7.1 Orthography and Phonology
7.1.1 Syllabic Division and Word Division
It is well known that the Hebrew alphabet is a system of graphic representation in which only the consonants are written, although over time some of these consonants, â®×, ×, ×, ×â¬â, the so-called matres lectionis, came to be used to indicate vowels.1 Because of this, Hebrew writing can only represent open or closed syllables beginning with a consonant or a group of consonants,2 so in its adaptation to the Romance phonological system, where syllables consisting of a vowel or beginning with a vowel also exist, a silent consonant, the ʾalef, had to be used to support the initial vowel of syllable. Thus, the leÊ¿azim that are dealt with here,3 like texts in Hebrew aljamÃa in general,4 use ʾalef for all words beginning in a vowel, such as âazereñuâ â¨â®×Ö¸×Öµ×רֵ×× Ö°×וּâ¬ââ© (Jb 20:24), as well as in almost all hiatuses, where the second vowel constitutes a syllable by itself, as in âaloadoresâ â¨â®×Ö¸××Ö¹×ָדּ×ֹרֵ×שׁâ¬ââ© (Ps 137:3), or the beginning of a syllable, as in âcoxqueanâ â¨â®×§×ֹשְׁקֵ××Ö·×â¬ââ© (Ps 18:46). In the same way, ʾalef is used at the beginning of the syllable after a closed syllable to indicate that a phonic sequence C[onsonant]V[owel]CV should be divided: CVC-V and not: CV-CV, as in the case of words with the prefix desâ, such as âdesonorâ â¨â®ï¬³Öµ×שְׁ××Ö¹× ×ֹרâ¬ââ© (Pss 12:9, 38:8, 44:14), âdesechaâ â¨â®ï¬³Öµ×שְ×Öµ××Ö¹Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Ps 56:8), and âdesacolmiellanâ â¨â®ï¬³Öµ×שְׁ×ָק×Ö¹×Ö°×ִײֵ×Ö°×Ö¸××â¬ââ© (Jb 4:10), in contrast to words that begin with the phonic sequence /des/, which is not the prefix desâ, such as âdesuelvesâ â¨â®ï¬³Öµ×שוּ×Öµ××Ö°×Ö¿Öµ×שׁâ¬ââ© (Jb 38:31) and âdeseosaâ â¨â®ï¬³Öµ×שֵׁ×××ֹשָ×â¬ââ© (Ps 107:9). This reflects a linguistic awareness about the phonic unit and the meaning of the prefix desâ, which is thus reflected in the spelling of the laÊ¿az.
Multi-word strings, which often appear in the leʿazim, also permit us to make some observations about word separation, which in general is very similar to that of modern Spanish, although with some distinctive features, as noted below:
-
mesoclitic and enclitic pronouns are connected to the verb form, which results in a single word, as in âenblanquecersâadâ â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö°ï¬±Ö°×Ö·× Ö°×§Öµ×סֵ×רְשָׂ××â¬ââ© (Ps 68:15), âesmovtiâ â¨â®×Öµ×שְׁ××Ö¹×Ö¿Ö°×Ö´×â¬ââ© (Ps 11:1), and â(él) quebranta·mâ â¨â®×§Öµ×ï¬±Ö°×¨Ö·× Ö°×Ö¸××â¬ââ© (Jb 16:12).5
-
proclitic pronouns that end in a vowel are dealt with in several ways. When the verb form that they precede begins with a vowel, they are sometimes attached to it, forming a single word, with crasis,6 as in âsâapañaronâ â¨â®ï¬ªÖ¸××¤Ö·× Ö°×Ö¸×ר×Ö¹×â¬ââ© (Ps 48:5). However, if pronouns are preceded by a conjunction or an adverb ending in a vowel, they are connected to that conjunction or adverb and are apocopated, whether the following verb form begins with a vowel or a consonant, as in âca·s atuércedâ â¨â®×§Ö·×© ×Ö·×וּ×Öµ×רְסֵ××Ö¿â¬ââ© (Ps 73:21), âca·s mayórgadâ â¨â®×§Ö·×ש ×Ö·××ֹרְגַּ×â¬ââ© (Jb 33:12), âno·s biédadâ â¨â®× ×ֹשׁ בִּײֵדָּ××â¬ââ© (Jb 42:2), and âque·s envermejecidâ â¨â®×§Öµ×ש ×Öµ×× Ö°×Öµ×רְ×Öµ××Ö¹Öµ×סִ××â¬ââ© (Ps 75:9).7 The same thing happens with the conditional conjunction si, which becomes an enclitic of the negative adverb ni, with apocope: âni·s esperuâ â¨â®× Ö´×שׁ ×Öµ×שְïÖµ×רוּâ¬ââ© (Jb 17:13), âni·s ti miemruâ â¨â®× Ö´×שׁ ×Ö´× ×ִײֵ×ְרוּâ¬ââ© (Ps 63:7).
-
the preposition a is always connected to the following word,8 as in âa mentiraâ â¨â®×Ö·×Öµ×× Ö°×Ö´×רָ×â¬ââ© (Ps 40:5), âa mÃâ â¨â®×Ö·×Ö´×â¬ââ© (Ps 40:18), âa los malosâ â¨â®×Ö¸××ֹש ×Ö¸×××ֹשâ¬ââ© (Jb 34:26).
-
the preposition pora is always written as two words, por and a, with the a connected to the following word, as in âpora so amiçtadâ â¨â®×¤×ֹר ×Ö¸ï¬ª× ×Ö·×Ö´×סְ×Ö¸××â¬ââ© (Ps 135:4), and âpora yúdezesâ â¨â®ï×ֹר ×Ö·×וּדֵּ××Öµ×שâ¬ââ© (Jb 31:28).
-
the preposition de is always written as a stand-alone word, â¨â®ï¬³Öµ×â¬ââ©, except in a few places. In these cases, it is sometimes connected to the following word, with crasis if that word begins with a vowel, as in âdâapresentarâ â¨â®ï¬³Ö¸×ïְרֵ×שֵ×× Ö°×Ö¸×רâ¬ââ© (Ps 32:6) or âantes dâélâ â¨â®×Ö·× Ö°×Öµ×שׁ דֵּ××â¬ââ© (Jb 21:33), or without crasis if it begins with a consonant, as in âde sos infançasâ â¨â®ï¬³Öµï¬ª×ֹש ×Ö´×× Ö°×¤Ö·× Ö°×¡Ö¸×שׁâ¬ââ© (Jb 20:11) or âde que·s páguedâ â¨â®ï¬³Öµ×קֵ×שׁ ïÖ¸×גֵּ××â¬ââ© (Eccl 3:22). In one case, âfi·d omniâ â¨â®×¤Ö¿Ö´×דּ ××Ö¹×Ö°× Ö´×â¬ââ© (Jb 16:21), it is connected to the previous word, which ends in a vowel, and is apocopated, as are proclitic pronouns in the same context.
-
on rare occasions, an entire phrase is written as a single word. This happens in âca·m alcestâ â¨â®×§Ö·××Ö°×Ö·×ְסֵ×שְ×â¬ââ© (Ps 30:2), âa cada quienâ â¨â®×ַקַ×דָּקִײֵ×â¬ââ© (Ps 62:13), âno·m tajesâ â¨â®× ×Ö¹×Ö°×Ö¸××Ö¹Öµ×שׁâ¬ââ© (Ps 102:25), âa la mañanaâ â¨â®×Ö·×Ö·×Ö·× Ö°×Ö¸×× Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Pss 108:3, 130:6), âsoltó a [e]llosâ â¨â®×©×Ö¹×Ö°××Ö¹×Ö·×Ö°××ֹשׁâ¬ââ© (Jb 8:4), âa las piedrasâ â¨â®×Ö·×ַשְïִײֵ×ְֿרַ×שâ¬ââ© (Jb 14:19), âsi·s mochiguanâ â¨â®ï¬ªÖ´×שְ××Ö¹×Ö¹Ö´×גּוּ×Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Jb 14:21), and âsi·l alcánçadâ â¨â®ï¬ªÖ´××Ö°×Ö·××§Ö·× Ö°×¡Ö·×â¬ââ© (Jb 41:18).
7.1.2 Vowels
Most extant Ibero-Romance texts using aljamÃa in the Hebrew alphabet from the eleventh to the fourteenth centuries are consonantal texts without vowel notation, although they do sometimes use matres lectionis to indicate vowels, as was already the case in biblical Hebrew. However, from the earliest witnesses, in the ḵarajÄt of the muwaÅ¡Å¡aḥÄt of the Hebrew series, there are few examples of vocalized texts. Prominent among these are two siddurim, one in Castilian, from the thirteenth century, and the other in Aragonese, from the fourteenth.9 Here, the ritual prescriptions were written in aljamiado Romance with vowel points, perhaps because the text in which these prescriptions were inserted was also vocalized.10 It is because of the scarcity of vocalized witnesses that are known from this time that the linguistic analysis of biblical leÊ¿azim like those dealt with here is so important. Most of the more than 2,000 leÊ¿azim in this manuscript are completely vocalized, with few exceptions,11 allowing us to undertake a detailed study of the spelling and phonology of these vowels as well as a complete analysis of the morphosyntax.
The vowel signs and diacritics used in this manuscript are part of the Masoretic notation system that was used for copying manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible beginning with the first Masoretic codices from Palestine.12 The system was thus conceived to represent the vowels of biblical Hebrew, as well as other distinctive features of Hebrew pronunciation. The use of this system for representing a different linguistic system, such as thirteenth-century Castilian, was necessarily accompanied by an adaptation and partial reassignment of the phonological value of the signs,13 as also happened when the Hebrew alphabet was used in other languages.
7.1.2.1 Full Vowels
The phonological system of vowels in Old Castilian included five full vowels, the same ones as in modern Spanish: /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/, without distinction as to vowel length.14 For /o/ and /u/ the only Masoretic vowel signs that have been retained in the leÊ¿azim are those that are supported by matres lectionis, that is, â¨â®×Ö¹â¬ââ© for /o/ and â¨â®ï¬µâ¬ââ© for /u/. For /i/, the only sign that already existed, ḥireq, is used and always followed by a mater lectionis, the letter yod: â¨â®×Ö´×â¬ââ©. As for representing the vowels /a/ and /e/, there is more variety, since there are two different Masoretic signs for each of them,15 not to mention the fact that it is obligatory to indicate them by a mater lectionis at the end of a word, and this is even possible, though not obligatory, at the beginning or in the middle of a word.
For the vowel /e/, two Masoretic signs, á¹£ere â¨â®×Öµâ¬ââ© and segol â¨â®×Ö¶â¬ââ©, are used. Ḥatef segol â¨â®×Ö±â¬ââ©, a Masoretic sign representing [Ä],16 is never used in these leÊ¿azim. á¹¢ere is the sign generally used, while segol is used only 16 times in the entire manuscript. Of these 16 occurrences, 9 are for rendering the article el,17 and 2 for the pronoun ellos,18 that is, for the sequence ʾalef + lamed â¨â®××â¬ââ©.19 This means that the habit in biblical Hebrew of vocalizing the preposition â®×Ö¶×â¬â with segol, which appears frequently in the Bible, seems to affect how the Romance with the same spellingâthe article el (as well as that part of the pronoun ellos)âis rendered. This does not mean that this article and this pronoun are always written with segol: although there are 9 places where segol is used with el and 2 with ellos, there are 12 places where á¹£ere is used with the article20 and 3 where it is used with the pronoun.21 However, the fact that these 11 cases where segol is used with the article or the pronoun constitute two thirds of the instances of segol is very significant.22
The Å¡ewaʾ, a Masoretic sign that indicates the absence of a vowel in Biblical Hebrew,23 and is sometimes pronounced [Ä], is used here for the absence of a vowelâthat is, at the end of a closed syllable in the middle of a word, or on the first consonant of a consonant cluster.24 In very few cases there might be a doubt as to whether it represents /e/, as in âglondrinuâ or âguelondrinuâ â¨â®×Ö°Ö¿××Ö¹× Ö°ï¬³Ö°×¨Ö´×× ï¬µâ¬ââ© (Prv 30:28),25 âbevduraâ or âbeveduraâ â¨â®ï¬±Öµ××ְֿדּוּרָ×â¬ââ© (Prv 31:4), and âprovdesmuâ or âprovedesmuâ â¨â®×¤Ö°×¨×Ö¹×ְֿדֵּ×שְׁ×וּâ¬ââ© (Prv 30:1). However, in these few cases, where etymological /e/ would stand in pretonic position, I think that Å¡ewaʾ might have been pronounced [Ä] or might even represent the absence of a vowel. The fact that Latin pretonic /e/ often disappeared in Medieval-Castilian popular words (see below, §â¯7.1.2.4), and that, in the vast majority of cases in these leÊ¿azim, Å¡ewaʾ stands without a doubt for absence of vowel, supports the idea that Å¡ewaʾ is not used here to represent a full pronounced /e/ in any case, and therefore the transcription âglondrinu,â âbevdura,â and âprovdesmuâ has been preferred.
As for the use of matres lectionis to indicate the vowel /e/, the general tendency is to use yod following a vocalized consonant: â¨â®×Öµ×â¬ââ©, and in very specific cases to use ʾalef: â¨â®×Öµ×â¬ââ©. There are 10 cases of ʾalef as the mater lectionis for á¹£ere, and these are exclusively to represent the diphthongs [Ëje] and [Ëei̯] at the end of a word (as in âmieâ â¨â®×Ö´×Öµ×â¬ââ© [Pss 16:8, 60:10] or âreyâ â¨â®×¨Öµ×Ö°×â¬ââ© [Ps 110:4; Prv 28:16]),26 or to represent in a single word the sequence preposition de + article el or pronoun él, â¨â®ï¬³Öµ××â¬ââ©,27 although here it might be a case of the tendency to write the article or the pronoun using the sequence â¨â®××â¬ââ©. There are, besides, numerous cases in the middle of a word where the vowel /e/ is not accompanied by any mater lectionis. We might imagine that, as in Hebrew, this phenomenon is related to the representation of closed syllables; however, in the analyzed cases there are a proportionally equal number of occurrences both of open syllables and closed syllables, and so there does not seem to be a specific reason for the absence of a mater lectionis. I am of the opinion, in this case, that the rendering of /e/ without a mater lectionis should be attributed simply to graphic variation, which is also quite common in other aspects of how Romance is rendered in Hebrew aljamÃa.
Graphic variation with no specific cause is also typical in the use of the two Masoretic signs to represent the vowel /a/, qameá¹£ â¨â®×Ö¸â¬ââ© and pataḥ â¨â®×Ö·â¬ââ©.28 These two signs are used indiscriminately in any position, whether the syllable is open or closed, except at the end of the word. In that position, force of habit dictates the use of qameá¹£, followed by heʾ or ʾalef as the mater lectionis (with very few exceptions),29 since in both Hebrew and Aramaic words ending in /a/ take qameá¹£. The mater lectionis indicating /a/ at the end of a word is always, as in Hebrew and Aramaic, a heʾ or ʾalef, although there are more cases of the former (262) than the latter (101).30 Sometimes the choice of one over the other appears to be due to mere graphic variation, but there does seem to be a pattern, particularly in the use of ʾalef. Thus, of the 101 cases where the mater lectionis for an /a/ at the end of a word is ʾalef, 53 appear in the group â¨â®×Ö¸×â¬ââ©,31 to represent the sounds of the diphthong [ja] and the hiatus [Ëia] â¨â®×Ö¸×â¬ââ©,32 and syllables with the palatals [ɲa] â¨â®× Ö°×Ö¸×â¬ââ© and [Êa] â¨â®×Ö°×Ö¸×â¬ââ©.33 In another 15 cases, the use of alef is related to the rendering of the article la or the feminine pronoun la,34 while in 8 cases it is used to represent the conjunction ca.35 Nonetheless, even when there is a pattern of use like the ones mentioned above, there can still be graphic variation between heʾ and ʾalef. Thus, ânomradÃaâ is written with a final ʾalef in Ps 49:12, and with a final heʾ in Jb 29:4; and while âgraciaâ is written with a final ʾalef in two places (Jb 41:4; Prv 31:30), the verb âengraciaâ (Ps 119:29) is written with a final heʾ. Elsewhere, the spelling is consistent, as in the case of âconpaña,â which appears 16 different times, always written â¨â®×§×Ö¹× Ö°×¤Ö·× Ö°×Ö¸×â¬ââ©,36 or the cases mentioned above of the article/pronoun la and the conjunction ca, which are always written with ʾalef.
In other positions, the leÊ¿azim might use ʾalef as the mater lectionis, or not use any at all. The use of ʾalef as the mater lectionis for /a/ in any position is one of the characteristics of Hebrew aljamÃa that is directly related to writing norms in Arabic and, in particular, in Arabic aljamÃa, where ʾalif is often used in the same way. The use of ʾalef as the mater lectionis is also reinforced by its abundant use in Aramaic, a language that most Jewish scribes were familiar with (see above, §â¯5.7). On the other hand, the representation of /a/ by using only a pataḥ or qameá¹£, without a mater lectionis, is very frequent in the writing of biblical Hebrew, where ʾalef is rarely used as the mater lectionis in the middle of a word. In the leÊ¿azim we can detect no norm or method for distinguishing between one use or the other, with or without ʾalef as mater lectionis, since both uses were customary in the different writing traditions that Jewish scribes were familiar with. In fact, there are cases in which the same word is written in one place with an ʾalef and in another without it. For example, we have âramuâ rendered as both â¨â®×¨Ö¸×וּâ¬ââ© (Ps 74:5) and â¨â®×¨Ö¸××וּâ¬ââ© (Ps 80:16); âbeluntadâ as â¨â®ï¬±Öµ××ï¬µ× Ö°×Ö¸××Ö¿â¬ââ©/â¨â®ï¬±Öµ××ï¬µ× Ö°×Ö¸××â¬ââ© (Pss 17:9, 27:12, 105:22; Jb 6:11; Prv 29:10) and â¨â®ï¬±Öµ××ï¬µ× Ö°×Ö·×Ö¿â¬ââ© (Jb 19:17); and âmajaduraâ as â¨â®×Ö¸×ָֹדּוּרָ×â¬ââ© (Ps 90:2) and â¨â®×Ö¸×Ö¹Ö¸×דּוּרָ×â¬ââ© (Ps 93:3). Therefore, I attribute this writing variation to the scribeâs preference. This does not mean, however, that we do not sometimes observe tendencies toward standardization, which can perhaps be attributed to the fact that all the leÊ¿azim were written by the same scribe. For example, all the forms of the verb âfavlarâ and of the noun âfavlaâ are always written without ʾalef in the /fa/ syllable;37 the word âsañaâ and its derivatives are always written without ʾalef in the /sa/ syllable;38 and, the three times that the word âsazónâ appears, it is also always written without ʾalef.39 We should also mention the use of ʾalef as the mater lectionis in the forms of some verbs, where certain tendencies are observable even within the variation. In the paradigms and derivatives of the verbs tajar, catar, and majar40 we observed a pattern related to the tonic syllable: ʾalef is used in the second syllable in almost all forms, such as in âtajarâ â¨â®×Ö·×Ö¹Ö¸×רâ¬ââ© (Jb 5:26, 8:12, 15:32, 36:20) or âmajadosâ â¨â®×Ö·×Ö¸Ö¹×דּ×ֹשâ¬ââ© (Jb 4:20, 34:25), except in those in which the stress falls on the first syllable. In these cases, ʾalef is used in that syllable:41 âtajuâ â¨â®×Ö¸××ֹוּâ¬ââ© (Ps 118:10); âtajasâ and âtaja·sâ â¨â®×Ö¸××ָֹשâ¬ââ© (Ps 90:6, 104:29; Jb 14:2), âtajanâ â¨â®×Ö¸××Ö¹Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Ps 58:8; Jb 24:24), âno·m tajesâ â¨â®× ×Ö¹×Ö°×Ö¸××Ö¹Öµ×שׁâ¬ââ© (Ps 102:25), âmajanâ â¨â®×Ö¸××Ö¹Ö·×â¬ââ© (Ps 74:6), âmajaâ â¨â®×Ö¸××Ö¹Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Jb 40:12), âcatuâ â¨â®×§Ö¸××וּâ¬ââ© (Ps 142:5), âcatiâ â¨â®×§Ö¸××Ö´×â¬ââ© (Jb 31:1), âcataâ â¨â®×§Ö¸××Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Ps 37:37), and âcatanâ â¨â®×§Ö¸××Ö·×â¬ââ© (Ps 56:7).42
7.1.2.2 Hiatuses and Diphthongs
Simple hiatuses, formed by two open or strong vowels, are represented graphically as full vowels, as was explained in the previous section, and constitute different syllables, as in âmaestruâ â¨â®×Ö¸×Öµ×שְׁ×ְרוּâ¬ââ© (Sg 7:2), âmañanearâ â¨â®×Ö·× Ö°×Ö¸×× Öµ××ָרâ¬ââ© (Ps 27:4), âaloadoresâ â¨â®×Ö¸××Ö¹×ָדּ×ֹרֵ×שׁâ¬ââ© (Ps 137:3), and âdeseosaâ â¨â®ï¬³Öµ×שֵׁ×××ֹשָ×â¬ââ© (Ps 107:9). The word ending âeu can also perhaps be considered a hiatus, since the ending âu of all words that in modern Spanish are written with âo might be a graphic convention of the leÊ¿azim rather than a reflection of pronunciation (see below, §â¯7.1.2.3). There are four cases that fall into this category: âbeuâ â¨â®ï¬±Öµ××וּâ¬ââ© (Ps 142:5), ârenuceuâ â¨â®×¨Öµ×× ï¬µ×¡Öµ××וּâ¬ââ© (Jb 13:17), and âdeseuâ â¨â®ï¬³Öµ×שֵׁ××וּâ¬ââ© (Jb 17:13, 31:35), which are all written with full vowels, as if they were simple hiatuses.
The graphic representation of accented hiatuses, which are made up of an open vowel and a closed, accented vowel, is more variable and depends to a large extent on the position of the hiatus and the spelling norms of written Hebrew. The hiatus [Ëia], which is the most common, having 21 occurrences, appears in word-final position in 15 places. A variety of spelling solutions are used, but these can be classified into two groups: (1) just like a simple hiatus, it is written with two full vowels, as in âdÃaâ â¨â®×Ö´××Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Jb 17:12);43 (2) a solution is adopted that includes a ḥireq followed by the group â¨â®×Ö¸×â¬ââ©, â¨â®×²Ö¸×â¬ââ©, or â¨â®×Ö¸×â¬ââ©, as in âmalfesrÃaâ â¨â®×Ö·×ְפֵֿ×שְׁרִ×Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Ps 27:12), âmejorÃaâ â¨â®×Öµ××Ö¹×ֹרִײָ×â¬ââ© (Jb 4:21), and ânomradÃaâ â¨â®× ×Ö¹×ְרָ×דִּ×Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Jb 29:4), resulting in a phonic sequence, [ËiÊa], that is very common in Arabic.44 In positions other than absolute final position, the hiatus [Ëia] is represented with full vowels.45 The rest of the accented hiatuses are more rare, and there are basically two solutions adopted by the scribe: (1) spellings with two full vowels in âcelantÃosâ â¨â®×¡Öµ××Ö·× Ö°×Ö´×××ֹשׁâ¬ââ© (Ps 26:4) and âalbedrÃuâ â¨â®×Ö·×Ö°×Ö¿Öµ×דְּרִ××וּâ¬ââ© (Jb 12:20);46 or (2) the spelling with Å¡ewaʾ to close the previous syllable and â¨â®×²Öµâ¬ââ© for the hiatus [Ëie] in âbazÃesâ â¨â®×Ö·×ְײֵשׁâ¬ââ© (Ps 141:8).47
Like hiatuses, diphthongs may also be written with full vowels. This happens always in diphthongs without the semi-consonant [j] (or the semivowel [i̯])âthat is, in [wa], [we], and [eu̯],48 the last of which is found only at the end of a word. Diphthongs that contain the semi-consonant [j] (or the semivowel [i̯]) are sporadically represented with full vowels, almost always in the following situations: (1) when the diphthong is in the first syllable of the word, such as in the only two occurrences of the diphthong [ja] in this position, âpiadarâ â¨â®ïÖ´××ָדָּ×רâ¬ââ© (Ps 77:10) and âpiádedâ â¨â®ïÖ´××ָדֵּ××Ö¿â¬ââ© (Jb 33:24), and occasionally in the diphthong [je], in âcienuâ â¨â®×¡Ö´××Öµ× ï¬µâ¬ââ© (Ps 69:3), âvienenâ â¨â®ï¬±Ö´××Öµ×× Öµ××â¬ââ© (Jb 30:4), âcriestâ â¨â®×§Ö°×¨Ö´××Öµ×שְׁ×â¬ââ© (Ps 90:2), and âtriedâ â¨â®×ְרִ××Öµ××Ö¿â¬ââ© (Prv 30:20), the last two cases coinciding with another condition that favors the use of full vowels, which is the diphthongâs syllable beginning with a consonant cluster; (2) when the diphthong comes after a closed syllable and its syllable begins with a consonant, as in âansiaâ â¨â®×Ö·× Ö°ï¬ªÖ´××Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Eccl 5:16), âentienduâ â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö°×Ö´××Öµ×× Ö°ï¬³ï¬µâ¬ââ© (Ps 81:6), âescorpiónâ â¨â®×Öµ×שְׁק×ֹרְïÖ´×××Ö¹×â¬ââ© (Ps 140:4), and âgoverniuâ â¨â®×Ö¿×Ö¹×Öµ××¨Ö°× Ö´××וּâ¬ââ© (Pss 78:25, 144:13 [2]; Jb 38:41);49 (3) when the syllable in which the diphthong appears begins with a consonant cluster in which the second consonant is trilled, as in âalbedriadvosâ â¨â®×Ö·×ְבֵּ××ְֿרִ××Ö·×Ö°×Ö¿×ֹשׁâ¬ââ© (Ps 34:9), âbidriuâ â¨â®ï¬±Ö´×דְּרִ××וּâ¬ââ© (Jb 28:17), or âafreiciónâ â¨â®×ַפְֿרֵ××Ö´×סְ××Ö¹×â¬ââ© (Jb 36:15, 36:21).50 As we have seen in âcriestâ and âtried,â this can also happen at the beginning of a word.51 Full vowels may also be used to represent these diphthongs even if the conditions mentioned above are not met, as in âpreciaduâ â¨â®×¤Ö°×¨Öµ×סִ××ָדּוּâ¬ââ© (Ps 12:7) or in âencubiertuâ â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö°×§ï¬µï¬±Ö´××Öµ×רְ×וּâ¬ââ© (Ps 139:14), although this is rare,52 except in the case of the diphthong [je] in absolute word final position, the 8 cases of which are rendered either with full vowels or other spelling solutions.53
However, diphthongs with the semi-consonant [j] or the semivowel [i̯] most frequently use a spelling sequence that does not represent full vowels. In the case of the diphthongs [ja], [jo], and [ju], the most common sequence by far is the combination of a Å¡ewaʾ to close the previous syllable, followed by [ja] â¨â®×Ö¸×â¬ââ©/â¨â®×Ö·×â¬ââ©,54 [jo] â¨â®××Ö¹â¬ââ©, or [ju] â¨â®×וּâ¬ââ©, respectively. Some examples are âbaziaduâ â¨â®×Ö·×Ö°×Ö¸××ֿוּâ¬ââ© (Ps 45:3), âcovdiciaâ â¨â®×§×Ö¹×Ö¿Ö°×Ö´×סְ×Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Ps 39:12), âdeliciososâ â¨â®ï¬³Öµ××Ö´×סְ××ֹש×ֹשâ¬ââ© (Ps 22:30), and âcativeriuâ â¨â®×§Ö·×Ö´××Ö¿Öµ×רְ×וּâ¬ââ© (Ps 85:2; Jb 42:10).55 The fact that this solution involves making the previous syllable closed means that it can only be used in the middle or at the end of a wordâexcept in the case of the diphthong [jo]56âand it must follow a syllable that is open, so that it can be closed with the consonant which supports the diphthong phonetically. If these conditions are not present, the diphthong is generally represented with full vowels. There are 7 cases that are exceptions to this rule, and of these 5 come after a closed syllable and are written with a ḥireq in place of the Å¡ewaʾ, followed by â¨â®×Ö¸×â¬ââ©, â¨â®××Ö¹â¬ââ©, â¨â®×וּâ¬ââ©: âalimpiamientuâ â¨â®×Ö·×Ö´××ְפִ×Ö¸××Ö´×²Öµ× Ö°×וּâ¬ââ© (Prv 28:17), âgananciaâ â¨â®×Ö¿Ö·× Ö·× Ö°×¡Ö´×Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Eccl 5:8),57 âescarniosâ â¨â®×Öµ×ï¬ªÖ°×§Ö·×¨Ö°× Ö´××ֹשׁâ¬ââ© (Ps 35:16), and âgoverniuâ â¨â®×Ö¿×Ö¹×Öµ××¨Ö°× Ö´×וּâ¬ââ© (Ps 111:5, Ps 132:15).58
In the case of the diphthong [je], the solution that is generally adopted consists of using ḥireq followed by two yods vocalized with a single á¹£ere â¨â®×²Öµâ¬ââ©, as in âpiénsadâ â¨â®ïÖ´×²Öµ× Ö°ï¬ªÖ·×â¬ââ© (Prv 31:16), and âfaziendaâ â¨â®×¤Ö¸×Ö´×²Öµ× Ö°ï¬³Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Ps 37:5). In only four places does the spelling solution for [je] use Å¡ewaʾ instead of ḥireq, as happens with other rising diphthongs: âsáliedâ â¨â®ï¬ªÖ·×ְײֵ×Ö¿â¬ââ© (Jb 37:1), ânaxiençasâ â¨â®× Ö¸×©Ö°×²Öµ× Ö°×¡Ö¸×שׁâ¬ââ© (Sg 5:13), âdoloriéâ â¨â®ï¬³×Ö¹××ֹרְײֵ×â¬ââ© (Jb 31:39), and âmayorgariéâ â¨â®×Ö¸××ֹרְגָּ×רְײֵ××â¬ââ© (Jb 31:37).59 In absolute word final position, as we can see in these last two examples, the spelling adopted adds an ʾalef as the mater lectionis, and this also includes cases of the possessive âmieâ â¨â®×Ö´×Öµ×â¬ââ© (Ps 16:8, 60:10), where only one yod is written. In âmayorgariéâ â¨â®×Ö¸××ֹרְגָּ×רְײֵ××â¬ââ© (Jb 31:37), the last yod should be understood as a scribal error.
As in the case of the diphthong [je], two yods are also used in a few cases of the diphthong [ja]: (1) three places in which they are written using a combination of ḥireq + two yods vocalized with a single qameá¹£ or pataḥ, in âduriançaâ â¨â®×ï¬µ×¨Ö´×²Ö·× Ö°×¡Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Ps 60:5), ânodiciasâ â¨â®× ×ֹדִּ×סִײָשâ¬ââ© (Ps 71:15), and âcobdÃciadâ â¨â®×§×ֹבְּדִּ×סִײַ×Ö¿â¬ââ© (Jb 27:8); (2) three cases like the previous ones but with Å¡ewaʾ instead of ḥireq, in âmaliciasâ â¨â®×Ö¸×Ö´×סְײָשׁâ¬ââ© (Ps 38:13), âengravia·sâ â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö°×ְרַ×ְײָשâ¬ââ© (Ps 49:9), and âpinturiasâ â¨â®ïÖ´×× Ö°×וּרְײַשׁâ¬ââ© (Sg 1:11); as well as a case that is very similar to these but which is written with a single yod, âenbÃciadâ â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö°ï¬±Ö´×סְ×Ö·×â¬ââ© (Ps 49:19).
Falling diphthongs appear much less often. In addition to the cases of [eu̯] that have been addressed above, there are only six cases of [ai̯], five cases of [ei̯],60 one case of [oi̯], and four cases of [wi] or [ui̯]. Among the cases of [ai̯], four render the diphthong with full vowels,61 while the other two use different strategies: in âesvainaâ â¨â®×Öµ×ש×Ö¿Ö¸×²Ö´× Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Ps 35:3), following qameá¹£ two yods vocalized with a ḥireq are used, and in âdecairánâ â¨â®×Öµ×קַ××ְרָ××â¬ââ© (Ps 37:2), an ʾalef is written as the mater lectionis for the pataḥ, followed by a yod vocalized with a Å¡ewaʾ. This spelling, yod vocalized with a Å¡ewaʾ, is the same used to represent the semi-vowel [i̯] of the diphthongs [oi̯], [ui̯], and [ei] when not in absolute final position: âfereiniâ or âfer[r]einiâ â¨â®×¤Öµ×¨Öµ×Ö°× Ö´×â¬ââ© (Ps 72:6), âaféita·tâ â¨â®×ַפֵײְ×Ö·×â¬ââ© (Jb 40:10), âcoitaâ â¨â®×§×Ö¹×Ö°×Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Ps 35:15), âcuidadosâ â¨â®×§ï¬µ×ְדָּ×דּ×ֹשâ¬ââ© (Jb 17:11), âcuitaâ â¨â®×§ï¬µ×Ö°×Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Jb 30:13), and âfruitosâ â¨â®×¤Ö°Ö¿×¨ï¬µ×Ö°××ֹשâ¬ââ© (Sg 10:11). In âresfuidâ â¨â®×¨Öµ×שְׁפֿ×ײִ×Ö¿â¬ââ© (Ps 94:18), the ḥireq probably indicates the tonic vowel, [Ëwi]. Finally, there are three cases of the diphthong [ei̯] in absolute final position, which have been examined above in the discussion of the vowel /e/ rendered by ʾalef as the mater lectionis. In effect, in all three places the spelling solution is a á¹£ere followed by an ʾalef (marked with a Å¡ewaʾ in two of them), and a final yod to represent the semivowel [i̯]: âreyâ â¨â®×¨Öµ××â¬ââ© (Ps 110), â¨â®×¨Öµ×Ö°×â¬ââ© (Prv 28:16), and âleyâ â¨â®×Öµ×Ö°×â¬ââ© (Prv 31:5).
