Translating Religion; Linguistic Analysis of Judeo-Arabic Sacred Texts From Egypt - Hary, Benjamin H

Translating Religion

Études sur le Judaïsme Médiéval

Fondées par

Georges Vajda

Dirigées par

Paul B. Fenton

TOME XXXVIII

Translating Religion

Linguistic Analysis of Judeo-ArabicSacred Texts from Egypt

by

Benjamin H. Hary

LEIDEN • BOSTON2009

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Hary, Benjamin H.Translating religion : linguistic analysis of Judeo-Arabic sacred texts from Egypt /

by Benjamin H. Hary.p. cm. — (Etudes sur le judaïsme médiéval ; v. 38)

Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978-90-04-17382-8 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Judeo-Arabic language—

Dialects—Egypt. 2. Judeo-Arabic literature—Egypt—History and criticism. 3. Jews—Egypt—Languages. I. Title. II. Series.

PJ5079.5.E49H37 2009492.7’70962—dc22

2009003328

ISSN 1568-5004ISBN 978 90 04 17382 8

© Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated,stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permissionfrom the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted byKoninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly toThe Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910,Danvers, MA 01923, USA.Fees are subject to change.

printed in the netherlands

È·‡ ¯ÎÊÏ

®!""#—±$!¥© È¯‰ ¯È‡Ó

®±$%&—±$"#© È¯‰ ÏÁ¯ È˙·ÒÂ

‰¢·ˆ'˙

ÌÈÈÁÏ Ï„·ÈÈ ÈÁ‡ „Â·ÎÏÂ

È¯‰ ÈÏ‡

In memory of my fatherMeir Hary (1924–2003)

In recognition of my grandmotherRachel Hary (1903–1987)

and in honor of my brotherEli Harry (1950– )

CONTENTS

List of Figures and Tables....................................................................xiPreface................................................................................................xiiiTechnical Notes..................................................................................xixIntroduction......................................................................................xxiii

PART IJUDEO-ARABIC: THE LANGUAGE OF ARABIC-SPEAKING JEWS

Chapter One – The Jewish Linguistic Spectrum.....................................5The Sociolinguistics of Jewish Varieties.....................................5Issues of Terminology ..............................................................8The Emergence and Development of Jewish Varieties..............13Crossing Religious Boundaries................................................16The Characteristics of Jewish Varieties ...................................19A List of Jewish Varieties........................................................25

Chapter Two – Judeo-Arabic within the Jewish LinguisticSpectrum.......................................................................................29

An Overview of Judeo-Arabic................................................29The History of Judeo-Arabic...................................................32The Structure of Judeo-Arabic.................................................37The Judeo-Arabic Continuum .................................................39The Diachronic Development of Judeo-Arabic

Continuglossia ..................................................................41The Current State of Judeo-Arabic.........................................44

CONTENTS

Chapter Three – The Translation of Sacred Texts intoJudeo-Arabic (the ¡ar˙) ................................................................51

Translation and Issues of Sacredness.......................................52The Translator’s Dilemma.......................................................57The Development of the ¡ar ̇ ..................................................60The Cairo Collection................................................................63Previous Studies on the ¡ar˙....................................................65The Framework for the Linguistic Analysis of the ¡ar˙............68Head-to-Toe Scanning.............................................................74The Translation Continuum....................................................83The Work of the ¡ar˙an...........................................................85

Chapter Four – Spoken Egyptian Judeo-Arabic: The Evidencefrom the ¡ar˙ Texts.......................................................................91

Spoken Egyptian Judeo-Arabic — An Introduction................91Methodology..........................................................................931. Phonetics and Phonology...................................................1002. Morphology .....................................................................1123. Syntax ...............................................................................1254. Lexicon ..............................................................................1315. Summary of Colloquial Features of Spoken Egyptian

Judeo-Arabic...................................................................134

Chapter Five – Additional Linguistic Issues of the ¡ar˙ Tradition......137Issue One: Pseudocorrections ...............................................137Issue Two: The Theoretical Background of the Use of

Hebrew and Aramaic Components in Judeo-Arabic.........144Cases of Interference in Direction A...........................148Cases of Interference in Direction B...........................153

Issue Three: The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon in the ¡ur¥˙...156Summary...............................................................................159

viii

CONTENTS

PART IIA LINGUISTIC MODEL OF THE JUDEO-ARABIC TRANSLATIONS

OF SACRED TEXTS

Chapter Six – Applying the Model......................................................163Introductory Notes ...............................................................163Methodological Notes...........................................................165Dynamic Literal/Interpretive Linguistic Tension:

Complex Cases................................................................166Calque Translations...............................................................178The Organization of the Examples.........................................182

Chapter Seven – The Phrase and the Word Levels...............................183Word-for-Word Translation..................................................183Word Order: Syntactic Adaptation........................................188Word Order: Adverbs............................................................192Word Order: Numerals..........................................................198Lexicon: Semantic Considerations.........................................200Lexicon: Sound/Appearance Considerations.........................205

Chapter Eight – The Morphosyntactic Level.....................................213Negation: Nominal ................................................................213Negation: Verbal....................................................................215Prepositions .........................................................................219Coordinating Particles and Conjunctions...............................231Conditional Particles.............................................................234Independent Personal Pronouns............................................237Pronominal Suffixes..............................................................238Relative Pronouns.................................................................240Demonstrative Pronouns ......................................................244Interrogative Pronouns and Particles.....................................248Verb Conjugation: Infinitives.................................................250

ix

Verb Conjugation: Finite Verbs..............................................256

CONTENTS

Cases: Accusative .................................................................257Cases: Directional .................................................................264Definiteness..........................................................................266Agreement: Number ..............................................................274Agreement: Gender...............................................................280Tense and Aspect..................................................................287Mood ....................................................................................293Voice: Passive .......................................................................295Numerals with Counted Nouns .............................................299

Chapter Nine – The Segment Level ....................................................303Assimilation..........................................................................304Emphatization and Deemphatization....................................305Elision ..................................................................................306Orthographic Marking of the Glides ......................................307Diacritic Marks.....................................................................310Hebrew-Influenced Orthography..........................................311Summary...............................................................................327

Bibliography.....................................................................................329Index .................................................................................................347

x

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1 Periodization of Judeo-Arabic...........................................34Figure 2 The Judeo-Arabic Continuum............................................38Figure 3 The Continuglossic Nature of Judeo-Arabic.......................42Figure 4 The Deviation/Literal Continuum of Definiteness...............68Figure 5 The Interpretive/Literal T-M-A Continuum........................70Figure 6 The Interpretive/Literal Continuum...................................70Figure 7-1 The Phrase Continuum......................................................71Figure 7-2 The Lexical Continuum I....................................................71Figure 7-3 The Lexical Continuum II...................................................72Figure 7-4 The Morphosyntactic Continuum.......................................72Figure 8-1 The Word Level Continuum...............................................75Figure 8-2 The Segmental Continuum.................................................75Figure 9 The Less Literal/More Literal Continuum..........................85Figure 10 What Happens in the Process of Translation?....................86Figure 11 The ¡ar˙an’s Work. ...........................................................87Figure 12 The Development of the !im in Urban Egyptian Arabic. ......96Figure 13 Direction A: Hebrew and Aramaic Are the

Recipient Languages .................................................145Figure 14 Direction B: Arabic Is the Recipient Language..................146

Table 1 The Translation of Hebrew ÏÂ˜ in Genesis and Exodus ........72Table 2 The Translation of Hebrew ÈÏÂ˜· ÚÓ˘ in Genesis

and Exodus..................................................................73Table 3 The Example from the Passover Haggadah......................76Table 4 The Linguistic Model of the Analysis of the ¡ur¥̇ ..........81–82

PREFACE

This book is about Arabic-speaking Jews, what and how they writeand speak, and how they composed and used their liturgical or sacredwritings in the past. How did I come to write such a book? Scholars attimes explore issues that are deeply meaningful to them, and at othertimes they investigate topics that are as far removed from them aspossible. When I wrote about Arabic-speaking Jews previously, I didnot consider it to be a topic I was personally involved with. However,when I sat down to write the preface to this book, I realized that thistopic is, after all, very personal to me. Despite my best efforts to beobjective in my work, I know that biases probably remain of which Iam unaware. Thus, I begin by situating myself in relationship to thematerial about which I am writing by establishing my background andmaking explicit my motives for writing this book.

Growing up in Haifa, Israel, in the 1960s was not an easy task for aboy who was searching for his own identities, caught between theconflicting worlds of Jews and Arabs, Ashkenazim and Sephardim,secular and religious communities, and the like. My mother, MiriamRebensaft, and her family had fled Nazi Germany in 1936, savingtheir lives, but not their Berlin middle-class status. The family settledin Bat-Galim, a small community in Haifa on the Mediterranean coastthat absorbed many German Jews. The family remained proud of itsGerman roots. My maternal grandmother Alice never bothered tolearn Hebrew. She considered herself German and struggled to getalong with the locals—Jews and Arabs—whom she referred to asdiese barbarischen asiatischen Leute (these barbaric people from Asia).I was continually amazed by her bluntness.

PREFACE

My grandmother also objected to my mother’s marriage to my father,Meir Hary. His father Haim Hary, a staunch Zionist, had been raisedin Brody, a city in present-day Ukraine, around the turn of the twentiethcentury. With a degree in architecture from the University of Vienna,Haim Hary had come to then-Palestine to “build” Haifa. But he wasnot a “total” Ashkenazi, or Jew of Central and Eastern Europeandescent.1 Although Haim came from Brody, it was well known thathis family’s origins could be traced back to sixteenth-century Safad, atthat time the center of Jewish intellectual life in Ottoman Palestine.Furthermore, Haim’s third wife, Rachel, my paternal grandmother,who had been born in Haifa, had a grandfather from Morocco, whichalso gave my father Sephardi origins. It was hard enough for mygrandmother Alice to live in “the Orient,” as she called it, but to lether daughter marry a non-Ashkenazi was beyond her understanding.2

The marriage took place, however, and my grandmother learned toaccept her son-in-law. Our household, though, was very German.When I first went to Berlin in 1977, following my mother’s earlydeath, I was invited to breakfast by her surviving cousin, who servedweich gekochtes Ei (soft-boiled egg) with the typical small silver spoon.I responded, “This is just like Israel,” not realizing that there wasnothing Israeli about the soft-boiled eggs or the spoon, and that in factI had been raised with a strong German cultural influence.

I grew up in a family that always aimed to provide the children witha better education in order to improve the family’s socioeconomicsituation amid the troubled economy of Israel at that time. I was sentto one of the best semiprivate schools in Israel, The Hebrew Reali

xiv

1 The term Ashkenazi is itself problematic and worthy of analysis; comparemy discussion of the terms Mizrahi, Sephardi, and “Arab Jews” on pp. 30–32,below.

2 I am fortunate to have found my mother’s diary after her death in 1976, inwhich she described, with much agony, the difficult situation in which she foundherself when considering marriage.

School in Haifa. The atmosphere in the school, which thrived on

PREFACE

snobbish Ashkenazi elite culture, did not look favorably upon frenkim,the derogatory Hebrew term for non-Ashkenazim in the 1960s, orupon Christian and Muslim Arabs. Considering that the non-Ashkenaziorigin of our family was ignored and the Moroccan background practi-cally denied, there was no surprise that I completely identified withmy German heritage and saw myself as such.

Nevertheless, I was attracted to the Arabic language. Trying to un-derstand the “other” intrigued me from a young age. I heard at homeand in school that Arabs were “bad” and that “we could not trustthem,” yet I sometimes heard my uncles speaking in Arabic with mygrandmother Rachel, and from time to time saw Arab friends fromHaifa coming and going in our apartment. I studied Arabic seriously inhigh school and majored in Arabic and Islamic studies. I used Arabicduring my military service and then studied it at the Hebrew Universityof Jerusalem and the University of California, Berkeley, where I earnedmy doctorate. Choosing Judeo-Arabic as my primary area of researchclosed a circle for me, because I finally got to explore the religiolectwhich was used by my grandmother Rachel’s relatives in Morocco, aswell as by many of my fellow Israelis. Although many scholars ofJudeo-Arabic are native speakers of the religiolect or at least had heardit at home, growing up I only heard a little bit of German in additionto Hebrew. By studying Judeo-Arabic, I am in a sense reclaiming myMoroccan roots, and this is one of the reasons that motivated me towrite this book. It is in this context and these circumstances that Isituate myself and my research on Judeo-Arabic. In acknowledgmentof my heritage, I dedicate this book to the memory of my father MeirHary Ï¢Ê, in recognition of my paternal grandmother Rachel Hary Ï¢Ê,and in honor of my loving brother Eli.

The work on this project began in 1994, when I was first introducedto the Cairo Collection. As explained in chapter 3 (pp. 63–65), thecollection consists of more than one hundred photocopied manuscriptsand is housed at the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts in

xv

the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem. The manu-

PREFACE

scripts contain mainly Jewish liturgical texts written in Hebrew,Aramaic, and Judeo-Arabic. Many of them are ¡ur¥˙, which are verbatimtranslations of sacred religious and liturgical Hebrew/Aramaic textsinto Judeo-Arabic, and in this case the Egyptian (mostly Cairene)variety of Judeo-Arabic. I started to publish articles about the natureof these translations and soon it became apparent that the writing of avolume or two was warranted. This book is the first, dealing withtheoretical issues concerning these texts. The next volume, SacredTexts: The Tradition of the ¡ar˙ in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic, with CriticalEditions and Translations of the Book of Genesis, the Book of Esther,and the Passover Haggadah, due to appear in 2009, includes criticaleditions of three sample ¡ur¥˙ along with their translations into Englishand a linguistic introduction and commentary.

I could not have completed such a project without the enormoushelp that I received from family and friends. I wish to thank myclosest friend, Martin J. Wein, who read parts of the book and helpedme shape some of my ideas about Christian, Jewish, and Muslimreligiolects. Working with him on a separate project on these religiolectsenriched me in ways beyond description. Martin has always been asource of love, energy, and intellectual challenge.

I have also enjoyed many conversations about Judeo-Arabic withfriends and colleagues: David Blumenthal, Piero Capelli, Rkia Cornell,Vincent Cornell, Shoshana Felman, Ruby Lal, Jeff Lesser, Frank Lewis,Deborah Lipstadt, Roxani Margariti, Gordon Newby, Yaron Peleg,Marina Rustow, Jacob Wright, and Ofra Yeglin.

I thank Nick Fabian, Illan Gonen, Gene McGarry, and MichaelGugenheimer, who not only edited and proofread different chapters ofthe book, but also offered valuable comments and ideas.

I would also like to thank the following colleagues, friends, andstudents, who helped me with different sections of the book at variousstages: Angelika Bammer, Elitzur Bar-Asher, Moshe Bar-Asher, SarahBenor, Michael Berger, Joshua Blau, Shmuel Bolozky, Alan Cienki,

xvi

Abraham David, David Engel, María A. Gallego, Ophira Gamliel, Elena

PREFACE

Glaznov-Corrigan, Noa David, Sander Gilman, Galia Hatav, NateHoffer, Geoffrey Horowitz, Shlomo Izre’el, George Jochnowitz, JoshuaKeller, Geoffrey Khan, Rina Kreitman, Damon Lynch, Aharon Maman,Meira Polliack, Emily Pollokoff, Gabi Rosenbaum, Ora Schwartzwald,Elana Shohamy, Doron Shultziner, Robert Smith, Debra Spitulnik,Devin Stewart, Sasson Somekh, Norman Stillman, Joseph Tedghi, YosefTobi, Don Tuten, Ofra Tirosh-Becker, and Sarah Willen.

Friends and family stood by me during the long process of writingthis book and always bestowed on me emotional support and love:Ursula Blumenthal, Shuki Cohen, the five Harys in Los Angeles (Chris,David, Eliane, Goni, and Tania), Kimberly Katz, Raphy Marom, WendyNewby, Arnon Rolnick, Mark Tanner, Tsipi Wagner, and especiallymy father, Meir Hary Ï¢Ê, who always kept asking when the bookwould appear; also my brother Eli and my sister-in-law Rachel, mynephews, Yuval and Tomer, and their partners Anat and Rony, mygreat-nephew Yonatan, my niece Mika, and my cousin Yael.

Many thanks go to Paul Fenton, the editor of the series, to MichielKlein Swormink, Publishing Manager, and his team at the Brill officein Boston, Michael Mozina and Jennifer Pavelko, who were cooperativeand engaging throughout the process of bringing the book to print.

I am also grateful to the units at Emory University of which I am amember: the Department of Middle Eastern and South Asian Studies,the Tam Institute for Jewish Studies, and the Program in Linguistics.All have been consistently helpful and supportive of my research andteaching. Additionally, the Social Science Research Council funded thebeginning of this study in 1995; the Emory University Research Com-mittee also contributed funds to the project in 1995; the Institute ofCritical International Studies at Emory College of Arts and Sciencesfunded several international trips connected to this study; the JewishStudies Enrichment Fund and the Woodruff Fund both helped withthe editing; and the Emory College of Arts and Sciences and Emory

xvii

Graduate School helped finance the completion of this book.

PREFACE

Thanks also go to Sulaiman Jubran (chair) and colleagues in theDepartment of Arabic at Tel Aviv University, where I taught in 2001.I would like to acknowledge the helpful and dedicated staff at theOxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies in Yarnton Manor atOxford University, where I spent the spring and summer of 2005 as aVisiting Skirball Fellow. The staff at the Bodleian Library in Oxfordwas also very helpful. I am also grateful to the staff at the Center forAdvanced Judaic Studies at the University of Pennsylvania inPhiladelphia, who were helpful with assisting me with ms. HB 15.Finally, the Israeli Academic Center in Cairo and especially its admin-istrative and financial director, Amr Zakarya, as well as its generaldirector, Gabi Rosenbaum, gave me an emotional and intellectual homeduring my visits to Egypt: ‰Î¯·‰ ÏÚ ÌÏÂÎ Â‡Â·È.

People who know me are familiar with my love of a good cup ofcappuccino. I cannot complete my acknowledgments without express-ing my gratitude to the staff in several cafés on three continents,where I spent countless hours writing this book: Midcity Cafe, MidtownStarbucks, and Octane Coffee Bar and Lounge in Atlanta; Caffè Neroon Broad Street in Oxford; and Cafeneto and Saquella Café in centralTel Aviv.

Atlanta, December 2008Benjamin H. Hary

xviii

TECHNICAL NOTES

(i) In this volume I use a broad phonemic conventional transcription,which is employed regularly in Middle Eastern and Islamic scholarship,for all the Judeo-Arabic citations. The citations include the Judeo-Arabic spelling in Hebrew characters, followed by a phonemic tran-scription when deemed necessary. Then follows the citation from themanuscripts (in bold) and the folio and the line numbers (all inparentheses), succeeded by the translation into English in singlequotation marks. For example, ‰!Ï‚Ú˙Ò‡ /ista >galna/ (15 29a,8) ‘wehastened’ is cited from ms. 151 (Genesis), folio 29a, line 8; and¯˘‡„Á /˙idaa¡ar/ (74 23,17) ‘eleven’ is cited from ms. 74 (Haggadah),folio 23, line 17. In some chapters (such as 4 and 9), a more precisetranscription is needed, so the allophonic (narrower) transcription isdisplayed, as is customary, between square brackets [ ], while the(broader) phonemic transcription appears between slashes / /.

(ii) The transcription normally does not indicate initial glottal stopsfor the following reasons: first, it is not customary in works ofMiddle Eastern and Islamic Studies; second, the phoneme is notalways attested in the spoken variety; and finally, Wehr’s dictionaryof standard Arabic (1976, 1994) uses the practice adopted here.Thus, in the following examples the initial glottal stop is not markedin the transcription: ‰!Á‡ /i˙na/ (15 10a,16) ‘we’ and Â˙!‡ /intu/ (7414,1) ‘you (masc. pl.).’ The same occurs with nouns that follow the

1 For some peculiarities with the numbering of the folios in ms. 15 (especiallyfolios 0 and 23-1), see Hary 2009, the critical edition of Genesis.

definite article: /al-um¥r/ ‘the things,’ rather than /al-<um¥r/.

TECHNICAL NOTES

Since the transcription is often based on Spoken Egyptian Judeo-Arabic, if the initial glottal stop comes from an Old Arabic qåf, it isindicated in the transcription for historical reasons, as is the customin Hinds and Badawi’s dictionary of Egyptian Arabic (1986): ÂÓÂ˜/<ømo/ (3 4,7) ‘his people’ and "‡ˆÂ˜ /<ußßå!/ (91 11b,8) ‘in front.’

(iii) Examples are drawn from Genesis, Esther, and the severalmanuscripts of the Passover Haggadah, usually in this order.

(iv) When Arabic perfect and imperfect verbs are quoted in isolationas examples, their English translation includes the pronouns in paren-theses because there may be an explicit subject in the sentence fromwhich the verbs are taken. For example, Â¯˙ÂÎ /kutru/ (3 8,9) ‘(they)multiplied.’

(v) As mentioned above, since the transcription is often based onSpoken Egyptian Judeo-Arabic, prepositions such as />ala/ ‘on’ and/fi/ ‘in’ are usually denoted without the final long /å/ or long /•/;however, ‰Ï‡ /ila/ ‘to,’ also the definite direct object marker, may betranscribed as /ilå/ when deemed necessary. The relative pronounÈ#Ï‡ is transcribed /allaƒ•/ with long /•/ because it reflects ClassicalArabic in the texts of the ¡ur¥˙.

(vi) The transcription for Judeo-Arabic is as follows:

For consonants:! ø, /</ – /ƒ/ " /†/ ‰ /l/» /b/ — /r/ ÿ /"/ Â /m/# /t/ “ /z/ Ÿ />/ Ê /n/À /®/ ” /s/ ⁄ /\/ Á /h/Ã /g/ ‘ /¡/ · /f/ … /t/ or /h/Õ /˙/ ’ /ß/ ‚ /q/ Ë /w/Œ /x/ ÷ /!/ „ /k/ Í /y/œ /d/

xx

TECHNICAL NOTES

For long vowels:Í /•/, /#/ Ë /¥/, /ø/ « /å/

For short vowels:/i/, /e/ /u/, /o/ /a/

(vii) The transcription for Hebrew follows the guidelines of TheJewish Quarterly Review. Note that final ‰ is not marked in thetranscription except for established terms such as Torah andHaggadah.

(viii) The following abbreviations are used in the volume:fem. feminine p. pagel. line pl. pluralmasc. masculine pp. pagesms. manuscript sg. singularmss. manuscripts vol. volumen. note

xxi

INTRODUCTION

Translations of Hebrew and Aramaic sacred texts into Jewish languages,religiolects,1 and varieties have been historically widespread throughoutthe Jewish world. Among Judeo-Arabic speakers, the tradition ofsuch translations is known as the ¡ar˙2 (pl. ¡ur¥˙). The presentstudy analyzes the intricacies of this genre of translating Hebrew andAramaic sacred texts into Egyptian Judeo-Arabic by examining specificeighteenth- and nineteenth-century manuscripts of the ¡ur¥˙.

Haim Blanc, who has written extensively on Egyptian Judeo-Arabic,wrote in 1981 (n. 5) that “A Judeo-Arabic literary tradition peculiarto Egypt must have existed, but has not been investigated in detail.”My publication of megillat p¥r•m il-mißriyy•n ‘the Cairene Purim Scroll’in 1992, and now the present study are attempts to fill this lacunadescribed by Blanc almost thirty years ago. This study, however,does not attempt to reconstruct the original ¡ur¥˙ of the Jews ofEgypt, whose use of the genre has a long history that is still unclear.Rather, the study aims to provide a plausible representation of whatthis translation tradition might have been like in Egypt in the periodunder study.

The volume also attempts to shed light on the linguistic peculiaritiesof the genre. It develops a linguistic model of the process of translationof these sacred texts. Rather than viewing these texts as merely literal

1 For the definition of the term religiolect, see pp. 12–13.2 The literal meaning of the term is ‘interpretation,’ ‘explanation,’ or ‘commentary.’

See Wehr 1994:541.

or “verbatim” translations, as has been the generally accepted approach,

INTRODUCTION

this study traces in great detail the literal/interpretive linguistic tensionwith which the translators/interpreters/composers of these texts, knownas ¡ar˙anim, actually struggled in their work. In addition to the desireto provide a verbatim translation of a sacred text, these translatorsalso had to consider the linguistic parameters of the target religiolectand make decisions that affected their readership’s ability to read anduse the translation.

The book is divided into two parts. Part 1 investigates Judeo-Arabic,the language of Arabic-speaking Jews in general. Part 2 develops alinguistic model of the Judeo-Arabic translations of sacred texts.

Chapter 1 sets the stage for the analysis by summarizing the spectrumof Jewish linguistic usage in historical and sociolinguistic terms. Itchallenges definitions of generally accepted terminology and establishesnew terms such as Jewish-defined language , majority language,(language) variety, linguistic intelligibility , religiolect, castelect, andmore. The chapter also tracks the emergence and development ofJewish languages, followed by a discussion of instances where Christiansand Muslims have participated in the Jewish linguistic spectrum andadopted some of its usages. Furthermore, the chapter maps theprototype of a Jewish language and lists the various Jewish languagesmentioned in the literature. I must emphasize that my analysis employsa measure of social construction, for lack of a better term, in groupingtogether a variety of languages/dialects/varieties under the rubric of“Jewish languages.” The notion of “Jewish languages,” “Christianlanguages,” or “Muslim languages” provides a useful analytic tool, butultimately does not constitute an “element in the world.” Rather, it isan artificial grouping of an array of language formations that we canproductively analyze because of the threads that link them religiously,linguistically, historically, and socioculturally. This is how I wouldlike to clarify the distinction between commonplace notions of“Jewishness” and the kind of analytic grouping at the heart of mysociolinguistic analysis.

xxiv

In her effort to be a careful and responsible historian, Stern (2008)

INTRODUCTION

has adopted a similar approach, attempting to destabilize archaeologists’prior assumptions about what counts as “Jewish” or what makessomething “Jewish.” She has claimed that “[r]eliance on essentialist orsyncretistic models of cultural dynamics has limited past evaluationsof ancient Jewish populations.” Using the methods of historical lin-guistics, among other tools, she has reexamined data on North AfricanJews and demonstrated “how direct comparison of Jewish materialevidence with that of its neighbors allows for a reassessment of whatthe category of ‘Jewish’ might have meant in different North Africanlocations and periods.” According to Stern, this examination “allowsfor a more informed and complex understanding of Jewish culturaldistinctiveness.”3

Chapter 2 explores Judeo-Arabic within the general framework ofJewish religiolects. It reviews the history of Judeo-Arabic and analyzesits structure, while discussing the language continuum used by Judeo-Arabic writers and speakers and tracing its diachronic development.This chapter also tackles some additional terminological issues,especially with respect to the denotation of Arabic-speaking Jews.Finally, the chapter offers some new insights into the status of Judeo-Arabic today.

Chapter 3 examines the literary genre of the translation of sacredHebrew and Aramaic texts into Jewish religiolects. It considers theperceived sanctity of the translated texts and demonstrates howtranslators dealt with the constant linguistic tension between theirdesire to provide a verbatim translation of the sacred text and theirneed to adapt the translation to the linguistic parameters of the targetreligiolect so that readers could comprehend them. The chapter analyzesthe reasons why such translations were made and traces the evolutionof the ¡ar˙ in Judeo-Arabic, especially in North Africa and Egypt

xxv

3 I thank Sarah Willen, who called my attention to Stern’s work and providedme with the quoted text.

beginning in the fifteenth century, while also taking into account Saadia’s

INTRODUCTION

earlier translation of the Bible in the tenth century. This is followedby a review of previous scholarship on the ¡ar˙ and a discussion ofthe Cairo Collection, from which several manuscripts relevant to thisbook are taken. This chapter then offers a linguistic method for analyzingthe ¡ar˙ that is based on scanning the text on several linguistic levels,and then establishing a continuum of least-to-most-literary translations.Examples are provided from various categories and linguistic features.The chapter concludes with a description of various mechanisms thatthe ¡ar˙anim in Judeo-Arabic used when translating sacred texts.

Chapter 4 departs to some degree from the previous analysis andattempts to demonstrate how a careful and thorough linguistic analysisof the ¡ur¥˙ can contribute to our understanding of the spoken varietyamong Egyptian Jews in the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century. Inthis chapter I examine selected features of spoken Egyptian Judeo-Arabic in phonetics and phonology, morphology, syntax, and thelexicon. The chapter summarizes the characteristics of spoken EgyptianJudeo-Arabic that are reflected in the texts of the ¡ur¥˙, and thenexplores how these characteristics set this variety apart from thespoken Egyptian Arabic varieties used by Christians and Muslims.Finally, the chapter addresses methodological issues connected to thereconstruction of the spoken variety used by Egyptian Jews, as itmay be extracted from the texts of the ¡ur¥˙, and demonstrates theconnection between the orthography and phonetics/phonology as wellas its limitations. It also points out similar orthographical trends intoday’s publications in modern Egyptian dialect.

Thirty years ago Haim Blanc argued that the dialect spoken byCairene Jews was not distinct from the dialect spoken by Christiansand Muslims, as opposed to the situation in other regional varieties ofspoken Judeo-Arabic. For example, Blanc argued that Baghdadi Judeo-Arabic was indeed distinct in many ways from Christian and Muslim

xxvi

4 See Blanc 1964 and Rabin et al. 1979:49–52.

Baghdadi dialects,4 which I now call religiolects. Since the publication

INTRODUCTION

of Blanc’s work, additional texts have become available for the exam-ination of Late and Modern Egyptian Judeo-Arabic. In 1992 I publishedthe beginning of my investigation of Judeo-Arabic; in the presentstudy I continue that work while searching for colloquial elementsthat are present in the written texts of the religiolect. Furthermore,Gabriel Rosenbaum conducted extensive recordings of modern EgyptianJudeo-Arabic and reported on his findings in 2002 (see bibliography).All of these studies affirm that spoken Egyptian Judeo-Arabic isdistinct from the varieties used by Christians and Muslims in Egypt.

Chapter 5, too, is an excursus and explores the use of pseudo-corrections in Judeo-Arabic in general and in the Egyptian ¡ur¥˙ inparticular. It demonstrates how both hypercorrections and hypo-corrections, two different types of pseudocorrections, are used in thetexts, while also discussing the implications of the standardization ofpseudocorrections in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic for both the literary andthe spoken varieties. This chapter develops a broad theoretical modelfor the use of Hebrew and Aramaic components in Jewish religiolects,focusing in particular on Judeo-Arabic. Using Uriel Weinreich’s workon languages in contact, this model demonstrates how components aretransferred into Judeo-Arabic from two different directions, explainingthe reasons for each direction and giving examples of each directionfrom the various Egyptian ¡ur¥˙. Finally, the chapter provides adiscussion of Hebrew and Aramaic lexical items employed in theEgyptian ¡ur¥˙.

Part 2 of this book offers an in-depth analysis of the linguisticmodel of the Egyptian Judeo-Arabic ¡ur¥˙ (see table 4, pp. 81–82),as introduced more generally in chapter 3 through hundreds of examplesextracted from the texts of the ¡ur¥˙. These examples, presentedaccording to several levels, categories, and features, demonstrate theconstant literal/interpretive tension in which the ¡ar˙anim foundthemselves. Most of the examples provided in this volume are basedupon seven manuscripts, four of which are taken from the Cairo

xxvii

Collection:

INTRODUCTION

• Ms. HB 15 (=CAJS Rare ms. 2555), located at the Center forAdvanced Judaic Studies at the University of Pennsylvania inPhiladelphia – a partial ¡ar˙ of the book of Genesis

• Ms. 1302, Jerusalem Ben Zvi Institute – the book of Esther• Mss. 3, 74, 91, and 93 from the Cairo Collection – Egyptian

Judeo-Arabic Passover Haggadah (located in Jerusalem)The critical editions, translations, and analyses of these manuscripts

will appear in Hary, Sacred Texts: The Tradition of the ¡ar˙ in EgyptianJudeo-Arabic, with Critical Editions and Translations of the Book ofGenesis, the Book of Esther, and the Passover Haggadah, forthcomingin 2009.

Chapter 6 explores the methodological considerations related to theorganization of these examples and applies the linguistic model tocomplex examples from the ¡ur¥˙ in order to demonstrate how the¡ar˙anim translated their sacred texts. The chapter also analyzes theultimate verbatim translations, known as calque translations, anddemonstrates how they were incorporated into the ¡ur¥˙.

Chapters 7 through 9 arrange the examples, taken from the texts ofthe ¡ur¥˙, in descending units of grammatical structure, from the phraselevel down through the lexical, morphosyntactic, and segment levels inthirteen categories, focusing on various linguistic features. Chapter 7lists examples at the phrase and word levels, chapter 8 treats themorphosyntactic level, and chapter 9 deals with the segment level.

The book concludes with an extensive bibliography and an indexwhich primarily covers part 1. Because part 2 offers hundreds ofexamples, the index covers the general themes of the linguistic categoriesand features (which are also found in table 4 on pp. 81–82). The index

xxviii

5 In fact, ms. 255 is the new number assigned to the manuscript. It wasoriginally catalogued by Glatzer as ms. 317. This manuscript is actually a ¡ar˙of the Torah, with some parts missing. The manuscript also includes haf†arot,which are chapters from the Prophets read in synagogues after the weeklyportion of the Torah.

also covers references from chapters 1 through 6 to Saadia Gaon’s

INTRODUCTION

translation (tafs•r), as well as the Protestant Arabic translation of theHebrew Bible; however, these references from chapters 7 through 9are not indexed, because they are cited as alternative translations tothe ¡ur¥˙.

Today, Judeo-Arabic is an endangered religiolect, perhaps on theverge of extinction. Although the SIL International Ethnologue projectmaintains that as of the mid-1990s there were close to 500,000 Judeo-Arabic speakers, that number has declined today to just under 400,000speakers, and it is estimated that the last native speaker of the varietywill die this century. Therefore, I view the research on Judeo-Arabiclanguage, culture, and history as a “salvage operation” to record andpreserve one of the most fascinating phenomena in Jewish, Arab, andMiddle Eastern cultures.

xxix

PART I

JUDEO-ARABIC: THE LANGUAGE OF ARABIC-SPEAKING JEWS

CHAPTER ONE

THE JEWISH LINGUISTIC SPECTRUM

This chapter investigates the spectrum of Jewish linguistic usage inhistorical and sociolinguistic terms. It opens with an examination ofhow sociolinguistics and history have inquired into when, how, andwhy Jews have written and spoken differently from their neighbors.It then tracks the emergence and development of “Jewish languages.”1

This is followed by a discussion of instances where Christians andMuslims have adopted Jewish linguistic usages, leading to a proposalfor some modifications in the accepted terminology. The chapter goeson to map the prototype of a Jewish language and lists the variousJewish languages mentioned in the literature. Finally, definitions ofseveral terms are given, including Jewish-defined language, majoritylanguage, (language) variety , linguistic intelligibility , religiolect,castelect, and more.

The Sociolinguistics of Jewish VarietiesSociolinguistic studies attempt to analyze language use according tovariables such as place of birth and language acquisition, place ofdomicile, age, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic factors,occupation, education, and so forth. An important variable which isoften overlooked is religious affiliation and identity. Indeed, Jews

1 I use the term “Jewish language/s” in quotation marks here because I havedoubts about its accuracy. This is how it is meant to be used throughout thebook. Later in the chapter I coin the term Jewish-defined languages.

almost everywhere tend to speak and write somewhat differently

CHAPTER ONE

from their (non-Jewish)2 neighbors, in the same way that young peopletend to speak and write differently from the elderly. Although thisstudy emphasizes the connection between religion and language, thisdoes not mean that Jewish varieties need to be examined only throughthe prism of religion. Jewish languages are also migration languages,and they are also varieties of their own majority languages. ThusJudeo-Italian, for example, in addition to being a Jewish language, isalso a migration language and a variety of Italian.

The distinct features of a language used by Jews can range from aslittle as a few Hebrew or Aramaic words, to thoroughgoing linguistic

6

2 The term “non-Jews” may have developed in the United States as a politicallycorrect euphemism for the traditional Jewish terms goyim and shiksas as a resultof their negative overtones. While the intention was positive, the category of“non-Jews” and its derivatives are still problematic. They continue an awkwarddichotomy and play down differences among various “non-Jews,” so that allpeople who are not Jewish are lumped into one group. Clearly, it is not useful togroup all Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and adherents of other faiths into asingle category of “non-Jews.” In addition, the term is a definition ex negativo,lacking any positive descriptive content. People should preferably be defined bywhat they are, rather than by what they are not. “Non-Jews” generally do not usethe term to describe themselves, except in Jewish-defined contexts, e.g., in Israel.For example, a woman in China (with no connection to Jews) would not callherself a “non-Jew” when describing her identity. The term also effects a divisionof humankind into two groups, along the lines of traditional rabbinical theologicalthought; “non-Jews” is thus really a nonacademic religious term. Since theacademic world should be multi-religious and/or secular, with a strong criticaltradition, the use of specific religious terminology (such as “nonbelievers,”“sinners,” “the righteous,” “the enlightened,” or “non-Jews”) would be inappropriate.In addition, the term leaves no room for interreligious syncretism, or for peoplewho affiliate with several religions at the same time–for example, people who canbe considered to be both Jewish and Christian (Wein 2005, 2008). Finally, thisterm implies that Jews can be grouped easily into a single category. However,Moroccan Jews, for example, can as easily be grouped with Moroccan Muslims(in terms of some aspects of food, dress, language, for example) as with Ashkenazim,or even seen as a separate group. Thus, his dichotomy flattens any in-groupJewish differences. Consequently, I have avoided this term whenever possible,and I only use it for convenience to avoid cumbersome circumlocutions. I thankMartin J. Wein, personal communication.

innovations in all areas of the language, resulting in a language form


that is largely unintelligible3 to others. The spectrum of Jewish linguisticpractice thus runs the gamut from some Yiddish words in the lexiconof secular Jews in America today to languages like Judeo-Arabic,Judeo-Spanish, and Yiddish.4 Consequently, the field of Jewish lin-guistics needs to explore questions such as the following:

• What constitutes a Jewish language?• Do Jews speak different languages, dialects, or “religiolects”?5

• What are the similarities and the differences between Jewish languagesin various times and places?

• How and why do Christians and Muslims use elements of Jewishlanguages?

• How do Jewish languages differ from their related co-territorialcounterparts,6 and in what ways are the former imbued with Jewish“culture”?

• What role does language play in the emergence of a collective identityand the creation of community boundaries?

• How do non-Jews view language use among Jews?

7

3 See below, pp. 10–11, on the issue of mutual intelligibility.4 Birnbaum (1979) and Weinreich (1980) were among the first to discuss this

phenomenon. Many scholars followed: Paper 1978; Rabin et al. 1979; Bunis1981; Fishman 1981, 1985a, 1985b; Gold 1981, 1989; Rabin 1981; Wexler1981, 2006; Hary 2004; Myhill 2004; Spolsky and Benor 2006; Hary and Wein2008. Benor (2008) has critiqued the literature and offered important insights.

5 See below, pp. 12–13, for a definition of the term religiolect.6 The term co-territorial language has been used to denote the dominant

language used alongside “Jewish languages” in a specific area. The term isproblematic because the dichotomy it creates gives rise to the mistaken impressionthat one of the languages is more “real” while the other is “co-.” In other words,it leads to the perception of one language (the “co-”) as marked and the other asunmarked. The situation on the ground, in fact, is more complex, since Jewshave been known to use several languages simultaneously, and have often evenmixed their uses of the various languages. It is therefore best to employ the termmajority language, which does not have a judgmental connotation.

CHAPTER ONE

Issues of TerminologyScholars have so far investigated about twenty7 Jewish languages.These range from Judeo-Arabic, Judeo-Berber, and Judeo-Persian, usedby Jews in the Middle East, to Judeo-Italian, Judeo-Provençal, andYiddish, which originated in Europe.8 In view of the sociolinguisticconsiderations mentioned above, the Jewish linguistic spectrum shouldalso include any other distinctive modes of speech and writing usedby Jews, in addition to the more than twenty or so Jewish languages.Jews develop such distinctive language forms out of a wish to distinguishthemselves from their neighbors, or due to outside encouragement orpressure, depending on majority-minority dynamics. The distinctivefeatures in question may involve aspects of Jewish ritual practice,cuisine, and fashion, or also specific characteristics of speech andwriting. To take one example, Jewish language use in the Netherlandshas received only scant scholarly attention to date, but further researchinto the matter, including a compilation of a corpus of written andspoken “Judeo-Dutch,” would no doubt reveal some interesting featuresof this language form. The same is true of many other language zoneswith a Jewish population, such as “Judeo-German” (Matras 1991),“Judeo-Polish” (Brzezina 1986), or “Judeo-Russian” (Verschik 2007),to name a few.9

8

7 A list of sixteen languages is provided in Rabin et al. 1979:58–66.8 See below, pp. 25–27, for a list of Jewish languages. The languages on this

list are all part of the Jewish linguistic spectrum; other varieties may be added tothe spectrum.

