi, unique in the NA languages, usually means ‘to search, search for’, and rarely or very rarely ‘to find’ (see No. 7 below). The erstwhile meaning of this verb is ‘to search’, as in Qum.Aram. ‫‘ בקה‬to search, investigate’,302 as well as in later Aramaic languages such as JBA ܵ ‘to search, test (also ‫‘ בקי‬to inquire into, search for, examine’ and Syr. ‫ܒܩܐ‬ ‘decide’)’. It is also attested in post-cl. M as bqa ‘to search’. NM is the only NA language that preserves an Aramaic verbal root which originally denoted ‘to search’. The most common NENA parallel (in any dialect preserving a genuine Aramaic verb) is ṭāɁe, ṭāye, ṭaye (and ܵ ‫)טעי‬, had meanings other variants), the antecedent of which, ṭʕy (‫ܛܥܐ‬, mostly related to wandering (as still in some NENA dialects, e.g. Barwar, Ashitha), erring and forgetting (as still in Ṭur. ṭoʕe ‘to forget’). In the Jewish Azerbaijan group of dialects (e.g. Urmi, Naghada) the verb for ‘search, rummage’ is blbl, balbə́ l (often followed by bār ‘after’), 301 See Aziz 2003: 40–41. 302 Abegg 2003, vol. 1/2: 801.

210

chapter five

the meaning of which developed from ‘mix up’, whence ‘rummage’ (as in some other NENA dialects) and finally also ‘search’ (cf. JBA ‫ בלבל‬and Syr. ‫‘ ܲ �ܒܠ ܸܒܠ‬to mix up’), and many other Trans-Zab dialects resorted to what appears to be an Iranian loanword: čyr, čēr ‘go around, walk about; search’ (in the latter sense often followed by bār ‘after’). Other parallel verbs in NENA originally expressed ‘to turn’, whence ‘to walk around’ and finally ‘to search’: Borb-Ruma ptl, potal ‘to go around; ܲ search’ (cf. Ashitha pāṯəl ‘to spin, twist’, Syr. ‫ܦܬܠ‬ � ‘to twist, turn aside or away’); Hertevin ḥdr, ḥādər ‘to go around, search’, and Barwar xḏr, xāḏər ܲ ‘to go around, ‘to walk around’, xāḏər baṯər ‘to look for, search’ (cf. Syr. ‫ܚܕܪ‬ � travel, wander’) alongside ṭaye. The Ṭuroyo parallel is korəx ʕal, based on korəx ‘to go about, go around’ ܲ (‫ܟ‬ ‘to search’. WNA exhibits ̣ ‫)ܟܪ‬ � and, likewise, Mlaḥsô karéx (< ََ *mkarreḵ) َ َّ َ tawwar ʕa-, ytawwar ʕa-, from Ar. ‫‘ د و ر ع��لى‬to search for’. 7. NM has lost any reflex of Aram. škḥ, CM ška ~ šhk ‘to find’, and replaced it with hzy, həzɔ́ , hɔzi ‘to see; find’,303 a reflex of ḥzy ‘to see’. As is shown above, in NM the verbal root bqy ‘to search’ has also rarely assumed the meaning ‘to find’. This secondary meaning of bqy has developed from contexts where both searching and finding may be understood, as in guš ewdít elɔ erqíh ke l-mɔre mbaqini, which might be construed ‘I looked at the sky in order to find God’, as translated by Macuch,304 or ‘I looked at the sky in order to search for God’. A similar semantic development can be observed in J.Sanandaj, where *ṭʕy ‘to search’ > tḥy, taḥé denoted both ‘to search’ and ‘to find’ at least until the end of the 19th century,305 and in contemporary J.Sanandaj and all other Hulaula dialects the meaning of this verb has become completely inverted and restricted to the meaning ‘to find’. Ṭuroyo-Mlaḥsô and many NENA dialects replaced the inherited reflex of Aram. škḥ with reflexes of ḥzy ‘to see’, thus Ṭur. ḥoze, Mlaḥsô ḥozé, NENA xāze (in some dialects ḥāze) ‘to see, find’. Nonetheless, NENA maštəx in 17th century Christian texts,306 as well as J.Urmi +maštə́ x and ܿ C.Urmi māčəx are all derived from a t-stem form of škḥ akin to Syr. ‫ܐܸ ܫܬ �ܲܟܚ‬ ‘to be found’, whence also WNA ščḥy, iščaḥ, yiščaḥ.

303 As in baqini mə-ɔ́ riš u mə-ɔ́ riš tom həzini dokki . . . ‘we searched from that side and from the other until we found a place . . .’ (Macuch 1993: 142:500. riš is an alternant of rišɔ ‘head, side’). 304 Macuch 1993: 266:1577. 305 de Morgan 1904b: 321b. 306 Mengozzi 2002, vol. 2: 279 et passim.



the uniqueness of the neo-mandaic lexicon

211

8. NM eli ‘where, whither’ is attested in literary M as ʿlia ‘id.’, a by-form of lia that Nöldeke reconstructed *l-ʔay, i.e. a combination of the locative preposition l- and the interrogative particle *ʔay.307 A close cognate is JBA ‫‘ לייא‬whither’, which is derived from ‫ * ְל ָאן‬according to Sokoloff.308 The latter etymology (*liʔān > *ləʔān > *ləyān > *liyān > liyā) is very plausible, in particular in the light of JBA ‫מנא‬, CM mna ‘whence’ < ‫‘ ִמן ָאן‬where from’ > TO ‫‘ ְמנָ ן‬id.’,309 viz. *minān > mənān > mənā, and cf. also TO ‫‘ ָאן‬where’ and WNA mina ‘where from’ < *minān. Mandaic eli (ʿlia) is, therefore, probably derived from *ʔel liyā ‘whither’, and the latter form harks back to *liyān, which includes the particle ʔān, attested already in OA (Sfire) and Off.Aram. as ‫‘ אן‬where, wherever’.310 The latter is also the ultimate etymon of Jub.-WNA hōn (JPA ‫‘ הן‬where’) and expanded dialectal forms such as (h)anik (Maʿl.) and hanik (Bax.).311 The parallels in the northern parts of NA, viz. NENA ʔayka, ʔeka, ʔika ܵ ‫ܐ‬, (etc.), Ṭur. ʔayko and Mlaḥ. ʔeyko are related to Syr. ‫ܝܟܐ‬ � ܲ CM ʿka and JBA ‫‘ היכא‬where’; and NENA ka- (bound with copula) is probably related to CM ka and JPA ‫‘ כה‬here’ (expanded as CM haka and JBA ‫הכא‬, ‫האכא‬ ‘ditto’). 9. NM qɔr ‘to or at someone’s house or place, chez’ corresponds to postclassical and early modern M (Glossarium) qar and the CM preposition ʿqar (also ʿqr-, aqar, ʿl qar, ) ‘with, at’. Nöldeke suggested that this preposition was perhaps related to H ‫ִל ְק ַראת‬ ܵ ‫‘ ̤ܩ‬strife’ (and related Syriac words),312 whilst Macuch ‘towards’, Syr. ‫ܪܝܐ‬ preferred a derivation from (the unattested Mandaic cognate of ) “Jewish ܵ ܵ Aramaic ‫” ָק ִר ָיתא‬313 and Syr. ‫ܪܝ ̣ܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܩ‬. These were construed by Macuch as ܵ ܵ ‘roof’, but ‫ܪܝ ̣ܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫ ܩ‬actually means ‘beam’. Macuch further assumed ‘roof ’ > ‘house’ (through synecdoche).314 Both suggestions are problematic, especially in view of the older form ʿqar, the reconstruction of non-existent Mandaic etyma and, concerning Macuch’s suggestion, also on semantic grounds.

307 Nöldeke 1875: 205. 308 DJBA 625a, and see there Sokoloff ’s rejection of an unwarranted recent derivation from a Latin or Greek etymon. 309 See the comparisons in DJBA 625b, 685a. 310 Schwiderski 2004–2008, vol. 1: 58a. 311  with k apparently by analogy with ḏukk l- ‘to the place of’ (Spitaler 1938: 119). 312 Nöldeke 1875: 195–196. 313 Listed in Dalman 1922: 390b, but its existence in Jewish Aramaic sources is very doubtful. 314 HCMM 236–237, MD 402a.