7.1.2.3 Word Endings âu and âi; Extreme Apocope
One of the most prominent features of vocalization, as it is represented graphically in the leÊ¿azim, is the systematic use of the word ending âu in most cases where we have âo in modern Spanish: in masculine singular nouns, adjectives, and past participles, as well as the first-person singular of the present tense: for example, âpedaçuâ â¨â®ïÖµ×דָּ×סוּâ¬ââ© (Sg 4:3), âuecuâ â¨â®×וּ×ֵקוּâ¬ââ© (Jb 11:12), âsospechaduâ â¨â®×©×ֹשְׁïÖµ××Ö¸Ö¹×דּוּâ¬ââ© (Prv 28:17), âmâaquexuâ â¨â®×Ö¸×קֵ×שׁוּâ¬ââ© (Ps 139:21). In addition, there is the third-person singular masculine object pronoun and the neuter article, which both take the form âluâ â¨â®×וּâ¬ââ©. The word ending âo is only found in the possessives âmio,â âto,â and âso,â62 which occur often; in the first-person singular subject pronoun âyoâ â¨â®××Ö¹â¬ââ© (Pss 89:48, 146:2), in the noun âDioâ (see above, §â¯7.1.2.2), and in the only third-person singular preterit âo form âsoltó a [e]llosâ â¨â®×©×Ö¹×Ö°××Ö¹×Ö·×Ö°××ֹשׁâ¬ââ© (Jb 8:4; see below, §â¯7.2.6.3). The plural of the masculine singular forms ending in âu invariably ends in âos: for example, singular âcancuâ â¨â®×§Ö¸×× Ö°×§ï¬µâ¬ââ© (Ps 46:1) becomes plural âcancosâ â¨â®×§Ö·× ְק×ֹשâ¬ââ© (Ps 32:7), in the same way that the first-person plural of all verb tenses also ends in âos: for example, âenpuxaremosâ â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö°ïוּשָׁ×רֵ×××ֹשׁâ¬ââ© (Ps 44:6). The word ending âu is also found in the vocalized Hebrew aljamÃa in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century siddurim,63 and its widespread use in the leÊ¿azim might mean that it is a special spelling feature rather than an indication of a real phonic difference, although we cannot rule out the possibility that the âu word-final pronunciation had become standard in the variety of Castilian Romance used by Jews. Outside this community, primitive Romance alternated between word endings in âo and in âu up to the thirteenth century, although âo was used more frequently than âu in writing.64
A parallel phenomenon to the ending âu is the ending âi in words that in modern Spanish have âe, with the exception of the preposition de and the pronoun/conjunction que (interrogative qué). Littlefield is of the opinion that this is a unique feature of medieval Riojan dialect, which is also found in the language of Berceo.65 According to Fradejas Rueda, the raising of final âe to âi may have been an intermediate step leading to the extreme apocope of the atonic final âe.66 In the leÊ¿azim, this âi ending is found in some singular nouns and adjectives that have not become apocopated, as well as in proclitic object and reflexive/reciprocal pronouns,67 and enclitics following a consonant, which cannot be elided. To these cases should be added the conjunction âmientriâ â¨â®×Ö´×²Öµ× Ö°×ְרִ×â¬ââ© (Pss 72:5, 146:2; Jb 4:19, 27:3; Sg 1:12 [âmientriâ]), and âtanamientriâ (Prv 31:7), where apocope does not occur, and the first-person singular forms of the present subjunctive, in which âe shifts to âi: of the three forms that appear, in two we can see the raising of final âe to âi, â(yo) catiâ â¨â®×§Ö¸××Ö´×â¬ââ© (Jb 31:1; infin. catar), â(yo) esbivliâ â¨â®×Öµ×שְׁבִּ××Ö°Ö¿×Ö´×â¬ââ© (Prv 30:9; infin. esbivlar), and in the other the final syllable is not vocalized, â¨â®×פְ×Öµ×××â¬ââ© (Ps 75:3), but must surely have been read â(yo) apleguiâ (infin. aplegar). The only cases of singular nouns and adjectives that have not undergone extreme apocope are some in which the last vowel is preceded by a consonant cluster, such as âfortiâ â¨â®×¤Ö¿×ֹרְ×Ö´×â¬ââ© (Ps 89:8; Jb 22:25, 34:20, 41:16; Sg 8:6), âdovliâ â¨â®××Ö¹×Ö°Ö¿×Ö´×â¬ââ© (Jb 41:5), âeramriâ â¨â®×Öµ×רַ×ְרִ×â¬ââ© (Jb 28:2), and âomniâ â¨â®××Ö¹×Ö°× Ö´×â¬ââ© (in several places). The plural of these forms always ends in âes: for example, âomnesâ â¨â®××Ö¹×Ö°× Öµ×שâ¬ââ© (Pss 17:14, 18:5 [âomnesâ]; Sg 1:4). There are also cases of nouns in both forms, one ending in âi and the other elided: âpartiâ â¨â®ïÖ¸×רְ×Ö´×â¬ââ© (Ps 16:5), in contrast with âpartâ â¨â®×¤Ö¸×רְ×â¬ââ© (Ps 55:10; Jb 17:6), and âmortiâ â¨â®××ֹרְ×Ö´×â¬ââ© (Pss 79:11, 102:21), in contrast with âmortâ â¨â®××ֹרְ×â¬ââ© (Prv 31:8).68 This alternation between apocopic forms and âi endings may corroborate the thesis that apocope occurred only after the final âe was raised to final âi. Lastly, the object and reflexive/reciprocal pronouns with the closed ending âi are âmi,â âti,â âli,â âsi,â as, for example, in ânon mi despriciedesâ â¨â®× ×Ö¹× ×Ö´× ï¬³Öµ×שְׁפְרִ×סְײֵדֵּ×שׁâ¬ââ© (Sg 1:6), âmi espavrecÃâ â¨â®×Ö´× ×Öµ×שְׁïÖ·×ְֿרֵ×סִ×â¬ââ© (Jb 32:6), âti veaâ â¨â®×Ö´× ×Ö¿Öµ××Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Ps 63:3), âti yudgasâ â¨â®×Ö´× ×וּ×ְגַּשׁâ¬ââ© (Ps 18:27), âafÃca·sliâ â¨â®×ַפִֿ×קַשְׁ×Ö´×â¬ââ© (Jb 24:20), and âafedecÃronsiâ â¨â®×ַפֵ××Öµ×סִ×ר×Ö¹× Ö°×©Ö´×â¬ââ© (Ps 38:6).69
As has just been noted, these leÊ¿azim reflect the pervasiveness, during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, of the phenomenon known as extreme apocope of atonic final âe, one of the linguistic developments generally attributed to the arrival of Franksâdifferent human groups from France, Provence, and Cataloniaâin Castile, León, Navarre, and Aragon starting in the late eleventh century.70 The phenomenon of apocope can be seen in the leÊ¿azim in some nouns that in modern Spanish end in âe, such as âpartâ â¨â®×¤Ö¸×רְ×â¬ââ© (Ps 55:10), âtorâ â¨â®××ֹרâ¬ââ© (Sg 7:5), âmontâ â¨â®××Ö¹× Ö°×â¬ââ© (Pss 11:1, 30:8, 68:16), the adverb âestonçâ â¨â®×Öµ×שְ××Ö¹× Ö°×¥â¬ââ© (Ps 48:6) < Vulgar L. *extÅnce, and prepositions like âsobrâ â¨â®×©×ֹבְּרâ¬ââ© (Pss 45:4, 110:6; Jb 21:31, 36:33)71 and the variant form âsubrâ â¨â®×©ï¬µï¬±Ö°×¨â¬ââ© (Ps 139:14; Jb 26:7), âdenantâ â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö·× Ö°×â¬ââ© (Pss 45:13, 119:58 [âdenantâ]; Jb 30:11; Sg 2:5), and even âescuantrâ â¨â®×Öµ×שְׁקוּ×Ö·× Ö°×ְרְâ¬ââ© (Prv 30:31),72 but especially in the following contexts: (1) verb forms with enclitic pronouns, such as âapremi·mâ â¨â®×ַפְרֵ××Ö´××â¬ââ© (Ps 38:7) for *apremimi, âaféita·tâ â¨â®×ַפֵײְ×Ö·×â¬ââ© (Jb 40:10) for *aféitati, and âaforta·sâ â¨â®×ַפֿ×ֹרְ×ַשâ¬ââ© (Ps 52:9) for *afórtasi, except the cases where the pronoun is attached to a form ending in a consonant, such as âlavarmiâ â¨â®×Ö·×ַֿרְ×Ö´×â¬ââ© (Ps 51:4) and âdesacoraçnestmiâ â¨â®ï¬³Öµ×שְׁ×ָק×Ö¹×¨Ö·×¡Ö°× Öµ×שְׁ×Ö°×Ö´×â¬ââ© (Sg 4:9); (2) verb forms with a final atonic âe,73 except those in first-person singular of the present subjunctive mentioned above, in which âe is raised to âi.
Examples of elided forms include:
-
first-person singular of the imperfect subjunctive, as in âdenegásâ â¨â®ï¬³Öµ×× Öµ××ַֿשׁâ¬ââ© (Jb 31:28) and âprendésâ â¨â®ïְרֵ×× Ö°ï¬³Öµ×שׁâ¬ââ© (Ps 139:9).
-
second-person singular of the preterit, as in âafolgantestâ â¨â®×ַפֿ×Ö¹×Ö°×Ö·× Ö°×Öµ×שְ×â¬ââ© (Ps 60:3) and âemplistâ â¨â®×Ö¶××Ö°ïÖ°×Ö´×שְׁ×â¬ââ© (Jb 36:17); in âaformosigüéstitiâ â¨â®×ַפֿ×ֹרְ××ֹשִׁ××וּ×Öµ×שְ×Ö´××Ö´×â¬ââ© (Ps 45:3) the vowel in the verb ending is maintained for ease of pronunciation when the reflexive pronoun is appended (*aformosigüestti).
-
second-person singular of the imperative in the second and third conjugations, as in ârecuejâ â¨â®ïÖµ×קוּ×Öµ××Ö¹â¬ââ© (Jb 22:22) and âespartâ â¨â®×Öµ×שְפַרְ×â¬ââ© (Ps 17:7).
-
singular present participle, as in âendreçantâ â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö°ï¬³Ö°×¨Öµ××¡Ö·× Ö°×â¬ââ© (Ps 50:23) and âenemigantâ â¨â®×Öµ×× Öµ××Ö´×ï¬²Ö·× Ö°×â¬ââ© (Jb 20:27).
7.1.2.4 Diphthongization of the Latin Tonic Vowels /Å/ and /Ä/; Atonic Vowels
The diphthongization of the Latin tonic vowels /Å/ and /Ä/, which is practically a pan-Romance phenomenon, results in the Castilian diphthongs [Ëwe]74 < /É/ and [Ëje]75 < /É/, in both open and closed syllables, except in some cases where the palatal glide (yod) has a metaphonic effect on the vowel.76 The leÊ¿azim are spelled in a way that reflects widespread diphthongization in the case of /Ä/, and variability in the case of /Å/, which may be due either to mere graphic inconsistency or true phonic variation.
As for [Ëje] < /É/ < /Ä/, there are numerous examples; to cite only a few: âmiemrosâ < L. mÄmbru (Ps 2:18; Jb 17:7, 17:16, 41:15), âparientesâ < L. parÄntes (Ps 45:17), âsiegluâ < L. sæculu (Prv 30:15), âyedâ < L. Äst (in multiple places), âsiedâ < L. sÄdÄ (Jb 37:6; imperative of ser), all nouns ending in âmientu < L. âmÄntu, such as âmandamientuâ (Pss 21:3, 73:9; Prv 30:17), âalçamientuâ (Pss 12:9, 60:6; Jb 20:6), âenboçamientuâ (Ps 39:2), etc. Some atonic syllables also diphthongize, such as âyegualesâ < L. æquale (Sg 4:2)77 and âtiendistâ (Ps 80:12; infinitive tender), although the latter case can be explained by analogy with the forms in the paradigm that diphthongize in the tonic syllable. Likewise, âespiejuâ < L. spÄcÅlu (Jb 37:18) forms a diphthong, which is similar to what happens with the same word in Old Aragonese, spiello, Occitan, espielh/espil, and Catalan, espill, in contrast to the Castilian espejo, which some say derives from *spÄcÅlu or *spÄcÅlu.78 âSieganâ (Jb 31:8) < L. sÄdeant and âsiégadâ (Jb 27:7) < L. sÄdeat, both with epenthetic /g/,79 also diphthongize.80 On the other hand, an atypical case of diphthongization is âplievesâ (Ps 44:3) < L. plÄbes, a translation of H. â®×ֻמִּ××â¬â, âpeoples, crowdsâ. Not only is this noun not attested in Romance texts from before the fifteenth century; here the diphthongization might suggest the existence of the vulgar form *plÄbes, from which the form given in the laÊ¿az was derived. Another atypical diphthongization is âyedruâ (Ps 84:3; Jb 36:33) < L. ÄtÄru, with the meaning of âagain, a second time, repeated,â in which the initial /Ä/ might have opened into /É/ due to the influence of the post-tonic /Ä/ or might have equalized with it before the /Ä/ was dropped. In any case, it should be compared to the terms yedra, âthe second digging of vineyards,â and edrar, âto dig vineyards a second time,â recorded by Corominas as dialectical variants in La Rioja.81
Several examples of the ending âiellu < L. âÄllu and its derivatives, which have not yet undergone monophthongization to /i/,82 can be found in the leÊ¿azim, such as âamarielluâ (Ps 68:14), âcuclielluâ (Ps 102:7), âdesacolmiellanâ (Jb 4:10), âreviellosâ (Jb 13:26), âcuchiellosâ (Prv 30:14), âcuchiel[l]aâ (Jb 39:23), and âcolmiellosâ (Prv 30:14), compared to a single case of monophthongization, âcochillaâ (Jb 20:25). This predominance of âiello alongside the occasional case of monophthongization coincides with what Menéndez Pidal found in Castilian notarial documents.83 He identified cases of monophthongization beginning in the tenth century, the majority of which came from Northern Castile and Burgos up to the twelfth century, and especially Burgos in the thirteenth, whereas Northern Castile favored a return to the archaic form âiello during that century. Hence, Menéndez Pidal concluded that the switch from âiello to âillo was âuna evolución multisecular que comienza en el perÃodo prehistórico del castellano, y gana terreno llevando vida latente durante muchas centurias, antes de invadir francamente la lengua literaria del s. XIV.â84
In the case of [Ëwe] < /É/ < /Å/, representation of the diphthong alternates with some spellings as â¨â®×Ö¹â¬ââ© /o/. Whether this alternation should be understood as inconsistency in the spelling of the diphthong or does truly reflect a phonic variation is difficult to say. In general, it has been argued that the preservation of the spelling â¨oâ© in Romance texts in the Latin alphabet is due to the influence of Latin etymological spelling,85 which would make sense here only if the Jewish scribe knew Latin and its spelling systemâthat is, if he had been trained to be a scribe of notarial documents in Latin and Romance, a possibility that we should not rule out.86 However, some scholars who subscribe to the theory that there was a system of seven vowels in Romance at the beginning of the thirteenth century, including the open vowels /É/ and /É/ in addition to Castilianâs other five, have suggested that the variations in how the diphthongs [Ëje] and [Ëwe] were represented graphically is due to the different pronunciation of the same phoneme. In other words, the phoneme /É/, in this case, was pronounced in different ways, including [É] but also [Ëwe] and, at times, [Ëwa] and [Ëwo].87 Thus, the variation between [É] and [Ëwe] would not only be a graphic variation but would also correspond to a different pronunciation that did not entail a phonological distinction, and thus the two pronunciations would have been interchangeable to a certain extent.88 Hence, Lleal construes the graphic alternation in Navarrese-Hebrew documents from the fourteenth century as a corroboration of phonic inconsistency.89
On the other hand, it is also possible to understand the spelling â¨â®×Ö¹â¬ââ© as representing the diphthong [Ëwe] in the context of the writing habits of Toledo Mozarabs, who, according to Menéndez Pidal, ârepugnaban el diptongo ue,â90 meaning that they avoided representing this diphthong graphically. This supposed repugnance may have been related to the solution adopted in Andalusi Southern Romance, which was inconsistent regarding diphthongization, especially in the former Bætica, as is reflected in eleventh- and twelfth-century Andalusi texts in Arabic aljamÃa.91 If so, it would have been a written feature of Hebrew aljamÃa that originated in the development of Arabic and Hebrew aljamÃa in al-Andalus and later spread to Christian Spain.
Diphthongization is reflected in numerous cases, such as âsuenuâ < L. sÅnu (in multiple places), âcuerdaâ < L. chÅrda (Ps 11:2), âfueruâ < L. fÅru (Ps 85:14; Jb 23:12), and âtuelâ (Ps 119:22; imperative of toller) < L. tÅlle. It is also customary before the palatal glide yod, as in âcuégenlaâ (Ps 80:13) < L. cÅllÄgent, âfueyaâ (Ps 31:18) < L. fÅvÄa and its derivatives âfueyuâ (Jb 30:24) and âfueyosâ (Pss 79:1, 140:11), âfuejasâ (Jb 30:4) < L. fÅlÄa, âplueyasâ (Pss 65:11, 72:6; Jb 36:27) < L. plÅ(v)ia,92 ânuechâ (Jb 5:14, 7:4) and its variant ânoechâ (Jb 17:12) < L. nÅcte, âcuexosâ (Ps 35:15) < probably L. cÅxu,93 âduechuâ (Ps 45:2) < L. dÅctu,94 and ârecuejâ (Jb 22:22; imperative of recoger) < L. recÅllÄge.95 However, the following do not diphthongize: âpostosâ (Ps 49:15), âdoñosâ (Prv 31:5), âenbolvenâ (Ps 73:6), âenboltaâ (Sg 5:14), âmortiâ (Pss 79:11, 102:21) and its variant âmortâ (Prv 31:8), âfortiâ and the plural âfortesâ (many occurrences),96 and âfon[t]â or âfon[ti]â (Sg 4:12). The same is true of âcigoñaâ (Jb 39:13) < L. cÄcÅnÄa, where we should assume that there is no yod metathesis, and therefore the resulting /Å/ > /o/ is to be expected. Finally, there are clear cases of spelling inconsistency in the tonic syllable of verb forms of the same root, for example, in âafloxasâ (Jb 7:19) compared to âafluexaâ (Ps 39:14; Jb 14:6; imperative of afloxar), and in âesmovtiâ (Ps 11:1; imperative of *esmoversi) compared to âesmuévensiâ (Ps 64:9). These cases could be interpreted as proof of phonic variation and not mere graphic alternation.
As for atonic vowels, these sometimes show the uncertainty and wavering one would expect at a time when phonetic inconsistency in this position was common.97 On the one hand, we have solutions that are not the ones that later won out in modern Spanish, such as âbeluntadâ (multiple occurrences), as well as its derivative âenbeluntadâ (Ps 22:9; infinitive *enbeluntar), which were frequent forms in the thirteenth century, with a non-etymological /e/ in the syllable /be/, probably taken from the Latin velle, which disappeared during the transition from Latin to Romance; âdesconecedesâ (Jb 21:29); âdesconexedesâ (Jb 19:3); âconeciduâ (Prv 31:23) < L. cognÅscÄre, with a change in the ending to âescere, due to its greater frequency, which has been preserved in the Judeo-Spanish conecer/coneser;98 â(él) esproméntadâ (Jb 4:2) < L. experimÄntu, âhe experiences, he tests,â where the /o/ might be the influence of probar; and the forms âescuadruñanâ (Ps 64:7), âescuadruñamientuâ (Ps 64:7), âescuadrúñadâ (Ps 77:7), and âescuadruñaduâ (Ps 64:7; Prv 28:12), from the Latin *scrÅ«tiniare, which evoke escudruñar in La Gran Conquista de Ultramar, escodruñar in Old Galician, and esquadrinhar in Portuguese. These examples suggest that perhaps the diphthong [wa], despite being in an atonic syllable, might be the result of a form in Vulgar Latin with /É/ in the second syllable,99 a swapping that would have happened as a result of overcorrection, as Corominas suggests to explain the /o/ forms in escodrinar, escodriñar, ascodriñar.100 On the other hand, the leÊ¿azim show variation in the atonic vowel in cases such as âespremirâ (Prv 30:14) compared to âmâesprimeronâ (Jb 10:8) and âesprimradâ (Jb 39:15); âcochillaâ (Jb 20:25) compared to âcuchiel[l]aâ (Jb 39:23) and âcuchiellosâ (Prv 30:14); âascondichuâ (Jb 40:13) compared to âescondichuâ (Jb 31:33); âdesollegaâ â¨â®ï¬³Öµ× ש×ֹלֵּ××Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Ps 69:24), âhe slips up, he trips over,â compared to âdesulleganâ (Ps 37:31), both formed from the Latin sÅlÄa. It is possible for the variation in the atonic vowel in the infinitive of a verb to be transferred to conjugated forms when the syllable in question becomes tonic, as happens in cobrir/cubrir, which has the same variation in âcóbredâ (Jb 38:34) and âcúbrenluâ (Jb 40:22).
Syncope of pre- and post-tonic vowels is also subject to variation. This gives rise in the leÊ¿azim to forms that are different from those that eventually won out in Castilian. This happens in âumledadâ (Pss 18:36, 45:5) < L. hÅmÄlÄtate, where syncope occurs in the vowel before the pre-tonic syllable instead of the pre-tonic vowel, which actually survived for quite some time, as we can see in the use of humilidat in Berceo.101 Other examples are âglondrinuâ (Prv 30:28) < *guelondrinu/*golondrinu < *elondre < L. hÄrÅndÄne, where syncope occurs again in the vowel before the pre-tonic syllable;102 âcancuâ (Ps 46:1) < L. cantÄcu and âcancosâ (Ps 32:7), where we see the elimination of the post-tonic vowel, compared to the learned cántico; and âbivraâ (Ps 91:13) < L. vÄ«pÄra and âbivrasâ (Jb 20:16), which have the expected syncope of the post-tonic vowel, compared to the semi-learned bÃvora used in medieval Castilian literature, with /o/ due to the influence of vivo.103
7.1.3 Consonants
The consonantal writing system used in these leÊ¿azim is, in general terms, the same used in other aljamÃa texts from the Late Middle Ages produced in the Iberian Peninsula and that has been described both in its phonetic features and from a historical perspective by Minervini and Bunis.104 This writing system is closely related to the Arabic alphabet and its use in aljamÃa texts,105 which can be seen particularly in the choice of the letters to represent Old Castilian sibilants. Thus, its origin goes back to the first attempts to reproduce the Southern Romance of al-Andalus by Andalusi writers and poets, Jews among them, both in Arabic aljamÃa and Hebrew aljamÃa. However, some of the features of the spellings used in these leÊ¿azim require additional commentary.
7.1.3.1 The Sibilants /s/, /z/, /ʦ/, /Ê£/, /ʧ/, /Ê/ and /Ê/
The seven sibilant phonemes of Old Castilian are represented in the leÊ¿azim by four Hebrew letters. Two of these, â¨â®×¡â¬ââ© and â¨â®×â¬ââ©, each represent one phoneme, whereas the other two, â¨â®×©â¬ââ© and â¨â®×Ö¹â¬ââ© (the latter with a diacritic), are polyvalent. The letter â¨â®×©â¬ââ©, with or without a diacritic,106 represents both the apico-alveolar (retroflex) phonemes /s/, which is unvoiced, and /z/, its voiced counterpart; it also represents the unvoiced pre-palatal fricative /Ê/. Some examples are âsodesâ â¨â®ï¬ª×ֹדֵּ×שâ¬ââ© (Ps 62:4) for /s/, ârosaâ â¨â®×¨×ֹשָ×â¬ââ© (Sg 1:12) and ârosasâ â¨â®×¨×ֹשָׁ×שâ¬ââ© (Sg 5:13) for /z/, and âenpuxanâ â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö°ïוּשָׁ××â¬ââ© (Jb 30:12) for /Ê/. In one case, we find a dageÅ¡ on the letter â¨â®×©â¬ââ© in what appears to be an attempt to represent the spelling â¨ssâ© in the Latin alphabet for intervocalic /s/, âessuâ â¨â®×Öµ×שּׁוּâ¬ââ© (Jb 22:21) < L. Äpsu. Although it is only occasionally used this way, the dageÅ¡ can also be found on â¨â®×â¬ââ© and on â¨â®×¨â¬ââ© (see below, §â¯7.1.3.4), which seems to confirm a certain tendency to use this diacriticâwhose purpose is to indicate the doubling of a consonantâto represent phonemes that in the Latin alphabet are represented by double letters, such as â¨llâ© for /Ê/, â¨rrâ© for /r/, and, here, â¨ssâ© for intervocalic /s/.107 This would make it almost certain that the scribe was familiar with the Latin alphabet and its spelling norms.
The letter â¨â®×¡â¬ââ© represents the unvoiced dental affricate /ʦ/, as in âloçanÃaâ â¨â®××ֹסָ×× Ö´×Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Jb 22:29), âatorcimientuâ â¨â®×Ö·××ֹרְסִ××Ö´×²Öµ× Ö°×וּâ¬ââ© (Ps 55:24), and âmagreçâ â¨â®×ַגְּרֵ×סâ¬ââ© (Pss 59:13, 106:15; Jb 16:8 [âmagreçâ]), while its voiced counterpart /Ê£/ is written with the letter â¨â®×â¬ââ©, as in, for example âzebrosâ â¨â®×Öµ××ְר×ֹשׁâ¬ââ© (Jb 24:5), âreziuâ â¨â®×¨Öµ××Ö°×וּâ¬ââ© (Jb 41:16 [2]), and ânarizâ â¨â®× Ö¸×רִ××â¬ââ© (Jb 40:24). The use of these two letters reflects a clear phonological distinction between the two phonemes, and they are differentiated regardless of position, although in the medial position /Ê£/ is only used intervocalically or in contact with a nasal or liquid consonant, as in âyazerâ â¨â®×Ö¸×Öµ×רâ¬ââ© (Ps 139:3), âamzueluâ â¨â®×Ö·×Ö°×וּ×Öµ××וּâ¬ââ© (Jb 40:25), âsalzesâ â¨â®ï¬ªÖ·××Ö°×Öµ×שâ¬ââ© (Ps 137:2), and âarzilaâ â¨â®×ַרְ×Ö´××Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Ps 12:7).108 The fact that the letters â¨â®×¡â¬ââ© and â¨â®×â¬ââ©, which represent fricative sibilant sounds in Hebrew, are used for two affricate phonemes in Romance, has been explained convincingly as a tradition inherited from Andalusi Arabic aljamÃa,109 and therefore the use of these letters in Hebrew aljamÃa is not sufficient proof for any alleged early fricativization in Castilian of the phonemes /ʦ/ and /Ê£/.110
Furthermore, for the phoneme /ʦ/, there are a few cases in the leÊ¿azim of the spelling â¨â®×¦â¬ââ©, which in Sephardic Hebrew represented an emphatic dento-alveolar fricative, like â¨â®Øµâ¬ââ© in Arabic.111 Aside from its use in a Hebrew proper name, â¨â®×¦×××â¬ââ© (Ps 87:5), there are only five occurrences: âfoçonesâ â¨â®×¤Ö¿×ֹצ×Ö¹× Öµ×שׁâ¬ââ© (Ps 19:11), âestonçâ â¨â®×Öµ×שְ××Ö¹× Ö°×¥â¬ââ© (Ps 48:6), âcegaronâ â¨â®×¦Öµ×גָּ×ר×Ö¹×â¬ââ© (Ps 69:4), âmagreçâ â¨â®×ַגְּרֵ××¥â¬ââ© (Ps 106:15), and âçaraçaâ â¨â®×¦Ö¸×¨Ö¸×צָ×â¬ââ© (Jb 38:29). Over the course of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the use of â¨â®×¦â¬ââ© in Hebrew aljamÃa increased considerably, particularly in Navarrese-Hebrew documents, a phenomenon that is perhaps related to the initial stages of the voiced affricate /Ê£/ becoming unvoiced.112 This phonological change would have caused â¨â®×â¬ââ© to fall into disuse and the graphical opposition between â¨â®×¡â¬ââ© and â¨â®×â¬ââ© to become destabilized, thus reinforcing the representation of the unvoiced affricate by another letter, â¨â®×¦â¬ââ©, that was already being used sporadically to represent that sound. Moreover, the interchange of â¨â®×¡â¬ââ© and â¨â®×¦â¬ââ© in Hebrew texts from the Iberian Peninsula was not uncommon,113 meaning that both were pronounced in a very similar way by Sephardic Jews.114 This too might have reinforced the idea that both letters were interchangeable in Hebrew aljamÃa as well, thus favoring the progressive substitution of â¨â®×¡â¬ââ© with â¨â®×¦â¬ââ©.
Lastly, the letter â¨â®×Ö¹â¬ââ©, with a diacritic, had previously been used in Hebrew aljamÃa of Arabic to represent the voiced affricate pre-palatal phoneme /ʤ/, written with the letter â¨â®Ø¬â¬ââ© in Arabic, and was also used in Hebrew aljamÃa for writing Romance. Here, it represents the correlate fricative phoneme /Ê/,115 which emerged when the /Ê/ coming from the Latin group [lj] (for example, in L. fÄ«lÄu) changed its point of articulation to /Ê/ in order to differentiate itself from the resulting /Ê/ in the Latin geminate consonant â¨llâ©.116 Some examples are: âonojosâ â¨â®××Ö¹× ×Ö¹×Ö¹×ֹשâ¬ââ© (Ps 18:37), âguijasâ â¨â®×Ö¿Ö´××ַֹשâ¬ââ© (Jb 21:33), âcuégenlaâ â¨â®×§ï¬µ×Öµ××Ö¹Öµ×× Ö°×Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Ps 80:13), and âprejuraâ â¨â®×¤Ö°×¨Öµ××ֹוּרָ×â¬ââ© (Jb 18:12).117 In addition, the same sign is used to represent the unvoiced palatal affricate /ʧ/, which derives from the Latin phonic sequences /kt/ and /Ålt/,118 and which does not exist in Arabic or Hebrew or Aramaic. Thus, we find âmuchuâ â¨â®×וּ×ֹוּâ¬ââ© (Ps 65:10; Jb 31:25; Prv 28:20) and its variant âmochuâ â¨â®××Ö¹×ֹוּâ¬ââ© (Ps 120:6), âmuchasâ â¨â®×וּ×ָֹשâ¬ââ© (Pss 73:10, 79:12, 80:6; Jb 19:3), âmochiguaâ â¨â®××Ö¹×Ö¹Ö´××וּ×Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Ps 51:4) and many forms of the verb mochiguar, âfechuâ â¨â®×¤Öµ××ֹוּâ¬ââ© (Jb 7:3), etc.
The adoption of â¨â®×Ö¹â¬ââ© also to render the phoneme /ʧ/, which does not exist in Arabic or Hebrew, can be explained by phonetics and by the writing tradition. Although /Ê/ and /ʧ/ share only their point of articulation (both are palatals), â¨â®×Ö¹â¬ââ© was used in Hebrew aljamÃa of Arabic to represent the affricate phoneme /ʤ/; and /ʤ/ and /ʧ/ coincide also in their manner of articulation (affricate), differing only in sonority (/ʧ/ is unvoiced, /ʤ/ is voiced). Furthermore, Arabic aljamÃa also used the correlate of â¨â®×Ö¹â¬ââ©, the letter â¨â®Ø¬â¬ââ© (which in Arabic represents the phoneme /ʤ/) for the Romance phoneme /ʧ/.119 What we have here, then, is another feature whose origins can be traced back to the Andalusi aljamÃa tradition, in both Arabic and Hebrew script.120 Moreover, this choice may have been reinforced by the Romance writing tradition in the Latin alphabet. As a matter of fact, up to the second half of the thirteenth century, Romance texts in the Latin alphabet represent both /Ê/ (and its allophone [ʤ]) and /ʧ/ with a variety of graphemes, among them â¨iâ©, â¨jâ©, â¨gâ©, and â¨ggâ©.121 In other words, in Romance as well, before the second half of the thirteenth century the way that /Ê/ was rendered graphically coincided with the way /ʧ/ was rendered, as happens in Hebrew aljamÃa, and one of the signs that was used was the letter â¨gâ©, whose Hebrew correlate is â¨â®×â¬ââ©. Thus, it is possible that this spelling convention, which originated in al-Andalus, was reinforced by Romance spelling conventions in the Latin alphabet, which the Jewish scribes might have been familiar with.
7.1.3.2 The Bilabials /b/, /β/ and /p/; the Labiodental /f/
Medieval Spanish had two voiced bilabial phonemes, one occlusive /b/, and the other fricative /β/. The latter, which did not exist in Latin, was the result of consonantization of the Latin semi-consonant /w/ in syllable initial position, from the fricativization of intervocalic Latin /b/, and from the voicing of intervocalic Latin /f/. Both phonemes, /b/ and /β/, were distinguished from each other in initial position but converged in intervocalic position.122 The leÊ¿azim represent both phonemes with the letter â¨â®×â¬ââ© and, in contrast to other aljamÃa texts, the letter â¨â®×â¬ââ© is never used to represent /β/.123 This is unlike what happens in later texts in Hebrew aljamÃa, where graphic alternation is the norm, although in some cases this is paradoxically without any apparent phonematic distinction.124 Following Hebrew writing conventions, dageÅ¡ is used to represent an occlusive articulation [b], which in Hebrew is obligatory at the beginning of a word or after a closed syllable, and rafe, the Masoretic sign to indicate lenition, is used to represent a fricative articulation [β].125 That said, in these leÊ¿azim there are numerous cases in which â¨â®×â¬ââ© does not have either diacritic, and when it does, there is an alternation between the following of Hebrew spelling norms and representing the corresponding phoneme. Thus, for example, â¨â®×Ö¿â¬ââ© appears at the beginning of words to represent /β/, as in âválidâ â¨â®×Ö¿Ö¸××Ö´××â¬ââ© (Jb 33:27), âvaronesâ â¨â®×ָֿר×Ö¹× Öµ×שׁâ¬ââ© (Jb 24:12), âvederâ â¨â®×Ö¿Öµ××Ö¿Öµ×רâ¬ââ©/â¨â®×Ö¿Öµ×דֵּ×רâ¬ââ© (Jb 10:15, 33:21), and âvÃaâ â¨â®×Ö´Ö¿××Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Jb 12:24). In other cases, the spelling of the leÊ¿azim follows the tendency in Hebrew to write â¨â®ï¬±â¬ââ© at the beginning of the word, despite the fact that the corresponding Romance phoneme is /β/, as happens in âbostruâ â¨â®ï¬±×ֹשְ×ְרוּâ¬ââ© (Ps 11:1), in âbÃdedâ â¨â®ï¬±Ö´××Ö¿Öµ××â¬ââ© (Jb 28:7), in âbedesâ â¨â®ï¬±Öµ×דֵּ×שׁâ¬ââ© (Jb 39:1)âa spelling that contrasts with that of the infinitive âveder,â mentioned above and written with â¨â®×Ö¿â¬ââ©â, and in âbaronesâ â¨â®ï¬±Ö¸×¨×Ö¹× Öµ×שׁâ¬ââ© (Ps 17:14), which alternates with the spelling âvarones,â also mentioned above. Thus, the use of â¨â®ï¬±â¬ââ© and â¨â®×Ö¿â¬ââ© in these leÊ¿azim does not consistently follow either the phonological representation of the Romance phonemes /b/ and /β/ or Hebrew spelling norms. However, it does not seem that this lack of consistency reflects a lack of phonological distinction between the two bilabial phonemes; rather, I think that it suggests a wavering between respecting Hebrew spelling norms and representing the phoneme correctly, when these two goals are at odds with each other.
The same graphic variation can be observed in closed syllables ending with â¨â®×â¬ââ©, in words that contain the cluster /βd/. In this group of words, we find variation, for example, in âcovdiciaâ â¨â®×§×Ö¹×Ö¿Ö°×Ö´×סְ×Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Ps 39:12), âcovdiciadâ â¨â®×§×Ö¹×Ö¿Ö°×Ö´×סְ×Ö¸××Ö¿â¬ââ© (Ps 63:2), âcovdiciesâ â¨â®×§×Ö¹×Ö¿Ö°×Ö´×סְײֵשׁâ¬ââ© (Jb 36:20), and âcovdiciantâ â¨â®×§×Ö¹×Ö°Ö¿×Ö´×סְ×Ö·×× Ö°×â¬ââ© (Prv 1:19), which all have a rafe, compared to âcobdiciadâ â¨â®×§×ֹבְּ×Ö´×סְ×Ö¸××Ö¿â¬ââ© (Ps 84:3) and âcobdÃciadâ â¨â®×§×ֹבְּדִּ×סִײַ×Ö¿â¬ââ© (Jb 27:8), which have a dageÅ¡. In two cases (Jb 20:20; Prv 1:19), âcovdiciaâ has neither a dageÅ¡ nor a rafe. As for the rest of the words in this group, there are no further cases where â¨â®ï¬±â¬ââ© is used, while â¨â®×Ö¿â¬ââ© is used in 9 places, and â¨â®×â¬ââ© without a diacritic is used in 3. Some examples with rafe are âdevduâ â¨â®×Öµ××ְֿדּוּâ¬ââ© (Jb 20:22), âcivdadâ â¨â®×¡Ö´××ְֿדָּ××â¬ââ© (Ps 72:16), and âprovdesmuâ â¨â®×¤Ö°×¨×Ö¹×ְֿדֵּ×שְׁ×וּâ¬ââ© (Prv 30:1); the cases without a diacritic are âravdónâ â¨â®×¨Ö·×ְדּ×Ö¹×â¬ââ© (Pss 58:9, 69:3) and âdubduâ â¨â®×וּ×ְדּוּâ¬ââ© (Ps 88:16).
The unvoiced bilabial /p/ is always rendered with the letter â¨â®×¤â¬ââ©. That said, in Hebrew this letter represents a phoneme with two allophones, the occlusive [p] and the fricative [f], so that in Hebrew aljamÃa, â¨â®×¤â¬ââ© is used for the two Romance correlates, /p/ and /f/, which are phonologically distinct. In this case as well, the leÊ¿azim sometimes use, just as in Hebrew, the diacritics dageÅ¡ and rafe to indicate /p/ and /f/, respectively, although in many cases neither is used. Thus, for example, we find â¨â®ïâ¬ââ©, with dageÅ¡, used always to represent /p/, in âapremidosâ â¨â®×Ö·ïְרֵ××Ö´×דּ×ֹשâ¬ââ© (Ps 146:8), âparirâ â¨â®ïÖ¸×רִ×רâ¬ââ© (Ps 29:9), and âesperaâ â¨â®×Öµ×שְׁïÖµ×רָ×â¬ââ© (Ps 130:7); â¨â®×¤â¬ââ©, without a diacritic, used for both phonemes, /p/ and /f/, in âparirâ â¨â®×¤Ö¸×רִ×רâ¬ââ© (Jb 39:1, 39:3), âasofridosâ â¨â®×ַש×ֹפְרִ×דּ×ֹשׁâ¬ââ© (Ps 20:9), and âfuronâ â¨â®×¤ï¬µ×¨×Ö¹×â¬ââ© (Jb 22:16); and â¨â®×¤Ö¿â¬ââ©, always to represent /f/, as in âfundenâ â¨â®×¤Ö¿ï¬µ× ְדֵּ××â¬ââ© (Jb 28:1), âsâaflacaronâ â¨â®ï¬ªÖ·×¤Ö¿Ö°×Ö¸×קָר×Ö¹×â¬ââ© (Jb 30:8), âdesfechuraâ â¨â®ï¬³Öµ×שְׁפֵֿ××ֹוּרָ×â¬ââ© (Jb 39:6), and âporfidiaâ â¨â®×¤×ֹרְפִֿ××Ö°×Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Prv 1:32).126 Lastly, we should point out that in these leÊ¿azim the spelling â¨â®×¤â¬ââ©/â¨â®×¤Ö¿â¬ââ© is used without exception for Latin initial /f/, which is true in general of aljamÃa texts practically up to the fifteenth century, regardless of pronunciation, both in Castile and in Aragon and Navarre.127
There are numerous examples in the leÊ¿azim that reflect the preservation of the word initial cluster /pl/, which is different from how these words ended up in modern Spanish. These include: âplanaâ (Ps 18:33); âplaga,â âplagasâ (in numerous places), also abundant in Old Spanish, as well as the derivative âplagaradâ (Ps 68:22); âplueyasâ (Pss 65:11, 72:6; Jb 36:27); and âploverâ (Jb 36:27), which is also attested with initial â¨plâ© both in the infinitive and in different conjugated forms in La Fazienda de Ultramar, in La Gran Crónica de España, in the Aragonese author Juan Fernández de Heredia, in E8, and in a few other documents from the fourteenth century.128 The forms âapleguiâ (Ps 75:3) and âaplegadâ (Sg 2:5; infinitive aplegar) should be considered a derivation of the Classical Latin applÄcare and as such would not be subject to the initial /pl/ > /Ê/ change. The leÊ¿azim also present other cases of the cluster /pl/ in middle position, where the resulting Castilian phoneme is /ʧ/, as in the forms of the verb emplir < L. ÄmplÄre, Sp. henchir: âemplidâ (Ps 33:5) and âemplistâ (Jb 36:17); and the adjective âampluâ (Ps 101:5) < L. amplu, Sp. ancho, and its derivative âampluraâ (Jb 36:16), Sp. anchura. These forms with /pl/ in the middle of a word are analogous to others documented in Aragonese, such as emplir or impler.129 As for the word initial cluster /fl/, the only case in the leÊ¿azim that is subject to palatalization is âflamaâ (Sg 8:6), which is also documented in Berceo and in Alexandre.130 There are no instances in the leÊ¿azim of words beginning with /Ê/ that come from Latin etyma with initial plâ or flâ.
