The function of the copula in NENA is to connect the subject with its predicate when the predicate is not a finite verb. Typically, copula clauses involve nominal or pronominal predications of state, attribute, category or identification. The copula also occurs with adverbial predications (adverbs proper and prepositional phrases), which mostly predicate about a contingent state such as temporal or locational situations.1 Finally, the copula in NENA is used with non-finite verbal forms. In J. Dohok, in combination with b- ‘in’ and the Infinitive (i.e. wele bə-šqala, cf. chapter 11, section 15), it expresses the continuous, and seems to be used especially with intransitive stative verbs. In other dialects, parallel constructions commonly express the progressive (i.e. dynamic continuous). In combination with the resultative Participle (i.e. wele šqila, cf. chapter 11, section 14), it conveys the resultative in J. Dohok, and the more general perfect or even past perfective elsewhere in NENA. In J. Dohok, the copula is obligatory in all of these clauses, including in the present tense, which represents an innovation compared to earlier stages of Aramaic. This obligatoriness applies throughout NENA, with the occasional exceptions of non-finite verbal copula, in which the copula can sometimes be dropped in some dialects.
The next section (section 1) presents the morphology of the J. Dohok copulas and the basic rules about their placement in the clause. This overview is followed by descriptions of the semantic and pragmatic functions of particular copula clauses, accompanied by references to other dialects (sections 2–11). Finally, the morphology and syntax of the copula are treated from a comparative and diachronic perspective (section 12). It is shown that the NENA copulas and their syntax reflect a general convergence with Kurdish, but such convergence is far from complete, and differs across the NENA dialects.
Moreover, even though convergence might be the motivation for the emergence of particular forms or constructions, there are also a few NENA-specific features of the copula and its clause. A notable one of these is the so-called L-copula. It probably originates in the existential particle and has a partial parallel in Syriac (ʾiṯ), but serves now as the default 3rd person copula throughout NENA, and is inflected with the L-suffixes (chapter 6, section 1.3).
The greatest variety in the types of copula clauses in J. Dohok and in NENA in general is found in the present tense domain, where the differences concern the type of the copula, its position, the person (1st/2nd vs 3rd person predicates) and the grammatical category of the predicate (part of speech). Most dialects possess (at least) two present tense copulas—a ‘basic’ and a ‘presentative’ one (also called ‘deictic’ or ‘emphatic’ in the NENA literature). For J. Dohok, these two are referred to as, respectively, the ‘basic present copula’ and the wele copula. In J. Dohok and several other dialects, the presentative copula is restricted to the third persons, where it most likely originated. The exact semantic, pragmatic and syntactic distribution of the ‘presentative’ copula varies across dialects, though some core features are (likely) shared across NENA. One basic feature of presentative copula constructions is that they are associated with events, which typically involve verbal and adverbial predicates. The cross-dialectal differences concern the extent to which the presentative copula has been grammaticalised in these eventive clauses. The data from dialects such as C. Barwar suggest that this copula originated in presentative clauses, typically drawing attention to a situation in the here-and-now and thus, arguably, often with a thetic force. Such presentative clauses are especially common with verbal and adverbial predicates, which, in semantic terms, present contingent states. In J. Dohok, however, the presentative copula has now been grammaticalised in all types of non-finite verbal and adverbial clauses, rather than being a marked structure to convey theticity.
The presence or absence of a lexical subject has not been taken into account systematically, though I have observed no strong influence on the word order of copula clauses. A corpus-based study of verbal clauses in J. Dohok, by contrast, has revealed a strong ‘verb medial’, that is, ‘subject-verb-object’ preference in transitive clauses, as well as the ‘subject-verb-goal’ order in the intransitive domain (Noorlander and Molin 2022, 240, 248).
1 J. Dohok Copulas: Morphology and Basic Syntax Rules
1.1 Basic Copula: the L-Copula and the Quasi-verbal Copula
J. Dohok has two present tense two copula paradigms. The paradigm of the ‘basic’ copula has independent forms (which occur before the predicate) and enclitic forms, transcribed with ‘=’. Within this paradigm, the 1st/2nd person forms are arguably more clitic-like in that they are altogether invisible to stress, which falls on the penultimate syllable of the word to which the copula is cliticised. By contrast, the 3rd person forms (henceforth ‘L-copulas’) cause the lengthening of the vowel in the penultimate syllable of the whole unit (predicate + copula) (cf. chapter 3, section 3.2.3 for more details). This difference is apparent in the following minimal pair:
|
gúrgā=le |
[ˈgurgaːle] |
(102 ms) |
‘he is a wolf’ |
|
gúrga wən |
[ˈgurgawən] |
(61 ms) |
‘I am a wolf’ |
Table 43
The basic present copula in J. Dohok
|
3ms |
(i-)le |
|
3fs |
(i-)la |
|
3pl |
(i-)lu |
|
2ms |
w-ǝt |
|
2ms |
w-at |
|
2pl |
w-etun |
|
1ms |
w-ǝn |
|
1fs |
w-an |
|
1pl |
w-ax |
The 1st/2nd person forms are reminiscent of the šaqəl inflection of the verb ‘be’ (*h-w-y, hawe), e.g. wən ‘I am (ms)’ (copula): hawən ‘I may be (ms)’, cf. chapter 6, section 5.6, and are henceforth called ‘quasi-verbal’. This similarity, however, likely reflects a formal convergence, rather than a shared morphological origin, as is suggested later in this chapter. These forms are synchcorincally analysable as consisting of the stem w and the E-suffixes of the sort found on strong verbs. An exception is the 2pl form, whose suffix -etun is reminiscent of the final-y class (like the verb ‘be’), contrasting with the ‘strong’ suffix -itun. The longer stem iw, common elsewhere in NENA, has been lost in J. Dohok, as well as in J. Zakho and J. Betanure (though not in J. Amediya).
The L-copulas beginning with i- are used in pre-predicate positions (though this position is extremely rare as shown below), and as enclitics with predicates ending in a consonant, e.g. ḅāš=ile ‘he is good’. Forms beginning with l- occur after predicates that end in a vowel, e.g. ʿamuqa=le ‘it is deep’.
1.2 The wele Copula (Contingent State and Verbal)
The alternative present copula in J. Dohok exists only for the third persons and it an independent prepredicative copula. It overlaps formally with the alternative past copula wele. In some other dialects, these two show distinct syntactic behaviour (see below).
Table 44
The wele (contingent state/eventive) copula in J. Dohok
|
3ms |
wele |
3pl |
welu |
|
3fs |
wela |
1.3 Negative Present Copula
The negative copula is always pre-predicative and independent. Unlike the declarative one, it has only one paradigm. It consists of the negated form of the basic copula, before this copula lost the segment i- (e.g. 1ms *la iwən > *laywən > lewən; cf. the affirmative wən). The third person forms are based on the same stem as the 1st/2nd persons, rather than on the L-copula. This applies to virtually all Jewish dialects, in contrast to the majority of Christian dialects (see chapter 10, section 12.2 below). The negative copula paradigm has two allomorphs available in several forms, the latter occurring in fast speech.
Table 45
The negative present copula in J. Dohok
|
3ms |
lewe |
3pl |
lewu |
|
3fs |
lewa |
||
|
2ms |
lewǝt/lēt |
2pl |
léwetun/letun |
|
2fs |
lewat/lāt |
||
|
1ms |
lewǝn/lēn |
1pl |
lewax/lēx |
|
1fs |
lewan/lān |
1.4 Basic Past Copula
The past copula is comprised of the basic present copula (attested in the present in the 1st/2nd persons), followed by the past convertor wa (cf. chapter 11, section 8).
Table 46
Basic past copula in J. Dohok
|
3ms |
wewa |
3pl |
wewa |
|
3fs |
wawa |
||
|
2ms |
wǝtwa |
2pl |
wétuwa |
|
2ms |
watwa |
||
|
1ms |
wǝnwa |
1pl |
waxwa |
|
1fs |
wanwa |
1.5 Alternative Past Copula (wele)
J. Dohok possesses an alternative past copula paradigm, whose distribution appears to overlap with that of the basic past copula. The 1st/2nd person forms of the past wele paradigm could be elicited (e.g. 1sg weli), but are unattested in the corpus, while the basic past copula is attested many times. This paradigm is the šqəlle inflection of the verb ‘be’ (*h-w-y, hawe). I have no examples of this copula being negated.
Table 47
Alternative past copula in J. Dohok
|
3ms |
wele |
3pl |
welu |
|
3fs |
wela |
1.6 Negative Past Copula
The negative past copula is formed with the negative particle la followed by the basic past copula, and the stress is always placed on the negator, for instance, là wawa ‘she was not’.
1.7 Future and Irrealis Copulas
In the future and the irrealis, the copula is formed by the respective form of the verb ‘be’ (*h-w-y, hawe), for example:
(1) 3 (elicited)
balki
hoy-a
go be
θ amaybe
irr.be-3fs
in house
‘She might be at home.’