9 When I was a visiting Skirball Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew andJewish Studies in the spring of 2005, I gave two separate talks about the Jewishlinguistic spectrum in Oxford and in Manchester. On both occasions people fromAmsterdam approached me after the lecture, telling me that they had alwaysnoticed that the Dutch they spoke possessed some special features which, theyassumed, were to be attributed to the fact that they were Jewish. See also Jacobs(2005:303–306) who has mentioned “Jewish Dutch” and other post-Yiddish“ethnolects.”

It is probably impossible to define the concept of Jewish languages


solely on the basis of linguistic considerations,1 0 as it is difficult tofind linguistic criteria that are common to Judeo-Arabic, Judeo-Spanish,Judeo-Tat, and Yiddish, for example. In other words, it is difficult toconduct a comparative study of Jewish languages based on genetic1 1

or typological1 2 classifications: not all Jewish languages are geneticallyrelated (as are the Semitic languages, for example), nor do all possesscommon typological characteristics (such as the Subject-Object-Verbword order in Japanese and Turkish, for example, a feature which isusually also associated with other grammatical characteristics such aspostpositions, adjective-noun order, and more).

Jewish languages therefore need to be examined within a differentframework where sociohistorical and sociolinguistic factors are alsotaken into account, since these languages share cultural commonalities.1 3

Norman Stillman (1991) may have been the first to make a seriousstudy of this connection by showing parallels between Jewish andMuslim languages, although Haim Rabin had alluded earlier to Muslimand Christian languages (Rabin et al. 1979:42–43). Stillman demon-strated that the common bonds between Jewish and Muslim languagesare the Hebrew script and the Hebrew/Aramaic vocabulary, and the

9

1 0Thus, I adopt the same approach taken by S. Morag (Rabin et al. 1979:53)and M. Zand (ibid., 55).

1 1By genetic classification I mean language families that are postulated to haveoriginated from protolanguages, such as the Indo-European or Afro-Asiaticlanguages.

1 2By typological classification I mean languages that share similar structuralfeatures. For example, if the usual word order in a language is Object-Verb, itwill also tend to have post- rather than prepositions. These features are calledimplied universals.

1 3Paper uses the term Kulturbund (1978:vii). I have reservations about thisterm since there is very little evidence for a strong Jewish Kulturbund in mostperiods in history. For example, marriages between Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jewswere banned in many places (e.g., Amsterdam), being considered mixed marriages.Furthermore, the term itself has associations with the Central European Romanticnationalism of the nineteenth century that I would like to avoid.

Arabic script and Arabic vocabulary, respectively.

CHAPTER ONE

In light of this discussion, a sociolinguistic approach would appearto be more appropriate for Jewish languages than a purely linguisticapproach. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the term language is infact suitable for the entire Jewish linguistic spectrum. Certainly insome instances the term language would seem to be fully justified—forexample, in the case of Yiddish, especially after its official standardiza-tion at the Czernovitz conference in Austria-Hungary in 1908. Whatconstitutes a language that separates it from a dialect? What are theprerequisites of a speech form that turn it from a dialect into a language?The famous Yiddish phrase, “A language is a dialect with an army anda navy,” attributed to Max Weinreich,1 4 clearly does not answer thesequestions.

Linguists in general prefer to use the term variety when they do notwish to commit themselves to either of the terms language or dialect.In fact, Joshua Fishman (1985) has convincingly demonstrated thatthere are no clear linguistic or social criteria that can be used to distinguishbetween a language and a dialect. The term variety is fuzzy and vague,and as such can describe ambiguous situations.

Language has to be defined along linguistic, geographical, historical,political, religious, and sociological lines; the definition of a languageas a collection of mutually intelligible dialects is inadequate for anumber of reasons. First, mutual intelligibility is relative and needs tobe examined along a continuum, not in absolute terms. For example,rather than saying that English and German are not mutually intelligible,it would be more fitting to argue that English and German are lessmutually intelligible than German and Dutch. Second, mutual intel-ligibility is sometimes connected to issues of political power. In fact,we know of African tribes who claim that they do not understand a

10

1 4The actual quote is taken from Weinreich 1945:13, ÔÃ‡ ËÈÓ Ë˜ÚÏÈÈ„ Ã‡ ÊÈ‡ ÍÃ‡¯t˘ Ã‡ËÀ‡ÏÙ ÔÂ‡ ÈÈÓ¯Ã‡. Weinreich writes that he heard it from someone else; GeorgeJochnowitz thinks that the latter may be Joshua Fishman.

neighboring tribe, whereas the latter perfectly understands the former.


Upon closer examination, it turns out that the tribe that understandsits neighbors’ speech possesses more political power. The “defending”tribe, in an effort to maintain its independence, argues that its membersdo not comprehend the language of the powerful neighboring tribe(Chambers and Trudgill 1998:3–5). Third, there are different degreesof understanding, depending on directionality. Indeed, it is claimedthat Danes understand Norwegians better than Norwegians understandDanes. Finally, there are languages, e.g., in Scandinavia, that are mutuallymore intelligible than are some of the dialects of what is consideredthe same language, e.g., Arabic or Chinese. Thus, the definition of alanguage as a collection of mutually intelligible dialects is untenable.

In sum, there is no sharp dividing line between a language and adialect; the distinction between the two is fluid and depends on numerousvariables, which may change over time. For example, the dialects spokenin southern Sweden today were deemed Danish until 1658, when thisregion of Denmark became part of Sweden. After forty years the samedialects were already termed Swedish. The new appellation was quitelikely a result of the Swedish conquest, and not due to any significantchanges in people’s speech habits. Thus, geographical, historical, andpolitical, rather than linguistic factors caused the dialects to be calledSwedish instead of Danish (ibid., 9–11).

It is in fact doubtful whether in many cases it is even possible oradvisable to determine if a certain speech variety is separate or not.For example, Benor shows that Orthodox Jewish English, also called“Yeshivish” or “Yinglish,” is variously considered to be a separatelanguage, a dialect, or a jargon, while some do not notice anything thatdistinguishes it from other varieties of English. Linguists describe thevarious varieties and possible ideologies associated with them,irrespective of whether a given language variety can be considered

11

1 5See Benor, Jewish Languages Listserv, March 4, 2005. I have been muchinfluenced by Sarah Benor’s work in the field of the Jewish linguistic spectrum.

“separate” from another.1 5

CHAPTER ONE

Overall, it is better to use the vague term variety or language varietyrather than language.1 6 In the past I have also used a different term,ethnolect,1 7 in the context of Jewish varieties. However, the term “ethnic”is very problematic and has undergone several changes in meaning. Inpopular usage its meaning is close to “racial,” but the academic usageis very different. Thus, for example, “ethnicity”1 8 has been defined asa “named human population with a myth [emphasis mine] of commonancestry, shared memories and cultural elements, a link with a historicterritory or homeland and a measure of solidarity” (Smith 1993:49).1 9

A better and more suitable term is religiolect, which I mentionedbriefly in Hary 1992:xviii n. 1. The term religiolect avoids the messinessof “ethnicity” and relates directly to the religious backgrounds of thepeople who use this language variety.

A religiolect is thus a language variety with its own history and

12

1 6Gold and Prager have used the term lect: “In order to see the objects of ourinquiry ranged in a continuum, we choose to speak of lects, which we do notarrange in any rank of preference … We collect data as we find it in any Jewishlect, even those whose distinguishing marks appear to be few” (Prager 1986:225).

1 7See Hary 1992, 1995:74, 1996c:727–28, 1997a:35–36, 1997b:220, n. 2,1999:67–68, and elsewhere.

1 8The problems associated with the terms “ethnic,” “ethnicity,” and the likeare the reason for placing them in quotation marks throughout this study.

1 9This is one of the classic definitions of ethnicity. A. D. Smith is a theoristof nationalism, and so his definition needs to be understood in this context.

2 0A special case may be that of Yiddish-speaking secular Jews of the first halfof the twentieth century, for example, who might have been uncomfortable withthe term religiolect in reference to their variety. However, the term religiolectdescribes not a personal identity of its speakers, but characteristics of a varietythat had often been embedded before the rise of secularism. Furthermore, evensecular Jews may resort to religious self-definition in group construction, e.g.,Bundists, Folkists, or Zionists. The term religiolect, however, may not fit allreligious communities. In India the term castelect is more suitable. Thus, JewishMalayalam is one of many castelects of Kerala. The dichotomy, then, in Kerala isnot necessarily between the various religious communities, but rather between/ambalakkår/ ‘those who go to temples,’ and /pal6l 6ikkår/ ‘those who go to /pal6l 6i/,prayer shrines, i.e., churches/mosques/synagogues.’

development, which is used by a religious community.2 0 A Jewish


religiolect, then, is a spoken and/or written variety employed by theJewish population of a specific area, although it later may extend alsoto other communities and areas (see below). Our knowledge of theJewish religiolects of the past is inadequate, since in many casesscholars began to study them when it was too late and only a handfulof speakers were still using them—or, worse still, they had alreadybecome extinct. New Jewish religiolects have been created in moderntimes, due in part to migration patterns, conversion, and an increase inJewish identity. Some of these modern varieties (see below, p. 27)have only been investigated in part, if at all.

The Emergence and Development of Jewish Varieties2 1

Jewish varieties, we assume, developed in parts of the Diaspora frompreexisting languages and were used in both written and spoken formsby Jews within their communities. Some may have developed as aresult of the migration and dispersion of the Jews throughout Africa,Asia, and Europe during the early centuries of the Common Era(Birnbaum 1971:68). These varieties initially came into being out of adesire for integration into the non-Jewish environment, but later cameto be a hallmark of “continuing Jewish consciousness and identity”(Ben-Sasson 1971:771). Put another way, the Jews’ initial adoptionof a preexisting language in the Diaspora may have been an attempt tofit into their new environment, but later the language established itselfas a Jewish variety, with Hebrew script, Hebrew and Aramaic linguisticelements, and other distinctive characteristics, thus becoming a symbolof Jewish identity and an actual obstacle to integration.

It is also possible that Jewish varieties have developed as a result ofconversions to Judaism, and not just as a result of Jewish migration.

13

2 1I thank Martin J. Wein for some of the ideas expressed in this section andfor our long conversations and debates about these issues. See also the discussionin Wexler 2006:xv–xix.

In other words, non-Jews who converted to Judaism or non-Jewish

CHAPTER ONE

members of Jewish or mixed households—e.g., manumitted slaves,servants, nannies—may also have contributed to the development ofJewish varieties.

This latter point has often been ignored in Jewish studies. It shouldbe reemphasized, therefore, that the strict differentiation between Jewsand other communities and religious groups only emerged gradually.The historian H. H. Ben Sasson (1994:277) has the following to sayabout what the boundaries between Jews and non-Jews looked like inthe period that produced such important Jewish varieties as Judeo-Aramaic and ancient Judeo-Greek (Yevanic):

In the Second Temple era, the Jewish faith expanded as it hadnever before and has never since. Throughout the Roman Empireand beyond it, people adopted the Jewish faith or at least part ofthe Jewish way of life. Large sections of the Jewish people madeit their concern to convert the heathen to Jewish monotheismand took pride in the fact that Jewish customs were to be foundeverywhere.

The subsequent rise of Christianity did not immediately halt theexpansion of emerging rabbinic Judaism. Apart from the conversion oftwo kingdoms to nonrabbinic forms of Judaism—Himyar in southernArabia in the fifth century C.E. and Khazaria in southern Russia inthe first half of the eighth century C.E.—there are numerous indicationsof nonrabbinic conversions to Judaism of Berber tribes in North Africain the pre-Islamic period. In addition, a systematic rabbinic conversioneffort seems to have been directed at slaves owned by Jews. This wasalso practical, since rabbinic law banned non-Jews from handling foodin Jewish households. Rabbinic law encouraged circumcision and ritualimmersion of slaves, i.e., formal conversion and liberation,2 2 and stronglydiscouraged their resale. When freed, these people became full-fledged

14

2 2According to rabbinic law, if a non-Jewish slave is converted, s/he becomesfree, because Jews are not allowed to hold Jewish slaves.

Jews (Rosenbloom 1978:80). There are further indications that sexual


relations between slaveholders and slaves were not uncommon, andthat these were sometimes resolved through full conversion andliberation of the slave, so that the resulting offspring were consideredJews.2 3 In the view of Ben Zion Wacholder (1956:106),

there is sufficient documentation to establish that many if not allof the Judaized slaves were finally emancipated and absorbed bythe Jewish population. A reasonable guess might be that betweenthe seventh and the eleventh centuries Middle Eastern and NorthAfrican Jewry doubled as a result of the proselyting of slaves.

In the light of combined slave absorption and mass conversion, therise of Judeo-Arabic on three continents as a giant among Jewishvarieties is hardly surprising, with many speakers of Judeo-Arabicbeing of converted background. On a smaller scale, also through possibleconversion, Judeo-Berber emerged in North Africa in the same periodand earlier. Elsewhere, Jewish memorial books from the Crusademassacres in early medieval Germany, the cradle of Yiddish, containsignificant numbers of converts to Judaism in their lists of victims,although in this case no documentary evidence has so far been foundfor mass conversion or systematic proselytizing.

While legal restrictions and bans on conversion to Judaism had beenimposed from the outside much earlier, the path to conversion in theOld World was effectively blocked only after Christian and Muslimcontrol over vast populations of the recently converted solidified inthe Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Jewish religious law acknowl-edged this development through a more restrictive interpretation ofproselytism, such as in the Shul˙an >Arukh (1565). By then, majorJewish varieties with written records had already become established.

15

2 3As convincingly stated in Rabinowitz 1971:1187, “Sometimes Jews becameover-intimate with women slaves and had them undergo ritual immersion for thepurpose of proselytism; their children were regarded as full-fledged proselytes.The best known of these cases concerns the Exilarch Bustanai b. Óaninai.”

CHAPTER ONE

Considering the permeable or even blurred boundaries between Jewsand non-Jews in many periods including the present, it would berather unrealistic not to expect any linguistic input from proselytes.Benor (2004) has also pointed out in her research on newly-OrthodoxJews in the United States that the linguistic impact of the newcomerson Jewish English may be above average due to their possible tendencyto “hyperaccommodate.”

In fact, it is quite safe to assume that many Jewish religiolectsemerged through a combination of two historical processes: on the onehand, a considerable amount of migration and subsequent integrationof Jews, including adoption of preexisting languages outside core Jewishareas; and, on the other hand, a massive influx into many Jewishcommunities of non-Jews, who brought with them their own languagesand enriched them with their newly-won religious and educationalheritage.2 4 This interplay of acculturation and reculturation of migrantsand locals, of mutual integration and isolation of Jewish and “non-Jewish” communities, and of transference and replacement of languageelements appears to be mirrored in the complex structure and eclecticnature of many Jewish religiolects.

Crossing Religious BoundariesIn recent years there has been a surge in interest in Jewish linguisticsin general and in the definition of Jewish languages in particular. Benorhas recently proposed that Jewish languages be considered notnecessarily in terms of distinct systems, but rather as consisting of a“distinctively Jewish repertoire” from which Jews choose when theyuse their variety (Benor 2009). In other words, what has so far beenconsidered the field of Jewish linguistics is really only the tip of the

16

2 4For a present-day example, see Benor (2004). She describes many factors inthe development of “Orthodox” Jewish English, one of which is the contributionof newly-Orthodox Jews. In other words, not just FFB (“Frum from birth”) Jewshelped in the creation of Jewish English, but also Jews who became Orthodox.

iceberg. First of all, the concept of religion-based varieties needs to be


extended so as to encompass varieties used by adherents of otherfaiths as well. For example, just as we can identify Jewish-definedlanguages, we could also recognize Christian- or Muslim-definedlanguages.2 5 Second, the term language should be broadened to includevarieties that are not clearly distinguished from the majority languages.2 6

Finally, the participation of non-Jews in the Jewish linguistic spectrum,and religious crossover in general, should also be taken into account.

This last point is especially relevant to the discussion here. Thereare indeed cases where Christians or Muslims have entered into theJewish linguistic spectrum. For example, American non-Jews may usesome Jewish English elements, mostly in the lexicon, especially ifthey live in a city with a sizeable Jewish population, like New Yorkor Los Angeles. Thus, it is not unusual to encounter a Catholic ItalianAmerican asking a porter to schlep ‘carry’ her suitcase. This phenome-non is by no means new, as the following examples indicate:

• As far back as the Middle Ages, Hebrew and Aramaic lexical itemsentered some Christian-German dialects in the Rhine Valley viaYiddish dialects and has survive until today. For instance, in Hes-sonian dialects Schmiere stehen ‘to keep a lookout’ comes fromHebrew ‰¯ÈÓ˘ /¡mira/ ‘guard’; schäckern ‘to flirt’ comes from Hebrew¯ÂÎÈ˘ /¡ikor/ ‘drunken’; and Ganove ‘a thief’ comes from Hebrew ·!‚

/ganav/, with the same meaning, spread beyond local dialects andeven into standard spoken German.

• Christian and Muslim craftsmen borrowed professional terminologyfrom their Jewish colleagues in their respective trade jargons andeven argot. For example, Primo Levi reports the use of Judeo-Italianelements in Northern Italy among Christian furriers. In Cairo and inAlexandria, Christian and Muslim goldsmiths still use an argot they

17

2 5See Norman Stillman’s work (1991) on Jewish and Muslim languages.2 6See the reference above to Judeo-Dutch and Benor’s proposal for a “distinctively

Jewish repertoire.”

think of as “Hebrew” or “Jewish,” which contains Hebrew and

CHAPTER ONE

Aramaic elements. For example, the use of the word [¡a>>ål] ‘a thief’seems to be derived from Aramaic [¡qal] ‘take.’

• Judeo-Persian used in Isfahan is easily distinguished from the Persianused by Muslims in that city (Rabin et al. 1979:53). However,Muslim Iranians in some Iranian villages, such as Sede and others,use the same Judeo-Persian employed in Isfahan only by Jews(ibid., 56).

• According to reports from early modern Saloniki, non-Jews,especially those who worked in the city’s harbor, employed Judeo-Spanish as their daily speech. The historical background of thislinguistic phenomenon is the demographic prevalence of Jews in theSaloniki port, which was so pronounced that there were periodswhen it was closed on Shabbat.

• In Ruthenia (now western Ukraine) it was common for OrthodoxChristian nannies to learn Yiddish and use it to communicate withthe Jewish families for whom they worked. They would also teachJewish children the Hebrew prayers, while Hebrew blessings werewidespread among the general Orthodox Christian population.2 7

• The greatest challenge to traditional definitions of Jewish languagesis the case of Modern Hebrew as used in Israel today. The majorityof Israel’s non-Jews, over a fifth of the country’s citizens, are tovarying degrees bilingual, usually Hebrew-Arabic and sometimesHebrew-Russian. In spite of popular misperceptions, the linguisticcommunity of Hebrew in Israel is no longer defined by religion, but,for the most part, by citizenship or residence.Since, as we have seen, Christians or Muslims may enter into the

Jewish linguistic spectrum,2 8 or they might use some of what startedout as distinctively Jewish features, it would certainly be preferable

18

2 7See Erez 1959:231–44, 249–52; Sole 1959:149; and Wein 2007, the sectionon Christians and Jews in Ruthenia.

2 8This is in contrast to M. Zand who claims that “a Jewish language … serves… only the Jewish population of that area” (Rabin et al. 1979:55).

to use the term “Jewish-defined languages,” i.e., languages that were


defined by Jews, often standardized by Jewish Bible translations orthe Hebrew Bible itself, but not all of whose elements were usedexclusively by them. Of course, there is also a need for a discourse onChristian- as well as Muslim-defined languages.2 9

The Characteristics of Jewish VarietiesIt is generally acknowledged that Jewish varieties share a number oftraits. The prototypical Jewish religiolect possesses certain features,ranging from script and grammatical structure to a specific tradition oftranslating sacred texts. Of course, not every Jewish religiolect needsto have all the features in order to qualify, as the existence of theJewish linguistic spectrum makes clear.

The first and most conspicuous of these features is the consistentuse of Hebrew characters in writing.3 0 Jews almost invariably adoptedthe spelling conventions of Talmudic orthography, including the useof word-final letter forms and the occasional marking of vowel sounds,using available (consonantal) letters and/or other signs. Thus, theHebrew script in this case symbolizes the Jewishness of the community.It is, in fact, not uncommon to find the script used as a mark of thereligious affiliation of the users of a language, as with the Arabic scriptwhich is used for writing Aljamiado,3 1 (Muslim) Chinese, Jawi (Malay),

19

2 9For a treatment of the issue, see Hary-Wein 2008.3 0Of course there are some exceptions. For example, Schwarzwald notes that

most of the Judeo-Spanish literature in the Ottoman Empire in the last fewhundred years was written in Hebrew characters (2001:82); however, OttomanJudeo-Spanish was written in Hebrew characters only until the 1920s, whenAttaturk legislated the use of Latin characters for Turkish.

3 1López-Morillas has writen that the Arabic script in Aljamiado (a Spanishvariety used by the Moriscos in the sixteenth century) and in other Muslimlanguages, as well as the Hebrew script in Jewish languages, became “an explicitemblem for the religious and cultural cohesion of the linguistic group” (1994:17).

3 2This is a castelect of Muslims in North Malabar. It is written in Arabicscript with some orthographic adjustments to the phonetic system of Malayalam.

Måppil¢l¢a-Malayalam,3 2 Persian, Olttoman Turkish, and Urdu, for

CHAPTER ONE

example—all languages used by predominantly Muslim languagecommunities. Similarly, the Cyrillic script of Serbian symbolizes theimportance of the Eastern Orthodox Church in that language community,whereas Croatian, although practically identical to Serbian, at leastuntil the recent political developments, is written with the Latin script,in line with the Roman Catholic background of most of its users.3 3

The second trait to be found among many Jewish varieties is theuse, sometimes simultaneously, of different traditions of orthography.Such competition among various orthographic systems is typical of asituation in which the choice among linguistic systems transmits implicitpolitical, cultural, and religious messages. This can be seen, for example,in the Soviet spelling reform of Standard Yiddish. In contrast to thedecision to use the traditional spelling of Hebrew/Aramaic-derivedwords taken at the Czernovitz conference, in the USSR there was anattempt to dissociate Yiddish from its religious roots (among others)by abolishing this orthographic tradition. Thus, the name of the YiddishCommunist newspaper and publishing house Emes ‘The Truth’ (aliteral translation of Russian /pravda/) was spelled phonetically ÒÚÓÚ

(/emes/) rather than traditionally ˙Ó‡ (/emet/), like the Hebrew wordfrom which it is derived.3 4 An example from Judeo-Arabic is thehistorical competition among the Phonetic, the Arabicized, and theHebraized orthographies (Hary 1996c). The tension between the lattertwo types of orthography from the fifteenth century onwards reflectedthe changing dynamics of interreligious relations, including the changingproximity between Jews and Muslims. In other words, the emergence

20

3 3I do not wish to imply here that people actually “choose” a script to fit theirneed for religious identification. While this may sound democratic, it is probablyquite unhistorical. However, whenever rulers imposed a religion on a country, thereligious authorities would usually be given responsibility for education, andthey would of course impose their standards, including the script, on thatcountry.

3 4This does not mean that /emet/ was ever pronounced by Yiddish speakers.See Hary 1992:112–13 for further examples.

of a Hebraized orthography in Late Judeo-Arabic was driven, among


other things, by an increasing fragmentation of society along religiouslines, evident also in Christian-dominated countries in the same period(Israel 1989). Similarly, the switch from the Phonetic to the Arabicizedorthography in the tenth century and the subsequent disappearance ofthe former (Blau and Hopkins 1984:13–15; Hary 1996c:737) mayhint at increased literacy. It is clear that the Phonetic orthographyreflected a culture that was centered on oral rather than writtentransmission. This kind of competition between various systems issometimes characteristic of varieties lacking standard forms.

A third typical feature of Jewish religiolects is the incorporation ofHebrew and Aramaic elements. These are found not only in the religiousand cultural sphere, but in the entire lexicon, as well as in the phonology,morphology, and syntax. For example, in Later Judeo-Arabic someauthors use /ilå/ ‘to’ as a marker for the definite direct object, inimitation of the Hebrew accusative marker ˙‡ /et/ in Hebrew (Hary1991b), something that is not found in non-Jewish Arabic varieties.Furthermore, in the Judeo-Arabic dialect of Peq•>•n the Hebrew root<-t-t ‘signal’ is used in an Arabic verbal pattern, /bi <áttit/ ‘(he) sendssignals’ (Geva-Kleinberger 2005:50). Similarly, in Jewish English,Hebrew words such as ‰ÎÏ‰ ‘Jewish law,’ ¯˘Î ‘kosher,’ and ˘¯„ ‘drash’(a biblical interpretation) take the English morphemes -ic, -ally, -ed,and -ing to create the following respectively: halakhically ‘as far asJewish law is concerned,’ non-hekhshered ‘(food) without a rabbinicseal of kashrut,’ kashering ‘rendering (vessels and kitchen surfaces)kosher,’ and drashing ‘presenting a (biblical) interpretation’ (Benor2004; 2009). In addition, Judeo-Italian speakers and writers insertHebrew roots into Italian paradigms, such as /paxad/ ‘be afraid,’/paxadoso/ ‘timid,’ and /impaxadito/ ‘scared,’ using the Hebrew rootp-˙-d for ‘be afraid.’ Another example from Judeo-Italian is the verb/gannavyare/ ‘to steal,’ based on the Hebrew root g-n-v ‘steal,’ as in

21

the sentence guarda che non gannavi ‘watch that she does not steal

CHAPTER ONE

(from you).’ In Jewish Malayalam3 5 as well, speakers use Hebrewlexemes with Malayalam forms: /sår2appe*††u/ ‘suffered, got into trouble’consists of /sår2a/ ‘trouble,’ taken from Hebrew ‰¯ˆ and followed by/pe*††u/ (past of /pe*†-/); /s!ålomåyi/ ‘died’ includes /s!ålom/ ‘peace,’ takenfrom Hebrew ÌÂÏ˘ and followed by /åyi/ ‘to be’ (past of /åk-/). Finally,in Judeo-Spanish, the Hebrew roots ¡-˙-d ‘bribe,’ k-f-r ‘deny, beheretic,’ and d-r-¡ ‘interpret, expound’ take Spanish patterns to formthe following Judeo-Spanish verbs: ¯‡„ÁÂ˘ /¡ohadear/ ‘to bribe,’ ¯‡¯Ù‡˜

/kafrar/ ‘to deny the existence of God’, and ¯‡Ò¯‡„Ø¯‡˘¯‡„ /dar¡ar/ or/darsar/ ‘to interpret’ (Hary 1999:74 n. 17).

The fourth trait is that some Jewish varieties have developed adistinct spoken form, one which is mostly “unintelligible”3 6 to peopleoutside the community (written Jewish languages are obviouslyunreadable to most non-Jews, if only because of the use of the Hebrewscript). Baghdadi Judeo-Arabic (Blanc 1964) is one example.

The fifth trait typical of most Jewish varieties is that their literatureis written by Jews for a Jewish readership and usually deals withJewish topics. However, it has happened that non-Jewish epics aswell as other works have been translated or adapted in several Jewishvarieties. Furthermore, this trait is not as exclusive as had been assumedin the scholarly literature (Blau 1999:49), considering the issue ofcrossing religious boundaries discussed above (pp. 16–19).

Sixth, a migrated or displaced dialectalism has developed in manyJewish varieties. In other words, Jewish varieties in a certain regionsometimes feature dialectal characteristics that are uncommon in thatregion. This is usually due to Jewish migration and dispersion. Forexample, in Cairene Judeo-Arabic one can encounter the forms /niktib-niktíbu/ for the first person singular – first person plural imperfect,

22

3 5Some examples from Jewish Malayalam are taken from Gamliel 2008.3 6See above, p. 10–11, on the issue of intelligibility.

otherwise typically found in “western” Arabic dialects (Fischer and


Jastrow 1980).3 7 One would not expect to find these forms in Cairo;their appearance among Cairene Jews is probably due to Jewishmigration from Morocco or Alexandria to Cairo.3 8 Another example ofmigrated or displaced dialectalism can be found in Judeo-Italian. In thesouthern Italian dialects (Gyoto-Italian) one finds the form /li donni/‘the women’ (however rare) instead of the standard /le donne/. Inaddition, a typical characteristic of central Italian dialects is a systemof seven vowels. The combination of these two regional features canonly be found in Judeo-Italian, suggesting a synthesis of dialectalelements from different regions due to migration among the Jewishcommunities in Italy.

A seventh feature of many Jewish-defined languages is that theypreserve archaic forms which have become extinct in the respectivemajority languages. For example, in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic the verbalpattern /fu>ul/ (chapter 4, p. 117, 2.2.1.1) has survived, as opposed to/fi>il/, which has replaced it in the modern Egyptian dialect. In addition,the interrogative pronouns /!¡/ ‘what,’ /l!¡/ ‘why,’ and /k!f/ ‘how’ ofCairene Judeo-Arabic have survived in the sentence-initial position(pp. 114–16, 2.1.6), in contrast to the situation in the standard dialect,where other pronouns, /!h/ ‘what,’ /l!h/ ‘why,’ and /ezzåy/ ‘how’appear at the end of the sentence. Furthermore, the demonstrativepronoun /de/ ‘this (masc.),’ an older Cairene form, survived amongJews through the twentieth century.3 9 Jewish Malayalam also possesses

23

3 7See Hary 1992:278 and the references there. See also chapter 4, p. 118,2.2.2, for the clarification of the term “western” dialects.

3 8On the other hand, as this form exists not only among Cairene Jews, butalso in the west Delta (Behnstedt 1978:69), it is perhaps not of Maghrebi origin,but may have developed independently in Egypt. However, the existence of/niktib-niktíbu/ in the west Delta does not preclude the idea of migrated ordisplaced dialectalism as advanced above. See other examples of migrateddialectalism in Judeo-Arabic in chapter 4, p. 103, 1.1.6; p. 105, 1.6; p. 110,1.13.4; and p. 114, 2.1.4.3.

3 9Blanc 1974:216; Rosenbaum 2002c:126; see also pp. 113–14, 2.1.4.1.

many archaic forms, the most striking of which is the dative ending

CHAPTER ONE

/-ikku*/, instead of /-u*/, for nouns and pronouns ending in /-an/, e.g.,/j•vanikku*/ ‘for life’ (instead of /j•vanu*/) and /avanikku*/ ‘for him (thirdperson singular with dative ending)’ (instead of /avanu*/).4 0

Preserving archaic forms is also typical of migration languages. Forexample, French Quebec preserves archaic forms that are not used inParisian French. Similarly, “western” Arabic dialects preserve formsthat are common in the Koran but are not found in “eastern” dialects,for example, the word /˙¥t/ ‘fish,’ also found in the Koran, versus its“eastern” equivalent /samak/.4 1 In this respect it is only fitting thatJudeo-Spanish and Yiddish, two Jewish religiolects with a rich historyof migration, use many archaisms. The former preserves the archaicOld Spanish phonemes /¡/ and /d"/, as opposed to /x/ for both inmodern Spanish. Yiddish has kept the archaic word hait, which hasdisappeared as an independent word from German, surviving only asa suffix, e.g., Kindheit (Birnbaum 1979:10).

Eighth, Jewish speakers have usually considered their varieties asseparate from the majority languages and have given them specialnames, such as /il-lu\a dyalna/ ‘our language’ or /il->arabiyya dyalna/‘our Arabic’ in Moroccan Judeo-Arabic, whereas Muslim MoroccanArabic is termed /il->arabiyya dilmsilm•n/ ‘the Arabic of the Muslims’(Bar-Asher 1988; Stillman 1988). In Jewish Malayalam, speakers calltheir variety /malayalam ¡elanu/ ‘our Malayalam’ and distinguish itfrom other varieties of Malayalam, /ze lo malayalam ¡elanu/ ‘this isnot our Malayalam.’4 2 Furthermore, Kerala Jews also refer to their

24

4 0According to Ophira Gamliel, this archaic form is represented even today inthe speech of Kerala Jews in Israel. Ayyar states that (1993:27–28) the dative/-ukku*/ after /-an/ was alternating with /u*/ in the earliest Malayalam inscriptions(note that the phonemes /u/ and /i/ alternate in Malayalam). There is only onetext that has this archaic ending, the Råmacaritam from the thirteenth century.

4 1For more examples see Shin>ar in Rabin et al. 1979:56–57.4 2They say it in Hebrew. In fact, “our Malayalam” is probably something that

other speakers of castelects in Kerala might use to refer to their variety.

language variety as malbarit or cochinit.


Ninth, the “spirit” of Jewish-defined languages, their reservoir ofimages, formulations, concepts, and icons, is derived from Jewishsources in Hebrew and Aramaic, usually sacred texts.

Tenth, many Jewish religiolects share a unique literary genre, theverbatim translation of sacred religious and liturgical Hebrew/Aramaictexts into the various Jewish religiolects (¡ar˙, pl. ¡ur¥˙, in Judeo-Arabic;4 3 ¡ar> or ¡ar˙ in Judeo-Neo-Aramaic; tavsili in Judeo-Georgian;tefila in Judeo-Italian; tamsir in Jewish Malayalam; ladino in Judeo-Spanish; taytsh in Yiddish; etc.). The translations include the Bible,Midrashic literature, Pirkei Avot (“Ethics of the Patriarchs,” a tractateof moral and religious teachings from the Second Temple period andthe first centuries of the Common Era), the Passover Haggadah, theSiddur or prayer book, the Talmud, and more.

However, the existence of these typical features of a Jewish varietydoes not mean that in order to qualify as such a variety needs topossess them all. Whenever a language variety used by Jews differs,even if only slightly, from the majority language, it deserves to beconsidered as part of the Jewish linguistic spectrum. Jewish varietiesare thus best placed on a continuum stretching from those with a highconcentration of the most prominent characteristics (Yiddish, forexample) to those with only few and marginal traits (varieties ofsecular Jewish English, for example). Other forms of Jewish linguisticpractice are located somewhere between these two poles.

A List of Jewish VarietiesJewish varieties are numerous and, as the following list shows, reflectJewish history and geography.4 4 Beside Hebrew, the primary Jewish-

25

4 3See chapter 3 for a detailed analysis of the genre of the ¡ar˙.4 4See the Jewish Languages Research Website (http://www.jewish-languages.

org/), edited and designed by Sarah Benor and Tsuguya Sasaki/Tsvi Sadan. Thiswebsite is an important endeavor toward a new understanding of the Jewishlinguistic spectrum.

defined language (although see Ornan 1985), Jewish forms of Aramaic

CHAPTER ONE

began to develop even before the beginning of the Common Era. Beforethe end of the Second Temple period, Hellenistic Jews began to employthe Greek Koiné in its Jewish form, Yevanic, which many centurieslater in the Balkans came to be known as Judeo-Greek. Judeo-Arabicbegan to develop in the seventh century C.E., with the spread ofIslam in the Middle East and North Africa; Jews from Spain to Iraqadopted forms of Arabic and created Judeo-Arabic varieties. In NorthAfrica, Judeo-Berber (Berberic) emerged, and in Iran, Judeo-Persian(Parsic). In Christian Europe, Latin eventually gave rise to at least sixdifferent Jewish religiolects: Judeo-Italian (Italkian) in Italy, Judeo-Provençal (Shuadit) in southern France and Judeo-French (Zarphatic)in the north, Judeo-Catalan (Catalanic) in the eastern part of the IberianPeninsula, Judeo-Portuguese (Portugesic) in the western part, andJudeo-Spanish (Ladino, Jidyó, Judezmo) in between. After theexpulsion of the Jews from the Iberian Peninsula toward the end ofthe fifteenth century, Judeo-Spanish spread east through the Balkansto Turkey and Palestine and south to Morocco and over to someparts of North Africa, in the form of Haketiya (Moroccan Judeo-Spanish). Yiddish originated in the tenth century among centralEuropean Jews, probably in Southwest Germany, and spreadthroughout Central and Eastern Europe and into Italy, and centurieslater also to the Americas, Australia, Palestine, and South Africa.Before the Holocaust, three-quarters of world Jewry spoke Yiddish.Furthermore, Canaanic (Knaanic, also known as Judeo-Czech and Judeo-Slavic) emerged in Slavic-speaking areas, and Judeo-Alsatian (Yédisch-Daïtsch) in Alsace. In the east, Kurdish Jews use Judeo-Neo-Aramaic,Judeo-Arabic dialects, and also Judeo-Kurdish with mixed Hebrew,Turkish, and Arabic elements. In Central Asia, Judeo-Tajik (Bukharic;some speakers call it Farsi) is employed; Judeo-Tat (Judeo-Tatic, orJuhuri, of the Iranian family) is used by Jews in Daghestan in theeastern and northern Caucasus, and Judeo-Georgian (Gurjic) is usedby Jews in Georgia in the southern Caucasus. Judeo-Crimchak (of the

26

Turkic family) is employed by Crimean Jews, both Rabbinic and


Karaite. Further to the east, Jewish Malayalam developed, especiallyamong the Jews of Kerala in southern India.

Most speakers of these religiolects have emigrated to Israel, France,North America, and elsewhere. Consequently, Jewish religiolects havedeclined, some have become endangered, and others are now extinct.On the other hand, these varieties are being replaced in recent decadesby new Jewish religiolects. In Australia, Canada, South Africa, theUnited Kingdom, the United States, and elsewhere, some forms ofJewish English have emerged, especially in the last century andparticularly among Orthodox Jewish communities. In France a form ofJudeo-French has emerged, and in Argentina, Mexico, and other Spanish-speaking places, new varieties of Latin American Judeo-Spanish arebeing formed. The same holds true for Judeo-Dutch in the Netherlands,for Judeo-Russian in Israel and Russia, and so forth (see p. 8).

Three Jewish religiolects hold a special place in Jewish culture,because they have been used both over a wide geographical area andfor a long period of time: Judeo-Arabic, Judeo-Spanish, and Yiddish.Among these Judeo-Arabic holds pride of place: it has had the longestrecorded history, from the pre-Islamic period to the present; it spansthe widest continuous geographical area, from Spain to Yemen andIraq; and “it was the medium of expression for one of the foremostperiods of Jewish cultural and intellectual creativity” (Stillman

27

1988:3–4).

CHAPTER TWO

JUDEO-ARABIC WITHIN THE JEWISH LINGUISTIC SPECTRUM

This chapter explores Judeo-Arabic within the framework of otherJewish religiolects. It reviews the history of this religiolect and analyzesits structure in some detail. It then discusses the language continuumemployed by users of Judeo-Arabic and traces its diachronic evolution.The chapter also tackles some terminological issues, especially withrespect to the denotation of Arabic-speaking Jews. Finally, the chapterdiscusses the state of Judeo-Arabic today.1

An Overview of Judeo-ArabicJudeo-Arabic is a religiolect (see pp. 12–13) that has been spoken andwritten in various forms by Jews throughout the Arabic-speakingworld. Judeo-Arabic literature deals for the most part with Jewishtopics, and is written by Jews for a Jewish readership. Several importantfeatures distinguish it from other varieties of Arabic. These include amixture of elements of Classical and post-Classical Arabic, dialectalcomponents, pseudocorrections, and pseudocorrections that havebecome standardized. In other words, it is a typical mixed variety.Judeo-Arabic also possesses a number of specific additional sociolin-guistic and sociocultural features that set it apart: the use of Hebrewrather than Arabic characters, various traditions of Judeo-Arabic

1 Some of the material in this chapter was published in different form in Hary1992 and 2003.

orthography, elements of Hebrew and Aramaic vocabulary and grammar,

CHAPTER TWO

and the style of the ¡ar˙ in Judeo-Arabic texts.2

Judeo-Arabic speakers have been a topic of discussion academicallyand politically for many years in Israeli society. Many designationsfor speakers of Judeo-Arabic exist, including Mizrahim (or Á¯ÊÓ‰ ˙Â„Ú ,lit. “the communities of the East”), Sephardim (lit. “Spaniards”), and“Arab Jews.” Actually, the term Mizrahim, lit. “Easterners” (translatedas “oriental Jews”) is of course a misnomer, since Moroccan Jews, forexample, hardly count as being from the east, if the point of referenceis Israel.3 The term Sephardim has its own problems. Strictly speaking,it refers to Jews whose ancestors had been expelled from the IberianPeninsula, up to and especially in 1492, and who then settled in theOttoman Empire and other countries. Although many Jews of theOttoman Empire, especially in Arabic-speaking communities, adoptedthe religious ways and liturgical customs of the expellees from theIberian Peninsula, pre-Sephardi traditions also survived in many areas,including North Africa. Finally, the term “Arab Jews,” attested histor-ically in various documents but now used only sporadically, may bemisleading because the word “Arab” could be perceived as an “ethnic”marker. This leads to three unresolved issues:(i) The word “Arab” as an “ethnic” marker in the current Israeli sense

did not exist historically or sociologically before the creation ofmodern Israel, so Arabic-speaking Jews in the past wereconceptualizing something entirely different when designatingthemselves as “Arab Jews.”