7.1.3.3 The Dentals /d/ and /t/; the Velars /g/ and /k/
In medieval Spanish, the voiced dental stop /d/ and the voiced velar stop /g/ had combinatory variants, the fricative allophones [ð] and [É£], respectively, which were pronounced mostly in intervocalic position or in closing a syllable. Hebrew aljamÃa uses their correlates: â¨â®×â¬ââ© for the dental; and â¨â®×â¬ââ© for the velar stop. According to Hebrew spelling norms, these letters can take a dageÅ¡ for an occlusive pronunciation or a rafe for a fricative, and thus the leÊ¿azim use these marks to indicate the occlusive or fricative pronunciation of the phoneme. However, they do so inconsistently; in many places neither mark is used, or the ones that are used are not what we would expect. In the case of â¨â®×â¬ââ©, rafe â¨â®×Ö¿â¬ââ© is often used, and reflects the pronunciation [ð], as for example in âadigüéâ â¨â®×Ö¸×Ö¿Ö´×גּוּ×Öµ×â¬ââ© (Ps 131:2), âencúbredlaâ â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö°×§ï¬µï¬±Ö°×¨Öµ××Ö¿Ö°×Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Jb 20:12), and, at the end of the word, in âsâatiéndedâ â¨â®ï¬ªÖ¸××Ö´×²Öµ× Ö°ï¬³Öµ××Ö¿â¬ââ© (Jb 15:29).131 However, the spelling varies in words that appear in several places or words with the same root: for example, âbeluntadâ is written with rafe â¨â®ï¬±Öµ××ï¬µ× Ö°×Ö¸××Ö¿â¬ââ© (Pss 17:9, 27:12; Jb 6:11, 19:17 [â¨â®ï¬±Öµ××ï¬µ× Ö°×Ö·×Ö¿â¬ââ©]; Prv 29:11 [â¨â®×Öµ××ï¬µ× Ö°×Ö¸××Ö¿â¬ââ©]) and without rafe â¨â®ï¬±Öµ××ï¬µ× Ö°×Ö¸××â¬ââ© (Ps 105:22; Prv 29:10). But most striking is that we find âbeluntadesâ â¨â®ï¬±Öµ××ï¬µ× Ö°×Ö¸×דֵּ×שׁâ¬ââ© (Ps 139:17) with dageÅ¡, when the allophone should be [ð] because of its intervocalic position. Likewise, we find â¨â®ï¬³â¬ââ©, when we would expect â¨â®×Ö¿â¬ââ©, for example in âpreciaduâ â¨â®×¤Ö°×¨Öµ×סִ××ָדּוּâ¬ââ© (Ps 12:7), âumledadâ â¨â®×וּ×Ö°×Öµ×דָּ××â¬ââ© (Pss 18:36, 45:5), or âdemúdadâ â¨â®ï¬³Öµ×וּדַּ×Ö¿â¬ââ© (Jb 30:18). In contrast, there are no instances in which â¨â®×Ö¿â¬ââ© is used in word initial position or following a closed syllable, so that when the position would lead us to expect the occlusive allophone [d], this is always represented by â¨â®×â¬ââ© or by â¨â®ï¬³â¬ââ©.
As for the [ð] from intervocalic Latin /d/, it is worth pointing out that the leÊ¿azim generally reflect the preservation of this sound,132 whereas in Old Castilian it alternated between preservation and elimination. Thus, for example, we have âradizâ (Jb 14:7),133 âar[r]adigaduâ (Jb 5:3), âder[r]adgadosâ (Jb 31:8; here with the elimination of the pretonic vowel); âlodasâ (Ps 21:7) and âconlodarâ (Ps 147:1) < L. cum laudare; âdesfeduce·mâ (Ps 39:3) and âdesenfiduçamientuâ (Jb 6:26), from the Latin fÄ«dÅ«cÄa, in contrast with Old Spanish fiuza and feúza, with instances of feduza/feduça in Berceo;134 âsonbadiénâ (Ps 78:36; imperfect of sonbadir < L. subvadÄre), in contrast to the Judeo-Spanish sombaÃr, although one instance of sombadyr is documented in the Castilian cancionero in Paris, BnF, MS Esp. 216;135 âmi predaronâ (Ps 119:61) and âpredadosâ (Jb 12:17), from an infinitive, predar < L. præda, as in Old Aragonese, in contrast with the more common form from Old Spanish, prear; and âvederâ (Jb 10:15, Jb 33:21), which unlike the previous examples is customary in Old Castilian and almost the only form used in Berceo.136 The case of words with the verb ending âdes < L. âtis, is different; in this inflection the [ð] is the result of the voicing of intervocalic Latin /t/, and its disappearance in Spanish did not begin until the fourteenth century.137 The leÊ¿azim also consistently preserve this âdes ending.
In the case of â¨â®×â¬ââ©, as with â¨â®×â¬ââ©, the use of dageÅ¡ and rafe seems in generalâthough not consistentlyâto correspond to the representation of occlusive [g] and fricative [É£], respectively, although there are many cases in which neither diacritic is used. However, unlike â¨â®×Ö¿â¬ââ©, â¨â®×Ö¿â¬ââ© appears not only in intervocalic position, as in âplagaâ â¨â®×¤Ö°×Ö¸××Ö¿Ö¸×â¬ââ© or âplagasâ â¨â®ïÖ°×Ö¸××ָֿשׁâ¬ââ© (in several places), but also following a closed syllable, as in âargudosâ â¨â®×ַרְ×ֿוּ××ֹשׁâ¬ââ© (Jb 5:13) or in âengraviaronâ â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö°×ְֿרַ×Ö°×Ö¸×ר×Ö¹×â¬ââ© (Ps 139:17), although all of these cases follow a vibrant or a nasal consonant,138 and even at the beginning of a word, as in âglondrinuâ â¨â®×Ö°Ö¿××Ö¹× Ö°ï¬³Ö°×¨Ö´×× ï¬µâ¬ââ© (Prv 30:28), âgánadâ â¨â®×Ö¸Ö¿×× Ö·×â¬ââ© (Prv 1:5), or âguijasâ â¨â®×Ö¿Ö´××ַֹשâ¬ââ© (Ps 21:33, Ps 38:38). Compare this, for example, to âgalguâ â¨â®ï¬²Ö·×Ö°×וּâ¬ââ© (Prv 30:31), or compare the same word in the same context, âso guisaâ â¨â®×©×Ö¹ ×Ö¿Ö´×שָׁ×â¬ââ© (Jb 21:31), to â¨â®ï¬ª×Ö¹ גִּ×שָׁ×â¬ââ© (Jb 14:20). In addition, there are more than a few cases of â¨â®ï¬²â¬ââ© in intervocalic position, for example, âmaguerâ â¨â®×Ö¸×גֵּ×רâ¬ââ© (Ps 41:5) or âtragonesâ â¨â®×ְרָ×גּ×Ö¹× Öµ×שׁâ¬ââ© (Ps 44:20). Therefore, since both â¨â®ï¬²â¬ââ© and â¨â®×Ö¿â¬ââ© appear in all positions, and â¨â®×â¬ââ© without a diacritic appears in many places as well, it cannot be concluded that any of them are used in these leÊ¿azim to represent [g] or [É£] consistently in a way that corresponds to the pronunciation of these sounds according to their position in Old Castilian. Instead, they perhaps represent the perception of the sound, which in any case had no phonological value and might thus not coincide with actual phonic realization.
Turning now to unvoiced /t/ and /k/, Bunis has argued compellingly that the rendering of the unvoiced dental stop /t/ changed from â¨â®×ªâ¬ââ© in Andalusi Hebrew aljamÃa to â¨â®×â¬ââ© in Hebrew aljamÃa in the Iberian Christian kingdoms, and the representation of the unvoiced velar stop /k/ underwent an analogous change, from â¨â®×â¬ââ© to â¨â®×§â¬ââ©, in a process that was governed by two factors.139 One was the loss of the emphatic pronunciation of â¨â®×§â¬ââ© and â¨â®×â¬ââ©, which equalized them with â¨â®×â¬ââ© and â¨â®×ªâ¬ââ©, respectively. This happened in a contextâthe Christian kingdomsâin which Arabic was no longer the common language for daily communication, and thus the phonic model of their emphatic correlates in Arabic, â¨â®Ùâ¬ââ© and â¨â®Ø·â¬ââ©, was lost. The second factor was that both â¨â®×â¬ââ© and â¨â®×ªâ¬ââ© were polyvalent in Hebrew pronunciation. The grapheme â¨â®×â¬ââ© could represent two different sounds, [k] for â¨â®ï¬»â¬ââ© and [x] for â¨â®×â¬ââ©; while the grapheme â¨â®×ªâ¬ââ© could represent both [t] (when written with dageÅ¡, according to the Hebrew pronunciation) and [θ], particularly in syllable final position. These two factors would have led to the choice of â¨â®×§â¬ââ© and â¨â®×â¬ââ©, which are monovalent signs, as the graphemes corresponding to /k/ and /t/, respectively, for any position in the phonic chain, keeping in mind that in Old Castilian there were no significant allophones for either of these.
The leÊ¿azim thus present a situation in which â¨â®×§â¬ââ© represents /k/ and â¨â®×â¬ââ© indicates /t/ in the vast majority of cases. In a few exceptions, â¨â®×â¬ââ© represents /k/ and â¨â®×ªâ¬ââ© represents /t/. We find â¨â®×â¬ââ© for /k/ in 9 cases, 6 of which are the word âmeçquinuâ and its derivatives: âmeçquinuâ â¨â®×Öµ×סְכִּ×× ï¬µâ¬ââ© (Ps 105:37; Jb 30:25, 31:19), âmeçquinosâ â¨â®×Öµ×סְכִּ×× ×ֹשׁâ¬ââ© (Ps 74:20), âemeçquinexenâ â¨â®×Öµ×Öµ×סְ×Ö´×× Öµ×שֵ××â¬ââ© (Ps 34:11), and âemeçquenexÃronsiâ â¨â®×Öµ××Öµ×סְ×Öµ×× Öµ×שִׁ×ר×Ö¹× Ö°ï¬ªÖ´×â¬ââ© (Ps 106:43).140 In these cases it is highly probable that the spelling was maintained with â¨â®×â¬ââ© in the entire lexical family to which âmeçquinuâ belongs due to the spelling of the Hebrew and the Aramaic â®×ס××â¬â, which is written with the same letter, â¨â®×â¬ââ©, even though the Romance etymon is itself a loan word derived from the Arabic â®Ù سÙÙÙâ¬â.141 The other three cases spelled with â¨â®×â¬ââ© are: âescaparâ â¨â®×Öµ×שְכַּïÖ·×רâ¬ââ© (Ps 32:7), âcumplidâ â¨â®×וּ×ְפְ×Ö´××â¬ââ© (Ps 77:9), and âconâ â¨â®×××â¬ââ© (Ps 78:9), in contrast with the many cases of âconâ in these leÊ¿azim written with â¨â®×§â¬ââ©, and the different forms of the verb complir/cumplir which are also written with â¨â®×§â¬ââ©. Concerning the use of â¨â®×ªâ¬ââ© for /t/, there are in total 7 cases, excluding two in which â¨â®×ªâ¬ââ© is used in Hebrew proper names inserted into the leÊ¿azim (Ps 60:10; Prv 30:1) and one case of an Arabism, âḥatteâ â¨â®×Ö·ïÖµ×â¬ââ© (Jb 14:6) < Arab. â®ØتÙâ¬â.142 The seven cases are: âcotmejantâ â¨â®×§×ֹתְ×Öµ×ï¬²Ö¹Ö·× Ö°×â¬ââ© (Ps 44:17), âasientaâ â¨â®×Ö·×©Ö´×²Öµ× Ö°×ªÖ·×â¬ââ© (Ps 65:11), âsueltaâ â¨â®×©ï¬µ×Ö·××Ö°ïÖ¸×â¬ââ© (Ps 79:11), âquebrantantâ â¨â®×§Öµ××Ö°×¨Ö·× Ö°×Ö¸× Ö°×ªâ¬ââ© (Jb 18:4),143 âintrâ â¨â®×Ö´×× Ö°ïְרâ¬ââ© (Jb 24:11), âentreméçcadâ â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö°ïְרֵ××Öµ×סְקַ×â¬ââ© (Jb 41:2), and ânegrastinaâ â¨â®× Öµ××ְֿרַשְׁתִ×× Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Sg 1:6).
In the leÊ¿azim there are no cases of words beginning with the cluster /kl/, with the exception of âclaruâ (Sg 5:10) and its lexical family: âclaridadâ (Pss 89:45, 146:4), âclaridadesâ (Jb 3:9, 49:22), in addition to several forms of the derived verb âesclarecerâ;144 in any case, the form âclaruâ and its derivatives remain without change in modern Spanish as well.145
7.1.3.4 The Liquids /l/, /Ê/, /r/, /ɾ/; the Nasals /m/, /n/, /ɲ/; the Palatal /Ê/
The liquid phonemes in medieval Spanish, /l/ and /ɾ/, and the nasals /m/ and /n/ do not present any special problems. They are written in aljamÃa with their Hebrew counterparts, â¨â®×â¬ââ©, â¨â®×¨â¬ââ©,146 â¨â®×â¬ââ©/â¨â®×â¬ââ©, â¨â®× â¬ââ©/â¨â®×â¬ââ©, respectively, and correspond to the identical phonemes that already existed in Latin. We should note the fact that, in the graphic representation of the group /mɾ/ < L. /mân/, /mâɾ/, there are no cases of epenthesis of â¨â®×â¬ââ© in writing, though this is the norm in Castilian with the writing of the correlate â¨bâ©, for example in alambre < late L. æramene,147 and so the way that this group is spelled in the leÊ¿azim is always â¨â®×רâ¬ââ©, as in âeramriâ â¨â®×Öµ×רַ×ְרִ×â¬ââ© (Jb 28:2) < L. æramene, âmemrarâ â¨â®×Öµ××ְרָ×רâ¬ââ© (Jb 40:32) < L. mÄmÅrare, and ânomradÃaâ â¨â®× ×Ö¹×ְרָ××Ö´×Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Ps 49:12; Jb 29:4 [â¨â®× ×Ö¹×ְרָ×דִּ×Ö¸×â¬ââ©]). Not only that, but this spelling is also extended to cases in which there is etymological /b/, as in âsolomraâ â¨â®ï¬«×Ö¹××Ö¹×ְרָ×â¬ââ© (Ps 80:11) and the plural âsolomrasâ â¨â®×©×Ö¹××Ö¹×ְרַשׁâ¬ââ© (Jb 40:21) < prob. L. sÅl + Åmbra, and in âmiemrosâ â¨â®×ִײֵ×ְר×ֹשâ¬ââ© (Ps 22:18; Jb 17:7, 17:16, 41:15) < L. mÄmbru.
When a nasal phoneme closing a syllable is followed by bilabial /p/, /b/, or /β/, the spelling of the leÊ¿azim varies between â¨â®×â¬ââ© and â¨â®× â¬ââ© before the bilabial /p/, whereas before /b/ or /β/ the spelling is always â¨â®× â¬ââ©. The preservation of a spelling with â¨â®× â¬ââ© in the latter case may be due to the fact that in all cases the nasal is part of the prefix enâ < L. Änâ or sonâ < L. sÅbâ, as for example in âenblanquecersâadâ â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö°ï¬±Ö°×Ö·× Ö°×§Öµ×סֵ×רְשָׂ××â¬ââ© (Ps 68:15), âenbejéxedâ â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö°ï¬±Öµ×ÖµÖ¹×שֵ××Ö¿â¬ââ© (Jb 14:8), and âsonbadidâ â¨â®×©×Ö¹× Ö°×Ö¸×Ö¿Ö´××â¬ââ© (Jb 31:27) < L. subvadÄre. As for the variation â¨â®×â¬ââ©/â¨â®× â¬ââ© before /p/, there are 51 occurrences of the cluster â¨â®× פâ¬ââ© in the leÊ¿azim, compared to 27 of â¨â®×פâ¬ââ©. None of these 27 is the result of derivation in Romance through a suffix like those mentioned above. They are therefore cases in which the /m/ is etymological, as in âlampuâ â¨â®×Ö·×Ö°ïוּâ¬ââ© (Jb 28:26, 37:3, 38:25) < late L. *lampu, âtempestadâ â¨â®×Öµ××Ö°ïÖµ×שְׁ×Ö¸××â¬ââ© (Jb 26:12), and âampluraâ â¨â®×Ö·×Ö°ïÖ°×וּרָ×â¬ââ© (Jb 36:16) < L. amplu. Of the 51 occurrences of the cluster â¨â®× פâ¬ââ©, a few come from words originally with the Latin cluster /mp/, such as âcanpuâ â¨â®×§Ö·×× Ö°×¤ï¬µâ¬ââ© (Prv 31:16), plu. âcanposâ â¨â®×§Ö·× Ö°ï×ֹשâ¬ââ© (Ps 96:12), < L. campu, and âtienpuâ â¨â®×Ö´×²Öµ× Ö°×¤ï¬µâ¬ââ© (Sg 2:12) < L. tÄmpu, but the majority are cases in which the word begins with the prefix enâ, or conâ, as for example in âenpreñadâ â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö°ïְרֵ×× Ö°××Ö·×â¬ââ© (Jb 21:10; Sg 8:5), âsâenpenóladâ â¨â®ï¬ªÖµ×× Ö°ïÖµ×× ×Ö¹×Ö¸××Ö¿â¬ââ© (Jb 39:26), âconpañaâ â¨â®×§×Ö¹× Ö°×¤Ö·× Ö°×Ö¸×â¬ââ© (in multiple places), âconpañerosâ â¨â®×§×Ö¹× Ö°×¤Ö·× Ö°×²Öµ×¨×ֹשׁâ¬ââ© (Jb 42:10, 40:30), and forms of the verb aconpañar (in several places). Thus, the spelling seems to reflect a linguistic awareness of a distinction between cases that are considered to include prefixes, including those represented with the spellings â¨â®× פâ¬ââ© and â¨â®× ×â¬ââ©, compared to those in which an etymological spelling is preserved, where the spelling â¨â®×פâ¬ââ© is used, with a few exceptions.
The Latin geminate interior consonants â¨llâ©, â¨rrâ©, and â¨nnâ© were not simplified like the rest of the geminate consonants. Rather, their pronunciation was reinforced, giving rise to new phonemes: the palatals /Ê/ and /ɲ/ and the multiple vibrant (trilled) /r/.148 In Old Castilian spelling, these phonemes were generally represented through double letters, just as they were written in Latin, except when they were abbreviated graphically by a tilde over the letter, as in the case of â¨Ã±â© for /ɲ/. As Bunis points out, medieval Hebrew aljamÃa tends to reject the use of double letters that do not follow the rules of Hebrew spelling,149 although in the fifteenth century there are some cases of the use of double letters, due clearly to the influence of Romance spelling norms in the Latin alphabet.150 Thus, since neither the palatal phonemes /Ê/ and /ɲ/ nor the trilled /r/ existed in Hebrew, the medieval tradition of Hebrew aljamÃa generally adopted spelling solutions made up of â¨â®××â¬ââ© for /Ê/, â¨â®× ×â¬ââ© for /ɲ/, and â¨â®×¨â¬ââ©, with nothing added, for /r/. In other words, it added the grapheme â¨â®×â¬ââ©, which represents the mediopalatal phoneme /Ê/ both in Hebrew and in Romance aljamÃa, only to consonants that palatalize.151 The leÊ¿azim offer numerous examples where a Å¡ewaʾ is written under a lamed or a nun: with â¨â®×Ö°×â¬ââ©, âestelluâ â¨â®×Öµ×שְ×Öµ××Ö°×וּâ¬ââ© (Ps 19:11), âacallantestâ â¨â®×ַקַ×Ö°×Ö¸× Ö°×Öµ×שְׁ×â¬ââ© (Jb 16:7), and âsemellaâ â¨â®ï¬ªÖµ××Öµ××Ö°×Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Ps 49:15);152 with â¨â®× Ö°×â¬ââ©, âseñalâ â¨â®ï¬ªÖµ×× Ö°×Ö·××â¬ââ© (Ps 19:5; Jb 31:35), and âniñosâ â¨â®× Ö´×× Ö°××ֹשâ¬ââ© (Jb 19:18, 21:11); and with â¨â®×¨â¬ââ©, âcor[r]enâ â¨â®×§×ֹרֵ××â¬ââ© (Jb 3:24) and âsâar[r]ancaronâ â¨â®×©Ö¸××¨Ö·× Ö°×§Ö¸×ר×Ö¹×â¬ââ© (Jb 17:11).
However, the leÊ¿azim also use another spelling for /Ê/ and /r/, which consists of a dageÅ¡ in â¨â®×â¬ââ© and â¨â®×¨â¬ââ©, respectively, to represent their doubling in written form. In other words, the Hebrew spelling norm is used for doubling the consonants â¨â®ï¬¼â¬ââ© and â¨â®ïâ¬ââ©153 to represent the Romance phonemes /Ê/ and /r/, in this way also following the graphic model of Romance in the Latin alphabet, which uses â¨llâ© and â¨rrâ©. This method, which has not been attested in Hebrew aljamÃa elsewhere,154 is seldom used,155 the majority spelling being the one described in the previous paragraph. This might indicate that there was an attempt to introduce the dageÅ¡ spelling, particularly in vocalized texts, as an alternative to the majority spelling, but that it did not take root because it was not appropriate in unvocalized texts. In the leÊ¿azim, there are eight cases of â¨â®ï¬¼â¬ââ© for /Ê/: âdesulleganâ â¨â®ï¬³Öµ×שוּלֵּ×גָּ×â¬ââ© (Ps 37:31), âdesollegaâ â¨â®ï¬³Öµ× ש×ֹלֵּ××Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Ps 69:24), âtollironâ â¨â®××ֹלִּ×ר×Ö¹×â¬ââ© (Ps 81:7), âtrastollenâ â¨â®×ְרַשְׁ××ֹלֵּ××â¬ââ© (Ps 94:19), âcentellaâ â¨â®×¡Öµ×× Ö°×Öµ×לָּ×â¬ââ© (Jb 18:5), âamarellorâ â¨â®×Ö¸×ָרֵ×לּ×ֹרâ¬ââ© (Jb 20:25), âtrastollironâ â¨â®×רַשְׁ××ֹלִּ×ר×Ö¹×â¬ââ© (Jb 42:11), and âcercillosâ â¨â®×¡Öµ×רְסִ×לּ×ֹשâ¬ââ© (Sg 1:10).156 The instances of â¨â®ïâ¬ââ© for /r/ are more numerous (30), and among them are: âencierraâ â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö°×¡Ö´×²ÖµïÖ¸×â¬ââ© (Ps 35:3), âcórredâ â¨â®×§×Ö¹ïÖµ××â¬ââ© (Ps 77:3), ârecuejâ â¨â®ïÖµ×קוּ×Öµ××Ö¹â¬ââ© (Jb 22:22), and âferrupeasâ â¨â®×¤Öµ×ïוּïÖµ××ָשׁâ¬ââ© (Ps 68:7; Jb 36:8).157
In medieval Spanish, the palatal /Ê/ had a lateral point of articulation, in contrast to the phoneme /Ê/, which was mediopalatal. The latter phoneme existed as a semi-consonant in Latin, and it also emerged in Romance as a result of the Latin initial groups /ge/ and /gi/ in tonic syllables, as well as the phonic sequences [gj] and [dj], unless preceded by a palatal vowel or a consonant, and [bj] in some places.158 The distinction between /Ê/ mediopalatal and lateral /Ê/ is reflected systematically in the spelling of the leÊ¿azim. In every case /Ê/ is represented with the grapheme â¨â®×â¬ââ©, which is also used in Hebrew for the same phoneme. Some examples are: âfueyaâ â¨â®×¤ï¬µ×Öµ×Ö·×â¬ââ© (Ps 31:18) < L. fÅvÄa; âarroyuâ â¨â®×Ö¸ï×Ö¹×וּâ¬ââ© (Jb 38:25 [âarroyuâ]; Sg 4:12), and âarroyosâ â¨â®×Ö·ï×Ö¹××ֹשׁâ¬ââ© (Sg 4:13) < L. arrÅgÄu; âyentâ â¨â®×²Öµ× Ö°×â¬ââ© (Jb 5:21) < L. gÄnte; âmayorgariéâ â¨â®×Ö¸××ֹרְגָּ×רְײֵ××â¬ââ© (Jb 31:37) and other forms of the verb mayorgar < Vulgar L. *majoricare; âyustiguarsiâ â¨â®×וּשְׁ×Ö´××וּ×ַרְשִׁ×â¬ââ© (Jb 33:32) < L. justi(fi)care; and âayudaâ â¨â®×Ö¸×וּדָּ×â¬ââ© (Pss 17:14, 29:9, 33:18, 83:9; Jb 36:7) < L. adjÅ«tare.159 In contrast, as we saw before, the lateral /Ê/ is always rendered with â¨â®×Ö°×â¬ââ©, with â¨â®ï¬¼â¬ââ©, or, in very few places, with â¨â®×â¬ââ©.
7.2 Morphology
7.2.1 The Article
The forms of the definite article used in the leÊ¿azim are the same as in modern Spanish, except in the case of the neuter article âlu.â The masculine singular article is âel,â the plural, âlos,â while for the feminine we have singular âlaâ and plural âlas.â The neuter article âluâ (Jb 15:21 [2]) has the same âu ending that we find systematically in all cases where modern Spanish has âo (see above, §â¯7.1.2.3). The singular articles do not elide the vowel before a consonant, even the feminine: âla angosturaâ â¨â®×Ö¸× ×Ö·× Ö°ï¬²×ֹשְׁ×וּרָ×â¬ââ© (Ps 118:5).
The masculine singular article is contracted with the preposition a in six places to form âalâ â¨â®×Ö·×â¬ââ©,160 and in four places with de, to form âdelâ â¨â®ï¬³Öµ××â¬ââ©/â¨â®ï¬³Öµ××â¬ââ©;161 both contractions are written as a single word.162 These same prepositions are also used before other forms of the article. The preposition a is used in the sequences âa laâ â¨â®×Ö¸×Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Pss 57:9 [âa laâ, â¨â®×××â¬ââ©], 108:3, 130:6; Jb 1:21.), âa losâ â¨â®×Ö·××ֹשâ¬ââ© (Ps 78:48), âa lasâ (Jb 14:19), while the preposition and article are attached to the noun that they accompany in the following cases: âa la mañanaâ â¨â®×Ö·×Ö·×Ö·× Ö°×Ö¸×× Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Pss 108:3, 130:6)163 and âa las piedrasâ â¨â®×Ö·×ַשְïִײֵ×ְֿרַ×שâ¬ââ© (Jb 14:19). The preposition de appears in the sequences âde laâ (Ps 118:5; Sg 7:3), âde losâ (Ps 123:4 [2]; Ru 2:16; Sg 7:1), âde lasâ (Ps 77:18), but unlike with the preposition a, in this case both preposition and article are written as separate words.
As in modern Spanish, the use of other prepositions before the article does not result in contracted forms.164 The prepositions con, desde, en, and por are used before the article in the following sequences: âcon lasâ (Ps 104:3), âdesde laâ (Ru 2:7), âen elâ (Pss 81:4, 89:48), âen laâ (Jb 5:14, 24:7), âen luâ (Jb 15:31 [2]), âen la[s]â (Sg 7:12), and âpor elâ (Jb 13:7, 30:25, 33:6, 37:22). In all cases, preposition and article are written as separate words.
7.2.2 The Possessive
Possessives always appear before the noun, except in one instance. The description below, therefore, refers to forms that come before the noun. The leÊ¿azim offer only one case of a possessive pronoun coming after a noun (as in esta casa es mÃa), âsuyosâ â¨â®×©ï¬µ××ֹשׁâ¬ââ© (Jb 39:16). The virtual absence of forms in which the possessive comes after the noun is likely due to the fact that in biblical Hebrew the most common way to indicate possession is through the pronominal suffix attached to the noun or the nominalized adjective,165 always without an article, as for example in â®×¤×××â¬â (Ps 10:7); and when this happens, the laÊ¿az always translates it using a calque, which is the phrase possessive + noun or nominalized adjective, in Ps 10:7, âso boca.â166 For the same reason, there are no attested uses of the possessive with an article, as in la mi casa,167 which was very common in Old Castilian but is totally absent from the leÊ¿azim.
The system of possessives used in the leʿazim is characterized by a distinction between forms indicating a single possessor and forms indicating several possessors for all persons. Whether the object possessed is singular or plural is also marked, whereas only in the first-person and second-person plural, and partially in the first-person singular, is the gender of the possessed object marked.
In the first person, the form for a single possessor that is generally used with a singular possessed object, whether masculine or feminine, is âmi,â although there are cases in which the gender of the possessed object is indicated: âmioâ â¨â®×Ö°××Ö¹â¬ââ© for the masculine in eight places,168 and âmieâ â¨â®×Ö´×Öµ×â¬ââ© for the feminine in two places (Pss 16:8, 60:10). Twice, the preposition a comes before the possessive, and both are written as a single word, âa miâ â¨â®×Ö¸×Ö´×â¬ââ© (Ps 30:8) and â¨â®×Ö·×Ö´×â¬ââ© (Jb 30:13). With plural possessed objects, we find the forms âmiosâ â¨â®×Ö°××ֹשâ¬ââ©/â¨â®×Ö°××ֹשׁâ¬ââ© for the masculine,169 and âmisâ â¨â®×Ö´×שâ¬ââ©/â¨â®×Ö´×שׁâ¬ââ© (Ps 87:7; Jb 30:17) or âmiesâ â¨â®×Ö´××ֵשׁâ¬ââ© (Ps 49:6 [2]) for the feminine. In one instance (Ps 31:12) we have the sequence preposition a + the possessive mios, written, as is customary with this preposition, as a single word, âa miosâ â¨â®×Ö·×Ö°××ֹשâ¬ââ©. The first-person possessive for several possessors only appears in its plural form, ânostrosâ for the masculine, in five places,170 and ânostrasâ for the feminine, in only one place (Ps 90:8), and in both genders without diphthongization of the tonic /Å/ from L. nÅstros/nÅstras. By analogy with the second-person possessive for several possessors, âbostruâ (see below), and with the gender markings consistently used in these leÊ¿azim, we can confidently derive the singular forms, which would have been *nostru and *nostra.
In the second person, the possessive indicating a single possessor of a singular object is without exception âtoâ â¨â®××Ö¹â¬ââ© (appearing in many places), whether the gender of the object is masculine or feminine. To indicate a plural object, whether masculine or feminine, âtosâ â¨â®××ֹשׁâ¬ââ©/â¨â®××ֹשâ¬ââ© is used.171 In the singular, there is no opposition between a masculine to and a feminine tu < tu(e) < L. tÅa, as is customary in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries;172 the two have been made the same, at least in their graphic representation. In two places we find the sequence preposition a + second-person possessive, once in the singular, âa toâ â¨â®×Ö¸××Ö¹â¬ââ© (Eccl 5:5), and once in the plural, âa tosâ â¨â®×Ö¸××ֹשׁâ¬ââ© (Ps 116:7). The second-person form for several possessors appears only once in the masculine singular, âbostruâ â¨â®ï¬±×ֹשְ×ְרוּâ¬ââ© (Ps 11:1) < Vulgar L. vÅstru, and, like the forms of the first-person plural, it is also not diphthongized. By analogy with these forms and the gender markings in these leÊ¿azim we can derive both the feminine and the plural forms, which would be *bostra, *bostros, and *bostras.
In the third person, the possessive indicating a single possessor is always âsoâ â¨â®×©×Ö¹â¬ââ©/â¨â®ï¬ª×Ö¹â¬ââ©, which occurs in many places, whether the gender of the object is masculine or feminine, while the plural form, also for both genders, is âsosâ â¨â®×©×ֹשâ¬ââ©/â¨â®×©×ֹשׁâ¬ââ©/â¨â®ï¬ª×ֹשâ¬ââ©. As in the case of âto,â there is no opposition in the singular between a masculine so and a feminine su < sue < L. sÅa,173 at least in the graphic rendering given in the leÊ¿azim, and both have become âso.â As in other cases, when the preposition a comes before the possessive, both are written as a single word: âa soâ â¨â®×ָשׁ×Ö¹â¬ââ©/â¨â®×ַשׁ×Ö¹â¬ââ© (Pss 34:1, 48:14, 135:4; Jb 16:21)174 and âa sosâ â¨â®×ַשׁ×ֹשׁâ¬ââ©/â¨â®×ָשׁ×ֹשׁâ¬ââ©/â¨â®×ש×שâ¬ââ© (Ps 135:14 [âa sosâ]; Jb 20:26, 41:4; Ru 3:7). The preposition de is generally written as a stand-alone word: of the five times that it appears in the sequence âde sosâ (Jb 15:26, 17:5, 20:11, 40:17, 41:12 [âde sosâ]), only in Jb 20:11 is it attached to the possessive, â¨â®ï¬³Öµï¬ª×ֹשâ¬ââ©.
The leÊ¿azim always distinguish the third-person possessive indicating a single possessor from that indicating several possessors. The latter is âlurâ â¨â®×וּרâ¬ââ© to indicate a singular possessed object, and âluresâ â¨â®×וּרֵ×שâ¬ââ©/â¨â®×וּרֵ×שׁâ¬ââ© to indicate a plural possessed object. These forms, which come from the Latin *illÅ«rum (analogical form of illÅ«ius; compare to the Classical Latin illÅrum), are not typical of Castilian, and in the Middle Ages were used mostly in Navarro-Aragonese175 (lur, lures), Catalan (llur, llurs), and Occitan (lur, lor, lhor). For reasons of proximity, the forms lur, lures in the La Rioja dialect (where they appear up to the middle of the twelfth century176) have tended to be explained as Aragonese dialecticisms, and the same explanation has been given for the forms appearing sporadically in Castilian documents.177 The use of these forms, in documents from 1219 and 1220 connected to Jews from Aguilar de Campoo in northwestern Castile, was referred to by Menéndez Pidal as âdialecticismâ; he wondered whether this may have been due to the existence of a community of Navarro-Aragonese Jews or to an archaism arising from Navarrese influence in Castile at the time of Sancho the Great (Sancho III Garcés of Pamplona).178 Indeed, it has been confirmed that these forms appear frequently in fourteenth- and fifteenth-century aljamÃa texts in the Hebrew alphabet that come from Navarre and Aragon,179 as well as in non-aljamÃa Castilian texts, among them not only the documents from Aguilar de Campoo but also the fueros of Avilés, Sepúlveda,180 Alcalá, and Uclés.181 The fact that this usage extended over such a wide geographical area has led Torrens to suggest that lur, lures is an archaism completely unconnected to Aragonese influence that was gradually lost in the Iberian Peninsula, from west to east, leaving behind some witnesses in Castilian documents up to the thirteenth century and being maintained in Aragonese and Catalan.182 However, the abundant use of lur, lures in Hebrew aljamÃa documents such as those mentioned above, in addition to their appearance in non-aljamÃa documents connected to Jews, and their constant, systematic presence in these leÊ¿azim all suggest that, rather than an archaism, this usage might be related to the linguistic habits of the peoples who arrived from Southern France and Catalonia as part of the great migration that helped to repopulate Navarre, Aragon, and the Castilian plateau beginning in the late eleventh century.183 In this way, most repopulated cities in Navarre and Castile, including Estella, Pamplona, Tudela, Burgos, Soria, and Toledo, had a residential quarter of Franks, immigrants from Southern France and Catalonia, as well as aljamas revitalized by the arrival of numerous Provençal and Catalan Jews, as has been discussed in previous chapters.184
The system of possessives in the leʿazim is summarized in the following table (in this and the following tables, forms not documented in the leʿazim are preceded by an asterisk):
|
Person |
Singular |
Plural |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Masc. |
Fem. |
Masc. |
Fem. |
|
|
1p sing. |
mi, mio |
mi, mie |
mios |
mis, mies |
|
2p sing. |
to |
tos |
||
|
3p sing. |
so |
sos |
||
|
3p sing. after noun |
suyos |
|||
|
1p plu. |
*nostru |
*nostra |
nostros |
nostras |
|
2p plu. |
bostru |
*bostra |
*bostros |
*bostras |
|
3p plu. |
lur |
lures |
||
7.2.3 The Noun
It has been mentioned above that one of the most striking features of the nouns in the leÊ¿azim is the systematic âu ending of the singular form of masculine nouns ending in a vowel, as well as the âi ending of some nouns that have not undergone extreme apocope of the final, unaccented âe (see above, §â¯7.1.2.3). Aside from this, the noun endings are the same as in modern Spanish: âos for the plural of masculine nouns that in the leÊ¿azim end in âu; âa for the singular of feminine nouns that do not end in atonic âi < âe or a consonant; âas for the plural of feminine nouns ending in âa; and âes for the plural of nouns ending in atonic âi < âe or a consonant.
Moreover, the leÊ¿azim offer numerous examples of nouns derived from verbs,185 as a result of the process of calque translation, which tends to use the same parts of speech in the translation as are used in the original (rendering nouns as nouns, verbs as verbs, etc.). Thus, Hebrew verbs and nouns with the same lexical base also tend to be rendered by Castilian verbs and nouns that have the same lexical base.186 For example, in Ps 35:15, the verb â®××× ×××â¬â with the root dmm is translated by the doublet ânon quedaron o non callaron,â and thus two words with the same or similar rootsââ®×××××â¬â (Ps 22:3), root dwm, and â®×××××â¬â (Ps 107:29), root dmmâare translated, respectively, as âcalladuraâ and âquedadura,â nouns derived from the synonymous verbs callar and quedar.