2 The Semantics and Pragmatics of NENA Copula Clauses
2.1 Semantic Features: Permanent vs Contingent States
The most important semantic distinction for the present discussion is that of permanence vs contingency. In general, constructions with the presentative copula in NENA (wele in J. Dohok) are characteristic of contingent states, while the basic copula correlates with permanent property predications (cf. Khan 2008b, 625–626). This semantic distinction tends to correlate with the part of speech of the predicate: nouns are likely to predicate about the referent’s permanent features, such as its category or identity (e.g. ‘a Turk’, ‘the president of Turkey’). Adjectives can describe states and properties of entities which are either permanent (e.g. ‘Turkish’) or contingent (e.g. ‘tired’). Adverbials (whether prepositional phrases or adverbs proper) typically describe a referent’s ‘location’ within space or time. Locations are intuitively unstable, especially when the referent is animate. While there is an entire continuum of the degrees of permanence or contingence, true permanence can be tested with the so-called ‘lifelong effect’. When converted to the past tense, a predication about a truly permanent state ought to imply that the referent is no longer in existence (Carlson 1980), for instance: ‘the inhabitants of this island were Polynesian.’
2.2 Pragmatic Features of Copula Clauses: Thetic vs Categorical
Khan’s (2018) definition of clauses with the presentative (‘deictic’) copula is that they are ‘thetic’. Though no uniform definition of theticity can be found in the literature, Khan relies on Sasse’s classical notion that thetic statements are deictic in nature: they draw attention to a situation and present it as ‘an undivided whole’, while categorical statements ‘name an entity and make a statement about it’ (Khan 2018, 245, paraphrasing Sasse 1987).2 Khan’s view implies that theticity is motivated by discourse pragmatics: a speaker chooses to package a discourse unit as thetic in order to, for instance, draw attention to new situations or provide additional information to the discourse, rather than developing it (Khan 2018, 252–255). Khan’s notions of theticity should thus be kept separate from slightly different definitions, such as those closely bound with information structure in the strict sense. According to Rosengren (1997) and Lambrecht (2000), for example, thetic clauses contain no information which is presupposed, and are thus entirely in focus. Thetic clauses as defined by Khan, however, are not necessarily ‘all-new’.
In Khan’s framework, the thetic function of ‘drawing attention to situations’ fits the profile of contingent states and eventive predications, which licenses considering such constructions thetic. Namely, both the continuous/progressive (copula+in-Infinitive) and the perfect/resultative (copula+Participle) serve to draw attention to spatial and temporal situations, such as ‘look, he has come!’ or ‘look, she is sleeping’.
Khan’s notion of ‘drawing attention to situations’ is useful in that it certainly captures the pragmatics of many contingent state copula clauses (which often use the presentative copula). However, theticity as defined by Khan is arguably difficult to measure for individual cases, being primarily defined by the speaker’s intention (see above). Thus, the existence of particular copula type in a sentence and word order should certainly not make us assume that the clause in question is thetic, lest our definition of NENA thetic clauses becomes circular. Indeed, the multiplicity of approaches to theticity in the literature shows that the exact definition depends on the parameters set to measure it (e.g. syntax, prosody, information structure or discourse pragmatics).
Moreover, we should not assume a uniform function of particular types of copula clauses across NENA. If one wanted to measure theticity, possible criteria would include syntactic context and the type of speech acts, so these criteria are considered in this study. For instance, wh- questions typically inquire about a situation which is presupposed (e.g. ‘Why didn’t you come yesterday?’), so we do not expect that attention should be drawn to that situation by a marked structure (cf. Rosengren 1997, 472). As for syntactic context, it is shown in the chapter on verbal semantics that subordinate clauses such as relative ones are prototypically pragmatically unassertive: they do not present information considered new to the listener (Cristofaro 2003, 30–50). For instance, in the sentence ‘the man that you saw with me yesterday is my doctor,’ the main assertion is the phrase ‘is my doctor’, making it unlikely that a speaker would draw attention to the clause ‘that you saw with me yesterday’.
The following sections study the semantic features of the different types of copula clauses in J. Dohok, accompanied with comparative notes. Reference is also made to their pragmatic features, if these can be described by the above-introduced parameters or by context. Copula clauses are grouped by the predicate’s part of speech category and the subject’s person, because the wele copula in J. Dohok only exists in the third persons.
3 Wele/Basic Copula+Verbal Predicate
3.1 3rd Person Clauses
In J. Dohok, verbal predicates3 can only occur with the pre-predicative wele copula, apparently with the exception of clauses with an extraposed subject (which is in narrow focus).4 In other contexts, constructions with the basic (i.e. L-) copula either before or after the predicate are unattested. The fact that the basic copula is not permissible in most environments and that wele occurs even in ‘non-thetic’ environments suggests that the primary association of the wele copula construction is not pragmatic, but rather grammatical: associated with verbal predicates in J. Dohok. The use of the wele copula is illustrated in (2):
(2) 1b/57
mər-ru
ta mằləkˈ
flān
we-lu
ʾə̀
θ y-e,ˈmdagəl
xa-dùgla.ˈ
perf.say-3pl
to king
some.people
cop.deix-3pl
res.come-pl
lie.3ms
certain-lie
‘They said to the king ‘some people have come, [one] shall tell [you] a lie.’
The wele copula is clearly favoured even in contexts which are pragmatically non-assertive, such as relative clauses and questions, for instance:5
(3) 5 (elicited)
ṭamằ
we-le
ʾə
θ y-aʾaxon-ox?ˈ
why
cop.deix-3ms
res.come-ms
brother-poss.2ms
‘Why has your brother come [here]?’
(4) 1 (elicited)
Context: ‘I have two sisters. One lives in Tel Aviv, the other in Jerusalem.’
xa
θ -id-we-la
skən-ta
go
tel ʾavìv,
g-lep-a
peš-a
dòxtor.ˈ
sister-1sg
subr-cop.deix-3fs
res.live-fs
in
Tel Aviv
real-study-3fs
irr-become-3fs
doctor.
‘My sister who lives in Tel Aviv is studying to become a doctor.’
This distribution indicates that in J. Dohok, the construction wele + predicate has been grammaticalised in verbal clauses, rather than being an optional, marked structure to convey theticity. This, in turn, means that there is no way to formally encode a thetic verbal clause in J. Dohok, or to emphasise a situation’s contingency as opposed to a relatively persistent verbal predication like the one in (4) above.6
This overwhelming preference for wele in verbal clauses also results in a situation in which the L-copula—in contrast to many other dialects—is almost always postverbal (see below). The L-copula is thus associated with stable and permanent states more exclusively in J. Dohok than is the case in many other NENA varieties. LD dialects such as J. Betanure and J. Amediya allow for a pre-predicate L-copula with verbal predicates, including clearly contingent states, as illustrated for J. Betanure in (5):7
(5) J. Betanure (Mutzafi 2008a, 50)
le
bə-rgada
cop.prs.3ms
in-inf.shiver
‘He is shivering.’
According to Mutzafi (2008b, 57), the presentative copula in J. Betanure (wele or wəlle) sometimes adds a ‘deictic-presentative meaning’, though at other times apparently no such nuance is added (ibid). This indicates that even in J. Betanure, the two types of copula clauses (i.e. wele + predicate and le + predicate) are to some extent grammatically and pragmatically in free distribution: they can both occur with verbal predicates and do not necessarily add a thetic nuance. J. Zakho—though in principle allowing both copulas with verbal predicates (‘rhemes’)—exhibits a strong preference for the ‘presentative’ copula (wele; Cohen 2008a, 60). When the ordinary copula is used, it is apparently postverbal (Hoberman 1991, 174), which contrasts with the position of the copula in verbal clauses in J. Dohok, J. Betanure and J. Amediya.
In clauses with the Infinitive in C. Barwar, both the presentative, pre-predicative and the basic, post-predicative copulas occur, i.e. hole qṭala and qṭalɛle (< qṭalɛ=le) ‘he is killing’. The stand-alone qṭala also occurs. According to Khan, these three constructions differ in the degrees of ‘salience’ which they convey—apparently, with their theticity.8 Hole qṭala conveys the greatest degree ‘salience’ (Khan 2008b, 704–705). C. Barwar is thus capable of expressing a greater variety of pragmatic nuance in verbal copula clauses than J. Dohok. This comparative discussion is summarised in Table 48 above. Indirect evidence for the persistence of a thetic/presentative function can also be brought forward for C. Marga (historically south-estern Turkey, now mostly north-western Iraq). According to Noorlander (2023, 213–214), the hole copula in this dialect (deictic/presentative/thetic) is incompatible with interrogative clauses.