30

2 The ¡ar˙ is a genre composed of literal translations of Jewish religioussacred texts from Hebrew into Judeo-Arabic. The reference here is to the style ofthis genre, characterized by Hebrew and/or Aramaic interference. Another term forthis style is “Hebraism.”

3 An imaginary line drawn diagonally across the Mediterranean, from theStrait of Gibraltar to the Black Sea, has historically distinguished the Jewish“west” (in fact, north) from the Jewish “east” (in fact, south). This raises anumber of questions, such as: Who set this imaginary line? Who used it? Forwhat purposes?

(ii) The concept of “ethnicity” itself remains unclear in most contexts,


the Israeli case included; it is therefore best avoided in academicdiscourse, unlike the concepts of language or religion, which can bemeasured and marked more easily.

(iii) The term “Arab Jews” bears controversial political connotationsin Israel. For example, it may suggest a connection between “ArabJews” and “Arab Israelis,” whose identity constructions seemsimilar on the surface, but in fact differ profoundly on variouslevels. For example, Arab Israelis in general feel less connected tothe State of Israel than “Arab Jews.” In addition, many “ArabJews” object to the term, sometimes strongly, because of the currentArab-Israeli conflict, among other reasons. Although some Israeliintellectuals today refer to themselves as “Arab Jews,”4 they areprobably quite aware that their use of the term with its currentconnotations is rather remote from the way it may have been usedby Jews in premodern Egypt, for example, where the politicalcontext was significantly different.

Although in the past I have used the term “Jews of Arab lands,”this designation in retrospect may not be the most appropriate. Theexpression associates “lands” with a nationality, since the term “Arab”may be used to refer to a specific (pan-)nationalism.5 Thus, the use of

31

4 For example, members of the “Mizrahi Democratic Rainbow.” ProfessorSasson Somekh of Tel Aviv University, an expert on the writings of the Egyptianauthor Nag•b Ma˙f¥z, spoke out at an “Iraqis conference” held at Tel AvivUniversity in May 2008 against this term, which he claimed was being used forpolitical ends and/or in order to follow current trends. He defined an “Arab Jew”as a person born in an Arabic-speaking Jewish home, who lived in an Arabic-speakingJewish community in an Arab Muslim environment, and was competent inliterary Arabic, the basis of Arab culture. Indeed, I heard Professor Somekhidentify himself as an “Arab Jew” at one of the Middle Eastern Studies Associationmeetings a few years ago.

5 The term “Arab” need not necessarily be identified with nationalism. ASyrian, for example, may ask herself, “Am I a Syrian or an Arab?” However,there have been attempts to demonstrate that the term “Arab” in the context ofpan-nationalism encompasses all Arabic-speaking nations.

this term would seem to establish a link, in the Romantic sense,

CHAPTER TWO

between just one population group and a specific territory. Such alink is factually inaccurate, since many minorities—Jews, Kurds,Berbers, and others—who live in the “Arab lands” have their ownnational movements. Control of a given territory by a certain populationis thus a historical and not a geographical fact; i.e., there is no “naturallink” between human population groups and specific territories.

Nationalism in the Middle East developed mainly in the twentiethcentury. Consequently, the terms “Arab Jews” or “Arabic-speakingJews,” as historical and cultural designations, are best avoided inreference to any time before the end of the nineteenth century. After-wards the terms become ambiguous, especially “Arab Jews,” unlessone specifically stipulates that the word “Arab” is not being employedin the more recent sense of nationality. Today, such “Arab Jews” arein reality almost exclusively multilingual Israeli, French, or NorthAmerican nationals who for the most part do not hold any “Arab”citizenship (except for some Moroccan Jews). When referring to thetime period from the beginning of the twentieth century to the present,the term “Jews of Arabic-speaking backgrounds” is thus more suitable.For premodern times the term “Arabic-speaking Jews” is fitting aswell, and is therefore used extensively in this volume. The two latterterms would probably also be acceptable to more people than theterm “Arab Jews.”6

The History of Judeo-ArabicAt two points in its history, Judeo-Arabic underwent dramatic changesin its structure and use. The first change occurred during the fifteenth

32

6 This topic deserves further investigation. The following questions could beposed to subjects and then analyzed: What does the term “Arab Jews” mean toyou? What does it evoke? What does the Arab part evoke and what does the Jewspart evoke? Provide ten associations when you hear the term “Arab Jews,” etc.For a recent discussion of some of these issues, see Gottreich 2008 and Levy2008.

century, when the Jewish world reduced its contact with its Arab


counterpart. Although a great number of Jews settled in the OttomanEmpire after the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, and insome ways experienced even more intense contact with the Muslimworld, many curtailed their contacts with Arabs, their language, andtheir culture. Jews felt the need for more separation from their Muslim(and Christian) neighbors and began to congregate in exclusively Jewishneighborhoods (sometimes with active encouragement by the autho-rities) such as ˙art il-yah¥d (in Egypt) or mEllå˙ (in North Africa).This change was especially marked in some areas like North Africa,but less so in others like Yemen, where close contacts between Jewsand non-Jews persisted for some time. As a result, Judeo-Arabic didnot develop along the same lines everywhere. Because of the change incontact between the cultures in the fifteenth century, not only did thestructure of Literary Written Judeo-Arabic (Hary 1992:79) come toincorporate more dialectal elements, but also more works were writtenin Hebrew. In fact, Hebrew, Arabic, and Judeo-Arabic were sometimesassigned different usage functions (Drory 1992, 2000).

In the twentieth century this religiolect again experienced a dramaticchange with the rise of Jewish and Arab national movements, theoutbreak of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the consequent emigration ofJews from Arabic-speaking areas. These changes brought about theloss or near loss of the religiolect.

The changes of both the fifteenth and the twentieth centuries broughtabout an increased use of dialectal elements in Judeo-Arabic texts.However, the changes in the fifteenth century were unique becausethey featured the development of the Hebraized orthography (Hary1996c), characterized by, among other things, greater Hebrew/Aramaicinfluence on Judeo-Arabic spelling. Both changes were intimatelyconnected to the decreased contact between Jews and their Arabneighbors, which led to a somewhat more insular Jewish existence inthe Arabic-speaking areas.

33

CHAPTER TWO

For purposes of discussion and analysis it is convenient to dividethe history of the religiolect into the following periods:7 Pre-IslamicJudeo-Arabic, Early Judeo-Arabic (eighth/ninth to tenth centuries),Classical Judeo-Arabic (tenth to fifteenth centuries), Later Judeo-Arabic(fifteenth to nineteenth centuries), and Contemporary Judeo-Arabic(twentieth century). This periodization, however, should not drawattention away from the major changes that occurred in the fifteenthand then in the twentieth century, as represented in figure 1:

Judeo-Arabic

Medieval Late Modern

Pre-Islamic > Early > Classical > Later > Contemporary (Change I) (Change II)

Figure 1. Periodization of Judeo-Arabic

There is a linear connection between medieval, late, and modernJudeo-Arabic.8 In other words, although the religiolect experiencedtwo dramatic changes in its development, one in the fifteenth and theother in the twentieth century, it can still be divided into successiveperiods, each of which was influenced by its predecessor. The followingparagraphs shed some light on each of the periods.

There is some evidence that the Jews in the Arabian Peninsula

34

7 I have offered a periodization of Judeo-Arabic elsewhere: Hary 1992:78,1995:74–77, 1996c:730, 1997b:200–203, 2003:52–53; Elqayam and Hary 1997:111–12; and more. In the periodization here, unlike in the previous instances, Iam taking into account the two dramatic changes that occurred in this religiolect.

8 The dialectologist Haim Blanc was the first to point me in this direction. Inhis works on spoken Egyptian Judeo-Arabic (1974, 1981, 1985) he demonstrateda linear connection between the different periods of Judeo-Arabic in Egypt.

during the pre-Islamic period used a type of Arabic Jewish dialect


called al-Yah¥diyya (Newby 1971, 1988:21–23; Gil 1984:206). Thisdialect was similar to the Arabic dialect used by the majority, butincluded some Hebrew and Aramaic lexemes, especially in the domainsof religion and culture. Some of these Hebrew and Aramaic wordspassed into the speech and writing of the Arabs. This explains whywords of Hebrew and Aramaic origin appear in the Quran. There is noevidence, however, that Pre-Islamic Judeo-Arabic ever served as thevehicle of a distinct literature. For example, the poetry of the Jewishpoet as-Samaw<al bnu >Ådiyå< did not differ from that of his Arabcontemporaries and, in fact, it constitutes part of the canon of Arabicliterature, and not of Jewish literature. Were it not for Arab sourceswhich report that he was Jewish, this fact would probably have remainedunknown. In other words, as-Samaw<al bnu >Ådiyå< was an Arab poetwho happened to be Jewish.9 Yet there may also have existed al-Yah¥diyya writings in Hebrew characters (Newby 1971:220).1 0 Afterthe conquests of early Islam, the Jews in the newly-conquered landsadopted the conquerors’ language. They began to incorporate Arabicinto their writing and gradually developed their own religiolect.

The second period of Judeo-Arabic began during the ninth century,and in Egypt already in the eighth century. This was the main periodin which the Judeo-Arabic Phonetic orthography was used, thoughalongside the Arabicized orthography. Since the Phonetic orthographywas phonetically based (Blau and Hopkins 1987:124–25; Hary 1996c)it did not imitate the orthography of Classical Arabic. Therefore, inEarly Judeo-Arabic only scribes who were educated in Classical Arabic

35

9 See Snir 2005:488–91. He has claimed that as-Samaw<al was part of thecanon of Arabic poetry of that time, although there was an unfounded claim thathe was actually a Christian (ibid., 490 n. 13). Snir quotes the Egyptian authorˇaha Óusayn (1889–1973) to the effect that Jews had a great influence on Arabicliterature, which the animosity between Arabs and Jews has made the formerunwilling to recognize (ibid., 488).

1 0Hirschfeld published an Arabic poem with 26 stanzas in Hebrew characters,attributed to as-Samaw<al, although its authenticity is in doubt (ibid., 490).

and wrote for readers versed in it used the Arabicized orthography,

CHAPTER TWO

which was based on the mechanical transfer of Classical Arabic spellinginto Hebrew characters.

The appearance of Saadia ibn Yosef al-Fayy¥m•’s (882–942 C.E.)translation of the Pentateuch into Judeo-Arabic marks the beginningof the third period, Classical Judeo-Arabic . Although the written formof this language contained dialectal features as well as pseudo-corrections, it tended to follow the model of Classical Arabic to a largeextent (Blau 1980, 1981). The works written in this period coveredthe entire spectrum of literary composition: theology, philosophy,biblical exegesis, philology, grammar and lexicography, law, ritual, andliterature, in addition to commercial and private correspondence.Furthermore, the number of such works in this period exceeded thenumber of Judeo-Arabic works of any other single period.

The fourth period, Later Judeo-Arabic, reflects the beginning of thefirst dramatic change in the history of Judeo-Arabic, as stated above.This period lasted from the fifteenth to the nineteenth century. Theshift from Classical to Later Judeo-Arabic was accompanied by “theincreased social isolation of the Jews of the Arab world at the end ofthe Middle Ages within restrictive quarters, such as the mEllå˙ and˙årat il-yah¥d” (Stillman 1988:5). During this period many moredialectal elements penetrated into the written language, and the traditionof the ¡ar˙—that is, the literal translation of Hebrew and Aramaicreligious sacred texts into Judeo-Arabic—developed. Historical,halakhic, liturgical and other texts were written in this period, many ofthem aimed at the general public rather than the erudite elite. Towardthe end of this period, and even more so in the following period, anextensive folk literature also came into being. This period, too, witnessedthe continued use of the Hebraized orthography (Hary 1996c), i.e.,Judeo-Arabic written with spelling conventions that were relativelyheavily influenced by Hebrew and Aramaic. It was also at the beginningof this period that Jewish scholars began to write in Hebrew; by theend of the period Hebrew had become the preferred written language.

36

Yemen was an exception in this development, because its Jewish


community was more isolated. The literary language of the third period,Classical Judeo-Arabic, continued to be used there well past the fifteenthcentury.

The emergence of the literary language of the fifth period marks thebeginning of the second dramatic change in the history of the religiolect.Contemporary Judeo-Arabic of the twentieth century is characterizedby greater production of ßur¥˙, folktales, and other types of popularliterature.1 1 In this period the texts are characterized by more dialectalcomponents than in previous periods and exhibit local elements takenfrom the spoken variety. However, North Africans had already begunto use their local dialect in writing during earlier periods. As a result,Jewish readers from other Arabic-speaking areas found Maghrebi textsdifficult if not impossible to understand. Furthermore, beginning inthe previous period and continuing into this period, several dialectalcenters developed and flourished among Arabic-speaking Jews. Thus,there arose Maghrebi Judeo-Arabic, Egyptian Judeo-Arabic, SyrianJudeo-Arabic, Iraqi Judeo-Arabic, and Yemenite Judeo-Arabic, eachwith its own local flavor.

The Structure of Judeo-ArabicBecause it is the meeting point of Classical Arabic, Arabic dialects,Hebrew, and Aramaic, Judeo-Arabic exists in numerous mixed forms.As a result, one feature of Literary Written Judeo-Arabic is that itcontains, among other elements, many colloquial characteristics.

Figure 2 illustrates the continuum in Judeo-Arabic. Note that thedramatic changes in Judeo-Arabic that occurred during the fifteenthand the twentieth centuries resulted in a shift in the nature of the

37

1 1For a useful list of works in contemporary Judeo-Arabic, see Corré 1989. Alist of Iraqi Judeo-Arabic folk literature, including poetry, can be found in Avishur1979.

1 2The term continuuglossia was introduced in Hary 2003 with the use of twou’s. Here I use continuglossia with one u to reflect the Latin origin more

continuglossia,1 2 so that more and more dialectal elements penetrated

CHAPTER TWO

the writings composed in this religiolect. This had the effect of reducingthe gap between the left and the right poles of the continuum.

JUDEO-ARABIC

Hebrew/Aramaic Hebrew/Aramaic

Literary Written Judeo-Arabic Dialectal Spoken JA(Varieties Bn) (Varieties C)

Standard Arabic (Variety A) Arabic Dialects

Figure 2. The Judeo-Arabic continuum

At the right end of the Judeo-Arabic continuum one finds DialectalSpoken Judeo-Arabic (Hary 1992:79). The left side of the Arabiccontinuum containing standard Arabic (the acrolect) is not found in afully-developed form in Literary Written Judeo-Arabic; however, it isa source of style-shifting which many authors attempted to use, withmixed success. In other words, the language of Judeo-Arabic authorsonly approached standard Arabic. Had they written in a language thatwas too much like standard Arabic, their writings would have losttheir distinctive identity, and would not have been considered Judeo-

38

properly (I thank Michiel Klein Swormink, personal communication). It is largelymeant to replace the term diglossia (Ferguson 1959) by emphasizing that acontinuum describes the situation better than a dichotomy. In the case of Arabic,rather than stressing a contrast between standard and colloquial Arabic, the proposedterm refers to a continuum on which the Arabic varieties are located.

Arabic. On the other hand, standard Arabic is still the anchor for the


left side of the Judeo-Arabic continuum. Thus, it is clear that theJews, a minority language community, defined themselves linguisticallyaccording to the values of the Arabs, the dominant majority.

The Judeo-Arabic ContinuumMany of the linguistic characteristics of the various Judeo-Arabicdialects (Varieties C) throughout their history can be identified bymeans of a careful analysis of Judeo-Arabic texts (Varieties Bn).

1 3 Byidentifying and setting aside the elements of Classical Arabic, pseudo-corrections, and the style of the ¡ar˙ in a written text, the student ofJudeo-Arabic can isolate dialectal elements derived from colloquialJudeo-Arabic. Such an analysis should be done by comparison to themodern dialects.1 4 The influence of standard Arabic is particularlyevident in the area of pseudocorrections. The reason for this is thatJudeo-Arabic authors at times attempted to write in the more prestigiousstandard Arabic, with varying degrees of success and with occasionalpseudocorrections. A number of Judeo-Arabic authors did masterstandard Arabic and wrote in it. Their writings in standard Arabic,however, cannot be considered Judeo-Arabic, and thus lie outside thescope of this religiolect. Maimonides (1135–1204) can serve as a goodexample of Classical Judeo-Arabic. He was certainly also capable ofwriting in standard Arabic (Variety A1 5), and indeed did so; without adoubt, he was able to switch between the different varieties of thelanguage, adapting his writing to his readership. As a result, some ofhis works, such as his medical writings, which were aimed at Christianand Muslim readers, are in standard Arabic (Variety A), not in ClassicalJudeo-Arabic. In other works, such as his letters to his coreligionists,

39

1 3See Hary 1992:11ff and 1996a for detailed explanations of Varieties A, B n, andC.

1 4See chapter 4, pp. 93ff, for a further treatment of this methodology.1 5On Variety A and its placement on the Arabic continuum, see Hary 1995:77–

80, 1996a:71–75.

he used Literary Written Classical Judeo-Arabic (Varieties Bn).

CHAPTER TWO

Judeo-Arabic writers’ and speakers’ attitudes are important forunderstanding the religiolect. Since they did not have the same ideal ofal->arabiyya ‘the [pure] Arabic’ as their Muslim neighbors, they allowedthemselves to rely more on colloquial elements when writing. But onthe other hand, they aspired to write in the prestigious standard Arabic(Variety A), which they did not always master. This, in turn, resultedin pseudocorrections, a typical component of Judeo-Arabic (Hary1992:62–67, 2003).

To conclude, Judeo-Arabic, standard Arabic, Arabic dialects,Hebrew, and Aramaic were all part of the linguistic inventory ofJewish society in areas where Arabic was spoken. But standard Arabic,Arabic dialects, Hebrew, and Aramaic were not part of the Judeo-Arabiccontinuglossia, although they were in close contact with the religiolectand influenced its structure.

The main difference between the continuglossic situation of Arabicand that of Judeo-Arabic lies in the functions of the varieties of Bn.Whereas in Arabic, Bn—or, as it is sometimes termed, al-lu\a al-wuß†å‘the intermediate language’—is used both orally (most often in themedia) and in writing (mainly in private letters and personalcommunication, but also in modern prose, dramatic dialogues, andoccasionally also in modern poetry), it is not employed as the mainvariety for literary compositions, as is the case with the varieties ofBn of Judeo-Arabic. Generally speaking, Judeo-Arabic literary textshave been composed in Bn, whereas Arabic literary texts have beencomposed, for the most part, in Variety A. This last observationshould be accepted with some reservation, since in recent years therehas been a significant increase in the publication of written colloquialArabic in Egypt.1 6 However, it is still the case that the majority ofliterary texts in the rest of the Arab world are composed in Variety A.

In our description of the language community of Jews in Arabic-

40

1 6See chapter 4, p. 97, and Rosenbaum 2004.

speaking areas, we see how continuglossia is intimately tied to the use


of other languages, Hebrew and Aramaic in the present case. Thissituation is not unique to Judeo-Arabic. It is in fact compatible withwhat Ferguson has said about Tamil and the effect on it of Sanskritand English, and about Arabic in some parts of the Arab world whereFrench, English, Syriac, or Coptic also plays a role.1 7 In fact, continu-glossia occurs in many other speech communities.1 8 Faroese, forexample, is a West Scandinavian language spoken by between fortyand fifty thousand people on the Faroe Islands. For centuries Danishwas the language of administration, religion, education, and culture onthe islands, and Faroese was the spoken vernacular. But from thenineteenth century onward, there has been a systematic attempt toreplace Danish with a “pure” form of Faroese, a written version of thelanguage free from the “corrupted” vernacular with its foreign influences.In fact, a conscious effort has been made to create an intralingualcontinuglossic situation with two opposing poles: a purist written(and later oral) variety and a colloquial variety, where Danish is still inthe background.1 9 Faroese is thus not just another example of anintralingual continuglossic situation, but also an interesting case ofplanned continuglossia.

The Diachronic Development of Judeo-Arabic ContinuglossiaThe continuglossic state of Judeo-Arabic has evolved throughout itshistory.2 0 The situation in Classical Judeo-Arabic was not the same as

41

1 7See the discussion in Ferguson 1959:337.1 8Ferguson alludes to this in ibid., 326.1 9I thank John Thomeson who sent me his manuscript. See Thomeson n.d.2 0I do not, of course, claim that my diachronic analysis of Judeo-Arabic is the

only way to understand its history or the history of Arabic in general. Much ofthe data on this religiolect has been lost, and it is therefore possible to hypothesizeother “histories” of Judeo-Arabic that are consistent with the available information.I have attempted here to sketch one possible history of Judeo-Arabic that may beuseful for gaining a better understanding of how the history of Arabic hasdeveloped.

that in Later Judeo-Arabic. The structure of the latter underwent

1 2 3 4

CHAPTER TWO

several changes due to the fact that its literary varieties exhibited astronger dialectal base than the literary varieties of previous periods.The relative position of a typical text of Later Judeo-Arabic (VarietiesBn) would therefore fall more toward the colloquial end or right side ofthe continuum than would a typical text of Classical Judeo-Arabic. InContemporary Judeo-Arabic the dialectal base of Bn is again strongerthan it was in Later Judeo-Arabic; the relative position of an averagetext of this variety is shifted even further toward the colloquial end ofthe continuum. In other words, the “linguistic distance” (Ferguson1996:57–58) between Bn and C has changed over the centuries: inClassical Judeo-Arabic the distance between the two is larger than inLater Judeo-Arabic, and larger still than in Contemporary Judeo-Arabic.Figure 3 shows the relative position of a typical text in Bn in differentperiods of Judeo-Arabic:

JUDEO-ARABIC

Varieties Bn Varieties C

1 = Literary Written Classical Judeo-Arabic2 = Literary Written Later Judeo-Arabic3 = Literary Written Contemporary Judeo-Arabic4 = Spoken Dialectal Judeo-Arabic

Figure 3. The continuglossic nature of Judeo-Arabic

Figure 3 is a schematic representation of the history of continuglossiain Judeo-Arabic. The exact position of Literary Written Judeo-Arabic(Bn) can never be fixed, even within a specific period, not only because

42

of the countless lectal possibilities involved, but also because it may


shift along the continuum, depending on the nature of the texts involved,their writers and readers, and other variables. The diagram does, however,attempt to show the relative positions of average or typical texts ofBn in the different periods of Judeo-Arabic. Thus, it is clear from thediagram that the number of dialectal elements in Literary WrittenContemporary Judeo-Arabic, for example, is greater than in LiteraryWritten Later Judeo-Arabic, because the contemporary variety isgenerally located closer to the continuum’s colloquial or right end. Thesame holds true for the relation of Literary Written Later to ClassicalJudeo-Arabic, in that the dialectal elements in the Later period aremore extensive than those of the Classical period.

There are several possible explanations for why the dialectalcomponents in Judeo-Arabic became more conspicuous with the passageof time. First, as mentioned above, the two major changes in thehistory of Judeo-Arabic occurred during the fifteenth century, at theend of Classical Judeo-Arabic and the beginning of Later Judeo-Arabic;and during the twentieth century, at the end of Later Judeo-Arabicand the beginning of Contemporary Judeo-Arabic. During both ofthese transition periods, more dialectal elements began to appear inthe texts. This linguistic situation was coupled with a conscious desireon the part of Jews to distance themselves from Arabic culture and itswritten expressions. Because of this separation, or perceived separation,Jews may have cared even less for preserving Classical Arabic, andthus may have allowed more dialectal components to enter their writings.In addition, they started to write more in Hebrew. Moreover, in LaterJudeo-Arabic a Hebraized orthography began to develop, heavilyinfluenced by Hebrew/Aramaic. In other words, rather than mechanicallytransferring Arabic letters into Hebrew characters or imitating ClassicalArabic spelling as represented in the Arabicized orthography devisedin the tenth century, Jews from the fifteenth century onward developeda Hebraized orthography and allowed much greater Hebrew/Aramaicinfluence on the spelling of Judeo-Arabic. Finally, the increased dialectal

43

components in Later and Contemporary Judeo-Arabic may represent

CHAPTER TWO

a decline in the level of education in the Muslim world in general andin the Arabic-speaking Jewish world in particular, which started at theend of the Middle Ages, in the fifteenth century.

The diachronic development of Judeo-Arabic is comparable in someways to the history of Maltese. Like Judeo-Arabic, Maltese is usedby “non-Muslims,” Christians in this case. More importantly, Maltese,like Judeo-Arabic, is also not written in Arabic characters; it uses theLatin alphabet (chapter 1, pp. 19–20). Maltese, unlike Judeo-Arabic,however, has been more isolated from the main body of Arabic speakers,and thus the vernacular has moved even further away from the center.Consequently, many features of Maltese are further removed fromstandard Arabic than are those in Judeo-Arabic. The phonemes /!/and />/ both disappeared, although both are still reflected in theconservative orthography. In addition, /x/ merged with /˙/ (/˙obz/‘bread’; /a˙na/ ‘we’). Third, emphatic phonemes became nonemphatic,although the vowels sometimes indicate where an emphatic phonemeexisted earlier. Finally, numerous Italian and Sicilian loanwords havebeen fully integrated into Maltese, resulting in a major morphologicalrestructuring of the language (Versteegh 1997:209–11).

The investigation of marginal, minority religiolects or languagevarieties such as Judeo-Arabic and Maltese makes it easier to understandthe diachronic development of Arabic in general. In fact, suchinvestigations open a small window onto Arabic continuglossia ingeneral and can explain some of its historical developments, as well asthe development of Arabic dialects throughout history, since theperiphery (in these cases, Judeo-Arabic or Maltese) so often pointsto the center (in this case, Arabic in general).

The Current State of Judeo-ArabicAs mentioned in the previous chapter, Judeo-Arabic is one of themore significant Jewish religiolects. However, Yiddish and Judeo-Spanish enjoy greater recognition and prestige in both Jewish and

44

“non-Jewish” circles. There are several reasons for this. The dominance


of Ashkenazi Jewry throughout the twentieth century in two influentialJewish societies, in the United States and in Palestine/Israel, hasadvanced the prestige of Yiddish over other Jewish religiolects andvarieties. In the United States, a special organization, YIVO (˘È„ÈÈËÂËÈËÒ!È‡ ¯ÚÎÈÏË»Ù‹‡˘!ÒÈÂÂ ‘The Institute for Jewish Studies’), was re-established to support the teaching and study of Yiddish. Despitecompetition from Hebrew, especially in twentieth-century Palestine,Yiddish continues to enjoy greater prestige than any other Jewishreligiolect (except Hebrew). The tragedy of the Holocaust, coupledwith Stalin’s crackdown on Yiddish and the consequent loss of a largenumber of Yiddish speakers and a fair number of Judeo-Spanishspeakers, also helped to increase nostalgic interest in these tworeligiolects during the twentieth century. In 1996 the Knesset, theIsraeli legislature, adopted two laws, the Law of the National Authorityfor Yiddish Culture (1996) and the Law of the National Authority forLadino Culture (1996), that established national agencies for the studyof Yiddish and Ladino, respectively. Moreover, the Film IndustryRegulations of 2001 state specifically that “a film is considered Israeliif the main language in the original copy of the film is either Hebrew,Arabic, Yiddish, or Ladino or some combination of them.” Althoughthe regulations recognize Arabic, as it is one of the two official languagesused in the State of Israel, they do not recognize Judeo-Arabic assuch. The omission of Judeo-Arabic from the regulations may haveadverse consequences because the designation of a film as Israeli entitlesits producers to receive grants from the Ministry of Culture. Of course,a movie filmed in Judeo-Arabic could well be recognized as Israeli,since Judeo-Arabic is a variety of Arabic. But symbolically, the factthat Judeo-Arabic is not mentioned in the official regulations of 2001is very telling. In yet another example, in December 2001 the IsraeliPostal Service (È‡ÏÂ·‰ ˙Â¯˘‰) issued stamps recognizing the Yiddishand the Ladino legacies.

All these measures constitute clear symbolic signs of the relative

45

importance of Yiddish and Judeo-Spanish in Israeli society. However,

CHAPTER TWO

in none of the above examples is recognition given to the Judeo-Arabiclinguistic heritage: the Knesset has not adopted a law establishing anational authority for the study of Judeo-Arabic; Judeo-Arabic is notregarded as an officially recognized language in the definition of anIsraeli film; and the Israeli postal service has not issued commemorativestamps recognizing Judeo-Arabic culture.2 1

The Israeli public has at most a limited acquaintance with the term“Judeo-Arabic.” An average high-school or university graduate in Israelwould likely recognize the words “Yiddish” or “Ladino,” but wouldbe puzzled if confronted with the term “Judeo-Arabic.” Even withinthe Judeo-Arabic speech community in Israel there is little awarenessof the linear link between Medieval, Late, and Modern Judeo-Arabic,or of the connection between the various varieties of Arabic. Forexample, the famous Israeli soccer player Haim Revivo, who playedseveral years in the Spanish professional soccer league and was verypopular there, was asked in an interview about his extensive knowledgeof languages. In addition to Hebrew and Spanish, he was asked if hespoke Arabic as well. “No, no, I don’t speak any Arabic,” answeredRevivo. “But I thought that you spoke Arabic with your grandmotherwho came from North Africa,” continued the interviewer. “Oh, that’svery different,” answered Revivo: “I only spoke Moroccan with her.”

There are probably several reasons for the Israeli public’s lack offamiliarity with the term “Judeo-Arabic,” as exemplified in Revivo’sfailure to see the connection between his grandmother’s native tongue,Moroccan Judeo-Arabic, and other varieties of Arabic. One reason isthat Israeli Jews may wish to avoid the term “Arabic” because of itsconnotations in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict; another reasonmay be the fact that the various Judeo-Arabic geographical varieties

46

2 1I thank my student, Gidon Tikotski, who complained about this in early2002 to Mr. Yitshaq Granot, Director of Stamp Production and Issuance at theIsraeli Postal Company; however, nothing has been done as of yet to rectify thesituation.

are markedly different from one another, and thus differ also from the


familiar local Palestinian dialect (Myhill 2004:122).Avoidance of the word “Iraq” in the term by which the Iraqi Jewish

community in Israel designates itself may be another possible example.The community is called Ï·· ˙Â„‰È Babylonian Jewry. However, thisterm has a long history in the Babylonian Talmud, in Benjamin ofTudela’s writings, in the responsa literature, and in the contemporaryJewish community in Mumbai, India,2 2 which may explain the avoidanceof the word “Iraq” in the community’s name.2 3

In the Israeli academic community, however, a number of scholarsof Medieval and Later Judeo-Arabic have gained prominence, amongthem many of Arab descent (Avishur, Bar-Asher, Chetrit, Toby, andmore). But even in the academic world the situation is embarrassing,since Israeli universities have not created new positions for the teachingand study of Judeo-Arabic in more than a decade. The current“politically correct” attitude towards “Sephardi/Mizrahi” culture inIsrael and the United States may have dictated greater recognition ofJudeo-Spanish, but so far has not reached Judeo-Arabic. For example,in recent years a “Sephardi/Mizrahi” caucus has been establishedthrough the commendable efforts of Aviva Ben-Ur of the Universityof Massachusetts at Amherst and Norman Stillman of the Universityof Oklahoma. This caucus meets annually as part of the annualconference of the Association for Jewish Studies. At a recent meeting,one of the panels discussed the incorporation of “Sephardi/Mizrahi”elements into the Jewish Studies curriculum. One of the participantsproudly outlined new proposals that had been initiated at his institutionto include what he termed “Sephardi and Mizrahi” components of thecurriculum. While some Sephardi materials were presented, nothing

47

2 2I thank Shalom Goldman for his remarks on this matter.2 3In a markedly different mode, in May 2008 Tel Aviv University organized

an academic congress entitled “The Iraqi Conference,” on the acculturation ofIraqi Jews into Israeli society. The organizers specifically used the term “Iraq”and avoided the traditional term “Babylonian Jewry.”

about Judeo-Arabic or the culture of Arabic-speaking Jews was even

CHAPTER TWO

mentioned. Furthermore, Jewish scholarship on Bible translation,although recognizing Saadia Gaon’s tenth-century Judeo-Arabictranslation of the Bible, often ignores the huge range of Judeo-Arabicbiblical translations. Frederick Greenspahn has quoted Joseph Hertz,the British Chief Rabbi of the first half of the twentieth century,saying that “the history of Jewish Bible translations would summarizethe history of the Jews,”2 4 adding that “it is particularly striking tonote those languages in which there are several Jewish translations.These include Greek, Aramaic, Yiddish/German, and English, whichconstitute the major centers of diaspora Jewish life, further illustratingthe intimate connection between the history of Jewish Bible translationand of the Jews” (2006:181). It is disappointing to see Greenspahnignore the plethora of Judeo-Arabic biblical translations as well as theArabic-speaking Jewish diaspora that for many centuries consisted ofmore than half of the Jewish population in the world. One verypositive development deserves to be mentioned, however. Thepublishing house Brill, thanks to the great efforts on the part of aneditorial team headed by Norman Stillman of the University ofOklahoma, is in the last phases of publishing an Encyclopedia of Jewsin the Islamic World, in which Judeo-Arabic has a prominent place.

The Judeo-Arabic religiolect today is endangered and close tobecoming extinct. The extensive emigration of Arabic-speaking Jewsfrom the late 1940s through the 1960s is the main reason for thissituation. Most of these Arabic-speaking Jews came to Israel (althoughsome also immigrated to France, North America, and other places),where they were under great pressure to drop Judeo-Arabic and adoptHebrew. Today there are still sizeable Jewish communities in Tunisiaand in Morocco.2 5 In Morocco, though, most of the Jewish speech

48

2 4Hertz 1936, 2:74, quoted in Greenspahn 2006:181.2 5According to www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org, and based on American Jewish

Year Book, as of 2006 there were 1,100 Jews in Tunisia and 3,000 in Morocco.

community uses French rather than Moroccan Judeo-Arabic. There


are still speakers of Judeo-Arabic in Israel (and elsewhere) and a showin Moroccan Judeo-Arabic has been broadcast weekly on Israeli radio.According to the SIL International Ethnologue project, as of the mid-1990s there were close to 500,000 speakers of Judeo-Arabic, and Iassume that the number has declined today to just under 400,000speakers (see also Spolsky and Shoahamy 1999:3). This population,however, is aging, so that Judeo-Arabic’s use as a native religiolectwill likely disappear in the near future. Consequently, there is anurgent need to encourage research on Judeo-Arabic.

49

CHAPTER THREE

THE TRANSLATION OF SACRED TEXTS

INTO JUDEO-ARABIC (THE ¡ar˙)

This chapter begins with a general inquiry into the translation ofsacred religious texts, mostly liturgical in nature, into Jewish religiolects.It considers the perceived sanctity of the translated texts and demon-strates how translators dealt with the constant linguistic tension betweentheir desire to provide as literal a translation of the original sacred textas possible, and the need to make this translation from Hebrew orAramaic fit the linguistic parameters of the target religiolect so thatthe reader could comprehend the texts. The chapter also analyzes thereasons why such translations were made and traces the evolution ofthis genre, called ¡ar˙ (pl. ¡ur¥˙) in Judeo-Arabic, especially in NorthAfrica, including Egypt, beginning in the fifteenth century, while alsotaking into account Saadia’s earlier translation of the Bible in the tenthcentury. This is followed by a review of previous scholarship on the¡ar˙ and a discussion of the Cairo Collection, from which severalmanuscripts relevant to this book are taken. The chapter then offers alinguistic model for the analysis of the translations of sacred texts,based on scanning the text in descending units of grammatical structure ,from the phrase level down through the lexical, morphosyntactic, andsegment levels, and employing a continuum of least-to-most-literaltranslations. Examples are provided of various categories and linguisticfeatures. The chapter concludes with a description of two mechanismswhich translators/interpreters, called ¡ar˙anim in Judeo-Arabic, usedwhen performing translations of sacred texts.

CHAPTER THREE

Translation and Issues of Sacredness1

Jewish sacred texts are written primarily in Hebrew and Aramaic andare used, among other things, for liturgy and for study. As mentionedin chapter 1 (p. 25), these texts include the Hebrew Bible, the Talmud,the Siddur or prayer book, the Passover Haggadah, Midrashic literature,and Pirkei Avot , “Ethics of the Patriarchs,” a tractate of moral andreligious teachings dating from Second Temple times and the periodfollowing the Second Temple’s destruction.

The first translations of sacred texts into Jewish religiolects dateback to the Gaonic period in Babylonia in the early Middle Ages. InLate Judeo-Arabic the genre is known as ¡ar˙ (pl. ¡ur¥˙), in Judeo-Neo-Aramaic it is termed ¡ar> or ¡ar˙, tavsili in Judeo-Georgian, tefilain Judeo-Italian, tamsir in Jewish Malayalam, ladino in Judeo-Spanish,and taytsh in Yiddish; the genre is also documented in Judeo-Provençal,Judeo-Persian, Judeo-Berber, and other Jewish religiolects.

Ladino religious literature had its beginnings in pre-expulsion Spain.However, it ripened and flourished only after the expulsion. Threemain texts were continuously translated, especially in Constantinopleand Salonika, but also in other Sephardi Jewish centers such asAmsterdam, Livorno, Venice, Vienna, and elsewhere. These texts werethe Hebrew Bible, the Passover Haggadah, and the tractate of PirkeiAvot, which Sephardi Jews read on Saturdays between Passover andPentecost (Schwarzwald 1992:12). Sephardi Jews put these texts toboth liturgical and pedagogical use. They were taught to students inreligious schools and were read in the synagogue and at home (haf†arot,Bible, Pirkei Avot). Some were read on specific Jewish holidays (biblicalmegillot, Passover Haggadah).

In general, a Jewish religiolect draws from and is influenced by bothHebrew and Aramaic. However, the texts of the ¡ar˙, the Ladinoreligious literature, tefila, and other translations of sacred texts into

52

1 Some of the issues in this section have also been discussed in Hary 2004.

Jewish varieties are extreme forms of their respective religiolects, since

THE TRANSLATION OF SACRED TEXTS INTO JUDEO-ARABIC

they not only draw from Hebrew and Aramaic, but are in fact basedon and dependent on them. This makes the genre unique; its investigationclearly reveals the connection between language, religion, and culture.In other words, the intricacies of the ¡ar˙ and other translations ofJewish religious literature demonstrate how a Jewish religiolect operatesin a minority Jewish society living under specific linguistic tensions,as will be shown later in the chapter.

The translation of sacred texts into different Jewish languages,religiolects, and varieties has been widespread throughout the Jewishworld. As we have seen in chapter 1, the occurrence of this genre is acommon feature of many Jewish languages. Most Jews learn someHebrew and Aramaic, but their competence in these languages canvary greatly. When they consult a sacred text, many Jews thus relynot only on the original Hebrew or Aramaic version, but also on atranslation in their local variety. Significantly, although numerous Jewishauthorities have come out against Bible translations,2 “Jewish traditionhas not merely tolerated [these] translations, but on occasion accordedthem with a degree of authority approaching that of the Hebrew”(Greenspahn 2006:181). Thus, the British Chief Rabbi of the first halfof the twentieth century, Joseph Hertz, has claimed that “translationsof the Bible share in the sacredness of the Original” (1936, 2:71), andGerman Jewish theologian and philosopher Franz Rosenzweig (1886–1929) has argued that the “Bible must surely be the first book to betranslated and then held equal to the original translation” (1971:366).3

It has been claimed that the ¡ur¥˙ translations were composedprimarily for the use of women and children, whose Hebrew was notup to par (Bar-Asher 1988:29–30). However, the translations were

53

2 See Greenspahn 2002:61 n. 104: ‰Î¯ˆ ÏÎ Ì‚¯˙‰Ï ‰ÏÂÎÈ ‰¯Â˙‰ ‰˙È‰ ‡Ï (Soferim1:7) ‘The Torah could not be adequately translated’ and ˘„Â˜‰ È¯ÙÒ ·Â˙ÎÏ Â¯È˙‰ ‡Ï˘„Â˜‰ ÔÂ˘Ï· ‡Ï‡ (Nahmanides) ‘It was only permitted to write the sacred books inthe holy language.’