The two deverbal suffixes that are most frequently used in the leÊ¿azim are âmientu < L. âmÄntu and âdura < L. âtÅ«ra.187 The suffix âmientu (âmiento in places other than these leÊ¿azim) is, according to Dworkin, âthe most productive morpheme employed in the medieval language in the creation of deverbal abstract nouns.â188 And in fact, the purpose of this suffix is to derive deverbative nouns most of which designate actions or the result of an action, and which are therefore mostly abstract nouns.189 In the leÊ¿azim this is the most frequently used suffix: there are 64 instances of nouns with this suffix, 49 of which are singular and 15 of which, with the ending âmientos, are plural. Some of these are repeated or are found in both the singular and the plural. The complete list, organized alphabetically, follows:190 âadeliñamientuâ (Ps 81:13); âafechamientuâ (Ps 73:6); âaforçamientuâ (Pss 22:20, 43:2), plu. âaforçamientosâ (Jb 36:19); âaformamientuâ (Ps 139:16); âafoyamientosâ (Jb 30:6); âalabamientosâ (Ps 21:7); âalçamientuâ (Pss 12:9, 60:6; Jb 20:6), plu. âalçamientosâ (Ps 95:4; Jb 22:25); âalimpiamientuâ (Prv 28:17); âalongamientuâ (Jb 28:18); âaluziamientuâ (Jb 12:5); âapañamientuâ (Ps 55:16); âapreciamientuâ (Ps 40:6); âaquedamientuâ (Jb 21:13); âatorcimientuâ (Ps 55:24), plu. âatorcimientosâ (Ps 101:3); âayuntamientuâ (Ps 58:2); âcelamientuâ (Ps 48:15), plu. âcelamientosâ (Pss 46:1 [2], 90:8); âcomplimientuâ (Ps 50:2; Jb 15:29; Sg 5:12); âdelidimientuâ (Ps 58:9); âdemudamientu/dimudamientuâ (Pss 68:18, 77:11; Jb 23:2); âdesenfiduçamientuâ (Jb 6:26); âdoloriamientuâ (Ps 77:11); âenboçamientuâ (Ps 39:2); âencanpamientuâ (Ps 69:23); âencelamientuâ (Ps 88:19); âencerramientuâ (Ps 139:15); âencubrimientuâ (Ps 52:6); âenpuxamientosâ (Ps 140:12); âentendimientu/entindimientuâ (Pss 32:1, 42:1, 111:10); âescuadruñamientuâ (Ps 64:7); âesculcamientuâ (Jb 39:8); âesmovimientuâ (Pss 55:8, 56:9); âesolegamientosâ (Jb 12:5); âgradecimientosâ (Prv 28:20); âmandamientuâ (Pss 21:3, 73:9; Prv 30:17); âobedecimientuâ (Prv 30:17); âonoriguamientosâ (Ps 87:3); âordenamientuâ (Jb 41:4); âpensamientuâ (Pss 49:4, 64:7), plu. âpensamientosâ (Pss 40:6, 73:7); âsentimientuâ (Jb 36:12); âsonsañamientuâ (Ps 139:23); âtraimientuâ (Jb 31:3); âyudgamientuâ (Ps 80:7).
As for the suffix âdura,191 in Romance it also serves to create action nouns and, especially, nouns resulting from action, from verb bases.192 The fact that this meaning overlaps with that of deverbal nouns with the suffix âmientu results in verb bases that have derivatives with both suffixes, such as âesmoveduraâ (Ps 44:15; Jb 16:5), plu. âesmovedurasâ (Jb 7:4), and âesmovimientuâ (Pss 55:8, 56:9). The former are translations of â®×× ××â¬â (Ps 44:15), â®×× ××â¬â (Jb 16:5), and â®× ×××××â¬â, MT â®× Ö°×Ö»×Ö´××â¬â (Jb 7:4), three words that all have similar roots (nwd or ndd), while the latter is a translation of â®× ×××â¬â, MT â®× Ö°×Ö¹×â¬â (Ps 55:8) and â®× ×××â¬â, MT â®× Ö¹×Ö´×â¬â (Ps 56:9), words with the same roots as above. Thus, the use of a Romance term with one suffix rather than the other may be due more to stylistic variation than to any real difference in meaning. In the leÊ¿azim, we have 34 instances of words with the suffix âdura, 19 in the singular and 15 in the plural. Here also, some are repeated or are found both in singular and in plural. The alphabetical list of these follows: âacendeduraâ (Ps 102:4); âaficaduraâ (Jb 38:38); âafirmaduraâ (Prv 2:7); âalçadurasâ (Sg 3:6);193 âbaziaduraâ (Jb 37:10); âbenaduraâ (Ps 66:11; Jb 19:6); âbevduraâ (Prv 31:4); âcalladuraâ (Ps 22:3); âcamiadurasâ (Jb 3:5); âcarpedurasâ (Ps 65:11); âcor[r]edurasâ (Jb 20:28); âdesoladurasâ (Ps 74:3); âencastelladuraâ (Jb 39:28); âescolfedurasâ (Ps 74:6); âesmoveduraâ (Ps 44:15; Jb 16:5 [âesmoveduraâ]), plu. âesmovedurasâ (Jb 7:4); âespandedurasâ (Jb 36:29; Prv 31:22); âlavaduraâ (Ps 60:10); âlistadurasâ (Ps 45:15); âmajaduraâ (Pss 90:2, 93:3), plu. âmajadurasâ (Ps 74:3); âmexeduraâ (Ps 39:11); âpariaduraâ (Ps 91:8); âpimentaduraâ (Jb 41:23); âpodreduraâ (Jb 13:28); âquedaduraâ (Ps 107:129); âretornaedurasâ (Jb 37:12); âsontraedurasâ (Jb 38:31); âtajaduraâ (Ps 91:6), plu. âtajadurasâ (Ps 73:4). To these we should add âcriaturaâ (Jb 10:3; Prv 30:25), plu. âcriaturasâ (Ps 104:24), a learned word which, thus, preserves the Latin intervocalic /t/,194 and âfolguraâ (Prv 1:32), derived from folgar, in contrast to the hypothetical *folgadura.
As for other suffixes used to derive nouns, we will pause to consider âción, as well as âança and âiença, which form deverbative nouns, and âura, which is used with an adjective base. The suffix âción < L. âtiÅne is considered a learned suffix,195 and as such its use increased notably in the fifteenth century compared to earlier centuries, when it was used in moderation.196 In the leÊ¿azim, there are only four cases of deverbative nouns with âción: âalçasiónâ (Ps 51:21), with dissimilation of sibilants197 and used to mean âoffering, oblation, holocaust,â198 compared to the more generic term âalçamientu,â which expresses the action and effect of âalçarâ in general; âmaldiciónâ (Ps 59:13); âperdiciónâ (Ps 88:12); and âafreiciónâ (Jb 36:15, 36:21), formed from âafreÃrâ (Ps 132:1), a semi-popular variant of the learned afligir < L. affligÄre.199
The suffix âança < L. antia flourished during the Middle Ages and is used in deverbative nouns in 18 places in the leÊ¿azim. In 4 of these instances we have 2 words derived from nouns that were already deverbatives in Latin and that came into Romance as nouns: these are âifançasâ/âinfançasâ < L. infantia (Ps 90:8; Jb 20:11, 33:25) and âcoslançasâ < L. consolantia (Jb 15:11). In all other cases, there is a Romance verb base from which the noun has been derived. These cases are: âadenantançaâ (Ps 137:8), plu. âadenantançasâ (Ps 116:12); âatornançaâ (Ps 116:1); âduriançaâ (Ps 60:5); âesperançaâ (Jb 7:6); âfolgançasâ (Ps 116:7); âmayorgançasâ (Ps 40:6); âmorançaâ (Ps 49:20), plu. âmorançasâ (Jb 18:19); âolvidançaâ (Ps 88:13); âposançaâ (Jb 17:16); âsemejançaâ (Jb 41:25); plu. âsemejançasâ (Jb 13:12); âtardançasâ (Ps 89:52).
As for the suffix âiença,200 it is the popular counterpart to the learned âencia, and both are derived from the L. âentia. Its purpose is to create nouns that express a usually prolonged state resulting from the action of a verb.201 It is less productive than âança, and Pharies notes, citing Malkiel, that âdesaparece cast. â(i)ença ya a mediados del siglo XIII cuando derivados como añadença, creença y pestilença ceden ante sus equivalentes cultos en âençia.â202 According to Minervini, nouns ending in âiença appear up to the middle of the thirteenth century, especially in the eastern part of Castile, which borders Aragon.203 In the leÊ¿azim, there are seven occurrences of nouns ending in âiença, corresponding to five nouns, three of which appear in the singular, one in the plural, and the fifth in singular and plural: âasufriençaâ (Ps 110:2); ânaxiençaâ (Eccl 4:15), plu. ânaxiençasâ (Sg 5:13); âqueriençasâ (Sg 1:2, 1:4); âsabiençaâ (Jb 5:12); âsemiençaâ (Jb 39:12).
The suffix âura is applied to adjective bases to create nouns denoting a quality or a thing that possesses the quality named by the base. This suffix developed in medieval Spanish from nouns like derechura and estrechura, which were associated secondarily with the adjectives derecho and estrecho, under the assumption that a suffix âura had been added to them, whereas both nouns actually derived from the Latin forms dÄ«rectÅ«ra and strÄctÅ«ra.204 In the leÊ¿azim there are 37 occurrences of nouns derived from adjectives or participles with the suffix âura: âalturaâ (Ps 10:4), plu. âalturasâ (Ps 18:34); âamarguraâ (Jb 23:2), plu. âamargurasâ (Jb 13:26); âampluraâ (Jb 36:16); âangosturaâ (Ps 118:5; Jb 36:16), plu. âangosturasâ (Ps 116:3); âblancuraâ (Jb 41:24); âconposturaâ (Ps 80:16); âdesfechuraâ (Pss 35:12, 107:34; Jb 39:6); âenbolturaâ (Jb 38:9; Prv 1:9); âencoberturasâ (Ps 119:18; Jb 42:3); âfarturaâ (Jb 37:11); âfermosuraâ (Pss 39:12 [âfermosuraâ], 50:2, 60:1, 80:1), plu. âfermosurasâ (Ps 141:4); âfoscuraâ (Ps 18:12); âfreduraâ (Jb 24:7); âgorduraâ (Ps 94:4; Jb 15:26); âgrosuraâ (Pss 55:22, 63:6, 109:24; Jb 15:27, 21:24); âlocuraâ (Jb 4:18); âlongurasâ (Jb 38:5); ânegruraâ (Ps 68:15); âternuraâ (Pss 22:16, 32:4).
Lastly, there is a feature identified in medieval romanceamientos, which is the treatment of Hebrew pluralia tantumâfor example, â®×¤× ××â¬â (âfaceâ), â®××××â¬â (âlifeâ), â®×××â¬â (âwaterâ)â, which are sometimes translated as plural, thus creating a calque based on these nounsâ grammatical number in Hebrew.205 In the leÊ¿azim, however, gender and number are not automatically translated (see above, §â¯2.3.4). Thus, â®××××â¬â in Ps 38:20 is translated as âbida,â in the singular, whereas in Ps 55:16 it is translated as âsanos,â because it is considered a plural adjective of â®××â¬â (âalive, healthyâ). As for â®×¤× ××â¬â, we find it in two places translated as a noun206 (Jb 14:20, 21:31), in both of which it has a third-person singular pronominal suffix, â®×¤× ××â¬â; it is translated as âso guisa,â in the singular, a noun whose meaning is âaspect, face, gesture.â In contrast to these cases, where the number of the translated noun is not made to coincide with the Hebrew noun, there are four cases in which â®×××â¬â is translated as the plural âaguasâ: Pss 73:10, 77:18, 104:3, and Jb 14:19. There are no cases in which it is translated as singular. However, the extensive use of the plural form in medieval Castilian literature may indicate that its use in the leÊ¿azim is not due to a direct transposition of the number of the Hebrew noun â®×××â¬â, but rather to the widespread use of the plural aguas in Romance.
7.2.4 The Pronoun
Above we looked at some distinctive features of personal pronouns (see above, §â¯7.1.1 and §â¯7.1.2.3), in particular the phenomena of apocope and crasis in object and reflexive/reciprocal pronouns when they attach to a word, as well as the shift of vowels in the object pronouns mi, ti, si, lu, and li. Thus, apocope always occurs when the pronoun is enclitic and the preceding word ends in a vowel, as in âmáje·mâ (Ps 41:5) or in âno·m tajesâ (Ps 102:25). Crasis also always occurs when the pronoun is mesoclitic and is followed by a vowel, as in âamostrartâadâ (Ps 45:5) or âadosnarmâásâ (Sg 8:2). However, crasis is only optional, and occurs in a minority of cases, when the pronoun is proclitic, so that we find not only âsâapañanâ (Ps 18:45) and âmâanerviaronâ (Jb 10:8) but also âmi acálçadâ (Ps 139:10) and âmi afinásedâ (Jb 6:9).
Only four subject pronouns can be found in the leÊ¿azim: âyoâ â¨â®××Ö¹â¬ââ© (Pss 146:2, 89:48); âtúâ â¨â®×וּâ¬ââ© (Ps 91:9; Jb 33:6);207 âluâ â¨â®×וּâ¬ââ© (neuter) (Ps 17:3; Jb 24:6), and âellosâ â¨â®×Ö¶×Ö°××ֹשׁâ¬ââ© (Jb 6:7). Object and reflexive/reciprocal pronouns are very common, and thus all forms are present in the leÊ¿azim. We should call attention in particular to the âi and âu endings of forms that in modern Spanish end in âe and âo. Their free-standing forms are: âmiâ â¨â®×Ö´×â¬ââ©; âtiâ â¨â®×Ö´×â¬ââ©; âluâ â¨â®×וּâ¬ââ©, for masculine and neuter; âlaâ â¨â®×Ö¸×â¬ââ©;208 the third-person reflexive/reciprocal âsiâ â¨â®ï¬ªÖ´×â¬ââ©/â¨â®×©Ö´×â¬ââ©, for both singular and plural;209 ânosâ â¨â®× ×ֹשׁâ¬ââ©/â¨â®× ×ֹשâ¬ââ©; âvosâ/âbosâ â¨â®×Ö¿×ֹשׁâ¬ââ©/â¨â®ï¬±×ֹשׁâ¬ââ©; âlosâ â¨â®××ֹשâ¬ââ©/â¨â®××ֹשׁâ¬ââ©; and âlasâ â¨â®×ַשâ¬ââ©.210 To these we need to add the third-person indirect object pronouns âliâ and âles,â which can be found in âafÃca·sliâ (Jb 24:20), âadenántadliâ (Prv 1:12), and âechalesâ (third-person singular preterit; Ps 78:55).211 We also find in the leÊ¿azim tonic forms of all pronouns following prepositions, except for the reflexive form sÃ: âmÃ,â212 which appears following the prepositions âa,â âpor,â âde,â âen,â âdenant,â and âconâ in the form âconmiguâ; âti,â213 which we find with the prepositions âa,â âpor,â âsobre,â âde,â âen,â âdenant,â and âconâ in the form âcontiguâ; âél,â214 following the prepositions âad,â âdeâ, âen,â âpor,â âporad,â and âsinâ;215 âella,â after âadâ (only once, Jb 39:16); ânos,â following the preposition âaâ (Ps 68:20); âvos,â also after âaâ (Jb 32:12); âellos,â216 which appears with the prepositions âa,â âen,â and âconâ; and âellas,â with one case following âaâ (Ps 58:8). Despite the fact that they begin with a vowel, the pronouns âellosâ and âellasâ are preceded by the preposition âa,â not âadâ as with the pronouns âélâ and âella,â so that we find âa ellosâ â¨â®×Ö·×Öµ××Ö°××ֹשâ¬ââ© (Ps 56:8), âa [e]llosâ in the cluster âsoltó a [e]llosâ â¨â®×©×Ö¹×Ö°××Ö¹×Ö·×Ö°××ֹשׁâ¬ââ© (Jb 8:4), and âa ellasâ â¨â®×Ö·×Öµ××Ö°××ַשׁâ¬ââ© (Ps 58:8). The pronouns following prepositions help us, moreover, to complete the paradigm of the subject pronouns, with the forms él, ella, nos, vos/bos, and ellas.
In general, subject pronouns and pronouns following prepositions are written in their free-standing forms, but in a few exceptional cases they are attached to the word before or after. This occurs in some cases of pronouns following a preposition, where they are attached to the preposition to form a single word; thus, in addition to the cases where the preposition is âa,â which is always attached to the following word,217 we find: âporad élâ â¨â®×¤×ר ×Ö·×Ö¿Ö°×Öµ×â¬ââ© (Jb 40:20), a spelling that can be likened to âad élâ; âdâélâ â¨â®ï¬³Öµ××â¬ââ© (Ps 58:10; Jb 21:33), which can be likened to cases of the preposition âdeâ + article âelâ (see above, §â¯7.2.1); âpor mÃâ â¨â®×¤×ֹרְ×Ö´×â¬ââ© (Ps 18:45); âde mÃâ â¨â®ï¬³Öµ××Ö´×â¬ââ© (Jb 30:22); and âdenant mÃâ â¨â®ï¬³Öµ× × Ö·× Ö°×Ö°×Ö´×â¬ââ© (Sg 2:5), with the âdeâ from the preposition âdenantâ separated from the rest, which reflects its composite formation de + enante < L. Änante. In a similar way, in âconmiguâ â¨â®×§×Ö¹× ×Ö´×גּוּâ¬ââ© (Jb 31:18) and âcontiguâ â¨â®×§×Ö¹× ×Ö´×גּוּâ¬ââ© (Ps 94:20), the preposition âconâ is written separately from the lexemes âmiguâ and âtigu,â which are derived from the Latin pronouns used with the postpositive preposition cum, mÄcu(m), tÄcu(m). Furthermore, in two places we have subject pronouns attached to the pronoun or conjunction that follows: âyo quéâ â¨â®××ֹקֵ×â¬ââ© (Ps 89:48); âlu queâ â¨â®×וּקֵ×â¬ââ© (Jb 24:6). I think this is due to two factors: (1) the fact that enclitic pronouns in all cases and proclitic pronouns only if there is crasis are generally attached to the word they precede or follow; (2) the fact that some free-standing pronouns are such short words.
The system of personal pronouns described above is summarized in the following table (where they occur, forms with crasis are indicated in parentheses):
|
Person |
Subject |
Object |
With preposition |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Masc. |
Fem. |
Neut. |
Direct |
Indirect |
Masc. |
Fem. |
||
|
Masc. & Neut. |
Fem. |
|||||||
|
1p sing. |
yo |
mi (mâ) |
mÃ, conmigu |
|||||
|
2p sing. |
tú |
ti (tâ) |
ti, contigu |
|||||
|
3p sing. |
*él |
*ella |
lu |
lu (lâ) |
la (lâ) |
li (lâ) |
él |
ella |
|
3p refl. |
si (sâ) |
|||||||
|
1p plu. |
*nos |
nos |
nos |
|||||
|
2p plu. |
*vos/*bos |
vos/bos |
vos/*bos |
|||||
|
3p plu. |
ellos |
*ellas |
los |
las |
les |
ellos |
ellas |
|
The interrogative pronouns found in the leÊ¿azim are âquéâ â¨â®×§Öµ×â¬ââ© < L. quÄ(d), in nine places,218 to translate the Hebrew â®××â¬â, and âquiénâ â¨â®×§Ö´×²Öµ×â¬ââ© < L. quÄm, six times,219 to translate the Hebrew â®××â¬â. Among the relative pronouns, the most common is âqueâ â¨â®×§Öµ×â¬ââ© < L. quÄ(m) (atonic), which appears in many places,220 while âquiâ â¨â®×§Ö´×â¬ââ© < L. quÄ«, the personal relative pronoun that was commonly used up to the thirteenth century, has two occurrences (Jb 17:5, 40:19). Demonstrative pronouns are virtually non-existent in the leÊ¿azim, with the exception of âessuâ â¨â®×Öµ×שּׁוּâ¬ââ© (Jb 22:21), which has been dealt with in §â¯7.1.3.1, because of its exceptional spelling with â¨â®ï¬¬â¬ââ©. We do find some indefinite pronouns: âalguâ â¨â®×Ö·×ְגּוּâ¬ââ© (Jb 13:13, 31:7; Prv 2:7) < L. alÄquo(d); ânengunuâ â¨â®× Öµ×× Ö°ï¬²ï¬µ× ï¬µâ¬ââ© (Ps 49:8) < L. nec Å«nu; âotruâ â¨â®××Ö¹×ְרוּâ¬ââ© (Ps 16:4) < L. altÄru; and âfulánâ â¨â®×¤ï¬µ×Ö¸××â¬ââ© (Ru 4:1) < Arab. â®ÙÙاÙâ¬â, to translate the Hebrew cognate â®×¤××× ×â¬â, MT â®ïÖ°×Ö¹× Ö´×â¬â. We also find in the same laÊ¿az that has âfulánâ the pronoun phrase âtal atalâ â¨â®×Ö¸×× ×Ö·×Ö¸××â¬ââ© (âso-an-soâ), a translation of the Hebrew â®××××× ×â¬â, MT â®×Ö·×Ö°×Ö¹× Ö´×â¬â, where the second element, âatal,â is a pronoun.221 Other documented pronoun phrases are: âcada quien,â written as one word, â¨â®×§Ö·×דָּקִײֵ×â¬ââ©, in Ps 62:13, and as two words, â¨â®×§Ö¸×ï¬³Ö¸× ×§Ö´×²Öµ×â¬ââ©, in Jb 37:7; in addition to âcadâunuâ â¨â®×§Ö·×דּ ×ï¬µ× ï¬µâ¬ââ© (Ps 87:5) < Vulgar L. cata unu(m), a form that usually undergoes crasis in medieval literature.
7.2.5 The Adjective
As in nouns, what characterizes adjectival endings is the systematic use of âu in the masculine singular of adjectives that end in a vowel, as well as the ending âi in the singular of adjectives of both genders that have not undergone extreme apocope of atonic final âe. The ending of the feminine singular, other than in adjectives of common gender that end in âi or a consonant, is âa. In the plural, the endings are the same as in modern Spanish: âos for the masculine plural of adjectives that in the leÊ¿azim have a singular form ending in âu, âas for the plural of adjectives ending in âa, and âes for the plural of adjectives ending in atonic âi < âe or a consonant. In the leÊ¿azim, most singular masculine adjectives end in âu, including past participles functioning as adjectives, such as, for example, âquexosuâ (Prv 28:20); âreverdiduâ (Pss 37:35, 52:10; Sg 1:16); and âmeçquinuâ (Ps 105:37; Jb 30:25, 31:19; Prv 31:6). However, there are some adjectives of common gender that end in âi: âfortiâ (Ps 89:8; Jb 22:25, 34:20, 41:16; Sg 8:6); âtorpiâ (Ps 92:7; Jb 5:2; Prv 30:2); âdevliâ (Jb 4:4); and âespechivliâ (Jb 12:5). Among masculine adjectives ending in a consonant, we have: âegualâ (Jb 15:31) and âtragónâ (Prv 30:25),222 in addition to âberdâ (Ps 58:10) and âgrandâ (Jb 26:13),223 in which the clustering of consonants in final position has not prevented the apocope of the âi. In the feminine, what is most striking is the creation of an analogical feminine form, âgrandaâ (Ps 110:6), which is a feature of Aragonese or Navarro-Aragonese224 and is also documented in the literature of Alfonso X, in the Castilian translation of the fifteenth-century Kuzari, in the work of the Aragonese writer Juan Fernández de Heredia, and in the Aragonese version of the Libro de las maravillas del mundo.225 Another feminine form that we find is the adjective âyusanaâ (Jb 41:16), a cognate of the Catalan jusà or jussà and the Occitan jusan, all derived from the adverb yuso < L. dÄÅrsu (âdownwardsâ), which was used mostly between the tenth and thirteenth centuries.226
The masculine plural forms do not have any distinctive features that need to be pointed out, and their endings are the ones mentioned above, âos for the plural of adjectives ending in âu and âes for the plural of adjectives of common gender ending in âi < âe or in a consonant, such as âmeçquinosâ (Ps 74:20; Jb 5:11) and âtorpesâ (Ps 94:8; Prv 1:4). As for the feminine plural, ending in âas, or in âes for adjectives of common gender, there are only two occurrences in the leÊ¿azim: âyegualesâ (Sg 4:2)227 and the indefinite âmuchas,â which functions as an adjective modifying the nouns âbezesâ (Ps 79:12; Jb 19:3), âaguasâ (Ps 73:10), and âlágrimasâ (Ps 80:6). This is not the only indefinite adjective in the leÊ¿azim. Also appearing are: several instances of âtod,â in the masculine with apocope of final âu,228 functioning as an adjective,229 as in âtod espleguâ (Ps 119:96), âtod devduâ (Jb 20:22), and âtod covdiciantâ (Prv 1:19), and in the feminine, as âtoda gravedadâ (Jb 28:10), âtodas mis mejorÃasâ (Ps 87:7), and âtodas sos adenantançasâ (Ps 116:12); and âcada,â in âcad mañanaâ (Ps 101:8), an apocopated form that alternates with a non-apocopated form, as in âcada partâ (Jb 17:6).230
We also find the following numbers: the cardinal âdos,â in âdos guisasâ (Prv 30:15);231 the ordinal âel cuartuâ (Prv 30:18); and the nominalized number âmillesâ (Pss 68:18; 144:13), the plural of *mill < L. mÄ«lle, which is the customary form in the Middle Ages; and âmillariasâ (Pss 68:18, 144:13), the plural of millaria, used in the literature of Alfonso X (General Estoria, Primera Crónica General) and in E3.232 Lastly, the comparative of bueno (âbonuâ [Ps 110:3] in the leÊ¿azim) is used, in âlures mejoresâ (Ps 78:31), while âmayorâ, the comparative of grande (âgrandâ [Jb 26:13] in the leÊ¿azim), is used in Jb 15:10 to translate a comparative expression in Hebrew, â®×××ר ×××××â¬â (âolder than your fathersâ), and as a nominalized adjective in âmi mayorâ (Ps 55:14) and âmayoresâ (Pss 40:5, 138:1; Jb 11:19, 32:9), in the sense of âimportant or high-ranking person.â
7.2.6 The Verb
Of the 2,018 leʿazim that appear in the manuscript, more than 1,000 have some form of a verb. This gives some idea of how large the sample set of verb forms is, making it possible to form a fairly complete picture of verb morphology in the leʿazim. One general characteristic that can be noted is the complete absence of compound forms, which may be explained by the kind of calque translation that is dominant in the leʿazim: since the verb system in biblical Hebrew only possesses simple forms,233 the translation into Romance only uses simple forms. As a result, forms of the verb haber (aver) are absent. This was one of the verbs that was used in medieval Spanish as an auxiliary in compound forms and was gradually replaced by tener to express different nuances of possession.234 In contrast, passive forms with the verb ser, which was gradually eliminated as an auxiliary in compound forms,235 are frequent, since they are the only way in Romance to translate passive forms of the Hebrew verb, which morphologically are simple forms without an auxiliary.236
As in nouns, one of the most striking features of the verb forms in the leÊ¿azim is the abundance of words that are the result of processes of derivation through the use of prefixes and suffixes.237 To form verbs, the prefixes that we find most often or are most characteristic in the leÊ¿azim are aâ, desâ, enâ, and esâ. As for suffixes, we will look at verbs ending in âecer/âexer and âiguar, due to their importance in the leÊ¿azim.
The prefix aâ < L. adâ is very productive in the derivation of verbs in the leÊ¿azim and functions to form parasynthetic verbs with a noun or adjective base, such as âaconpañantâ (Prv 28:7, 29:3; Sg 8:5), âalazanâ (Prv 29:8), âsâalimpianâ (Jb 25:5), or âaflaquéçculosâ (Ps 18:43). These verbs sometimes tend to function in a way equivalent to intensive or factitive/causative verbs in Hebrew (see above, §â¯2.3.4). Some noun bases are taken from the present participle of a pre-existing verb, and the verb ending âar is added to them. The resulting forms tend to have a causative sense, as in âacallantéâ (Ps 131:2), âacallantestâ (Jb 16:7), from *acallantar, causative of callar; âafirbiéntadâ (Jb 41:23), âfuron afirbentadosâ (Jb 30:27), from *afirbentar, causative of fervir; and âafolgantantâ (Ps 19:8), âafolgantarás o afolgantestâ (Ps 60:3), from *afolgantar, causative of folgar.238
The prefix desâ < L. dÄsâ is often used to express the sense of âcontrary to the action evoked,â239 for example in âdescenizaradâ (Ps 20:4), âdespriciedesâ (Sg 1:6), and âdesfezistâ (Ps 89:40; Jb 10:8 [âdesfezistmiâ]). Sometimes this prefix is added to another parasynthetic verb with the prefix aâ or enâ, as we find in âdesacolmiellanâ (Jb 4:10), âdesacoraçnestmiâ (Sg 4:9), or âdesenfortécedâ (Jb 33:19).
There are also numerous cases in which the prefix enâ < L. Än is used to form parasynthetic verbs from noun or adjective bases, among them âenbeluntadâ (Ps 22:9) and âenbeluntásedâ (Jb 6:9), âenbÃciadâ (Ps 49:19), and âensuziaréâ (Sg 5:3). This is the most common but not the only prefix used to form verbs originally ending in L. âescÄre, such as, for example, âenbedrecerâ (Ps 49:15), âenbejéxedâ (Jb 14:8), or âencardenécedâ (Jb 38:37). The way the prefix is written is not changed before /p/, as we can see in âenpuxaremosâ â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö°ïוּשָׁ×רֵ×××ֹשׁâ¬ââ© (Ps 44:6), âenpreñadâ â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö°ïְרֵ×× Ö°××Ö·×â¬ââ© (Jb 21:10), or âsâenpenóladâ â¨â®ï¬ªÖµ×× Ö°ïÖµ×× ×Ö¹×Ö¸××Ö¿â¬ââ© (Jb 31:26), but when it is in contact with /m/, the group â¨â®× ×â¬ââ© becomes â¨â®×â¬ââ©, as in âemagrecidâ â¨â®×Öµ××Ö·×ְרֵ×סִ××Ö¿â¬ââ© (Ps 109:24), âemalexistâ â¨â®×Öµ××Ö¸××Öµ×שִׁ×שְ×â¬ââ© (Ps 44:3), or âemeçquenexÃronsiâ â¨â®×Öµ××Öµ×סְ×Öµ×× Öµ×שִׁ×ר×Ö¹× Ö°ï¬ªÖ´×â¬ââ© (Ps 106:43).
The prefix esâ < L. exâ is also used to derive verbs ending in âescÄre, as we can see in âesclarécedâ (Jb 18:5) or in âespavrecÃâ (Jb 32:6), although to a lesser extent than enâ, and it appears in parasynthetic verbs with a noun or adjective base, as we can observe in the two previous examples. In the leÊ¿azim this prefix is also found in forms that already existed in Latin, such as âespertarâ (Ps 73:20) < Vulgar L. expÄrtu (âawakeâ), or âespremirâ (Prv 30:33) < L. exprÄmÄre, some of which still have the meaning of âaway from,â belonging to the preposition ex; for example, in âesmovrásâ (Jb 39:20) and other forms of the same verb, < L. exmovere; or in âsâespartironâ (Ps 78:30) < L. expartiri. In some cases, forms with the prefix esâ take preference over those with desâ, as is the case with âescúbredâ (Ps 29:9; Jb 15:33) and other forms of the same verb, âesprecianâ (Ps 22:18) and its derivatives, or âestiér[r]asluâ (Jb 14:20).240
Originally inchoative verbs ending in âecer/âexer < L. âescÄre are very frequent in the leÊ¿azim. The Latin cluster /sk/ was preserved in the first-person singular of the present indicative and in the forms of the present subjunctive, but soon the /s/ in cresco became /ʦ/ because the rest of the forms in the Castilian paradigm had /ʦ/: creces, crece, etc.241 Thus, in the leÊ¿azim we have âaflaquéçculos o emagréçculosâ (Ps 18:43) in first-person singular, as well as the form âoçcuâ (Jb 33:8; âI hearâ), whose morphology recalls how inchoatives are formed, and which is related to ozcas, ozcades in Alexandre or the same first-person singular ozco in Leonese.242 However, we also find âabor[r]escasâ (Jb 5:17) and âcrescanâ (Ps 58:10) in the present subjunctive, forms that preserve the etymological /s/. We also find forms from the rest of the paradigm in which the spelling â¨â®×¡â¬ââ© is a rendering of /ʦ/: among others, the infinitive âenbedrecerâ â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö°ï¬±Öµ××ְֿרֵ×סֵ×רâ¬ââ© (Ps 49:15), the present-tense forms âreverdécedâ â¨â®×¨Öµ××Ö¿Öµ×רְדֵּ×סֵ××Ö¿â¬ââ© (Jb 15:32) and âconécedâ â¨â®×§×Ö¹× ×סֵ××â¬ââ© (Jb 34:19), the preterits âpodrecidâ â¨â®ï×Ö¹×ְֿרֵ×סִ××â¬ââ© (Ps 31:10), âenflaqueci·mâ â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö°×¤Ö°×ָקֵ×סִ××â¬ââ© (Ps 69:21), âenvermejecidâ â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö°×Öµ×רְ×Öµ××Ö¹Öµ×סִ××â¬ââ© (Ps 75:9), etc. However, these forms alternate with others spelled with â¨â®×©â¬ââ© instead of â¨â®×¡â¬ââ©. Since â¨â®×©â¬ââ© represents /s/, /z/, or /Ê/ (see above, §â¯7.1.3.1), the most convincing explanation is that, in these cases of verbs ending in âescÄre spelled with â¨â®×©â¬ââ©, what is being represented are forms with /Ê/, in other words, verbs ending in âexer and not âecer. Both suffixes, âecer and âexer, are the result of the evolution of Latin âescÄre in different Romance languages,243 and both phonemes, /ʦ/ and /Ê/, represented in the leÊ¿azim with â¨â®×¡â¬ââ© and â¨â®×©â¬ââ© respectively, result in these type of verbs from the group /sk/ + palatal vowel in Latin.244 Therefore, we should interpret â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö°ï¬±Öµ×ÖµÖ¹×שֵ××Ö¿â¬ââ©, for example, as âenbejéxedâ (Jb 14:8), â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö°×¤Ö¿×ֹשְקֵ×שֵׁ×× Ö°×וּâ¬ââ© as âenfosquéxenluâ (Jb 3:5), â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö°×¨×ֹקֵ×שִׁ×שׁâ¬ââ© as âenroquex÷sâ (Ps 69:4), â¨â®×ַפֵ×דֵּ×שִׁ×דּוּâ¬ââ© as âafedexiduâ (Jb 15:16), â¨â®×©Ö´× דֵּ×× Öµ××ְֿרֵ×שִׁ××Ö¿â¬ââ© as âsi denegrexidâ (Jb 30:30) and â¨â®×Öµ××Ö¸××Öµ×שִׁ×שְ×â¬ââ© as âemalexistâ (Ps 44:3).
There is widespread alternation in such verbs between forms with â¨â®×¡â¬ââ© and forms with â¨â®×©â¬ââ©, to the point that the same verb forms sometimes use one and sometimes the other, as we can see in âmécedâ â¨â®×Öµ×סֵ××â¬ââ© (Prv 28:25) and âméxedâ â¨â®×Öµ×שֵׁ××Ö¿â¬ââ© (Jb 40:17), âdesconecedesâ â¨â®ï¬³Öµ×שְׁק×Ö¹× Öµ×סֵ×דֵּ×שâ¬ââ© (Jb 21:29) and âdesconexedesâ â¨â®ï¬³Öµ×שְק×Ö¹× Öµ×שֵׁ×דֵּ×שâ¬ââ© (Jb 19:3), or âdecenderâ â¨â®ï¬³Öµ×סֵ×× Ö°ï¬³Öµ×רâ¬ââ© (Jb 38:37) and âdexenderâ â¨â®ï¬³Öµ×שֵׁ×× Ö°ï¬³Öµ×רâ¬ââ© (Jb 17:16). This variation has also been identified in E8 and has been described there as a characteristic âassociated with Eastern Spanish dialects.â245 In E8 we have examples of both /ʦ/ and /Ê/ resulting from /sk/ + palatal vowel in Latin: the singular faz < L. fasce, representing /ʦ/, and the plural faxes, representing /Ê/; or rucio, /ʦ/, compared to the variant ruxio, /Ê/. The result /Ê/ from the group /sk/ + palatal vowel is typical in Catalan, and is also documented in Navarrese and Aragonese.246 In Aragonese, this result alternates with new verb suffixes to indicate the inchoative mode, such as âir, as reflected in the forms posedir, posediredes, possidatz, possidexet, possedexe.247 The leÊ¿azim present vestiges of these inchoative âir formations, in âendure·sâ (Jb 38:31), in some participles, such as âreverdiduâ (Pss 37:35, 52:10; Sg 1:16) and âdenegriduâ (Ps 43:2; Jb 30:28) (see below, §â¯7.2.6.5). All of this might suggest that we should seek the origin of this use of alternating forms in inchoative verbs in an area of the Castilian domain that was in contact with or transitioning to Navarro-Aragonese.248
Another group of verbs to note are those derived from noun or adjective bases with the suffix âiguar < L. âificÄre, which was very productive in the Middle Ages. We find several forms in the literature of Alfonso X and in medieval romanceamientos,249 and this ending continued to be used both in Sephardic translations of the Bible and in Judeo-Spanish (see below, §â¯7.4). The leÊ¿azim include 15 forms of verbs ending in âiguar, corresponding to 7 different verbs.250 Among these, 3 are parasynthetic verbs with an adjective or nominal base with the prefix aâ < L. adâ: âaformosiguadâ (Ps 16:6; Jb 26:3), âaformosigüéstitiâ (Ps 45:3); âaboniguaresâ (Ps 49:19); and âapaziguarsiâ (Jb 34:9). The most used verb in this group is mochiguar, which, in its different forms and spelling variants (muchiguar, amuchiguar, amulchiguar, enmochiguar, etc.) was widely used in the literature of Alfonso X and up to the fifteenth century.251 In the leÊ¿azim we have âmochiguadâ (Ps 18:15; Jb 1:10), âmochiguaâ (Pss 51:4, 71:21), âmochiguantâ (Jb 11:2), and âmochiguanâ (Jb 14:21). The other verbs are: âfrochiguaradâ (Ps 72:17), âfrochiguadâ (Ps 105:24) < L. fructificÄre; âonoriguaresâ (Ps 50:15);252 âyustiguarsiâ (Jb 33:32); and âledeguavaâ (Jb 29:13) < L. lætificare.