Table 48
Features of verbal copula clauses in LD and C. Barwar
|
Ordinary (L-copula) used alongside ‘presentative’ |
Ordinary (L-) copula attested in post-predicate positions |
Cases with no copula in main clauses reported |
A marked deictic/presentative/thetic structure |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
J. Dohok |
no (except clauses with extraposed subject) |
no |
no |
no |
|
J. Zakho |
yes; infrequently |
yes |
no |
wele + predicate (but not always with presentative force) |
|
J. Amediya |
yes |
no |
no |
wəlle + predicate (always with presentative force?) |
|
J. Betanure |
yes |
no |
no |
wəlle + predicate (but not always with presentative force) |
|
C. Barwar |
yes |
yes |
yes |
hole + predicate |
In clauses with narrow focus on the subject when the subject is extraposed in J. Dohok, speakers both accept and produce both types of copula, for instance:
(6) 1 (elicited)
Sàra
(d-)we-la
/t-ila
skən-ta
ʾaxxa.ˈ
sarah
subr-cop.deix-3fs
/subr-cop.prs.3fs
res.live-fs
here
‘[It is] Sarah (who) is living here.’
In NENA in general, the use of the ‘basic’ copula is common in such cases; the copula typically follows the constituent in narrow focus (Khan 2018). The J. Dohok examples include the relativiser (d-), which precedes the copula and follows the extraposed subject, making the copula formally part of the subordinate clause. For other dialects, however, clauses without the relativiser are also documented. In such cases, the focal status of the subject is indicated only by its attraction of nucleus stress (like in (6) above). Apparently, in both J. Dohok and other dialects, it is common to use the ‘basic’ copula in such constructions regardless of the semantics of the predicate. Extraposition in NENA and its pragmatic features are explored in greater depth in Khan (2018) and Cohen (2008b).
3.2 1st/2nd Persons: Ordinary Copula + Predicate
In the 1st/2nd persons, the basic copula is used in all types of verbal clauses and—like the wele copula in the 3rd persons—is always pre-predicative:
(7) 2 (conversation)
wən
lip-a
ṭòṛa.ˈ
cop.prs.1ms
res.study-ms
Torah
‘I have studied the Hebrew Bible.’
This structure (i.e. basic copula + predicate) is also characteristic of J. Betanure and J. Amediya (though not J. Zakho, which has a post-predicative basic copula), and of NENA more broadly.
4. Wele/Basic Copula + Non-verbal Predicate Clauses
4.1 3rd Person Clauses: wele (Presentative Copula) + Predicate
The clause consisting of the wele copula followed by a predicate is attested with adverbial and adjectival predicates.9 With adverbial predicates, like with verbs, the wele copula is attested even for states that are stable (e.g. (8) below), being avoided only with permanent states. This suggests primarily a grammatical association (the wele copula + adverbial predicates). With adjectives, it is used with contingent states in some cases, and appears to retain its presentative/thetic force.
Adverbial predicates
(8) 3a/25
wì,ˈ
žàri,ˈ
papùki,ˈ
wi
we-lu
d-la
ʾĭxàla!ˈ
oh
poor
miserable
oh
cop.deix-3pl
without
food
‘Oh, poor ones, miserable ones, oh look, they are without food!’
The sentence in (9) below should be interpreted as also having an adverbial predicate (i.e. it predicates about where the subject lives), though the expected preposition (go ‘in’) is missing. It demonstrates the preference of wele even with relatively stable properties.
(9) 3f/11
g-əmr-i
ʾi
θ ənxa-huðàyaˈ
we-le
b-amr-an-nax
Hšikunim bèt.H
real-say-3pl
exist
certain-Jew
cop.deix-3ms
fut-say-a.1fs-o.2fs
estate no.2
‘They say “there is a Jew, he lives—let’s say—[in the] housing estate number 2.” ’
The wele copula is even used in ‘non-thetic’ contexts such as relative clauses:10
(10) 2, 3 (elicited)
ʾo
masḥaf
dət
wele
{t-ile}
rəš
šùlḥanˈ
dìdi
=le.ˈ
dem.ms
book
subr
cop.deix-3ms
{subr-cop.prs.3ms}
on
table
poss.1sg
=cop.prs.3ms
‘This book which is on the table is mine.’
Adjectival predicates
With adjectival predicates, the wele copula occurs only with contingent states, and apparently retains its thetic force, in contrast to verbal and adverbial predicates, since the basic copula is also used with adjectival predicates (see chapter 10, section 5.1 below). The predication in (11), for instance, is arguably a good candidate for a thetic construction: it draws attention to the striking situation that the girl Khsisene remains visually impaired, despite having received exensive treatment. The thetic force of wele with adjectives is also implicit in the fact that relative clauses with wele + adjectival predicate could not be elicited.11
(11) 3c/25
Context: ‘You went to Mosul, to Baghdad and they couldn’t cure her? How could I cure her eyes?’
kappàra,
xsisə̀nne,ˈ
hàr
we-la
šahar-ta.ˈ
hàr
la
k-xazy-a.ˈ
poor
Khsisene
still
cop.deix.3fs
blind-fs
still
neg
real-see-3fs
‘Poor thing, Khsisene, look, she is still blind. She still cannot see.’
4.2 1st/2nd Person Clauses: Basic Copula + Predicate
In the 1st/2nd persons, predications about non-permanent states (with adverbial and adjectival predicates) have a basic copula before the predicate. Only one noun is attested within this type of clause, which is an introductory one (‘I am …’). This fits with the observations on other NENA varieties, where the structure ‘(pronoun +) (basic) copula + predicate’ is apparently associated with clauses that present or introduce a referent.
Adverbial predicates
With adverbials, the order ‘copula + predicate’ is attested in all environments, including (asyndetic) subordinate clauses:
(12) 3d/81
ʾatta
yaʾ-e
ʾana
wən
ʾaxxa
b-qaṭl-ì-li!ˈ
now
know-3pl
I
cop.prs.1ms
here
fut-kill-3pl-o.1sg
‘Now [if] they find out [that] I am here, they will kill me!’
Adjectival predicates
(13) 3d/37
g-əmr-a
ʾe,
wat
kurkamàn-ta!ˈ
real-say-3fs
oh
cop.prs.2fs
yellow-fs
‘She says “oh, your face is yellow!” ’
Noun predicates
The only noun predicate following the basic copula has a pronominal (i.e. referentially prominent) subject, and is a self-introduction of the speaker.
(14) 3d/84
là
māx-
ə́tu
-li,ˈ
ʾana
wən
wazī̀rˈ
go
ḥukùma!ˈ
neg
beat
a.2pl
-o.1sg
I
cop.prs.1ms
minister
in
government
‘Don’t beat me, I am a minister of the government!’
According to Khan, the construction ‘subject + copula + predicate’ is a marked structure for ‘highly topical’ referents in NENA (e.g. C. Barwar—Khan 2008b, 626). As the C. Barwar example in (15) below demonstrates, it even occurs even with predicates that express a permanent property. It is now always entirely clear, however, what makes a referent ‘highly topical’, since ‘the [Lenten] fast’ as an abstract concept would not rank high on a referentiality scale. Perhaps this order occurs with clauses that provide a definition in some sense, that is, predicate about a characteristic considered essential to a referent’s identity. Thus, in (14), it is the speaker’s identity as a government official that should guarantee his personal safety. In (15), the Lenten fast is the fast that lasts fifty days, contrasting with other fast periods. This ‘(subject +) (basic)copula + predicate’ structure is also used with introductions (by a name) in some NENA dialects, which likewise refer to an invidual’s unique identity.12 Still, whether a predicate is ‘defining’ or not can sometimes be a matter of speculation.
(15) C. Barwar (2008b, 626)
Context: ‘We had a fast (…)’
ṣawma
ʾile
xamší
yomà
θ a.fast
cop.prs.he
fifty
days
‘[This] fast lasts fifty days.’
4.3 Clauses with the Participle (wele + Predicate in 3rd Persons)
In the J. Dohok corpus, clauses including a Participle form of a verb in the vast majority of cases follow the ‘verbal’ copula syntax: (wele) copula + predicate.13 Such predications cover the entire semantic spectrum from events to non-permanent states, and thus include both ‘verbal’ and ‘adjectival’ interpretations of the Participle form.14 This means that in J. Dohok, the meaning of such predicates—‘eventive’ vs ‘stative’—cannot be determined through formal syntactic features such as word order and copula type, but only on the predicate’s actionality and the broader context.
This ambiguity in meaning is especially pertinent to intransitive verbs which are telic, and thus typically agentive. In the Participle form, such verbs can refer either to a dynamic event or to the state following that event (cf. Khan 2008b, 653–660), as illustrated in example (16) below. The distinction between eventive (dynamic) and stative meaning can remain ambiguous in cases where it cannot be determined from the context.
(16) 1 (conversation)
we
-la
tu-ta
cop.deix
-3fs
res.sit-fs
‘She sat down/is sitting …’
By contrast, atelic predicates (with experiencer subjects) always have a stative, adjective-like interpretation in the Participle form, as demonstrated in (17) below. Such predicates, however, still prefer the construction wele (3rd persons)/basic copula (1st/2nd) + predicate in J. Dohok, which is due to their semantic connection with contingent states.
(17) 3c/22
wi!
ʾilaha
naṭər,
wat
smə̀x-ta!ˈ
oh
God
keep.3ms
cop.prs.2fs
pregnant-fs
‘Oh! God keep [you], you are pregnant!’