212

chapter five

The etymology of ʿqar, qɔr is most likely ʿqara ‘root’ (JBA ‫עיקרא‬, Syr. ܵ ‫‘ ̤ܥ ܵܩܪܐ‬id’.). Two striking parallel developments in other Aramaic varieties, where reflexes of ‫ עיקרא‬were grammaticalised as a preposition denoting ‘to or at someone’s house or place, chez’ are (1) ləqr-, ləqri ‘to my house or place, chez moi’ in some Christian NENA dialects north of Zakho and in the regions of Cudi and Bohtan, Turkey (e.g. Isnakh, Ishshi, Qurich), and, similarly, Hertevin laqr- and Borb-Ruma ləqr- ~ laqr-, all from l- + Ɂəqra (< ʕeqqārā or unattested *ʕeqrā ‘root’). The word Ɂəqra (or Ɂəqṛa) occurs in various other NENA dialects, e.g. Ṭyare, Tkhuma, as a collective noun for ‘roots (of tree or other plant)’; (2) Sam.Aram. ‫עקר‬, ‫( אקר‬inter alia) ‘root; by, from, chez. The semantic process underlying the parallel grammaticalisation in the foregoing three languages, NM, NENA and Samaritan Aramaic, might have been ‘root’ > ‘inside’ (as root is inside the earth) > ‘inside house’ > ‘at one’s residence or place’ > ‘at, to, with, chez’. As for the other NA varieties, the most common parallel prepositions ܲ are related to Syr. ‫ܓ ܵܒܐ‬, � ‫ܓܒ‬ ܹ ‘side’ (and CA cognates), thus in various NENA dialects and Mlaḥ. geb (in Dobe jeb), various rural Ṭuroyo dialects gab and WNA ġapp-. Quite distinct from rural Ṭur. gab is Midyat-Ṭur. se (and sə), which has the allomorphs s- before the definite article and sidbefore pronominal suffixes, e.g. sidi ‘chez moi’, side ‘chez lui’ etc. The latter allomorph is a crucial link to the etymon of this preposition, which is surely ṣed ‘chez’ < ṣeddā ‘side’ (consider Syr. ‫‘ ܨܹܝܕ‬chez’, Sam.Aram. ‫‘ צית‬to, towards’, CM ṣida ‘side’).315 Other NENA parallels are kəs, l-kəs, kəsəl, kəsləd in various dialects, from *keslā ‘loin, flank, side’—cf. JPA ‫‘ כסלין‬loins’, Targ. Psalms 38.8 ‫‘ כסלי‬my loins’ and Akk. kislu ‘loin, loin muscle; bony outgrowth at side of vertebrae’; and lwāṯ, lwāt, wāt in Christian dialects north of Zakho (Iraq) and across the Turkish border in Cudi and Bohtan (e.g. Sharanish, Yarda and ܵ ‫‘ ְלוָ ת‬ditto’. In addition, the Hulaula-NENA dialects exhibit Jinet), from ‫ܠܘ ̣ܬ‬, the parallel lāga, which seems to be a hybrid form based on Sorani Kurdish la ‘side; chez’ and native ga ‘in’ (< *gaww).

315 And see Tezel 2003: 95, n. 16.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES Abbreviations of Frequently Quoted Works AHw =Soden, Wolfram von. 1965–1981. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch, 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. CAD = Gelb, Ignac J. et al. (eds.). 1956–2010. Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago), 26 vols. Chicago: Oriental Institute. DJBA = Sokoloff, Michael. 2002. Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. DJPA = Sokoloff, Michael. 2002.2 Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. DNWSI = Hoftijzer, Jacob and Jongeling, Karel. 1995.2 Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions, 2 vols. Leiden: Brill. Glossarium = Glossarium Sabaico-Arabicum-Latinum-Turcum-Persicum. Leiden University Library manuscript Acad. 222. HALOT = Kohler, Ludwig and Baumgartner, Walter. 1994–2000. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 5 vols. Leiden: Brill. HCMM = Macuch, Rudolf. 1965. Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. MD = Drower, Ethel S. and Macuch, Rudolf. 1963. A Mandaic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. SL = Sokoloff, Michael. 2009. A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Thesaurus = Payne Smith, Robert et al. 1868–1901. Thesaurus Syriacus, 2 vols. Oxford: Claren­ don Press. References Abegg, Martin G. et al. (eds.). 2003. The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance, 3 vols. Leiden: Brill. Abraham, Kathleen and Sokoloff, Michael. 2011. “Aramaic Loanwords in Akkadian—A Reassessment of the Proposals”. Archiv für Orientforschung 52:22–76. Anonby, Erik J. 2003. “Update on Luri: How many Languages?”. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, series 3, 13/2:171–197. ——. 2006. “Bāhendayal: Bird Classification in Southern Luri” Journal of Ethnobiology, series 26/1:1–35. Arnold, Werner. 1989. Das Nuewestaramäische, Band 1: Texte aus Baxʿa. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ——. 1990. Das Nuewestaramäische, Band 5: Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ——. 2008. “The Roots qrṭ and qrṣ in Western Neo-Aramaic”, in Gzella, Holger and Folmer, Margaretha L. (eds.), Aramaic in its Historical and Linguistic Setting. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 305–311. ——. Forthcoming. Das Nuewestaramäische, Band 6: Wörterbuch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ̈  ‫ܒܗ̈ܪܐ‬. [Springs of Ashitha Giwargis, Odisho M. and Kasrayta, Susan Y. 1998. ‫ ܪܘܐ‬.‫ ܕܩܝܢܬܐ‬ Melodies. Rawa]. Baghdad: Private publication. Audo, Toma. 1897. ‫[ ܣܝܡܬܐ ܕܠܫܢܐ ܣܘܪܝܝܐ‬Treasure of the Syriac Language], 2 vols. Mosul: Imprimerie des Pêres Dominicains.

214

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

Avidani, ʿAlwan. 1959. ‫כורדי‬-‫ עברי‬,‫[ סדר הגדה של פסח‬Hebrew-Kurdish Haggada]. Jerusalem: private publication. Avineri, Ido. 1988. The Aramaic Dialect of the Jews of Zakho. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities [in Hebrew]. Avishur, Yitshak. 2008–2010. A Dictionary of the New Judeo-Arabic Written and Spoken in Iraq (1600–2000), 3 vols. Tel Aviv-Jaffa: Archaeological Center Publications [in Hebrew]. Barnhart, Robert K. 1999. Chambers Dictionary of Etymology. Edinburgh: Chambers Harrap Publishers. Barth, Jacob. 1893. Etymologische Studien zum Semitischen insbesondere zum hebräischen Lexicon. Leipzig: Hinrich’sche Buchhandlung. Barthélemy, Adrien. 1935–1969. Dictionnaire arabe-français: Dialectes des Syrie: Alep, Damas, Liban, Jérusalem, 6 vols. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. Beekes, Robert. 2010. Etymological Dictionary of Greek, 2 vols. Leiden: Brill. Behnstedt, Peter and Woidich, Manfred. 1985–1999. Die ägyptisch-arabischen Dialekte, 6 vols. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. ——. 2011. Wortatlas der arabischen Dialekte. I: Mensch, Natur, Fauna und Flora. Leiden: Brill. ——. 2012. Wortatlas der arabischen Dialekte. II: Materielle Kultur. Bergsträsser, Gotthelf. 1921. Glossar des neuaramäischen Dialekts von Maʿlula. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus. Bieberstein Kazimirski, Albert de. 1860. Dictionnaire arabe-français, 2 vols. Paris: ­Maisonneuve. Black, Jeremy et al. (eds.). 2000.2 A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Bode, C.A. de. 1845. Travels in Luristan and Arabistan, 2 vols. London: J. Madden. Borg, Alexander. 2004. A Comparative Glossary of Cypriot Maronite Arabic (Arabic-English). Leiden: Brill. Borghero, Roberta. 1999–2000a. Un glossario manoscritto del xvii secolo in latino-mandaicoarabo-turco-persiano. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Turin. ——. 1999–2000b. “A 17th Century Glossary of Mandaic”. ARAM 11–12:311–319. ——. 2004. “Some Phonetic Features of a Mandaean Manuscript from the 17th Century”. ARAM 16:61–83. Brockelmann, Carl. 1908–1913. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, 2 vols. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard. ——. 1928.2 Lexicon Syriacum. Halle: Max Niemeyer. Brody, Robert (ed.). 1994. ‫תשובות רב נטרונאי בר הילאי גאון‬, 2 vols. Jerusalem: Ofek. Buck, Carl D. 1949. A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Buckley, Yorunn J. 2002. The Mandaeans: Ancient Text and Modern People. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ——. 2005. “Mandaeans. iv. Community in Iran”. Encyclopædia Iranica Online. ——. 2010. The Great Stem of Souls: Reconstructing Mandaean History. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. Budge, Ernest A.W. 1913. Syrian Anatomy, Pathology and Therapeutics, or The Book of Medicines, 2 vols. London: Oxford University Press. Cardahi, Gabriel. 1887–1891. Al-Lobab, seu Dictionarium Syro-Arabicum. 2 vols, Beirut: Typographia Catholica. Chick, Herbert (ed.). 1939. A Chronicle of the Carmelites in Persia: the Safavids and the Papal Mission of the 17th and 18th Centuries, 2 vols. London: Eyre and Spottiswood. Chyet, Michael L. 2003. Kurdish-English Dictionary. New Haven: Yale University Press. Ciancaglini, Claudia A. 2008. Iranian Loanwords in Syriac. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. Coad, Brian W. 2010. Freshwater Fishes of Iraq. Sofia: Pensoft Publishers. Cohen, Abraham. 1924. “Studies in Hebrew Lexicography”. The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 40/3:153–185.