3 Both of these quotations appear in Greenspahn 2006:181, including n. 15.

not meant to replace the Hebrew Bible, just to complement it. In fact,

CHAPTER THREE

Jews continued to read the Bible in Hebrew all over the world, nomatter what their linguistic limitations were, and therefore “the Talmudmandates that the Bible be translated at the time that it is read”(Greenspahn 2006:187). Moreover, the ¡ur¥˙ translations still requiredsome knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic, and thus the claim that thetranslations were done because of a lack of Hebrew competence is notas accurate as it may seem at first sight. In fact, the translations werewritten mostly in Hebrew characters, as was customary in Jewishvarieties. At times they also incorporated Hebrew and Aramaic wordsand elements, frequently translating the Hebrew etymologically “sothat Hebrew connotations will be more apparent” (Greenspahn2002:44). Finally, these translations occasionally closely followed thesyntactic structures of the Hebrew or Aramaic original, rather thanthose of the target language, i.e., the Jewish religiolect. The targetlanguage in these cases was thus augmented in an effort to translatethe original text as literally as possible (Hary 1995). Greenspahn wastherefore correct in asserting that the claim that “these translations areevidence of and adjustment to Jewish assimilation” is inaccurate(Greenspahn 2000:6). According to him, “Jewish versions of the Bibleare not simply accommodations to linguistic necessity, but also anexpression of communal identity and an assertion of ownership of theBible” (idem, 2006:195). In fact, these translations “reflect thecommunities which produce them” (ibid., 194).

The sacredness in which these translations are held is not uniform.Indeed, the degree of sanctity of holy texts within the Jewish traditionvaries, depending on the text, the place, and the time. For example, allof the Hebrew Bible is considered sacred, but its holiest part is theTorah, or the Five Books of Moses. Further, the Ten Commandmentsare more sacred than other parts of the Torah. Similarly, Genesis, thefirst book of the Torah, is more sacred than the Song of Songs, but theSong of Songs is still part of the Hebrew Bible, and so derives itssanctity from its inclusion in the sacred canon. In postbiblical sacred

54

texts, the question of the degree of sanctity arises as well. For example,


different Midrashim4 may possess different degrees of sanctity. ThusHalakhic Midrashim are considered more sacred, because they aremore closely linked to the Torah than Aggadic Midrashim are.5 Thenotion of sacredness is therefore best understood as occupying acontinuum. On one end there is the Hebrew Bible, usually consideredthe ultimate sacred text in Jewish tradition. Other texts and phenomenathen can be located along the continuum, at varying distances from theHebrew Bible, each in accordance with its specific degree of sacredness.Texts such as translations of the Hebrew Bible or Halakhic Midrashimthat are strongly connected to the Hebrew Bible will be found closerto the sacred end of the continuum than texts that are not connecteddirectly to the Hebrew Bible.6

But not only texts reside along this continuum, which can accom-modate other cultural elements as well—orthography, for example. Asshown above in chapter 1 (pp. 19–21), writing systems often serve asreligious symbols. The Arabic alphabet is a marker for Islam in languagessuch as Persian, Urdu, and Osmanli. The Cyrillic alphabet used inSerbian is a marker for the Eastern Orthodox Church, just as the Latinalphabet, in which Croatian is written, is a marker for Catholicism.Jewish languages are most often written in Hebrew characters;consequently, the Hebrew alphabet, as the marker of Hebrew/Jewishreligious culture, may itself be considered sacred. Texts written in

55

4 The terms Midrash (sg.) and Midrashim (pl.) refer to a specific rabbinicliterature of homilies, interpretations, and biblical exegesis. Midrashim offercommentaries on some books of the Hebrew Bible.

5 The issue in rabbinic literature concerns the status of Aggadic Midrashim,which were the subject of some controversy in the Middle Ages. In other words,the rabbis were not sure how literally to take them. See R. Abraham benHa-Rambam’s lengthy essay (reprinted in most editions of >Ein Ya>aqov), wherehe discusses the many categories of the Aggadic Midrashim. I thank MichaelBerger, personal communication.

6 I thank Gordon Newby for several of the ideas expressed here, due to anumber of extended conversations we had on this topic.

Jewish religiolects using Hebrew characters may thus be sacred, although

CHAPTER THREE

the degree of sanctity is determined primarily by the sacredness of thetext. For example, translations of the Bible into Jewish varieties areparticularly sacred because, in addition to using Hebrew characters,they are closely associated with the most sacred end of the continuum.I call this relationship “sanctity by association.”7 Thus, translationsof sacred texts such as the Bible into Jewish varieties are more sacredthan other writings in Jewish varieties, whose sanctity derives merelyfrom their use of the Hebrew alphabet—a marker of Jewish religionand culture; the translations are not sacred to the same degree as theHebrew original itself.

Saadia’s tenth-century translation of the Bible (tafs•r) raises aninteresting question with regard to the concept of “sanctity byassociation,” particularly in relation to the ¡ur¥˙ translations of thefifteenth century and beyond (see below, pp. 60–63). Saadia translatedthe Bible into Classical Judeo-Arabic , with few colloquial elements,using an idiomatic, nonliteral style of translation; but the ¡ur¥˙translations were composed in Later Judeo-Arabic, frequently in averbatim style. Which of these translations was considered more sacred?According to the concept of “sanctity by association,” the ¡ur¥˙translations and the tafs•r would both be expected to be located nearthe sacred end of the continuum because they are translations of theHebrew Bible. But the ¡ur¥˙ translations are indeed considered moresacred than the tafs•r because of their verbatim style. Saadia’s translationwas widely read throughout the Arabic-speaking Jewish world andwas certainly considered “sacred.” However, as mentioned below (pp.61–62), Rabbi Issachar ben Susan criticized Saadia in the introductionto his sixteenth-century ¡ar˙ to the Bible for having written in alanguage that was difficult to understand, adding that therefore the

56

7 In Hary 2004:234 I called this “guilt by association.” I now prefer to call it“sanctity by association.” For example, since a translation of the book of Genesisis associated with the original sacred Hebrew text, this association makes thetranslation sacred as well. I thank Nick Fabian for his suggestion.

tafs•r was ignored and neglected. This is a clear indication that Issachar


ben Susan may have considered Saadia’s tafs•r to be less sacred thanscholars had previously thought. For this reason Issachar ben Susanthought that a new translation was needed.8

The Translator’s DilemmaThe texts of the ¡ar˙, the Ladino religious literature, tefila, andtranslations of sacred texts into other Jewish varieties exhibit a constantlinguistic tension between the translator’s desire to retain the originalsacred text word for word and the need to produce a translation thatreaders could understand. Greenspahn was correct in arguing that“translations that preserve the sound, syntax, and etymologicalrelationships of the original … are unlikely to read smoothly in theirtarget languages. It is, therefore, not surprising that numerous Jewishrenderings have been criticized for being overly literal and wooden”(2002:51). This is one of the reasons why many translators sought tobalance their literal translations with interpretations. In the ¡ar˙, forexample, we find Judeo-Arabic verbatim translations that result in“un-Arabic” structures which imitate the Hebrew source and deviatefrom standard Judeo-Arabic. On the other hand, in order to producean easily comprehensible translation, the text must be interpretedfrom time to time; this is done through the use of word substitution,paraphrase, and the addition of flavor from the local dialect. At timesthe translation is uncompromisingly literal: every Hebrew word isequivalent to exactly one word in Judeo-Arabic, in order to preservethe Hebrew syntactic structure. In these cases the Judeo-Arabic trans-lation seems strange to native speakers, because the Arabic wordsbecome subject to the grammatical rules that govern their Hebrewequivalents and the translator risks creating structures that are unac-ceptable in Arabic. For example, in the Egyptian Judeo-Arabic Passover

57

8 I thank Geoffrey Khan for helping me pose these questions.

Haggadah the following example appears: ÈÎÁ!Ï ‰!ÈÏÚ ‰ÈÈˆÂ ‘we are

CHAPTER THREE

duty-bound to tell.’9 This is a verbatim translation of the Hebrew ‰ÂˆÓ

¯ÙÒÏ Â!ÈÏÚ. The reason given in the literature for this method of translationis pedagogical. In teaching Jewish sacred texts, one or several wordswere read aloud in Hebrew, and these were immediately followed bythe Judeo-Arabic equivalent from the ¡ar˙. Therefore, the latter hadto maintain a word order which exactly followed the Hebrew text.Students were taught to recite after the teacher, first in Hebrew andthen in Judeo-Arabic, as follows: ‰ÂˆÓ - ‰ÈÈˆÂ; Â!ÈÏÚ - ‰!ÈÏÚ; ¯ÙÒÏ - ÈÎÁ!Ï.1 0

Through such rote repetition they were also indirectly taught Hebrewgrammar. For example, in Arabic there is no equivalent to the Hebrewparticle ˙‡ /et/ which marks the definite direct object; in Egyptian¡ur¥˙ it was usually rendered with the Judeo-Arabic word ‰Ï‡ /ila/,so that the latter became the marker for the definite direct object:1 1

Ï·‚ ‰Ï‡ ÂÈ˘ÚÏ ˙ËÚÂ ÂÈ˘Ú ‰Ï‡Â ·Â˜ÚÈ ‰Ï‡ ˜ÁˆÈÏ ˙ËÚÂ ˜ÁˆÈ ‰Ï‡ ÂÏ ˙ËÚÂ¯ÈÚ˘ ‘and I gave him Isaac, and I gave unto Isaac Jacob and Esau, and Igave unto Esau Mount Seir.’1 2 This is the translation of the Hebrew,¯ÈÚ˘ ¯‰ ˙‡ ÂÈ˘ÚÏ Ô˙‡Â ÂÈ˘Ú ˙‡Â ·˜ÚÈ ˙‡ ˜ÁˆÈÏ Ô˙‡Â ˜ÁˆÈ ˙‡ ÂÏ Ô˙‡Â. By learningto correlate the Hebrew /et/ with the Judeo-Arabic equivalent /ila/,students would eventually understand the syntactic function of /et/. Itwas for such didactic purposes that a Judeo-Arabic word order whichexactly followed the Hebrew text was considered necessary.

The requisites of teaching, however, were not the only reason forword-for-word translation. A tradition of literal biblical translationhad prevailed for centuries before the development of the ¡ar˙. Thismethod of translation, already used in the Targums, no doubt played a

58

9 This sentence is taken from an Egyptian Judeo-Arabic Haggadah, ms. 3 3,6.See the critical edition in Hary 2009.

1 0Read from left to right: /mitzva/ - /wißiyya/ (in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic), etc.1 1See Hary 1991, 1992:300–303 and chapter 8 of this volume, pp. 257–64.1 2Taken from an Egyptian Judeo-Arabic Haggadah, ms. 3 6,7–9. See the criti-

cal edition in Hary 2009. I underlined /ila/ in the Judeo-Arabic and /et/ in theHebrew.

key role in shaping the ¡ar˙. Indeed, the desire for literal translation


was so compelling for Judeo-Arabic authors that they were willing toviolate rules of Arabic linguistic structure, to the point of assigningnew functions to prepositions (/ila/ ‘to,’ for example) in order toproduce a text that imitated the sacred Hebrew original as literally aspossible. This willingness to violate Arabic grammar may have beenconnected to the role that Judeo-Arabic played in maintaining Jewishidentity in Diaspora minority communities. The demand for verbatimtranslations of Hebrew sacred texts into Judeo-Arabic may well reflecta strong desire to connect to Jewish heritage in a foreign environment(Muslim in this case). Because of their tight connection to the Hebrewsacred texts, the ¡ur¥˙ gained acceptance as holy texts themselves. Assuch, they were not updated and eventually became unintelligible asthe distance between the language of an old ¡ar˙ and contemporaryusers became greater. Nevertheless, the ¡ar˙ exhibits numerous examplesof nonliteral translations or the use of local dialectal elements in thetexts. Thus, the ¡ar˙ demonstrates the constant tension between literaltranslation and the need to interpret the text and adapt it to thestandard Judeo-Arabic style.

The same type of linguistic tension is also found in the Ladinoreligious literature. The translations in this literature are also typicallyquite literal, but here and there one finds examples of interpretation inthem. The Hebrew phrase ¯ÓÂÁÂ Ï˜ ‘an inference from minor to major(a minori ad majus)’ is literally rendered in all the Saloniki versions ofthe Ladino translations of Pirkei Avot as Ò‡„‡‚ÊÈÙ Â‡ Ò‡!‡ÈÈ»·ÈÏ livianaso pesgadas ‘lightness or heaviness’ (Schwarzwald 1989:7). The root‰‡¯ ‘see,’ although often translated literally as ‰¯È»· vera ‘see,’ is alsointerpreted in other places as temera ‘fear’ (ibid., 13). This tensionmay be exasperated because the paradigms of ‰‡¯ and ‡¯È may overlap(Exod 32:25), causing a possible ambiguity.

Furthermore, as a manifestation of the linguistic tension, it is commonto find stylistic variations in the literature. For example, the phraseı¯‡ Í¯„ ‘good (or basic) manners’ may be translated in three different

59

ways: ‰¯ÈÈË È„ ÂÊÂ‡ uso de tierra , ‰¯ÈÈË È„ È¯·ÓÂËÒÂ˜ costumbre de

CHAPTER THREE

tierra, ‰¯ÈÈË È„ ‰Ò!‡ÊÂ‡ usança de tierra (Schwarzwald 1989:15).Stylistic variation may also arise in cases where writers wished toelevate the language to what they perceived to be a more respectableliterary level. Furthermore, Ladino religious literature is also character-ized by archaisms,1 3 few Hebrew words, and homophony. For example,archaic participial forms are common: ÔÈÈÊÈ„ dizien ‘say’ and Ô‡Ó‡aman ‘love’; also, the verbal forms ‘I will come, he will come’ arecommonly translated with the archaic forms ‰!¯È»· ¨È!¯È»· verné, vernáinstead of vendré, vendrá. In addition, the few Hebrew words that doappear in the Ladino literature are drawn from a limited cultural andreligious vocabulary. Other Hebrew words such as ÂÏÈÙ‡ ‘although’and Ï‰˜ ‘public’ are regularly used in Judeo-Spanish, and are thereforenot perceived by speakers as Hebrew words. Finally, the choice ofwords in Ladino reflects homophony, an attempt to adhere as muchas possible to the sound of the Hebrew original: the word Ò¯Ù ‘wage’is rendered by the similar-sounding ÂÈÈÒÈ¯Ù precio rather than by salario;˘ÙÁÏ and ˘˜·Ï, both meaning ‘seek,’ are rendered by ¯‡˜˘Â· buscar,and È!Ú and ÔÎÒÓ are both translated as Â!È˜ÒÈÓ ‘poor’ (ibid., 10–12).

The linguistic tension discussed here has been mentioned by otherscholars as well. Greenspahn, for example, has mentioned that the“attachment to Hebrew [in Jewish translations of the Bible] wouldseem to contradict the very enterprise of translation, while incorporatingJewish tradition can jeopardize the literalistic approach to the Biblelong associated with Jews. And indeed, such tensions are manifest inthe very nature of these renderings” (2002:61).

The Development of the ¡ar˙In the long Judeo-Arabic tradition of translating sacred texts, twohistorical “breaks” from previous traditions took place. In the tenth

60

1 3The use of archaisms is common to many Jewish religiolects. See chapter 1,pp. 23–24.

century, Saadia Gaon, who was more committed to the Arabic text


than to the Hebrew, departed from the tradition of verbatim translationthat had been the norm since the days of the Septuagint and theTargum. His Judeo-Arabic translation of the Bible closely followedthe model of post-Classical Arabic; it became a popular text that waswidely used and read throughout the Arabic-speaking Jewish world.Furthermore, Saadia’s translation marks the beginning of the period ofClassical Judeo-Arabic, and its orthography, imitating Classical Arabic,served as the basis for Classical Judeo-Arabic or Arabicizedorthography.1 4

The second break came in the fifteenth century, when the literarygenre of the ¡ar˙, or the literal translation of Hebrew and Aramaicreligious sacred texts into Judeo-Arabic, began to develop and flourishlocally in different communities (Bar-Asher 1988:29–30). The ¡ar˙was meant to replace Saadia Gaon’s work in the spirit of a previoustradition, by reviving the literal translation pattern of Onqelos.According to Bar-Asher, the ¡ur¥˙ were composed to provide basiceducation to young students and to the general public, whose knowledgeof Hebrew and Aramaic was considered inadequate. This was also thecase in other Jewish religiolects. For example, Judeo-Italian tefilot latinior tefilot vulgar were written for the use of women, as reflected in theJudeo-Italian translations of prayer books. In these translations,adjectives and nouns referring to those who pray are in the femininegender. This may suggest that women were less likely than men toknow Hebrew and Aramaic (Jochnowitz 2001).

However, as demonstrated above, the motivation behind these trans-lations may have been more complex. In fact, there were several reasonswhy new translations of religious sacred texts were needed. In thesixteenth century Rabbi Issachar ben Susan wrote a ¡ar˙ to the Biblein whose Hebrew introduction he wrote that “Saadia wrote [his trans-

61

1 4See Blau and Hopkins 1984; Hary 1992:82–85, 1996c; see also chapter 2,pp. 35–36.

lation] in Classical Arabic … and [his] language is difficult for anyone

CHAPTER THREE

unaccustomed to it, even if he is a native speaker” (Sasson 1932:64,my translation). In addition, Ben Susan noted that, because Saadiatranslated the Bible in proper Arabic style, students, and even someteachers, found that their knowledge of Arabic, some six hundredyears later, was not adequate for understanding his translation. This isthe reason, so Ben Susan claimed, that Saadia’s translation had beenneglected, ignored, and sometimes even criticized. Ben Susan in factreported overhearing an important old rabbi saying that he had “nopleasure from our Rabbi Saadia’s translation because we do notunderstand what he says” (ibid., my translation). In addition, BenSusan specifically indicated that Saadia’s translation required moreinterpretation. Furthermore, women, children, and uneducated peoplewere in need of comprehensible texts for their liturgical and educationaluse (ibid., 65, 67). All of these considerations led Ben Susan to hisconclusion that a new translation of the Bible was needed, which hetermed ¡ar˙. He then composed the ¡ar˙ in the Arabic of his time(the sixteenth century) and place (the Maghreb).

Avishur (1988:45) has summarized Ben Susan’s arguments andconcluded that Saadia’s translation was not suitable for teachingpurposes. Because Saadia’s translation was not verbatim, it did notsuit the teaching method used by Jews, in which students learned byreciting Hebrew and Aramaic texts together with their Judeo-Arabicequivalent. Piamenta (1988:76) has added that the vocabulary Saadiaused in his translation was not understood by the average educatedspeaker of later periods, and therefore the need for new ¡ur¥˙ arose.Moreover, there may be an additional reason for the development ofthe ¡ar˙. As I have mentioned elsewhere,1 5 in the fifteenth centurythe Jewish world began to sever its contacts with Arab Muslim culture.Jewish authors and translators found a way to reconnect to theirJewish identity via the translation of sacred texts. As more elements

62

1 5Hary 1995:75 and chapter 2 of this volume, pp. 33–34, 36.

from the original Hebrew and Aramaic texts were embedded into the


Judeo-Arabic translations (and not just Hebrew or Aramaic words perse), the reader could feel closer to the original texts. Thus, the ¡ar˙,with its literal adherence to the Hebrew and Aramaic original, openeda small window that allowed Jews to reconnect to sacred Jewish textseven in a language other than Hebrew. Saadia’s translation, which wasnot literal, did not make this possible (Hary 1994b:25–26).

Saadia’s tenth-century translation thus eventually led to a numberof distinct results. First, it motivated the genesis and development ofthe ¡ar˙ as the old translation became less accessible. Second, the factthat Saadia’s translation was not literal forced the ¡ar˙anim to composeverbatim translations that could be used for teaching according to thecustomary method of repetition. Finally, as Saadia’s tafs•r was nolonger understood five hundred years after it was written, the ¡ar˙animrealized that sometimes they had to break away from literal translationand interpret the Hebrew text to some extent. In short, for linguisticand pedagogical reasons as well as for purposes of identity, the ¡ar˙began to develop in the fifteenth century and eventually replacedSaadia’s translation of the Bible.

As of now the various ¡ur¥˙ produced from the fifteenth century tothe present are still being collected from three sources: manuscripts,printed versions, and recordings (Avishur 1988:40, 1991:141). In Egypt,unlike most of North Africa, very few ¡ur¥˙ exist in print; there areeven fewer recordings, and not many manuscripts. For these reasons,the ¡ur¥˙ from the Cairo Collection, some of which are analyzed inthis volume and in Hary 2009, in addition to other manuscripts, standout as an especially rare and valuable source of information on thedevelopment of the Egyptian Judeo-Arabic ¡ar˙.

The Cairo CollectionThe Cairo Collection consists of more than one hundred photocopiedmanuscripts, mostly from Egypt, dating from the eighteenth centurythrough the twentieth. In the 1980s this collection was brought from a

63

synagogue in Cairo to the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts

CHAPTER THREE

in the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem.1 6 Themanuscripts contain mainly Jewish liturgical texts written in Hebrew,Aramaic, and Judeo-Arabic. The large number of noteworthy documentsin the collection has made it possible to reconstruct many features ofEgyptian Judeo-Arabic of the eighteenth century and later, and to giveus a better understanding of Jewish life in premodern and modernEgypt.

The collection is organized in ten boxes. Most of the manuscripts inHebrew and Aramaic contain piyyu†im; others consist of Shabbat laws,seli˙ot or penitential prayers, ritual slaughter laws, and divorce laws.A number of Hebrew manuscripts contain commentaries on severalbooks of the Bible, and documents addressing liturgical issues such asprayers for the New Year and prayers for Shavuot evening. Most ofthe manuscripts in Judeo-Arabic are ¡ur¥˙: translations of PassoverHaggadot and of the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah (including the haf†arafor the ninth of Av), Ezekiel, the twelve Minor Prophets, Psalms,Job,1 7 Ecclesiastes, and Ruth. Additional Judeo-Arabic manuscriptsinclude isrå<ilyyåt: qißßat y¥suf ‘The Story of Joseph,’ qußßat ester‘The Story of the Book of Esther,’ qußßat zaxarya ‘The Story ofZechariah,’ qußßat ̇ ana ‘The Story of Hannah,’ qußßat il-xurbån ‘TheStory of the Destruction,’1 8 and qußßat >a¡ar ˙axam•m ‘The Story ofthe Ten Rabbis.’ The local flavor of the Egyptian dialect comes through

64

1 6In consultation with the staff, I named this collection The Cairo Collection.1 7 In 2005 my graduate student, Ms. Noa David, completed her master’s

thesis, consisting of a critical edition and a linguistic analysis of ten chapters ofthe ¡ar˙ manuscript of the book of Job in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic from the CairoCollection. See David 2005.

1 8I am currently preparing this text for publication.1 9See chapter 4 for a treatment of the Egyptian Judeo-Arabic dialect. Even in

the titles mentioned above, one feature of this dialect stands out: a preference forthe vowel /u/. In standard Egyptian Arabic the word /<ißßa/ ‘story’ is used, whilein the Egyptian Judeo-Arabic dialect the form / <ußßa/ is preferred. See chapter 4,pp. 100–101, 1.1.4.

in many of the Judeo-Arabic manuscripts.1 9 One whole manuscript,


interestingly enough, consists of letters and different personal lists, allin Yiddish. In addition, several manuscripts are written in more thanone language: some are in Hebrew and Aramaic (such as a commentaryon Maimonides’ ‰¯Â˙ ‰!˘Ó, ritual slaughter laws, and midrashim); othersare in Hebrew and Judeo-Arabic (such as bilingual editions of PassoverHaggadot). One manuscript, written in 1906 by the Ashkenazi Rabbiof Cairo, Ô‰ÂÎ‰ ÔÂ¯‰‡ Ï„!ÚÓ ÔÂ¯‰‡, comprises testimonies, agreements, andrequests for divorce agreements in four languages (Hebrew, Arabic,Yiddish, and French).

In sum, this collection warrants a great deal of scholarly interest.The corpus for the present study (see preface) includes four manuscriptsfrom the Cairo Collection (mss. 3, 74, 91 and 93—all variants of theEgyptian Judeo-Arabic Passover Haggadah).

Previous Studies on the ¡ar˙In recent years there has been a growing interest in Jewish varieties ingeneral, and in the phenomenon of literal translations of sacred textsfrom Hebrew and Aramaic into the various Jewish varieties andreligiolects in particular. Such translations have been studied in Avishur2001; Avrahami 1994; Bar-Asher 2001, 2002; Ben-Oren 2000; Chetrit2007; Cuomo 2000; Doron 1979; Hary 2000a; Kaplan and Mulugetta2000; Kasher 2000; Maman 2000; Sabar 2000; Schwarzwald 1989;Sephiha 1988; Tedghi 1994; Timm 2007; Tirosh-Becker 2006; Toby1996; Turniansky 2007; Yerushalmi 2000 and Zafrani 1988.2 0 Althoughmany of the above-mentioned publications specifically address Judeo-Arabic ¡ur¥˙, there have been a number of other recent studies ontranslations of the Bible into Arabic in general. The most notablestudy of translations composed in a minority society is by Polliack(1997), which analyzes the Karaite tradition of biblical translations

65

2 0This is by no means exhaustive: it is just a sample of recent studies on thetranslation of sacred texts into Jewish religiolects and varieties.

into Arabic in the tenth and eleventh centuries C.E.

CHAPTER THREE

These studies on the ¡ur¥˙ have created a general framework forunderstanding the nature of the ¡ar˙ and the verbatim character ofsuch translations.

Bar-Asher, for example, has characterized Maghrebi ¡ar˙ as basicallyverbatim with some deviations. Citing Job 1:6 ÌÈ‰Ï‡‰ È!· Â‡Â·ÈÂ ÌÂÈ‰ È‰ÈÂ

ÌÎÂ˙· ÔË˘‰ Ì‚ ‡Â·ÈÂ ’‰ ÏÚ ·ˆÈ˙‰Ï ‘one day the divine beings came beforeGod, and the devil came along with them,’ he demonstrated how theverse was literally translated in a Moroccan ¡ar˙ as ÂÈ‡µÂ ¯‡‰! Ô‡"ÂÌÂ‰ËÒÂÙ ·‚‚ÒÓÏ ‡˙Á ‡µÂ ‰‡Ï‡ ˙Ï·‡˜Ó ÂÙ˜ÂÂ˙È ‡"ÈÈ‡ÏÓÏ „‡ÏÂ (Bar-Asher1988:10–11). According to Bar-Asher this verbatim translation imposesa “syntactic strangeness” or a “syntactic anomaly,” which soundsdiscordant to speakers of Judeo-Arabic. A simple verse such as ¯·„ÈÂ

¯Ó‡Ï ‰˘Ó Ï‡ ’‰ (Exod 6:10) ‘And God spoke unto Moses, saying’ istranslated as ®ÏÂ˜ÈÏ Â‡© ÔÏÈ‡˜ ‰˘Ó ‡ÏÈ‡ ‰‡Ï‡ ÌÏÏ"˙Â. Bar-Asher hasclaimed that instead of ‡ÏÈ‡ ‰‡Ï‡ ÌÏÏ"˙Â, we would have expected‡ÚÓ ‰‡Ï‡ ÌÏÏ"˙Â (the preposition with rather than unto) and insteadof ÔÏÈ‡˜ (or ÏÂ˜ÈÏ), we would have expected ÂÏ Ï‡˜Â ‘and told him’(Bar-Asher 1988:11).

Tedghi has provided other examples of the verbatim method oftranslation in a Moroccan Siddur (1994:93–94), two of which, bothfrom the Amidah prayer, are especially worth noting:(i) ¯ÙÚ È!È˘ÈÏ Â˙!ÂÓ‡ ÌÈÈ˜ÓÂ ‘And keeps His faith to those who sleep in

the dust,’ itself influenced by Dan 12:2, is translated ˙·‡˙ÓÂ·‡¯˙ ÔÈÒÚ‡!Ï Â˙!‡Ó‡ with the strange and unclear phrase /l-na>s•nt-tråb/.

(ii) ‰˙‡ Â!˙Ï‰˙ ÈÎ ‰Ú˘Â!Â Â!ÚÈ˘Â‰ ‡Ù¯!Â ’‰ Â!‡Ù¯ ‘heal us, O Sovereign, andwe will heal; save us and we will be saved, for You are our glory,’which forms the eighth blessing of the Amidah, is translated wordfor word: ÔÈ˙! ‡!!‡¯ÎÒ ÔÈ‡ Â˙‡‚!Â ‡!˙È‚ ÂÂ‡ÂÂ‡„!Â ‰‡Ï‡ ‡È ‡!ÈÂÂ‡„ ‘healus O God; deliver us and we will be delivered, for You are ourgratitude.’

66


The studies also point to deviations from verbatim translation in the¡ar˙. For example, Bar-Asher has shown this with respect to uses ofthe definite article. The sentence ‰!È· È¯Ó‡ ÔÈ·‰Ï ¯ÒÂÓÂ ‰ÓÎÁ ˙Ú„Ï (Prov1:2) ‘for learning wisdom and discipline; for understanding words ofinsight’ is translated in the Tafilalt tradition thus: ·‡„‡ÏÂ ‡Ò‡ÈÈ"Ï Û¯ÚÈ‡Ó‡‰ÙÏ Ï‡ÂÂ˜ Ì‰‰ÙÈ (1988:12). In other words, although the definitearticle is not used in the Hebrew source, it is used in the ¡ar˙, reflectingalso dialectal use. Tedghi has examined differences in gender, number,tense, and definiteness, as well as examples of free translation. Forexample, in the sentence ÌÈ¯ÂÒ‡ ¯È˙Ó ’‰ ÌÈ·Ú¯Ï ÌÁÏ Ô˙Â! ÌÈ˜Â˘ÚÏ ËÙ˘Ó ‰˘ÂÚ

ÌÈ¯‚ ¯ÓÂ˘ ’‰ ÌÈ˜È„ˆ ·‰‡ ’‰ ÌÈÙÂÙÎ Û˜ÂÊ ’‰ ÌÈ¯ÂÚ Á˜ÂÙ ’‰ (Ps 146:7–9) ‘whoconducts justice for the oppressed, gives food to the hungry; theSovereign who sets prisoners free, the Sovereign who restores light tothe blind; the Creator who straightens up the bent, loves the righteous,and protects the strangers,’ which is translated as ÔÈÓÂÏ„ÓÏ Ú¯Ò ÏÓÚÈÔÈÈÁ!ÓÏ Ê‰È ‰‡Ï‡ ÔÈÈÓÚÓÏ ÏÁÈ ‰‡Ï‡ ÔÈËÂ·¯ÓÏ ˜ÒÙÈ ‰‡Ï‡ ÔÈ!‡ÚÈÊÏ Ì‡ÚË ÈËÚÈÌÈ¯È‚Ï È„ÁÈ Â‡Ï‡ ÔÈÁÏ‡Ò ·ÁÈ ‰‡Ï‡, the ¡ar˙an translated all the Hebrewactive participles using the Judeo-Arabic imperfect, thus deviatingfrom a verbatim translation; for example, the Hebrew participle ‰˘ÂÚ istranslated by the Judeo-Arabic imperfect ÏÓÚÈ (Tedghi 1994:101).2 1

In sum, as Bar-Asher has put it so clearly, “In general, the ¡ar˙ is apeshat [i.e., straightforward and literal] verbatim translation, but withspecific deviations from it toward the syntax of the spoken dialectand even a few referrals to the derash.”2 2 Tedghi has noted deviationsin several lexical and morphosyntactic categories, as mentioned above(1994:94–104), and he concluded that although the ¡ar˙an “chose the

67

2 1Of course, the ¡ar˙an may have thought, with some reason, that the Hebrewactive participle and the Arabic imperfect serve the same function. If so, thetranslation is verbatim functionally but not grammatically.

2 2Bar-Asher 1988:15, my translation. Bar-Asher has cited examples such asOnkelos or Saadia’s translations (1988, paragraph 17b).

verbatim translation, … he does not reconstruct the Hebrew text blindly”

CHAPTER THREE

(ibid., 104, my translation). In the example from the end of the Amidah,ÌÈÓÁ¯Â ‰˜„ˆ „ÒÁÂ ÔÁ ÌÈÈÁ ‰Î¯·Â ‰·ÂË ÌÂÏ˘ ÌÈ˘ ‘Lay peace, goodness, blessing,life, grace, mercy, righteousness, and compassion,’ the translation inthe Moroccan Siddur is ‡!ÁÓÏ ÒÈÚÏÂ ‡Î¯‡·ÓÏÂ ‡ÁÈÏÓÏ ‡ÈÈÙ‡ÚÓÏ ÏÚÊ˙‡ÓÁ¯Â ‰˜„ˆ Ï„ÙÏÂ (Tedghi 1994:104). The sentence is translated literallyas is easily seen in the verbatim word order, but Tedghi has characterizedit as a deviation in definiteness, because most of the Judeo-Arabicnouns receive the definite article, which is not the case in the Hebreworiginal.

Both Bar-Asher and Tedghi have made it clear that literal translationand deviation from it are in opposition; they can therefore be presentedas the two ends of a scale. Although Tedghi did not use the concept ofa scale, it is clear that on a continuum of the definiteness category, hisexample mentioned above would approach the deviation side:

Deviation Literal ˙‡ÓÁ¯Â ‰˜„ˆ Ï„ÙÏÂ ‡!ÁÓÏ ÒÈÚÏÂ ‡Î¯‡·ÓÏÂ ‡ÁÈÏÓÏ ‡ÈÈÙ‡ÚÓÏ ÏÚÊ

Figure 4. The deviation/literal continuum of definiteness

The Framework for the Linguistic Analysis of the ¡ar˙In a number of previous publications I took the approach discussedabove and extended it somewhat from a linguistic point of view. Iattempted to address the phenomenon of the ¡ar˙ through the eyes ofthe ¡ar˙anim and their work. The translators’ struggle between literaltranslation and interpretation can be plotted on a literal/ interpretivescale or continuum in each of the different categories listed below.

On the one hand, ¡ar˙anim felt impelled to follow the long traditionof verbatim biblical translation, as found in the Septuagint, Onqelos,and the like. They were also committed to deliver a text that would fitthe pedagogical needs of word-for-word translation. Furthermore, asmentioned above, literal translation helped both the ¡ar˙an and the

68

text’s readers/users reconnect to and strengthen their Jewish identity.


This method of translation, however, created many “un-Arabic”sentences that may have been nearly incomprehensible to averagenative speakers. Speakers and readers of the religiolect may have foundthe resulting Judeo-Arabic structure strange, and consequently the¡ar˙an ran the risk of inserting grammatical structures into thetranslations that were not usual in Arabic.

However, the ¡ar˙anim of the fifteenth century and later also feltthe need to interpret certain points in the text, and so they did notblindly follow the model of literal translation. Instead, they wouldsubstitute words, formulate paraphrases, and add flavor from theirlocal dialect. They wanted to ensure that their translations would beunderstood, and not become merely a flat reflection of the Hebrew/Aramaic text.

In sum, the ¡ar˙anim were dealing with a constant literal/interpretivelinguistic tension (Hary 1995:84). I have demonstrated how this tensionoperates in each of the following nine linguistic categories: word order,paraphrase and changes in word order, the definite direct object,prepositions and particles, tense-mood-aspect (T-M-A), the definitearticle, negation, gender and number, and Hebrew elements. For example,in the T-M-A category, the ¡ar˙an translates the Hebrew participlein ÔÈÏÎÂ‡ Â!‡ ‘we eat’ (from the Passover Haggadah) literally as ‰!Á‡ÔÈÏÎ‡Â (ms. 3 2,12), using the Judeo-Arabic participle as well. In othermanuscripts, though, he translates the same phrase as ÂÏÎ‡! ‰!Á‡ (ms.74 1,7) and as ÂÏÎ‡! ÔÁ! (ms. 93 13,3–4), using the Judeo-Arabic imperfectform, as in colloquial Cairene Judeo-Arabic;2 3 this use shows a tendencytoward interpretive translation which backs away from the literal mode(Hary 1995:86–92).

In figure 5 the above-mentioned examples are shown on a scale along

69

2 3Note that the Cairene Judeo-Arabic dialect possesses the “western” feature of/niktib-niktíbu/ in the verbal conjugation. See chapter 4 of this volume, pp.118–19, 2.2.2.2, and Hary 1992:278, 2.2.2, as well as the references there.

the interpretive/literal continuum in the T-M-A category:

CHAPTER THREE

Interpretive Literal ÂÏÎ‡! ‰!Á‡ ÔÈÏÎ‡Â ‰!Á‡Figure 5. The interpretive/literal T-M-A continuum

But the analysis is not always so straightforward. For instance,Exod 18:19, ÍˆÚÈ‡ ÈÏÂ˜· ÚÓ˘ ‰˙Ú ‘now listen to me, I will give youcounsel,’ is translated by ¬¯Â˘‡ ÈÏÂ˜ È¥ ÚÓÒ‡ È˙˜ÂÂÏ„ (ms. 15 57a,19)‘now hear my words, I will give you advice.’ At first glance thistranslation appears to be rather literal: each word in Hebrew has aJudeo-Arabic equivalent in the same order. Figure 6 shows the threemiddle constituents of the translation along the continuum:

Interpretive Literal ÈÏÂ˜ È¥ ÚÓÒ‡

Figure 6. The interpretive/literal continuum

A closer analysis of this example, however, reveals traces of bothverbatim and interpretive tendencies in the translation. Figure 6 doesnot reflect the complexity of the interpretive/literal tension in thiscase, because it does not show how elements in the phrase pull it inopposite directions on our continuum. The translation ÈÏÂ˜ È¥ ÚÓÒ‡follows the word-for-word technique, pointing to a verbatim translation(figure 7-1); however, this translation also has an interpretive character(figure 7-2), since instead of the exact meaning of the Hebrew phraseÈÏÂ˜· ÚÓ˘ ‘listen to me,’ it is rendered as ‘hear my words,’ adding aninterpretive mode to the translation.

This tendency is also evident in the Protestant Arabic translation ofthe Hebrew Bible: w!u????B" l?L???#« ‘hear my voice’ or w"u????I" l?L???#«‘hear my words.’ In Saadia’s tafs•r, however, the literal tendencypredominates, as Saadia tried to capture the original Hebrew meaning

70

in his translation È!Ó Ï·˜‡ ‘take it from me’ (see table 2). Furthermore,


if the word ÏÂ˜ ‘voice’ is carefully observed, the verbatim nature ofthe translation can be seen, for the ¡ar˙an copied the Hebrew wordinto the Judeo-Arabic translation. This word exists in Arabic as well,but with a different meaning, ‘word, speech.’ The ¡ar˙an preferred touse a Hebrew word in Arabic dress in order to preserve the originalform of the Hebrew text by using a similar-sounding word (figure7-3). As mentioned in chapter 7 (feature 3-2), this is common inJudeo-Arabic ¡ur¥˙ as well as in many other Jewish-defined religiolects(Greenspahn 2002:46). In other places (see tables 1 and 2 below),however, the ¡ar˙an did not use a similar sounding word, but ratherÒÁ or ˙Âˆ ‘voice.’ Moreover, the Hebrew preposition · ‘in’ is translatedinto Judeo-Arabic È¥, in keeping with common Arabic use. Wheneverthe ¡ar˙an refrained from using the Arabic preposition bi, which issimilar to its Hebrew cognate, he moved toward the interpretive endof the continuum (figure 7-4).

In sum, the complexities due to the literal/interpretive tension arebest unraveled by not only examining the phrase as a whole, but alsostudying its parts. Figures 7-1 through 7-4 demonstrate such an analysis:

Interpretive Literal(word-for-word translation) ÈÏÂ˜ È¥ ÚÓÒ‡Figure 7-1. The phrase continuum

Interpretive Literal(the meaning of the phrase) ÈÏÂ˜ È¥ ÚÓÒ‡Figure 7-2. The lexical continuum I

71

CHAPTER THREE

Interpretive Literal(choice of word) ÏÂ˜Figure 7-3. The lexical continuum II

Interpretive Literal(choice of preposition) È¥Figure 7-4. The morphosyntactic continuum

Table 1 below shows a number of occurrences of the Hebrew ÏÂ˜ invarious Arabic translations of Genesis and Exodus, while table 2illustrates various translations of the example cited above, ÈÏÂ˜· ÚÓ˘:

Hebrew Citation Egyptian Saadia ProtestantOriginal ¡ar˙ Translation

·˜ÚÈ ÏÂ˜ ÏÂ˜‰ Gen 27:22 ÒÁ ˙Âˆ $u%¯ÙÂ˘‰ ÏÂ˜ È‰ÈÂ Exod 19:19 ÒÁ ˙Âˆ $u%¯ÙÂ˘‰ ÏÂ˜ ˙‡Â Exod 20:14-15 ÒÁ ˙Âˆ $u%„Á‡ ÏÂ˜ ÌÚ‰ ÏÎ ÔÚÈÂ Exod 24:3 ÏÂ˜ ˙Âˆ $u%… ‰ÓÁÏÓ ÏÂ˜ … ÌÚ‰ ÏÂ˜ Exod 32:17-18 ÒÁ; ÏÂ˜2 4 ˙Âˆ $u%… ˙Â!Ú ÏÂ˜ ÔÈ‡˙Â!Ú ÏÂ˜ … ÏÂ˜ ÔÈ‡Â

‰!ÁÓ· ÏÂ˜ Â¯È·ÚÈÂ Exod. 36:6 ÒÁ ˙Âˆ $u%

72

2 4Hebrew ÏÂ˜ in Exod 32:17–18 is translated into Judeo-Arabic ÒÁ ‘voice.’However, ‰ÓÁÏÓ ÏÂ˜ ‘the voice of war’ is translated intoJudeo-Arabic ÏÂ˜ inms. 15 73b,1, but in the margin the ¡ar˙an changed it back to ÒÁ.