A similar formal-syntactic ambiguity arguably applies to transitive events which launch a state, especially in clauses with the patient as the grammatical subject. This ambiguity is demonstrated in (18) and applies to verbs such as t-w-r (tawər) ‘break’ and m-l-y (male) ‘fill’.
(18) 1b/18
ʾe
kǝs-ta
we-la
mli-
θ azùze.
dem.fs
bag-fs
cop.deix-3fs
res.fill-fs
money
‘This bag has been filled/is full [of] coins.’
A similar ambiguity is reported for J. Betanure in clauses which have a pre-predicative copula, while the order ‘predicate + copula’ apparently suggests a ‘stative meaning’ (Mutzafi 2008a, 56–57).15 In J. Dohok, however, the order ‘predicate + basic copula’ is extremely rare with the Participle, meaning that most cases involving the Participle in this dialect are ambiguous. Hoberman argues that in J. Amediya, the position of the copula can help disambiguate a stative from a dynamic interpretation of the Participle, though in his examples, this difference seems to be lexical rather than usage-dependent. He thus lists kpina ‘hungry’ among stative adjectives, because kpina precedes the copula, rather than following. However, a single lexeme can have both a stative and an eventive interpretation, as shown above, so in principle, it would be expected to occur both before and after the copula.
5 Non-verbal Predicate + Basic Copula
5.1 3rd Person Copula Clauses: Predicate + Basic Copula
The enclitic copula occurs with adverbial, adjectival, pronominal and noun predicates. With adverbial predicates, it is only possible with properties that are truly permanent. With nouns and pronouns, only this construction is attested in the corpus, which is expected in light of the association of nouns and pronouns with the permanent property. With adjectives, the order ‘predicate + basic copula’ occurs not only with permanent states, but also contingent ones, where both the basic and the wele copula are possible.
Adverbial predicates
(19) 4a/1
yə̀mm-iˈ
mən
mòṣul
=ila.ˈ
moṣul
g-maḥk-e
ʿằrabi.ˈ
mother-poss.1sg
from
Mosul
=cop.3fs
Mosul
speak-3pl
Arabic
‘My mother is from Mosul. They speak Arabic [in] Mosul.’
Adjectival predicates
Adjectival predicates describing stable or permanent properties typically have an enclitic copula:
(20) 3b/71
qurbana
rušalàyim,ˈ
basə̀mtā=la.ˈ
dear.thing
Jerusalem.fs
good-fs=COP.PRS.3fs
‘Beloved Jerusalem—it is good.’
In other cases, the copula is cliticised to adjectival predicates which clearly predicate about a contingent state, as shown in (21) below. This suggests that both type of copula clauses are available in such cases. As was suggested above, the wele copula still retains its thetic force with such predicates, and is optionally used with such predicates.
(21) 1c/82
gurga
ži
qam-yāsər-re
reš
gyàn-e,ˈ
brìndar.inv
=ile.ˈ
wolf
too
perf-bind.a.3ms-o.3ms
head
self-3ms
wounded
=cop.prs-3ms
‘As for the wolf, he bandaged his head—he is wounded.’
Noun and pronoun predicates
With nouns, only the ‘predicate + basic copula’ order is attested (except for two specific pragmatic context, see below). Most nouns predicate about a permanent property, but stable yet non-permanent features are also attested (e.g. in (22) below). The absence of wele even when the relevant semantic or pragmatic parameters are met (non-permanence and spatial deixis, as in (22)) suggests a grammaticalisation of the basic enclitic copula with noun predicates.
(22) 3d/32
Context: ‘Today, a Jew won’t be seen wandering in the streets. Look at this one!’
ʾe
yàl-tā=la,ˈ
mà
huðe-
θ a!ˈdem.fs
child-fs=cop.prs.3fs
what
Jew-fs
‘This one is a child, what [do you mean that she is] a Jew!’
5.2 1st/2nd Person Copula Clauses: Predicate + Basic Copula
In the corpus, the construction ‘predicate + basic copula’ is only attested with a noun, but is expected to occur also with adjectives and adverbs expressing permanence.
(23) 1c/41
gùrg-a
wən,ˈ
k-əxl-ən
nàš-e.ˈ
wolf-ms
cop.prs.1ms
real-eat-1ms
man-pl
‘I am a wolf. I eat people.’
6 Basic Copula + Predicate (Non-verbal, Permanent Property)
In J. Dohok, the ‘basic copula + predicate’ order is attested in the apodosis of a conditional clause; one example is found in the corpus:
(24) 1b/86
u-ʾēn
ila
dùgle,ˈ
hàl-li
kəs-ta.ˈ
and-if
cop.prs.3fs
lie
give.imp.sg-r.1sg
bag
‘And if it is a lie, give me the bag [of money].’
7 Summary of Present Tense Copula Clauses in J. Dohok
A notable feature of J. Dohok is the strong complementary distribution of wele and the basic copula in the 3rd persons: while the former is always pre-predicative, the latter is almost always enclitic to the predicate.
Moreover, the semantic and pragmatic correlates of particular copula constructions are specific to the type of the predicate. In verbal and adverbial predicates, the construction ‘wele + predicate’ (3rd persons) and ‘basic copula + predicate’ (1st and 2nd persons) are not restricted to clauses which draw attention to situations with spatial or temporal deixis, that is, thetic constructions. This is contrary to what has been claimed for many other NENA dialects (e.g. LD varieties and C. Barwar). Rather, with verbal and adverbial predicates in J. Dohok, the pre-predicative (wele) copula is often the only possible one including in predications of stable property. It also occurs in prototypically ‘non-thetic’ environments such as wh -questions.
In the 1st/2nd persons, one also finds a complementary distribution between verbal and adverbial, versus noun predicates (with adjectival ones being somewhere in the middle), though this is only expressed in word order. The (erstwhile presentative) wele copula only exists in the 3rd persons, with only the basic copula being available in the remaining verbal persons. Thus, in most environments with verbal and adverbial predicates, only the pre-predicative position is available for the basic copula. This distribution makes J. Dohok similar LD dialects such as J. Betanure and J. Amediya, but partly distinct from J. Zakho, which has a post-predicative basic copula with verbal predicates.
The grammaticalisation of the ‘presentative’ wele copula in J. Dohok with verbal and adverbial predicates, including ‘non-thetic’ and in pragmatically non-assertive environments apparently distinguishes the dialect of the Jews of Dohok form the other LD varieties. No LD grammars mention subordinate use of the wele/wəlle copulas; in J. Zakho, this reportedly does not occur (Cohen 2017, 2–3). Such an extension of the originally presentative copula could be a local development within NENA. The use of the ‘presentative’ copula hole in non-assertive clauses such as relative and interrogative ones has also been noted for Christian dialects in the vicinity of Dohok, for instance Mar Yaqo and Aradhin.16
With 3rd person adjectival predicates, the two copula constructions (‘wele + predicate’ and ‘predicate + basic copula’) seem to be partly in free distribution with states that are not permanent. This distribution is not completely free, it seems, since the construction ‘wele + predicate’ appears to be favoured especially in discourse contexts which license a thetic construction. Nouns (and likely personal pronouns) in the corpus do not occur in the construction ‘wele copula + predicate’ (3rd person), appearing to be incompatible with it. Even clauses predicating about a non-permanent state have an enclitic copula, suggesting that the key factor determining the choice of clause is grammatical (noun as a predicate).
There are three contexts where the grammaticalisation of word order (and copula type in the 3rd person) and the part of speech of the predicate do not seem to apply (consistently), and ought to be explored further. One is clauses with extraposed (i.e. focalised) subjects, where the copula is attested within the relative clause rather than with the subject, is pre-predicative and ‘basic’, apparently regardless of the part of speech and semantics of the predicate. The second case is the apodosis of conditional clauses, which (in the attested example in the 3rd person) places the basic copula before a stable property predicate. A corresponding affirmative clause should have a basic copula that is enclitic to the predicate. Another unique category are introductory, ‘definitional’ clauses, where the order ‘subject (= pronoun) + copula + predicate’ is attested with a 1st person example.
8 Past Tense Copula Clauses
8.1 Clauses with the Basic Past Copula
In the overwhelming majority of cases, past copula clauses are formed with the basic past copula. Other types of past copula exist, and appear to be in free distribution with the basic past copula (see below). Unlike in the present, there are few clear syntactic patterns for different (semantic and grammatical) types of clauses. The only clearly observable rule is that verbal predicates come after the copula, in parallel to the present, for instance:
(25) 1d/5
ʾana
wən-wa
tiw-a
qapràna.ˈ
I
cop.1ms-pst
res.sit-ms
rooftop_platform
‘I had sat/been sitting [on] a rooftop platform.’
This situation in past copula distribution (the only fixed rule being pre-predicative copula in verbal clauses) is also reported for J. Amediya (Hoberman 1989, 178). With may be similar with adverbial predicates in J. Dohok; for instance, the copula is preverbal in (26) below. However, only a handful of adverbial clauses are attested, which makes this rule a tentative one.
(26) 3g/1
gòr-iˈ
we-wa
go
xastaxàna,ˈ
xastaxan-ət
har tsofìm.ˈ
husband-1sg
cop.3ms-pst
in
hospital,
hospital-obl
Mt Scopus.