Regarding verb endings, we should note some features that appear in all or part of the paradigm:253
-
the ending with â¨â®×â¬ââ© /d/ < L. ât is preserved in third-person singular forms in all verb tenses, with only two exceptions: two forms of the preterit, âesparzÃâ (Ps 68:31), and âsoltóâ (Jb 8:4). Thus, we find forms like âseméjadâ (Ps 49:13), âduéledâ (Ps 55:5), âencúbredâ (Ps 107:27; Jb 20:12) in the present indicative; âenciérredâ (Ps 69:16), âesclaréçcadâ (Jb 3:4), âsiéntadâ (Ps 35:8; infinitive sentir) in the present subjunctive; âbaziávadâ (Jb 29:6), âplaziedâ (Jb 29:22) in the imperfect indicative; âmatásedâ (Jb 6:9) in the imperfect subjunctive; âredradâ (Ps 53:4), âvalidâ (Jb 33:27), âcumplidâ (Ps 79:7) in the preterit; âfavlaradâ (Ps 12:6), âermol[l]eçradâ (Ps 72:16), âsofriradâ (Jb 7:13) in the future indicative; âforçáredâ (Eccl 4:12) in the future subjunctive; and âadevdariedâ (Jb 11:6) in the conditional. The occasional preservation of this ending in Romance texts up to the first quarter of the thirteenth century has been pointed out by several authors, particularly its persistence in Riojan, High-Aragonese, and Navarrese documents.254 However, it is much more consistently preserved in aljamÃa texts until well into the fourteenth century or later.255 Thus, the leÊ¿azim reflect the systematic preservation of the ending â¨â®×â¬ââ© /d/, at least as a graphic indicator of the third-person singular, avoiding any possible confusion with the first-person singular, for example, in the imperfect indicative: âquebrantavaâ (Jb 31:34) and âsediéâ (Jb 29:25), both first-person singular forms, versus ârenovávadâ (Jb 29:20) and âplaziedâ (Jb 29:22), both third-person singular; or in the conditional: âdoloriéâ (Jb 31:39), first-person singular, versus âadevdariedâ (Jb 11:6), third-person singular. However, when the verb form has the enclitic pronoun âmi,â âti,â or âsi,â it loses the final âd and the suffix undergoes apocope of its vowel, for example in the preterit form (él) âquebranta·mâ (Jb 16:12) or in the present form (él) âaforta·sâ (Ps 52:9). With the pronouns âluâ and âli,â however, the form preserves the ending âd and the pronouns are not apocopated: for example, in (él) âpréndedluâ (Jb 15:24) and (él) âadenántadliâ (Prv 31:12), both present-tense forms. In contrast, with the pronoun âlesâ, the verb loses the final âd: âechalesâ (preterit, Ps 78:55).
-
the verb ending âdes/âtes < L. âtis in the second-person plural is preserved in the entire paradigm, as is true in general for the thirteenth century. Thus, we find âdesconecedesâ (Jb 21:29) in the present indicative, âdespriciedesâ (Sg 1:6) in the present subjunctive, âbinésedesâ (Jb 17:10) in the imperfect subjunctive, âtrastornestesâ (Prv 1:25) in the preterit, and âdemetredesâ (Ru 2:16), with syncope of the pretonic vowel, in the future indicative.
-
apocope of atonic final âe (or of atonic final âi < âe)256 occurs in verb endings in the following forms: in the first-person singular of the imperfect subjunctive, for example, âdenegásâ (Jb 31:28), âespandésâ (Jb 17:13); in the second-person singular of the preterit, for example, âquebrantestâ (Ps 60:3), âemplistâ (Jb 36:17); in the singular imperative of âer and âir verbs, for example, ârecuejâ (Jb 22:22), âespartâ (Ps 17:7); and in the singular present participle, for example, âcallantâ (Ps 62:2), âfirbientâ (Jb 41:12). Atonic final âe shifts to âi, rather than being apocopated, in the first-person singular of the present subjunctive, due to the fact that the vowel is the marker in the verb ending that identifies the formâs tense, as we see in âesbivliâ (Prv 30:9), âcatiâ (Jb 31:1) and âapleguiâ (Ps 75:3). In contrast, the preservation of the final âd in the verb ending in third-person singular forms prevents apocope or vowel shift from âe to âi, since /e/ stays in middle position in the following tenses: in the present indicative of âer and âir verbs, for example, âduéledâ (Ps 55:5), âencúbredâ (Ps 107:27); in the present subjunctive of âar verbs, for example, âámedâ (Ps 99:4); in the imperfect subjunctive, for example, âmatásedâ (Jb 6:9); and in the future subjunctive, as in âforçáredâ (Eccl 4:12).
-
we find verb endings with âu in cases where in modern Spanish we have âo (see above, §â¯7.1.2.3). This happens in the first-person singular of the present indicative, for example, âesperu o deseuâ (Jb 17:13), âsufruâ (Ps 101:5); in the singular masculine past participle, as in âpreciaduâ (Pss 12:7, 16:1, 78:25), âencubiertuâ (Pss 139:6, 139:14; Jb 4;12, 37:20); and in the gerund, as we see in âcallanduâ (Ps 39:3) and âesperanduâ (Ps 69:4).
7.2.6.1 Present Tense
Present indicative forms of regular verbs do not present any notable variations from the forms in modern Spanish, except for the ones mentioned in §â¯7.2.6 with regard to the verb endings. Thus, the paradigm for the present indicative can be summarized as follows:
|
Present |
Sing. |
Plu. |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
indicative |
||||||
|
âar |
âer |
âir |
âar |
âer |
âir |
|
|
1p |
amu |
temu |
sufru |
esperamos |
sabemos |
|
|
2p |
tajas |
bedes |
delides |
yantades |
atorcedes |
mentides |
|
3p |
quebrántad |
pertenéced |
encúbred |
esperan |
corren |
deliden |
As for the present subjunctive, what is most noteworthy is the shift of âe to âi in the ending of the first-person singular form of âar verbs:
|
Present |
Sing. |
Plu. |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
subj. |
||||||
|
âar |
âer |
âir |
âar |
âer |
âir |
|
|
1p |
esbivli |
vea |
roguemos |
|||
|
2p |
mires |
atiendas |
despriciedes |
|||
|
3p |
ámed |
esclaréçcad |
siéntad |
queden |
pidan |
|
We find forms with epenthetic /g/, as in âtienguâ (Jb 17:2) < L. tenÄo, âtuelgasâ (Ps 119:43) < L. tÅllas, and âponguâ (Ps 73:28) < L. pÅno, and in forms of the verb âafestingarâ (Jb 20:2) < L. festÄ«nare, such as âafestinganâ (Ps 16:4), âafestÃngadâ (Jb 40:23), and âafestinguesâ (Eccl 5:1). In the last case, the epenthetic /g/ may have developed through analogy with the forms tengo, pongo, giving rise to *afestingo as the first-person singular form of the verb afestinar, and then extending the group /ng/ to the rest of the forms in the paradigm, as we find them in the leÊ¿azim.
In the present tense of the verb ser, we have the forms âsóâ (Ps 92:11 [2]; Jb 12:4, 17:6), âyedâ (in many places), âsomosâ (Ps 20:9; Jb 18:3), âsodesâ (Ps 62:4), and âsonâ (in several places), which means that only the second-person singular is missing. These are the common forms in Old Castilian, except for the diphthongized âyedâ < L. Äst, which has traditionally been considered a dialecticism and which has been preserved in Leonese and Aragonese as ye.257 Menéndez Pidal identified this form as coming from Old Riojan when he found it, in its different graphical variants (jet, get, je), in the Glosas Emilianenses and Glosas Silenses, along with the form derived for the second-person singular, jes < L. Äs, and as a common feature of Leonese and Old Navarro-Aragonese.258 In the present subjunctive the leÊ¿azim offer the forms âsieganâ < L. sÄdeant (Jb 31:8) and âsiégadâ < L. sÄdeat (Jb 27:7),259 with epenthetic /g/.260 These forms are also considered as belonging more to Navarro-Aragonese or Riojan than to central Castilian.261
Lastly, we will mention the form âtingasâ â¨â®×Ö´×× Ö°ï¬²Ö¸ï¬ªâ¬ââ© (Ps 68:24; âmay you dyeâ), from the present subjunctive of teñir < L. tÄngÄre, where we observe the preservation of the cluster /ng/, as must have happened, in this verb tense and in the first-person singular of the present indicative, in numerous verbs with this cluster,262 despite the fact that in general the paradigm of this class of verbs gave /ɲ/, as in taño, tañas, taña, etc. from tañer < L. tangÄre.263
7.2.6.2 Imperfect Tense
In the imperfect indicative, âar verbs take the endings âava, âavad, âavan, in first-person and third-person singular and third-person plural, respectively, which are the only persons that appear in the leÊ¿azim. It should be pointed out that the spelling used for these forms, â¨â®×Ö¿â¬ââ©, with rafe, seems to indicate that these endings were pronounced with [β], according to the usual spelling in medieval Castilian literature, where â¨vâ© or â¨uâ© is used. Of the ten verb forms of this kind present in the leÊ¿azim, nine are spelled with â¨â®×Ö¿â¬ââ©,264 while â¨â®×â¬ââ© without rafe is used once, in âestavanâ â¨â®×Öµ×שְ×Ö·××Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Jb 15:28). What is most noteworthy about âer and âir verbs is the use of the endings âié, âied, âién in the first-person and third-person singular and the third-person plural, respectively. It was customary to use these verb endings in the third-person singular and plural in the thirteenth century, but not in the first-person singular, where âÃa was the most common ending, as is attested in the Castilian literature of the time.265 In the leÊ¿azim the first-person singular is distinguished from the third-person singular by the ending âd, which is typical of this form in all tenses. The following table shows the paradigm for this tense:
|
Imperfect |
Sing. |
Plu. |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
indicative |
||||
|
âar |
âer/âir |
âar |
âer/âir |
|
|
1p |
ledeguava |
sabié |
||
|
2p |
||||
|
3p |
renovávad |
plazied |
quedavan |
sonbadién |
In the imperfect subjunctive, the first-person singular undergoes apocope of atonic final âe (or of final âi < atonic final âe), while the rest of the forms that occur in the leÊ¿azim can be seen in the following table:
|
Imperfect |
Sing. |
Plu. |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
subjunctive |
||||
|
âar |
âer/âir |
âar |
âer/âir |
|
|
1p |
denegás |
prendés |
||
|
2p |
matases |
tornásedes |
binésedes |
|
|
3p |
soltásed |
odisen |
||
The form âodisenâ (Ps 141:6) < L. audi(vi)ssent, is etymological, unlike the present form âoçcuâ (Jb 33:8), whose morphology is related to that of inchoative verbs (see above, §â¯7.2.6).
Three imperfect subjunctive forms of the verb ser appear in the leÊ¿azim, and none in indicative. They are the first-person singular âfusâ (Jb 3:16), the third-person singular âfúsedâ (Jb 6:2, 16:4), and the third-person plural âfusenâ (Jb 19:23, 39:16). These forms will be commented on below (§â¯7.2.6.3), together with the preterit forms of the verb ser.
7.2.6.3 Preterit Tense
The preterit is one of the tenses that appears most frequently in the leÊ¿azim, having more than 200 occurrences. In the second-person singular, it takes the ending âest (in âar verbs) or âist (in âer and âir verbs); in other words, it undergoes apocope,266 and in âar verbs the accented vowel is raised,267 as, for example, in âechestâ (Ps 89:45), not *echast, âcuajestâ (Jb 10:10), not *cuajast, or âalcestâ (Ps 30:2), not *alçast.268 Through analogy with the singular, the ending for the second-person plural of âar verbs is âestes, instead of âastes.269 The ending in the third-person singular is one of the most striking features of verb morphology in the leÊ¿azim. In one place, the verb ending is âo < L. âau(i)t, as was standard in Castilian, in âsoltóâ (Jb 8:4), but in all other cases, the verb ending is âad < L. âa(vi)t in âar verbs and âid < L. âi(vi)t in âer and âir verbs, except, as expected, in strong preterits. Some examples are âatemadâ (Ps 12:2), âmesturadâ (Ps 15:3), âmochiguadâ (Ps 18:15; Jb 1:10), âemplidâ (Ps 33:5), âpodrecidâ (Ps 31:20), and âcumplidâ (Ps 77:9). These forms, which are typical in French, Occitan, and Catalan, are unknown in the other languages and dialects of the Iberian Peninsula, although some appear in Navarrese Hebrew aljamÃa texts, alternating with forms ending in âo.270 As seems to be the case in these texts, the use of this ending here could be related to the linguistic habits of populations that were originally speakers of languages such as French, Gascon, Provençal, or Catalan, who came from France or Catalonia (see above, §â¯7.2.2).
The ending for third-person plural for âar verbs is always âaron: for example, âtraspasaronâ (Ps 18:13), âposaronâ (Ps 38:3), âotearonâ (Jb 42:11), and âcelaronâ (Prv 30:18). In the leÊ¿azim there are no cases of the analogical verb ending âoron, which had long been typical in Leonese and especially Aragonese.271 In âer and âir verbs, the ending is âiron < late L. âÄ«runt, which was typical in Old Leonese and Old Riojan and is also the base of the equivalent forms in Portuguese (partirom) and Catalan (partiren), compared to the modern equivalent in Spanish, partieron.272 Thus, the paradigm for the preterit is as follows:
|
Preterit |
Sing. |
Plu. |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
âar |
âer/âir |
âar |
âer/âir |
|
|
1p |
caté |
sentà |
esperamos (?)273 |
|
|
2p |
quebrantest |
emplist |
trastornestes |
|
|
3p |
atemad |
podrecid |
traspasaron |
atendiron |
As for strong preterits, the ending of the third-person singular does not behave through analogy with âo forms as in standard Spanish, and thus we find âed < L. âÄt. Some examples are âdÃxedâ (Jb 3:3) < L. dÄ«xÄt; âÃxedâ (Jb 40:23) < L. exÄ(v)Ät; âbÃnedâ (Ps 44:18) < L. vÄnÄt; âestÃdedâ (Jb 16:8) < L. stÄtÄt, a form that is parallel to estido (standard Sp. estuvo), found in El Cid, in Berceo, and in other thirteenth-century works; âprÃselosâ (Jb 18:20) < Vulgar L. prÄsit, parallel to the form priso/preso, which is very common in thirteenth-century literature (Alexandre, Berceo, etc.);274 and âbÃdedâ (Jb 28:7) < L. vÄ«dit, parallel to the form vide, which in the Middle Ages alternated with the analogical form vido.
For the verb fazer, the leÊ¿azim have all the forms of the preterit paradigm except the second-person plural. Thus, we have âfizâ (Jb 31:16) < L. fÄcÄ«, for the first-person singular, with apocope; âfezistâ (Ps 119:49; Jb 10:10), in addition to âfezistlosâ (Ps 90:5), âdesfezistâ (Ps 89:40), and âdesfezistmiâ (Ps 10:8), for the second-person singular, also with apocope; âfÃzedâ (Jb 39:17, 40:19) < L. fÄcÄt, the etymological form of the third-person singular (analogical fizo, as used in medieval Sp.); fizimos, in the form âdesfizÃmosluâ (Ps 35:25), for the first-person plural; and âfizronâ (Ps 68:73) < L. fÄcÄrunt, in addition to âdesfizronâ (Jb 6:3, 17:1), for the third-person plural. This last form cannot be the equivalent of the Aragonese fizon, which is formed analogically from the third-person singular fizo by adding an ân to mark the third-person plural, since the third-person singular preterit forms that we have seen in the leÊ¿azim do not end in âo, but rather in âad or âid, and strong preterit forms have endings which are etymological and not analogical, including âfÃzed,â from fazer. Hence, even though the Old Castilian forms fizieron, fezeron, and fezieron lead us to suppose that the Latin fÄcÄrÅnt was paroxytone in the proto-Romance period,275 the form âfizronâ can only be explained as having proparoxytonic accentuation, which would result in the syncope of the post-tonic vowel.
As for the preterit of the verb ser, we have all the singular forms: âfuâ (Pss 51:7 [âfuâ], 139:15 [2]; Jb 7:3, 33:6), âfustâ (Jb 15:7), with apocope, âfudâ (Pss 45:3, 122:3; Jb 20:26), as well as the third-person plural, âfuronâ (Pss 76:6, 80:11; Jb 22:16, 30:27). Medieval Spanish had different forms for the preterit of ser, derived from Classical Latin forms of the perfect of esse (like fÅÄ«stÄ«/fÅ«Ä«stÄ«) and also from an abbreviated conjugation without /i/ in the verb stem (like *fÅstÄ«/*fÅ«stÄ«), conjugations that differed in all persons except for the first-person singular (fÅÄ«/fÅ«Ä«). In addition, each conjugation had different forms with either long /Å«/ or short /Å/ in the verb stem. Classical Latin forms with long /Å«/ or short /Å/ generally converged in forms that survived in present-day Spanish (fui, fuiste, fue, etc.), while the abbreviated conjugation produced forms with either /o/ < /Å/ or /u/ < /Å«/ in medieval Spanish; therefore, we have for second-person singular foste/fuste, for third-person singular fo/fu, etc., forms that did not survive in modern Spanish.276 The preterit forms of ser that we find in the leÊ¿azim derive, thus, from the Latin abbreviated conjugation for the perfect of esse with long /Å«/. Furthermore, forms using the same perfect stem of esse, such as imperfect subjunctive and future subjunctive, also present forms with /u/ in the leÊ¿azim, such as the first-person singular of the imperfect subjunctive âfusâ (Jb 3:16), the third-person singular âfúsedâ (Jb 6:2, 16:4), and the third-person plural âfusenâ (Jb 19:23, 39:16), as well as the third-person singular of the future subjunctive, âfúredâ (Ps 16:8). All these forms can be seen in the following table:
|
Ser |
Sing. |
Plu. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Pret. |
Imperf. subj. |
Fut. subj. |
Pret. |
Imperf. subj. |
|
|
1p |
fu |
fus |
*fumos |
*fúsemos |
|
|
2p |
fust |
*fuses |
*fustes |
*fúsedes |
|
|
3p |
fud |
fúsed |
fúred |
furon |
fusen |
7.2.6.4 Future Tense
The future tense stands out above all due to the syncopated, contracted, or metathetical forms of some verbs, as well as the use of the mesoclitic pronoun between the infinitive and the verb ending,277 which is derived from the contracted forms of the grammaticalized present of haber/aver. The syncopated forms occur in âer and âir verbs, where the thematic vowel undergoes syncope because it is in pretonic position, as for example in âcomránâ (Ps 22:30),278 âagradeçránâ (Ps 22:30), âbevránâ (Jb 5:5), âescrivradâ (Ps 87:6), or âesprimradâ (Jb 39:15). However, syncope does not occur when the pretonic vowel is in a syllable that begins with a consonant cluster, as in âencobriradâ (Pss 91:4, 139:11), âcobriránâ (Ps 65:14), and âsofriradâ (Jb 7:13). Nor does syncope occur in forms of âar verbs, such as âdescenizaradâ (Ps 20:4), âposaradâ (Pss 72:6, 91:7) or âanpararadâ (Ps 91:4). Thus, the conjugation of the future indicative is as follows:
|
Future |
Sing. |
Plu. |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
indicative |
||||
|
âar |
âer/âir |
âar |
âer/âir |
|
|
1p |
favlaré |
bençré/*sofriré |
enpuxaremos |
ascondremos/*cobriremos |
|
2p |
catarás |
esmovrás/*sofrirás |
*amaredes |
demetredes/*cobriredes |
|
3p |
posarad |
conponrad/sofrirad |
rogarán |
bevrán/cobrirán |
Syncope of the pretonic vowel produces the contracted form âferradâ (Jb 27:23; infinitive ferir),279 whereas we have metathesis in âbernadâ (Jb 22:21), which is the customary form in Old Castilian.280 For the future of fazer, the leÊ¿azim include two abbreviated forms of the infinitive, far and fer (see below, §â¯7.2.6.6), both of which appear in the first-person singular: âfaréâ (Ps 68:23) without pronoun, and âfertâéâ (Ps 32:8), with a mesoclitic object pronoun.281
As for forms with object and reflexive/reciprocal pronouns, future tense forms can take proclitic pronouns, like the rest of the tenses, or mesoclitic pronouns. There are cases with mesoclitic pronouns in all the singular forms and in third-person plural. Some examples are: âaforçarmâéâ (Ps 39:14) and âespertarmâéâ (Ps 108:3) in the first-person singular; âconsumarlosásâ (Ps 144:6) and âadosnarmâásâ (Sg 8:2) in the second-person singular; âtraertâadâ (Ps 52:7) and âdesradgartâadâ (Ps 52:7) in the third-person singular; and âesmoversâánâ (Ps 68:13) in the third-person plural. One case that deserves special mention is âar[r]ancaralâánâ â¨â®×Ö·×¨Ö·× Ö°×§Ö¸×רַ×Ö°×Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Prv 30:17). The division of the word into syllables, according to how it is vocalized, is a-r[r]an-ca-ral-an, which is somewhat strange, since we would expect a-r[r]an-ca-ra-lan.282 For this reason, I think that there might be a vocalization error, which is why we have an epenthetic /a/ between the infinitive and the pronoun, and why the form should probably be read *ar[r]ancarlâán. However, I have opted to leave the form as it is vocalized, assuming that this form has the epenthetic vowel /a/ before the mesoclitic pronoun.
In the future subjunctive, we have: in the second-person singular, âpensaresâ (Prv 30:32), âaboniguaresâ (Ps 49:19), and âonoriguaresâ (Ps 50:15); in the third-person singular, âforçáredâ (Eccl 4:12) and, from the verb ser, âfúredâ (Ps 16:8);283 and in the second-person plural, âespertardesâ (Sg 2:7), with syncope of the post-tonic vowel in the verb ending âedes < âdes.
7.2.6.5 Other Tenses: The Conditional, the Imperative
The conditional is a distinctly Romance verb tense that is formed, like the future, from the infinitive plus grammaticalized forms of the verb haber/aver, in this case, the contracted forms of the imperfect. For this very reason, just like the future, conditional forms are able to incorporate mesoclitic pronouns between the infinitive and the verb ending. As in imperfect forms of âer and âir verbs (see above, §â¯7.2.6.2), the nine cases of conditional forms in the leÊ¿azim have the verb ending âié for first-person singular, âiés for second-person singular, âied for third-person singular, and âién for third-person plural, as we can see in the following table:
|
Conditional |
Sing. |
Plu. |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
No pron. |
With pron. |
With pron. |
|
|
1p |
negarié |
||
|
mayorgarié |
|||
|
serié |
|||
|
2p |
porniés |
alumrartâiés |
|
|
3p |
adevdaried |
buscarmâién |
|
|
minguaried |
ar[r]emetersâién |
||
In âporniésâ (Jb 22:24), as in the future form âbernadâ (Jb 22:21), metathesis of the cluster /nr/ occurs after the syncope of the thematic vowel, while there is nothing special to note about the only conditional form of the verb ser, âseriéâ (Jb 3:16).
As for the imperative, the singular forms undergoâas would be expectedâapocope of the atonic final âe in âer and âir verbs, as we see in ârecuejâ (Jb 22:22) and âtuelâ (Ps 119:22), the latter with diphthongization of the Latin tonic /Å/, in addition to âsalâ (Ps 45:5) and âconpontiâ (Jb 22:21), forms that never recovered the final âe. Apocope also occurs following consonant clusters, as we observe in âespartâ (Ps 17:7), âprendâ (Ps 35:2) and âentiendâ (Jb 34:16), although the atonic final âe shifted to âi is preserved after the cluster /br/ in âencubriâ (Jb 40:13). The âar verbs present the same endings as in modern Spanish: for example, âcataâ (Ps 37:37) and âamostraâ (Ps 17:7). The plural forms are also the same as in modern Spanish, preserving the final âd < L. âte, as, for example, in âcantadâ (Ps 32:11), âalbedriadvosâ (Ps 34:9), âespandedâ (Sg 2:5), and âescobridâ (Ps 137:7).
We have one case of an imperative of a verb ending in âecer/âexer: âaparextiâ (Ps 94:1). The imperative âbeÃllaâ (Ps 141:3) derives from L. vÄgÄla, with dissimilation of /ee/ < /ÄÄ/ following the loss of the intervocalic voiced consonant.284 The imperative of ser appears in the singular form, âsiedâ (Jb 37:6) < L. sÄde, which preserves the etymological /d/ from sÄdere. As for the verb fazer, we have imperative forms in the singular, âdesfazâ (Ps 55:10) and âafaztiâ (Jb 23:9), and also in the plural, âfazedâ (Jb 6:24), in both cases with forms that correlate to those of modern Spanish.
Object and reflexive/reciprocal pronouns with the imperative can be proclitic, as in âti quebrantaâ (Ps 60:10), or enclitic, as in âesmovtiâ (Ps 11:1); in the latter case, the pronoun âtiâ is apocopated when it accompanies a singular form ending in a vowel, as in âyúdga·tâ (Jb 35:14) and âordéna·tâ (Jb 33:5); by contrast, the pronoun âluâ does not apocopate: âquebrántaluâ (Ps 17:13).
7.2.6.6 Non-finite Forms: The Participle, the Infinitive, the Gerund
The present participle is a learned form derived from Latin that appears seldom in medieval literature, and would be revived with little long-term impact in fifteenth-century Castilian.285 In the leÊ¿azim, in accordance with the principle of calque translation (see above, §â¯2.3.4, and §â¯7.2.3), the present participle is made to correspond to the active participle in Hebrew, which also happens in the Ferrara Bible,286 as well as in Sephardic ladinamientos from after the expulsion.287 This results in its very abundant use, at times in a somewhat forced translation, since the Hebrew active participle has several syntactical functions,288 for some of which Romance tends to use subordinate clauses or other verb forms. The Ferrara Bible and the later Sephardic ladinamientos use an apocopated form without the final ât, âán for âar verbs (cantán) and âién for âer and âir verbs (temién, partién).289 In the leÊ¿azim, we find, in the singular, the apocopated form ending in âant for âar verbs and âient for âer and âir verbs, which are the usual endings in the thirteenth century, as we see, for example, in âafolgantantâ (Ps 19:8), âfendientâ (Ps 141:7) and âcumplientâ (Ps 57:3); in the plural, âes is simply added, as in any noun or adjective ending in a consonant, for example âasonsañantesâ (Jb 12:6) and âprendientesâ (Sg 3:8).
In âacompaña[n]tâ â¨â®×ַק×Ö¹× Ö°ïÖ·× Ö°×Ö·××â¬ââ© (Prv 29:3), which translates the Hebrew active participle â®×¨××¢×â¬â, MT â®×¨Ö¹×¢Ö¶×â¬â, I assume that the scribe made a mistake in not writing a nun because he confused the left vertical stroke of the ʾalef with that letter.290 Lastly, the present participle of the verb fazer is given in two forms, one that is diphthongized, âfazientâ (Jb 12:16; Sg 7:10), and another that is not, âfazentâ (Ps 68:7).
The past participle is used in the leÊ¿azim both as an adjective and in the passive diathesis with the auxiliary ser. The endings for gender and number of the regular past participle are the same as in adjectives ending in âu in the masculine singular. Thus, we find âadu/âidu for the masculine singular, âada/âida for the feminine singular, âados/âidos for the masculine plural, and âadas/âidas for the feminine plural. Some examples are ârenovaduâ (Ps 102:19), âesparziduâ (Jb 18:15), âacostadaâ (Ps 62:4), âespandidaâ (Prv 1:17), âmatadosâ (Ps 62:4; Jb 27:15), âtraÃdosâ (Pss 79:11, 102:21), âlavadasâ (Sg 5:12), and âparidasâ (Ps 78:71). There are no cases in the leÊ¿azim of participles ending in âudu < L. âÅ«tu, which were abundant in the medieval literature for âer < L. âÄre verbs with the Latin perfect âui, such as tener, tenudo.291
The forms âreverdiduâ (Pss 37:35, 52:10; Sg 1:16) and âdenegriduâ (Ps 43:2; Jb 30:28) are from the infinitives *reverdir and *denegrir, respectively, of inchoative âir formations, although the rest of the conjugation of these inchoative verbs as they are used in the leÊ¿azim is derived from forms ending in âecer and âexer that vary freely (see above, §â¯7.2.6), as we can see, for example, in âreverdécedâ (Jb 15:32), derived from the infinitive *reverdecer, and âdenegrexidâ (Jb 30:30), from *denegrexer. As for strong participles, we find forms such as âcubiertuâ (Ps 68:14) and âencubiertuâ (Pss 139:6, 139:14; Jb 4:12, 37:20) < L. coopÄrtu, ânaduâ (Jb 3:3) < L. natu, âaduchasâ (Ps 45:16) < L. addÅ«ctas, âpostosâ (Ps 49:15) < L. pÅsÄtos, and âfechuâ (Pss 69:3, 139:15; Jb 7:3) < L. factu.
There is nothing noteworthy in the morphology of the infinitive, since its endings coincide with those of modern Spanish. However, it is worth mentioning that the leÊ¿azim use, in addition to âfazerâ (Ps 101:3; Jb 15:35), the abbreviated form âferâ (Ps 89:3)âalso found in âdesferluâ (Jb 2:3) and âafersiâ (Jb 23:9)âwhich is moreover the infinitive used to form the future with mesoclitic pronouns: âfertâéâ (Ps 32:8). The infinitive far itself is not found in the leÊ¿azim, but is used, as in modern Spanish, as the base for future forms without a pronoun: âfaréâ (Ps 68:23) (see above, §â¯7.2.6.4).292
As for the gerund, it adapted easily from Latin to Spanish, and in the leÊ¿azim its only peculiarity is that it ends in âu, which is the typical ending here for words ending in âo in modern Spanish (see above, §â¯7.1.2.3). However, this form is practically non-existent in the leÊ¿azim, since it does not have a direct cognate in Hebrew. It appears in only two places: âesperanduâ (Ps 69:4) and âcallanduâ (Ps 39:3). In the first, it is a translation of the Hebrew active participle â®××××â¬â, where we would instead expect a present participle. This might reflect the fact that in the spoken language, as also happened in Vulgar Latin, the present participle functioning as an adverb had been replaced by the gerund;293 thus, within the system of calque translation in which the active participle in Hebrew is rendered by a present participle in Romance, this case would be an exception that seems to have arisen from spoken usage. In âcallandu,â the gerund is a translation of the Hebrew â®×××××â¬â.294 This word can be analyzed as a noun,295 or as an adverb, and it is the latter that should be understood in the laÊ¿az, since it modifies a verb: (enmudecÃ) âcallandu.â
7.2.7 Relational Elements and Other Particles
In this section, which follows the structure given by Alvar and Pottier,296 we take a look at relational elements including prepositions, adverbs that became prepositions or that have been considered as belonging to both categories, and prepositional phrases. We will also look at other particles, among them conjunctions and adverbs that can be classified as coordinating, deictic, asseverative, or those that establish other logical relationships.
The preposition âaâ < L. Äd, which appears many times, takes the form âadâ only before a vowel.297 This usage has been thought a feature of Aragonese texts from the twelfth through the seventeenth centuries, although it is also documented in the Middle Ages in neighboring regions such as Navarre and La Rioja.298 In the leÊ¿azim, the preposition a is always attached to the following word (see above, §â¯7.1.1, §â¯7.2.1, §â¯7.2.2), due perhaps to the rules of Hebrew writing, which do not allow single-letter words. In order to be written by itself, the preposition would need to use a mater lectionis, *â®××â¬â or *â®××â¬â, following the model used for âyâ â¨â®×Ö´×â¬ââ©, but these possible spellings have been rejected, probably because they were unnecessary or for reasons of linguistic economy, since the vowel /a/ does not necessarily need a mater lectionis. In one laÊ¿az we have the preposition âḥatteâ â¨â®×Ö·ïÖµ×â¬ââ© (Jb 14:6) < Arab. â®ØتÙâ¬â,299 which was adopted in Spanish as the form hasta.300 The preposition âentreâ (Ps 57:5) < L. Änter also appears as the apocopated form âintrâ (Jb 24:11), which reflects the alternation between the distinctly Castilian form and the apocopated form with a raised vowel. We also have âde intruâ (Jb 20:25, 30:5) < L. de Äntro301 used as an adverb and written in both places with the preposition âdeâ separate and with the leÊ¿azimâs usual shift to final âu. Also written with the preposition âdeâ separate is âdesde,â in two places, â¨â®ï¬³Öµ×שׁ דֵּ×â¬ââ© (Ps 76:8; Jb 20:4) < L. de ex de, while it is written once as one word, â¨â®ï¬³Öµ×שְדֵּ×â¬ââ© (Ru 2:7).
The preposition âporâ (which appears many times) < Vulgar L. por, a modification of the Classical Latin pro,302 alternates with the complex âporaâ (Ps 135:4; Jb 5:7, 20:26, 31:28) < L. pro ad, which preserves the final consonant when it occurs before a vowel, âporadâ (Jb 40:20). In the leÊ¿azim, âporaâ is used in only a few places, possibly because of the influence of the calque translation method, which uses âporâ as the preferred translation for the Hebrew preposition â®×-â¬â, while reserving âporaâ for cases that diverge from the calque translation method and reflect a usage that is closer to the spoken language. This preposition is written in the leÊ¿azim with the element âporâ separate from the element âa,â which is attached to the following word and thus behaves, graphically, like the preposition âaâ.303
The preposition âsobreâ (Ps 32:8; Eccl 5:5) < L. sÅper also appears in apocopated form, âsobrâ (Ps 110:6; Jb 21:31, 36:33), and with a raised vowel, âsubrâ (Pss 45:4, 139:14; Jb 26:7). As for âsunâ (Jb 40:21) < L. sÅb, it has an /u/ that perhaps should be explained as the influence of âcum,â which appears very frequently in the leÊ¿azim.304 The adverb âantesâ < L. ante, to which has been added the so-called adverbial âs,305 is found in the leÊ¿azim with two uses: followed by a noun phrase in the complex preposition âantes deâ (Jb 15:32, 21:33), and by a verb in the complex adverb âantes queâ (Ps 129:6; Sg 2:17). As a complex form of the Latin ante, we have the preposition âdenantâ (Pss 45:13, 119:58 [âdenantâ]; Jb 30:11; Sg 2:5), made up of de and enante < L. Än ante, and its variant âdelantâ (Ps 139:5), with apocope of atonic final âe, as is usual in the leÊ¿azim. We also find one occurrence of the adverb âdespósâ (Ps 73:24) < L. de pÅst, whose non-diphthongized vowel /o/ should be compared to similar forms in the fuero of Uclés (twelfth century) and in Castilian notarial documents from the thirteenth century,306 as well as to the forms empós and após, which are found in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century literature.307 In Berceo we have the preposition encontra/escontra, and in the literature of Alfonso X and in E8 we find the form escuantra. The form of this preposition in the leÊ¿azim is âescuantrâ â¨â®×Öµ×שְׁקוּ×Ö·× Ö°×ְרְâ¬ââ© (Prv 30:31) < L. ex cÅntra, with a rare apocope of the final /a/ (see above, §â¯7.1.2.3), which in this manuscript we have observed only in the case of âcadâ (see above, §â¯7.2.5). Used as an adverb, âtrasâ < L. trans appears in opposition to âdelant,â in âtras y delantâ (Ps 139:5). The complex preposition with a noun base âen lugar deâ (Ps 68:15; Jb 30:14) is found in two places. Lastly, other prepositions also appear in the leÊ¿azim that do not require special comment, such as âdeâ and âconâ (both with multiple occurrences) and âsinâ (Ps 88:5; Jb 7:6, 18:15, 36:12).
Among the coordinating particles, the copulative conjunction in the leÊ¿azim is âyâ â¨â®×Ö´×â¬ââ© < L. Ät, which appears in numerous places and which has been transcribed here in its modern spelling. In two places it appears as âeâ (Ps 20:9; Jb 2:3). The disjunctive conjunction âoâ < L. aut, also very frequent in the leÊ¿azim, requires no commentary. The adverb âmásâ < L. magis appears by itself in one place (Ps 119:98) and twice in the phrase âcuant másâ (Ps 68:9) or âcuant a másâ (Jb 28:17). However, it is more often used in comparatives, followed by a preposition, âmás deâ (Pss 37:16, 45:8, 55:22, 84:11, 130:6; Jb 7:6, 11:17, 23:12, 36:21), or by a conjunction, âmás queâ (Ps 72:16; Jb 33:12, 33:25). Moreover, the atonic particle âcumâ < L. quÅmÅdÅ (Vulgar L. quomo) appears many times, whereas its variant âcomâ appears only once (Jb 40:31).
The spatial deictics used in the leÊ¿azim are: the adverb âobâ (Jb 39:30) < ÅbÄ, which is documented as obe in the Glosas Emilianenses and as o in medieval Leonese, Aragonese, Navarrese, and Riojan documents;308 âaquendâ (Ps 75:9), with apocope, which is the result of the agglutination of aquén < Vulgar L. *eccum hinc and the preposition de,309 used in its etymological sense, â(from there) to this side.â As for temporal deictics, we have: âcuandâ < L. quÄndÅ (in many places), with apocope of the âo (or of the atonic final âu < âo),310 as occurs in the leÊ¿azim with âtodâ when functioning as an adjective (see above, §â¯7.2.5); âestonçâ (Ps 48:6) < L. *ÄntÅnce, a form that we find frequently in the thirteenth century, for example, in La Fazienda de Ultramar, the literature of Alfonso X, Berceo, E8, etc.;311 and ânuncuaâ (Ps 62:3), < L. numquam, an adverb whose aljamÃa spelling, â¨â®× ï¬µ× Ö°×§ï¬µ×Ö¸×â¬ââ©, is comparable to nunqua, which is the most prevalent form in medieval Castilian literature, although it has traditionally been considered a Latinized spelling in which the semi-consonant /w/ would not have been pronounced.312
The modal asseverative particles that are used in the leÊ¿azim are the conditional conjunction âsiâ < L. sÄ« and the conjunction âque,â whose morphology derives from the Vulgar Latin quÄ(d), which inherited the functions of the Classical Latin quÅd.313 Both appear many times. The abundance of cases of âsiâ is due to the fact that it is used to translate not only the Hebrew conditional particle â®××â¬â but also the Hebrew interrogative particle â®×-â¬â (see below, §â¯7.3).314 The negative asseverative particles are ânon,â as in Latin (with many occurrences), and âniâ (Jb 31:27) < L. *nÄ«(c), which appears with relative frequency together with the enclitic and apocopated conditional conjunction âni·sâ (Ps 63:7; Jb 1:11, 17:2, 17:13, 21:6 [âni·sâ], 30:24, 34:16);315 we also find the form âninâ (Jb 41:4 [2]; Prv 30:3; Eccl 4:1), which probably has a final ân in imitation of ânon.â Another adverb that is used is âquiçáâ (Ps 139:10, Jb 1:5); which has been explained as a reduction of quiçab/quiçabe, probably an alteration of the ethical dative construction qui se sabe > qui·s sab, where /sË/ > /ʦ/.316
Lastly, the particles that function in other logical relationships are: the adversative conjunction âmaguerâ (Ps 41:5) in the construction âmaguer que,â which is very frequent up to the fourteenth century; âmientriâ < L. dÅm ÄntÄrim, a cognate of the form mientre, very common in the thirteenth century,317 with the shift from atonic final âe to âi, which appears as the conjunction âmientriâ (Sg 1:12),318 in the complex conjunction âmientri queâ (Pss 72:5, 146:2; Jb 4:19, 27:3), and in the compound adverb âtanamientriâ (Prv 31:6);319 and, lastly, the causal conjunction âcaâ < prob. L. quia, which always translates the Hebrew particle â®××â¬â when functioning as a causal.320
7.3 Syntax
Although some of the leÊ¿azim are as many as ten words long and constitute whole sentencesâas for example, âqui por afalagu renúciad a gasajanes ojos de sos fijos cieganâ (Jb 17:5)âthe literalness of the translation in the leÊ¿azim with respect to Hebrew makes it impossible to undertake a study of their syntax as if they were an original literary text in Castilian without any underlying structures based on another language.321 A prime example is the syntax of the possessive, where the calque translation seems to avoid possessives with articles, due to the structure for expressing possession in Hebrew, a language that rejects the use of the article in such cases (see above, §â¯7.2.2). One of the few leÊ¿azim in which, after the calque translation, an alternate translation is provided whose syntax is distinctively Romance is in Jb 39:16, âcum que non ad ella o cum que non fusen suyos.â The first part of the laÊ¿az, âcum que non ad ella,â provides the calque translation of the Hebrew â®××× ××â¬â, while in the second part we find clarification in an expression that is more in line with Castilian syntax, âcum que non fusen suyos,â which is why this is the only time in the leÊ¿azim that a postpositive possessive pronoun is used.