Table 1. The translation of Hebrew ÏÂ˜ in Genesis and Exodus


Hebrew Citation Egyptian Saadia ProtestantOriginal ¡ar˙ translation

ÈÏÂ˜· Ì‰¯·‡ ÚÓ˘ÈÂ Gen 26:5 È˙Âˆ· ÈÏÂ˜ ÆÆÆ Ï·˜ w"uI" ÆÆÆ lL#ÈÏÂ˜· ÚÓ˘ Gen 26:5 È˙Âˆ È¥ ÚÓÒ‡ È!Ó Ï·˜‡ w"uI" lL#«ÈÏÂ˜· ÚÓ˘ Gen 27:13 È˙Âˆ È¥ ÚÓÒ‡ È!Ó Ï·˜‡ w"uI" lL#«ÈÏÂ˜· ÚÓ˘ Gen 30:6 È˙Âˆ È¥ ÚÓÒ È˙Âˆ ÚÓÒ w!uB" lL#«ÈÏÂ˜· ÂÚÓ˘È ‡Ï Exod 4:1 ÈÏÂ˜ È¥ ÂÚÓÒÈ È!Ó ÔÂÏ·˜È w"uI" ÊuFL&'ÈÏÂ˜· ÚÓ˘ Exod 18:19 ÈÏÂ˜ È¥ ÚÓÒ‡ È!Ó Ï·˜‡ w!uB" lL#«ÈÏÂ˜· ÂÚÓ˘˙ Exod 19:5 ÈÏÂ˜ È¥ ÂÚÓÒ˙ ÈÈ¯Ó‡ Ì˙Ï·˜ w!uB" r(FL#Table 2. The translation of Hebrew ÈÏÂ˜· ÚÓ˘ in Genesis and Exodus

Our analysis of ÈÏÂ˜ È¥ ÚÓÒ‡ reveals the complexity of the literal/interpretive tension in the ¡ar˙. Clearly the framework used in thepast is insufficient. Using previous methods of analysis, the arrow infigure 6 obviously approaches the literal end. In figure 7, on the otherhand, using the new approach, the arrow changes its placing on thecontinuum from 7-1 through 7-4. In other words, if the phrase ÚÓÒ‡ÈÏÂ˜ È¥ is treated only as a whole, as was done in previous analyses,we will lose the linguistic traces left by the ¡ar˙anim when they weretranslating the text and coping with the dilemma posed by the contrastbetween the literal and the interpretive tendencies.

In the past, scholars who wrote on this issue have provided differentexamples in each category (tense, definiteness, number, etc.); however,never has an analysis of different categories in the same example beenpublished. In the framework adopted for this volume and exemplifiedin much detail in part 2, I take each example and show how theabove-mentioned linguistic tension is evident simultaneously at differentlinguistic levels. For instance, at the phrase level,2 5 ÈÏÂ˜ È¥ ÚÓÒ‡ can be

73

2 5Here the term phrase refers to elements of sentence structure above the wordlevel, including clauses and syntactic phrases, in accordance with the generalmeaning of phrase.

placed both closer to the literal end (figure 7-1) and closer to the

CHAPTER THREE

interpretive end (figure 7-2), depending on which linguistic level andcomponent (phrase level and syntactic structure or lexical level andmeaning, respectively) we examine. Further down on the lexical level,ÈÏÂ˜ is closer to the literal end (figure 7-3), while on the morphosyntacticlevel, the preposition È¥ is closer to the interpretive end (figure 7-4).

Head-to-Toe ScanningBuilding on my previous work, I show in this study how each wordand phrase in the ¡ar˙ must be scanned from head to toe at four basiclinguistic levels: the phrase level, the word level, the morphosyntacticlevel, and the segment level. The purpose of the scan is to revealtraces of the ¡ar˙an’s work, as these are the data at our disposal.From such traces one can make inferences about the linguistic dilemmaswhich had to be resolved during the process of translation. For example,the Hebrew word ‰¯Â˙ ‘Torah’ in the Haggadah is variously translatedby three different words: ‰¯Â˙ (for example in ms. 74 22,13), ‰¯ÂË (forexample in ms. 93 90,12), and ‰ÚÈ¯˘ (for example in ms. 3 16,22). TheJudeo-Arabic word ‰ÚÈ¯˘ in the translation is a trace which points to adecision concerning the choice of a word from the lexicon, as the¡ar˙an could have chosen one of the other words (‰¯ÂË ¨‰¯Â˙), whichcan be found elsewhere in the ¡ar˙.2 6 The choice of ‰ÚÈ¯˘ then bearswitness to an interpretive tendency (figure 8-1). A different choice ofword is Judeo-Arabic ‰¯Â˙, which is an exact copy of the Hebrew‰¯Â˙, indicating a literal tendency (figure 8-1). Similarly, the word ‰¯ÂËalso points to the literal tendency at the word level (figure 8-1). Atthe segment level, the word ‰¯Â˙ is also on the literal side of the scale,because it uses the sounds of the Hebrew equivalent ‰¯Â˙ (figure 8-2).In comparison, in the translation ‰¯ÂË, the letter Ë constitutes a tracewhich may refer to regressive emphatization (/t/ > [†] preceding the[r¢]). This by itself is an indication of an interpretive tendency, since

74

2 6Table 4 below should be consulted in order to follow this example.

the ¡ar˙an here used a phonological variant to change the original


sound of the Hebrew ˙ into Judeo-Arabic /†/ (figure 8-2).

Interpretive Literal(word level/ ‰ÚÈ¯˘ ‰¯Â˙choice of word) ‰¯ÂËFigure 8-1. The word level continuum

Interpretive Literal(segment level/ ‰¯ÂË ‰¯Â˙regressive assimilation)Figure 8-2. The segmental continuum

In the same way, other linguistic features can be found and analyzedat the appropriate linguistic levels. The reader may think that such ananalysis would have to assume that different translations were createdby the same ¡ar˙an, in order to demonstrate the complexities of theliteral/interpretive linguistic tension. Different ¡ur¥˙ were indeedcomposed by the same ¡ar˙an; however, it also happened, of course,that various ¡ur¥˙ were written by different ¡ar˙anim. But even ifthe translations were composed by different ¡ar˙anim, the literal/interpretive tension is still there to be analyzed, because the ¡ar˙animappear to have all belonged to one “school of translation,” even ifthere was no established formal institution. The ¡ar˙anim did notwork in isolation, but rather they were part of a group of people,some very learned and others less so, who composed translations ofsacred texts and worked within the same modes and principles.2 7

The following example from the Passover Haggadah illustrates the

75

2 7I thank Gunvor Mejdell for alerting me to this point. See also Bar-Asher1988:8–10 and below in this chapter, pp. 89–90 and chapter 6, p. 165.

framework for this linguistic analysis of the ¡ar˙. Table 3 represents a

CHAPTER THREE

sentence from the Haggadah in four different manuscripts and thuscan be used as a good example for comparison. The example alsocontains several features from all the linguistic levels and manycategories. Part 2 of this volume is an expansion of the analysis of thefollowing sentence. It includes examples of all levels, categories, andfeatures based on table 4.

‰‰‰‰„„„„ ‚‚‚‚ ‰‰‰‰ÍÂÙ˘Í˙ÓÁÏ‡ÌÈÂ‚‰¯˘‡‡ÏÍÂÚ„ÈÏÚÂ˙ÂÎÏÓÓ¯˘‡ÍÓ˘·Â‡¯˜ ‡Ï

±·ÂÎÒ‡¬˙˜‡ÓÁ‰ÏÚ·ÂÚ˘ Ï‡È#Ï‡ÌÏ¬Â¥¯Ú‰ÏÚÂ‰!ËÏˆ Ï‡È#Ï‡Â‰„! ÌÏ¬ÓÒ‡ È¥2 8

"·ÂÎÒ‡¬˙‡ÓÁ‰ÏÚÈ#Ï‡ ·ÂÚ˘ Ï‡ÌÏ¬Â¥¯Ú‰ÏÚÂ‰!ËÏˆ Ï‡È#Ï‡ ¬ÓÒ‡·Â‰„! ÌÏ2 9

#·ÎÒ‡¬˙ÈÈÓÁ‰ÏÚ·ÂÚ˘ Ï‡È#Ï‡ÌÏ¬ÂÙ¯ÚÈ‰ÏÚÂÔÈË‡ÏˆÈ#Ï‡¬ÓÒ‡·Â‰„! ÌÏ3 0

¥·ÂÎÒ‡¬˙˜‡ÓÁ‡ÏÚ·ÂÚ˘ Ï‡È#Ï‡ÌÏ¬Â¥¯ÚÈ‰ÏÚÂÔÈË‡Ïˆ Ï‡È#Ï‡¬ÓÒ‡·Â‰„! ÌÏ3 1

Translation: ‘Pour out your wrath upon the nations that did not know you andupon the kingdoms that did not call your name.’

Table 3. The example from the Passover Haggadah

The analysis of the linguistic features is performed as follows, usingthe model provided in table 4:(1) ÍÂÙ˘ ·ÎÒ‡Ø·ÂÎÒ‡:

(i) Level: morphosyntactic; Category: TMA; Feature: tense/ aspect(11-1). Judeo-Arabic ·ÎÒ‡Ø·ÂÎÒ‡ ‘pour’ translates the Hebrewimperative ÍÂÙ˘ literally, using an imperative form in Judeo-Arabicas well.

(ii) Level: word; Category: lexicon; Feature: root choice (consider-ations of sound/appearance) (3-2). The decision to use the Judeo-Arabic root s-k-b was interpretive, since another choice was

76

2 8Ms. 3, folio 23,4.2 9Ms. 74, folio 13,1.3 0Ms. 91, folio 10b,4.3 1Ms. 93, folio 63,10.

available to the ¡ar˙an, one which would have been closer to

>


the sound or appearance of the Hebrew original (Õ · ”).(2) Í˙ÓÁ ¬˙˜‡ÓÁ/¬˙‡ÓÁ/¬˙ÈÈÓÁ

(i) Level: word; Category: lexicon; Feature: root choice (consider-ations of sound/appearance) (3-2). The decision to use the Judeo-Arabic roots ˙-m-q and ˙-m-y was literal, since the ¡ar˙anchose Judeo-Arabic roots with sounds close to those of theHebrew: W)UL* ‘anger’ (‚ Â Õ) and WOL* ‘rage’ (Ë Â Õ).

(3) Ï‡ ‰ÏÚ/‡ÏÚ(i) Level: morphosyntactic; Category: prepositions/particles;

Feature: prepositions (5-1). The choice of the Judeo-Arabicpreposition >ala represents the interpretive tendency, since theresulting translation is not literal. In fact, in a verbatim translationwe would expect the Judeo-Arabic preposition ila.

(ii) Level: segment; Category: orthography/phonology; Feature:Hebrew-influenced orthography (13-6). The spelling ‰ÏÚ with aword-final he to mark the vowel /a/ is probably in imitation ofHebrew orthography, and the final alef in ‡ÏÚ probably representsthe influence of the orthography of the Babylonian Talmud, aspart of the Hebraized orthography tradition of Judeo-Arabic,3 2

and should therefore be considered literal.(4) ¯˘‡ È#Ï‡

(i) Level: morphosyntactic; Category: pronouns; Feature: relativepronouns (6-3). The Judeo-Arabic relative pronoun È#Ï‡ iscommonly used throughout the texts of the ¡ur¥˙ to modify allnouns, regardless of their gender and number. This is an indicationof literal translation, since it accords with the rules of Hebrewsyntax.

(5) ÍÂÚ„È ¬Â¥¯Ú/¬ÂÙ¯ÚÈ/¬Â¥¯ÚÈ(i) Level: morphosyntactic; Category: TMA; Feature: tense/aspect

(9-1). Judeo-Arabic ¬ÂÙ¯ÚÈ/¬Â¥¯ÚÈ ‘know you’ translates Hebrew

77

3 2See Hary 1996c:732, 1999a:77–79, and 2009.

ÍÂÚ„È in a literal way, since the same tense/aspect (imperfect) is

>

>

>

>

CHAPTER THREE

used in both. However, the translation ¬Â¥¯Ú is interpretive,since it makes use of the perfect tense/aspect, whereas Hebrewuses the imperfect form. The latter also represents a possiblehypocorrection that has been standardized in Later EgyptianJudeo-Arabic.3 3

(ii) Level: segment; Category: orthography/phonology; Feature:diacritic marks (13-5). On the one hand, the spelling of Ù withoutthe supralinear dot in ¬ÂÙ¯ÚÈ may represent a literal tendency, asit could be an imitation of the Hebrew letter fe (Ù). On the otherhand, the spelling of ¥ with a supralinear dot in ¬Â¥¯Ú/¬Â¥¯ÚÈrepresents the fricative pronunciation of [f] rather than the stop[p], so it could denote the interpretive tendency, as this is partof the orthographic tradition of standard Arabic, indicating thefå< with a supralinear dot (·) (see chapter 9, p. 311, 13-5.3).

(6) ˙ÂÎÏÓÓ ÏÚÂ ÔÈË‡Ïˆ Ï‡ ‰ÏÚÂ/ÔÈË‡Ïˆ ‰ÏÚÂ(i) Level: morphosyntactic; Category: definiteness; Features: adding

the definite article when needed (9-1), and deleting the definitearticle when not needed (9-4). In ÔÈË‡Ïˆ Ï‡ ‰ÏÚÂ ‘upon thekingdoms,’ the ¡ar˙an added the definite article in the Judeo-Arabic text in order to conform to Arabic structure, even thoughthe definite article is lacking in the Hebrew text. This representsthe interpretive side of the scale (9-1). On the other hand, inÔÈË‡Ïˆ ‰ÏÚÂ the translation is verbatim, as the definite article isabsent both in the Hebrew and the Judeo-Arabic text, althoughit is required by Arabic grammar (9-4). The ¡ar˙an’s translationin this case follows the Hebrew text slavishly.

(7) ˙ÂÎÏÓÓ ‰!ËÏˆ/ÔÈË‡Ïˆ(i) Level: word; Category: lexicon; Feature: word choice (semantic

considerations) (3-1). The choice of ÔÈË‡Ïˆ ‘sultans’ represents

78

3 3See chapter 4, pp. 126–27, 3.3.3; chapter 5, pp. 141–43; and chapter 8, pp.215–17, 4-2.1; as well as Hary 1992:294–95 and 314.

the interpretive tendency, since Hebrew ˙ÂÎÏÓÓ ‘kingdoms’ does

>

>


not mean the rulers themselves. On the other hand, the choiceof ‰!ËÏˆ ‘sultanate, kingdom’ represents a literal translation.

(ii) Level: morphosyntactic; Category: number and gender; Feature:number: plural (10-2). The choice of the singular ‰!ËÏˆ ‘sultanate,kingdom’ represents the interpretive tendency, since the Hebrew˙ÂÎÏÓÓ ‘kingdoms’ is in the plural form.

(iii)Level: segment; Category: orthography/phonology; Feature:emphatization and deemphatization (13-2). The regressive partialassimilation (emphatization) /s/ > [ß] in ‰!ËÏˆ/ÔÈË‡Ïˆ, triggeredby /†/, represents an interpretive tendency.

(8) ÍÓ˘· ¬ÓÒ‡·/¬ÓÒ‡ È¥(i) Level: morphosyntactic; Category: prepositions/particles;

Feature: prepositions (5-1). The choice of the Judeo-Arabicpreposition bi represents the literal tendency, since it slavishlycopies the Hebrew preposition ·, but the choice of the Judeo-Arabic preposition f• is interpretive wherever it better fits Arabicprepositional use.

(9) Â‡¯˜ Â‰„!(i) Level: word; Category: lexicon; Feature: root choice (semantic

considerations) (3-1). The choice of the Judeo-Arabic root ‰„!is taken from colloquial Egyptian Arabic, pointing to aninterpretive mode.

(10) Â‡¯˜ ‡Ï ÍÓ˘· ¬ÓÒ‡ È¥ Â‰„! ÌÏ/Â‰„! ÌÏ ¬ÓÒ‡·(i) Level: phrase; Feature: word-for-word translation (1-1). This

sentence represents another good example of the literal/interpretive linguistic tension. The sentence Â‰„! ÌÏ ¬ÓÒ‡· ‘theydid not call your name’ is a verbatim translation of Â‡¯˜ ‡Ï ÍÓ˘· ,and the word order is the same in both languages. But in thetranslation ¬ÓÒ‡ È¥ Â‰„! ÌÏ the Judeo-Arabic word order isdifferent and was chosen to accommodate its structure: thistranslation thus leans toward the interpretive side of the scale.

79

>

>

>

CHAPTER THREE

To conclude, the sentence analyzed above from head to toe reveals acomplex literal/interpretive linguistic tension, in which the componentsmove back and forth along the continuum in a multidimensional manneraccording to various linguistic levels, categories, and features. Table 4below illustrates these levels, categories, and features, which form thebasis of a linguistic model for analyzing the literal/interpretive linguistictension, as demonstrated in great detail in part 2 of this study, using

80

examples from various Egyptian Judeo-Arabic ¡ur¥˙.


TH

E L

ING

UIS

TIC

MO

DE

L O

F T

HE A

NA

LY

SIS

OF T

HE ¡

UR¥˙

Lev

elC

ateg

ory

Fea

ture

A

naly

sis

on p

p.

Phra

se1

1-1

Wor

d-fo

r-w

ord

tran

slat

ion

183–

88

2W

ord

Ord

er2-

1Sy

ntac

tic a

dapt

atio

n18

8–92

2-2

Adv

erbs

192–

98

2-3

Num

eral

s19

9–20

0

Wor

d3

Lex

icon

3-1

Wor

d (o

r roo

t) c

hoic

e: s

eman

tic c

onsi

dera

tions

200–

205

3-2

Wor

d (o

r roo

t) c

hoic

e: c

onsi

dera

tions

of s

ound

/app

eara

nce

205–

12

Mor

phos

ynta

ctic

4N

egat

ion

4-1

Nom

inal

213–

15

4-2

Ver

bal

215–

19

5Pr

epos

ition

s/Pa

rtic

les

5-1

Prep

ositi

ons

219–

31

5-2

Coo

rdin

atin

g pa

rtic

les

and

conj

unct

ions

231–

34

5-3

Con

ditio

nal p

artic

les

234–

37

6Pr

onou

ns6-

1In

depe

nden

t per

sona

l pro

noun

s23

7–38

6-2

Pron

omin

al s

uffi

xes

238–

40

6-3

Rel

ativ

e pr

onou

ns24

0–44

6-4

Dem

onst

rativ

e pr

onou

ns24

4–48

6-5

Inte

rrog

ativ

e pr

onou

ns a

nd p

artic

les

248–

50

7V

erb

Con

juga

tion

7-1

Infi

nitiv

es25

0–56

81

7-2

Fini

te v

erbs

256

CHAPTER THREE

Lev

elC

ateg

ory

Fea

ture

A

naly

sis

on p

p.

8C

ases

8-1

Acc

usat

ive

257–

64

8-2

Dir

ectio

nal

264–

65

9D

efin

itene

ss9-

1A

ddin

g th

e de

fini

te a

rtic

le w

here

nee

ded

266–

70

9-2

Add

ing

the

defi

nite

art

icle

whe

re n

ot n

eede

d27

0–71

9-3

Del

etin

g th

e de

fini

te a

rtic

le w

here

nee

ded

271–

72

9-4

Del

etin

g th

e de

fini

te a

rtic

le w

here

not

nee

ded

272–

73

10A

gree

men

t10

-1N

umbe

r: d

ual

274

10-2

Num

ber:

plu

ral

274–

80

10-3

Gen

der

280–

87

11T

MA

11-1

Ten

se/A

spec

t28

7–93

11-2

Moo

d29

3–95

11-3

Voi

ce: p

assi

ve29

5–98

12N

umer

als

12-1

With

cou

nted

nou

ns29

9–30

2

Segm

ent

13O

rtho

grap

hy/P

hono

logy

13-1

Ass

imila

tion

304

13-2

Em

phat

izat

ion

and

deem

phat

izat

ion

305–

6

13-3

Elis

ion

306

13-4

Ort

hogr

aphi

c mar

king

of

the

glid

es30

7–10

13-5

Dia

criti

c m

arks

310–

11

13-6

Heb

rew

-inf

luen

ced

orth

ogra

phy

311–

27

82

Tab

le 4

. The

ling

uist

ic m

odel

of t

he a

naly

sis

of th

e ¡u

r¥˙


The Translation ContinuumA translation as a whole can also be placed on a theoretical literal/interpretive continuum (see figure 9). In a given aspect, a certaintranslation may be more literal or more interpretive than another.

For example, the translation of names within a literal tradition canbe placed on a continuum from more to less literal:3 4

(i) There are biblical names that are copied into the Judeo-Arabic¡ur¥˙ unchanged in a clear literal translation: Ï‡ÏÏ‰Ó (15 0-1,1)‘Mahalalel’; „¯È (15 0-1,2) ‘Jared’; ÍÂ!Á (15 0-1,3) ‘Enoch’; ÁÏ˘Â˙Ó(15 0-1,6) ‘Metushelah’; ÍÓÏ (15 0-1,10) ‘Lemech’; ÁÂ! (15 0-1,10)‘Noah’; Ì˘ (15 0-1,17) ‘Shem’; ÌÁ (15 0-1,18) ‘Ham’; ˙ÙÈ (150-1,18) ‘Jephet’; ¯ÂÁ! (15 2b,8) ‘Nahor’; ‰˜·¯ (15 2b,15) ‘Rebecca’;Ï‡Â˙· (15 2b,16) ‘Bethuel’; ‰ÎÏÓ (15 2b,16) ‘Milcah’; Ì‰¯·‡ (152b,16) ‘Abraham’; ‰¯ÂË˜ (15 4b,11) ‘Keturah’; ‡·˘ (15 4b,13)‘Sheba’; ¯¥Ú (15 4b,15) ‘Epher’; Ú„È·‡ (15 4b,15) ‘Abida’; ‰Ú„Ï‡(15 4b,15) ‘Eldaah.’ These names appear in the translation in theiroriginal form, although the ¡ar˙an could have changed some of thespellings to reflect the Judeo-Arabic phonetics, as was doneelsewhere in a more interpretive translation (see below).

(ii) Further along the continuum toward the interpretive side is thetranslation of the Hebrew name of (possibly) the Hittites ˙ÕÁ (Gen23:16). It is translated into Judeo-Arabic ˙ÈÁ (15 2a,4), with aspelling that is not identical. Here the ¡ar˙an made sure that theshort /e/ vowel in the Hebrew name ˙ÕÁ was expressed in theJudeo-Arabic translation by adding the yod.3 5 A similar example is

83

3 4For a more exhaustive treatment of this issue, see chapter 9, pp. 320–27,13-6.8.

3 5Although the representation of short /i/ or /e/ in Later Egyptian Judeo-Arabicis not as common as the representation of short /u/ (Hary 1992:249, 2.1.2), it isquite prevalent in later Egyptian ¡ur¥˙ (David 2005:73, 2.1.3) as well as in theorthography of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Judeo-Arabic letters from theGeniza (Wagner 2007:68).

ÌÈÈ¯Â‰! Ì‡¯‡ (15 2b,7) ‘Aram-Naharaim,’ where the Judeo-Arabic

CHAPTER THREE

spelling is not identical to the Hebrew, probably due to phoneticissues, such as a possible long /å/ pronounced in Ì‡¯‡ and apossible /u/ in ÌÈÈ¯Â‰!. Vowel lengthening /a/ > /å/ may also explainthe alef in Ô‡¯ÓÊ (15 4b,12) ‘Zimran,’ Ô‡˘˜È (15 4b,12) ‘Yokshan,’and more.3 6 The consonant /w/ is expressed in the personal nameÁÂÂ˘ (15 4b,13) /¡uwa˙/ ‘Shua˙’ by writing two vavs.

(iii)Moving still further along the continuum, the following examplesare found: ı¥¯Î /karfaß/ (74 21,2) ‘Karpas’ (greens for the PassoverSeder), ¯$Ú ÈÏ‡ /<eli>e!er/ (93, 15,9) ‘Eliezer,’ and ‰È¯$Ú / >a!arya/(93 15,9) ‘Azarya.’ Here a Hebrew common noun and two Hebrewpersonal names were copied into the Judeo-Arabic translation, butwith a phonetic modification. The spellings suggest Judeo-Arabicemphatization of /s/ > [ß] and /z/ > [!]3 7 respectively, an indicationof a slightly more interpretive translation.

(iv)The translation of the name of the cave ‰ÏÙÎÓ‰ ‘the Machpela’ intoJudeo-Arabic ‰È!˙Ó Ï‡ (15 2a,9), literally ‘the doubled,’ althoughclearly a case where the ¡ar˙an chose a literal translation, is stillless literal than the previous example. Indeed, the ¡ar˙an translatedthe Hebrew root k-f-l ‘double’ verbatim into Judeo-Arabic t-n-y‘double,’ and also copied the Hebrew locative initial mem intoJudeo-Arabic locative m•m, even though he did not use the sameroot in the Judeo-Arabic translation.

(v) Much closer toward the less literal side of the continuum, onefinds the translation of the biblical Hebrew place name ‡¯ÓÓ ‘Mamre’(Gen 23:17). In the ¡ar˙ its translation is ‚¯Ó (15 2ba,6) ‘meadow.’This is the ¡ar˙an’s attempt to describe a place with a field andvegetation.

The various examples, organized in the above groups, are reflectedin figure 9:

84

3 6See chapter 4, p. 102, 1.1.5, and chapter 5, pp. 148–49, 1.1.3 7See also chapter 5, p. 149, 1.4.2 and p. 150, 1.4.3.


Least Literal (v) (iv) (iii) (ii) (i) Most Literal

Figure 9. The less literal/more literal continuum

The usefulness of the continuum can be observed in the followingexamples:(i) Whereas ˙¯ƒÁ È¥ (15 2a,4) ‘in the presence of,’ which translates

È!Ê‡· ‘in the hearing of’ (Gen 23:16), is a clear interpretation of theHebrew, ˙¯ƒÁÏ (15 2a,7) ‘in the presence of’ is less obvious. Thelatter translates È!ÈÚÏ ‘in the eyes of’ (Gen 23:18), and is stillinterpretive, but less so than the previous example, as it is closerto the Hebrew meaning (see chapter 7, pp. 203–4, 3-1.12).

(ii) Despite the fact that ı‡¯ /r¢åß/ (91 2b,10) ‘head’ and ıÂ¯Á‡ /u˙r¢uß/(15 2a,19) ‘beware’ are literal translations of Hebrew ˘‡¯ and ¯Ó˘‰

respectively, the Judeo-Arabic spellings, with the emphatic [ß],are examples of Judeo-Arabic assimilation in the environment ofemphatic [r¢], and so indicative of a more interpretive translation.

The Work of the ¡ar˙anThe detailed theoretical framework laid out here provides for the analysisof the linguistic features in the ¡ar˙. In the course of defining thisframework, I attempt to understand how the ¡ar˙an undertook thetranslations of the Hebrew or Aramaic text. I assume that he was inpossession of the original Hebrew or Aramaic text, or at least that hewas competent in the text. The ¡ar˙anim of that period memorizedthe Bible and other sacred texts, so that even if they did not have theactual text in front of them, they remembered it as if it were. The¡ar˙an quite likely intended to make a literal translation. In otherwords, he would attempt to find a Judeo-Arabic equivalent for everyHebrew or Aramaic word. Although throughout the ¡ar˙ both literal

85

and interpretive tendencies are seen at each level of the translation, the

?!

CHAPTER THREE

literal tendency seems to have dominated, since it is more frequentlyencountered than the interpretive tendency. Furthermore, a literaltranslation gave rise to “un-Arabic” sentences, which could not haveexisted in the ¡ar˙ if the guiding principle had been interpretive. InSaadia’s tafs•r, the guiding principle was interpretive, and indeed such“un-Arabic” sentences are not to be found there. In fact Saadia’s tafs•robeyed, for the most part, the rules of Classical Arabic.

In other words, the ¡ar˙an intended to translate the text verbatim,for the various reasons enumerated above (pp. 53–54, 58–59, 61–63).However, the ¡ar˙ includes nonverbatim traces as well. How didthese traces find their way into the ¡ar˙ if they were in conflict withthe guiding principle of verbatim translation? Was there a separatemechanism that enabled these interpretive traces to find their wayinto the final product, the ¡ar˙? What happened on the way from theoriginal Hebrew/Aramaic input to the moment the ¡ar˙an wrote downthe Judeo-Arabic output of the ¡ar˙? Figure 10 illustrates thesequestions:

input output (original text) (the ¡ar˙)

Figure 10. What happens in the process of translation?

Two kinds of mechanisms are assumed to operate inside the rectangle(figure 11). Mechanism A represents the guiding principle of verbatimtranslation, according to which a ¡ar˙an put a Judeo-Arabic equivalentin place of each Hebrew or Aramaic component. This is the way the¡ar˙an intended to render the text. In other words, Mechanism A is a

86

deliberate process. Its output, an “intermediate product” (IP), is not

*IPM

echanism A

Mechanism

B


attested regularly; however, it can be assumed that it would be arather complete literal translation with many “un-Arabic” sentencesand structures that would make comprehension difficult, if notimpossible. Mechanism B then takes the IP and allows the interpretivetendencies to find their way in. Mechanism B manipulates the text byway of change, addition, and deletion,3 8 in order to facilitate compre-hension. The end result is a complex output, the ¡ar˙, which containsa mixture of both literal and interpretive traces. Figure 11 illustratesthese mechanisms:

input output (original text) (the ¡ar˙)

Figure 11. The ¡ar˙an’s work

We may safely assume that a ¡ar˙an was more aware of usingMechanism A than Mechanism B. Furthermore, it could even besupposed that he may have been unaware of the existence of MechanismB, and that he was in fact convinced that he did indeed translate thetext verbatim. We may also assume that a ¡ar˙an would have used adifferent linguistic competence for each of the mechanisms. ForMechanism A he would find an equivalent for the Hebrew componentin his store of Judeo-Arabic linguistic knowledge. For Mechanism Bhe would use his knowledge of other linguistic traditions, such asstandard Arabic, colloquial Arabic, or the language of previous transla-

87

3 8Tedghi mentions “broadening,” “narrowing,” and “free translation” (1994:96–100).

tions, such as those of Saadia (Classical Judeo-Arabic) or Onqelos

CHAPTER THREE

(Aramaic). Moreover, it may well have been the case thattranslators/interpreters had not just the Hebrew text in front of them,but also Saadia’s translation, either in a physical copy or in theirmind, since that text was so authoritative. But translators may alsohave consciously discarded Saadia’s translation, and yet unconsciouslyconsulted it occasionally in order to resolve translation difficulties.Some, of course, may have lost their knowledge of Saadia’s translationaltogether. Furthermore, many translators may have realized that atotally verbatim translation was impossible, and therefore consideredthe use of calculated compromises in the interests of intelligibility andreadability.

As mentioned above, the IP is not attested regularly, since the endproduct usually includes Mechanism B. However, a good illustrationof an IP and the process of the ¡ar˙an’s work can be shown in twodifferent translations of a clause from the Haggadah, Ú„ÂÈ Â!È‡˘ „Á‡Â

ÏÂ‡˘Ï ‘and the one who does not know how to ask.’ In ms. 93 16,7 the¡ar˙an translated this sentence as Ï‡ÒÈÏ ¥¯ÚÈ ÂÒÈÏ È#Ï‡ „Á‡ÂÂ. This is averbatim translation which would have sounded strange to nativespeakers of Arabic for a number of reasons. First, the translation’sword order strictly follows the Hebrew original. Second, ÂÒÈÏ is ahybrid form of the negative particle /lays/ and the third pronominalsuffix /-o/, in imitation of the Hebrew negative ÔÈ‡ and the thirdpronominal suffix Â$. Finally, Ï‡ÒÈÏ translates the Hebrew infinitiveconstruct ÏÂ‡˘Ï with the Arabic particle /li/, which is phoneticallyequivalent to the Hebrew preposition Ï, although in Arabic the particle/an/ would have been expected. It seems that the source text Â!È‡˘ „Á‡Â

ÏÂ‡˘Ï Ú„ÂÈ went through Mechanism A (figure 11) to result in a possibleIP of Ï‡ÒÈÏ ¥¯ÚÈ ÂÒÈÏ È#Ï‡ „Á‡ÂÂ . This IP then went through MechanismB, which did not produce any change. Had Mechanism B caused anychanges, interpretive traces would have been detected in the output.Thus, we assume that in this case the IP was the same as the finaloutput (the ¡ar˙).

88


Ms. 3 4,10, however, offers a different translation of the same Hebrewclause: Ï‡ÒÈ ˘¥¯ÚÈ ‡Ó „Á‡ÂÂ ‘and the one who does not know how toask.’ Clearly, this translation leans more toward the interpretive sideof the scale and is formulated in standard Egyptian Judeo-Arabic. Asin the first translation, the Hebrew clause ÏÂ‡˘Ï Ú„ÂÈ Â!È‡˘ „Á‡Â wentthrough Mechanism A to produce an IP, perhaps ¥¯ÚÈ ÂÒÈÏ È#Ï‡ „Á‡ÂÂÏ‡ÒÈÏ as in the previous example. In the example in ms. 3, however,Mechanism B did cause the ¡ar˙an to employ his linguistic knowledgeof colloquial Egyptian Arabic to arrive at the output ˘¥¯ÚÈ ‡Ó „Á‡ÂÂÏ‡ÒÈ, which indeed includes several features of colloquial EgyptianArabic: the negative /ma -¡/, as in [majI?rafS] ‘does not know,’ and theasyndetic clauses [w¶wa:©Idma] ‘the one who does not’ and [jI?rafSjIsal]‘does not know how to ask.’

To conclude, both translations of ÏÂ‡˘Ï Ú„ÂÈ Â!È‡˘ „Á‡Â would appearto result in the same IP after going through Mechanism A. We assumethat the difference between the two translations is the result ofMechanism B. In the first example, Ï‡ÒÈÏ ¥¯ÚÈ ÂÒÈÏ È#Ï‡ „Á‡ÂÂ, MechanismB does not operate and therefore the IP and the output are the same.In the second example, Ï‡ÒÈ ˘¥¯ÚÈ ‡Ó „Á‡ÂÂ, however, Mechanism Bdoes operate, and therefore the output is different than the IP. Themain manipulations that Mechanism B performs on the IP in thesecond example are the following: omission of the relative pronounÈ#Ï‡, adaptation of ¥¯ÚÈ ÂÒÈÏ to the Judeo-Arabic negation, and use ofthe asyndetic clause Ï‡ÒÈ ˘¥¯ÚÈ.

Since a number of different ¡ar˙anim each composed ¡ur¥˙, manydifferent manuscripts of the same text may exist. When two differentversions of a translation from two different manuscripts are comparedand analyzed, as is the case here with the versions from mss. 3 and93, we do not necessarily assume that one and the same ¡ar˙ancomposed them, although we do consider it likely that they are copiesof one earlier prototype ¡ar˙. However, it certainly may also be thecase that two manuscript versions of a text were written by two

89

different ¡ar˙anim. How, then, can the same analysis be assigned to

CHAPTER THREE

both? In fact, even if the ¡ur¥˙ in question were composed by two ormore different ¡ar˙anim, they can still be analyzed as texts that sharea tradition of translation. It is probable that the tradition of the ¡ar˙was unified, at least in Egypt, if not elsewhere. Consequently, thesame analysis, using the two mechanisms A and B, can be assigned toexamples from different manuscripts. Throughout this study, I assumethe existence of such a tradition of translation and analyze examplesfrom various Egyptian Judeo-Arabic ¡ur¥˙ accordingly.3 9

To summarize, Mechanism A and Mechanism B scan the textdifferently and use different working methods. Mechanism A scansthe text horizontally, i.e., word by word, and for each Hebrew wordsubstitutes a Judeo-Arabic equivalent to produce the IP. MechanismB then scans the latter from head to toe all the way from the phraselevel through the word level and the morphosyntactic level, down tothe segment level, while performing interpretive manipulations whereneeded. Part 2 of this book illustrates these mechanisms in detail.

90

3 9See p. 75 above, including n. 27, and chapter 6, p. 165.

CHAPTER FOUR

SPOKEN EGYPTIAN JUDEO-ARABIC:THE EVIDENCE FROM THE ¡arh ¢ ¢ ¢¢ TEXTS

This chapter introduces the methodological considerations for recon-structing the spoken Judeo-Arabic variety used by Egyptian Jews, asextracted from the texts of the ¡ur¥˙. It examines the various linguisticlevels in the texts, emphasizes the connection between the orthographyand phonetics/ phonology, including its limitations, and points outsimilar orthographical trends in today’s published modern Egyptiandialect. It then analyzes selected characteristics of dialectal features ofspoken Egyptian Judeo-Arabic in phonetics and phonology,morphology, syntax, and the lexicon. The chapter concludes with asummary which highlights the characteristics of spoken Egyptian Judeo-Arabic, as reflected in the texts of the ¡ur¥ ,̇ that set it apart fromspoken Egyptian Arabic used by Christians and Muslims.1

Spoken Egyptian Judeo-Arabic — An IntroductionNada Tomiche was the first to document Egyptian Jewish speech. In1968 she highlighted several features in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic speech,distinguishing them from the Christian and Muslims dialects in pho-netics, morphology, and lexicon. Haim Blanc followed suit, laying the

1 It is likely that most of the data presented here refer to the religiolect spokenin Cairo by Jews in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. However, it is alsoprobable that Jews in Alexandria and elsewhere had similar linguistic traits (seeTomiche 1968:1179–80; Rosenbaum 2002c:118). I use “Egyptian” and “Cairene”Judeo-Arabic interchangeably to refer to these features.

foundation for research on Egyptian Judeo-Arabic in three important

CHAPTER FOUR

articles (1974, 1981, 1985). In 1979, despite the limited data collectedon the speech of Egyptian Jews, Blanc argued that the dialect spokenby Cairene Jews was not distinct from the dialect spoken by Christianand Muslims, as opposed to spoken Baghdadi Judeo-Arabic, whichwas distinct in many ways from Christian and Muslims Baghdadidialect (Rabin et al. 1979:49–52).2

With the recordings of contemporary Egyptian Jews conducted byGabriel Rosenbaum and the collection and publication of EgyptianJudeo-Arabic material, including ¡ur¥˙, done by me (Hary 1992, 2009),there are now ample data to trace the development of spoken EgyptianJudeo-Arabic from the sixteenth century until today. These data haveconfirmed several of Tomiche’s discoveries and all of Blanc’s findingsabout the dialect, which in 1974 he termed “non-standard Cairene.”Moreover, Rosenbaum (2002b, 2002c)3 has identified new dialectalfeatures of Egyptian Judeo-Arabic, a process that is continued in thischapter. Rosenbaum has rightly asserted that had Blanc seen the newmaterials, he would have been convinced that the term “EgyptianJudeo-Arabic” was justified (2002c:118).

92

2 Likewise, S. Morag (Rabin et al. 1979:53) has claimed that modern EgyptianJudeo-Arabic does not include any independent linguistic features.

3 Rosenbaum (2002c:118) has claimed that in Egypt the Christians (Copts)and the Muslims speak the same variety. Recent research on religiolects (chapter1 of this volume; Benor 2008; Hary and Wein 2008) has not supported thisclaim. There are simply not enough data available. Had there been systematicrecordings of Christians and Muslims, using corpus linguistics methodology,and had there been a comprehensive analysis of Egyptian Christian and Muslimtexts from the premodern eras, both of these varieties would have been identifiedas distinct to some degree. Moreover, Tomiche (1968:1180) has alluded to thisissue by noting that “[d]ans sa phonétique, il se caractérise par une absence devélarisation qui contraste avec les dialectes des Musulmans, mais qui le rapprochedu language des Coptes.”

SPOKEN EGYPTIAN JUDEO-ARABIC

MethodologyThe texts of the ¡ur¥˙ contain several levels and elements, includingthose of colloquial speech. Through a careful examination of the texts,these elements can be extracted in order to reconstruct, at least inpart, the dialect used by Egyptian Jews during the eighteenth andnineteenth centuries, the period of the composition of the ¡ur¥˙.

The texts of Judeo-Arabic ¡ur¥˙ include a mixture of several layers:4

(i) Classical and post-Classical Arabic;(ii) Pseudocorrections;(iii) Standardized pseudocorrections;(iv) Verbatim or direct translations from Hebrew and Aramaic into

Judeo-Arabic;(v) Traces from earlier translations of sacred texts, especially that of

Saadia Gaon; and(vi) Dialectal components.