‘My husband was in the hospital, the Mount Scopus hospital.’
In nominal predicates, there are no firm rules for copula placement (cf. (27) and (28) below), but the post-predicate position predominates in the corpus. In the case of nouns, this situation in the past tense domain contrasts with the present, where the order ‘predicate + copula’ is fixed.
(27) 3d/103
Context: relations between Jews and Muslims in Iraq.
we-wa
jiràn-e,ˈ
xa
g-əb-e-wa
ʾo-xeta … ˈ
cop.3pl-pst
neighbour-pl
one
real-love-3ms-pst
dem.ms-another
‘[In Iraq,] they were [all] neighbours, they loved each other …’
(28) 3d/104
kùll-u
jiran-e
we-wa,ˈ
məšəlmàne,ˈ
mux
HʾaḥìmH
we-wa.ˈ
all-3pl
neighbour-pl
cop.3pl-pst
Muslims
like
brothers
cop.3pl-pst
‘[In Iraq,] they were all neighbours, [the] Muslims were like brothers [to us].’
8.2 Clauses with k-hawe-wa ‘Used to Be’ as a Copula
In a minority of cases, the past copula is apparently expressed with the verb hawe (*h-w-y) ‘be’ in the k-šaqəl-wa form. Forms like that in (29) may be motivated by the explicit marking of habituality. Thus, the example in (29) describes a state of affair characteristic of a given period (see further chapter 11, section 1.2)—in this case, the traditional life in Iraq prior to the immigration of Israel and modernisation. A larger data set would be necessary to show, however, whether and to what extent the distribution between the basic past copula and the verb ‘be’ is complementary. The data I have collectedshow at least that the basic past copula is also attested with adverbial predications about a ‘habitual’, i.e. characteristic situation, as illustrated in (30). This indicates at the least that the basic copula also occurs with habitual meanings.
(29) 3b/51
baxt-à
θ aˈk-aw-e-wa
l-bè
θ a.ˈwoman-pl
real-be-3pl-pst
to-home.
‘[As for] women, they used to be at home.’
(30) 3d/105
go
daʿăwətyà
θ amuxðe
we-wa.ˈ
in
weddings
together
cop.3pl-pst
‘On weddings, they [Jews and Muslims] used to be together.’
8.3 Alternative Past Copula and Its Identity with the Present wele Copula
In the LD dialects, the past copula construction can also be expressed through apocopated šqəlle forms of the verb ‘be’ (cf. Table 47 above), e.g. 3ms wele. This usage contrasts with the unapocopated forms such as hwele, meaning ‘he was born.’ On the other hand, this past copula is formally identical with the present presentative copula in J. Dohok and Zakho. As a result, in the J. Dohok corpus, it is difficult to distinguish these two copulas, which, in turn, renders it challenging to determine the distributional and functional differences between the basic and the wele past copulas. While the entire paradigm could be elicited (in contrast to wele as the present, contingent state copula), it appears to be highly infrequent.
In the J. Zakho corpus, the two are distinguished in word order: the presentive copula is always pre-predicative, while the past copula is post-predicate, as has been observed by Cohen (2017).17 In this dialect, wele is the default past copula. In J. Dohok, however, all attested examples of the wele copula (regardless of whether they are analysed as present or past) are pre-predicative; see the examples in (31) and (32) below. Unlike in J. Zakho, therefore, the two wele copulas in J. Dohok are not in complementary distribution, causing sometimes a complete overlap with the wele presentative copula clause. Still, further data could show that the order ‘predicate + past copula wele’ is also possible, if not statistically more dominant. Ideally, 1st 2nd forms should be collected (e.g. welox 2ms), as such forms would be unambiguously past. In J. Zakho where wele is commonly used also with the past meaning, this distributive restriction of the wele past copula is likely an attempt to disambiguate between the two meanings of wele
(31)–(32) below are likely examples of the past copula wele, unless we assume that they are past temporal values is inferred from the contex. The latter is possible, but not common.
(31) 1d/27
θ e-leʾaxxa,
g-əb-e
qāṭəl-lu
kùll-u
huðay-e
d-we-lu
go
d-a
mə̀nṭaqa.ˈ
perf.come-3ms
here
real-want-3ms
kill.a.3ms-3pl
all-3pl
Jew-pl
subr-perf.be-3pl
/cop.deix-3pl
in
obl-dem.fs
region.
‘[The Mufti of Jerusalem] came here, wanting to kill all the Jews who were in that region.’
(32) 5a/32
ʾur-ra
šàb-
θ a,ˈnaš-e
we-lu
go
knə̀šta.ˈ
perf.enter-3fs
Shabbat-fs
man-pl
perf.be-3pl/cop.deix-3pl
in
synagogue
‘The Sabbath had begun, people were/are in the synagogue.’
9 Negated Copula Clauses (All Clause Types)
A negated copula always precedes the predicate18 (so that the position of the negated copula corresponds to the pre-verbal position of the verbal negator la). The negated copula furthermore always carries nucleus stress, as is apparent in (33) and (34) below. This corresponds to the stress on the verbal negator la, and highlights the negator’s focal role within clausal negation.
(33) 1b/30
ʾeha
lè-wa
dugle.ˈ
dem.fs
neg-cop.prs.3fs
lie
‘This is not [a] lie.’
(34) 3d/75
là
we-wa
mux
daxxa … ˈ
neg
cop.3ms-pst
like
here
‘(In Iraq,) it wasn’t like here.’
10 Irrealis Copula Clauses
The irrealis copula is formed through the verb *h-w-y ‘be’. In the non-past domain, šaqəl forms are used (as illustrated in (35) below), while clauses with past temporal reference employ šaqəl-wa forms.
(35) 4a/1
Context: ‘The Greeks used to force the Jews to abandon (their) religion.’
gəbe
haw-e
mux
yawnàn-e.ˈ
must
be-3pl
like
Greek-pl
‘They must become like the Greeks.’
11 Clauses Lacking a Copula
In most NENA dialects, the copula is occasionally omitted. In some dialects, this is grammaticalised in particular constructions: in C. Barwar, the absence of the copula with the Infinitive predicate is said to signal a lesser degree of pragmatic ‘salience’.19 It can also have a TAM function, being used with perfective (rather than the original progressive) meaning of the Infinitive (Khan 2008b, 708). These patterns does not occur in J. Dohok, likely because of the less advanced use of the non-finite verbal forms in terms of scope and frequency. In J. Betanure, copula omission has a pragmatic correlate: it occurs occasionally when ‘the subject is clear from the context’ (Mutzafi 2008a, 50).
In the J. Dohok corpus, the copula omission also correlates with particular styles and pragmatic functions. Overall, however, such omission is rare—only seven such clauses are attested in the corpus, so the copula can be considered near-obligatory.20 In (36) below, the copula omission occurs in a particularly salient phrase at the end of a folktale. The sentence in question is the culmination of the story: the speaker answers the king’s question about where the middle of the world is.21 This sentence could also reflect an older layer of the language, being transmitted together with the folktale in this fixed form.
(36) 1a/18
Context: ‘So the king asks “Where is the middle of the world?” ’
kursi
dìd-oxˈ
palgut
dùnye.ˈ
chair
poss-2ms
middle.obl
world
‘Your throne [is] the middle of the world.’
In a few cases, the copula is omitted in the second of parallel clauses—apparently for the economy of expression or stylistic elegance. This is shown in (37) below with the parallel predicates in bold. The structure in question is formally identical to an irrealis copula clause (‘copula ‘be’ + Participle’), while also functioning as passive, since it involves a change in the state of affairs (‘my wife will become divorced’, or ‘made to be divorced’):
(37) 3f/22–23
g-emər
hakar
ʾana
ʾùd-li
d-la
ləbb-ox,ˈ
baxt-i
hoy-a
mṭoḷàq-ta.ˈ
g-emər
ṭa-le
tṑv,
beseder,ˈ
baxt-ox
mṭoḷàq-ta.ˈ
real-say.3ms
if
I
perf.do-1sg
without
heart-poss.2ms
wife.fs-poss.1sg
be-3fs
res.divorce-fs
real-say.3ms
to-him
good
well
wife-poss.2ms
res.divorce-fs
‘He says “If I did something against your wish, my wife shall be divorced.” He says to him “good, well then, your wife [shall be] divorced.” ’
The copula may even be missing in the TZ varieties such as J. Sanandaj which—as argued here and in other publications—exhibit the greatest degree of convergence with Iranian in copula clauses in NENA. For J. Sanandaj, this absence is reported when the referent is clear from context (in circumstantial clauses and in adjacent non-verbal clauses). Similar omissions are reportedly possible in a range of NENA dialects (Khan 2009, 340–341). This omission in J. Sanandaj is illustrated in (38) below:
(38) J. Sanandaj (Khan 2009, 39, A:77)
bšəlman-é
trè
jor-én.ˈ
xá
šíʿá
xá
sunnì=ye.ˈ
Muslim-pl
two
kind-pl
one
Shia,
one
Sunni=cop.prs.3ms
‘Muslims (are) of two kinds, one (is) Shiite and the other Sunni.’