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

215

Cook, Edward M. 2008. A Glossary of Targum Onkelos. Leiden: Brill. Cowley, Arthur E. 1923. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Curzon, George N. 1892. Persia and the Persian Question, 2 vols. London: Longmans, Green and co. Dalman, Gustaf H. 1922.2 Aramäisch-neuhebräisches Handwörterbuch. Frankfurt: J. Kaufmann. ——. 1928–1942. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, 8 vols. Berlin: Gürtelsloh. David, Shmuel. 1924. The First English-Chaldean Dictionary. Chicago: n.p. Davis, Robert C. 2003. Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500–1800. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Derksen, Rick. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill. Dickson, Harold R. 1951.2 The Arab of the Desert: A Glimpse into Badawin Life in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. London: G. Allen & Unwin. Dietrich, Manfried. 1967. “Zum Mandäischen Wortschatz”. Bibliotheca Orientalis 24:290– 305. Dozy, Reinhart P. 1881. Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes, 2 vols. 1881. Drower, Ethel S. 1937. The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ——. 1943. “A Mandaean Book of Black Magic”. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 75:149– 181. ——. 1960. Alf Trisar Šuialia, The Thousand and Twelve Questions. Berlin: AkademieVerlag. ——. 1963. A Pair of Nasoraean Commentaries. Leiden: Brill. Durkin-Meisterernst, Desmond. 2004. A Dictionary of Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian (= Sims-Williams, Nicholas (ed.). A Dictionary of Manichaean Texts, vol. 3/1). Turnhout: Brepols. Duval, Rubens. 1883. Les dialectes néo-araméens de Salamas. Paris: F. Vieweg. ——. (ed.) 1888–1891. Lexicon syriacum auctore Hassano bar Bahlule, 3 vols. Paris: Reipublicæ Typographæ. Edzard, Dietz O. 1964. “Mari und Aramäer” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 56:142–149. Epstein, Jacob N. 1948. ‫[ מבוא לנוסח המשנה‬Prolegomenon to the Text of the Mishna], 2 vols. Jerusalem: Private publication. ——. 1960. Grammar of Babylonian Aramaic. Jerusalem: Magnes [in Hebrew]. Fassberg, Steven E. 2000. “A Contribution of Western Neo-Aramaic to Aramaic Lexicography”. Journal of Semitic Studies 45.2:277–291. Firouz, Eskandar. 2005. The Complete Fauna of Iran. New York: I.B. Touris. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 1979. “The Phases of the Aramaic Language”, in: Fitzmyer, Joseph A. (ed.). A wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, pp. 57–84. ——. 2004. The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20): A Commentary. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Ford, James N. and Ten-Ami, Alon. 2012. “An Incantation Bowl of Rav Mešaršia son of Qaqay”. Tarbiẓ 80:213–230 [in Hebrew]. Fraenkel, Siegmund. 1886. Die aramäischen Fremdwörter im arabischen. Leiden: Brill. Gancia, G. 1843. Viaggi di Pietro della Valle, il pellegrino, 2 vols. Brighton: Foreign ­Bookseller. Garbell, Irene. 1965. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Persian Azerbaijan. The Hague: Mouton. Gesenius, Wilhelm. 1987ff.18 Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, 7 vols. Berlin: Springer. Gharib, Badr al-Zaman. 1995. Sogdian Dictionary: Sogdian-Persian-English. Tehran: Farhangan Publications. Grami, Bahram and Ghanoonparvar, Mohammad. 2000. “Gaz”, in: Yarshater, Ehsan (ed.), Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. X/4. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 348–352.

216

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

Greenfield, Jonas C. 1979. “The Root šql in Akkadian, Ugaritic and Aramaic”. Ugarit-For­ schungen 11:325–327. ——. 1991. “The Verbs for Washing in Aramaic”, in: Kaye, Alan S. (ed.), Semitic Studies: in Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of his Eighty-Fifth Birthday, 2 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, vol. 1, pp. 588–594. Greenfield, Jonas C. and Shaked, Shaul. 1972. “Three Iranian Words in the Targum of Job from Qumran” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 122:37–45. Grootaers, William A. 1987. “Folk Etymology in Japanese Dialects”, in: Crespo, R. et al. (eds.)‫‏‬. Aspects of Language: Studies in Honour of Mario Alinei, vol. 2: Theoretical and Applied Semantics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 195–202. Häberl, Charles G. 2009. The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ——. 2010. “Flights of Fancy: A Mandaean Folk-Tale of Escape from Persecution”. ARAM 22:549–572. ——. 2011. “Neo-Mandaic in Fin de siècle Baghdad”. Journal of the American Oriental Society 130.4:551–560. Hadi, Mohammad R. 2009. “Biotechnological Potentials of Seidlizia rosmarimus: A Mini Review”. African Journal of Biotechnology 8:2429–2431. Haim, Sulayman. 1997. The New Persian-English Dictionary. Tehran: Farhang Mo’aser. Heath, Jeffrey. 2004. Hassaniya Arabic (Mali)-English-French Dictionary. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Heinrichs, Wolfhart (ed.). 2000. Studies in Neo-Aramaic. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Henning, Walter B. 1940. Sogdica. London: The Royal Asiatic Society. Hepper, Frank N. 1992. “Notes on the Reeds of Mesopotamia”. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 6:193–194. Hillers, Delbert R. and Cussini, Eleonora. 1996. Palmyrene Aramaic Texts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hinz, Walther. 1975. Altiranisches Sprachgut der Nebenüberlieferungen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hoffmann, Georg (ed.). 1874. Syrisch-arabische Glossen: Autographie einer Gothaischen Handschrift enthaltend Bar Ali’s Lexikon von Alif bis Mim. Kiel: Schwers’sche Buch­handlung. Holma, Hari. 1911. Die Namen der Korperteile im Assyrisch-Babylonischen, eine lexikalischetymologische Studie. Helsinki: Finischen Literature Gesellschaft. ——. 1912. Kleine Beiträge zum assyrischen Lexikon. Helsinki: Finischen Literature Gesellschaft. Hopkins, Simon A. 1989. “Neo-Aramaic Dialects and the Formation of the Preterite”. Journal of Semitic Studies 34.2:413–432. Houtum-Schindler, Albert. 1891. “Notes on the Sabæans”. Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society and Monthly Record of Geography 13/11:663–669. Huehnergard, John. 2008. “Qiṭṭa: Arabic Cats”, in: Gruendler, Beatrice (ed.), Classical Arabic Humanities in their own Terms: Festschrift for Wolfhart Heinrichs on his 65th Birthday Presented by his Students and Colleagues. Leiden: Brill, pp. 407–418. Ivanow, Wladimir A. 1926. “Two Dialects Spoken in the Central Persian Desert”. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 3:405–431. Jaba, August A. and Justi, Ferdinand. 1879. Dictionnaire kurde-français. St.-Pétersbourg: Académie impériale des sciences. Jastrow, Marcus. 1903. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, 2 vols. New York: Choreb. Jastrow, Otto. 1992. Lehrbuch der Ṭuroyo-Sprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ——. 1993. Laut- und Formenlehre des neuaramäischen Dialekts von Midin im Ṭur Abdin. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ——. 1994. Der neuaramäische Dialekt von Mlaḥsô. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ——. 2005. Glossar zu Kinderib (Anatolisches Arabisch). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

217

Johnstone, Thomas M. 1977. Ḥarsūsi Lexicon and English-Ḥarsūsi Word-List. London: Oxford University Press ——. 1981. Jibbali Lexicon. London: Oxford University Press. ——. 1987. Mehri Lexicon and English-Mehri Word-List. London: School of Oriental and African Studies. Kaufman, Stephen A. 1974. The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Khan, Geoffrey A. 2002. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Qaraqosh. Leiden: Brill. ——. 2008. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar, 3 vols. Leiden: Brill. ——. 2009. “Neo-Aramaic of Iraq”, in: Hunter, Erica C. (ed.). The Christian Heritage of Iraq. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, pp. 226–236. Kogan, Leonid. 2005. “Lexicon of the Old Aramaic Inscriptions and the Historical Unity of Aramaic”, in: Kogan, Leonid et al. (eds.). Babel und Bibel 2: Memoriae Igor M. Diakonoff. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, pp. 513–566. ——. 2011. “Proto-Semitic Lexicon”, in: Weninger, Stefan (ed.). The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 179–258. Kohut, Alexander. 1878–1892. ‫( ספר ערוך השלם‬Aruch Completum), 9 vols. Vienna: Georg Breg. Kohut, Alexander and Krauss, Samuel. 1937. ‫( תוספות ערוך השלם‬Additamenta ad Librum Aruch Completum). Jerusalem: Shilo. Kottsieper, Ingo. 1990. Die Sprache der Ahiqarsprüche. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Krauss, Samuel. 1898–1899. Griechische und lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, 2 vols. Berlin: S. Calvary. ——. 1910–1912. Talmudische Archäologie, 3 vols. Leipzig: G. Fock. Kuipers, Florence G. 1983. A Comparative Lexicon of Three Modern Aramaic Dialects. Unpublished dissertation, Georgetown University. Kutscher, Edward Y. 1976. Studies in Galilean Aramaic. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University. Kwasman, Theodore. 2012. “A New Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic” Journal of the American Oriental Society 132.1:77–99. Lane, Edward W. 1863–1893. An Arabic-English Lexicon, 8 vols. (reprint, Beirut: Librairie du Liban 1968). Layard, Austen H. 1887. Early Adventures in Persia, Susiana, and Babylonia, 2 vols. London: John Murray. Leslau, Wolf. 1938. Lexique Soqoṭri (Sudarabique Moderne). Paris: C. Klincksieck. ——. 1979. Etymological Dictionary of Gurage (Ethiopic), 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ——. 1991. Comparative Dictionary of Geʿez (Classical Ethiopic). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Levy, Jacob. 1876–1889. Neuhebräisches und chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim, 4 vols. Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus. Liddell, Henry G. and Scott, Robert. 1996.9 A Greek-English Lexicon (with a Revised Supplement). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lidzbarski, Mark. 1896. Die neu-aramäischen Handschriften der königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, 2 vols. Berlin: Königlichen Akademie der wissenschaften zu Berlin. ——. 1915. Das Johannesbuch der Mandäer, 2 vols. Berlin: A. Topelmann. Lieberman, Stephen J. 1976. The Sumerian Loanwords in Old-Babylonian Akkadian. Harvard: Scholars Press. Lorimer, David L. 1922. The Phonology of the Bakhtiari, Badakhshani, and Madaglashti Dialects of Modern Persian. London: Royal Asiatic Society. Löw, Immanuel. 1881. Aramäische Pflanzennamen. Leipzig: Engelmann. ——. 1969. Fauna und Mineralien der Juden. Hildesheim: G. Olms. Lupieri, Edmundo. 2002. The Mandaeans: The Last Gnostics. Grand Rapids, Mich.: ­Eerdmans. MacKenzie, David N. 1986. A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary. London: Oxford University Press. MacKinnon, Colin R. 1974. The Phonology and Morphology of Dezfuli-Shushtari: A Study of West Persian Dialectology. Unpublished dissertation, University of California.