The tracing of the dialect, then, can be conducted by isolatingelements (i) through (v), thereby allowing elements of the spokendialect (vi) to surface. The findings should then be compared with themodern dialects,5 as well as with documentation from premodern CaireneArabic, to confirm the evidence. This comparison, of course, has to bedone carefully and meticulously to avoid the many complications thatmay arise. For example, standardized pseudocorrection phenomena(element [iii] above) may pose a special difficulty. It is not easy todiscern whether standardized pseudocorrections have become part ofthe dialect or have just been standardized in the written texts andbecome productive in them.

In order to exemplify this methodology, consider the followingsentence: ÔÈÚ Ï‡ ˙ÏÊ!Â ‡‰¥¯Ú ÌÏ Ï‚‡¯Â ‰È¯Î· ÈÂÂ˜ ¯"!Ó Ï‡ ˙!ÒÂÁ ‰È·ˆ Ï‡Â˙ÚÏËÂ ‡‰˙¯‚ ˙ÏÓÂ (15 2b,17–18) ‘and the girl (was) very good looking,

93

4 See Blau 1991 for the different layers in Classical Judeo-Arabic.5 See Blau in Rabin et al. 1979:47–48 for a similar discussion.

a virgin, and no man had known her. She went down to the spring,

CHAPTER FOUR

filled her jar, and came up,’ which is the translation of ‰‡¯Ó ˙·›Ë ‰¯Ú!‰Â

ÏÚ˙Â ‰„Î ‡ÏÓ˙Â ‰!ÈÚ‰ „¯˙Â ‰Ú„È ‡Ï ˘È‡Â ‰ÏÂ˙· „›‡Ó (Gen 24:16). In thistranslation Classical and post-Classical components (element [i] above)are clear: the i!åfa \ayr ˙aq•qiyya in /˙usnat al-man!ar/ ‘good looking’and the use of Judeo-Arabic perfect verbs. The latter does not constitutea verbatim translation, since the Hebrew uses the imperfect followedby the vav consecutive. The verbatim translation elements (element[iv] above), on the other hand, are also evident: lack of /wa-kånat/ ‘and(she) was’ at the beginning of the sentence in the ¡ar˙, in order tomirror the Hebrew; lack of vav conjunctive before ‰È¯Î· ‘virgin,’ again,to meticulously copy the Hebrew; the use of the Judeo-Arabic nounÔÈÚ ‘spring’ to imitate the Hebrew ÔÈÚ, as other Arabic nouns couldhave been chosen; and more. It is also possible that the choice of ÔÈÚ‘spring’ may have been indirectly influenced by Saadia’s translation(element [v] above), which was so prevalent among Arabic-speakingJews. Furthermore, the choice of ¯"!Ó Ï‡ ˙!ÒÂÁ ‘good looking’ by the¡ar˙an may also be connected to the influence of Saadia’s work. Theuse of /lam/ before the perfect verb in ‡‰¥¯Ú ÌÏ ‘(he) did not knowher’ may reveal a standardized pseudocorrection (element [iii] above),which became part of Egyptian Judeo-Arabic dialect.

As a pseudocorrection becomes prevalent in a variety—spoken orwritten—it reaches a point where it ceases to be a pseudocorrectionand becomes an accepted form of the variety. It thus becomes stan-dardized and productive. In Later Egyptian Judeo-Arabic in general,and in the texts of the ¡ur¥˙ in particular, there are countless exampleswhere the negative particle /lam/ is followed by the perfect: ÏÒ¯ ÌÏ(15 27a,16) ‘(he) did not send’; ˙˙‡‚ ÌÏ (1302 2a,3) ‘(she) did notcome’ (p. 120, 2.2.5.1.2); ‰!·¯˜ ÌÏ (3 16,20) ‘(he) did not bring usnear’ (chapter 8, pp. 215–17, 4-2.1, pp. 293–95, 11-2). These and

94

6 For a detailed discussion of hypocorrections, hypercorrections, and otherphenomena of pseudocorrections, see Blau 1970:12–15; Hary 2007.

other examples may stem from hypocorrected forms6 that have been


standardized in the variety and become productive. In the dialect, theregularly used particle to negate the past is /ma/. The writer does notchoose the latter construction because it is an unmarked form, dominantin the dialect, and thus not prestigious. Instead, he chooses theprestigious marked Classical Arabic negation particle /lam/. The writer,however, “corrects” the construction only halfway: although he changesthe negative particle /ma/ to /lam/, he does not change the perfect formfollowing it to the jussive, as required by Classical Arabic. This examplefollows the criteria for hypocorrections (Hary 2007:277–78). However,because these forms have been regularly used in Later Egyptian Judeo-Arabic, they have been standardized in writing, as evident in variousmanuscripts from that period, and have become productive.

The question remains, however, whether the use of /lam/ followedby the perfect has become part of the spoken dialect. Rosenbaum hasargued (2002a) that it has, producing evidence for its existence in thedialect. He has noted that “the negative particle lam in colloquialArabic texts derives from the negative particle lam in common use instandard Arabic” and commented that it “is also possible that they arethe result of pseudo-corrections which became productive” (ibid., 591),but he has not supplied the above-mentioned analysis in detail. Wagner,who has traced the development of the language used in eleventh- tonineteenth-century Judeo-Arabic letters from the Cairo Geniza,disagreed, claiming that the use of /lam/ in late Egyptian Judeo-Arabicdialect “is a very unlikely scenario” (2007:177). Arnold, on the otherhand, has reported on the use of /lam/ in the spoken Arabic of theJews of Iskenderoun in the northeastern Mediterranean and speculatesthat it comes from the combination of /lå/ and /må/ (2006–2007:11),and not necessarily from Classical Arabic /lam/.

To conclude, the standardized and productive use of /lam/ as anegative particle in Judeo-Arabic ¡ur¥˙ may reflect living usage andmay be part of the dialect of the Jews in Egypt, although this has notbeen fully proven (see also chapter 5, pp. 141–43).

95

CHAPTER FOUR

To return to the example presented on pp. 93–94, after the isolationof the above elements, several characteristics that are part of thespoken dialect remain: the Egyptian adverb /<awi/ ‘very,’ the noun/rågil/ ‘man,’ the use of the negative /lam/ as explained above, andmore. This isolation of the components that are included in the textsof the ¡ur¥˙ is one of the methods to reconstruct the dialect fromwritten materials.

The Arabic dialect spoken by Jews in Egypt is comparable to thatspoken by their Christian and Muslims neighbors; thus, the investigationof dialectal features in the texts of the ¡ur¥˙ contributes to the historyof Egyptian colloquial Arabic in general. However, there are also cleardifferences between the religiolects in phonetics, phonology, morphol-ogy, syntax, and especially lexicon. Consequently, placing EgyptianJudeo-Arabic on the continuum of the Jewish linguistic spectrum,discussed in chapter 1, is noteworthy.

Another useful tool for reconstructing some phonetic and phonolog-ical characteristics of spoken Egyptian Judeo-Arabic from the texts ofthe ¡ur¥˙ is the orthographic tradition. For example, orthography ishelpful in detecting the history of the pronunciation of the reflex ofold Arabic "•m. Upon a careful investigation of the Judeo-Arabicorthography of the phoneme as well as support from other documents,I was able to demonstrate a linear development of the "•m in urbanEgyptian Arabic as follows (Hary 1996b):

/g/ /g/, /g’/, /"/ /"/ /"/, /g/ /g/6th–7th cent. 8th–11th cent. 12th–17th cent. 17th–18th cent. 19th–20th cent.

Figure 12. The development of the "•m in urban Egyptian Arabic

The following notes, however, demonstrate the intricate and complexrelationship between orthography and phonetics/phonology:(i) There is clear evidence that the uvular stop /q/ has shifted to /</ in

96

Egyptian Judeo-Arabic, at least from the sixteenth century onward


and probably earlier.7 The orthography in the texts of the ¡ur¥˙,for the most part, does not reflect this shift and uses qof (˜) insuch cases. Only infrequently does the orthography in the ¡ur¥˙mark the reflex of old Arabic /q/ as alef (‡) (see below, p. 106,1.7.1). Nonetheless, based on other evidence, the shift /q/ > /</ didoccur in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic dialect. Orthographic support forthis pronunciation comes also from cases of hypercorrection, wherethe ˜ appears in the text, supposedly to indicate the remnant ofold Arabic qåf. However, spelling with ˜ actually reflects anoverzealous effort by the ¡ar˙an, attempting to demonstrateknowledge of Classical Arabic, where, in fact, spelling with an alefwould have been sufficient: ¯ÈÂÂ‡Ò˜ (15 3a,15) for /asåwir/ ‘wrist-bands’ (see chapter 5, pp. 137ff).

Furthermore, modern Egyptian dialect has also developed inrecent decades in a written form. In addition to poetry, dramaticdialogues, and dialogues in prose regularly published in writing(Hary 1995:78), complete novels in colloquial Egyptian Arabichave recently appeared in Egypt. For example, —uHBF!« 6! /labanil->aßf¥r/ Bird’s Milk by Y¥suf al-Qa>•d was published in 1994 and—u" Áœ p?#b!« /id-d•k da †ør/ This Rooster Is an Ox by °mån Bakr•as recently as 2007.8 In such books the glottal stop that clearlyshifted from the uvular stop /q/ is spelled with an Arabic qåf,reflecting standard Arabic spelling and not dialectal pronunciation,along the lines of a similar orthographic practice used in Egyptian

97

7 See Grotzfeld 1967; Hary 1992:263.8 Bird’s Milk is the literal translation; the idiomatic translation is That’s

Impossible. See also Rosenbaum (2008:391): “One of the significant results ofthis activity is the publication of several prose texts written completely in thecolloquial, thus eliminating the traditional stylistic distinction between narrationand dialogue.” Furthermore, in n. 3 he has provided a list of additional novels.Since then, in addition to Bakr•’s novel, the following were also published inCairo: ‰“U$ /båzil/ Puzzle by Óusayn >Abd al->Al•m in 2005, and “u??&« …e?#U??%/>åyza atgawwez/ I’d Like to Get Married by |åda >Abd al->Ål in 2007.

Judeo-Arabic.

CHAPTER FOUR

(ii) The spelling of ˘‡ (3 2,8) ‘what,’ which, surprisingly enough,appears more than twenty times in ms. 3 of the Passover Haggadahfrom the Cairo Collection and several times in ms. 91,9 may indicatethat this interrogative pronoun was pronounced with a short /e/(/e¡/), another variant of ˘È‡ /#¡/. There is, however, no confirmationfor this pronunciation in any other source.1 0 The same orthograph-ical analysis applies to ˘Ï (3 23,10) and ˘ÈÏ /l#¡/ (15 3a,17; 5b,4;and more) ‘why.’ Lacking any other supporting evidence, it issafe to assume that the vowel in these interrogative pronouns isindeed long /#¡/ and /l#¡/ and that the spelling is simply defectiva.1 1

(iii)Although there is ample evidence in the orthography of Late Judeo-Arabic in general and Late Egyptian Judeo-Arabic in particular forthe appearance of an alef where a short /a/ is expected, it is not asolid proof for the lengthening of /a/ into [å]. This spelling usuallyoccurs in one-syllable words:1 2 È‡˘1 3 /¡ay/ (93 1,2) ‘thing’; Ô‡Ú/>an/ (93 2,11; 11,18a) ‘about’; Ï‡¡ /xall/ (74 21,2) ‘vinegar’; Ë‡˘/¡a††/ (91 3a,1) ‘shore’; È‡Ê /zayy/ (91 2b,8) ‘like.’1 4 Interestingly,Khan has considered this alef to mark the long vowel /å/: “Thisspelling reflects, indeed, the fact that in these words the vowel islengthened in the spoken language” (1991:226, my translation).

98

9 In mss. 15, 1302, 74, and 93 the spelling is always with a yod, ˘È‡ /#¡/,indicating a long vowel. See the reference to these manuscripts in the introductionto this volume.

1 0Tomiche 1968:1180; Blanc 1974:216; Rosenbaum 2002c:126. See also pp.114–15, 2.1.6.1.

1 1See the scriptio defectiva described in Wagner 2007:76 for ‰Ù /f•h/ ‘in it.’1 2See also Hary 1992:249, 2.1.3; 1994b:377; Khan 1991:226, although Wagner

(2007:70) has cited several examples of multisyllabic words: ‰¯‡Ó ‘time,’‡‰˙·‡˙Î ‘I wrote to her.’

1 3For a similar spelling in Tunisian Judeo-Arabic, see Doron 1995:134.1 4Ì‡Î /kåm/ (91 7a,17; 8a,5; 93 31,14; 37,14) ‘how much’ is probably long,

as is the case in standard Egyptian Arabic, although there is also a variant with ashort vowel /kam/.

However, it has not been proven that the vowel had shifted to


become long, because there is no supporting evidence for thisphenomenon elsewhere. This issue then demonstrates that theorthography cannot be used as the only tool to trace the dialect. Itis more probable that the alef was added to “create” a longerword, as a word with only two letters may have seemed too shortto the ¡ar˙ånim.

In sum, these three cases demonstrate the need to consider theorthography cautiously and not as a solid proof for phonetic orphonological structure. Therefore, in this chapter, if the orthographyis not supported by additional evidence, then it is not taken as proofof a phonetic or phonological feature.

Below are several notes on the descriptive linguistic analysis ofspoken Egyptian Judeo-Arabic, as extracted from the texts of the¡ur¥˙, that use the methods outlined above. The examples cited inthis chapter are only a small selection from the texts of the ¡ur¥˙;many are not unique to Egyptian Judeo-Arabic dialect, but are alsofound in standard Egyptian Arabic. Each example appears in the Judeo-Arabic orthography, followed by a conjectured transcription whendeemed necessary and plausible. Then appears a reference to themanuscript(s) from which it is cited, followed by a translation intoEnglish.

99

CHAPTER FOUR

1. Phonetics and Phonology

1.1 Vowel shifts

1.1.1 /å/ > [a]: È˙¥ÈÈË /†ayfeti/ (15 3b,9) ‘my family’; ¬˙ÈÈ¯‚ /garyetak/(74 14,13; 93 67,13) ‘your (masc.) maid.’

1.1.2 /a/ > [i] or [e]/[E], sometimes as part of imåla process: Ô‡ÚÈ‚/gi>ån/ (3 2,4; 74 1,1; 93 12,5) ‘hungry’; ÏÈÁÓ /ma˙Ell/ (93 1,8) ‘place’;Â˙È¯¥Âˆ /ßufrito/ (93 2,14) ‘his table’; ˙ÂˆÓ ˙È˙‡Ï˙ /talåtit maßøt/ (9311,12) ‘three matzot (unleavened bread).’

1.1.3 /a/ > [u]: ˙˜ÂÂ ÏÂ„ /dulwa<t(i)/1 5 (15 14a,7; 15b,12) ‘now’; ¬¯‡·Â˙/tubårak/ (3 3,2; 6,13; 7,4; 74 1,11; 93 14,3; 18,15; 20,3; 20,13) ‘bless’;‰Ï‡ÚÂ˙ /tu>åla/ (91 2b,15; 93 16,4) ‘exalt’; ·ÚÂ˘ /¡u>b/ (93 22,9; 22,10)‘people’; ¯Â¡‡ /åxur/ (15 6b,16 and more; 3 11,12 and more) ‘another’;ÔÈ¯¡Â‡ /uxr•n/ (91 9b,14; 93 45,5) ‘other (pl.).’1 6

1.1.4 /i/ > [u]: Ì‡ÊÂ¡ /xuzåm/ (15 3a,5) ‘nose ring’;1 7 ‰!‡È¯ÂÚ />uryåna/(3 8,15) ‘naked’;1 8 ‰ƒÂ¯ /ru$a/ (3 21,10) ‘contentment, acceptance.’1 9

Furthermore, note the /u/ in /<ußßa/2 0 ‘story’ in the title of the followingmanuscripts from the Cairo Collection (chapter 3, pp. 63–65): /<ußßatil-xurbån/ ‘The Story of the Destruction’; /<ußßat ˙anna/ ‘The Story of

100

1 5It is possible that the shift comes from standard Egyptian /dilwa <t(i)/ intoEgyptian Judeo-Arabic /dulwa<t(i)/ (/i/ > /u/); however, the shift /håƒa/ > /da/ >/du/ is presented here.

1 6Note that in standard colloquial Egyptian Arabic these examples do notundergo the shift, as they do in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic: /dilwa<t(i)/ (Hinds andBadawi 1986:950), although there are many variants of this adverb (see below, n.25); /tabårak/ (ibid., 68); /ta>åla/ (ibid., 598); /¡a>b/ (ibid., 466); /åxar/ and/åxar•n/ (ibid., 11); although /råxar/ and its plural form /ruxr•n/ also exist.

1 7In standard colloquial Egyptian Arabic, both /xuzåm/ and /xizåm/ exist (ibid.,249); however, in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic the preference is for /xuzåm/.

1 8In standard Egyptian Arabic this shift does not occur: />iryåna/ (ibid., 574).1 9Hinds and Badawi have not recorded the shift in standard colloquial Egyptian

Arabic; they wrote /ri$a/ (1986:340). However, my Egyptian consultants havetold me that /ru$a/ exists in standard Egyptian as well.

2 0In standard Cairene /<ißßa/ (ibid., 704).

Hanna’; /<ußßat >a¡ar ˙axam•m/ ‘The Story of Ten Rabbis.’


The following examples exhibit the same shift of /i/ > [u] in standardcolloquial Egyptian Arabic that also occurs in Egyptian Judeo-Arabicdialect: Ï˜Â˙ /tu <l/ (15 3a,5) ‘heaviness, weight’; Ô‡ÏÊÂ# /\uzlån/ (320,16) ‘gazelles’; ¯‡˙ÂÎ /kutår/ (3 21,6) ‘many’; ÒÂ! /nuss/ (91 10a,12)‘half’ (see also 1.12.1 and 1.14); ¯‡µÂˆ /ßu\år/ (3 24,4) ‘small (pl.)’;¯‡·ÂÎ /kubår/ (3 24,4) ‘big (pl.)’; ˜‡˜Â˘ /¡u<a</ (93 73,13) ‘pieces.’

Wagner, in her grammatical analysis of Judeo-Arabic letters fromthe Cairo Geniza, has provided the following example: ˙¯ÂÓ ˙‰È‚ ÔÓÂÛÒÂÈ ‘concerning Joseph’s wife’ (2007:144),2 1 taken from the eighteenth-and nineteenth-century Egyptian corpus (TS NS 99.23/51). AlthoughWagner has considered the word ˙¯ÂÓ ‘wife’ to be Hebrew, I read/murat/ as Egyptian Judeo-Arabic dialect which has undergone theshift /i/ > /u/ from standard /mråt-/ ‘wife of’ (Hinds and Badawi1986:815). Even in the less likely case that the word has come fromHebrew, it still has the vowel /u/, reflecting the preference in EgyptianJudeo-Arabic.2 2

1.1.4.1 In sum, there is a clear preference in spoken Egyptian Judeo-Arabic for the vowel /u/.2 3 Sometimes standard Cairene dialect featuresboth /u/ and /i/ for certain forms; however, Egyptian Judeo-Arabicdemonstrates a consistent preference for /u/. For example, the verbalpattern /fu>ul/ (see below, p. 117, 2.2.1.1) occurs both in standardEgyptian dialect and in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic dialect; however,Muslims prefer /fi>il/ and Jews prefer /fu >ul/. Furthermore, Jews optfor /xuzåm/ ‘nose ring’ and /¡ubbåk/ ‘window,’ whereas /xizåm/ and/¡ebbåk/ respectively are more common in the standard spoken varietyin Cairo. In addition, Jews use the vowel /u/ even in cases where the

101

2 1See also Khan 1991:226.2 2See 1.1.4.1 below and the examples from Hebrew, /kupp¥r/ ‘Yom Kippur’

and /kutubbå/ ‘marriage contract.’2 3Already in 1991 Khan (p. 226 n. 10) had noticed this phenomenon, but he

did not have the same extensive data that exist today.

standard variety calls for /e/ or /i/ or even /a/: />uryåna/ (3 8,15) ‘naked,’

CHAPTER FOUR

/†u¡t/ ‘washtub,’ and /muxadda/ ‘pillow’2 4 appear in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic as opposed to />iryåna/, /†i¡t/, and /mexadda/ in the standardvariety. Along the same lines, /dulwa<t(i)/ (15 14a,7; 15b,12) ‘now’ isemployed in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic along with /dilwa<t(i)/; however,the former does not appear in standard Egyptian.2 5 Similarly, /tubårak/(3 3,2) ‘bless’ and /tu>åla/ (91 2b,15)2 6 ‘exalt’ appear in EgyptianJudeo-Arabic vs. /tabårak/ and /ta >åla/ in standard Egyptian. In theEgyptian Judeo-Arabic Haggadah the negation particle ˘ÂÓ /mu¡/ (31,4) appears, whereas standard Cairene employs both /mi¡/ and /mu¡/.Rosenbaum (2002b:37) has reported that words taken from Hebrewundergo a similar shift: /kupp¥r/ vs. Hebrew /kipp¥r/ ‘Yom Kippur’and /kutubbå/ vs. Hebrew /ketubbå/ ‘marriage contract.’

1.1.5 /a/ > [å] This shift occurs in Hebrew words borrowed into the¡ar˙ (chapter 5, 1.1): ‰‡ÏË· /ba†alå/ (93 1,6) ‘in vain’; Ô‡ÁÏÂ˘ /¡ul˙ån/(74 21,17; 91 10a,11) ‘table,’ and is consistent with Rosenbaum’sfinding: /koh#n/ ‘priest’ and /kohenå/ ‘daughter or wife of a priest’(2002b:36). This shift also occurs in personal names adopted fromthe Hebrew: Ô‡¯ÓÊ /zimrån/ (15 4b,12) ‘Zimran’; Ô‡˘˜È /yok¡ån/ (154b,12) ‘Yokshan’; Ô‡„Ó /mEdån/ (15 4b,12) ‘Medan’; Ô‡È„Ó /mEdyån/(15 4b,12) ‘Midian’; ˜‡·˘È /yi¡båq/ (15 4b,13) ‘Yishbak’; Ô‡„„ /dEdån/(15 4b,14) ‘Dedan.’ The same process occurs in place names: Ô‡˙Â„/dotån/ (15 22a,8) ‘Dotan’; ‰˙‡!Ó˙ /timnåta/ (15 23a, 15 and 16) ‘toTimnah’ (chapter 7, 3-2.5 and chapter 8, 8-2.1).

1.1.6 /å/ > /a/ preceding />/, /˙/, or /h/: ˙‡Ú¯„ /dira>åt/ (15 37a,9) ‘arms’;Ú˙· /bEta>/ (91 7a,11) and ˙ÈÚ˙· /bEta>et/ (91 8b,2; 10a,12) ‘genitivemarker, of (masc., fem.)’; ˙‡‰Ï‡ /ilahåt/ (93 19,2) ‘gods’; ‰ÏÈ‡ /ilah/

102

2 4The last two examples are taken from Rosenbaum 2002b:37.2 5Behnstedt and Woidich (1985, 2:178–80) have recognized about forty variants

for /dilwa<ti/ ‘now’ in Egypt; however, only three of them have the vowel /u/ inthem: /dulwak/ in iz-Ziniyya and /dur¢wak/ and /durwak•it/, which coexist inNawåßir and al->A$åyma.

2 6See above, p. 100, 1.1.3, for a complete reference to these examples.

(91 9b,7) ‘God’ and ‡!‰Ï‡ /ilahna/ (91 9b,10) ‘our God.’


This shift occurs regularly in Maghrebi dialects2 7 but is unusual instandard Egyptian dialect.2 8 This feature, then, is an example of migratedor displaced dialectalism, discussed in chapter 1 (pp. 22–23). Sometimesthis vowel shortening occurs elsewhere:2 9 ‰ÈÈ!ËˆÂ /waß†a-niyya/ (7421,3; 91 11,12) ‘middle’; ˙‡ÒÎ /kasåt/ (74 21,6; 91 11,18) ‘cups’;ÔÈÎÒÓ /masak•n/ (93 12,4) ‘poor (pl.).’

1.1.7 /i/ or /e/ > [•] or [#] in words borrowed from the Hebrew: ıÈÓÁ/˙am#ß/ (93 1,3; 1,6 and more) ‘unleavened’ (chapter 5, p. 149, 1.2).

1.2 The diphthongsThe diphthongs contracted to become monophthongs in EgyptianJudeo-Arabic dialect, certainly by the nineteenth century (Blanc1981:195).

1.2.1 /aw/ > /ø/: ÂÓÂ˜ / <ømo/ (3 4,7) ‘his people’; ‰!ËÂˆ /ßø†na/ (3 9,17)‘our voice.’ Sometimes, however, the contraction has not happened:„Â‚ÂÂÓ /mawg¥d/ (15 3b,12 and many other occurrences) ‘present, inattendance (masc. sg.)’; ‰„ÂÂ‰ /hawda/ (15 3b,12 and many otheroccurrences) ‘indeed.’ These forms may reflect classicisms, but insome instances the monophthongization has yet to be firmlyestablished.

1.2.2 /ay/ > /#/: ËÈµ /!#†/ (15 2a,5) ‘field’; ‡‰ÈÏÚ / >al#ha/ (15 3b,19 andmore) ‘on her’; ÔÈ!˙‡ /itn#n/ (15 5b,6) ‘two’; ˙ÈÏÈÏ /l#lit/ (93 1,1) ‘thenight of’; ÒÈÁ /˙#s/ (93 1,3) ‘since’; ËÈËÚ‡ /a>†#†/ (91 3a,2) ‘I gave.’

1.3 The disappearance of the hamza

103

2 7See Khan 1991:228 (for example, ‰ÚÓ‚ /gama >a/ ‘group’) and the referencethere (n. 19). The same occurs in Classical Maghrebi Judeo-Arabic: ÚÓ˙˘‡Ï‡/al-i¡tima>/ ‘the meeting’ (Blau 1995:23–24).

2 8The shortening of this vowel in standard Egyptian can occur when /bEtå>/appears before an element that begins with a consonant, such as in /bta>kullo/‘know-all,’ although the variant /btå>kullo/, with the long vowel /å/, also exists.

2 9There is, of course, the possibility that this is only a spelling variation, notindicating a change in the phonetics.

1.3.1 As is common in Arabic dialects in general, the hamza frequently

CHAPTER FOUR

disappears: ÔÏÈ‡˜ /qåylan/ (15 0-1,13 and more) ‘saying’; ‰¯Ó /mara/(15 2a,17) ‘wife’; ¯È· /b•r/ (15 22a,14) ‘well’; Ô‡„Ó /madån/ (13022a,1) ‘nations’ (madå<in/ > /madån/).3 0 This shift is clearer in ˙ËÈÁ¬Á·„Ó /˙#†at madba˙ak/ (3 21,10) ‘the wall of your altar,’ where theshift /å<i/ > /#/, including the disappearance of the hamza, is evident.

1.3.2 The disappearance of the hamza is seen in the orthography ofthe alif mamd¥da and vowel shortening, /å</ > /a/, either by spellingwith a he: ‰ÒÂ¯ /ruasa/ (1302 1b,16) ‘officials, leaders’; ‰Ó‰Â¥ /fuhama/(3 3,5) ‘wise people’; ‰„˙·‡ /ibtida/ (3 5,17) ‘beginning’; ‰ÓÒ /sama/(3 24,6) ‘heavens’; ‰Ë·ÂÚ / >uba†a/ (3 24,16) ‘imbecile (pl.)’; or with analef: ‡¯ÊÂ /wuzara/ (1302 1b,5) ‘ministers, nobles’; ‡Ò‡Â¯ /ruasa/ (13021b,5 and many other occurrences) ‘officials, leaders’; ‡!µ /\ena/ (13021b,6) ‘wealth’; ‡ÏÎÂ /wukala/ (1302 2a,13) ‘deputies.’ This spelling isalso part of the Hebraized orthography (Hary 1999:79).

1.4 The shift of the interdentalsThis shift is common in urban Arabic dialects; therefore, it is notsurprising to see it in colloquial Egyptian Judeo-Arabic as well. Theinterdentals frequently become stops. In some cases, however, wherethe affiliation with Classical Arabic is more desired on the part of the¡ar˙anim, as a language elevation technique, the interdentals becomefricatives (Hary 1992:258–60, 3.6; 1994b:378), because fricatives areconsidered “closer” to interdentals in speakers’ phonemic inventory.

1.4.1 /®/ > /t/:3 1 Ï˜Â˙ /tu<l/ (15 3a,5) ‘heaviness, weight’; È!‡˙ /tåni/ (932,11) ‘second’; Â¯˙ÂÎ /kutru/ (3 8,9) ‘they increased’; ¯‡˙ÂÎ /kutår/ (321,6) ‘many.’

1.4.2 /®/ > /s/: ÒÈÁ /˙#s/ (93 1,3) ‘since’; ˙Ò¯ÂÂ‡Â /wi- <awrest/ (93 82,8)‘and you (masc. sg.) gave as an inheritance.’

104

3 0It is possible that a scribal error has occurred and the text should read ÔÈ‡„Ó,but even so, it could be /madåyin/ along with the disappearance of the hamza.

3 1Although the orthography in ˙¯ÂÂÈÏ /li-yuwarris/ (3 6,9) ‘to inherit’ features atav, the shift in the spoken variety is probably to the fricative /s/. See also˙Ò¯ÂÂ‡Â in 1.4.2.


1.4.3 /ƒ/ > /d/: ·‰„ /dahab/ (15 3a,6) ‘gold’; „È·! /nEb•d/ (3 1,1) ‘wine’;‰¯ÂÎ„ /dEk¥ra/ (3 7,9) ‘males’; Â!„Â /widno/ (3 24,12) ‘his ear’; ÁÈ‡·„/dabåyi˙/ (3 25,6) ‘sacrifices.’

1.4.4 /ƒ/ > /z/: ˙·ÊÚ˙‡ /it>azzebit/ (15 19a,20) ‘(she) was punished’;ÈÊÏ‡ /il-lazi/ (1302 2a,11) ‘that’; ÊÂ¡‡È /yåxuz/ (93 11,8) ‘(he) takes’;Â˙‡Ê /zåto/ (3 4,19) ‘himself’; ÊÈÊÏ /laz•z/ (3 27,10) ‘delightful.’3 2

1.5 The realization of Classical Arabic /"•m/For the most part, the realization of Classical Arabic /"•m/ is the velarstop /g/: ¯‚˘ /¡agar/ (15 2a,6) ‘trees’; ÒÂÏ‚ /gul¥s/ (1302 1b,3) ‘sitting’;Ô‡ÚÈ‚ /gi>ån/ (3 2,4) ‘hungry.’ This is in line with Blanc 1981:189–93;Davies 2005:xxxv;3 3 and Hary 1996b (see above, p. 96).

1.6 The realization of Classical Arabic />ayn/There is a weakening of the voiced pharyngeal fricative />/ in LaterEgyptian Judeo-Arabic dialect,3 4 as reflected in ¯˘‡!˙‡ /itnaa¡ar/ (1519b,9; 1302 2b,9) ‘twelve’; ¯˘‡„Á /˙idaa¡ar/ (74 23,17) ‘eleven’ (seebelow 2.2.7.2);3 5 „‰‡ /ahd/ (91 3a,8) ‘pact.’ This phenomenon is notuncommon in Semitic languages, occurring in other Judeo-Arabic dialectsas well, and may be a feature of migrated dialectalism.3 6

105

3 2Despite the fact that in an equivalent manuscript „È„Ï (74 20,1) ‘delightful’appears, there is no supporting evidence for the pronunciation of /lad•d/. Thus,the orthography of „È„Ï may not reflect the shift /ƒ/ >/d/.

3 3Davies has claimed that the phoneme was pronounced as /g/ by Y¥sufal-⁄irb•n• in seventeenth-century Egypt.

3 4The orthography is a good indication of this weakening; however, it doesnot supply us with solid proof in this case. Support for this weakening comesfrom both modern Egyptian dialects and other Judeo-Arabic dialects. For example,in the modern Judeo-Arabic dialect of Peq•>•n, the “articulation of > is very weakin all positions” (Geva-Kleinberger 2005:47)—for example, /bsa(>)d¥na/ ‘theyhelp us.’

3 5The weakening of the voiced pharyngeal fricative />/ appears in words fornumbers in many Arabic dialects, and can also be considered consonant deletion.

3 6For example, in the Judeo-Arabic dialects of Haifa (Geva-Kleinberger 2004:43),of Peq•>•n (idem 2005:47), and of Tiberias (idem 2008:9).

CHAPTER FOUR

1.7 The realization of Classical Arabic /qåf/

1.7.1 As is the case in the modern dialect of Cairo, the shift /q/ > /</occurs regularly, although it is only seldom reflected in the orthography:ÂÒ‡Â /wi-<isu/ (91 4b,17) ‘And (they) were harsh’; ¬‡È¯˙ /tar•<ak/ (153b,9) ‘your way’; Â¯·‡ / <abro/ (15 23-1b,8) ‘his burial place.’ Evidencefor this regular shift comes from several pseudocorrections: ¯ÈÂÂ‡Ò˜(15 3a,15) for /asåwir/ ‘wristbands’; ˙Ï˜ÒÂ (15 3b,20) for /wi-sa <alt/‘and I asked’; as well as from spelling in written modern Egyptiancolloquial novels (see above, p. 97). This phenomenon is sometimesseen even in Hebrew words borrowed into the ¡ar˙: ‰‡˘Ó /ma¡<e/ (7421,1) ‘a drink.’ This word reflects the pronunciation of the Hebrew‰˜˘Ó ‘drink’ with the same shift of /q/ > /</.3 7

1.7.2 The shift /q/ > /!/ also occurs: Â¯ƒµ /!i$ru/ (3 19,16) ‘were able.’

1.8 The glidesThe glides occur frequently in the texts, denoted usually by two vavsand two yods.

1.8.1 /w/: ÈÎ¯ÂÂ /wirki/ (15 2a,14) ‘my thigh’; ÔÈ„Â‚ÂÂÓ /mawg¥d•n/ (13021b,7) ‘present, in attendance (pl.)’; ‰ÂÂ¯ˆÓ /maßarwa/ (3 8,17)‘Egyptians.’

1.8.2 In words borrowed from the Hebrew, the voiced labiodentalfricative /v/, which is common in Hebrew but does not exist in Arabic,becomes the glide /w/ to adapt to the Arabic phonetic structure (chapter5, p. 150, 1.6): Â!‡ÂÂˆÂÂ /wi-ßiwwånu/ (93 1,14) ‘and He commandedus.’ As reported in Rosenbaum (2002c:123), there is no indication inthe ¡ur¥˙ of the use of /v/ in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic. This explainsthe pronunciation of the letter · in Hebrew words borrowed intoJudeo-Arabic as a voiced bilabial stop /b/ (chapter 5, p. 150, 1.6.1).

1.8.3 /y/: ¯ÈÈ‡„ /dåyir/ (15 2a,7) ‘around’; ˙ÈÈÓ /miyyEt/ (1302 1b,6)‘one hundred’; ‰ÈÈ¯· /barriyya/ (3 16,14) ‘desert.’

106

3 7See also chapter 5, p. 150, 1.5, and Rosenbaum 2002c:123.


1.9 The phoneme /p/This phoneme appears in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic dialect, borrowedfrom the Hebrew: ÌÈ˘µÏÙ Ï‡ (15 4b,17) ‘the concubines’; ˘„ÏÙ (151a,9) ‘Pildash’; ı¯‡Ù (15 23-1a,5) ‘Paretz.’ Rosenbaum (2002c:123)has reported that in modern Egyptian Judeo-Arabic dialect the phoneme/p/ can alternate with its voiced counterpart /b/: /pur•m/ alongside/bur•m/ ‘Purim’ (see also chapter 5, p. 154, 3).

1.10 Assimilation

1.10.1 Partial assimilation is seen in the sound change /d/ > /t/ (devoicing)in ÏÂ¡˙˙ /titxul/ (15 36b,7) ‘enter,’ clearly indicating speech use.3 8

1.10.2 A voicing assimilation is the shift /s/ > /z/ in the environmentof voiced segments: ‡‰ÂÊÓµÈÂ /wi-yi\miz¥ha/ (3 22,8) ‘and (they) dipit’; ÌÂ‰ÂÊÓµÈÂ /wi-yi\miz¥hum/ (3 22,10) ‘and (they) dip them.’3 9

1.11 Emphatization (tafx•m)It is common in spoken Egyptian Judeo-Arabic to find cases ofemphatization (tafx•m) or velarization as a partial assimilation thatoccurs in the environment of other emphatic phonemes.

1.11.1 /t/ > [†]: In the environment of emphatic /ß/: ÂËÂˆ /ßø†o/ (158b,15) ‘his voice’; ‰!ËÂˆ /ßø†na/ (3 9,17) ‘our voice’; and ‰!ËˆÏ¡/xallaß†Ena/ (93 78,6) ‘you saved us.’ In the environment of emphatic[r¢]: ¯·ËÚÂ˙ /tu >†abar¢/ (93 11,5) ‘is considered’; ·¯ÂË /†ur¢ab/ (91 9a,14)‘graves’; and ÔÈË¯Ë¥ /fi†Er¢†#n/ (91 10a,4) ‘two matzas.’ In the environ-ment of emphatic /†/: ËÈËÚ‡ /a>†#†/ (91 3a,2) ‘I gave’; È!ÂË‡ÂÂÁË‡ /i†˙wa†¥ni/(3 24,13) ‘(they) encompassed me’; and ÈË‡Ë·Â¯ /ruba†å†i/ (74 14,14;91 11b,6) ‘my bondage’ (Hary 1992:255, 3.3).

1.11.2 /d/ > [$]: In the environment of emphatic [r¢]: Èƒ¯ /r¢a$i/ (15

107

3 8See chapter 9, p. 304, 13-1.1. See also ÍÁ˙È˙· /bEtit˙ak/ ‘you are laughing’(TS AS 209.274/7, quoted in Khan 1992:231 and Wagner 2007:36).

3 9In Egyptian Arabic /\amas/-/yi\mis/ means ‘dip,’ whereas /\ammis/-/yi\ammis/ means ‘eat while dipping the food’ (Hinds and Badawi 1986:630).

0-2,6) ‘bad’; ¯ÿƒ· /ba$$ar¢/ (15 Additional Folio-b,1) ‘(he) came early’;

CHAPTER FOUR

Â¯ƒÁ„ /da˙$ar¢u/ (15 10a,13) ‘they caused to roll down’; ¯ƒ˜! /ni <$ar¢/(15 10a,20); ¯ƒ˜È /yi<$ar¢/ (91 2b,10) ‘able’; ‡¯ƒÂ˜ / <u$r¢a/ (91 6b,15;6b,17) ‘might’; ¯ƒ˜ /<a$r¢/ (91 10a,13) ‘measure’; ¯ƒ‡!· /banå$ir¢/ (741,16) ‘large towns, districts’; ÔÈÈƒ¯ ‰ÎÈ‡ÏÓ /malåyka r¢a$iy•n/ (3 15,4)‘bad angels’; and ¯È·‡·ƒ /$abab•r¢/ (91 12a,8; 93 70,7) ‘wasps.’ In theenvironment of emphatic /ß/: ‰!¥Èƒ‡ˆÈ /yußå$ifna/ (91 5a,2) ‘occur tous’ and $‡ˆÂ˜ /<ußßå$/ (91 11b,8) ‘in front’ (Hary 1992:261, 3.8.6).4 0

1.11.3 /s/ > [ß]: In the environment of the realization of /q/: ‰ÈÈˆ‡˜/<aßya/ (91 4b,18) ‘hard’ and ˙Óˆ˜ /<aßßimt/ (93 78,10) ‘you divided.’In the environment of emphatic /†/: Ô‡ËÏˆ /ßul†ån/ (15 5b,7) ‘king,sultan’; ËˆÂ /waßa†/ (15 18b,15; 21b,10; 24b,19; and more occurrences);‰È!‡ËˆÂ /waß†aniyya/ (3 1,9) ‘middle’; and ËÈˆ‡· /baß•†/ (93 73,6)‘simple.’ In the environment of emphatic [r¢]: ı‡¯ /r¢åß/ (91 2b,10)‘head’; ıÂ¯Á‡ /u˙r¢uß/ (15 2a,19) ‘beware’; ‰¯¥Âˆ /ßufr¢a/ (3 22,12) ‘table’;and ¯‡ÈÈ‡ˆÓ Ï‡ /il-mißåyir¢/ (93 73,16) ‘the leader’ (Hary 1992:260,3.8.3).