In Iranian, the (clause-final) copula is reportedly obligatory (Haig 2017, 404). Exceptions might exist, but appear not to be discussed in the literature. Thus, a comparison of the degrees of copula obligatoriness in NENA (and other languages in contact) could constitute a fruitful research avenue, revealing degrees of areal (non-)convergence.
12 Comparative and Diachronic Discussion
12.1 Distinctive and Areal Features of NENA Copulas and Their Clauses
As shown in this chapter, the presence of a copula in clauses lacking a finite verb is near-obligatory in J. Dohok, as is the case throughout NENA. Such copula frequency in the present tense realm is a development from earlier (i.e. Late Antique) Aramaic, where a (pronominal) copula was in the present restricted to particular information-structural functions, such as narrow focus on the predicate (see further Khan 2006 and Cohen 2008a–b). The widespread use of copula—particularly of the clause-final type—is an areal feature, occurring in the various genetically unrelated languages north Iraq, south-eastern Turkey and western Iran (Haig 2017; cf. also Haig and Khan 2019). It is generally considered to have emerged under the influence of the local Iranian languages such as Kurdish and Gorani, which have an obligatory copula in non-verbal clauses.
The presence of a copula in clauses lacking a finite verb in NENA may also be viewed as a verbalisation of such clauses (cf. Retsö 1987, 243) in that the copula cross-references the subject—often by being cliticised to the predicate itself, much like a verbal subject index. Such verbalisation is compatible with the claim about Iranian convergence, since the copula in Iranian is verbal in origin (Haig 2017; Khan 2018 and Matras 2009, 270). Still, this convergence with Iranian is not complete in NENA; the synchronic Aramaic varieties and their Iranian linguistic neighbours differ in the copula’s position, its obligatoriness and its verbal vs pronominal origin. The degree of convergence in NENA (as well as in Ṭuroyo and Mlaḥso) is therefore dialect-specific, with the greatest convergence being exhibited by the Trans-Zab Jewish dialects.22
In terms of morphology, the most noteworthy area is the present tense, where a great amount of copula innovation took place. Thus, as shown above, most dialects have developed three distinct copula stems (though not necessarily as full paradigms). The first is so-called L-copula (part of the ‘basic copula’ paradigm), which in some environments has come to overlap morphologically with the verbal L-suffixes. This copula does not have a direct correspondence in any other Neo-Aramaic sub-branches (though see below for partial connections with Central Neo-Aramaic).23 In the vast majority of the NENA dialects, this L-copula is restricted to the 3rd persons, where it first developed. Another characteristic of NENA is the 1st/2nd person basic copula, of partial resemblance to the šaqəl inflection of the verb *h-w-y ‘be’. This similarity likely reflects a partial convergence in form with Iranian, where the copula is verbal in origin, based on the verb ‘be’. Finally, the various forms of the deictic/presentative/verbal/contingent state copulas (often restricted to the 3rd persons) are also an innovation of NENA, with a partial parallel in Ṭuroyo.
A syntactic hallmark of Eastern Neo-Aramaic (including Mandaic) is the copula’s post-predicate (i.e. enclitic) position, the positional variation in NENA notwithstanding . This contrasts with Western Neo-Aramaic, where clauses with locative predicates have no copula, while adjectival predicates have a proclitic copula, for instance:
(39) Western Neo-Aramaic (based on Arnold 1990, 58:6)
(ana)
n-uzʕur
(I)
cop.1sg-small.ms
‘I am small.’
12.2 The L-Copula (Most Dialects Third Persons Only)
12.2.1 The Distribution of the L-Copula and Its Negated Counterpart
The extension of the L-copulas beyond the third persons leading to a complete replacement of the older copulas therein are (so far) found only in two peripheral dialects: J. Urmi in north-western Iran (Khan 2008a, 61) and in C. Baz in eastern Turkey.24 1st/2nd person L-copulas also reported for J. Amediya, where they apparently coexist with the more typical (i)wət copula type.25 The Trans-Zab varieties in western Iran and in the Iraqi region adjacent to it (e.g. J. Suleimaniya) have no L-copula (e.g. J. Sanandaj—Khan 2009, 85; J. Suleimaniya—2008a). However, the western-most Trans-Zab dialects—J. Arbel and the ‘transitional’ J. Barzani cluster—resemble the rest of NENA, having 3rd persons L-copulas (Mutzafi 2002a, 426; 2008b, 54). In addition to the L-copula, suffixes identical to the verbal L-set also occur within the various presentative copula paradigms in LD and beyond, for instance, wele/wəlle in LD.
The distribution of the negated 3rd person copula in NENA is also noteworthy, since it provides another example of the catalysing role which social proximity plays in the spread of an innovation. Thus, in many Christian dialects, the L-copula has been extended to the (3rd person) negated forms, producing forms such as lele (< *la-ile). Such innovated forms are unattested in the Jewish dialects. The latter group preserves the inflectional stem (i)w (e.g. lewe < *la-iwe ‘he is not’). This is the stem used in the rest of the negated present tense paradigm throughout NENA, e.g. lewən ‘I (msc) am not’, and in its affirmative counterpart (e.g. wən ‘I (msc) am not’).
12.2.2 The Origin of the i- Stem
The L-copula consists of two morphological segments, both of which require an explanation. The first one is the segment i-, functioning as a stem, the second the inflectional suffixes, which are morphologically (though not morpho-phonologically) identical with the verbal L-suffixes. This section summarises and offers some proposals, but questions and issues remain.
As regards the stem i-, there are essentially two groups of proposals.26 The first one, which seems supported by good evidence, goes back to Nöldeke (1868, 294), and has more recently been reiterated in Retsö’s pioneering study of NENA and qəltu Arabic copula clauses (1987). It traces the segment i- to the existential (and copular) Syriac particle ʾiṯ (ʾi
The suggestions of Nöldeke and Retsö are based on the situation in Syriac, where the erstwhile existential particle appears also with adverbial (‘locative’) predicates. This includes those with definite subjects (Muraoka 1987, 65–66), which are disallowed in existential clauses proper, which introduce new discourse referents. The existential particle becomes used even with nominal predicates, though this extension is commonly ascribed to the Greek influence and is ‘rare in identificatory clauses’ (ibid, 66).27 Such a scenario—of contact with a copula-obligatory langauge—is itself rather similar to NENA. In the Syriac, the existential particle is uninflected (in existential clauses), or may be inflected with enclitic pronominal suffixes (with definite subject referents). The reconstruction of the NENA ile-< ʾi
Khan’s alternative proposal that the segment i- is pronominal in origin draws on parallels in the two other Eastern Neo-Aramaic branches. Khan (2018, 240) links i- with the Central Neo-Aramaic 3rd person singular copula =yo, suggesting a parallel between Ṭuroyo and NENA. He proposes that in both, the copular y(o)/i(le) element has its origin in a 3fs pronoun; perhaps a form such as *hi. The idea that the 3fs enclitic (i.e. copula) pronoun would be generalised to the 3ms form is supported in Khan’s article by pointing to a (partial) parallel in independent pronouns. In rural Ṭuroyo, the independent 3fs form has spread to the singular masculine: hiy-a (3fs) and hiy-e (3ms). It is not clear whether Khan thinks that the extension in the enclitic (i.e. copular) paradigm should have been preceded by a parallel extension in the independent pronouns. Urban Ṭuroyo would not support this scenario, since it preserves distinct 3ms and 3fs independent pronouns (cf. Khan 2018, 240), even while both persons have the copula yo. This, in turn, raises questions about the historical connection between the enclitic and independent pronouns.
It seems , therefore, that Nöldeke’s old proposal still stands as a plausible one. The extension of the existential to some types of copula clauses has a historical parallel in Eastern Aramaic, and a scenario of contact is available in both (Greek with Syriac and Iranian with NENA). Moreover, there is an indirect parallel in the use of the erstwhile existential for copula clauses in Ṭuroyo—in relative clauses.28 The relative copula kət-yo consits of a realis prefix k, the existential (here, ət) and the ‘basic’ copula yo.
12.2.3 The Origin of the L-Copula Endings vis-à-vis the Verbal L-Suffixes
The second historical issue in the morphology of the L-copula concerns precisely this: the inflectional endings resembling the L-suffixes. This overlap has been emphasised by both Khan (2018) and Retsö (1987), who propose a similar reconstruction thereof. Synchronically, the verbal L-suffixes. have a variety of functions, many of which are a relic ‘of the former dative case’, that is, of the preposition l ‘to’ (Noorlander 2021a–b). This includes beneficiaries, almost all indirect objects, and (predicative) possessors (cf. chapter 9), as well as functions like verbal subjects in the šqəlle paradigm. These functions notwithstanding, in modern-day NENA, the L-set is especially strongly associated with objects (of monotransitive and the Theme, or direct object, of ditransitive). In dialects sucha s J. Dohok, they are the only morpheme available for pronominal objects in the vast majority of TAM.