218

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

Maclean, Arthur J. 1901. A Dictionary of the Dialects of  Vernacular Syriac. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Macuch, Rudolf. 1965. “The Bridge of Shushtar. A Legend in Vernacular Mandaic”, in: Studia Semitica, Ioanni Bakoš Dicata. Bratislava: Vydavatel̕stvo Slovenskej akadémie vied. ——. 1967. “Altmandäische Bleirollen, Teil 1”, in: Altheim, Franz and Stiehl, Ruth. 1964– 1969. Die Araber in der alten Welt, 6 vols. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, vol. 4:91–203. ——. 1968. “Altmandäische Bleirollen, Teil 2”, in: Altheim, Franz and Stiehl, Ruth. 1964– 1969. Die Araber in der alten Welt, 6 vols. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, vol. 5/1: 34–72. ——. 1976. Zur Sprache und Literatur der Mandäer. Berlin: W. De Gruyter. ——. 1989. Neumandäische Chrestomathie mit grammatischer Skizze, kommentierter Übersetzung und Glossar. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ——. 1993. Neumandäische Texte im Dialekt von Ahwāz. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Maleki, Majid and Djazayeri, M. 1972. “Chemical Composition and Characteristics of ‘Gaz’ Gum from Tamarix manifera”. Starch—Stärke 24:296–299. Mallory, James P. and Adams, Douglas Q. 1997. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. London: Fitzroy Dearborn. ——. 2006. The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mandaville, James P. 2011. Bedouine Ethnobotany. Tucson, Az.: University of Arizona Press. Manna, Eugene Y. (and Bidawid, Raphael J.). 1975. Chaldean-Arabic Dictionary. Beirut: Babel Center Publications. Margoliouth, Jessie P. 1927. Supplement to the Thesaurus Syriacus. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Martirosyan, Hrach K. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Armenian Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill. Matasović, Ranko. 2009. Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic. Leiden: Brill. Mengozzi, Alessandro. 2002. Israel of Alqosh and Joseph of Telkepe: A Story in a Truthful Language. Religious Poems in Vernacular Syriac (North Iraq, 17th Century). Leuven: Peeters. ——. 2011. Religious Poetry in Vernacular Syriac from Northern Iraq (17th–20th Centuries): An Anthology. Leuven: Peeters. Militarev, Alexander and Kogan, Leonid. 2000. Semitic Etymological Dictionary, vol. 1: Ana­ tomy of Man and Animals. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. ——. 2005. Semitic Etymological Dictionary, vol. 2: Animal Names. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Morgan, Jacques J. de. 1904a. Mission scientifique en Perse, tome V (études linguistiques), deuxième partie: Textes mandaïtes, histoires en Mandaïte vulgaire. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, pp. 271–286. ——. 1904b. Mission scientifique en Perse, tome V (études linguistiques): Le dialecte Israélite de Sihneh. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, pp. 312–322. Morgenstern, Matthew. 1996. In: Tov, Emanuel (ed.). Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 22:63. ——. 2004. “Notes on a Recently Published Magic Bowl”, Aramaic Studies 2.2:207–222. ——. 2009. “Notes on the Noun Patterns in the Yemenite Tradition of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic”, Revue des études Juives 168:51–83. ——. 2010a. “Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and Mandaic—Some Points of Contact”, Lĕšonénu 72.4:451–473 [in Hebrew]. ——. 2010b. “Diachronic Studies in Mandaic”. 2010. Orientalia 79.4:505–525. ——. 2013. “Linguistic Features of the Texts in this Volume”, in: Shaked, Shaul, Ford, James N. and Bhayro, Siam. Aramaic Bowl Spells: Jewish Babylonian Aramaic Bowls, vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, pp. 39–49. Morgenstern, Matthew and Alfia, Tom. 2013. “Arabic Magic Texts in Mandaic Script: A Forgotten Chapter in Near-Eastern Magic”, in: Voigt, Rainer (ed.). “Durch Dein Wort ward jegliches Ding!”/“Through Thy Word All Things Were Made!”—2 Mandäistische und samaritanistische Tagung/2nd International Conference of Mandaic and Samaritan Studies. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 163–180.



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

219

Morgenstern, Matthew and Ford, James N. Forthcoming. “On Some Readings and Interpretations in the Aramaic Incantation Bowls and Related Texts”. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. Morgenstierne, Georg V. 1975. Irano-Dardica. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert. Müller-Kessler, Christa. 2011. “Beiträge zum babylonisch-talmudisch-aramäischen Wörterbuch”. Orientalia 80.2:214–251. Muraoka, Takamitsu. 2011. A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic. Leuven: Peeters. Muraoka, Takamitsu and Porten, Bezalel. 2003.2 A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic. Leiden: Brill. Murre-van den Berg, Helen. 2006. “Paul Bedjan, A Missionary for Life”, in: Bedjan, Paul and Brock, Sebastian P. (eds.), Homilies of Mar Jacob of Sarug, vol. 6. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, pp. 339–369. Musayev, Oruc İ. 1998. Azerbaycanca-İngiliscə Lüğət. Baku: Azərbaycan Dövlət Dillər İnstitutu. Mutzafi, Hezy. 2004. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Koy Sanjaq (Iraqi Kurdistan). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ——. 2005. “Etymological Notes on North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic”, Aramaic Studies 3.1:83–87. ——. 2006. “On the Etymology of the Verbal Root ṭʿl ‘to play’ and its Cognates in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic”. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 156:43–56. ——. 2010. “Review of Häberl, Charles G. The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr”. Aramaic Studies 8.1–2:141–158. ——. Forthcoming. “Jewish Neo-Aramaic”, in: Stillman, Norman A. et al. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World. 2nd ed., Leiden: Brill. Mutzafi, Hezy and Morgenstern, Matthew. Forthcoming. “Sheikh Nejm’s Mandaic Glossary (DC 4)—An Unrecognised Source of Neo-Mandaic. ARAM 24. Nöldeke, Theodor. 1868a. Grammatik der neusyrischen Sprache am Urmia-See und in Kurdistan. Leipzig: T.O. Weigel. ——. 1868b. “Beiträge zur Kenntniss der aramäischen Dialekte”. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 22:443–527. ——. 1875. Mandäische Grammatik. Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses. ——. 1883. “Duval, Rubens. Les dialectes néo-araméens de Salamas” (review). Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 37:598–609. ——. 1898. “Pognon, Henri. Inscriptions Mandaïtes des coupes de Khoubair” (review). ­Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 12:141–147, 353–361. ——. 1900. “Schulthess, Friedrich. Homonyme Wurtzeln im Syrischen” (review). Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 54:152–164. ——. 1904. Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Strassburg: K.J. Trubner. ——. 1917–1918. “Bergsträsser, Gotthelf, Neuaramäische Märchen und andere Texte aus Maʿlula” (review). Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 31:203–230. Nyberg, Henrik S. 1964–1974. A Manual of Pahlavi, 2 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ochsenschlager, Edward L. 2004. Iraq’s Marsh Arabs in the Garden of Eden. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Olmo Lete, Gregorio del and Sanmartín, Joaquín. 2003. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Leiden: Brill. Oman, Giovanni. 1984. “L’ittionima araba delle aque interne. II: Bacino dell’Eufrate e del Tigri”, Oriente Moderno 64:95–108. Omar, Feryad F. 1992. Kurdisch-deutsches Wörterbuch [Kurmanci]. Berlin: Institut für Iranistik der Freien Universität Berlin. Oraham, Alexander J. 1943. Dictionary of the Stabilized and Enriched Assyrian Language and English. Chicago: Consolidated Press. Payne Smith, Jessie, P. 1903. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Poizat, Bruno. 2000. “La complainte sur la peste de Pioz”, in: Heinrichs, Wolfhart (ed.), Studies in Neo-Aramaic. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