On the other hand, the fact that the leʿazim are part of the romanceamiento tradition of the medieval Bible in the Iberian Peninsula makes it possible to compare some of their syntactical features to those that have been attributed to medieval biblical texts in Castilian. Enrique-Arias pointed out certain morphosyntactic features in Bibles translated into Castilian during the Middle Ages,322 which can be summarized in the following way, with specific examples drawn from the leʿazim:
-
the use of inner object structures, with a repetitive effect, as a result of the etymological relationships between the components. In the leÊ¿azim we find these kinds of structures in âateman escuadruñamientu escuadruñaduâ (Ps 64:7), âyer[r]ant y fazient yerrarâ (Jb 12:16), ânon lu acalcemos cum forteza de so forçaâ (Jb 37:23), âtod covdiciant covdiciaâ (Prv 1:19), and âbanidad de banidadesâ (Eccl 1:12).
-
one specific repetition structure is calqued on the use in Hebrew of the infinitive absolute as a noun with an inner object that is a conjugated form of the same root,323 as happens in âca poder podedesâ (Jb 42:2), âdemeter demetredesâ (Ru 2:16), and âsi cum mentir por omni mentides por élâ (Jb 13:9).
-
the use of prepositional phrases that could be replaced by adjectives, as in âcomplimientu de fermosuraâ (Ps 50:2) in place of complimientu fermosu,324 imitating the use in biblical Hebrew of the construct state, with chains consisting of two nouns where the second modifies the first.325 Other examples are âcum gusanu de glotoniciuâ (Ps 12:9), âde omnes del munduâ (Ps 17:14), âfavla de malfesrÃaâ (Ps 27:12), âescarnios de espreciuâ (Ps 35:16), âcosa de maliciaâ (Ps 41:9), ârey de yosticiaâ (Ps 110:4), and âmujer de graciaâ (Prv 31:30).
-
the use of si to introduce direct yes/no questions, whether real or rhetorical. In Hebrew, these sentences are normally introduced by the particle â®×-â¬â (called interrogative heʾ), by â®×××â¬â in negative clauses, or, less frequently, by â®××â¬â.326 This last particle, which is generally used as a conditional conjunction, also introduces the second part of a direct yes/no question if it is disjunctive (â®×[××] ⦠×× â¦â¬â âIs it [not] ⦠or â¦?â), as well as most indirect yes/no questions,327 which in Spanish are also introduced by si (Pregúntale si va a venir, âask him if heâs going to comeâ). The use of â®××â¬â in interrogative clauses might be the reason for the use of si in romanceamientos, and in these leÊ¿azim, to introduce any kind of yes/no question, whether direct or indirect. In the leÊ¿azim we find, for example, âsi esproméntadâ (Jb 4:2), âsi yed de comer conduchuâ (Jb 6:6), âsi préciad to larguedadâ (Jb 36:19), and âsi yed renuciaduâ (Jb 37:20), which translate interrogatives introduced by â®×-â¬â, but we also find si, in the disjunctive interrogative sense of âor,â in âsi adÃguadâ (Jb 39:10), a translation of the Hebrew â®×× ×ש××â¬â, a clause that is the second part of a disjunctive direct yes/no question whose first part is introduced by â®×-â¬â.
-
unlike what happens in medieval romanceamientos,328 in the leÊ¿azim the Hebrew active participle is translated almost without exception by the Castilian present participle,329 which connects them to the same tendency in the Ferrara Bible and Sephardic ladinamientos. This is thus a feature of the tradition of calque translation of the Hebrew Bible into Romance that is not necessarily related to the revival of the learned form of the present participle typical of fifteenth-century Castilian literature (see above, §â¯7.2.6.6).
All of these features are a result of the method of calque translation, since they have their origins in the syntactical structures of biblical Hebrew. We cannot speak, therefore, except in very specific cases, of syntactical features in the leʿazim that correspond to those found in original Castilian Romance texts, nor can we compare the two. Moreover, the fact that a large part of the leʿazim are only one or two words long prevents us from carrying out an analysis of the syntax extensive enough to be able to draw conclusions that go beyond the observation that word order is highly influenced by the Hebrew text that it translates.
7.4 Lexical Remarks
Throughout the previous sections of this chapter I have referred numerous times to the kind of lexicon used in the leÊ¿azim, particularly to the derivation of nouns and verbs through prefixes and suffixes in §â¯7.2.3 and §â¯7.2.6.330 I have also referred throughout the chapter to etymological issues that seemed amenable to summarization, and I referred the reader to the alphabetical glossary for further details on this topic. In this section I would like only to outline the kind of lexicon used in the leÊ¿azim with respect to: (1) common popular words in the thirteenth century; (2) a popular lexicon that is undocumented or almost so outside the leÊ¿azim; (3) loanwords and dialecticisms; (4) lexical items that survive in Judeo-Spanish.331
There is a large lexicon of common popular words in the thirteenth century. There are forms that still survive today in modern Spanish (âárvolâ [Jb 30:4], âmieduâ [Ps 62:5; Jb 31:23, 41:17], âarroyuâ [Sg 4:12; Jb 38:25 (âar[r]oyuâ)], âgargantaâ [Prv 1:9], âmujerâ [Prv 31:30], etc.), along with medieval forms that fell into disuse beginning in the fifteenth century (some of which were preserved in Judeo-Spanish) or whose meaning changed after the thirteenth.332 Among this group we find âÃxedâ (Jb 40:23; infin. exir, âto go out, to get outâ); âuvia,â with the sense of âhelp, aid, salvation,â derived from uviar, âto face, to help, to succorâ; forms of catar, âto observe, to pay attention, to examineâ; âsalâ (Ps 45:5) and âsalidâ (Ps 78:50), from salir, âto jumpâ in Old Castilian; âtollironâ (Ps 81:7), âtollidosâ (Prv 2:15), âtuélled,â and âad atol[l]erâ (Jb 27:8), forms of toller, âto take away, to removeâ; different forms of majar, âto hit, to grind, to poundâ; âaçtorâ (Jb 39:13), âgoshawkâ; âtestemuñávadâ (Jb 29:11; infinitive *testemuñar), âto attest, to declareâ; âlegameñuâ (Jb 12:18, 33:16), âligature, tieâ; âmientriâ (Pss 72:5, 146:2; Jb 4:19, 27:3; Sg 1:12 [âmientriâ]), âwhile, as long asâ; âmaguerâ (Ps 41:5), âalthough, even ifâ; âdenantâ (Pss 45:13, 119:58 [âdenantâ]; Jb 30:11; Sg 2:5), âbefore, in front ofâ; âargudosâ (Jb 4:7), âcunning, sly, wilyâ; âpostresmasâ (Jb 49:6 [2]), âending, finalâ; âaluenga·sâ (Jb 7:4) and âaluenganâ (Jb 18:18; infinitive alongar), âto lengthen, to extend,â in addition to âalongamientuâ (Jb 28:18), âlength, extensionâ; âpegujuâ (Jb 36:33), in the sense of âcattle, group of beasts,â which is very close to the much more frequent pegujar; âpodestadÃaâ (Ps 125:3; Jb 38:33) âpower, ruleâ; and âabonduâ (Jb 20:22), âenough supply, abundance.â
Some of the popular forms found in the leÊ¿azim are uses not found in medieval literature or that appear only very rarely and which, although they are not originally dialecticisms, may have survived with some very specialized meaning in some Castilian dialectal variant. One of these forms is âçaraçaâ (Jb 38:29), with the sense of âhail, frost,â which is doubtless related to dialectal forms collected by Corominas,333 such as zaracear, âto condense, as water vapor, from the atmosphere and to fall in the form of crystallized ice needles,â which is common in Valladolid; zaraza, âhail, frost,â and ceraciar, âto rain large hailstones,â both forms identified in the Asturian dialect in Alto Aller; and zaracear, âto snow with dry snow,â used in Guadalajara. However, because of their semantic dissimilarities, Corominas questions whether these forms (and hence also âçaraçaâ) were related to the Spanish zarazas, âkind of ointment or poisonous paste used to kill animals,â perhaps derived from cera âwaxâ, which survives in Judeo-Spanish. He also assumes that the forms with the meaning âhail, frostâ and other, similar ones are variants of forms like sarracear in Alexandre, âto hail,â and should be compared to the Portuguese saraiva, âhoarfrost.â A similar case is âyedruâ (Ps 84:3; Jb 36:33), âagain, a second time, repeatedâ < L. ÄtÄru, which I have not seen attested in medieval literature but which is doubtless related to the Riojan dialecticisms derived from iterar that Corominas identified,334 such as edrar, âto dig vineyards a second time,â and yedra, âthe second digging of vineyards,â both included in the Diccionario de Autoridades.
The form âreguÃlladâ (Jb 16:9), from the verb *reguillar or reguilar, âto glare, to stare with a fiercely or angrily piercing look,â is related to the word reguilado in Alexandre and the reguilados used by Don Juan Manuel,335 and to reguilar, regrilar, and arreguilar, mentioned by Corominas as forms used in Santander and Tierra de Campos, although their etymology is unclear.336 The adjective âlonincosâ (Ps 56:1), the plural of *lonincu, âfar, distant,â < L. longinquu, has only one cognate in Iberian Romance before the fifteenth century, lonninco,337 which appears in documents from Aguilar de Campoo connected with Jews.338 The term had earlier caught the attention of Menéndez Pidal, who described it as a âcuriousâ vestige of the semi-learned words in the âarchaic languageâ of Aguilar de Campoo Jews that were derived from archaic Vulgar Latin.339 However, as Varvaro points out, the term was also used in medieval Low Occitan in the form longinc,340 which could mean that it was a loanword rather than a distinctly Castilian form that fell into disuse.
Also very uncommon is the form âferrupeasâ (Ps 68:7; Jb 36), âfetter,â < L. *ferrupÄdia, whose variants ferropeado and ferropeas (erropeado and erropeas, without initial fâ in some manuscripts) were identified by Menéndez Pidal in Berceoâs Vida de Santo Domingo de Silos.341 This term also appears once in the fuero of Zorita de los Canes (first half of the thirteenth century), once again in a biblical romanceamiento discovered in a Castilian book of sermons from the fifteenth century, four more times in the Ferrara Bible, and once in the sixteenth-century Siddur tefillot published by Moshe Lazar.342 An interesting case is the different forms of the verb trastoller that appear up to five times in the leÊ¿azim, with the sense, to judge from the context, of âto rejoice, to delightâ and âto comfort, to give solaceâ;343 Kasten and Cody identified the form in the Libro de los buenos proverbios and the General Estoria (Bibliotheca Vaticana, MS Urb. Lat. 539), but as to its meaning they provide only a question mark.344 Other cases appear in thirteenth-century texts such as Poridat de poridades, the Libro de los buenos proverbios que dijeron los filósofos y sabios antiguos, and Bocados de oro, in addition to a text by the Aragonese writer Juan Fernández de Heredia from the fourteenth century.345
Also atypical in medieval Castilian literature are forms such as âafirbiéntadâ (Jb 41:23), âfuron afirbentadosâ (Jb 30:27), from *afirbentar, âto make something boil,â a causative form of fervir; âafolgantantâ (Ps 19:8), âafolgantarás o afolgantestâ (Ps 60:3), from afolgantar, âto cause someone to rest or rejoice,â causative of folgar, which I have not found in medieval texts but which does appear in the Constantinople Pentateuch, the Ferrara Bible and the Libro de oracyones published in Ferrara;346 and âacallantéâ (Ps 131:2), âacallantestâ (Jb 16:7), from acallantar, âto silence, to mitigate, to appease,â causative form of callar, which is a bit more frequent than the previous words, appearing sporadically in the literature of Alfonso X and later texts.
In the case of âavdagluâ (Ps 49:15), âdwelling, residence,â < L. habitacÅlu, we have an apparent semi-learned word in which the unvoiced intervocalic consonants have become voiced and the pre- and post-tonic vowels have disappeared, resulting in a strange cluster, /gl/, in the last syllable in place of /Ê/, the usual result of the Latin cluster /kâl/.347 I have found no similar forms in the dictionaries and textual repositories available to me. I have also not found any Romance popular forms that are similar to âcotmejantâ (Ps 44:17), from the verb *cotmejar, âto vilify, to insult, to revile,â < L. contÅmÄlÄare, since the forms contumelia and contumelioso, which appear in the Siete partidas, in works by Juan Fernández de Heredia, and in fifteenth-century texts (Alfonso de Palencia, Alfonso de la Torreâs Visión deleytable, Juan de Menaâs Homero romanzado),348 are learned words, as probably are contumelia and contumeliar in medieval Occitan.349
Among the loanwords in the leÊ¿azim, there are some Gallicisms, Occitanisms, Catalanisms,350 and words from Arabic; in addition, there are some Navarro-Aragonese and Riojan dialecticisms. For Gallicisms we have, among others, âdarduâ (Jb 39:23, 41:21), âdartâ; âenbézadâ (Jb 15:20), âenbeze·mâ (Ps 119:131), and âenbezantnosâ (Jb 35:11), from the verb *enbezar, âto teach, to instruct,â derived from the French avis and aviser, and which also appears in Alexandre and the Coplas de Yosef;351 âenglutenâ (Jb 39:30), from englutir, âto swallow,â from French engloutir; and âjagonçasâ (Jb 41:22), âvariety of precious stone, including hyacinth and zircon,â from French jagonce.
Some Gallicisms may have come into Castilian via Occitan or Catalan, which makes it difficult at times to know which language is the ultimate source of a loanword. There is the added difficulty that, during the Middle Ages, Occitan and Catalan were part of a single dialectal continuum and shared much of their vocabulary. One example of this is âancaâ (Ps 45:4), âhip, haunch,â from the Frankish *hanka, which probably came into Castilian through Occitan or Catalan anca. The word âbivrasâ (Jb 20:16), âviper,â might be a Catalanism or Occitanism, whose form, derived from Latin vÄ«pÄra with loss of the post-tonic vowel, coincides with Old Occitan and Old Catalan but differs from the Castilian form bÃvora/vÃbora. The laÊ¿az âtiemplaâ (Sg 4:3), âtemple, the flattened region on either side of the forehead,â < L. tÄmpÅra, might be compared to Catalan and Occitan templa, since it is a very rare form in Castilian that is only attested in one manuscript of Berceoâs Milagros de Nuestra Señora, which also opens up the possibility that it is a Riojan or Aragonese dialecticism, a variant of tienlla.352 As for âmi engrameéâ (Jb 31:29), from engramear, âto shake, to wiggle,â which appears infrequently in Old Castilian (there are cases only in El Cid, General Estoria, romanceamientos, and a few other texts), Corominas compares it to the Portuguese Ãngreme and suggests that in both Portuguese and Castilian it may have been taken from French engremi, âangry, annoyed,â or Old Occitan engramir, âto get angry or irritated.â353
Some possible Catalan dialecticisms could also be Aragonese. We saw in §â¯7.2.6 that it is typical in the leÊ¿azim for verbs ending in âescÄre that were originally inchoative to use one paradigm for verbs ending in âecer and another for verbs ending in âexer, the latter coinciding with Aragonese and Catalan. We also saw that the leÊ¿azim, like Aragonese and Catalan, include some forms of âir inchoative verbs. Likewise, we should compare the forms âexamplaronâ (Ps 25:17), from the verb examplar, âto increase, to extend,â < Vulgar L. examplare, and âemplistâ (Jb 36:17), âemplidâ (Ps 33:5), from emplir, âto fill in,â < L. Ämplere, to cognates in Aragonese or Catalan, rather than to the Castilian forms ensanchar and enchir, respectively, which appeared earlier in Berceo. Meanwhile, âfortezaâ (Ps 18:16; Jb 12:21, 21:23, 26:12, 37:23, 41:7, 40:18 [fortezas]), which is also attested in La Fazienda de Ultramar and in the fueros of Aragon,354 should be compared to the Catalan fortesa or to its cognate in Aragonese, and âtórtolâ (Jb 42:14), âturtledove,â without the paragogic âa that it took in Castilian and other Romance languages, is comparable to the Old Occitan tortor;355 âtórtolâ (or âtortolâ) appears in a text by the Aragonese writer Juan Fernández de Heredia and is preserved in other sixteenth-century Jewish texts such as the Ferrara Bible and the Libro de las oracyones published in Ferrara.356
The leÊ¿azim also include some loanwords from Arabic that came into all dialects of Castilian, such as âaldeasâ (Sg 7:12), âvillage, hamlet,â < Arab. â®Ø§ÙضÙعةâ¬â, âmeçquinu,â âpoor, miserable,â < Arab. â®Ù سÙÙÙâ¬â and its derivatives,357 and âḥatteâ (Jb 14:6), âuntil,â < Arab. â®ØتÙâ¬â, which was discussed in §â¯7.2.7.
Lastly, it is worth mentioning the lexicon that has parallels only in other Jewish texts, whether these be other biblical romanceamientos or other Romance translations of religious Jewish texts, particularly the lexicon that has been preserved in ladinamientos and in Judeo-Spanish. Some verbs ending in âiguar, which were addressed in §â¯7.2.6, belong to this group, such as aformosiguar, frochiguar, and yustiguarsi.358 Other examples include: âafreiciónâ (Jb 36:15, 36:21), âaffliction, distress, misery,â and conjugated forms of the verb âafreÃr,â âto distress, to afflict,â < L. affligÄre, which we find in Judeo-Spanish as afreÃr or afriÃr, in addition to the noun afreisión;359 âarnaciuâ (Jb 8:8), âgeneration,â < L. generatio (nom.), which is found in Judeo-Spanish as generancio, gerenancio, arnancio, and arnásyo;360 âbar[r]agánâ (Pss 45:4, 52:3), âbrave or courageous man,â which is common in Judeo-Spanish; âcastigueriuâ (Jb 37:13, 40:2), âpenalty, admonition, amendment,â which is found as castiguerio in E3 and in Jewish texts in Romance, such as Pedro de Toledoâs translation of Maimonidesâs Guide of the perplexed, the Ferrara Bible, the sixteenth-century Siddur tefillot published by Moshe Lazar, the Libro de oracyones published in Ferrara, and other Judeo-Spanish texts;361 different forms of the verb doloriar,362 âto afflict, to distress,â which we also find in E3 and the Ferrara Bible;363 âermolluâ (Jb 36:33, 40:20), âbud, sprout,â plural âermollosâ (Sg 5:13), as well as the form âermol[l]eçradâ (Ps 72:16); âespavrecÃâ (Jb 32:6), from the verb *espavrecer, which in Judeo-Spanish is espavorescer or espavoreser;364 âtortaveñuâ (Jb 16:11), âevil, wickedâ; and âfolorâ (Ps 76:8), âanger, wrath,â < L. furor.365
7.5 Conclusions
In this chapter I have analyzed the linguistic features of the more than 2,000 leʿazim in MS Hunt. 268 from the point of view of spelling and phonology, morphology, syntax, and the lexicon. Some of these features are the following:
-
preservation of the diphthong /Ëje/ in most words ending in âiellu, as we can see in âamarielluâ (Ps 68:14), âcuclielluâ (Ps 102:7), âdesacolmiellanâ (Jb 4:10), âreviellosâ (Jb 13:26), âcuchiellosâ (Prv 30:14), âcuchiel[l]aâ (Jb 39:23), and âcolmiellosâ (Prv 30:14), compared to a single case of monophthongization, âcochillaâ (Jb 20:25).
-
apocope of atonic final âe (or atonic final âi < âe) in nouns and adjectives like âpartâ (Ps 55:10), âtorâ (Sg 7:5), âmontâ (Pss 11:1, 30:8, 68:16), âberdâ (Ps 58:10), âgrandâ (Jb 26:13); in enclitic pronouns preceded by a word ending in a vowel, such as âapremi·mâ (Ps 38:7), âaféita·tâ (Jb 40:10), âaforta·sâ (Ps 52:9), âca·s mayórgadâ (Jb 33:12), âno·s biédadâ (Jb 42:2), âque·s envermejecidâ (Ps 75:9); in verb forms, such as âprendésâ (Ps 139:9), âafolgantestâ (Ps 60:3), âemplistâ (Jb 36:17), ârecuejâ (Jb 22:22), âespartâ (Ps 17:7), âendreçantâ (Ps 50:23); in particles, such as âestonçâ (Ps 48:6), âsobrâ (Pss 45:4, 110:6, 139:14 [âsubrâ]; Jb 21:31, 26:7 [âsubrâ], 36:33), âdenantâ (Pss 45:13, 119:58 [âdenantâ]; Jb 30:11; Sg 2:5), and even âescuantrâ (Prv 30:31) and âcadâ (Ps 101:8).
-
variation between the vowels /o/ and /u/, as in âdesollegaâ (Ps 69:24) versus âdesulleganâ (Ps 37:31), even when they are tonic vowels, as occurs in âcóbredâ (Jb 38:34) and âcúbrenluâ (Jb 40:22).
-
second-person singular preterit forms ending in âest (in âar verbs), such as âechestâ (Ps 89:45), âcuajestâ (Jb 10:10), âalcestâ (Ps 30:2), or in âist (in âer and âir verbs), such as âdeledistâ (Ps 39:12), âtiendistâ (Ps 80:12), âencobristâ (Ps 140:8; Jb 1:10).
-
syncopated future forms in âer and âir verbs, as for example in âcomránâ (Ps 22:30), âagradeçránâ (Ps 22:30), âbevránâ (Jb 5:5), âescrivradâ (Ps 87:6), âesprimradâ (Jb 39:15), except when the pretonic vowel is in a syllable that begins with a consonant cluster, such as in âencobriradâ (Pss 91:4, 139:11), âcobriránâ (Ps 65:14), âsofriradâ; metathesis in some verbs whose root ends in a nasal, as in âbernadâ (Jb 22:21).
-
in the verb ser, first-person singular. âsóâ (Ps 92:11 [2]; Jb 12:4, 17:6).
-
preservation of the verb ending âdes/âtes (following a consonant) < L. âtis in the second-person plural, as in âdesconecedesâ (Jb 21:29) âdespriciedesâ (Sg 1:6) âbinésedesâ (Jb 17:10) âdemetredesâ (Ru 2:16), âtrastornestesâ (Prv 1:25).
-
the imperfect of âer and âir verbs ending in âie, such as âsabiéâ (Ps 81:6), âplaziedâ (Jb 29:22), âsonbadiénâ (Ps 78:36), and the conditional forms of all verbs, as in ânegariéâ (Jb 6:10), âporniésâ (Jb 22:24), âadevdariedâ (Jb 11:6).
-
the use of the mesoclitic pronoun in future forms, such as âaforçarmâéâ (Ps 39:14), âconsumarlosásâ (Ps 144:6), âtraertâadâ (Ps 52:7), âesmoversâán,â and in conditional forms, such as âalumrartâiésâ (Jb 11:17), âar[r]emetersâiénâ (Ps 141:6).
-
thirteenth-century lexicon: âÃxedâ (Jb 40:23); âuviaâ (Ps 144:10; Jb 30:24); catar, meaning âto observe, to pay attention, to examineâ; salir, meaning âto jumpâ; toller, meaning âto take away, to removeâ; âaçtorâ (Jb 39:13); âtestemuñávadâ (Jb 29:11); âlegameñuâ (Jb 12:18, 33:16); âmientriâ (Pss 72:5, 146:2; Jb 4:19, 27:3; Sg 1:12 [âmientriâ]); âmaguerâ (Ps 41:5); âargudosâ (Jb 4:7); âpostresmasâ (Jb 49:6 [2]); âalongamientuâ (Jb 28:18); âpegujuâ (Jb 36:33); âpodestadÃaâ (Ps 125:3; Jb 38:33); âabonduâ (Jb 20:22).
Littlefield observed linguistic features very similar to these in E8, which led him confidently to characterize the language in that manuscript as âclearly, 13th-c. Spanish.â366 For this reason, I can say without a doubt that the language in the leÊ¿azim, in its general linguistic features, is thirteenth-century Castilian. As for the spelling system that is used, it derives from Andalusi Hebrew aljamÃa and presents some distinctive features. For one, it reflects the gradual loss of â¨â®×â¬ââ© for /k/ and â¨â®×ªâ¬ââ© for /t/, which suggests that the manuscript was copied in a region where Arabic was no longer the common language for daily communicationâin other words, the Christian kingdoms. This explains, moreover, the fact that no Arabisms have been identified that were not already incorporated into the common language, such as âaldeasâ (Sg 7:12), âmeçquinuâ and its derivates, and âḥatteâ (Jb 14:6).
Littlefield also observed in E8 another set of features that seemed to be divided into two groups, each of which adhered to norms that were mutually contradictory.367 For example, /ʧ/ from the Latin groups /kt/ and /Ålt/, and /Ê/ < /Ê/ from the group with the palatal glide [lj] (for example in L. fÄ«lÄu) are features that in the thirteenth-century are distinctly Castilian, and they contrast with how these sounds developed in other nearby dialects such as Leonese or Navarro-Aragonese. However, the preservation of the initial groups /pl/, /kl/, and /fl/, and of the group /mpl/ mid-word (amplura), are considered more typical of Navarro-Aragonese, compared to Castilianâs more customary /Ê/ in initial groups and /nʧ/ < /mpl/ [anchura] mid-word.
In an attempt to explain the appearance of allegedly contradictory features in one and the same text, E8, some authors have proposed that the manuscript was a copy of a thirteenth-century Castilian original made by a late-fourteenth- or early-fifteenth-century Aragonese scribe who introduced features of his mother tongue into the text.368 Littlefield, however, rejected this theory, arguing that it would be incomprehensible, in a copy as faithful to the original as possible so as to preserve the basic features of thirteenth-century Castilian, for the scribe to have incorporated features of his Aragonese mother tongue. Instead, he suggested that the consistent use of this set of contradictory features could be explained only by the fact that the language in E8 belonged to an intermediate geographical area between the domains of Castilian and Navarro-Aragonese, specifically, La Rioja, whose dialect was relatively stable and served as a bridge between Castilian and Navarro-Aragonese.369
The leÊ¿azim in MS Hunt. 268 present the same set of apparently contradictory features as E8: /ʧ/ from the Latin groups /kt/ and /Ålt/, as in âmuchuâ (Pss 65:10, 120:6 [âmochuâ]; Jb 31:25; Prv 28:20), âmochiguaâ (Ps 51:4), âfechuâ (Jb 7:3); /Ê/ < /Ê/ from the group with the palatal glide [lj], as in âonojosâ (Ps 18:37), âguijasâ (Jb 21:33), âcuégenlaâ (Ps 80:13), with the exception of âsemellaâ (Ps 49:15) < L. sÄmÄlia; preservation of the group /pl/ at the beginning of a word, for example in âplanaâ (Ps 18:33), âplagaâ and âplagasâ (in many places), âplueyasâ (Pss 65:11; 72:6; Jb 36:27), âploverâ (Jb 36:27), of the group /fl/ in initial position, as in âflamaâ (Sg 8:6), and the group /mpl/ in âemplidâ (Ps 33:5), âemplistâ (Jb 36:17), âampluâ (Ps 101:5), âampluraâ (Jb 36:16).
The leÊ¿azim systematically present other features that are generally associated with Aragonese,370 such as: the use of diphthongized forms in the verb ser (âyedâ in many places, âsiégadâ [Jb 27:7]); variation between forms ending in âecer and âexer in originally inchoative verbs (âdesconecedesâ [Jb 21:29] and âdesconexedesâ [Jb 19:3]); the diphthongs /Ëwe/, /Ëje/ before a palatal (âplueyasâ [Pss 65:11, 72:8; Jb 36:27 (plueyas)] < L. plÅ(v)ia, âfueyaâ [Ps 31:18] < L. fÅvÄa, âfuejasâ [Jb 30:4] < L. fÅlia); apocope following consonant clusters (âdenantâ [Pss 45:13, 119:58 (âdenantâ); Jb 30:11; Sg 2:5], âmontâ [Pss 11:1, 30:8, 68:16], âestonçâ [Ps 48:6]); the forms âlur,â âluresâ for the third-person plural possessive.
However, the leÊ¿azim also lack certain linguistic features that are, according to Littlefield and Minervini, typical of Aragonese.371 Examples include: the use of the diphthongs /Ëwa/ < Latin tonic /Å/ and /Ëja/ < Latin tonic /Ä/; the ending âoron in the third-person plural of the preterit of âar verbs (entroron); the verb ending /ʦ/ (â¨tzâ©) in the second-person plural (podretz); plurals with syncope of the vowel (fiadors); preservation of intervocalic unvoiced consonants (secundo); the use of words such as aprés, fins a, encara, groc, judge, etc.; and, above all, /it/ from the Latin groups /kt/ and /Ålt/ (noite, muito), and /Ê/ from the group with the palatal glide [lj] (fillo, muller), save one exception. All of this leads us to the conclusion that, like E8, the leÊ¿azim present linguistic features that can only be explained as originating in an intermediate region between the domain of Castilian, which is the language of the leÊ¿azim, and the domain of Navarro-Aragonese, which might have included Southern Navarre, La Rioja, and Eastern Castile (Soria).
Three of the most defining morphological features of the leÊ¿azim are: (1) the consistent use of the verb ending âad < L. âa(vi)t in âar verbs and âid < L. âi(vi)t in âer and âir verbs for the third-person singular of the preterit, as in âatemadâ (Ps 12:2), âmesturadâ (Ps 15:3), âmochiguadâ (Ps 18:15; Jb 1:10), âemplidâ (Ps 33:5), âpodrecidâ (Ps 31:20), and âcumplidâ (Ps 77:9), with âo < L. âau(i)t in only âsoltóâ (Jb 8:4); (2) the graphic preservation of the verb ending â¨â®×â¬ââ© /d/ < L. ât in third-person singular forms of all verb tenses, as in âseméjadâ (Ps 49:13), âduéledâ (Ps 55:5), âenciérredâ (Ps 69:16), âesclaréçcadâ (Jb 3:4), âbaziávadâ (Jb 29:6), âplaziedâ (Jb 29:22) âredradâ (Ps 53:4), âvalidâ (Jb 33:27), âfavlaradâ (Ps 12:6), âforçáredâ (Eccl 4:12), with only two exceptions, âesparzÃâ (Ps 68:31) and âsoltóâ (Jb 8:4); (3) the systematic use of âu as the ending for most words that in modern Castilian have âo (except for the possessives âmio,â âto,â âso,â the pronoun âyo,â the verb form âsoltó,â and the noun âDioâ), for example, âpedaçuâ (Sg 4:3), âuecuâ (Jb 11:12), âsospechaduâ (Prv 28:17), âmâaquexuâ (Ps 139:21).
The first of these features is unknown in Castilian Romance and is only found in some Navarrese texts in Hebrew aljamÃa; it is, however, the typical ending in Catalan, Occitan, and French. This suggests the possibility that the language in the leÊ¿azim reflects either Castilian Romance in a transitional area near Navarrese Romance or that the Jewish community among which the leÊ¿azim were produced had a large Catalan or Occitan component, or perhaps both possibilities at the same time. In any case, our conclusions about the linguistic features of the leÊ¿azim suggest only a coincidence with Castilian texts generally attributed to the area of La Rioja, Southern Navarre, and Eastern Castile, and not that the Jewish group that produced them necessarily lived in that area or that the manuscript of which MS Hunt. 268 is a copy372 was necessarily produced there.
The other two morphological features are found in archaic Romance texts in the Latin alphabet but coincide, to a greater extent, with Romance texts in Hebrew aljamÃa, not only from the thirteenth century but from later as well. Other features coincide with texts produced by Jews in the Iberian Peninsula, whether these be notarial documents or literary texts, especially biblical translations. As for translations of the Bible, the leÊ¿azim present an early use of a specialized lexicon that will sometimes reappear in other medieval romanceamientos and in later Jewish translations of the Bible, such as the Ferrara Bible and Sephardic ladinamientos.373 Some examples of this specialized lexicon are: verbs ending in âiguar (aformosiguar, frochiguar, boniguar), âafreiciónâ (Jb 36:15, 36:21), âarnaciuâ (Jb 8:8), âbar[r]agánâ (Pss 45:4, 52:3), âcastigueriuâ (Jb 37:13, 40:2), doloriar, âermolluâ (Jb 36:33, 40:20), âespavrecÃâ (Jb 32:6), âtortaveñuâ (Jb 16:11), âfolorâ (Ps 76:8), âlampuâ (Jb 28:26, 37:3, 38:25), ârenfluâ (Jb 39:20, 41:13), âpinturiasâ (Sg 1:11).
In light of the preceding, I believe that the leÊ¿azim are part of a process that Minervini defined as the creation of a âdifferent linguistic ideal,â separate from what came out of Christian cultural centers. As she put it:
The Jewish minority participated only marginally in the process of linguistic centralization and standardization promoted by the courts, chanceries, bureaucratic centers, and monasteries, and it thus preserved a greater degree of freedom and spontaneity with respect to the different codes, styles, and levels of expression that intersected in the written and spoken language. As a consequence, the varieties of the language used by this minority turned out to be, after centuries of development, not a compact koiné dialect or a monument to the archaic form of the language but a fragmentary and multifarious entity that was receptive to the popular form of the language without being hermetically closed off from its learned varieties, and that was open to provincialisms and to influences from outside without losing sight of the general trend toward Castilianization of the various forms of regional speech.374
See Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §â¯7.
See Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §â¯27.
I remind the reader that an alphabetical glossary of all leʿazim that appear in MS Hunt. 268 is included at the end of Part 1 of this book. The glossary contains the English translation of all terms as well as morphological, lexicographical and etymological notes.
See Laura Minervini, Testi giudeospagnoli medievali: Castiglia e Aragona, 2 vols, Romanica neapolitana 27 (Naples: Liguori, 1992), §â¯1.1.3; Bunis, âJewish and Arab,â 80.
The use of the apostrophe (â) and the middle point (·), as well as other orthographic conventions adopted here for the graphic presentation of leÊ¿azim in general, follows the conventions for editing medieval Spanish texts as proposed by Sánchez-Prieto Borja, Cómo editar los textos medievales. See also âNotes on Transliteration, Conventions, Translation and Sourcesâ at the beginning of this book for the system of critical transcription used here to render the leÊ¿azim into the Latin alphabet.
If there is no crasis, which can happen even if the verb form begins with a vowel, the proclitic pronouns are written separately. See below, §â¯7.2.4.
The joining of a pronoun to the previous word ending in a vowel and the resulting apocope is one of the spelling features of what Lapesa calls âespañol arcaicoâ (archaic Spanish). See Rafael Lapesa, Historia de la lengua española, 9th ed., Biblioteca románica hispánica III, Manuales 45 (Madrid: Gredos, 1985), 209.
The only exception is when ad is written because it precedes a word beginning in a vowel, as long as this word is not the pronoun él or ella. Thus, âad altezasâ â¨â®×Ö·× ×Ö·×Ö°×Öµ××Ö¸×שׁâ¬ââ© (Sg 4:4), but âad élâ â¨â®×ַדֵּ××â¬ââ© (Jb 20:22, 24:6, 35:14) and âad ellaâ â¨â®×Ö·×ÖµÖ¿××Ö°×Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Jb 39:16).
See Révah and Sirat, âUn maḥzor espagnolâ; Aldina Quintana and I.S. Révah, âA Sephardic Siddur with Ritual Instructions in Aragonese Romance Ms. Oxford, Bodleian Library 1133 (Opp. Add. 8º 18),â Hispania Judaica Bulletin 4 (2004): 138â151; Minervini, Testi giudeospagnoli medievali, nos. 1â6.
See Minervini, Testi giudeospagnoli medievali, §â¯1.1.1; Laura Minervini, âThe Development of a Norm in the Aljamiado Graphic System in Medieval Spain,â in From Iberia to Diaspora: Studies in Sephardic History and Culture, ed. Yedida K. Stillman and Norman A. Stillman, Brillâs Series in Jewish Studies 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 419.
I remind the reader that when a laÊ¿az, or a part of it, is not vocalized, it is given in italics, as in, for example, âque non puevlanâ â¨â®×§× × ×× ×¤ï¬µ×Öµ××Ö¿Ö°×Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Jb 15:28). See âNotes on Transliterations, Conventions, Translations and Sourcesâ at the beginning of this book.
In the oldest extant masoretic Bible codices, the system of vowel notation and Tiberian Masoretic accents is already fully developed. These codices are: the Prophets codex from the Karaite Synagogue Mussa DarÊ¿i in Cairo, now missing, which has a colophon that mentions a date corresponding to 894/95â¯CE, though some date it a century later, that is, the end of the tenth century or beginning of the eleventh; the Aleppo Codex (Jerusalem, Makhon Ben Tzvi, MS 1), dated ca. 930â¯CE; and the Leningrad Codex (Saint Petersburg, National Library of Russia, MS EBP. I B 19a), dated to 1008.