According to Khan (whose reconstruction parallels that of Retsö), the L-suffixes originated in sentential demonstratives, that is, ‘deictic constructions that drew attention to a referent’ (Khan 2006, 162; 2018, 242). The object-like coding of the referent in a deictic construction is apparently caused by the treatment of the referent as an object of sensory perception (e.g. ‘look, him!’; this seems to be implied in Khan 2018). Combined with the previoius proposal about the source of i- in the existential ʾi
Presumably, this would have resulted in a radical pragmatic-semantic extension of the ile forms—from thetic constructions to categorical ones. Here, locative (i.e. adverbial) clauses are arguably the closest to sentential demonstratives, in making an assertion about the presence of a referent at a location. Both also draw attention to a contingent situation. Moreover, today’s L-copula is often enclitic, and often associated with categorical clauses that describe a permanent or a stable property, as shown earlier in this chapter. These features also seem to be innovations. This also implies that the new contingent state/verbal/presentative copula (J. Dohok wele) has now encroached on the more original domain of the L-copula: the former appears before the predicate and is used for contingent states, which would more likely be thetic than clauses with nominal predicates. It seems, therefore, that NENA has undergone two cycles of a very similar process, first with the L-copula and then with the ‘presentative’ one.
Sentential demonstratives with referents that are (synchronically) marked like objects are attested in Ṭuroyo, e.g. kalé [kaˈleː] ‘here he is!’, comparable with the 3ms object suffix -le (Jastrow 1992, 106). These Ṭuroyo sentential demonstratives must historically be based on a deictic/presentative particle such as kal, apparently followed by an L-suffix (i.e. *kalle). In other words, they are not directly based on the Ṭuroyo realis particle ko29 with an L-suffix, which would produced **ko-le.30 The NENA presentative copulas such as wele (J. Dohok), hole (C. Barwar) or kilə (C. Qaraqosh) thus also likely originate in sentential demonstratives.
Additionally, there is one striking and (roughly) areal parallel to NENA, made by Retsö (1987). The object-like expression of the copula is also found in Christian Baghdadi Arabic. There, there the object marker yā has been extended to the function of a post-predicative copula. In contrast to NENA, it is available for all persons (Retsö 1987; Abu-Haidar 1991). In this Qəltu Arabic variety, this post-predicate copula yā is optional, apparently used for ‘emphasis’ (epistemic certainty), for instance:
(40) C. Baghdadi Arabic (Abu-Haidar 1991, 122)
hiəyyi
ḥəlw-i
yā-ha
she
pretty-fs
o-3fs
‘She really is pretty.’
Finally, it should be mentioned here that there are phonotactic features of the L-copula pointing to its relatively recent emergence. More specifically, the L-copula is apparently younger than the verbal suffixes which is it based on. Thus, the L-suffixes are semi-clitics: though they do not take lexical stress, they attract it ‘as close as possible’ to themselves (cf. chapter 3, section 3.2). By contrast, the L-copula is a clitic proper, meaning that it is completely invisible to lexical stress. To my knowledge, this has not been pointed out for other dialects. This difference is apparent in the examples in (41): the stress in a) is on the syllable before the first L-suffix, while in b), stress remains on the penultimate syllable of the form before the enclitic:
(41)
a.
k-pā
θ ə̀x-le
-li
[kpaːˈ
θ əxle(ː)li]real-open.a.3ms
-o.3ms
-ben.1sg
**k-pā
θ əx-lé-li or **k-páθ əx-le-li‘He opens it for me’
b.
ʾiláhā
=le
[ʔiˈlaːhaːle]
God
=cop.3ms
‘[He] is God.’
This lesser degree of phonological integration attested in the L-copula likely reflects its more recent emergence in comparison to the L-suffix; in the absence of the semi-clitic affixes on verbs, stress on a verbal and a nominal form should be pentultimate alike.
On the synchronic level, it is therefore striking that the 3rd person subjects of copula clauses are marked obliquely (at least from the viewpoint of the present tense), in parallel to objects. It is therefore at first tempting to explain the present tense system in NENA as an ergative one, in which the verbal L-suffixes are used for objects and the sole argument of copula clauses. Arguably, a dialect which comes closest to an ergative system is J. Dohok. The reason for this is that unlike in many other dialects, the L-copula virtually always occurs with intransitive predicates. 3rd person verbal copula clauses—which may be transitive—almost always take the pre-predicative wele copula. The near-minimal pair in (42) below shows the formal parallel between a pronominal object (42a) and a copula clause subject index (42b):31
(42)
a.
k-tor
-á
-le
real-break
-a.3fs
-o.3ms
‘She breaks him.’
b.
tóra
=le
bull
=s.cop.prs.3ms
‘It is a bull.’
Still, the situation of argument marking in the present tense is far more complex, as already implied above, and thus cannot be reduced to a neat split based on ‘ergativity’. Thus, there are actually several present tense copula paradigms. The J. Dohok wele copula—though pre-verbal and thus unlike an object suffix—is also inflected by suffixes identical with the L-set. Another issue is that in predicative possession, the possessor is referenced through an L-suffix, while the clause also contains a patient-like argument (the possessee). Predicative possession is thus more akin to transitive verbal clauses in the sense that both clause types have two arguments.
An overt ergative marking of the third person is attested in a language isolate in Brazil, called Trumai (Guirardello 1999). In this language, the same third person enclitic -n/-e that marks objects of transitive verbal clauses also expresses subjects of non-verbal predicates in copula clauses.32
12.3 The Quasi-verbal Basic Copula (1st/2nd Persons)
As shown above, the basic copula in the 1st/2nd persons of the present realis realm in most NENA varieties resembles the verbal E-suffixes (cf. Chapter 9; see also Cohen 2008a; Khan 2006, 162). The segment [w], present in most dialects in this copula paradigm, is moreover reminiscent of the inflectional endings of the šaqəl paradigm of *h-w-y ‘be’ (e.g. J. Dohok 2ms hawət), though the dialects of the Mosul plain such as C. Qaraqosh and C. Karamlesh, have [y] in place of [w], for instance iyət (2ms), iyən (1ms) and iyax (1pl) (C. Qaraqosh—Khan 2006, 162).
Despite their formal correspondence with the verbal E-suffixes, these copulas (both of the iyət and the (i)wət type) are most likely not verb-derived, because the feminine singular endings do not match. This is illustrated for J. Dohok in Table 49 above.
Table 49
1st/2nd person copulas and inflection of *h-w-y (hawe) ‘be’ in J. Dohok
|
sg |
Copula |
šaqəl of *h-w-y ‘be’ |
pl |
Copula |
šaqəl of h-w-y ‘be’ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
2ms |
wǝt |
haw-ət |
2pl |
wetun |
haw-etun |
|
2ms |
wat |
hoy-at (< *hawy-at) |
|||
|
1ms |
wǝn |
haw-ən |
1pl |
wax |
haw-ax |
|
1fs |
wan |
hoy-an (< *hawy-an) |
The [w] in the copula paradigm is thus most likely secondary (cf. Khan 2006, 162). It likely reflects a ‘verbalisation’ of this copula paradigm, and specifically making it parallel to the h-w-y šaqəl inflection. This, in turn, yields a partial convergence with Iranian, which—as previously noted—has a copula originally based on the inflection of the verb ‘be’. Thus, even though the process yielding the 1st/2nd person NENA copulas is distinct from the Iranian development path ‘to be’ > copula, both language families produce two paradigms which formally correspond: in both Kurdish and NENA, the inflection of ‘be’ and of the copula are similar.
In many NENA varieties, this type of copula also includes the segment [i], e.g. iwət. According to Khan (2006, 161), this segment could originate in a 3rd person singular enclitic pronoun, which has been generalised to the entire paradigm. Indeed, the Ṭuroyo and Neo-Mandaic 3rd singular copulas are, respectively, yo (common), and ye(masc)/i(fem), but this i/y segment has not been extended beyond the 3rd singular in these Neo-Aramaic languages. This proposal ought to be tested further in the future.
This segment, however, has been lost in many Jewish varieties, except for its relic in the negated form (e.g. le-wət > *la-iwət). Thus, J. Dohok, J. Zakho (Cohen 2008, 47), J. Betanure (Mutzafi 2008a, 50) and the western-most TZ dialect of J. Arbel (Khan 2006, 159) have the form wət (2ms). An exception is J. Amediya, for which iwət is reported (Greenblatt 2008, 391). In the transitional J. Barzani varieties, the segment i (in iwət) effectively functions as an epenthetic: C-iwət, but V-wət (Mutzafi 2002, 54–55).
12.4 The Presentative (‘Deictic’) Copula
The presentative (‘deictic’) copula—formally equivalent to the J. Dohok contingent state and verbal copula—comes in a series of forms across NENA. The most common ones are hole, dule and wele and variants thereon (for overviews, see Khan 2006, 2018; Napiorkowska 2015a, 170–176; Cohen 2017, 2). Moreover, some dialects have several different presentative copulas; C. Diyana-Zariwaw possesses three distinct paradigms, enabling speakers to further differentiate between near and far deixis (see Table 50 below). This situation highlights the connection between presentative copulas and (sentential) demonstratives in their deictic function—a connection proposed also for the history of the L-copula above. According to Khan (2018, 243)and Noorlander (2017, 196–197), the copula hole/hawle comes from *ha-aw-le, deix/there-dem.ms-o.3ms, literally something like ‘look, that [one], him’.