220

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

Polotsky, Hans J. 1964. “Semitics”, in: Speiser, Ephraim A. (ed.), At the Dawn of Civilization: A Background of Biblical History. Tel Aviv: Massadah, pp. 99–104. Porten, Bezalel and Yardeni, Ada. 1986–1999. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, 4 vols. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Prym, Eugen and Socin, Albert. 1881. Der neu-aramäische Dialekt des Ṭûr ʼAbdîn, 2 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht’s Verlag. Redhouse, James W. 1995.4 Redhouse Yeni Türkçe-İngilizce Sölzük. İstanbul: Redhouse Yayınevi. Rees, Margo. 2008. Lishan Didan, Targum Didan. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. Ritter, Hellmut. 1967. Ṭūrōyo: die Volkssprache der Syrischen Christen des Ṭūr ʿAbdîn, A. Texte, vol. 1. Beirut: Orient-Institut der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. ——. 1979. Ṭūrōyo: die Volkssprache der Syrischen Christen des Ṭūr ʿAbdîn, B. Wörterbuch. Beirut: Orient-Institut der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. ——. 1990. Ṭūrōyo: die Volkssprache der Syrischen Christen des Ṭūr ʿAbdîn, C. Grammatik. Stuttgart: F. Steiner Verlag. Rizgar, Baran. 1993. Kurdish-English, English-Kurdish (Kurmanci) Dictionary. London: M.F. Onen. Rosenthal, Franz. 2006.4 A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Růžička 1909. Konsonantische Dissimilation in den semitischen Sprachen. Leipzig: ­Hinrichs. Sabar, Yona. 1976. Pəšaṭ Wayəhî Bəšallaḥ: A Neo-Aramaic Midrash on Beshallaḥ (Exodus). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ——. 1983. The Book of Genesis in Neo-Aramaic in the Dialect of the Jewish Community of Zakho. Jerusalem: Magnes [in Hebrew]. ——. 1984. Homilies in the Neo-Aramaic of the Kurdistani Jews on the Parashot Wayḥi, Beshallaḥ and Yitro. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities [in Hebrew]. ——. 2002. A Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dictionary: Dialects of Amidya, Dihok, Nerwa and Zakho, Northwestern Iraq. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ——. 2006. The Five Scrolls in Jewish Neo-Aramaic Translations: Dialects of Amidya, Dihok, and Urmiya. Jerusalem: Magnes [in Hebrew]. ——. 2009. Jewish Neo-Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Liturgical Poems: A Critical Edition. Jerusalem: Magnes [in Hebrew]. Sachau, Eduard. 1883. Reise in Syrien und Mesopotamien. Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus. ——. 1895. Skizze des Fellichi-Dialekts von Mosul. Berlin: Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Salim, Shakir M. 1962. Marsh Dwellers of the Euphrates Delta. London: Athlone Press. Salonen, Armas. 1970. Die Fischerei im alten Mesopotamien nach sumerisch-akkadischen Quellen. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. ——. 1973. Vögel und Vogelfang im alten Mesopotamien. Helsinki: Suomalainen ­Tiedeakatemia. Şamilov, Arab. 1933. Coban d’Qurdəji [Kurdish Shepherd]. Moscow: Ogiz [in Neo­Aramaic]. Sara, Solomon I. 1974. A Description of Modern Chaldean. The Hague: Mouton. Sasson, Gilad. 2010. “The Story of David’s Captivity in the Hands of Yishbi-benov in Tractate Sanhedrin of the Babylonian Talmud—Sources, Editing, Structure and Plot in the Service of an Ideological Message”. Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal 9:19–44. Schulthess, Friedrich. 1903. Lexicon Syro-Palaestinum. Berlin: Reimer. Schwiderski, Dirk. 2004–2008. Die alt- und reichsaramäischen Inschriften, the Old and Imperial Aramaic Inscriptions, 2 vols. Berlin: W. De Gruyter. Shaked, Shaul. 1994. “Items of Dress and other Objects of Common Use: Iranian Loanwords in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic”, in: Shaked, Shaul and Netzer, Amnon (eds.). Irano-Judaica III. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, pp. 106–117. Sherrow, Victoria. 2006. Encyclopedia of Hair: A Cultural History. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Sima, Alexander. 2009. Mehri-Texte aus der jemenitischen Šarqiyah. Wiesbaden: ­Harrassowitz.



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

221

Simeone-Senelle, Marie-Claude and Lonnet, Antoine. 1991. “Lexique Soqoṭri: Les nome des parties du corps”, in: Kaye, Alan S. (ed.). Semitic Studies: in Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of his Eighty-Fifth Birthday, 2 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, vol. 2, pp. 1443–1481. Siouffi, Nicholas. 1880. Études sur la religion des Soubbas. Paris: Imprimerie nationale. Soden, Wolfram von. 1995.4 Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik, 2 vols. Rome: Pontificio Instituto. Sokoloff, Michael. 2005. “New Akkadian Loanwords in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic”, in: Sefati, Yitschak et al. (eds.), “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press. Sperber, Alexander (ed.). 1959–1973. The Bible in Aramaic: Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts. Leiden: Brill [in Hebrew]. Spitaler, Anton. 1938. Grammatik des neuaramäischen Dialekts von Maʿlūla (Antilibanon). Leipzig: Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft. Stadel, Christian. 2013. “Aspekte der Sprachgeschichte des Neuwestaramäischen im Licht des Spätwestaramäischen Dialektes der Samartitaner”, in: Kuty, Renaud, Seeger, Ulrich and Talay, Shabo (eds.). Nicht nur mit Engelszungen: Beiträge zur semitischen Dialektologie, Festschrift für Werner Arnold. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 333–341. Steingass, Francis J. 1892. Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary, 2 vols. London: Routledge & K. Paul. Tal, Abraham. 2000. A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic. Leiden: Brill. Talay, Shabo. 2002. “Die Geschichte und die Sprüche des Aḥiqar im neuaramäischen Dialekt von Mlaḥsô”, in: Arnold, Werner and Bobzin, Hartmut (eds.). “Sprich doch mit deinen Knechten aramäisch, wir verstehen es!” 60 Beiträge zur Semitistik, Festschrift für Otto Jastrow zum 60. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 695–712. ——. 2009. Neuaramäische Texte in den Dialekten der Khabur-Assyrer in Nordostsyrien. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Talshir, David. 2012. Living Names: Fauna, Places and Humans. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute [in Hebrew]. Tezel, Aziz. 2003. Comparative Etymological Studies in the Western Neo-Syriac (Ṭūrōyo) Lexicon. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet. Tezel, Sina. 2011. Arabic Borrowings in Ṣūrayt/Ṭūrōyo within the Framework of Phonological Correspondences. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet. Thesiger, Wilfred P. 1964. The Marsh Arabs. London: Longmans. Townsend C.C. and Guest, Evan R (eds.). 1966–1980. Flora of Iraq, 7 vols. Baghdad: Ministry of Agriculture. Tse, Peter 1993. Kansai Japanese: The Language of Osaka, Kyoto, and Western Japan. North Clarendon, VT: Tuttle Publishing. Tsereteli, Konstantin. 1965. Materials on Aramaic Dialectology, vol. 1: The Urmia Dialect. Tbilisi: Metsniereba [in Russian]. Ullendorff, Edward. 1953. “South Arabian Etymological Marginalia”. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 15:157–159. Vaan, Michiel de. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages. Leiden: Brill. Vasmer, Max. 1953–1958. Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 3 vols. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Vocke, Sibylle and Waldner, Wolfram. 1982. Der Wortschatz des anatolischen Arabisch. Erlangen: n.p. Wade, Terence. 1996. Russian Etymological Dictionary. London: Bristol Classical Press. Wahby, Taufiq and Edmonds, Cecil J. 1996. A Kurdish-English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wartburg, Walther von. 1969. Problems and Methods in Linguistics. New York: Blackwell. Wehr, Hans. 1976.3 A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. Ithaca, NY: Spoken Language Services.

222

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

Weißbach, Franz H. 1927. “Beiträge zur Kunde des Irak-arabischen: Lexikalisches”, Zeitschrift für Semitistik und verwandte Gebiete 5:135–169. Woodhead, Daniel R. and Beene, Wayne. 1967. A Dictionary of Iraqi Arabic: Arabic-English. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Young, Gavin, D. 1977. Return to the Marshes: Life with the Marsh Arabs of Iraq. London: Collins. Zimmern, Heinrich. 1917.2 Akkadische Fremdwörter als Beweis für babylonischen Kultureinfluß. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Zivotofsky, Ari and Amar, Zohar. 2006. “Identifying the Ancient Shibuta Fish.” Environmental Biology of Fishes 75.3:361–363.

Index of Neo-Mandaic words Lexical items mentioned in the present book are presented in the following index with basic meanings in parenthesis. Verbal roots are, as a rule, followed by 3sg.m. past forms in the verbal stem or stems in which these verbs are inflected, and in selected cases also by a verbal noun and sg.m. passive participle. Irregular verbal forms are also furnished. Nominal forms, which regularly appear in their lexical and contextual (truncated) alternants in the body of this work, are presented in what follows in their lexical forms only. ʔby (want): əbɔ́  36, 96 ʔfy (bake): əfɔ́  78 n. 216 ʔhw ~ bl (give): əháw ~ haw, bal! 33, 36 ʔmr (say): əmár 165 ʔrs (marry): ərás, arres 145 ʔṣl (strain rice): aṣṣel 31, 40 ʔšr (sweep): aššer, ašartɔ 28, 29, 32, 67, 68 ʔṯy (come): əṯɔ́  35 ʔwd (do): əwád 35, 37 ʔzl (go, walk): ɔzi, qɔzi, allɔ, qallɔ 32, 35, 123 ʕagúl (camelthorn) 74 ʕasál (honey) 97 ʕašeṯɔ (supper) 31 n. 82 ʕbd (worship): ʕəbád 31 ʕenzɔ (goat) 27 afreyí (dusty) 39 n. 16 afrɔ (soil, dust) 39 n. 16 aġlɔ (pen, cow-shed, stable) 14 aġmɔ (reed-bed, thicket, forest) 22–24 ahlɔ (alkaline plant) 92, 93–94 ahɔ (brother) 89 akkoṯ (there) 43 al ~ əl ~ l- (of ) 24, 29, 37, 40, 69, 76 n. 212, 78, 93, 98, 176 et passim amuqɔ, əmuqɔ (deep) 110–111 anguzɔ (nut) 26–27 anɔ (I) 36 anɔ sahdax (prayer during slaughter, ‘I am your witness’) 36 apeyí (pink) 39, 47 n. 55 appɔ (face) 26, 35, 39, 112 arawšabbɔ, arošabbɔ (Wednesday) 54 arnab (hare) 23, 74 n. 201 árnəbɔ (hare) 23, 74 n. 201, 74 n. 203 arɔbeyí (Arabic) 39 n. 16 artiwel (world, earth) 178 arwɔ1 (stream) 23 n. 45 arwɔ2 (hare) 22–23 aryɔ (lion) 13