See Bunis, âJewish and Arab,â 78â84.
Some scholars argue that the vowel system included seven vowels, the five mentioned here plus two open vowels, /É/ and /É/; see Javier RodrÃguez Molina, âA Closer Look at the Poema de Mio Cidâs Language,â in A Companion to the âPoema de Mio Cid,â ed. Irene Zaderenko and Alberto Montaner (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 138, who cites Francisco Marcos MarÃn, Cantar de mÃo Cid, Clásicos de Biblioteca Nueva 2 (Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva, 1997). See also below, §â¯7.1.2.4.
As full vowels; other signs exist in Hebrew to represent short or very short /Ä/ and /Ä/, the ḥatefim, which are not used in the leÊ¿azim. On the Å¡ewaʾ, see below.
See Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §â¯9.
Pss 102:18 (3), 104:3; Jb 33:12; Prv 29:23, 30:1; Sg 2:11; Eccl 5:5.
Ps 42:5; Jb 6:7.
In the rest of the cases with a segol, this sign is always written with an ʾalef to represent the vowel /e/ at the beginning of a word: âesperanâ (Ps 10:5); âescar[r]antâ (Jb 15:31); âescondichuâ (Jb 31:33); âesperaâ (Jb 36:2); âemplistâ (Jb 36:17). Note that for the article el and the pronoun ellos, it is also written with an ʾalef to represent the vowel /e/ at the beginning of a word.
Pss 81:4, 89:48, 144:2; Jb 13:7, 30:25, 33:6, 33:12 (2), 37:22, 40:19; Prv 30:18; Eccl 4:17.
Pss 56:8, 68:22, 99:8.
In spite of this, it should be noted that when the pronoun él is written â¨â®××â¬ââ©, it is always vocalized with a á¹£ere. On how this and other pronouns are rendered in Hebrew script, see below, §â¯7.2.4.
See Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §â¯8.
As in Hebrew, the end of a closed syllable at the end of a word is not indicated in the leÊ¿azim. The only exceptions are some cases in which the word ends in a consonant cluster, as for example âguardantâ â¨â®ï¬²ï¬µ×ַרְדַּ×× Ö°×Ö°â¬ââ© (Eccl 5:7), âcuandâ â¨â®×§ï¬µ×Ö·× Ö°ï¬³Ö°â¬ââ© (Pss 16:8, 75:3; Jb 37:20), and âberdâ â¨â®ï¬±Öµ×רְדְּâ¬ââ© (Ps 58:10).
On this word, see below, §â¯7.1.2.4, when dealing with atonic vowels.
The cases where [Ëje] is rendered as ʾalef at the end of a word are: âmieâ (Pss 16:8, 60:10); âmayorgariéâ (Jb 31:37), âdoloriéâ (Jb 31:39). Moreover, âfielâ â¨â®×¤Ö¿Ö´×²Öµ××â¬ââ© (Jb 20:25) and âcalléâ â¨â®×§Ö¸×ְײֵ×â¬ââ© (Jb 30:20) can be added to these cases: in Jb 20:25, along with the representation of the diphthong [Ëje], the fact that the last syllable is âel, â¨â®××â¬ââ©, also seems to play a role; in Jb 30:20, what seems to matter is the representation of the palatal /Ê/, which is generally rendered as a lamed with a Å¡ewaʾ followed by a rising diphthong written with two yods + a vowel, which in this case is the diphthong [Ëje] at the end of the word. The cases of the diphthong [Ëei̯] are âreyâ (Ps 110:4; Prv 28:16) and âleyâ (Prv 31:5).
In âdâélâ (Ps 58:10) and âdelâ (Ps 84:7).
As was the case with ḥatef segol, ḥatef pataḥ â¨â®×Ö²â¬ââ©, a Masoretic sign used to represent [Ä], is never used in these leÊ¿azim.
/a/ at the end of a word is rendered as a pataḥ followed by a heʾ in âfueyaâ (Ps 31:18), âruedaâ (Jb 15:24), and âayudaâ (Jb 36:7); and as a pataḥ followed by an ʾalef in âlaâ (Ps 65:10), âasientaâ (Ps 65:11), âquiçáâ (Jb 1:5), and âcaâ (Jb 11:6, 31:34).
The cases of pataḥ at the end of a word mentioned in the previous note are also included here.
Pss 11:1, 27:12, 39:12, 41:9, 42:5, 45:5, 49:12, 49:15, 53:3, 55:15, 56:1, 58:2 (2), 64:3, 68:11, 68:28, 72:3, 74:19, 75:3, 84:8 (2), 90:12, 101:3, 110:4, 111:1, 119:122, 140:10, 141:3, 141:6, 144:10; Jb 15:13, 15:24, 15:32, 15:34, 16:7, 20:20, 20:25, 22:30, 23:9, 30:24, 31:11, 38:33, 39:13, 39:16, 41:4, 41:12; Prv 1:19, 1:32, 29:11, 30:28, 31:25, 31:30; Eccl 5:8.
This is not the only spelling for these sounds; see below, §â¯7.1.2.2.
For example, in âgraciaâ (Jb 41:4; Prv 31:30); ânomradÃaâ (Ps 49:12); âsañaâ (Jb 15:13; Prv 29:11); âcochillaâ (Jb 20:25). These cases might also reflect the tendency to avoid the group â¨â®××â¬ââ© at the end of a word, as it resembles the spelling of the divine name.
Pss 65:10 (3), 65:11, 118:5; Jb 5:14, 7:4, 24:7, 39:15, 39:17; Prv 29:11; Ru 2:7; Sg 2:14, 7:3; Eccl 4:15.
Pss 47:10, 118:10; Jb 6:10, 10:7, 11:6, 31:34, 39:17, 42:2.
Pss 42:5, 55:15, 56:1, 58:2, 64:3, 68:11, 68:28, 68:31 (âconpañaâ), 74:19, 75:3, 84:8 (2), 111:1, 140:10; Jb 15:34, 16:7.
Pss 12:6, 27:12, 58:2, 90:9, 94:4, 119:171, 141:3; Jb 12:20, 15:35; Prv 1:23; Sg 4:3, 7:10.
Pss 17:3, 139:23; Jb 12:6, 15:13; Prv 29:11.
Jb 5:26 (âsazónâ), 8:12, 30:2.
There are total of 47 occurrences of these three verbs and the forms derived from their roots: Pss 12:2, 31:23, 37:2, 37:10, 37:37, 56:7, 58:8, 71:6, 73:4, 73:10, 73:27, 74:6, 80:17, 90:2, 90:3, 90:6, 91:6, 102:25, 104:29, 109:16, 119:117, 118:10 (2), 142:5; Jb 4:7, 4:20, 5:26, 8:12, 14:2, 14:5, 15:28, 15:32, 16:8, 19:26, 20:9, 22:16, 23:17, 24:24, 31:1, 32:12, 33:6, 34:25, 35:10, 36:20, 39:1, 40:12; Sg 8:14.
There is only one case in which the first syllable is tonic and nonetheless does not have an ʾalef: âcatasâ â¨â®×§Ö·×Ö¸×שׁâ¬ââ© (Jb 39:1).
In three cases, the first syllable has an ʾalef but is not tonic: âtaje·mâ â¨â®×Ö¸××Ö¹Öµ××â¬ââ© (Ps 31:23), âno·m tajéâ â¨â®× ×Ö¹×Ö°×Ö¸××Ö¹Öµ×â¬ââ© (Jb 23:17), âcatéâ â¨â®×§Ö¸××Öµ×â¬ââ© (Jb 32:12). The use of the ʾalef in these preterit forms can perhaps be explained by how short the written form of the first-person singular would be without ʾalef. Moreover, in the following cases, ʾalef is not used in either syllable: âtajantâ (Ps 71:6), âmajaduraâ (Ps 90:2), âtajestâ (Ps 73:27), âtajestmiâ (Jb 16:8), and âtajacionesâ (Jb 35:10). In âtajestâ (Ps 73:27) and âtajestmiâ (Jb 16:8), this can be explained by the fact that the first syllable, which is the only one with an /a/, is not the stressed syllable, and both forms are long enough not to need to use the ʾalef, unlike what seems to be the case in Ps 31:23; Jb 23:17, 32:12.
Other cases are: Ps 139:20; Jb 10:3, 12:24.
Other cases ending in â¨â®×Ö¸×â¬ââ©: Ps 49:12; Jb 15:32, 38:33; Prv 31:25; ending in â¨â®×²Ö¸×â¬ââ©: Jb 31:11; ending in â¨â®×Ö¸×â¬ââ©: Ps 125:3; Jb 22:29, 33:17.
Pss 73:28, 87:4; Jb 39:3; Prv 31:18; Sg 4:14. The only exception is ârufÃanâ â¨â®×¨ï¬µ×¤Ö¿Ö°×Ö·××â¬ââ© (Jb 41:17), where the spelling might indicate that the stress falls on the first syllable. However, the analogy between ârufÃanâ and rocÃan and their etymological connection lead us to suggest that the accent falls on the hiatus.
In âcelantÃos,â the first syllable of the hiatus begins with a consonant and comes after a closed syllable; in âalbedrÃu,â the first syllable of the hiatus begins with a consonant cluster. As we will see, under these circumstances diphthongs are almost always rendered with full vowels as well.
The spelling with Å¡ewaʾ closing the first syllable could be the result of an analogy with other instances of derivatives of vaziar/baziar with a diphthong in place of a hiatus: âbaziaduâ â¨â®×Ö·×Ö°×Ö¸××ֿוּâ¬ââ© (Ps 45:3), âbaziávadâ â¨â®×Ö·×Ö°×Ö¸××Ö¿Ö¸×Ö¿â¬ââ© (Jb 29:6), âbaziaduraâ â¨â®ï¬±Ö·×Ö°×Ö¸×דּוּרָ×â¬ââ© (Jb 37:10).
Other diphthongs without the semi-consonant [j] or the semi-vowel [i̯] do not appear in the leʿazim.
Other cases with the diphthong [ja] represented with full vowels in a syllable beginning with a consonant and after a closed syllable: Pss 19:14, 25:17, 46:4, 75:9, 119:28; Jb 10:8, 19:2, 37:21. There is one exception, âsâalimpianâ â¨â®×©Ö¸×Ö´××ְפְ×Ö¸××â¬ââ© (Jb 25:5), in which the diphthong is rendered by the combination of Å¡ewaʾ followed by the syllable /Êa/ â¨â®×Ö¸×â¬ââ©, which is the most frequent spelling in cases where the diphthong is located in the middle or at the end of the word after an open syllable. Other cases of the diphthong [je]: Pss 102:18, 141:6; Jb 7:21, 11:17. Other cases of the diphthong [ju] or [iu̯]: Ps 123:4. In this case as well there is an exception, âlimpiuâ â¨â®×Ö´××Ö°ïÖ°×וּâ¬ââ© (Jb 33:8), which, as in the case of âsâalimpian,â is rendered by the most-frequent spelling for representing this diphthong, which is Å¡ewaʾ followed by the syllable /Êu/ â¨â®×וּâ¬ââ©.
Both occurrences of âafreiciónâ may be following the example of the infinitive âafreirâ â¨â®×ַפְֿרֵ××Ö´×רâ¬ââ© (Ps 132:1), which should be considered an accented hiatus. There are no other cases of the diphthong [ei̯] written with full vowels.
Other cases beginning with a consonant cluster, in which the second consonant is trilled, are (all of them containing the diphthong [ja]): Ps 104:24; Jb 10:3, 15:7, 26:5, 31:15, 31:18; Prv 30:25.
There are only two more cases of the diphthong [ja] represented with full vowels under these circumstances: Ps 109:22; Jb 19:17; and nine others of the diphthong [je]: Pss 81:6, 91:12, 102:18, 139:14; Jb 1:11, 3:16, 6:10, 7:21, 29:25.
The four cases with full vowels are: âsabiéâ â¨â®×©Ö¸ï¬±Ö´××Öµ×â¬ââ© (Ps 81:6), âseriéâ â¨â®×©Öµ×רִ××Öµ×â¬ââ© (Jb 3:16), ânegariéâ â¨â®× Öµ××Ö¿Ö¸×רִ××Öµ×â¬ââ© (Jb 6:10), and âsediéâ â¨â®ï¬ªÖµ××Ö¿Ö´××Öµ×â¬ââ© (Jb 29:25).
All cases of the diphthong [ja] in absolute final position, with the exception of âengraciaâ â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö°ï¬²Ö°×¨Ö·×¡Ö°×Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Ps 119:29), are written with an ʾalef: Pss 11:1, 41:9, 45:5, 58:2 (2), 72:3, 90:12, 101:3, 110:4, 119:122, 144:10; Jb 20:20, 22:30, 41:4; Prv 1:19, 1:32, 31:30.
All cases of the diphthong [ju] are in absolute final position, except in âyudgamientuâ â¨â®ï¬³Ö°×וּ×ְֿגָּ××Ö´×²Öµ× Ö°×וּâ¬ââ© (Ps 80:7), where the spelling â¨â®ï¬³Ö°×â¬ââ© is rendering the fricative phoneme /Ê/ or an affricate pronunciation of the phoneme close to [ʤ]; see below, §â¯7.1.3.4.
Of the 40 occurrences of the diphthong [jo] with this spelling, 20 are the atonic possessive âmioâ/âmiosâ â¨â®×Ö°××Ö¹â¬ââ©/â¨â®×Ö°××ֹשâ¬ââ©, which are forms with the diphthong at the beginning of the word, and five are cases of the word âDioâ â¨â®ï¬³Ö°××Ö¹â¬ââ© (pronounced [Ëdjo]), where the diphthong is also at the beginning of the word. According to Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âDios,â the original pronunciation of Dio < L. accusative dÄu(m) was [Ëdio], but by the thirteenth century the stress had already moved to the strongest vowel. See also Louis Combet, âLexicographie judéo-espagnole: DÃo ou Dió; JudÃo ou Judió,â Bulletin Hispanique 68, nos. 3â4 (1966): 323â337.
In Eccl 4:9 â¨â®×Ö·× Ö·× Ö°×¡Ö·××â¬ââ©, there is a clear scribal error: the ḥireq was forgotten and the sameḵ was vocalized with a pataḥ that should have been put under the yod.
In Pss 78:25, 144:13 (2); Jb 38:41, âgoverniuâ is written with full vowels: â¨â®×Ö¿×Ö¹×Öµ××¨Ö°× Ö´××וּâ¬ââ©.
However, with ḥireq in ânaxiençaâ â¨â®× Ö¸ï¬ªÖ´×²Öµ× Ö°×¡Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Eccl 4:15).
Not included here are the two cases of âafreiciónâ rendered by full vowels and dealt with above in connection to âafreir.â
Pss 18:5, 37:14, 129:6; Jb 31:3.
In contrast with the possessive âbostruâ; see below, §â¯7.2.2.
See Révah and Sirat, âUn maḥzor espagnol,â 358; Quintana and Révah, âA Sephardic Siddur,â 145.
See Ramón Menéndez Pidal, OrÃgenes del español, 3rd ed., Obras completas de Ramón Menéndez Pidal 8 (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1950), §â¯352â3, in which he nonetheless states that âtodavÃa en el s. XIII la Castilla del Norte, región arcaizante, al Norte de Burgos, conserva casos abundantes [of final âu] en el sustantivo singular ⦠También encontramos casos de âu final en Campóo ⦠El fenómeno continúa por la Montaña, donde hoy subsiste, lo mismo que en Asturias y otras regiones leonesas.â Lapesa, Historia de la lengua española, 187, also mentions words ending in âu from Cantabria and Northern Castile, considering them archaisms. On words ending in âu in Leonese, see Alonso Zamora Vicente, DialectologÃa española, 2nd ed., Biblioteca románica hispánica III, Manuales 8 (Madrid: Gredos, 1967), 111â116. Likewise, Menéndez Pidal, OrÃgenes, §â¯914, points out that among âmozárabes distinguidos de Toledoâ there is an abundant use of spellings ending in âu.
Mark G. Littlefield, ed., Biblia romanceada I.i.8: The 13th-Century Spanish Bible Contained in Escorial MS. I.i.8, Dialect Series 4 (Madison: Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies, 1983), vii. Lapesa (Historia de la lengua española, 188) also highlights: âLa /i/ final por /e/ era muy corriente [in La Rioja] (esti, essi, li, pudi, fizi, salvesti).â
José Manuel Fradejas Rueda, FonologÃa histórica del español, 2nd ed., Biblioteca filológica hispana 31 (Madrid: Visor, 2000), §â¯3.72.
Except those that follow an adverb or conjunction ending in a vowel, in which case they attach to these with apocope, see above, §â¯7.1.1.
In addition, in Sg 4:12, we should read âfon[ti]â or âfon[t]â; a defect on the corresponding folio makes it impossible to know what the word ending is.
On the placement and spelling of pronouns, see below, §â¯7.2.4.
See Lapesa, Historia de la lengua española, 169; more recently, some authors have questioned whether apocope should be attributed to the arrival of Gallo-Romance peoples. See Ramos Remedios, âLa huella,â 58, n. 77. See also above, §â¯5.7.
However, âsobreâ â¨â®×©×Ö¹×ְרֵ×â¬ââ©, with the ending âe, is found in two places: Ps 32:8 and Eccl 5.5.
This instance of apocope can perhaps be explained by analogy with forms such as the Old French contre/cuntre/countre, since the Castilian forms of the preposition are exquantra and escuantra < L. ex cÅntra.
Not included here are the forms in third-person singular that in modern Spanish take an atonic final âe, such as the present subjunctive (él) ame, the future subjunctive (él) amare, and the imperfect subjunctive (él) amase, since in the leÊ¿azim third-person singular forms always have an inflection with a final âd and thus cannot be elided. See below, §â¯7.2.6.
Which alternates with [Ëwa], [Ëwo] in most Iberian Romance languages up to the thirteenth century, although the prevailing diphthong in Castilian by the tenth century is [Ëwe]. See Menéndez Pidal, OrÃgenes, §â¯23â24. The diphthong [Ëwo] in Castilian is extremely rare, and the only instance of [Ëwa] is in exquantra and escuantra < L. ex cÅntra.
With some inconsistency in [Ëja], especially in Leonese, but also in Navarro-Aragonese and Mozarabic, though not in Castilian. See Menéndez Pidal, OrÃgenes, §â¯26.
The palatal glide (yod) has the following effect: in the case of /Å/, the vowel is raised to /o/ in all cases except those involving the glide yod in the following groups: [tj], [kj], [nj] and [jn] < /gn/, whereas in the case of /Ä/, the vowel is raised to /e/ in all cases except those involving the glide yod in the liquid consonant clusters [lj] and [jl] < /kl/, /gl/, /tl/. See Fradejas Rueda, FonologÃa histórica, §â¯3.24â3.38 and §â¯3.45â3.46.
But âegualâ in Jb 15:31.
See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âespejoâ; Fradejas Rueda, FonologÃa histórica, §â¯3.45. Menéndez Pidal, OrÃgenes, §â¯28, also thinks that there was a switch from âÄcÅlu to âÄcÅlu, which he says explains the form spillu in the Glosas Emilianenses, although the form *espiellu would square better with Navarro-Aragonese phonetics.
In both places, the gimel in the laÊ¿az is written with a rafe and not a point: â¨â®×©Ö´×²Öµ×Ö¿Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Jb 31:8) and â¨â®×©Ö´×²Öµ×Ö¿Ö·×â¬ââ© (Jb 27:7), and thus represents the sound [g]. On these forms, see below, §â¯7.2.6.1.
In the siega form in the Glosas Silenses, the â¨gâ© is not epenthetic, since it represents /Ê/. This form is considered to belong more properly to Navarro-Aragonese or La Rioja Romance; see Menéndez Pidal, OrÃgenes, §â¯28.
Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âreiterarâ.
On the possible causes of this monophthongization, see Fradejas Rueda, FonologÃa histórica, §â¯3.33â3.34.
Menéndez Pidal, OrÃgenes, §â¯272.
Menéndez Pidal, OrÃgenes, §â¯275.
This does not mean that the diphthong was not pronounced. See Pedro Sánchez-Prieto Borja, âEl romance en los documentos de la catedral de Toledo (1171â1252): La escritura,â RFE 87 (2007): 143.
Other features of the leÊ¿azim point in this direction. For a similar opinion on the scribes of Hebrew aljamÃa in general, see Bunis, âJewish and Arab,â 82â83.
RodrÃguez Molina, âA Closer Look,â 138.
Graphic variation even affected the case of âcum,â which appears in many places, and âcomâ (Jb 40:31) < L. quÅmÅdo. Behind these spellings is the pronunciation of the diphthong [Ëwe].
Yom Tov Assis, José Ramón Magdalena Nom de Déu, and Coloma Lleal, AljamÃa romance en los documentos hebraiconavarros: Siglo XIV, Judeolenguas marginales en Sefarad antes de 1492 (Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona, 1992), §â¯1.1.2.1.
Menéndez Pidal, OrÃgenes, §â¯914.
See Federico Corriente, Romania arábica: Tres cuestiones básicas; Arabismos, âmozárabesâ y âjarchas,â Al-Andalus Textos y estudios (Madrid: Trotta, 2008), 107â109.
In contrast with the distinctly Castilian solution lluvia < L. plÅvÄa.
Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âcojoâ has doubts about the /Å/ in L. coxu because of the absence of diphthongization in Leonese and Aragonese, despite the fact that everything suggests that it comes from L. cÅxa, âhip.â Thus, they suggest a possible form with /Å/, cÅxu, although he is doubtful about this. Here, the laÊ¿az âcuexosâ requires a form with /Å/.
It is probably unrelated to L. dÅctu > Sp. ducho, since the meaning of the laÊ¿az is âexperienced, skilled, expert,â whereas ducho in the Middle Ages had the sense of âused to, accustomed.â See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âduchoâ.
Diphthongization in this form coincides with cuejan in Hebrew-Navarrese documents. See Assis et al., AljamÃa romance, §â¯1.2.4, and cuejan in a 1244 document from Northern Castile, near La Rioja. See Menéndez Pidal, OrÃgenes, §â¯254.
In only one place do we see the diphthongized form âfuertesâ (Jb 41:4).
See Minervini, Testi giudeospagnoli medievali, §â¯2.1.7.
See Joseph Nehama, Dictionnaire du judéo-espagnol (Madrid: Instituto Benito Arias Montano-CSIC, 1977), s.v. âkonesérâ (hereinafter DJE); Aitor GarcÃa Moreno, dir., Diccionario histórico del judeo-español, 2008â,
In this case, the resulting [wa] is analogous to the exquantra/escuantra < L. ex cÅntra that was mentioned above, also following the consonant cluster /sk/.
Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âescudriñar.â
See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âhumilde.â
In this case, there might be a solution without resorting to the explanation of vowel assimilation in the first syllable, with later syncope, *guelondrinu > glondrinu, although syncope is also possible from *golondrinu. On the assimilation of /o/, see Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âgolondrina.â
See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âvÃbora.â
Minervini, Testi giudeospagnoli medievali, §â¯1.1â1.2; âThe Development of a Normâ; Bunis, âJewish and Arab.â
According to Bunis (âJewish and Arab,â 79) âThe Jewish Ibero-Romance orthography of Christian Spain incorporated various graphemic innovations which had arisen among the Jews of Muslim Spain in their accommodation of the Hebrew Alphabet to the sound system of Arabic.â
The diacritic for distinguishing the Hebrew letters Åin â¨â®ï¬«â¬ââ© and Å¡in â¨â®ï¬ªâ¬ââ© is used in the leÊ¿azim arbitrarily to represent any of the three Romance phonemes that this letter represents. It might or might not be written, and if it is, it might be on the right (more frequently) or on the left (in fewer cases), and on numerous occasions in the middle of the letter. From this we can deduce that the way it is written is due only to an awareness that the diacritic should go with these letters if the text is vocalized, even though it has no function in representing the Romance phonemes.
The use of dageÅ¡ in these cases is a way of indicating the doubling of the consonant according to the norms of written Hebrew, and at the same time following the graphic model of the Latin alphabet, without having to write the consonant two times, â¨â®×©×©â¬ââ©, â¨â®××â¬ââ©, â¨â®×¨×¨â¬ââ©, which contradicts the norms of Hebrew spelling and is thus avoided. On the avoidance of the use of double letters to represent a phoneme, see Bunis, âJewish and Arab,â 80. Minervini (âThe Development of a Norm,â 426â427) identifies some examples of the use of â¨â®××â¬ââ©.
In âafaztiâ â¨â®×ַפַֿ××Ö°×Ö´×â¬ââ© (Jb 23:9), /Ê£/ is preserved probably because of the influence of the fazer paradigm, and from thinking of the pronoun as a morpheme added to the verb form.
See Minervini, Testi giudeospagnoli medievali, §â¯1.2.5.
According to Lapesa (Historia de la lengua española, 373) âel aflojamiento de las africadas /Å/ [/ʦ/] y /áº/ [/Ê£/] en fricativas, atestiguado en la AndalucÃa occidental desde principios del s. XV, se produjo también en el Norte y meseta septentrional con independencia respecto al fenómeno andaluz y probablemente con posterioridad a él.â
The phoneme /ʦ/, usually represented in Romance by â¨Ã§â©, was the closest Romance phoneme (dento-alveolar sibilant) to the Sephardic pronunciation of Hebrew for â¨â®×¦â¬ââ©, even if /ʦ/ is affricate and the Sephardic pronunciation of â¨â®×¦â¬ââ© in Hebrew words was fricative. This may have caused not only the use of â¨â®×¦â¬ââ© in Hebrew aljamÃa for the representation of /ʦ/, but also the use of â¨Ã§â© transcribing â¨â®×¦â¬ââ© in Hebrew words written in the Latin alphabet. On the latter, see Dodi, Studies, 14 [Hebrew], where he gives some examples, such as çedaquá for â®×¦×ק×â¬â and beçÃm for â®××צ××â¬â.
See Assis et al., AljamÃa romance, §â¯1.1.2.2.
See Dodi, Studies, 14, n. 37 [Hebrew]; for interchange of sibilants in the text of this glossary-commentary, see above, §â¯2.2.3.4.
According to Garbell (âThe Pronounciation of Hebrew,â 670â671) various fourteenth-century Jewish authors made statements asserting that Jews in Christian Spain made no distinction between â¨â®×¦â¬ââ© and â¨â®×¡â¬ââ© in their pronunciation of Hebrew, implying that both were dento-alveolar fricatives. See also Amos Dodi, âTranscriptions of Hebrew Proper Nouns in a Fifteenth-Century Spanish Bible (MS. Escorial I.j.3),â BHSt 81 (2004): 437.
This phoneme probably had a combinatory variant, the affricate allophone [ʤ], which would have been produced in absolute initial position or following a closed syllable.
Fradejas Rueda, FonologÃa histórica, §â¯4.29.
The last case reflects alternation or confusion of the apico-alveolar /s/ for the palatal /Ê/. Compare with âpresuraâ â¨â®ïְרֵ×שׁוּרָ×â¬ââ© (Prv 29:25), âpresurasâ â¨â®ïְרֵ×שׁוּרָשâ¬ââ© (Ps 107:20), Sp. presura/pressura < L. pressÅ«ra. See Kasten and Cody, TDMS, s.v. âpresura1.â Alternation or confusion between intervocalic /s/ and /Ê/ is known in Old Castilian (sanguijuela for sanguisuela, quijo for quiso, tigera for tisera; see Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âsangreâ; Fradejas Rueda, FonologÃa histórica, §â¯4.108), but the phenomenon was more common in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (see Amado Alonso, âTrueques de sibilantes en antiguo español,â NRFH 1 [1947]: 7â8). Ãlvaro Galmés de Fuentes (DialectologÃa mozárabe, Biblioteca románica hispánica III, Manuales 58 [Madrid: Gredos, 1983], 238â239) explains the numerous cases of intervocalic /s/ rendered as â¨â®Ø¬â¬ââ© (correlate of â¨â®×Ö¹â¬ââ©) in the Mozarabic witnesses cited by Pedro de Alcalá in 1505 as part of an aljamÃa system in which â¨â®Ø´â¬ââ© was used for /s/ except in an intervocalic position, where instead the voiced correlate, â¨â®Ø¬â¬ââ©, was used. This is not the case, however, in the leÊ¿azim, and hence it seems more plausible that we are dealing here with a sporadic alternation or confusion, along the same lines as the cases cited by Corominas, Fradejas Rueda, and Alonso.
See Fradejas Rueda, FonologÃa histórica, §â¯4.48 and §â¯4.54.
For example, in â¨â®Ùاجâ¬ââ© /faʧe/, âface.â See Samuel M. Stern, Les chansons mozarabes: Les vers finaux (kharjas) en espagnol dans les muwashshahs arabes et hébreux (Oxford: Bruno Cassirer, 1964), 30â31; Corriente, Romania arabica, 247â248.
Hebrew aljamÃa in the Iberian Peninsula used graphic options to represent sibilants that were very different from those used in other traditions. In Joseph Karaâs glosses, for example, /ʦ/ is rendered with â¨â®×¦â¬ââ©, as that was the pronunciation of this letter in Ashkenazi Hebrew; /ʧ/ with â¨â®×§Ö¿â¬ââ© or â¨â®××â¬ââ©; /Ê/ with â¨â®×Ö¿â¬ââ©; /s/ with â¨â®×©â¬ââ© or â¨â®×¡â¬ââ©; and /Ê/ with â¨â®×â¬ââ©. See Fudeman, âThe Old French Glosses,â 155.
The French spelling â¨châ© to represent /ʧ/ began to be introduced in the Iberian Peninsula at the end of the eleventh century, but it is not until the middle of the thirteenth that this spelling won out over the others that had been used previously. See Lapesa, Historia de la lengua española, 169â170.
See Fradejas Rueda, FonologÃa histórica, §â¯4.61â4.62 and §â¯4.85â4.88.
On the use of â¨â®×â¬ââ© for /β/, see Bunis, âJewish and Arab,â 80â81; Minervini, âThe Development of a Norm,â 425.
According to Lleal (Assis et al., AljamÃa romance, §â¯1.1.2.2): âes constante la alternancia gráfica entre bet y waw para representar la labial sonora, sin distinción aparente entre una articulación interrupta y otra continua ⦠Parece, pues, que a mediados del s. XIV se habÃa producido ya en Navarra la indistinción fonológica en este ámbito de las labiales.â An observation made by Minervini might also apply to the leÊ¿azim: namely, that (Aragonese) Jewish scribes generally preferred to use â¨â®×â¬ââ© for /b/ and /β/ instead of â¨â®×â¬ââ© because âla letra vav estaba ya empleada para las vocales u y o, y no se querÃa incrementar más su carga funcionalâ; see Laura Minervini, âLa documentación judeoâaragonesa medieval: Nuevas publicaciones y nuevas interpretaciones,â eHumanista 20 (2012): 207.
We find once â¨â®ï¬±Ö¿â¬ââ©, with rafe and dageÅ¡: âquebrantadorâ â¨â®×§Öµ×ï¬±Ö¿Ö°×¨Ö·× Ö°×ָדּ×ֹרâ¬ââ© (Ps 37:35). This is most probably the scribeâs mistake.
There are two cases in which â¨â®×¤â¬ââ© has both a dageÅ¡ and a rafe: âfudâ â¨â®ïֿוּ×â¬ââ© (Jb 20:26) and âfuelganâ â¨â®ïֿוּ×Öµ××ְגָּ×â¬ââ© (Jb 30:17). In both cases, it makes sense to suspect an error on the part of the scribe, who wrote a dageÅ¡ on initial â¨â®×¤â¬ââ©, following Hebrew spelling norms, but, upon realizing that the sound was [f] and not [p], added the rafe to indicate this.
See Minervini, Testi giudeospagnoli medievali, §â¯2.2.3; Assis et al., AljamÃa romance, §â¯1.1.2.2.
See CORDE.
See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âhenchir.â
See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âllama I.â
Bunis (âJewish and Arab,â 82) suggests that in word final position the allophone might have been pronounced [θ].
Lapesa (Historia de la lengua española, 263, n. 38bis) cites the preservation of Latin intervocalic [ð] < /d/ as one of the characteristics of the Moriscosâ aljamÃa literature in the sixteenth century, which would have originated from this same characteristic in the primitive dialect of Aragonese.
The form radiz is also found in Berceo. See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âraÃz.â
In Loores de Nuestra Señora. See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âhucia.â
See CORDE.
See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âver.â
See Lapesa, Historia de la lengua española, §â¯67.3.
Some other cases are Pss 50:20, 105:25, 119:70; Jb 3:5, 13:26, 23:2, 27:2, 31:29, 34:19. However, there are even more cases of â¨â®ï¬²â¬ââ© in the same context, such as âatorganâ â¨â®×Ö·××ֹרְגָּ××â¬ââ© (Pss 49:14, 62:5) and âtingasâ â¨â®×Ö´×× Ö°ï¬²Ö¸ï¬ªâ¬ââ© (Ps 68:24).
See Bunis, âJewish and Arab,â 81; see also Minervini, âThe Development of a Norm,â 422â423.
The forms âemeçquinexenâ and âemeçquenexÃronsiâ derive from the parasynthetic verb *emeçquinexer (o *emeçquenexer). On the Latin ending âescere in inchoative verbs and its Romance results âecer and âexer, see below, §â¯7.2.6.
See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âmezquino.â In any case, the Arabic â®Ù سÙÙÙâ¬â is also written with â¨â®ÙÙâ¬ââ©, the correlate of the Hebrew letter â¨â®×â¬ââ©.
The same form as in the laÊ¿az, written â¨â®×××â¬ââ© appears in a fourteenth-century Aragonese siddur. See Quintana and Révah, âA Sephardic Siddur,â 148. In this late form, the use of â¨â®×â¬ââ© seems to be due only to the spelling that was already established in Hebrew aljamÃa in Christian Spain, where â¨â®×â¬ââ© was always written for /t/, while the laÊ¿az in Jb 14:6 still uses the spelling from Andalusi Hebrew aljamÃa, with â¨â®×ªâ¬ââ©, the Hebrew correlate of Arabic â¨â®ØªÙâ¬ââ© from â®ØتÙâ¬â ḥattâ.
The same form appears two other times, written with final â¨â®×â¬ââ© in both places, in Ps 144:2 and Prv 28:15.
Ps 104:15; Jb 3:4, 18:5, 29:3.
Corominas (DCECH, s.v. âclaroâ) claims: â[claro] pertenece al segundo estrato de palabras castellanas, con tratamiento retrasado y conservador del grupo inicial CLâ.â Compare with Sp. llave < L. clave.
We find once â¨â®×¨Ö¿â¬ââ©, with rafe: âferedadâ â¨â®×¤Öµ×רֵֿ×דָּ××â¬ââ© (Ps 50:20), unequivocally indicating the sound /ɾ/, given that â¨â®×¨â¬ââ© is used for both /ɾ/ and /r/.
Minervini (âLa documentación,â 205) attributes the writing of â¨bâ© (or â¨â®×â¬ââ© in aljamÃa documents) in this position due to the Castilianization of Judeo-Aragonese documentation in the fifteenth century. In fourteenth-century Navarrese-Hebrew documents, there is alternation between the spelling with â¨â®×â¬ââ© and without it. See Assis et al., AljamÃa romance, §â¯1.1.2.2.
See Fradejas Rueda, FonologÃa histórica, §â¯4.80, §â¯4.104â4.105.
Bunis, âJewish and Arab,â 80.
See Minervini, âThe Development of a Norm,â 427.
Minervini (âThe Development of a Norm,â 426) thinks that the use of â¨â®×â¬ââ© in these cases is probably due to the influence of the Romance spelling system in the Latin alphabet, pointing out that similar spellings were used for these phonemes in Mozarab aljamÃa. Compare with the use of â¨nyâ© for /ɲ/ in Catalan.
This case is an example of [lj] < /Ê/ as in Leonese and Aragonese, in contrast to the Castilian /Ê/. See above, §â¯7.1.3.1. Compare âsemellaâ < L. sÄmÄlia with âsemejançaâ â¨â®ï¬ªÖµ××Öµ××Ö¹Ö¸× Ö°×¡Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Jb 41:25) or âsemejançasâ â¨â®ï¬ªÖµ××Öµ××Ö¹Ö·×× Ö°×¡Ö·ï¬ªâ¬ââ© (Jb 13:12), the last two of which have a spelling that represents /Ê/.
In Tiberian Biblical Hebrew, â¨â®ï¬¼â¬ââ© represents the geminate phoneme /lË/, while â¨â®×¨â¬ââ©, like gutturals, cannot take a dageÅ¡, because doubling of the phoneme /ɾ/ does not exist. See Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §â¯20. However, the use of dageÅ¡ on â¨â®ïâ¬ââ© in Hebrew aljamÃa does not pose any problems, since it is only one grapheme for representing the Romance phoneme /r/, which is understood as a doubling (or multiplication) of the phoneme /ɾ/.
This was confirmed by Minervini, âThe Development of a Norm,â 426. Since she did not find any cases of this, probably because of the scarcity of documents in vocalized Hebrew aljamÃa, she states: âThe Spanish aljamiado system never uses this graphic device [dageÅ¡] because /r/, the only Spanish consonant subject to doubling, is transcribed with the letter rÄÅ¡, which in Hebrew may not carry dageÅ¡ ḥazaq. Nor is the spelling â¨rrâ© used in aljamÃa, so that /r/ is always represented as simple.â Minervini believes that the use of dageÅ¡ in Romance aljamÃa might have been to represent geminate phonemes, and she therefore restricts this possibility to /r/, whereas in the leÊ¿azim in this manuscript the dageÅ¡ is used to represent doubled graphemes, such as â¨llâ© and â¨rrâ© in Romance. However, there are no cases in the leÊ¿azim of â¨â®ïâ¬ââ© that are analogous to the use of the Latin spelling â¨nnâ© for /ɲ/.