The LD group is characterised by the wele/wəlle copulas, which are presumably related to each other despite the fact that various proposals for their origin exist (see Table 50 below). J. Zakho also possesses the hole copula. Only wele is given by Cohen (2008a and 2017), but I have also encountered hole in the spoken register of J. Zakho in my interviews. In J. Dohok, hole also occurs, but apparently only in the fossilised 3ms form (hole) used with k-šaqəl as the marker of the progressive (see chapter 11, section 15).
Like the other presentative copulas in NENA, the LD copulas are most likely derived from a demonstrative pronoun or a presentative/deictic particle in combination with an L(L)-suffix, as shown in Table 50 below. The copula wele/wəlle might also be related to the Bahdini presentative particle wa, or at least have developed to resemble it formally. Function words are certainly borrowable. This suggestion has—to my knowledge—not been made previously. The J. Betanure wəlle is apparently connected by Mutzafi to the LL-set because the independent ʾəlla (fossilised in this 3fs form?) is attested alongside the presentative copula. In the example in (43), an LL-form occurs after a verb of seeing, and thus showing once again the affinity between deixis and presentative copulas:
(43) J. Betanure (Mutzafi 2008a, 52)
xaz-e,
ʾəlla
ḥambašay-a
wəl-le
mpil-a
tama.
see-3ms
o.3fs/deix
ogre-ms
cop.deix-3ms
res.fall-ms
there
‘He sees, look, the Ḥambašaya-ogre is slain there!’
Interestingly, the presentative copula (e.g. 3ms we-le) is not always readily extended to the 1st/2nd persons, though this tendency is not as strong as with the L-copula. This parallel between these two copula types, in turn, seems to relate to these two copulas’ shared historical origin in (sentential) demonstratives, and to their use of oblique subject encoding. This person restriction of the wele/wəlle copula across LD (or the lack of such a limitation) is shown in Table 50 above. In J. Betanure, wəlle could apparently be elicited for all persons (e.g. 2ms wellox ‘here you are’), since it is listed byMutzafi (2008a, 52). However, Mutzafi’s published corpus (ibid.) contains no 1st/2nd person forms. This suggests that if they do occur, they are extremely infrequent, and perhaps restricted to sentential demonstratives, rather than used in copula clauses. 1st person forms of the presentative copula do appear in the Early J. Nerwa text, but such forms take the E-set, e.g. we-wən deix.-cop.1ms ‘here I am’ (Cohen 2017, 2–3, citing data from Sabar 1976). This reflects an avoidance of the L-suffixes for the 1st/2nd person referents similar to the one attested in contemporary presentative copulas and in the L-copula.
Table 50
Presentative copulas and their properties across LD
|
Dialect |
Form |
Persons used |
Proposed reconstruction |
|---|---|---|---|
|
J. Dohok |
wele |
3rd |
*wal-le? (independent particle wal attested) *wa-le (Kurdish presentative particle/demonstrative pronoun)? |
|
J. Zakho (Cohen 2017) |
wele |
3rd |
*ʾwa(ha)-le? dem.ms(-there)-o.3ms |
|
J. Betanure (Mutzafi 2008a, 52, 393) |
wəlle, occasionally wele |
all persons? (see above) |
w-əlle and-o.3ms |
|
J. Amediya (Greenblatt 2008, 394–396) |
wəlle |
all persons |
|
|
J. Challa (Fassberg 2010, 102) |
wəlle, marginal wele |
3rd only? (only 3rd person examples given) |
Outside LD, full presentative copula paradigms (e.g. 3ms hole, 2ms holux) occur in many dialects. It is still noteworthy, however, that in dialects such as C. Barwar and C. Diyana-Zariwaw, the 1st/2nd person presentative copula forms are also inflectable with the E-suffixes, alongside the L-set. This also suggests a partial dispreference for the L-suffixes in those persons. The C. Diyana-Zariwaw copula paradigms are shown in Table 51 above.
Table 51
Copula paradigms in C. Diyana-Zariwaw (Napiorkowska 2015a, 170–176)
|
Basic copula |
Near-deictic |
Far-deictic I |
Far-deictic II |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
3ms |
ʾile |
dule |
hole |
wele |
|
2ms |
ʾit/ʾiwət |
dut/duwət/dulux |
hot/hoyət |
wet/weyət |
For a typological overview of copula clauses, see Dryer (2007).
As such, theticity is a concept different from—though related to—the notion of sentence focus. Theticity is arguably a matter of choice (choosing to package a clause as ‘highly assertive’, surprising etc.), while sentence focus suggests that the clause contains no presupposed information.
The Participle (šqila) is formally ambiguous, since it also occurs with adjectives which are unambiguously stative in meaning, that is, are adjectives proper. In the present study, verbal or potentially verbal uses of the Participle comprise of those lexemes which can also occur in finite verbal forms. Thus, the adjective quya ‘strong’ is excluded from the verbal section, since forms such as **qwe- li perf.be.strong-1sg ‘I became strong’ (q-w-y, **qawe) do not exist.
E.g. ‘It is the neighbour who is ringing the doorbell, not the milkman.’
These examples come from elicitation, because no certain examples of such constructions are attested in the corpus (for possible examples, see chapter 10, section 8.3 below), but speakers have produced such constructions consistently. Clauses with the basic copula were accepted by informants, but never produced, suggesting that they are strongly dispreferred.
Still, there is one case of cop-subj-pred is attested (cf. (6) below), and this clause corresponds to a high degree of pragmatic presentativity.
For J. Amediya, see e.g. Hoberman (1991, 174).
‘Salience’ is defined as the speaker’s wish ‘to draw particular attention to an activity that exists in the current speech situation’ (ibid).
For adjectives in the šqila (Participle) pattern, see below.
The basic copula was accepted by informants (indicated in curly brackets in the example), but not actively produced. Possible cases of wele in relative clauses also feature in the corpus, but the copula is morphologically ambiguous in those instances (cf. chapter 10, section 8.3 below).
I tested unambiguous adjectives (i.e. not of the šqila pattern).
For examples from neighbouring Christian dialects, see the examples in the text in Khan et al. (2022, e.g. 78, vol. 2).
This discussion only applies to those Participle forms which can also occur in finite verbal forms, e.g. kpina ‘hungry’ > kpənni ‘I became hungry’, but not quya ‘strong’, since forms such as **qweli ‘I became strong’ do not exist. The latter word is thus unambiguously an adjective.
For a more detailed discussion on the range of semantic properties of the Participle in NENA, see Khan (2008b, 653–660).
For formal ambiguity in C. Barwar, see Khan (2008b, 653–660).
Geoffrey, Khan, personal communication.
What confirms the accuracy of Cohen’s analysis is the fact that the order ‘predicate + wele past copula’ occurs even in clauses with verbal (or at least contingent state) predicates, in which the order copula + predicate would be expected, on the basis of J. Dohok (see section 8.1 above). For instance: sməx-ta we-la res-pregnant-fs perf.be-3fs ‘she was pregnant’ (data from Cohen 2017, 5).
This is common across NENA (cf. e.g. J. Challa—Fassberg 2010, 101).
Cf. Khan (2008, b 705) for details.
In some cases, the copula omission could also be due to Modern Hebrew interference.
Its word order is also noteworthy: the focal constituent (the predicate ‘your throne’) is fronted, the topic (‘middle of the world’) is clause-final.
For a cross-linguistic areal study of the copula and its clauses featuring Qəltu Arabic, North-Eastern, Central and Western Neo-Aramaic and Kurdish, and for further references, see the conference paper by Noorlander and Molin (2020).
For the present copula paradigms in Ṭuroyo and Mlaḥso, see Jastrow (1992 and 1994 respectively).
Geoffrey Khan, personal communication.
Like the (i)wət copula, it is said to be enclitic. However, further details regarding the frequency and distribution of the L-copula are missing.
As shown in this chapter, ile vs le have now a predictable, phonetic distribution. Sabar also observes that in the Early Nerwa corpus, i- ‘is often dropped’ (1976, 44, footnote 71). Thus, perhaps a future study should also investigate the possibility that this stem i- is epenthetic in origin.
For more detailed Syriac studies, see the pioneering work of Muraoka (1977) and Goldenberg (1977). For more recent treatments and further references, see the work by van Peursen, e.g. 2006.
I thank Paul Noorlander for this insight.
This is the realis present particle and largely corresponds to the NENA preverb k-/ʾi.
Thus, it is not certain whether ko (realis preverb) and ka-le (sentential demonstrative) in Ṭuroyo share their etymology. ka(-le) could perhaps be related to the Northern presentative particle ka.
In verbal clauses, however, all pronominal arguments are suffixal, not only objects; see chapter 9.
I thank Paul Noorlander for pointing me to this reference.