asuṯɔ → suṯɔ ašqad → ešqad bad-gáddɔ (unlucky) 38 barnɔšɔ (human being, person) 23, 35 barre (out, outside) 20 barrɔ1 (wilderness) 7 barrɔ2 (lamb) 148 basím (healthy; tasty, fragrant) 119–120 baṣúr (inadequate, few) 123, 124, 137 baṭɔlɔ (bad) 24 baṭṭá (goose) 28, 29 bazirɔ, bazrɔ (seed, semen, offspring) 30, 76 n. 213 bdq (put, place): bədáq 176–177 beftɔ (fireplace stone) 36, 78 beftɔ́ n al-kanúnɔ (fireplace stones) 78 bellɔ (husband) 112, 113–114 bemandɔ (Mandaean ritual house) 18, 20, 36, 194 beyyɔ, biyyɔ (egg, testicle) 95 n. 32, 130 n. 163, 139 n. 195, 203, 205–206 bərattɔ (daughter) 123, 124, 137 bəṭentɔ (pregnant) 169 n. 109 bəzuyɔ (hole) 120, 121 n. 122 bidɔ (sleeve) 36, 40 binní (a fish, Barbus sharpeyi) 74 biyyɔ → beyyɔ blq (swallow): balleq, balaqtɔ 108 bny1 (build): bənɔ́  70 bny2 (clean grain; choose): banni, baneṯɔ 69–70, 131–132 bokɔnɔ (pestle) 63–64 bosmɔ (health) 120 bošɔlɔ (cooked rice) 40 bošɔ́ l al-doreštá (cooked wheat groats)  40 bošɔ́ l al-mággɔ (cooked mung beans)  40 bɔdingɔ (aubergine) 59–60 bɔhendá (bird) 69 n. 179

224

index of neo-mandaic words

bɔqlɔ (fava beans) 41 bɔrɔ (brass) 38, 79 bɔrsəmɔqɔ (copper) 38, 79 bɔṯar (after, behind) 37 n. 11 bɔwɔ (father) 58 bql (soak grain, beans): baqqel, baqaltɔ  41, 67, 68 bqy (search, find): baqqi 203, 209–210 bsm (heal): bəsám, bassem 118, 119–120, 137 bšl (fry, roast): baššel, bašaltɔ 97, 98 bušmi (sky, air, obsolete) 166 buṯɔ (prayer) 36 n. 8 buṭɔ (buttocks) 138, 140–141 buyɔ (abscess) 138–139 byeṯɔ, beṯɔ (house, home) 36, 140 n. 202 bzy (perforate, bore; have sex with woman): bəzɔ́  118, 120–121, 137 čehí ~ čohí (tea) 59 daḥfá (recurrent time) 197 n. 256 dedwɔ (fly, n.) 110–111 dehwɔ (festival) 142 dehwɔ rabbɔ (The Great Feast) 61 demmɔ → dommɔ denwe (below; down, downward) 20 deqlɔ (palm tree) 72 deráxt (tree) 30 derkɔ (bank, e.g. of river) 29, 30, 100, 101 despəlɔyɔ (Mandaean from Dezful  48 n. 64 deštɔ (land, ground) 29, 59, 177–178 dewrɔ (tail) 18, 20 dewyɔnɔ (lower, low, adj.) 20 dəholtɔ (fear) 35 n. 6, 116 dġš (close door, lock; ruin artwork): dəġáš 37 dhl (be afraid): dəhél 35, 116 dky (extinguish): dakki 43, 46 dokkɔ (place) 28, 210 n. 303 dokɔnɔ (shop) 37, 63–64 dommɔ, demmɔ (tail) 18, 20 dondɔ (penis) 25 doreštá (wheat groats) 40 dowšɔ (date syrup) 97 doxtɔ (place; clay larder) 51 dɔrṯɔ (roof ) 100, 101–102, 178–179 dry (take; have sex with woman): dərɔ́  179–180 dyṣ (insert something sharp): daṣ 22, 25 ḏ̣ aʕíf (thin, weak) 207 ebrɔ (son, boy) 36 ehdɔ (one) 36

ele, elɔ (on) 79, 98, 210 eli (where, whither) 203, 211 émbərɔ (sheep; Aries) 21, 147–148 emmɔ (mother) 98 n. 45 enši (someone, anyone) 35 erqihɔ (sky) 108 n. 75, 166, 210 ešbəroxtɔ (goodness, favour) 35 n. 5 eškandɔ (acolyte) 7 ešqad, ašqad (last year) 62–63, 66 eštɔ́ (now) 112, 115 exti (he is) 93 ezbɔ (pubic hair) 41 əkkɔ (there is) 36 n. 9 əlextɔ (fat-tail) 92, 93 əlimɔ (thick) 79–80 əmɔmɔ (daytime) 92, 94 ərixɔ, ərextɔ (long) 28 əríx tammɔ (lie down) 25 əríx təlɔ́ (lie down) 25 ərɔsɔ (wedding) 145–146 əṣṭɔnɔ (boy) 58 falge-lílyɔ (midnight) 25 faqír (poor) 26 farʕá (small louse) 74 farwah (thanks) 14 fəqottɔ (neck) 14, 28 fonidɔ (fish) 28 n. 66, 167 fotta (forehead) 197 n. 256 fɔlɔ (fish-spear) 74 n. 203 fɔrsí (Persian) 39 n. 16 ftq (undo knitting, seam): fatteq 14 gaddɔ (luck) 13, 38 gamṣɔ, ġamṣɔ (locust, grasshopper)  59 n. 118 ganɔwɔ (thief) 172 n. 122 ganwoxtɔ (thievery) 172 n. 122 gappɔ (wing, feather) 21 gaṭṭán (a fish, Barbus xsanthopterus) 73 gawrɔ (man) 35, 114 gby (cut hair, shave): gabbi 199, 203 gehi, mə-géhi (early) 195 n. 244 gehyɔ (vomit, n.) 15 genzɔ (Mandaean scriptures; much, many, very) 17, 27, 28, 43 gerbɔ (mange, scab) 76 germɔ (bone) 76 gerrɔ (bullet) 106, 109 gerzá (rat) 59 gədɔdɔ (cloth separating between ritually pure and impure) 207 gədulɔ (braid, plait) 37 gəlaltɔ, gəlɔlɔ (stone) 168 gəṭɔnɔ (short) 207 n. 294



index of neo-mandaic words

gəwinɔ (eyebrow) 24, 100, 101 ghy (vomit, retch): gəhɔ́  106, 107 gny (sleep; set): gənɔ́ , šɔmeš gənát 19, 28, 106, 108, 127, 129, 132, 137, 194 go (in, into; by means of ) 23, 26, 35, 37, 98 n. 45, 197 golɔlɔ (cock’s comb) 199, 201 gomlɔ (camel) 123, 125, 137 goṭrɔ (smoke; cigarettes) 62, 148–149 gowɔzɔ (wood, stick) 139 gɔlɔ (dung beetle) 203–204 grf (skim off ): gəráf, gəraftɔ 108 gsy (belch): gassi, gaseṯɔ 132, 136–137 gṭl (kill, beat): gəṭál 36 guz (audible fart) 198 n. 257 ġamṣɔ → gamṣɔ 59 n. 118 ġazzɔ (chewing gum) 58–59 harši (sorcery) 66 harufɔ (pungent) 80 hassɔ (lettuce) 26, 27, 69, 72 haṯṯɔ (new, anew) 26, 27, 92, 95 hawuġɔ (co-wife) 60 hayaftɔ (ritual impurity, menses) 151 hazufɔ (rough, course) 42 hemyɔnɔ (ritual girdle) 194 heryɔ (excrement) 42 heṯroxtɔ ( joy) 168 n. 107 heṯrɔ ( joy) 168 n. 107 hewšabbɔ (Sunday) 54 hewyɔ (snake) 36, 72, 91 heyyi (Life, a Mandaean concept) 172 heyyi rabbi (the Great Life) 172 həḏɔyɔ, f. həḏeṯɔ (Jew) 18, 19, 48 n. 64 həlí (sweet; beautiful) 59 n. 119 həwexṣɔ (rice flour, date and sesame dish) 14 həzurɔ (wild boar, pig) 123, 124, 137 hinɔ (unripe date; glans of penis) 63–64 hiwelziwɔ (a Mandaean lightbeing)  175 n. 134 hll (wash hands and knife of slaughterer; recite prayer after slaughter): hallel 183 hofnɔ (handful) 18, 19 hofɔ (washing head, hair) 105 holpɔ (intense heat) 13 holyɔ (sweetness; tea) 59 n. 119 horfɔ (pungency, spicy substance, chilli) 80 horinɔ, horettɔ (other) 35, 92, 96, 112 hoṭɔ (sewing) 206 n. 292 hɔlɔ (sand) 149–151 hrġ (crush, mash): həráġ 184 n. 189