1.11.4 Even in “copied” Hebrew words in the Judeo-Arabic text,emphatization may occur as in /s/ > [ß]: ı¥¯Î /kar¢faß/ (74 21,2) ‘Karpas,greens for the Passover seder,’ although it alternates with nonemphatic/s/: Ò¥¯Î /karfas/ (74 21,2). It may also occur in /z/ > /!/: ¯"Ú ÈÏ‡/eli>e!er¢/ (93 15,9) ‘Eliezer’; ‰È¯"Ú / >a!ar¢ya/ (93 15,9 and more) ‘Azarya’;and ¯"Ú Ï‡ /el>a!ar¢/ (93 15-b,10) ‘Elazar’ (see chapter 5, p. 149, 1.4.).

1.11.5 In words borrowed from Hebrew into Egyptian Judeo-Arabic,there is evidence that speakers used the emphatic /ß/ for the Hebrew/ßadi/ (ˆ): ıÈÓÁ /˙am#ß/ (93 1,3) ‘unleavened food’ (chapter 5, 1.3).

1.12 Loss of Emphatization (tarq•q)This phenomenon, which usually occurs in the environment of nonem-phatic segments, is more common in Later Egyptian Judeo-Arabic

108

4 0See Doron 1995:133 for the emphatization in Tunisian Judeo-Arabic.4 1See Blanc 1974 n. 6. In standard Cairene, deemphatization is more common

dialect than in its Muslim counterpart.4 1


1.12.1 /ß/ > /s/: Ú!ÒÈÏ /li-yisna >/ (91 3a,17) ‘to do’; ˛Â¸ÒÂ˜¯È /yir <úsu/(74 11,17) ‘(they) dance’; ÒÂ! /nuss/ (91 10a,12) ‘half’ (see also 1.1.4and 1.14); ¯Ò˜ /<isir/ (93 58,2) ‘lack, miss’; ˙ÈÈ¡¯Ò /sarxiyya/ (93 79,3)‘outcry,’ although there is evidence for ÌÂ‰˙¡¯ˆ /ßarxithom/ (3 10,5)‘their outcry’ (with the emphatic /ß/) as well.4 2

1.12.2 /$/ > /d/: ¯„¡‡ /axdar/ (1302 1b,8) ‘green’; ‰˜È„ (74 17,16) and‡˜È„ /di<a/ (91 5b,6; 93 26,3) ‘anguish.’4 3 The dalet in these examplesmay reflect a phonetic spelling; however, this spelling is not as commonin the Hebraized orthography as it is in the phonetic orthography.4 4

Thus, this spelling probably reflects tarq•q.

1.12.3 /†/ > /t/: È˙¥ÈÈ˙ /tayféti/ (15 3b,7) ‘my family,’ although È˙¥ÈÈË/†ayféti/ (15 3b,9; 3b,10) also occurs; ¬‡È¯˙ /tar•<ak/ (15 3b,9) ‘yourway,’ although ˜È¯Ë Ï‡ /i†-†ar•</ (15 18b,18) occurs quite frequently;Â·ÂÏ˙˙ /titlúbu/4 5 (15 29a,7) ‘you seek.’

1.13 Other sound shifts

1.13.1 The shift /x/ > [\], which reflects a voicing process, may occur:Ì‡ÊÂµ Ï‡ /il-\uzåm/ (15 3a,14; 4a,2) ‘the nose ring,’ although Ì‡ÊÂ¡

109

among women. See Mitchel 1962:24; Tomiche 1964:17, 98. Norlin (1987), inhis phonetic study of Egyptian Arabic, does not report deemphatization, but herecords only (Cairene) male speakers. Tomiche (1968:1178) has reported thedeemphatization in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic dialect and also among the Christians.Compare also with the Judeo-Arabic dialect of Peq•>•n: /sadi<na/ ‘our friend’(Geva-Kleinberger 2005:48).

4 2Tarq•q may also occur in standard Egyptian Arabic: /yisadda</ ‘(he) believes’(Hinds and Badawi 1986:499).

4 3Note that this phenomenon may occur in standard Egyptian Arabic as well:/då</ ‘was annoyed’ (Hinds and Badawi 1986:315–16); /yid˙ak/ ‘(he) laughs’(ibid., 279–80).

4 4See Hary 1996c:731–32. The two examples for marking the !åd with a dalet(„Ú· ‘some’ and ˜‡„ ‘was annoyed’) that I cite on p. 732 may actually reflectdeemphatization. Khan (1991:225) has also struggled with this spelling, vacillatingbetween a phonetic spelling and deemphatization in ¯‰„ /dahr/ ‘back,’ for example.

4 5There is also evidence for /tutlúbu/, but it is unsupported here by theorthography, as the vav indicating /u/ is missing.

/xuzåm/ (15 3a,5) and ‰ÓÊ¡‡ Ï‡ /il-axzima/ (15 18b,19) occur as well.

CHAPTER FOUR

1.13.2 The opposite shift, reflecting devoicing, occurs as well: /\/ >[x]: ‰ÈÏ‚¯ ÏÒ¡ÈÏ /li-yixsil/ (15 3a,19) ‘to wash his feet’; ÂÏÒ¡‡Â (1518b,15) ‘and they washed,’ although /\/ occurs in other cases of/\asal/ ‘wash’: ÌÂ‰ÈÏ‚¯ ÂÏÒµÂ (15 29b,14) ‘and they washed their feet’;Â‰‚Â ÏÒµÂ (15 30a,3) ‘and he washed his face’; „È·! Ï‡ È¥ ÏÒµ (1536b,15) ‘wash in wine.’

1.13.3 The merger of /$/ and /!/, which is common in Arabic dialects,is also seen in spoken Egyptian Judeo-Arabic. The merger produces/$/: ‰ÏÈÏÂƒ /$ull#la/ (15 17a,13) ‘shaded area’; $Á /˙a$$/ (1302 5a,20)‘pleasure’; Ïƒ /$ill/ (91 10b,15; 10b,16) ‘shadow’; ¯Âƒ!‡ /an$ur/ (7415,8; 91 12a,3; 93 70,3) ‘I see.’

1.13.4 The shift /¡/ > /s/ occurs in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic but is notcommon: ÒÂ„˜ / <add¥s/ (3 1,2) and ÷Â„˜ / <add¥s/ (93 10,16) ‘sanctifica-tion’; Ú·˘ØÚ·‡˘ ¯È· /b•r såbi>-sab>/ (15 6b,20; 7a,16) ‘Beer-Sheba.’4 6

1.14 Deletion of final consonants

1.14.1 In ÒÂ! /nuss/ (91 10a,12) ‘half,’ the final consonant /f/ is deletedfrom the consonant cluster /sf/ (cf. 1.1.4 and 1.12.1). This type ofdeletion may occur in many dialects; for example, /abßar/ > /baßar/ >/baßß/ ‘see.’

1.15 The definite articleThe definite article in the ¡ur¥˙ is written for the most part morpho-phonemically with the separate morpheme Ï‡: $¯‡ Ï‡ (15 0-1,14)‘the land’; Ì‡ÈÈ‡ Ï‡ (1302 1b,3) ‘the days’; and ˙È· Ï‡ (93 1,1) ‘thehouse.’ The exception ·ÂÚ˘‡ /i¡-¡u>¥b/ (74 11,12) ‘the nations’ pointsto the spoken pronunciation of the definite article with the regular fullassimilation that usually occurs with coronal phonemes. This phoneticspelling is part of the Hebraized orthography (Hary 1996c:732),

110

4 6See Hary 1992:260, 3.7, and chapter 5, p. 151, 1.7. This feature is commonin Moroccan Judeo-Arabic (Stillman 1988:31, 3) and may be part of migrateddialectalism (chapter 1, p. 22–23).

although it is not wide-spread. It is possible to assume that, in the


Egyptian Judeo-Arabic dialect, the assimilation rules apply also todefinite articles that precede nouns taken from Hebrew (Rosenbaum2002c:124–25); however, it is not seen in the texts of the ¡ur¥˙because of the common morphophonemic spelling: ÍÂÙ˘ Ï‡ (3 colophon)‘the (prayer) Pour (Your Wrath)’ (see chapter 5, p. 151, 2.1).

1.16 Complex phonological processes

1.16.1 The /†/ in the noun ¯ÂË4 7 /†or¢/ (93 85,16) ‘ox’ has undergonetwo phonological processes: first, the interdental became a stop (/®/ >/t/) as is common in urban dialects (see 1.4), and then it underwentemphatization (/t/ > [†]) in the environment of emphatic [r¢] (see above,p. 107, 1.11.1).

111

4 7Note that in contemporary written Egyptian dialect, the spelling is similar,as in, for example, the title of the novel —u?" Áœ p#b?!« This Rooster Is an Ox ,published in 2007 in Cairo. See also above, p. 97.

CHAPTER FOUR

2. Morphology

2.1 The Pronouns

2.1.1 Independent pronouns‰!Á‡ /i˙na/ (15 10a,16; 3 2,12; 3,3; 74 1,6; 10,9; 91 8b,1) ‘we’; Â˙!‡/intu/ (74 14,1; 91 10b,19; 93 65,11) ‘you (masc. pl.).’ The thirdplural form is a distinct feature of Cairene Judeo-Arabic dialect: ÔÓÂ‰/humman/ (15 18a,10; 18a,15 and many more examples; 3 13,16; 17,20;93 78,12) ‘they,’4 8 as opposed to standard Cairene /humma/, althoughthe former may appear in regional Egyptian dialects as well as amonglower socioeconomic speakers.

2.1.2 Possessive pronouns

2.1.2.1 First person singular: The usual /-i/ occurs regularly: È„ÈÒ /s•di/(15 2a,1) ‘my master’; È!È· /b˙ni/ (15 2a,2) ‘between me’; È!·‡ /ibni/(15 17b,10) ‘my son.’ After a long vowel the pronoun /-ya/ appears:‰È‡¯ÂÂ /waråya/ (15 2a,18) ‘after me’; ‡ÈÂ·‡ (15 2b,1 and more) and‰ÈÂ·‡ /ab¥ya/ (15 7b,15) ‘my father’; ‰È‡ÚÓ /ma>åya/ (15 10a,5 andmore) ‘with me’; ‰ÈÏ /liyya/ (15 2b,1) ‘to me.’

2.1.2.2 Second person masculine singular: The colloquial pronoun /-ak/occurs regularly: ¬˙ÈÈÓ /mayyetak/ (15 2a,2) ‘your dead’; ¬˙!ËÏÒ/sal†antak/ (1302 3a,15) ‘your kingdom’; ¬„È·Ú />ab•dak/ (3 7,19) ‘yourslaves.’

2.1.2.3 Second person feminine singular: The colloquial pronoun /-ik/or /-ek/ appears: ¬!Ë· /ba†nek/ (15 5b,6) ‘your belly’; ¬˙Á‡È¯Ï /li-riyå˙tek/ (3 25,17) ‘to your rest’; however, after a long vowel thepronoun is /-ki/: ÈÎ‡˘Á‡ /a˙¡åki/ (15 5b,7) ‘your womb’; ÈÎÂ·‡ /ab¥ki/(15 3a,7; 1302 4a,8) ‘your father.’

2.1.2.4 Third person masculine /-o/ (or /-u/) appears after a consonant.Following prepositions and particles: Â!È· /b˙no/ (15 12b,13) ‘between

112

4 8There is only one example of ÌÂ‰ in Genesis (15 5a,11), but I suspect itreflects classical use. See also Rosenbaum 2002b:38 and 2002c:126.

him’; ÂÚÓ /ma >o/ (15 4a,12; 1302 4b,18) ‘with him’; Â„!Ú / >ando/ (15


7a,13) ‘with/by him’; Â!Ó /minno/ (15 36a,15; 1302 4a,1) ‘from him’;ÂÓ‡„˜ /<uddåmo/ (1302 2a,3) ‘before him.’ Following nouns: Â„Â„Á/˙ud¥do/ (15 2a,7) ‘its borders’; Â˙‡¯Ó /mråto/ (15 2a,9) ‘his wife’;ÂÏÂÎ /kullo/ (3 2,13) ‘all of it.’

The pronoun /-h/ follows long vowels: ‰È¥ /f•h/ (15 2a,10) ‘in it’;‰È˜Ò˙Ï /li-tis<•h/ (15 2b,20) ‘so that she let him drink.’

2.1.3 Objective pronouns

2.1.3.1 First person singular objective pronoun following verbs isusually /-ni/: È!ÈË¥˘ /¡affa†•ni/ (15 2a,19) ‘let me drink’; È!¯ÈÈÒ /sayyarni/(15 3a,11) ‘guided me’; È!Â„‚Â /wagad¥ni/ (3 24,13) ‘(they) found me.’

2.1.3.2 Third person masculine singular following verbs is /-o/ afterconsonants: ÂÏÚ‚ /ga>alo/ (15 13a,15) ‘(he) let him’; Â·Á /˙abbo/ (1531a,3) ‘(he) loved him’; Â¥„‡ˆÈÂ /wi-yißådfo/ (15 31a,14) ‘(he) metwith it’; Â·È‚‡ /ag•bo/ (15 31a,20) ‘I bring him.’ The objective pronounis /-h/ after long vowels: ‰Â„¡‡Â /wi-axad¥h/ (15 22a,18) ‘and theytook him’; ‰‡¯˙˘‡Â /wi-i¡taråh/ (15 23-1a,6) ‘and (he) bought him’;‰ÂÏÊ! /nazzil¥h/ (15 23-1a,8) ‘(they) brought him down.’

2.1.4 Demonstrative pronounsIt is not uncommon to find in the ¡ur¥˙ the regular colloquial Cairenedemonstrative pronouns /da/ for the masculine and /di/ for the feminine;however, specific Egyptian Judeo-Arabic variants exist in the texts aswell: /de/ for masculine singular ‘this’ and /døli/ or /hadøli/ for plural‘these,’ as opposed to standard Egyptian /døl/.

2.1.4.1 /da/: ¯¡˙¥ÂÓ ‰„ /da muftaxar/ (3 3,7–8) ‘this is praiseworthy’;‰„ ··Ò· /bisabab da/ (93 17, 5–6) ‘for this’; ‰„ ¯ÈË¥ /fi†•r da/ (3 18, 10)‘this unleavened bread.’ A variant among Cairene Jews is /de/:4 9 Ï‡ ‰È„·‡· /de il-båb/ (91 12a,15) ‘this is the gate’; ‰È„ ¯ÈË¥ /fi†•r de/ (918b,10) ‘this unleavened bread’; ‰È„ ¯¯ÂÓ /mor#r de/ (91 8b,8) ‘this

113

4 9This form is archaic and survived among the Jews in Cairo, a typical featureof Jewish-defined languages. See Blanc 1974:216 and Rosenbaum 2002c:126.See also chapter 1, pp. 23–24.

bitter herb.’ Furthermore, the pronoun È„ in the sentence ‡ÏÚÂ È„ ˘È‡

CHAPTER FOUR

È„ ˘È‡ (1302 3b,17) ‘what is this and about what is that?’ may representEgyptian Judeo-Arabic masculine /de/, since it translates the Hebrewmasculine form ‰Ê ‘this’ (Esth 4:5).

2.1.4.2 /di/: È„ ··Ò· /bi-sabab di/ (91 2b, 3–4) ‘for this’; ‰È‡ˆÚ Ï‡ È„ /dil->aßåya/ (3 13,2) ‘this is the rod’; È„ ˙!‡Î /kånit di/ (3 26,19) ‘thiswas.’

2.1.4.3 The Egyptian Haggadah exhibits Cairene Judeo-Arabic /døli/:„‡ÏÂÂ‡ Ï‡ ÈÏÂ„ (3 10,17) ‘these are the sons’; ˙‡·¯ƒ ¯˘Ú ÈÏÂ„ (3 13,14)‘these are the ten plagues’; ÈÏÂ„ ˙‡ÓÏÎ ˙‡Ï˙ (3 17,18–19) ‘these threewords’; ÔÓÂ‰ ÈÏÂ„Â (3 17,20) ‘and these are.’ Alongside this form, anothervariant is found in Genesis and Esther, /hadøli/: ÈÏÂ„‰ Ì‡ÏÎ Ï‡Î (153a,13) ‘like these words’; ÈÏÂ„‰ Ì‡ÏÎ Ï‡ (15 24a,5) ‘these words’; ÏÂÎ‰¯ÂË˜ „‡ÏÂÂ‡ ÈÏÂ„‰ (15 4b,15–16) ‘all of these are the children ofKetura’; ÈÏÂ„‰ Èƒ‡¯‡ Ï‡ (15 6a,11) ‘these lands’; ÈÏÂ„‰ ‰È‡ˆÚ Ï‡ (1523b,18–19) ‘these rods’; ÈÏÂ„‰ Ì‡ÈÈ‡ Ï‡ (1302 1b,7) ‘these days.’This variant /hadøli/ is a feature of migrated dialectalism (chapter 1,pp. 22–23) as it exists in Christian (/hadøli/) and Judeo-Arabic (/haƒøli/)Baghdadi dialects.5 0

2.1.5 Relative pronouns/illi/ is employed, reflecting dialectal use: ‰È!‡ËˆÂ Ï‡ ‰¯ÈË¥ Ï‡ Â„¡‡ÈÂÌÂ‰È¥ ÈÏ‡ (3 1,9–10) ‘and (they) take the middle matza which isinside’; ‰¯˙˘‡ ÈÏ‡ È„‚ Ï‡ ÏÎ‡Â (74 24,14–15 and more) ‘and (he) atethe kid that (he) bought’; ˘¥¯ÚÈ ‡Ó ÈÏ‡Â (91 2b,8) ‘and he who doesnot know’; ‡!˙‡‰·‡Ï ˙È¥˜ÂÂ ÈÏ‡ ‡ÈÈ‰ (91 3a,13) ‘it is that (promise),which has stood by our fathers.’

2.1.6 Interrogative pronouns

2.1.6.1 ˘È‡ /#¡/ (15 2a,2; 6a,20; and more; 1302 2b,8; 4b,17; and more;74 2,13; 10,6; and more; 93 17,3; 39,4; and more) and ˘‡ (3 1,13; 2,8;

114

5 0See Blanc 1964:138. Muslim Baghdadi Arabic exhibits /h(a)ƒøla/; however,Erwin (2004:290) reports occasional /haƒøli/.

and many other occurrences; 91 8b,8; 10b,2; and more) ‘what’ (see


above, p. 98, ii) are common in Cairene Judeo-Arabic dialect, reflectingthe preservation of an older form in standard Cairene.5 1 Furthermore,this pronoun appears at the beginning of the sentence, as opposed tostandard Cairene /#h/, which is usually postposed (/ismak #h/ ‘what isyour name?’): ˙Ï‚Ú˙Ò‡ ‰„ ˘È‡ (15 8a,6) ‘what is this that you hurried?’;¬˙·ÏË ˘È‡Â (1302 4a,17; 4b,1; and more) ‘and what is your request?’;‰„‚‰ Ï‡ ‡È‰ ˘‡ (3 1,13) ‘what is the Haggadah?’

From the data in the ¡ur¥˙, it seems that in the eighteenth andnineteenth centuries Jews in Cairo used the interrogative pronoun /#¡/exclusively. Rosenbaum (2002c:126) has shown that in twentieth-century Cairene, Jews used /#¡/ alongside standard Cairene /#h/. In thetexts of the ¡ur¥˙ there are two instances of ‰È‡ /#h/ (93 67,2; 70, 2)‘what,’ indicating the possible beginning of the linguistic change.However, the pronoun is still preposed: ‰ÏÏ‡Ï ·ÈÂÂ‡‚‡ ‰È‡ (93 67,2)‘how shall I repay to God?’; Ô‡Ò!‡ Ï‡ ÈÏ Ú!ˆÈ ‰È‡ (93 70,2) ‘what willthe man do to me?’

In contrast, the equivalent interrogative pronoun ‡Ó /ma/ in 9313,1, for example, could be a borrowing from the literary variety or animitation of the Hebrew ‰Ó and is not a reflection of the dialect.

2.1.6.2 ˘È‡ „˜ /<add#¡/ (3 15,19; 74 9,15) and ˘‡ „˜ (3 14,14; 17,6),as well as ˘È‡ ¯„˜ (74 7,8; 93 35,9) ‘how much,’ are common inCairene Judeo-Arabic. They are preposed in the sentence (unlike theusual postposed interrogative pronouns in standard Cairene): ˘‡ „˜Â·¯ƒ!‡ (3 14,14) ‘how many (times) were they hit?’; ÏÈ‡Ú¥ ˘È‡ „˜‰·ÈÈË (3 15,19); and ÔÈ·ÈÈË ÏÈÈÚ¥ ˘È‡ ¯„˜ (93 35,9) ‘how many gooddeeds?’

The interrogative pronoun /kåm/ is also used and may be a variantof /<add#¡/ in spoken Cairene Judeo-Arabic of the period, although it

115

5 1Note that in standard colloquial Egyptian, /#¡/ may appear in the proverbsand frozen phrases: /#¡>arrafk/ ‘How did you find out?’; /#¡˙ål law/ ‘What wouldhappen if … ?’; and more (Hinds and Badawi 1986:46). In standard Egyptian/i¡mi>na/ ‘what does it mean?’ the vowel of the interrogative is a short /i/.

could also reflect standard literary use: ˙‡·ÈÈË ÏÈÈ‡Ú¥ Ì‡Î /kåm fE>åyil

CHAPTER FOUR

†ayyibåt/ (91 7a,17) ‘how many good deeds?’; Â·¯ƒ!‡ Ì‡Î /kåm in$arabu/(93 31,14) ‘how many times were they smitten?’

2.1.6.3 ˘ÈÏ /l#¡/ (15 5b,20; 9a,6; and many more occurrences; 91 10b,8)and ˘Ï /le¡/ (3 23,10; 74, 13,4) ‘why’ (see above, p. 98, [ii]) aretypical in Cairene Judeo-Arabic dialect, preserving an older form ofstandard Cairene and appearing preposed in the sentence: ÔÓ ¥˜Â˙ ˘ÈÏ‰¯· (15 3a,17) ‘why do you stand outside?’; ÂÏÂ˜È ˘Ï (3 23,10) ‘whydo they say?’ This is in contrast to postposed standard Cairene /l#h/:/ru˙t l#h/ ‘why did you go?’

2.1.6.4 ¥ÈÎ /k#f/ (15 30b,2; 1302 6a,2) ‘how’ in Cairene Judeo-Arabicalso preserves an older form and is preposed as well: ÚÏË‡ ¥ÈÎ (1531,b) ‘how (can) I go forth?’ This is in contrast to standard modernCairene where /izzåy/ is employed as the postposed interrogativepronoun for ‘how.’

2.1.6.5 The following are other common interrogative pronouns thatare typical to the dialect: ÔÈÓ /m•n/ (15 3a,6) ‘who?’; ÔÈ¥ /f#n/ (1522a,6) ‘where?’; ÔÈ!Ó /min#n/ (15 10a,16; 3 14,18) ‘from where?’

2.1.7 Genitive markerThe texts of the ¡ur¥˙ reflect at times the Cairene genitive marker/bitå>/ or /bEta>/ (masc. sg.), with some attestation of /bitå>a/ or /bEta>a/(fem. sg.) but no attestation of /bit¥>/ (pl.).5 2 The following examplesfrom the Haggadah keep the gender and number agreement: ¥ˆ! Â„Â¡‡ÈÔÈÓÂ˜È¥‡ Ú‡˙· È·¡Ó Ô‡Î È%Ï‡ ‰¯ËÈÈ¥ Ï‡ (93 47,10) ‘(the participants)hold half of the hidden matza of the afikoman’;5 3 ‰¯ÈË¥ Ï‡ ¥ˆÂ! Â„¡‡ÈÔÈÓÂ˜È¥‡ ˙Ú‡˙· ‰ÈÈ·‡¡Ó Ï‡ (74 22,1) ‘(the participants) take half of

116

5 2Note that in Classical Egyptian Judeo-Arabic there is evidence for both thefeminine and the plural forms. See Blau 1980:159.

5 3In the days of the temple, the meal began and ended with the lamb meat of thePassover sacrifice; in the period since the destruction of the temple, the mealbegins and ends with the eating of matza; the last bit, whether of the Passovermeat or of the matza, is called the afikoman, meaning the “last bit” (DavidBlumenthal, personal communication).

the hidden matza of the afikoman’; ÔÈÓÂ˜¥ Ï‡ ˙ÈÚ˙· ‰¯ÈË¥ Ï‡ ÒÂ! Â„¡È


(91 10a,12) ‘(the participants) take half of the matza of the afikoman.’However, in the following examples the marker /bitå>/ (masc. sg.)modifies feminine nouns, which may indicate the frozen use of themarker in Cairene Judeo-Arabic dialect: Ú‡˙· ˙!‡Î … ‰·¯ƒÂ ‰·¯ƒ ÏÎ˙‡·¯ƒ Ú·¯ (3 14, 18–19 through 15,1–2) ‘each plague … was of fourplagues’; ˙‡·¯ƒ ÒÓ¡ Ú‡˙· ˙!‡Î … ‰·¯ƒÂ ‰·¯ƒ ÏÎ (3 15, 9–10 through15,11) ‘each plague … was of five plagues’; Ú‡˙· ‡ˆÓ Ï‡ Â„Â¡‡ÈÔÈÓÂ˜È¥‡ (3 22,13) ‘(the participants) hold the matza of the afikoman’(see also chapter 5, pp. 151–52, 2.3). In Á·Âˆ Ï‡ Ú‡˙· ÚÓ˘ ˙ÈÈ¯˜ (33,15-16) ‘the reading of the morning Shema’ it is possible that /bitå>/modifies ÚÓ˘ (masc.) and not ˙ÈÈ¯˜ (fem.), but in the following example,the masculine singular marker /bitå>/ modifies two (inanimate) nouns:ÔÈ!Á ¯ÂÎ· Ï‡¯˘È Ú‡˙· ÍÂ¥˘ Ï‡Â È·¯Ú Ï‡· ‰„‚‰ Ï‡ ·‡˙Î ‡%‡‰ (3 colophon)‘This is the book of the Haggadah in Arabic and the section pour,both of them of Israel Be˙or Óanin.’ On the other hand, thisnonagreement may be connected to the nature of the verbatim translation(see chapter 8, 10-3.16) and does not necessarily reflect spoken use.

2.2 The verb

2.2.1 The perfect2.2.1.1 The pattern /fu>ul/, typical in Later Egyptian Judeo-Arabic(Hary 1992:280–85), is common in the spoken dialect as well: ˙¯˙ÂÎ/kutret/ (15 0-2,5) ‘(it) grew’; ıÂÏÂ¡ /xuluß/ (3 5,2) ‘was redeemed’;ÏÂ˜Â˙ /tu<ul/ (3 7,18) ‘became heavy’; È˙¯Â˙ÂÎ /kuturti/ (91 4b,15) ‘you(fem.) increased’; Â¯˙ÂÎ /kutru/ (3 8,9) ‘(they) multiplied’; ÂÓ"ÂÚ />u!mu/(3 8,9) ‘(they) grew mighty’; È˙¯Â·ÂÎ /kuburti/ (91 4b,15) ‘you (fem.)grew’; ˙¯Â˜Â¥ /fu<urt/ (74 14,9) ‘I became distressed or impoverished.’This pattern is used for the most part to indicate intransitive verbs,and “low grade” control and stative verbs. As is seen in chapter 1 (p.24), this feature preserves an older standard Cairene form.

2.2.1.2 The pattern /fi>il/ also occurs in Later Egyptian Judeo-Arabic

117

and is reflected in the spoken variety: È¯‚ /giri/ (15 2b,18) ‘(he) ran’;

CHAPTER FOUR

˙ÈÈ¯‚ /giryit/ (15 3a,12) ‘(she) ran’; ÂÈË¡ /xi†yu/ (15 24a,5) ‘(they)sinned’; ÂÈÈÓ! /nimyu/ (93 22,10) ‘(they) grew, increased’; ÈÂÂÈ˜ / <Ewi/(91 11b,11) ‘(it) found strength, became strong.’

2.2.1.3 Some colloquial perfect verbal suffixes are attested:

2.2.1.3.1 /t/ for first person singular and second person masculinesingular: ˙ÓÏÎ˙‡ /itkallimt/ (15 3b,1) ‘I spoke’; ˙¥¯Ú />araft/ (15 12a,15)‘you (masc.) knew.’

2.2.1.3.2 /ti/ for second person feminine singular: È˙¯Â˙ÂÎ /kuturti/ (914b,15) ‘you (fem.) increased.’

2.2.1.3.3 /tu/ for second person plural: Â˙È‚ /g#tu/ (15 27b,2; 27b,5;27b,7; and more) ‘you (pl.) came’; Â˙ÚÓÒ ÌÏÂ /wi-lam simi >tu/ (1528a,3) ‘and you (pl.) did not hear’; Â˙Ó„Ú (15 28b,7) ‘you (pl.) lost’or ‘you (pl.) were deprived.’

2.2.2 The imperfectHaim Blanc (1974) has divided Arabic dialects into A-dialects andN-dialects. The former are typically “eastern” with /akteb–nekteb/ forthe first person singular—first person plural imperfect forms, whereasthe latter are “western” with /nekteb–nektebu/ for the same forms.The division into A- and N-dialects is preferable to the geographicaldistinction, because the boundaries between east and west are unclear.In fact, thanks to Blanc, we know that in Egypt both the A-dialectsand the N-dialects coexist. One of the most salient features of EgyptianJudeo-Arabic dialect is the use of the N-dialect /nekteb–nektebu/ forms,alongside the A-forms /akteb–nekteb/.

2.2.2.1 The first person singular imperfect in Later Egyptian Judeo-Arabic dialect may be of the /nekteb/ type as is the case in theN-dialects: ¥¯Ú! ‰!‡ /ana ni>raf/ (93 88,6 and more) ‘I know.’

2.2.2.2 The first person plural imperfect in Later Egyptian Judeo-Arabiccan be of the /niktébu/ type as is the case in N-dialects. It is especially

118

5 4Behnstedt and Woidich (1985 2:210–12) have identified /niktib–niktíbu/ in

surprising in Cairo:5 4 ÂËÚ! /ni>†u/ (15 18a,3) ‘we give’; Â„¡‡! /naxdu/ (15


18a,3; 18a,12) ‘we take’; Â„ÂÚ˜! /ni <>udu/ (15 18a,4) ‘we sit’; ÂÏÂ˜!/ni<¥lu/ (15 22a,11) ‘we say’; Â!ÂÎ! /nik¥nu/ (3 2,7) ‘we will’; ÂÒÓµ!/ni\misu/ (93 13,2) ‘we dip’; ÂÏÎ‡! /naklu/ (91 8b,1; 93 13,4) ‘we eat’;Â·¯˘! /ni¡rábu/ (93 13,7) ‘we drink’; ¬Â¯ÂÎ˘È! /ni¡kuruk/5 5 (93 75,16)‘we thank you.’

The paucity of examples of the /nekteb/ type suggests that a shiftmay be occurring in nineteenth-century Cairene Judeo-Arabic dialecttoward a possible /akteb–niktébu/ pattern, but there are not enoughdata to establish this change.

2.2.2.3 The imperfect with /bi/ exists in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic in itsregular mood: ÂÚ¯È· /biyir>u/ (15 25a,6) ‘(they) graze’; ÂÎÁÈ· Â!‡ÎÂ /wi-kånubiyi˙ku/ (3 3,13) ‘and (they) were telling’; ‰!ÓÏÚÈ· /bi>allimna/ (914b,2) ‘(they) teach us’; ¯"!‡· /ban!ur/ (1302 4b,10) ‘I see.’

2.2.3 The participleThe participle ÔÈÏÎ‡Â /wakl•n/ (3 2,12) ‘have eaten (pl.)’ uses thecolloquial root w-k-l.

2.2.4 The passive

2.2.4.1 The passive in the dialect employs the inform, among otherforms: Ô¥„!‡ /indafan/ (15 5a,4) ‘(he) was buried’; ¬Ï‰!‡ /anhalik/ (1518b,10) ‘I will be annihilated’; ÌÎÁ!‡ /in˙akam/ (1302 2a,12) ‘(it) wasdecreed’; ‡ËÚ!È /yin >a†a/ (1302 2a,15) ‘(it) is given’; ÚÓÒ!‡ /insama >/(1302 2b,3) ‘(it) was heard’; ˙%¡‡!‡ /in<axazit/ (1302 2b,16) ‘(she)was taken’; ¥¯Ú!‡ /in>araf/ (1302 3a,1) ‘(it) was known’; «˙Á·!‡ /inba˙as/(1302 3a,2) ‘(it) was investigated’; Ì˙¡!‡ /inxatam/ (1302 3b,3) ‘(it)was sealed’; ÏÚ‚!‡ /inga >al/ (1302 3b,20) ‘(it) was issued’; Ú!ˆ!˙ /tinßini>/(1302 4b,1) ‘(it) will be done’; ‡!ÈÚ·!‡ /inba>#na/ (1302 5b,1) ‘wewere sold’; Ï‡˜!˙ /tin<ål/ (74 2,3) ‘(it) is recited’; ¬¥!È‡ /infakk/ (91

119

Egypt, but not in Cairo. It seems that this phenomenon is restricted in Cairoonly to Judeo-Arabic. See also Hary 1992:278, 2.2.2, and 1994b:379.

5 5Note that there is orthographical evidence here for /i-u/: /ni¡kuru/, whereasMitchell (1978:262) reports /u-u/: /nu¡kur/ in standard Egyptian.

2b,5) ‘(it) was redeemed’; Â·¯ƒ!‡ /in$arabu/ (3 14,6) ‘(they) were

CHAPTER FOUR

smitten’; ¯ÂÂ„!‡ /indawwar/ (3 20,15) ‘(it) was turned.’

2.2.4.2 Infrequently in the data from the ¡ur¥˙ the itfa>al form is usedfor passive constructions: ¯·¡˙‡ /itxabar/ (15 23a,15) ‘(it) was told’;ÂÏ‰·˙‡ /itbahalu/ (15 31b,9) ‘(they) were scared’; ˙˙˘˙‡ /it¡attit/(1302 2a,18) ‘(it) was scattered’; ‡ÏÓ˙‡ /itmala/ (1302 3a,10; 4b,5)‘(he) was filled’; Â‰„!˙‡ /itnadahu/ (1302 3b,1) ‘(they) were called.’

2.2.5 Verbal forms

2.2.5.1 Form I

2.2.5.1.1 It is common in the dialects as well as in spoken EgyptianJudeo-Arabic to observe the shift from form IV to form I. Thus,several verbs appear in the texts in the verbal form I rather than IV:‰ËÚ />a†a/ (15 24b,20; 74 2,7) ‘(he) gave’; ÂÏÒ¯ /rasalu/ (15 4a,18)‘(they) sent.’

2.2.5.1.2 The verb ‘come’The texts reveal some colloquial characteristics of this verb which alsoappear in standard Cairene: ˙È‚ /g#t/ (15 3b,11) ‘I came’; ‰!È‚ /g#na/(15 15b,4) ‘we came’; Â˙È‚/ÌÂ˙È‚ /g#tu(m)/ (15 7a,6; 27b,2; and more)‘you (pl.) came.’ The third person form in the ¡ur¥˙ is both ‰È‚ /geh/(15 8b,1 24a,14; and more) and ‰‚ /gah/ (15 18b,13; 19a,2; and more)‘he came’ as in standard Cairene. Furthermore, the texts feature specificEgyptian Judeo-Arabic traits: ˙˙‡‚ /gåtit/ (15 28a,2 and more) ‘shecame’ (/gat/ in the standard variety) and Â‚ /gu/ (3 3,14) ‘(they) came’(/gum/ in the standard variety). Egyptian Judeo-Arabic has also /ega/‘he came’ and /egu/ ‘they came,’ attested in earlier periods.5 6

2.2.5.1.3 The verbs ‘eat’ and ‘take’Whereas the short forms /kal/ ‘he ate’ and /xad/ ‘he took’ are commonin standard Egyptian dialect, spoken Egyptian Judeo-Arabic does notemploy them in the texts of the ¡ur¥˙. Of course it is possible that

120

5 6See also Blanc 1974:215; Hary 1992:285 and the references there; Rosenbaum2002c:126.

the long forms appearing in the ¡ur¥˙ represent standard literary


Arabic and not the colloquial; however, it is telling that the standardCairene short forms /kal/ and /xad/ are missing:5 7 ˙ÏÎ‡ /akalt/ (15 8b,5)‘I ate’; ÏÎ‡ /akal/ (15 6a,3; 13,8; and more; 93 83,9) ‘he ate’; ˙ÈÏÎ‡/akalit/ (15 22a,12; 93 84,8; 84,16; and more) ‘she ate’; ‰!ÏÎ‡ /akalna/(93 59,19; 62,12) ‘we ate’; Â˙ÏÎ‡ /akaltu/ (15 22b,3) ‘you (pl.) ate’;ÂÏÎ‡ /akalu/ (15 14b,20; 15a,13; and more; 3 2,2; 93 62,15) ‘they ate’;˙„¡‡ /axadt/ (15 24b,1; 36a,20) ‘I took’; „¡‡ /axad/ (15 15b,17; 16a,12;1302 2b,3) ‘he took’; ˙„¡‡ /axadet/ (15 11b,12; 14a,18; and more)‘she took’; Â„¡‡ /axadu/ (15 18a,19; 18b,2; and more; 1302 1b,8) ‘theytook.’

2.2.5.1.4 The verb ‘go’The verb /r¢å˙/ is usual in standard Egyptian dialect, occurring also inEgyptian Judeo-Arabic dialect: ˙ÁÂ¯ /ru˙t/ (15 18b,3) ‘I went’; ˙ÁÂ¯/ru˙t/ (15 14a,11) ‘you (masc. sg.) went’; Á‡¯ /rå˙/ (15 2b,7; 4b,2; andmore) ‘he went’; ˙Á‡¯ /rå˙et/ (15 4b,1; 4b,2; and more) ‘she went’;ÂÁ‡¯ /rå˙u/ (15 28a,10; 38a,16; and more) ‘they went.’ However,Cairene Judeo-Arabic dialect has also the unusual variant of /ar¢å˙/:Á‡¯‡ (15 6b,5; 9b,1; 9b,6) ‘he went’ (Blanc 1974:215; Rosenbaum2002c:126).

2.2.5.1.5 Shift of final-hamza verbsIt is common in the dialect for final-hamza verbs to shift to “defective”verbs (R3=/</ > R3=/y/). There is evidence for this shift in the variousEgyptian ¡ur¥˙: ÂÏÓÈ /yimlu/ (15 2b,12; 3 1,1) ‘(they) fill’; ˙ÏÓ˙‡/itmalet/ (15 0-2,12) ‘was filled.’

2.2.5.2 Form VSometimes it is difficult to distinguish in the dialect between verbalform V preceded by a prothetic alif and itfa>al: ‰!ÓÏÚ˙‡ /it>allEmna/ (35,11) or /it>alEmna/ ‘we learned.’

121

5 7See confirmation for the lack of the short forms in Blanc 1974:215 and Hary1992:285–86.

CHAPTER FOUR

2.2.5.3 itfa>>al and itfa>alThis is a common pattern in spoken Egyptian Judeo-Arabic as well asin standard Egyptian dialect, which can be used also for the passive(see above, p. 120, 2.2.4.2) in Later Egyptian Judeo-Arabic (Hary1992:287): ‰˘Ó˙‡ /itma¡¡a/ (15 0-1,6) ‘(he) walked’; ·ÂÂ‡˙‡ /it <awwib/(15 3a,9) ‘(he) bowed’; ˙Ëµ˙‡ /it\a††Et/ (15 4b,8) ‘(she) covered (herself)up’; ‰ÏÒ˙‡ /itsalla/ (15 4b,10) ‘(he) found comfort’; ÂÚÓ‚˙‡ /itgamma >u/(15 10a,13) ‘(they) were gathered’; ÂË·¡˙‡ /itxabba†u/ (15 5b,4) ‘(they)fumbled about’; ˜ÓÁ˙‡Â /w-it˙ama</ (15 24a,6) ‘and (he) became angry’;ÂÓÏ˙‡ /itlammu/ (1302 2b,20) ‘(they) gathered’; Â˜ÂÂ‚˙‡ /itgawwa<u/(1302 7a,10; 7a,12) ‘(they) assembled’; Â˜ÂÂ‚˙ÈÏ /li-yitgawwa<u/ (13027a,8) ‘to assemble’; ˙ÓÏÎ˙‡ /itkallimit/ (3 4,8) ‘(it) spoke’; ¯‚‡˙ÈÏ/li-yit<aggar/ (3 7,15) ‘to get a lease, to settle’; ˙ÏÓ˙‡ /itmalit/ (914b,13) ‘(it) filled.’