I already reported some cases of the use of this spelling method in the leÊ¿azim of Proverbs and Song of Songs in MS Hunt. 268 in Del Barco, âEstudio lingüÃstico.â
There are four cases in which the phoneme /Ê/ is represented with â¨â®×â¬ââ© without dageÅ¡: âtrastol[l]ermâéâ â¨â®×ְרַשְׁ××Ö¹×Öµ×רְ×Öµ×â¬ââ© (Ps 117:119); âtrastol[l]erâ â¨â®×ְרַשְׁ××Ö¹×Öµ×רâ¬ââ© (Jb 2:11); âad atol[l]erâ â¨â®×Ö·× ×Ö·××Ö¹×Öµ×רâ¬ââ© (Jb 27:8); and âcuchiel[l]aâ â¨â®×§ï¬µ×ִֹײֵ×Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Jb 39:23). In the first three, the yod is the mater lectionis of the vowel /e/, and therefore these cannot be considered instances of the spelling â¨â®×Ö°×â¬ââ©.
The other cases are: Pss 38:11, 69:16, 72:6, 77:10, 80:19, 90:5, 110:1, 110:6, 119:131, 119:176, 125:5, 139:15; Jb 12:16, 18:3, 27:33, 30:24, 33:16, 37:6, 37:7; Prv 1:3, 31:17; Sg 2:14, 4:12 (2), 4:13.
See Fradejas Rueda, FonologÃa histórica, §â¯4:31â4.33, §â¯4.35, §â¯4.69.
On only one occasion, at the beginning of a word, is the phoneme represented by adding â¨â®ï¬³Ö°â¬ââ© before â¨â®×â¬ââ©, in âyudgamientuâ â¨â®ï¬³Ö°×וּ×ְֿגָּ××Ö´×²Öµ× Ö°×וּâ¬ââ© (Ps 80:7), in what represents the fricative phoneme /Ê/ or an affricate pronunciation of the phoneme close to [ʤ].
Pss 41:2 (2) 76:12 (al); Jb 15:24, 38:25; Prv 30:15.
Pss 17:14, 40:3, 84:7 (â¨â®ï¬³Öµ××â¬ââ©); Sg 2:12.
The preposition a is never written as a stand-alone word and is always attached to the following word. See §â¯7.1.1.
There is a third instance (Ps 57:9) where the same sequence appears with the noun âmañana,â but here the preposition-article group is written separately from the noun and without vocalization: â¨â®××× ×× ××× ×â¬ââ©.
By contracted forms I mean forms with the article and the preposition fused together, like the cases documented in some texts from the first half of the thirteenth century: enno (en el), enna (en la), conno (con el), polas (por las), etc., which are generally dialectal forms. See Lapesa, Historia de la lengua española, 188.
The pronominal forms can also be suffixed to prepositions and verb forms; in the latter case the purpose of the pronominal suffix is not to indicate possession but rather the object of the verb. See Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §â¯39 B and §â¯61.
In biblical Hebrew, possession can also be indicated through the use of prepositions, particularly â®×-â¬â (âto, forâ) (see Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §â¯133 d), but when cases like this occur, the laÊ¿az does not use a possessive but rather translates the preposition literally with the tonic personal pronoun in oblique case. Thus, for example, in Jb 12:13 â®××Ö¹ עֵצָ×â¬â (âthe advice is hisâ), the laÊ¿az translates â®××Ö¹â¬â as âpor él.â Jb 39:16 mentioned above is an exception since it is a âdoubletâ in which, in addition to the calque translation, a translation for the possessive is given that is in line with Castilian syntax.
Andrés Enrique-Arias (âApuntes para una caracterización de la morfosintaxis de los textos bÃblicos medievales en castellano,â in Sintaxis histórica del español y cambio lingüÃstico: Nuevas perspectivas desde las tradiciones discursivas, ed. Johannes Kabatek [Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert; Madrid: Iberoamericana, 2008], 119) also suggests that the variation between the possessive with an article and without it in biblical romanceamientos and, particularly, the virtual absence of the possessive with an article in E3 may indeed be due to the calque translation in which the structure of the possessive in Hebrew is rendered.
Pss 23:1 (â¨â®×××Ö¹â¬ââ©), 43:2, 77:11, 110:1 (â¨â®×××â¬ââ©), 116:11; Jb 6:2, 20:2, 13:17 (â¨â®×Ö°××â¬ââ©).
Pss 22:18, 31:12, 35:1, 73:21, 88:9, 92:12, 102:9, 102:10, 140:10 (âmiosâ); Jb 16:16, 17:7, 19:14 (âmiosâ).
Pss 90:8, 137:3, 144:13, 144:14; Sg 1:17.
Pss 38:3 (2), 40:6 (2), 42:8, 45:8, 45:17, 73:28, 74:3, 74:4, 77:20, 104:24, 116:7, 139:14, 139:17; Jb 10:8, 10:17, 11:3; Sg 1:2, 1:4, 4:13.
Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âtú.â
Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âsÃ.â
In Ps 135:4 and Jb 20:26 (âa sosâ), the preposition that precedes the possessive is âpora,â but the laÊ¿az, both here and in other cases with this preposition, renders the two elements separately, as âporâ and âa,â the latter of which is attached to the next word like in any other case of the preposition a. See above, §â¯7.1.1.
I use the generic term Navarro-Aragonese to refer to the Romance dialects spoken in Navarre and Aragon in the thirteenth century, without entering the debate over how they overlapped with or diverged from each other. See Mark G. Littlefield, âThe Riojan Provenience of Escorial Biblical Manuscript I.j.8,â RPh 31, no. 2 (1977): 231â234, for a preliminary outline of the differences between the two dialects. On Navarre Romance, see also F. González Ollé, âEl romance Navarro,â RFE 53, no. 1 (1970): 45â93.
They are more numerous in the Rioja Alta, which borders Navarre. See Manuel Alvar López and Pilar GarcÃa Mouton, âEl monasterio de San Millán y el romance riojano medieval,â in Historia de La Rioja, ed. Justiniano GarcÃa Prado (Logroño: Centro de Publicaciones, Caja de Ahorros, 1983), 2: 189.
See Menéndez Pidal, OrÃgenes, §â¯674; Zamora Vicente, DialectologÃa, 254.
See Menéndez Pidal, OrÃgenes, §â¯674. More recently, Hernández, âThe Jews and the Origin of Romance Script,â 285, to explain the Catalanisms and Provençalisms in the Aguilar documents, suggested that the Jews involved in producing them may have originally come from Southern France (Languedoc).
See Minervini, Testi giudeospagnoli medievali, §â¯3.2.2; Assis et al., AljamÃa romance, §â¯1.2.2; José Ramón Magdalena Nom de Déu and Coloma Lleal, AljamÃas hebraicoaragonesas (siglos XIVâXV), Judeolenguas marginales en Sefarad antes de 1492 (Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona, 1995), §â¯2.3.
See Menéndez Pidal, OrÃgenes, §â¯674 and n. 1.
See MarÃa Jesús Torrens Ãlvarez, Edición y estudio del Fuero de Alcalá (Fuero Viejo) (Alcalá de Henares: Fundación Colegio del Rey, 2002), 232.
Torrens Ãlvarez, Edición y estudio del Fuero de Alcalá, 232.
See above, §â¯5.7; Manuel Alvar, Estudios sobre el dialecto aragonés, 2 vols. (Zaragoza: Institución Fernando el Católico, 1973), vol. 1, §â¯85â106, vol. 2, §â¯5, §â¯14; Hernández, âThe Jews and the Origin of Romance Scriptâ; Derek W. Lomax, âCatalans in the Leonese empire,â BHSt 59 (1982): 191â197; MartÃnez Sopena, âLas migraciones de francosâ; Pascual MartÃnez Sopena, âLos francos en la España de los siglos XII y XIII: El testimonio de las listas de vecinos,â in Anthroponymie et migrations dans la Chrétienté médiévale, Collection de la Casa de Velázquez 116, ed. Monique Bourin and Pascual MartÃnez Sopena (Madrid: Casa de Velázquez, 2010), 177â194.
Particularly in §â¯5.7.
F. Javier Pueyo Mena and Andrés Enrique-Arias (âInnovación y tradición en el léxico de las traducciones bÃblicas castellanas medievales: El uso de cultismos y voces patrimoniales en las versiones del siglo XV,â Anuario de estudios medievales 45 [2015]: 374) mention the creation of deverbal nouns as one of the strategies often used by Jewish translators of medieval romanceamientos.
See above, §â¯2.3.4. This phenomenon is similar to what happened centuries later in the teaching of the Bible in Judeo-Spanish among Sephardic communities, as Bunis notes in âTres formas de ladinar,â 322: âa los alumnos se les enseñaba un sistema de equivalencias entre los paradigmas nominal, verbal y otros paradigmas gramaticales del hebreo y del ladino, y se les proveÃa de un vocabulario de leÊ¿azim/ladinos o âglosas ladinasâ transmitido oralmente, mediante el cual los textos de la fuente hebrea serÃan vertidos en lengua vernácula.â
Pueyo Mena and Enrique-Arias, âInnovación y tradición,â 362, consider both to be âsoluciones vernáculas tradicionalesâ in medieval romanceamientos. Andrés Enrique-Arias (âLa traducción del códice Escorial I.I.6 en el contexto de los romanceamientos bÃblicos medievales,â in La Biblia Escorial I.I.6: Transcripción y estudios, ed. Andrés Enrique-Arias [San Millán de la Cogolla: Cilengua, 2010], 82) also considers the suffix âmiento to be characteristic of medieval romanceamientos.
Steven N. Dworkin, âSuffixal Rivalries in Medieval Spanish: Preliminary Observations on the Fate of Old Spanish Deverbal Abstract Nouns in âmiento,â ELiEs 39 (2018): 207. Dworkin also mentions that D.G. Pattison (Early Spanish Suffixes: A Functional Study of the Principal Nominal Suffixes of Spanish up to 1300, Publications of the Philological Society 27 [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975]) lists 251 deverbal nouns ending in âmiento from thirteenth-century Hispano-Romance documents, while Ralph J. Penny (âDerivation of Abstracts in Alfonsine Spanish,â RPh 41 [1987]: 1â23) identifies 544 in the literature of Alfonso X. See also Gloria ClaverÃa Nadal, âLos caracteres de la lengua en el s. XIII: El léxico,â in Historia de la lengua española, Ariel LingüÃstica, ed. Rafael Cano Aguilar (Barcelona: Ariel, 2004), 485.
See David A. Pharies, Diccionario etimológico de los sufijos españoles y de otros elementos finales, Biblioteca románica hispánica V, Diccionarios 25 (Madrid: Gredos, 2002), s.v. ââmiento, âmento, âmentaâ (hereinafter DESE).
I refer the reader to the alphabetical glossary at the end of Part 1 of this book for the meanings, morphological analyses, and etymological notes of these and the following nouns in this section and for the leʿazim in general.
Not to be confused with the suffix âura, which, despite having the same origin, is applied to adjective bases. See below in this section.
See Pharies, DESE, s.v. ââdura.â
Used in the sense of âcolumn-like object or formation, vertical row,â in contrast to the more generic âalçamientu.â
See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âcriar.â
See Pharies, DESE, s.v. ââción.â
According to Pueyo Mena and Enrique-Arias, âInnovación y tradición,â 374, n. 25, ââción aumenta considerablemente su uso en el s. XV (se multiplica por 1,7 respecto al s. XIV y por 3,6 respecto al XIII).â
Compare with alsaçion in E3 and Evora, where dissimilation also occurs.
See George E. Sachs, âFragmento de un estudio sobre la âBiblia medieval romanceadaâ,â RPh 2 (1948): 223.
The learned form that corresponds to the popular âafreición,â aflicción, which is documented as far back as Berceo, is taken from the Latin afflictione and is not a Romance derivative of the verb afligir; see Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âafligir.â
According to Pharies, DESE, s.v. ââencia,â the non-diphthongized form âença is more common than the diphthongized form, and he cites only two cases from the list in Pattison, Early Spanish Suffixes, teniença and semiença, the latter of which is also present in the leÊ¿azim, in Jb 39:12. All cases are diphthongized in the leÊ¿azim.
See Pharies, DESE, s.v. ââencia.â
Pharies, DESE, s.v. ââencia.â
Minervini, Testi giudeospagnoli medievali, §â¯3.4.2.
See Pharies, DESE, s.v. ââura.â
See Enrique-Arias, âApuntes,â 117.
In most cases it is used as a part of the prepositional phrase â®××¤× ×â¬â (âin front ofâ) or â®××¤× ××â¬â (âto [both] sidesâ).
In Jb 33:6 there is a vocalization error, with the laÊ¿az being vocalized â¨â®××Ö¹â¬ââ©. However, the error is probably due to the fact that the possessive form âtoâ â¨â®××Ö¹â¬ââ© is much more frequent.
When âlaâ is an enclitic pronoun, the form â¨â®×Ö¸×â¬ââ© may appear, as in âencúbredlaâ â¨â®×Öµ×× Ö°×§ï¬µï¬±Ö°×¨Öµ××Ö¿Ö°×Ö¸×â¬ââ© (Jb 20:12).
Compare âsi malvadâ (Ps 53:4) and âsi malvaronâ (Ps 14:1).
There is only one case of âlasâ (Ps 89:10); all the others appear many times.
There are no cases of the merger L. illi + illu > gelo (*gelu). See Lapesa, Historia de la lengua española, 121.
The cases are: Pss 18:45, 22:18, 25:2, 40:18, 56:3, 60:10, 138:8, 139:14, 142:5; Jb 16:8, 20:2, 27:3, 29:11, 30:22, 31:18, 33:27; Sg 2:5 (2).
The cases are: Pss 27:8, 32:8, 40:6, 45:13, 49:19, 87:7, 94:20, 119:58, 139:20; Jb 11:6, 38:34; Sg 8:5.
The cases are: Pss 22:9, 58:10; Jb 12:13, 13:7, 13:9, 18:15, 20:22, 21:33, 24:6, 35:14, 40:20; Prv 3:10.
In âde sin élâ (Jb 18:15), a translation of the Hebrew â®×××× ××â¬â.
The cases are: Pss 42:5, 56:8, 68:28, 99:8; Jb 8:4.
Including the cases of âad élâ and âad ella.â See above, §â¯7.1.1.
Pss 39:5, 42:6, 89:48, 116:12, 119:103, 139:17; Jb 15:12 (2), 16:3.
Jb 14:4, 38:25, 38:37 (3), 39:5.
Both the relative pronoun and the completive conjunction que are used frequently. The alphabetical glossary, s.v. âque,â can be consulted for the instances of each.
The form atal is common in medieval Castilian literature. See Lloyd A. Kasten and Florian J. Cody, Tentative Dictionary of Medieval Spanish, 2nd ed. (New York: Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies, 2001), s.v. âatalâ (hereinafter TDMS). Compare the Gascon atal/atau and the Catalan aital. See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âtal.â
In Ps 44:20, âtragonesâ is a variant of dragones, meaning âdevourer monster or reptile.â See alphabetical glossary, s.v. âtragón.â
Grant (in which, following apocope, the last consonant has become unvoiced) is the common form of the adjective in thirteenth-century literature. See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âgrande.â
See Assis et al., AljamÃa romance, §â¯1.2.3.
See CORDE.
See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âyuso.â
On the diphthongization of this form, see above, §â¯7.1.2.4.
Also in E6 and in the literature of Alfonso X. See Morreale, âArcaÃsmos y aragonesismos,â 14.
Compare âtoduâ (Ps 119:128) functioning as an indefinite pronoun.
The use of the apocopated form in âcad mañanaâ might be explained by its atonic use before a noun, which would cause the vowel before the pretonic to be lost. This is a phenomenon that we see with relative frequency in the leÊ¿azim; compare with cases like âumledadâ and âglondrinuâ; see above, §â¯7.1.2.4.
The fact that âdosâ is used with a feminine noun seems to indicate that this was the only form of this number, used for both genders in the leÊ¿azim, and thus we can reject the possibility of a feminine dúas or dúes. See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âdos.â
See Kasten and Cody, TDMS, s.v. âmillariaâ; see also CORDE.
Biblical Hebrew possesses two tenses or sets of simple finite forms: (1) perfect, also called past, perfective, or qatal; in the leÊ¿azim this tense is referred to as â®×¤×׳ שע×רâ¬â. (2) imperfect, also called present/future, imperfective, or yiqtol, in the leÊ¿azim â®×¤××¢× ×¢×ª××â¬â. Within the latter, there are lengthened forms (cohortative) and apocopated forms (jussive). In addition, both perfect and imperfect can be preceded by what is called the consecutive waw, inverted waw, or waw ha-hippuḵ (â®××´× ××פ××â¬â), which requires a particular vocalization of the word. Biblical Hebrew also possesses an imperative and, as non-finite forms, an active and a passive participle, the infinitive absolute, and the infinitive construct. See Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §â¯40; on the consecutive waw, inverted waw, or waw ha-hippuḵ, see Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §â¯44 and §â¯47; see above, §â¯3.4.4 on the metalanguage used in MS Hunt. 268 to refer to the verb forms and conjugations, and particularly §â¯3.4.4.10 for verbal aspect and tense.
See José MarÃa GarcÃa MartÃn, La formación de los tiempos compuestos del verbo en español medieval y clásico: Aspectos fonológicos, morfológicos y sintácticos (Valencia: Universitat de València, 2001), 157â158. In the leÊ¿azim, we find the expression âtiengu mientesâ (Jb 17:2), also used in El Cid and in Berceo; see Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âmente.â
See GarcÃa MartÃn, La formación de los tiempos compuestos, 158.
Biblical Hebrew has conjugations in passive voice, with simple forms, that correspond to each of the conjugations in the active voice: nifÊ¿al is the passive/reflexive conjugation of qal, puÊ¿al is the passive conjugation of piÊ¿el, and hofÊ¿al of the causative conjugation hifÊ¿il. See Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §â¯40; see above, §â¯3.4.4 on the metalanguage used in MS Hunt. 268 to refer to the verb forms and conjugations.
See ClaverÃa Nadal, âLos caracteres de la lengua en el s. XIII,â 483.
These forms are rare in medieval Castilian literature; see below, §â¯7.4.
See Manuel Alvar and Bernard Pottier, MorfologÃa histórica del español, Biblioteca románica hispánica III, Manuales 57 (Madrid: Gredos, 1983), §â¯244.
Many of the forms with esâ in place of desâ reappear in romanceamientos, in other texts by Jewish authors, and in Sephardic literature; for example, the forms espreçiar and espreçiado appear in Shem Tov de Carriónâs Proverbios morales, and espartir is commonly used in Judeo-Spanish; see Nehama, DJE, s.v. âespartÃr.â
See Alvar and Pottier, MorfologÃa histórica, §â¯129.2.
See Alvar and Pottier, MorfologÃa histórica, §â¯129.1.1 and 185, n. 123.
Verbs in âecer/âeçer (with /ʦ/) are typical in Old Castilian, while âexer (with /Ê/) is the result of these type of verbs in Catalan. Compare also with the result in Italian, âescere (with /Ê/).
Thus, the alternation of â¨â®×¡â¬ââ© and â¨â®×©â¬ââ© is found in the leÊ¿azim only in verbs ending in âescÄre and some other cases which also derive from words originally with the group /sk/ + palatal vowel in Latin.
Littlefield, Biblia romanceada I.I.8, vi.
Menéndez Pidal, OrÃgenes, §â¯735: âEstas formas [con /Ê/] ⦠son propias del navarroaragonés.â
Littlefield, âThe Riojan Provenience,â 234, citing cases taken from Gunnar Tilander (ed.), Los fueros de Aragón: Según el manuscrito 458 de la Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid, Acta Reg. Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis 25 (Lund: Gleerup, 1937).
Littlefield (Biblia romanceada I.I.8, vi; âThe Riojan Provenience,â 229) suggests that the text copied in E8 originated in La Rioja, since during the thirteenth century this was a linguistically transitional area, with features of both Castilian and Navarrese Romance.
See Lapesa, Historia de la lengua española, 525; Enrique-Arias, âLa traducción del códice Escorial I.I.6,â 82.
Here I do not include the verb adiguar or its forms âadiguaronâ (Sg 4:1) and âadiguantesâ (Sg 4:2), since they are not derived from a form with the suffix âificÄre but rather is a popular derivative of the Latin adæquare.
See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âmucho.â
The noun âonoriguamientosâ (Ps 87:3) is derived from this verb.
Other features of verb endings that are specific to a particular verb tense are dealt with in the sections that cover each of the verb tenses.
See Minervini, Testi giudeospagnoli medievali, §â¯3.3.1; Laura Minervini, âTracce della desinenza di 3ª pers. sing. in testi aljamiadi giudeospagnoli (con particolare riferimento al giudeonavarro),â in Actes du XXè Congrès International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes, ed. Gerold Hilty (Tübingen: Francke Verlag, 1983), 492â493; Lapesa, Historia de la lengua española, 208â209; Menéndez Pidal, OrÃgenes, §â¯70; Alvar López and GarcÃa Mouton, âEl monasterio de San Millán,â 186.
Besides the cases identified by Minervini in Castile and Aragon, and by Quintana and Révah, âA Sephardic Siddur,â 147, the phenomenon seems to persist in the fourteenth century mostly in Navarre. See Minervini, Testi giudeospagnoli medievali, §â¯3.3.1, and âTracce della desinenza di 3ª pers. sing.,â 493; Assis et al., AljamÃa romance, §â¯1.2.4.
For an overview of the phenomenon of apocope in the leÊ¿azim and the shift from âe to âi, see above, §â¯7.1.2.3.
See Zamora Vicente, DialectologÃa, 190, 264.
See Menéndez Pidal, OrÃgenes, §â¯733, §â¯971. The second-person singular yes < L. Äs and the third person ye/yed < L. Äst are also attested in Alexandre, the ḵarajÄt of the muwaÅ¡Å¡aḥÄt (Corriente, Romania arabica, 210), and the Leonese and Aragonese dialects, where yesâye(d) for second and third persons are distinguished from eres (< L. Äris)âes, the most common forms in Old Castilian.
On the spelling and diphthongization of these forms in the leÊ¿azim, see above, §â¯7.1.2.4.
In the Glosas Silenses we find siega < L. sÄdeat, but the â¨gâ© in this form is not epenthetic and instead probably represents /dÊ/ or /Ê/.
See Menéndez Pidal, OrÃgenes, §â¯28.
See Alvar and Pottier, MorfologÃa histórica, §â¯130.2, and 189, n. 133, in which they cite Correas regarding forms such as tango, tangas, tanga, used in the rustic speech of his day in place of taño, tañas, taña.
In the leÊ¿azim we have the infinitive âtañerâ â¨â®×Ö·× Ö°×²Öµ×¨â¬ââ© (Jb 6:7) but not the present subjunctive forms or the first-person singular of the present indicative.
Pss 42:5, 78:34, 107:30; Jb 29:6, 29:9, 29:11, 29:13, 29:20, 31:34.
However, Littlefield, âThe Riojan Provenience,â 228, mentions that E8 shows free variation in the imperfect and the conditional, apparently affecting all persons in the paradigm, between the endings âie and âia, the former being more common (tenie, sabia/sabie, podries, podriemos, etc.).
The only form without apocope is âaformosigüéstitiâ (Ps 45:3), where the âi < âe in the verb form has been preserved as a euphonic vowel in order to avoid two consecutive /t/ soundsâwhich would be impossible to pronounceâwhen the enclitic pronoun is added (*aformosigüestti).
According to Menéndez Pidal, OrÃgenes, §â¯751, the raising of the tonic vowel in these kinds of forms may be due either to the verb ending âÄ« (before being apocopated) or to analogy with the verb ending âe in the first-person singular (yo canté).
These forms with the tonic vowel raised in the preterit, which also appear in E8, are described as typical of thirteenth-century Castilian by Littlefield, Biblia romanceada I.I.8, ivâv, and âThe Riojan Provenience,â 227â228.
In E6, like in E8, we also find the ending âest for the second-person singular of âar verbs, but not the analogical ending âestes for the plural, which in E6 is âastes (echastes, visitastes). See Cristina Matute and Enrique Pato, âMorfologÃa y sintaxis en el códice Escorial I.I.6,â in Enrique-Arias, La Biblia Escorial I.I.6, 55.
According to Lleal (Assis et al., AljamÃa romance, §â¯1.2.4): âEn el perfecto se dan algunas alternancias en las desinencias tónicas de tercera persona de los verbos de la primera conjugación (pagaâpago), aunque las desinencias en {ó} son mayoritarias.â
See Zamora Vicente, DialectologÃa, 268â270; Minervini, Testi giudeospagnoli medievali, §â¯3.3.6.
See Minervini, Testi giudeospagnoli medievali, §â¯3.3.6; Lleal (Assis et al., AljamÃa romance, §â¯1.2.4) mentions the alternation between forms with âiron and âieron (quisieronâquisiron, perdieronâperdiron) in Navarrese aljamÃa texts from the fourteenth century.
It is not clear if âesperamosâ (Ps 48:10) is preterit; even though it translates a Hebrew perfect, it might be present tense, whose first-person plural is identical to that of the preterit.
See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âprender.â
See Alvar and Pottier, MorfologÃa histórica, §â¯166.4 and 259, n. 48.
On this process, see Rafael Lapesa, Estudios de morfosintaxis histórica del español, Biblioteca románica hispánica II, Estudios y ensayos 418 (Madrid: Gredos, 2000), 773â774.
Both features are typical of thirteenth-century Castilian; see Littlefield, âThe Riojan Provenience,â 228; Morreale, âArcaÃsmos y aragonesismos,â 19; Matute and Pato, âMorfologÃa y sintaxis,â 55.
The forming of the cluster /mr/ following syncope of a vowel does not result in the epenthesis of an anaptyctic consonant /b/ anywhere in the leÊ¿azim. See above, §â¯7.1.3.4.
This form is also attested in Old Aragonese and in the Riojan dialect; see Alvar and Pottier, MorfologÃa histórica, §â¯162.2 and 251, n. 24.
On future forms with metathesis, see Jesús Moreno Bernal, âLa morfologÃa de los futuros románicos. Las formas con metátesis,â RFR 21 (2004): 121â169.
This variation is also documented in E6. See Matute and Pato, âMorfologÃa y sintaxis,â 55: âEn el contexto de futuro, fer tʾá alterna con fazerles edes cuando aparece el pronombre mesoclÃtico; si no, la forma más común presenta la raÃz farâ: faré ⦠o en el condicional farÃas.â On variation in the infinitive, see below, §â¯7.2.6.6.
We would expect the last two syllables to be CV-CVC, as in âconsumarlosásâ â¨â®×§×Ö¹× Ö°×©ï¬µ×Ö·×רְ××ֹשָׁ×שׁâ¬ââ© (Ps 144:6) and âemeçquinexenâ â¨â®×Öµ×Öµ×סְ×Ö´×× Öµ×שֵ××â¬ââ© (Ps 34:11), and not CVC-VC, as in the case of âar[r]ancaralâán.â
On the paradigms of the verb ser in tenses derived from the perfect stem of Latin esse, see above, §â¯7.2.6.3.
In the leÊ¿azim we also have the present subjunctive âbellenâ (Ps 61:8), from the same verb. In Old Castilian, forms of this verb took both â¨lâ© and â¨llâ©; see Kasten and Cody, TDMS, s.v. âvelar1.â
See Pueyo Mena and Enrique-Arias, âInnovación y tradición,â 377.
See Morreale, âLa Biblia de Ferrara y los romanceamientos medievales: 2SM 22 y PS 18,â in Hassán, Introducción a la Biblia de Ferrara, 93; Javier del Barco, âLas formas verbales en las biblias de Alba y Ferrara: ¿Fidelidad al texto hebreo?,â Sefarad 64, no. 2 (2004): 261.
See Pueyo Mena and Enrique-Arias, âInnovación y tradición,â 378, who note that in romanceamientos, however, the use of the present participle is infrequent.
See Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §â¯121.
Forms without final ât in the Ferrara Bible have led some who find it difficult to believe that apocopated forms were used in the sixteenth century to suppose that these forms might be taken from the nominative singular (sapiens > sabién) and not the accusative (sapiente[m]). See Manuel Ariza, Manuel Ãlvarez, and Josefa Mendoza, âLa lengua castellana de la Biblia de Ferrara,â in Hassán, Introducción a la Biblia de Ferrara, 512. However, these leÊ¿azim, as well as Ferrara and the tradition of Sephardic ladinamientos, indicate that the use of the present participle must be understood as a constant in the Jewish tradition of calque translation and not as a form adopted synchronically by the translators of Ferrara. See Morreale, âLa Biblia de Ferrara,â 93.
In the manuscript, the left vertical stroke of the ʾalef is curved on the ends and looks very similar to the letter nun.
See Matute and Pato, âMorfologÃa y sintaxis,â 56.
Both abbreviated forms were used in the Middle Ages; far comes from the Late Latin *fÄre and follows the model of dÄre and stÄre, and fer probably comes from *fagÄre, which is analogical to legÄre, frigÄre, etc. See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âhacer.â
See Alvar and Pottier, MorfologÃa histórica, §â¯163.1.
However, in Ps 62:2, â®×××××â¬â is translated by the present participle âcallant.â
It appears as a noun in Ps 22:3, where it is translated as âcalladura,â and is equivalant to the noun â®××××â¬â (Ps 107:29), which is translated as âquedadura.â
See Alvar and Pottier, MorfologÃa histórica, chap. XIII, âLos elementos de relación,â and chap. XIV, âLas partÃculas.â
Jb 20:20, 24:6, 27:8, 35:14, 39:16, 40:20; Sg 4:4.
See Alvar and Pottier, MorfologÃa histórica, §â¯181.2; Minervini, Testi giudeospagnoli medievali, s.v. âa, ad, al.â
Corriente, DFDAA, s.v. *{ḤTT} (â®Øتتâ¬â).
See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âhastaâ; compare Port. até.
The form deintro is also documented in the fuero of Avilés; see CORDE.
See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âpor.â
In âporad élâ (Jb 40:20) â¨â®×¤×ר ×Ö·×Ö¿Ö°×Öµ×â¬ââ© the element ad is attached to the pronoun. See above, §â¯7.1.1 and §â¯7.2.4.
This preposition appears only once as a stand-alone element, but it also appears in the leÊ¿azim in the form sonâ as a prefix: âsonbadiénâ (Ps 78:36), âsonbadidâ (Jb 31:27) < L. sÅbvadÄre; âsonsañantesâ (Jb 12:6) < L. *sÅbsaniare; and âsontraedurasâ (Jb 38:31) < L. sÅbstrahÄre.
See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âante II.â
See CORDE.
See CORDE.
See Alvar and Pottier, MorfologÃa histórica, §â¯218.
See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âaquÃ.â
The apocopated form is also found in Berceo (Milagros de Nuestra Señora), General Estoria, and Vida de Santa MarÃa Egipciaca; see CORDE.
See CORDE.
See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âno,â where he expresses doubt that the semi-consonant was actually pronounced in Romance. However, the spelling â¨â®× ï¬µ× Ö°×§ï¬µ×Ö¸×â¬ââ© in the leÊ¿azim may indicate that /w/ was pronounced, or, if it was not, this spelling indicates that the scribe was familiar with the Latinized spelling in texts in the Latin alphabet.
See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âque.â
See Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §â¯161 and §â¯167.
See above, §â¯2.3.4. Latin had the conjunction nÄsÄ, and âni·sâ seems to be its cognate in the leÊ¿azim, even though there are no descendants of nÄsÄ in Romance. See Ralph J. Penny, A History of the Spanish Language, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 246.
See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âquizá.â
CORDE cites 3,017 occurrences of the form mientre in the thirteenth century alone, of a total of 3,517. Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âmientras,â states: âmientre es la forma más común en el perÃodo arcaico.â
In this case, âmientriâ whose lemma is â®×¢× ש××××â¬â, translates only the particle â®×¢×â¬â; the complete translation of the lemma would be âmientri [que el rey],â so this would also be a case of the use of the complex conjunction âmientri [que]â.
CORDE identifies five occurrences of the adverb tanamientre, all from the thirteenth century. It belongs to a group of adverbs that resulted from the modification of entremientre and the influence of entanto; see Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âmientras.â
See Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §â¯170d. The cases are: Pss 47:10, 56:2, 118:10; Jb 6:10, 10:7, 11:6, 23:14 (âcaâ), 27:3 (âcaâ), 31:34, 39:17, 42:2.
See above, §â¯2.3.4.
Enrique-Arias, âApuntes.â
See Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §â¯123d.
The adjective âfermosuâ is used in another laÊ¿az, where the Hebrew uses the corresponding Hebrew adjective: â®××¤× × ××£â¬â, âfermosu de términuâ (Ps 48:3). Here also, the Romance translates the Hebrew structure as a construct state.
See Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §â¯141a.
See Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §â¯161bâd.
See Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §â¯161eâf.
See Enrique-Arias, âApuntes,â 115.
Only twice is the active participle translated as a gerund; see above, §â¯7.2.6.6.
According to ClaverÃa Nadal, âLos caracteres de la lengua en el s. XIII,â 483: âUno de los aspectos más interesantes y catacterÃsticos del siglo XIII es la generación de nuevos elementos léxicos mediante las reglas de formación de palabras, un recurso que muestra notable riqueza en los textos de esta época y que puede llegar a constituir una caracterÃstica claramente identificativa de ellos.â
Some of the terms that I deal with in the following may belong to more than one of the mentioned categories; I refer the reader also to the alphabetical glossary at the end of Part 1 of this book for further details about each of them.
See ClaverÃa Nadal, âLos caracteres de la lengua en el s. XIII,â 474â475.
Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âzarazas.â
Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âreiterar.â
Libro de la caza; see CORDE.
Corominas, DCECH, s.v. ârehilar,â âguercho,â and âregalar II.â
The form longincuo/longinquo is revived in the fifteenth century as a learned word; see CORDE; Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âluengo.â
See above, §â¯5.7.
See Menéndez Pidal, OrÃgenes, §â¯953.
See Alberto Varvaro, âIl giudeo-spagnolo prima dellâespulsione del 1492,â Medioevo Romanzo 12, no. 1 (1987): 165; see also Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Dictionnaire de lââ¯occitan medieval,
Menéndez Pidal, OrÃgenes, §â¯418c.
In the Ferrara Bible, the term is spelled âfarropeasâ; in Moshe Lazar, Siddur tefillot: A Womanâs Ladino Prayer Book; Paris B.N., Esp. 668, 15th c., The Sephardic Classical Library 10 (Culver City, CA: Labyrinthos, 1995) it is written â¨â®ï×ר×פ××שâ¬ââ© in the source, which can be read âfarropeasâ or âfarrupeas.â
The cases are: âtrastollenâ (Ps 94:19), âtrastol[l]ermâéâ (Ps 119:117), âtrastol[l]erâ (Jb 2:11), âtrastollironâ (Jb 42:11), and âmi trastuelguâ (Ps 119:16).
See Kasten and Cody, TDMS, s.v. âtrastoller.â
A total of 11 cases are identified in CORDE.
See Sephiha, Le Ladino: Judéo-espagnol calque, 248.
This is what happens, for example, in artejo < L. artÄcÅlu.
See CORDE; on Visión deleytable, see Luis M. Girón-Negrón, Alfonso de la Torreâs Visión Deleytable: Philosophical Rationalism and the Religious Imagination in Fifteenth-Century Spain (Leiden: Brill, 2000).
See DOM, ad loc.
As in thirteenth-century Castilian in general, where, according to ClaverÃa Nadal (âLos caracteres de la lengua en el s. XIII,â 481) Romance loanwords are âcasi exclusivamente galicismos, occitanismos y catalanismos.â
See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âavisarâ, and CORDE; on Coplas de Yosef, see Luis M. Girón-Negrón and Laura Minervini, Las coplas de Yosef: Entre la Biblia y el Midrash en la poesÃa judeoespañola (Madrid: Gredos, 2006).
See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âtemporal.â
See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âÃngrimo.â
See CORDE.
See Corominas, DCECH, s.v. âtórtola.â
See CORDE.
They are the following: âmeçquinuâ (Ps 105:37; Jb 30:25, 31:19), âmeçquinosâ (Ps 74:20), âemeçquinexenâ (Ps 34:11), and âemeçquenexÃronsiâ (Ps 106:43).
Blondheim, Les parlers judéo-romans, 66, identifies the form justiguar as coming from âProvence-Catalogneâ.
See GarcÃa Moreno, DHJE, s.v. âafriÃr.â
See GarcÃa Moreno, DHJE, s.v. âarnancioâ; Nehama, DJE, s.v. âarnásyoâ; Blondheim, Les parlers judéo-romans, 49.
See CORDE; this and other words mentioned here also appear in a recently discovered version of Pirqe Ê¿Abot from the sixteenth century, see Ora (Rodrigue) Schwarzwald and Dov Cohen, âEl descubrimiento de la primera edición impresa en ladino de Pirqué Abot,â Sefarad 80, no. 1 (2020): 117â136.
They are: âdoloriaronâ (Jb 10:8), âdoloriantsiâ (Jb 15:20), âdoloriadâ (Jb 26:13), âdoloriéâ (Jb 31:39), in addition to the noun âdoloriamientuâ (Ps 77:11).
See GarcÃa Moreno, DHJE, s.v. âadoloriar.â
See GarcÃa Moreno, DHJE, and Nehama, DJE, ad loc.
See GarcÃa Moreno, DHJE, ad loc.
Littlefield, âThe Riojan Provenience,â 228, and Biblia romanceada I.I.8, v.
Littlefield, âThe Riojan Provenience,â 229, and Biblia romanceada I.I.8, vi.
Among others, Samuel Berger, Américo Castro, Antonio G. Solalinde, and Margherita Morreale. See Littlefield, âThe Riojan Provenience,â 225â226; Morreale, âArcaÃsmos y aragonesismos,â 7. More recently, MarÃa Wenceslada de Diego Lobejón (El Salterio de Hermann el Alemán [Ms. Escurialense I-j-8] [Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid, 1993], 161â163) has argued that the manuscript was copied in Aragon or by an Aragonese scribe.
Littlefield, âThe Riojan Provenience,â 229, and Biblia romanceada I.I.8, vi.
Littlefield, âThe Riojan Provenience,â 234; Minervini, âLa documentación,â 205.
Littlefield, âThe Riojan Provenience,â 234; Minervini, âLa documentación,â 205.
See above, chap. 1, n. 2, §â¯1.7.3, and §â¯1.13.
On this point, see chap. 6 and, particularly, §â¯6.2.
Translated from Minervini, Testi giudeospagnoli medievali, §â¯6.1.2.