225

hry (defecate): hərɔ́  42 hṣd (reap): həṣád, həṣɔdɔ 92, 96 hṯr (rejoice): ehṯer, həṯér 168–169 hwr (wash, rinse): howwer 182–183 hwṭ (mix, stir): həwáṭ 132, 133, 137 hwy (be) 36 hwy ~ hwl (show): ahwi ~ ahwel 36, 81, 141 hyf (wash head): haf 104, 182–183, 185 hyṭ (sew): haṭ 206 n. 292 hyw (be ritually impure): eheyyaw, ahyew 151 hzy (see, find): həzɔ́  36, 203, 210 ḥaṣrofɔ (belt, girdle) 194–195 ḥaṣṣɔ (back) 194–195 ḥawíj (medicine) 8 ḥdṯ (speak, tell): ḥaddeṯ 7 ḥeddɔ (lead as metal) 79 ḥemṣɔ (chickpeas) 72 ḥəwɔrɔ (spice, spices) 80–81 ḥnq (choke, strangle), ḥənáq, eḥneq  194 n. 241 ḥojrɔ (room) 68 n. 172, 74 n. 203 ḥonineyí (smallness; childhood) 39 n. 16 ḥoninɔ (small, young) 39 n. 16 ḥoššɔ (vulva) 74 n. 201 ḥwy (hide): aḥwi 81, 138, 141, 152 idɔ (hand, arm) 154 inɔ (eye) 22, 24, 93, 176 jəġɔrɔ (fuel for oven) 103 jəwɔnqɔ (unmarried young man) 60 jġr (heat oven): jəġár, jəġɔrɔ 103 jihəl (child, boy) 163 jirrí (Mesopotamian catfish) 74 kaččɔ (chin) 78 n. 215 kakkɔ (molar tooth) 113, 138 kandi (yet, still) 26, 76 n. 212 kankuzɔ (chin) 62, 77 kanunɔ (fireplace) 78 kappɔ (bosom, lap) 26–27, 112, 197 karsɔ (belly, stomach, womb) 36 kaspɔ, kasbɔ (silver) 112, 114 kawi (fresh cattle dung) 63, 65–66 ke (that, in order that, who) 196 kemmɔ (how) 195 kerehwɔ (quickly) 195–196 keṯkem (how much/many) 195–196 kədirɔ, f. kədertɔ (heavy, heavily pregnant) 169 n. 109 kəluyɔ (kidney; testicle) 130 n. 163, 203, 205–206

226

index of neo-mandaic words

kəpilɔ (alley) 199, 202 kərɔyɔ, kərɔ́ (leg, foot) 21, 22, 46 n. 52, 48, 185–186 klɔṯawšabbɔ, klɔṯošabbɔ (Tuesday) 54 klɔṯɔ (three) 7, 17 kodrɔ (heaviness, load) 169 kol (every, any) 93 kollóh (grasshopper, locust) 59 kollɔ (kohl) 92–93 košṭɔ (ritual handclasp) 17 kowwɔ (pain) 116 koxwɔ (star, planet) 14 kɔxɔ (bread of dough kneaded with milk) 61 kpr (wipe, mop): kapper 116, 117 kyw (ache, hurt): kɔyew, kɔyew həwɔ́  116 la (no, not) 25, 42 n. 41, 76 n. 212 labód (have to) 23 lahmal (the day before yesterday) 42–43, 127, 130, 132, 137 lammɔ (bread, loaf ) 98, 99, 124 le, lo, lu (not, non-) 43 lebbɔ (heart, kernel) 72 lext-, lexti (he is not) 36 liškɔ (branch) 58 litɔ (rib) 199, 202 ləbɔnɔ (bulrush) 81 ləkkɔ (there is not) 36 ləšɔ́ n kədɔbí (literary Mandaic) 17 ləšɔ́ n maḥallí (colloquial Mandaic) 17 ləšɔnɔ (tongue, language) 17, 28, 80 lky (lick): lakki, lakeṯɔ 28, 29, 43 lxṭ (hold, grasp, catch): ləxáṭ, elxeṭ 179 n. 165 lxṭ, ləxáṭ go kappɔ (hug) 26 lxṭ, serrɔ elxeṭ (the moon was eclipsed) 179 n. 165 lxṭ, qɔli elxeṭ (he is/was hoarse)  180 n. 165 maggɔ (mung beans) 44 maluhɔ (salty) 110–111 malwɔšɔ (Mandaean name) 17 mandeyí (Mandaic) 39 n. 16 mandɔyɔ (Mandaean) 43 n. 44 mángəlɔ (sickle, scythe) 27 manzɔ (hair) 27 maqnɔ (Mandaean headscarf ) 31 marirɔ (bitter) 87 markab, markabtɔ (boat, ship) 29, 30 masextɔ (ritual for the ascension of the soul of deceased) 35 n. 4 maṣwettɔ (Mandaean baptism) 7, 93

mašrúb (alcoholic beverage, liquor) 28 mašurɔ (besom, palm broom) 28, 67, 68 mašwɔ (rope) 170 men, mə- (from) 23, 28, 37 n. 11, 80, 195 n. 244, 210 n. 303 mend al-məšétyɔ (a drink) 37 mendi (a thing, something, anything) 123, 126, 137 mendɔ (thing) 24, 27, 37, 126 meneyí (blue/ghost word?) 47 n. 55 mentəkɔ́ r, motokɔ́ r (car) 29 merbɔ (fish fat) 72 merqɔ (rice) 69, 71–72 mes ~ meṣ (inside; obsolete: middle) 35, 197 meskappɔ (breast pocket, space between shirt and breast) 197 messe (middle, in the middle) 35 messe gyeṭɔ (midsummer) 197 messe setwɔ (midwinter) 197 meṭṭɔ́ l (dried cattle-dung) 65 n. 160 məharrɔ (spade) 8, 81–82 məhaṭṭɔ (needle) 39 məheyyaw, f. məhéwɔ (ritually impure, menstruating 151 məholtɔ (sieve) 92 n. 7 məhɔ́ (striking; a blow) 48 mənɔṯɔ (portion, part) 152 məsekkɔ (kind of wild duck) 69, 71 məsí ~ məssí (cold) 24 n. 51 məšetyɔ (drinking; drink, drinks) 37 mhy (hit): məhɔ́  28, 48 mignɔ (sleep, n.) 19 minjá (middle), go minjá (in the middle) 197 minunɔ (victuals, food stored in house) 38 miškɔ (skin, hide, shell, peel, rind, bark) 21 n. 25, 127, 129, 132, 137 miššɔ (oil; clarified butter) 57 miṯyɔ (coming, visiting; a visit) 35 n. 7 mixlɔ (food) 19, 29 mizgɔ (going, walking, a walk) 19, 35 n. 2 mny (count): mənɔ́  70 moxɔ (bedding) 153 moxtɔ (death) 17, 172 n. 122 mɔr (owner of) 36, 46 n. 52, 198 mɔre (God; sir?) 36, 120, 186–187, 210 mɔrqɔlɔ (rifle; obsolete: fart) 198 mu (what) 23 myenɔ, menɔ (water) 47 myṯ (die): meṯ, f. mextat 93, 126 myx (spread bedding): max 153



index of neo-mandaic words

naʕjá (ewe) 148 nahrɔ (river) 29 nam (moisture, dew) 19 nannɔ (breast) 82 nawš- (self ) 99 nəhamtɔ (thunder) 106, 107, 108 nəšemtɔ (soul) 106 nišmɔ (breathing, breath; breeze) 106 niššɔbá (arrow) 109 n. 78 nfq (go out): nəfáq 35 nhl (sift): nəhál 92, 96 nhm (thunder): nehmat 106, 107, 108 nhṯ (descend): nəhéṯ 35, 91 nosɔ (cough, coughing) 26, 27 nɔwɔ (nit) 44 nqš (panic): nəqáš 142, 143 nšm (breathe, blow): nəšám, naššem  104, 105–106 nšq (kiss): nəšáq 156 nunɔ (Pisces) 167 nurɔ (fire) 98 n. 45 nxs (slaughter): nəxás 112, 114 nys (cough): nas 27, 170 obrɔ, obrunɔ (mouse) 13, 50 n. 74 ohrɔ (way, road) 35 okmɔ (blackness; tea?) 53 n. 91, 59 n. 119 okumɔ (black) 59 n. 119 ork- (with) 23 oroftɔ (Friday) 54 ɔġɔ́ , ɔġɔye (master, sir) 187 n. 208 ɔlmɔ (world) 174, 178 n. 149 ɔlmɔ da-nhurɔ (World of Light) 174 paqeṯṯɔ (frog, toad) 118, 121, 137 parpinɔ (purslane) 37 partonnɔ (flea) 39, 40, 44, 92 pasqəmɔšɔ (scissors) 38, 198 paṯi (wide, broad) 207 pehṯɔ (sacramental bread) 72 pelqɔ (spindle) 62, 82–84 pelti (a little bit) 44 peltɔ (crumb, morsel) 44 pərendɔ (dried pomegranate seeds) 27, 45–46, 102–103 pərɔmɔ, pərɔnɔ (sandal) 46 peršɔ (tomorrow) 72 pəṯuṯɔ (piece of bread) 36 phr (fly): pəhár 43, 46 plġ (to divide, distribute): palleġ 14 poġlɔ (radish) 84 pommɔ (mouth) 36 pɔlɔ (fee, wages) 199, 201 prd (flee): pərɔ́ d 102, 187

227

prds (finish, complete, end): pardes, epardas 61, 157–158 prq (save): parreq 157–158 prs (cover): pərás 97, 99 prx (rub): pəráx 84–85 pry (yawn): parri 43, 46 psq (cut): pəsáq, epseq, pəsɔqɔ 38, 154, 198 pyenɔ, penɔ (evening) 138, 139, 140 n. 202 pyṯ (break bread into pieces): paṯ 36 qallɔn (blue) 47 qam (for, to) 29, 36 qameṯɔ (midday) 29 qamɔ́ (before, in front) 36, 48, 67 qamɔ́ -taltad (three years ago) 67 qamṯɔ (louse) 47 qamu (why) 7 qaṣṣíf (thin) 208–209 qazġɔ́ n (pot, cauldron) 58 n. 116 qenɔ (reed) 81 qəlidɔ (key) 26, 27 qəmɔšɔ (cloth) 38, 198 qənɔyɔ (silversmith, goldsmith) 48 n. 64 qly (burn): qəlɔ́  80, 97, 99 qoflɔ (lock), qoflɔ ʔəwád (to lock) 37 qornɔsɔ (cock’s comb) 199, 201 qoršɔ (cold, coldness) 24 n. 51, 132, 134, 137 qozuqadáḥ (rainbow) 18, 19 qɔr (chez) 35, 203, 211–212 qym (stand): qam 56 rdf (shiver): rədáf 22, 24 redfɔ (a shiver) 24 rehwɔ (wind, air, weather) 29, 30, 195–196 rəmahrɔ (day after tomorrow) 39, 47–48 rəšɔmɔ (ablutions) 142 n. 219, 183 n. 183 rəwɔ́ (fox) 22 rgw (gather, pile up): raggew, eraggaw 69, 70, 71 n. 186 rhm (love): rəhám 35, 92, 96 rhṭ (run): rəháṭ 23 rišɔ (head; side) 210 n. 303 rmy (lay egg): rəmát 127–128, 132, 137 rofɔ (tying; knot) 194 ronzɔ (rice) 26, 71–72 rošmɔ (foreskin) 38, 142 rošné (light) 174–175 ršm (perform ablutions): rəšám, rəšɔmɔ 32, 183 n. 183 ruh- (self ) 120 ryf (tie): raf 188, 194

228

index of neo-mandaic words

sahdɔ (reciter of prayer during slaughter) 36 sahurɔ, f. sahortɔ (beggar) 26, 39–40, 48–49 se (three) 197 n. 256 selwɔ (thorn; small fish-bone) 85–86, 171 serká (vinegar) 87 n. 268 serrɔ (moon) 76, 179 n. 165 sexčúl (hedgehog spines) 14 səméx (dense) 104, 105 n. 68 səmɔqɔ (red) 38, 39 n. 16, 79 səqoftɔ (threshold) 13, 51, 92, 94 səwirɔ (sword) 8, 158–159 səxɔ́ m (soot) 53 shd (recite prayer during slaughter): səhád 36 shr (beg for charity): səhár 48, 49 sinɔ (chest) 26 smx (lean): səmáx 104–105 sofɔ (shame) 173 soprinɔ (small bird) 49–50 soprɔ (small bird) 50 sqm (finish): saqqem, esaqqam 157–158, 173 suṯɔ, asuṯɔ (salutation, greeting) 171–172 suṯɔ (asuṯɔ) nehwilax (greetings to you) 171–172 swɔṯɔ d-heyyi nehwilax (greetings of Life be upon you) 172 syf (be ashamed): saf 21, 22, 173 syq (ascend): saq 35 ṣeftɔ (reed matting) 50–51 ṣehyɔ (thirst) 159 n. 62 ṣəbúr (hilsa fish) 52, 74 ṣəwextɔ (finger, toe) 93 ṣəwɔ́ (baptism) 93 n. 16, 98 ṣiwɔ (firewood) 138, 139 ṣlf (be crooked, twisted): eṣlef, aṣlef, ṣəléf 156 ṣmr (swell, bloat; be wet): ṣəmár, ṣammer, məṣammar 69, 75–76 ṣodrɔ (shirt, tunic) 132–133, 137 ṣomɔ (fast) 29 ṣondɔ (grain) 69, 159 ṣoprɔ (bird) 50 ṣwy (baptize): ṣəwɔ́  97, 98 ṣyṯ (hear, listen): ṣaṯ 189 šaftɔ (Saturday) 54 šaminɔ, f. šamentɔ (fat) 93 šaṣrɔ (cockroach, cricket) 51 šdr (send): šadder 23, 36 šdy (spin yarn): šədát 51–52

šeġdɔ (almond) 127, 128, 132 šemtɔ (dream, sleep) 18, 19, 20 n. 19, 46 n. 54 šennɔ (tooth) 112, 113 šet (drunk, drunkard) 28–29 šewyɔhɔ (demon) 15 šəbirɔ (good) 35 šəbír tam (recover) 119 šəburɔ (a fish, large scaled barb) 52, 69, 73–75 šəhertɔ (throat) 7, 18, 53 šənartɔ (cat) 160 šənɔrɔ (tom-cat) 160 šəqoftɔ (disaster) 13 šərɔġɔ (oil-lamp) 92, 93 šərɔṣomɔ (lunch) 29, 193 šəwɔwɔ (neighbour) 13 šəwuyɔ (jackal) 86–87 šidɔnɔ (insane) 127, 128, 132, 137 šiṣɔ (date of bad quality) 62 n. 142, 63, 64 šiṯɔ (moment, short while) 92, 95 šny (plaster rooftop): šənɔ́  67–68 šoġɔ (smearing, rubbing, polishing) 97 šomrɔ (cobweb) 53 šomxɔ (onion) 190 šoṯɔ (wax) 161 šɔmeš (sun) 108, 179 n. 165 šɔnɔ (shoulder) 53 šɔṯɔ1 (fever) 118, 122, 137 šɔṯɔ2 (shoulder) 53–54, 125 šɔyɔ (hour) 95, 205 n. 288 šrq (slip): ašreq 28, 78, 87 šry (tr.—open, untie, release; intr.—open, blossom): šərɔ́ , ešrɔ 29, 36, 190–191 štl (plant): šətál 30, 52 n. 89 šṭy (spread): šəṭɔ́  99 n. 49 šxš (be startled): ešxeš 22, 25 šxw (fall asleep): šəxɔ́ w 22, 25, 161–162 šyġ (rub, smear, polish): šaġ 97, 182–184 šyt (drink; water, irrigate): šat, aššet 18, 20, 29, 173, 188 tafúy (abundant, increasing) 98 n. 46 takɔ́ n ʔəxál (become unstable) 24 taltad (year before last) 63, 66–67 tam qɔri (beget) 58 n. 116 tanurɔ (oven) 103 taqufɔ (sour) 87–88, 173–174 tarmidɔ (Mandean priest) 6 tarrɔ (leek) 58 teġyɔ́ n (flood) 14 terbɔ (fat, suet) 76 tešberqɔ (lightning) 19, 199



index of neo-mandaic words

textɔ (drawstring) 51 tfy1 (cook): təfɔ́ , etfɔ 78 n. 216, 98 tfy2 (increase): təfɔ́  98 n. 46 tinɔ (urine) 132, 135, 137 tly (pull, draw, stretch): təlɔ́  25, 69, 77, 106, 107, 206 tmm (happen, become) tam(mɔ) 58 n. 116, 119, 158 tofáng (rifle) 198 tom (until) 25, 75 n. 210, 160, 210 n. 303 tombɔ (body) 199–200 tomrɔ (date) 64 toqfɔ (sourness, sour ingredient) 87 tos (silent fart) 198 n. 257 tɔġɔ (fillet on priest’s turban) 193 n. 233 tɔlɔ (thread) 203, 206 tɔzá (fresh) 27 tpṯ (sneeze): tappeṯ 118, 137 tql (make, forge,): taqqel, taqaltɔ 100 trewšabbɔ, trawšabbɔ (Monday) 54–55 turkí (Turkish) 39 n. 16 turtɔ (cow) 36 tuṯšɔṯɔ (armpit) 53–54, 123, 125, 137 twr (break): təwár, etwer 28 tyn (urinate): tan 135, 137 ṭallɔ-w-bérqɔ (rainbow) 18, 19, 193, 199 ṭawungɔ, ṭawunqɔ (shallow wicker basket) 62 ṭawyɔ (gazelle) 92, 95 ṭayyará (aeroplane) 29 ṭəlulɔ (game) 77 ṭəmɔšɔ (ablutions) 151, 183 n. 183 ṭll (play): ṭallel 28 n. 66, 77, 118, 137 ṭly ( jump; wade): ṭəlɔ́  28 ṭmš (perform ablutions): ṭəmáš, ṭəmɔšɔ 183 n. 183 ṭɔfqɔ (metal baking sheet) 88 ṭrq (churn): ṭəráq 15 ṭwḥ (throw): ṭawweḥ 29 u, w (and) 19 urɔ (marsh, small lake) 88

229

wɔdɔ (work) 35 n. 3 wɔwɔ (door) 13, 162–163 xafíf (thin) 208–209 xlṣ (undress, take off, dislocate): xalleṣ, exallaṣ 157 n. 51 yabušɔ (dry) 93 n. 17 yalufɔ (learned layman) 7 yehrɔ (month) 72 yhm (sit): yəhém 42 n. 41 yəbišɔ (dry) 93 yimb- ~ yomb-, qəyomb ~ qyomb ~ qomb(be able) 55–56 yɔ (vocative particle) 89 yɔnqɔ (child, boy) 163 yɔyɔ (brother) 88–89 yum hiwelziwɔ ~ hiwelziwɔ (Thursday) 54–55 yum horinɔ (the following day) 48 yumɔ (day) 48, 54, 55 zabilɔ (type of basket) 63, 65, 103, 104 zaġattɔ (hen) 127, 192 zaġunɔ (chickens) 50 n. 74 zalilɔ (narrow, slender) 203, 207–208 zambíl (type of basket) 65 zangɔ (bell) 26 zappɔ, zap al-ínɔ (eyelash) 22, 24, 138, 140 zehwɔ (light) 174–175 zehəw al-ínɔ (eyesight) 174, 176 zemmɔ (thin wire) 72, 95 n. 32 zerɔ (crop, cornfield, grass) 69, 76 zgy (go, walk): ezgɔ́  19, 123 zifɔ (lie, falsehood) 165 zif əháw, zif əmár, (lie, v.) 165 ziqɔ (flatulence, colic, birth pangs) 62, 77 zowdɔ (freshly churned butter) 57, 98, 116, 117 zɔġɔ (cock, rooster) 50 n. 74, 106, 109–110, 192 zry (sow): zərɔ́  29, 30