2.3 The noun

2.3.1 Feminine endingThere is evidence in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic dialect for an alternativefeminine ending morpheme in the first term of an i!åfa: /-et/ or /-it/.The evidence appears in numbers before counted nouns and elsewhere:˙Â¯ÂÓ˘ Ï‡ ˙ÂˆÓ ˙È˙‡Ï˙ Ï‡ /talåtet/ (93 11,12) ‘the three guardedmatzas’; ˙‡Ú‡Ò ˙ÈÚ·¯‡ /arbá>et/ (93 2,3) ‘four hours’; Ï‡ ¥ÈÁˆÓ ˙ÈÒÓ¡‰¯ÂË /xamset/ (93 891,3 and more) ‘five books of the Torah’; ˙È˙Ò‰!˘Ó Ï‡ ÌÈ¯„Ò /sittet/ (93 90,3–4 and more) ‘the six Mishnah sections’;Ì‡ÈÈ‡ ˙ÈÚ·Ò /sab>et/ (93 90,12 and more) ‘seven days’; ¯Â‰˘‡ ˙ÈÚÒ˙/tis>et/ (93 92,7) ‘nine months’; ‰¯ÂË Ï‡ ˙‡ÓÏÎ ˙È¯˘Ú />a¡áret/ (9392,6–7 and more) ‘the ten commandments (words) of the Torah’;È%Ï‡ ˙ÈÚ‡Ò /så>et/ (93 18,7) ‘the time in which’; ‡˘ÂÓ ˙ÈÚÈ¯˘ /¡ari>et/(93 62,20) ‘the law of Moses’; Â‚‡ÂÂÓ‡ ˙È˘Âµ‡Î /a\u¡et/ (93 77,14)‘like the multitude of its waves’; Ï‡¯÷È ˙ÈÚÓ‚ /gamá >et/ (93 79,8) ‘thehouse of Israel’; and possibly ‰¯˜Â¥ Ï‡ ˙ÈÈ¡¯Ò /sarxiyet/ (93 79,3) and

122

ÔÈÎÒÓ Ï‡ ˙ÈÈ¡¯Ò (93 79,3–4) ‘the cry of the poor’; ‰ÈÈÏ‡„ Ï‡ ˙ÈÈ‰Î‡¥


/fakhiyet/ (93 82,16) ‘the fruit of the vine.’5 8

2.3.2 The dual and the sound plural

2.3.2.1 The n¥n of the dual and of the masculine sound plural ispreserved with pronominal suffixes and in the first term of an i!åfa inLate Egyptian Judeo-Arabic dialect as well as in standard Egyptian:Â˙¡Â‡ ÔÈ„‡ /id#n uxto/ (15 3a,15) ‘his sister’s hands’; ÌÂ‰!È!˙‡ /itn#nhum/(15 24a,11) ‘both of them’; ‰Ï‡‚¯ Ï‡ ÔÈÏ‚¯Â /wi-rigl#n ir-riggåla/ (153a,20) ‘the men’s feet’; Â!ÈÂÂ„Ú />aduww•no/ (15 4b,1) ‘his enemies’;‡‰!È¯"‡! ÏÎ ÔÈ!ÈÚ />en#n kullE na!r•nha/ (1302 2b,16) ‘the eyes of allwho saw her’; ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ÔÈ!ÈÚ È¥ /fi >en#n il-malik/ (1302 2a,15–16) ‘in theking’s eyes’; ‡!!È‰¯‡Î5 9 (93 23,9) /karh•nna/ ‘the people who hate us’;‰ÈÈ·!‚‡ ‰„‡·Ú ÔÈ„·‡Ú />abid•n >ibåda agnabiyya/ (3 5,17–18) ‘worshippersof foreign idols.’

2.4 The adjective

2.4.1 The Egyptian colloquial adjective pattern /fu>ayyal/ appears inthe ¡ar˙: ÔÈÚ‡È¥Â¯ /rufayya >•n/ (15 25a,7; 25a,9; 25a,12; 25a,13; 25b,12;25b,13; 25b,14; 25b,19; 25b,20; 26a,4) ‘lean, thin’; ÔÈÏ˛È¸ÈÏÂ‡ /ulayyil•n/(15 25a,7) ‘few.’

2.5 The numeralsThe texts of the ¡ur¥˙ exhibit many references to the forms of thenumerals in Late Egyptian Judeo-Arabic dialect.

2.5.1 1–10: ÔÈ!˙‡ /itn#n/ (15 0-1,2) ‘two’ with the shift of the interdental/®/ to the stop /t/.

2.5.2 11–19: ¯˘‡„Á /˙idaa¡ar/ (74 23,17) ‘eleven’ with the /ar/ ending

123

5 8The orthography in the last three examples probably indicates /i/, as ismentioned in the section. Had the pronunciation been /a/ (/sarxiyat/ and /fakhiyat/),it is possible that the ¡ar˙an would have written one yod only.

5 9This phenomenon is less obvious in the spelling in another manuscript,‰!È‰¯Î (3 9,5), where the two n¥ns collapse into one.

typical of the Egyptian dialect and with a possible weakening of the

CHAPTER FOUR

pharyngeal fricative />/, or simply consonant deletion (see also above,p. 104, 1.6); ¯˘Ú ÔÈ!˙‡ /itn#n>a¡ar/ (15 5a,13) ‘twelve’ with the shift ofthe interdental to a stop.6 0 More typical Egyptian forms are ¯˘‡!˙‡/itnaa¡ar/ (15 19b,9; 1302 2b,9) ‘twelve’; and ¯˘Ú ˙Ú·¯‡ /arba>ata>¡ar/(93 1,1) ‘fourteen.’

2.5.3 20–90: ÔÈ˙Ï˙6 1 /talat•n/ (15 0-1,1) ‘thirty’ with the shifts of thelong /å/ to short /a/ and the interdental /®/ to the stop /t/; ÔÈ!Ó˙6 2

/taman•n/ (15 0-1,9) ‘eighty’ with the same shifts as the previousexample, ÔÈ˙Ï˙.

2.5.4 100–900: ÔÈ˙ÈÓ /mit#n/ (3 15,17) ‘two hundred’; ‰È‡Ó ÒÓÂ¡/xumsumiyya/ (15 0-1,17) ‘five hundred’; ‰È‡Ó!Ó˙ /tamanmiyya/ (150-1,1) ‘eight hundred’ with short vowels and the shift of the interdental/®/ to the stop /t/. According to the ¡ur¥˙, Cairene Jews still usedolder forms in the numerals in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries:‰!Ò ˙ÈÈ‡ÓØ˙È‡Ó ÚÂ·¯Â‡ /urbu>miyya/ (3 6,17; 91 3a,10) ‘four hundred’6 3

as opposed to the standard Cairene /rub>umiyya/.6 4

2.5.5 1,000 and upwards: ¥‡Ï‡ ˙¯˘Ú />a¡rattalåf/ (1302 3a,17) ‘tenthousand.’

124

6 0In another example the supralinear dot above the tav indicates a literaryform: ¯˘Ú È!«̇ ‡ (15 27b,8) ‘twelve.’

6 1In ÔÈ«̇ ‡Ï«̇ (15 5a,14) ‘thirty,’ the orthography represents the literary variety.6 2The form ÔÈÈ!Ó˙ /tmany•n/ (15 0-1,11) ‘eighty’ with the glide /y/ is unusual.6 3The spelling of ˙È‡ÓÂÚ·¯‡ (15 2a,4) does not demonstrate standard Cairene

pronunciation of /rub>umiyya/.6 4See also Blanc 1974:217. In fact, today Cairene Jews still use this nonstandard

form, as Rosenbaum (2002c:126) has reported.


3. Syntax

3.1 Demonstrative pronounsIn the ¡ar˙, the demonstrative pronoun usually follows the noun itrefers to, as is usual in colloquial Egyptian Judeo-Arabic: ‰„ ‰Ïµ Ï‡(15 26a,11) ‘this famine’; ‰„ ¯ÈË¥ (3 18,10) ‘this matza’; ‰„ ¯¯Ó (318,19) ‘this bitter herb’; ÈÏÂ„‰ Ì‡ÏÎ Ï‡ (15 3a,13; 10b,10–11) ‘thesewords’; ÈÏÂ„‰ Èƒ‡¯‡ Ï‡ ÏÂÎ (15 6a,8–9; 6a,11) ‘all these lands’; Ï‡ÂÈÏÂ„‰ ‰Ï‡‚Â¯ (15 18a,10) ‘and these men’; ÈÏÂ„‰ Ì‡ÈÈ‡ Ï‡ (1302 1b,5)‘these days’; ÈÏÂ„ ˙‡ÓÏÎ ˙‡Ï˙ (3 17,18–19) ‘these three words’; Ï‡ ÏÎÈÏÂ„‰ ·È‡‚Ú (3 19,17–18) ‘all these miracles.’

Even when using standard literary demonstrative pronouns, thecolloquial word order is preserved: ‰„‡‰ ÌÂÈ Ï‡ (15 7a,16) ‘this day’;‰„‡‰ ˙È· Ï‡ (15 24b,8) ‘this house’; È„‡‰ ‰˜Èƒ Ï‡ (15 28a,2) ‘thisanguish’; È„‡‰ ‰È„‰ Ï‡ (15 29a,17) ‘this gift’; È„‡‰ $¯‡ Ï‡ (15 6a,7;35b,7) ‘this land’; È„‡‰ ‰ÏÈÏ Ï‡ (3 2,9) ‘this night’; È„‡‰ ‰È!Â„ Ï‡ (34,3) ‘this world’; È„‡‰ È„‡·Ú Ï‡ (3 4,17) ‘this worship.’

This word order follows regular colloquial Egyptian use, for example,/ill#la di/ ‘this night.’ At the same time, and perhaps as part of theverbatim translation, this word order also translates literally the Hebrewdemonstrative pronoun word order (‰Ê‰ ‰ÏÈÏ‰ ‘this night,’ for example;see chapter 8, pp. 244–48, 6-4).

3.2 The definite articleSometimes the definite article may be dropped from the noun in anoun-adjective phrase, as in ‰„Â„ÓÓ Ï‡ Ú‡¯„ È¥Â ‰„È„˘ Ï‡ „È È¥ (32,20–3,1)‘with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm’ (See alsochapter 8, pp. 268–69, 9-1.7). This may reflect dialectal behavior(Hary 1992: 30–33).

3.3 Negation

3.3.1 The use of /ma … ¡/ to negate the imperfect is regular in spokenEgyptian Judeo-Arabic: ˘¥¯ÚÈ ‡Ó /mayi >raf¡/ (3 4,10) ‘(he) does not

125

know’; ˘Â˜¯¥È ‡Ó /mayifrE<¥¡/ (74 2,11) ‘(they) do not separate’; ‡Ó

CHAPTER FOUR

˘ÏÂ˜È /may<ul¡/ (91 8a,14) ‘(he) does not say.’ This particle can alsobe used with the perfect: ˘È·ÁÓ /ma˙abb#¡/ (15 23-1a,19) ‘(he) didnot want’ (see also chapter 8, p. 218, 4-2.5).

3.3.2 The use of /mu¡/ to negate the participle is also regular inspoken Egyptian Judeo-Arabic: ÔÈÁÈ‡¯ ˘ÂÓ /mu¡ ray˙•n/ (3 1,4) ‘(they)are not going’ (see p. 102 and chapter 8, p. 218, 4-2.6).

3.3.3 There is some evidence, though inconclusive, that the use of thenegation particle /lam/ followed by the perfect had spread to thedialect (Rosenbaum 2002a:588ff). For example, ÌÂ‰ÏÚ‚ ÌÏ (15 13a,1)‘(he) did not set them’; ˙¯·¡ ÌÏ (15 14a,5) ‘you (masc.) did notinform’; È!˙ÈÏ¡ ÌÏ (15 14a,7) ‘you (masc.) did not let me’; ˙˙‡‚ ÌÏ(1302 2a,3) ‘(she) did not come’; ¥˜Â ÌÏ (1302 6b,4) ‘(he) did notwithstand’; Â„Ó ÌÏ (1302 7a,1) ‘(they) did not stretch’; ‰!‚¯¡‡ ÌÏ (33,1–2) ‘(he) did not deliver us’; ˙ÏÂ˜ ÌÏ (3 5,14) ‘I did not say’; ÌÏÔ‡Î (3 5,2) ‘(he) was not.’6 5

In Egyptian Judeo-Arabic, /lam/ may also negate the imperfect: ÌÏ¥¯Ú!È (15 36a,10) ‘(it) will not be known’; ÚË˜!˙ ÌÏ (15 26a,19) ‘(it)will not perish’; ¯ÈÈµ˙È ÌÏÂ (1302 2a,5) ‘and (it) will not change’; ÌÏÈ‚˙ (1302 2a,5; 2b,13) ‘(she) will not come’; ¯·¡˙ ÌÏ (1302 2b,7)‘(she) will not inform’; È˘˙¡! ÌÏ (93 59,9–10) ‘we will not be abashed’;¥ÒÎ!È! ÌÏÂ (93 59,10) ‘and we will not be ashamed’; ‰˜Èƒ ÔÂÎ˙ ÌÏÂ (9359,17) ‘let there be no anguish’ (see chapter 8, pp. 217–18, 4-2.3).

Furthermore, /lam/ is also used in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic6 6 to negatenouns: ÌÂ˙!‡ ÔÈÒÒ‚ ÌÏ Ô‡ ¥¯Ú‡Â (15 28b,2–3) ‘and I will know that youare not spies’; ¯Â¡‡ ÌÏÂ ‡Â‰ ‡!‡ (3 11,12) ‘I, not someone else’; tonegate pronouns: ÂÏ ÌÏÂ ÈÏ (3 5,1) ‘to me and not to him’; to negateprepositions: ÔÂ!‡˜ Ï‡Î ÌÏ È%Ï‡ ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ Ì‡„˜Ï È‚‡ (1302 4a,11) ‘I willgo before the king, not according to the law’; Â„ÁÂÏ ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ‡ÏÚ ÌÏ

126

6 5See above, pp. 94–95; see also chapter 5, pp. 141–43, and chapter 8, pp.215–17, 4-2.1, and the references there for further explanations.

6 6See chapter 8, 4-1.3–4-1.5, and the references there for further explanations.

(1302 1b,23) ‘not only against the king’; ˜¯ÁÂÓ „È ‰ÏÚ ÌÏÂ (3 11,11)


‘and not through a seraph’; and in isolation: ¬„È·ÚÂ È„ÈÒ ÌÏ ‰ÈÏ‡ ÂÏ‡˜ÂÏÎ‡ Â¯˙˘ÈÏ Â‚ (15 27b,5) ‘And they told him, “No, sir, your servantshave come to purchase food” ’; Â˙È‚ $¯‡ Ï‡ ˙¯ÂÚ Ô‡ ÌÏ ÌÂ‰ÈÏ‡ Ï‡˜ÂÂ¯Â"!˙Ï (15 27b,7) ‘And he said to them, “No, you have come to seethe land in its nakedness” ’; ÌÂ˙!‡ ÔÈÒÒ‚ Ô‡ ÔÂÚ¯¥ ˙‡ÈÁÂ ÌÏ Ô‡Î!‡Â (1527b,14) ‘And if not, by Pharaoh’s life, you are indeed spies.’

3.4 Agreement: Verbs

3.4.1 The verb preceding its subject agrees with its number, which isnot uncommon in Arabic dialects in general. In other words, a pluralverb may come before a plural subject: Ï‡Ó‚ Ï‡ ÂÓ˙ ®È%Ï‡Î© Ô‡ÎÂ (153a,4) ‘and when the camels had finished drinking’; Á¯ËÓ Ï‡ Ï‰‡ ÂÏ˜ÒÂ(15 6a,13) ‘and the men of the place asked’; ‰Â·‡ „È·Ú Â¯¥Á (15 6b,7)‘his father’s servants dug’; ¯‡¯‚ Ô‡ÈÚÂ¯ ÂÓˆ¡˙‡Â (15 6b,14) ‘and theherdsmen of Gerar fought’; ‰!˙‡‰·‡ ÂÏÎ‡ È%Ï‡ (3 2,1–2) ‘which ourfathers ate.’ This is also the case before inanimate subjects, as in Â!‡ÎÂÁÏ˘Â˙Ó Ì‡È‡ ÏÂÎ (15 0-1,11) ‘all the days of Metushelah were …’;6 7

Ì‡È‡ Ï‡ ÂÏ ÂÏÂÂË (15 6a,16) ‘the days had passed for him.’

3.4.2 The gender of plural verbs (including participles) is usuallymasculine, even when it refers to feminine human beings, as is usual inArabic dialects: ÔÈÈ‡ÏÓ Ï‡ /il-mallay•n/ (15 2b,9) ‘the women whodraw water’ and ‰ÈÓ ÂÏÓÈÏ ÔÈ‚¯‡¡ „Ï· Ï‡ Ï‰‡ ˙‡!·Â /wi-banåt ahl al-baladxarg•n li-yimlu mayya/ (15 2b,11-12) ‘and the townsmen’s daughterscome out (masc. pl.) to draw (masc. pl.) water.’ The same is seen inEsther in the gender of the verb in ÂÏ„‰·ÈÏ ‡Ò! Ï‡ (1302 2a,2) ‘thewomen will treat (masc. pl.) … contemptuously.’

3.5 Agreement: Nouns

3.5.1 For the most part, masculine plural adjectives modify nonhumanplural nouns even if they are feminine: Ï‡Â ¯"!Ó Ï‡ ÔÈ!ÒÂÁ ˙‡¯˜· Ï‡

127

6 7In this example /kull/ ‘all’ cannot be considered the subject; it must be/ayyåm/ ‘days,’ because otherwise the plural verb /kånu/ could not be explained.

Ô‡ÓÂÒ (15 24a,9–10) ‘good-looking and sturdy cows’; ÔÈ¯¡Â‡ ˙‡¯˜·

CHAPTER FOUR

(15 25a,7) ‘other cows’; ÔÈ·ÈÈËÂ Ô‡ÓÂÒ … ˙‡Ï·Ò (15 25a,11) ‘ears ofgrain … solid and healthy’; ÔÈ¯ÈÈµÓ È!‡Â‡ (1302 1b,11) ‘various vessels.’Sometimes, however, a feminine plural adjective modifies the nonhumanfeminine plural noun, as in ÌÁÏ Ï‡ Ô‡ÓÂÒÂ ¯"!Ó Ï‡ ˙‡!ÒÂÁ ˙‡¯˜· (1525a,5–6) ‘good-looking and sturdy cows’; however, this may notnecessarily represent colloquial use, but rather a verbatim translation(chapter 8, pp. 284–85, 10-3.13).

3.6 Agreement: Pronouns

3.6.1 The dual agreement in the spoken variety is lost, becomingplural, as is expected in the dialects: ÔÂ¯‰Â ‰ÒÂÓ ÌÂ‰ È%Ï‡ (93 88,11)‘who they are Moses and Aaron.’

3.6.2 As seen above, the gender of the plural suffixed pronouns isusually masculine, even when referring to feminine nouns, as is commonin the dialect: Ì‰ÏÂ˜· Ì‰Ó‡„˜ Ì‰Ê‡Â‚‡ ÂÏ„‰·ÈÏ ‡Ò! Ï‡ /in-niså li-yibahdiluagwåzhom uddåmhom bi- <ølhom/ (1302 2a,2) ‘the women will treattheir (masc. pl.) husbands contemptuously in their (masc. pl.) presence,saying (masc. pl.) …’ Similarly, in Ì‰˜‡ÂÊ ‡ËÚ!ÈÂ ‡Ò! Ï‡ "¥‡Á /˙åfi!in-niså wi-yin>a†a zawå<hom/ (1302 2a,15) ‘the keeper of the women;and let them be provided with their (masc. pl.) cosmetics,’ where thepronoun is in the masculine plural.

3.6.3 Furthermore, as seen above in 3.4.2 and 3.6.2 (gender agreement)and as is common in the dialect, in the sentence ÔÓÂ‰ ÔÈ·ÈÈË Ô‡ (150-1,20) ‘for good looking (masc.) they (fem.) are,’ the gender of theplural adjective /†ayyib•n/ is masculine, despite the fact that it refersto a feminine noun, Ô‡Ò!‡ Ï‡ ˙‡!· (15 0-1,19) ‘the daughters of men,’as reflected in the pronoun /humman/ ‘they (in this case feminine).’

3.7 Case

3.7.1 As is common in the dialects, the cases have been lost. Forexample, the masculine sound plural is always in the oblique /-•n/,regardless of syntactic function: ÔÈ!‡ÏÚÊ ÌÂ‰‡„ÂÂ‰Â (15 24a,14–15) ‘and

128

here they are distressed’; ÔÈ¯"‡! ÌÂÎ!ÂÈÚ È˙˜ÂÂÏ„Â (15 32a,3) ‘and now


your eyes see’; ¯ˆÓ ÔÈÈ‡‚ Ï‡ Ï‡¯˘È „‡ÏÂÂ‡ ÈÓ‡Ò‡ ÏÂ„Â (15 32b,20–33a,1)‘these are the names of the children of Israel who have come toEgypt’; ‰ÈÏ‡ ÔÈ·È¯˜ Ï‡Â (1302 1b,19) ‘his closest (advisers)’; ÔÈÒÏ‡‚ Ï‡‰!ËÏÒ Ï‡ È¥ ‡ÏÂÂ‡ (1302 1b,21) ‘who occupy the first (place) in thekingdom’; Ô‡ËÏÒ Ï‡ ÔÈÓ„‡¡ (1302 2a,12) ‘the king’s servants’; ‰!Á‡ÔÈÒÓµÓ (3 2,10–11) ‘we dip’; ÔÈ·¯‡˘Â ÔÈÏÎ‡Â ‰!Á‡ (3 2,12) ‘we have(just) eaten and drunk’; ÔÈ¥¯‡Ú ‰!ÏÂÎ (3 3,5) ‘all of us know.’

3.7.2 Some colloquial adverbs take the “frozen” accusative case inEgyptian Judeo-Arabic dialect, as is common in many other Arabicdialects: ÔÏÈ‡˜ (3 5,10) ‘saying’; Ô„‚ (1302 1b,18) ‘very.’6 8

3.7.3 Note the use of a yod as a marker for the “defective” /-in/ thatbecomes /-i/ in the dialect: È!‡Â‡ /awåni/ (1302 1b,10) ‘vessels’(</awånin/).

3.8 The numerals

3.8.1 The number /itn#n/ may accompany the counted noun, replacingthe dual form: ¯ÈÂÂ‡Ò‡ ÔÈ!˙‡ (15 3a,5) ‘two wristbands’; ˙‡!· ÔÈ!˙‡(15 10b,13) ‘two daughters’; Â˙‡È˘‡ÂÂË ÔÈ! «˙‡ (15 24a,7) ‘two of hiseunuchs’; ·ÂÚ˘ ÔÈ!˙‡ (15 5b,6) ‘two nations’; ÌÓÂ‡Ï ÔÈ!˙‡ (15 5b,6)‘two peoples’; Ô‡È„‚ ÔÈ!˙‡ (15 7b,10) ‘two kids’; ˙‡ËÁÓ ÔÈ!˙‡Ï (1515b,7) ‘for two camps’; ·Â·ÁÓ ÔÈ!˙‡· (93 83,4) ‘for two gold pounds’6 9

(see also chapter 8, p. 299, 12-1.1–12-1.3).

3.8.2 ı‡¡˘‡ ˙Ú·¯‡ /arba>at a¡xåß/ (74 2,8) ‘four sons’ is a typicalexample of colloquial use of the numerals followed by the countednoun. In Ï‡Ó‚ ‰¯˘Ú />a¡ára gimål/ (15 2b,6) ‘ten camels,’ however, thei!åfa structure of numeral is missing. On the other hand, the orthography

129

6 8Note that the “frozen” accusative case in the Hebraized orthography is usuallymarked phonetically with a nun. See Hary 1992:297–98, 4.1.4; 1996c:732, ii;Khan 1991:230, b; Wagner 2008:59.

6 9The term /ma˙b¥b/ means ‘gold piece’ and in the Ottoman period ‘sequin’ (seeWehr). However, it also means ‘gold pound’ or ‘pound note’ in Egyptian Arabic(see Hinds and Badawi).

in the latter example may not be used as solid evidence for the pronun-

CHAPTER FOUR

ciation of the example, and the i!åfa is probably used in this examplein the spoken variety: />a¡árat gimål/.

3.8.3 The counted noun following the numbers may be in the plural:ÌÂ‰˙‡¯·ÂÎ ¯˘Ú ÔÈ!˙‡ (15 5a,13) ‘twelve of their nobles’; Â„‡ÏÂ ¯˘Ú „Á‡Â(15 16a,13) ‘and his eleven children’; ¬„È·Ú ¯˘Ú È!«̇ ‡ (15 27b,8) ‘twelveof your servants’; ÔÈ!Ò ÔÈ˙Ï˙Â ‰È‡Ó!Ó˙ (15 0-1,1) ‘eight hundred andthirty years.’ In other examples, however, the counted noun followingthe numbers is in the singular, following Classical Arabic structure:‰ƒ¥ ÔÈ¯˘Ú· (15 22b,6–7) ‘for twenty pieces of silver’; ‰!Ò ÔÈ˙Ò (155b,12) ‘sixty years’; ‰!Ò ˙È‡Ó!Ó˙ (15 0-1,3–4) ‘eight hundred years’;‰ƒ¥ Ï‡˜˙Ó ¥‡Ï‡ ˙¯˘ÚÂ (1302 3a,17) ‘and ten thousand miskals [atype of weight] of silver’; ‰!È„Ó ÔÈ¯˘ÚÂ ˙Ú·ÒÂ ˙È‡Ó (1302 1b,3) ‘ahundred and twenty-seven provinces’; ÌÂÈ ÔÈ!‡Ó˙Â ˙ÈÈÓ (1302 1b,6) ‘ahundred and eighty days’; ‰!Ò ÔÈÚ·Ò (3 3,19) ‘seventy years’ (see alsochapter 8, pp. 299–301, 12-1.4–12-1.7).

3.9 Interrogative pronounsAs mentioned above (pp. 114-16, 2.1.6), the word order of theinterrogative pronouns in Cairene Judeo-Arabic dialect is preposed:È„ ‡ÏÚ È¡„¯ÓÏ ‰ÈÈ¯·ÎÂ ¯‡˜Â‡ Ú!ˆ!‡ ˘È‡ (1302 4b,17) ‘what honor andrespect has been conferred on Mordecai for this?’; ‰È¯Î· ‡ÈÏ ‡„ ˘ÈÏÂ(15 5b,20–6a,1) ‘of what (use) is my birthright to me?’; ¯„˜‡ ¥ÈÎÂ¯"!‡ (1302 6a,2–3) ‘and how can I see?’ This is in contrast to standardCairene, where the word order is postposed: /ismak #h/ ‘what is yourname?’

3.10 Asyndetic embedded clausesIt is common in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic dialect as well as in standardEgyptian dialects to have asyndetic embedded clauses: Ï‡ÒÈ ˘¥¯ÚÈ ‡Ó/mayi>raf¡ yisal/ or /mayi>raf¡ yis <al/ (3 4,10) ‘does not know how toask’; Â˘Ú˙È ÔÈÁÈ‡¯ ˘ÂÓ /mu¡ ray˙•n yit>a¡¡u/ (3 1,4) ‘(they) are not

130

going to eat.’


4. Lexicon

4.1 Prepositions:Several prepositions employed in the ¡ar˙ are reflections of EgyptianJudeo-Arabic colloquial use: /<uddåm/ ‘in front,’ as in ¬Ó‡„Â˜ /<uddåmak/(3 5,15) ‘in front of you’; /zayy/ ‘like,’ as in Ï‡˜ ‡Ó È‡Ê /zayy ma <ål/(91 2b,8) ‘as it is said.’ The preposition that translates Hebrew Ïˆ‡

‘with, at, the place of’ in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic dialect is ‰È‡„Á/˙adåya/ or /˙idåya/ (15 23-1b,12; 23-1b,15) ‘with me’; ‡‰‡„Á /˙adåha/(15 23-1b,4; 23-1b,12) ‘with her.’ This preposition also appears inSa>•d• dialect with the same meaning: /˙ada/ ‘with’; /˙idåya/ ‘with me’;/˙adåna/ ‘with us’ (Behnstadt and Woidich 1994, 4:81) and probablycomes from Classical Arabic /˙idå<a/ ‘opposite, facing.’

4.2 AdverbsSome adverbs used in the ¡ar˙ are reflections of the dialect:

4.2.1 Spatial adverbs: ‡!‰ /hena/ (15 22a,7; 23b,10; and more) ‘here’;¬‡!‰ /henåk/ (15 23a,1; 3 2,20; and more) ‘there.’

4.2.2 Temporal adverbs: /dilwa<t(i)/ ‘now’ in ˜Ï‡¡ Ï‡ ‰!·¯˜ ˙˜Â Ï„Â (35,18–19) ‘and now the creator has brought us closer.’ As a reflectionof the preference for /u/ in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic, /dulwa<t(i)/ coexistsas well: ˙˜ÂÂ ÏÂ„ (15 14a,7); ˙˜ÂÂ ÏÂ„Â (15 15b,12) (see above, 1.1.3).

4.2.3 Manner adverbs: ÈÂÂ˜ /<awi/ ‘very’ in ÈÂÂ˜ ¯"!Ó Ï‡ ˙!ÒÂÁ ‰È·ˆ Ï‡Â(15 2b,17) ‘and the young woman with the very fine beauty’; ‰„Î/kEda/ ‘so, thus’ in ¥ÒÂÈÏ ÂÏÂ˜˙ ‰„Î (15 38a,13–14) ‘Thus shall yousay to Joseph.’ The adverb Ô‡ÓÎ /kamån/ ‘also, more’ in Â˜!ÂÚ ‰ÏÚ ÈÎ·ÂÔ‡ÓÎ (15 33b,10–11) ‘and (he) wept over his neck for a while’ alternateswith the less common Cairene Judeo-Arabic ‰!‡ÓÎ /kamåna/: ‰!‡ÓÎÂ·Ú˘ Ï‡ ‰Ï‡ (3 6,18) ‘and also that nation.’7 0

4.2.4 Other adverbs: ˙È¯‡È /yar#t/ ‘let it be’ in ÔÂÎÈ ˙È¯‡È Ô‡·Ï Ï‡˜Â¬Ó‡ÏÎÎ (15 12b,9) ‘And Laban said, let it be according to your words.’

131

7 0See also Blanc 1974:217 and Rosenbaum 2002b:38.

CHAPTER FOUR

4.3 Verbs

4.3.1 Some typical colloquial verbs are: /ga/ ‘come’ with its CaireneJudeo-Arabic forms (see p. 120, 2.2.5.1.2); /akal/ ‘eat,’ including itsparticiple ÔÈÏÎ‡Â /wakl•n/ (3 2,12) ‘have eaten (pl.)’ (p. 119, 2.2.3);/axad/ ‘take’ (pp. 120–21, 2.2.5.1.3); /rå˙/ and /arå˙/ ‘go’ (p. 121,2.2.5.1.4).

4.3.2 Furthermore, the employment of the verb ¥‡˘ /¡åf/ (15 3a,14)‘(he) saw’ is typical of dialectal use.

4.3.3 The following typical colloquial Egyptian verbs occur in the¡ar˙, as evidence of Later Egyptian Judeo-Arabic dialect: Â¯ƒÁ„ /da˙$aru/(15 10a,13) ‘(they) caused to roll down’ (Hinds and Badawi 1986:279);È!˘¯Î /kara¡ni/ (3 26,10) ‘(he) drove me away’; ˙ÈÎÊ /zak#t/ (3 3,19) ‘Igained’ (see chapter 5, p. 153, 2.7).

4.3.4 Some verbs appearing in the ¡ar˙ demonstrate a different meaningthan standard Egyptian, which may carry over to the dialect: ÂÓ˘Ú˙‡/it>a¡¡imu/ (3 23,17) ‘trust in.’7 1

4.4 Nouns

4.4.1 The following typical colloquial Egyptian nouns occur in the¡ar˙, as evidence of Later Egyptian Judeo-Arabic dialect:Ì‡ÊÂ¡ /xuzåm/ (15 3a,5) ‘nose ring’ (standard Arabic /xizåm/); Ï˜Â˙/tu<l/ (15 3a,5; 3a,6) ‘heaviness, weight’ (standard Arabic /®iql/); ÔÈ„‡/id#n/ (15 3a,15) ‘hands’; ˘ÈÚ / >#¡/ (15 6a,2; 8a,2; 10a,6; and more; 931,4) ‘bread’; Ë!Ò ‡Ï· /bala sEnt/ (15 10b,13) ‘for nothing; for free’; ÈÊÂ‚/gøzi/ (15 11a,16; 11a,18; 11b,20; and more) ‘my husband’; Â˙‡¯Ó/mråto/ (15 21a,13; 23-1b,2; 23-1b,16; and more) ‘his wife’; Ô·Ï /laban/(15 36b,17) ‘milk’; ‰‚‡Á /˙åga/ (3 4,15) ‘nothing’; Â!„Â /widno/ (324,12) ‘his ear’; ‰·‡· /båba/ (74 25,14 and more) ‘daddy’; ‰ËÂ¥ /f¥†a/(74 21,4) ‘towel’; ·Â·ÁÓ /ma˙b¥b/ (74 24,14 and more; 93 83,4 andmore) ‘pound note.’

132

7 1Hinds and Badawi (1986:580) have defined /it>a¡¡im/ as ‘be hopeful, bemade hopeful.’


4.4.2 Some nouns show a different meaning in the ¡ar˙, which may becarried over from the dialect: Â„¥ /fadw/ (3 21,12) ‘redemption,liberation’;7 2 ‰Ú¥Â„ /duf>a/ (3 23,18) ‘stumbling.’

133

7 2Hinds and Badawi (1986:645) have defined /fadw/ ‘food or money given tothe poor in compensation for the omission of certain religious duties’ as part ofIslamic law; however, /fidå</ in Christian Egyptian Arabic means ‘redemption.’

CHAPTER FOUR

5. Summary of Colloquial Features of Spoken Egyptian Judeo-ArabicPrevious scholarship investigated several characteristics of Late7 3 andModern7 4 Egyptian Judeo-Arabic dialect. As mentioned at the beginningof the chapter (pp. 91–92), the greatest obstacle in the past has beenthe paucity of material that can reveal Egyptian Judeo-Arabic dialectalfeatures. The texts of the Egyptian ¡ur¥˙, analyzed in this volume aswell as in Hary 2009, confirm and contribute to the study of thesecharacteristics. In fact, these texts can be of tremendous help inestablishing major linguistic changes over the last three centuries inEgypt.7 5 As is common in other Jewish religiolects (chapter 1, pp.21–24), many of the dialectal characteristics of Egyptian Judeo-Arabicincorporate Hebrew and Aramaic elements and are archaic forms ofthe majority dialect; some of them reflect migrated dialectalism. Thefollowing is a summary of selected various features:7 6

(i) The preference for the vowel /u/ (pp. 101–2, 1.1.4.1): ·ÚÂ˘/¡u>b/ ‘people’; ˙˜ÂÂ ÏÂ„ /dulwa<t(i)/ ‘now’; ¯Â¡‡ /åxur/ ‘another.’

(ii) The shift /a/ > /å/ in words originating in Hebrew (p. 102,1.1.5): ‰‡ÏË· /ba†alå/ ‘in vain’; Ô‡ÁÏÂ˘ /¡ul˙ån/ ‘table.’

(iii) The shift /å/ > /a/ preceding />/, /˙/, or /h/ (1.1.6): Ú˙· /bita>/‘genitive marker, of (masc.)’; ‡!‰Ï‡ /ilahna/ ‘our God.’

(iv) The weakening of the voiced pharyngeal fricative />/ (p. 105,1.6): ¯˘‡„Á /˙idaa¡ar/ ‘eleven’; „‰‡ /ahd/ ‘pact.’

(v) The existence of the voiceless bilabial stop /p/ (p. 107, 1.9): Ï‡ÌÈ˘µÏÙ ‘the concubines’; ˘„ÏÙ ‘Pildash.’

134

7 3See, for example, Tomiche 1968:1179–81; Blanc 1974, 1981, 1985; andHary 1992, 1994b, 1996c, 1997a.

7 4See, for example, Rosenbaum 2002b, 2002c, 2002d.7 5I am planning on writing in the near future a study about tracking these

linguistic changes.7 6The selected examples do not include manuscript citations for ease of reading;

however, the reader is referred back to the paragraphs in the chapter where they areproperly cited.

(vi) Emphatization in words originating in Hebrew (p. 108, 1.11.4):


ı¥¯Î /kar¢faß/ ‘greens for the Passover seder’; ‰È¯"Ú / >a!ar¢ya/‘Azarya.’

(vii) Deemphatization (pp. 108–9, 1.12): ÒÂ! /nuss/ ‘half’; ¯„¡‡ /axdar/‘green.’

(viii) The occasional shift /¡/ > /s/ (p. 110, 1.13.4): ÒÂ„˜ / <add¥s/‘sanctification.’

(ix) The appearance of the third plural independent pronoun (p.112, 2.1.1) ÔÓÂ‰ /humman/ ‘they.’

(x) The masculine singular demonstrative pronoun variant /de/ (pp.113–14, 2.1.4.1): ·‡· Ï‡ ‰È„ /de il-båb/ ‘this is the gate’; ¯ÈË¥‰È„ /fi†•r de/ ‘this unleavened bread.’

(xi) The plural demonstrative pronoun variants /døli/ and /hadøli/(2.1.4.3): ˙‡·¯ƒ ¯˘Ú ÈÏÂ„ ‘these are the ten plagues’; ˙‡Ï˙ÈÏÂ„ ˙‡ÓÏÎ ‘these three words’; ÈÏÂ„‰ Ì‡ÏÎ Ï‡ ‘these words.’

(xii) The following interrogative pronouns occur in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic dialect (pp. 114–16, 2.1.6): ˘È‡ /#¡/ ‘what’; ˘È‡ „˜/<add#¡/ ‘how much’; ˘ÈÏ /l#¡/ ‘why’; and ¥ÈÎ /k#f/ ‘how.’ Theseinterrogative pronouns are preposed in the sentence (ratherthan postposed as in standard Egyptian dialect): ‰„ ˘È‡˙Ï‚Ú˙Ò‡ ‘what is this that you hurried?’

(xiii) The possible frozen use of the masculine singular genitive marker/bitå>/ (pp. 116–17, 2.1.7).

(xiv) The verbal pattern /fu>ul/ (p. 117, 2.2.1.1): ıÂÏÂ¡ /xuluß/ ‘wasredeemed’; È˙¯Â˙ÂÎ /kuturti/ ‘you (fem.) increased.’

(xv) The use of /nekteb–nektébu/ imperfect verbs (pp. 118–19, 2.2.2):¥¯Ú! ‰!‡ /ana ni>raf/ ‘I know’; Â„¡‡! /naxdu/ ‘we take’; Â„ÂÚ˜!/ni<>udu/ ‘we sit.’

(xvi) Unique forms of the verb ‘come’ (p. 120, 2.2.5.1.2): ˙˙‡‚/gåtit/ ‘she came’; Â‚ /gu/ ‘they came.’

(xvii) The appearance of the “long” forms of ‘eat’ and ‘take’ (pp.120–21, 2.2.5.1.3): Â˙ÏÎ‡ /akaltu/ ‘you (pl.) ate’; Â„¡‡ /axadu/‘they took.’

135

(xviii) A special form of the verb ‘go’ (p. 121, 2.2.5.1.4): Á‡¯‡ /ar¢å˙/.

CHAPTER FOUR

(xix) Roots originating in Hebrew may receive Arabic morphologicalpatterns, creating mixed forms (chapter 5, p. 153, 2.7): ˙ÈÎÊ/zak#t/ ‘I gained’ and ‰ÎÊ˙‡ /itzaka/ ‘(he) gained’; ̄ „‡„Ò /sadådir/‘sections of the Mishna’ (chapter 5, p. 153, n. 24).

(xx) The use of archaic numeral forms (p. 124, 2.5.4): ˙È‡Ó ÚÂ·¯Â‡/urbu>miyya/ ‘four hundred.’

(xxi) The use of an alternative feminine ending morpheme in the firstterm of an i!åfa, /-et/ or /-it/ (2.3.1): Ì‡ÈÈ‡ ˙ÈÚ·Ò /sab>etayyåm/‘seven days’; ‡˘ÂÓ ˙ÈÚÈ¯˘ /¡ari>et m¥sa/ ‘the law of Moses.’

(xxii) The possible extensive use of the negation particle /lam/ (3.3.3):with perfect verbs: ˙ÏÂ˜ ÌÏ ‘I did not say’; Ô‡Î ÌÏ ‘(he) wasnot’;with imperfect verbs: ¯·¡˙ ÌÏ ‘(she) will not inform’; ÌÏÈ˘˙¡! ‘we will not be abashed’;with nouns: ÌÂ˙!‡ ÔÈÒÒ‚ ÌÏ Ô‡ ¥¯Ú‡Â ‘and I will know thatyou are not spies’;with pronouns: ÂÏ ÌÏÂ ÈÏ ‘to me and not to him’;with prepositions: Â„ÁÂÏ ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ‡ÏÚ ÌÏ ‘not only against theking’;in isolation: È„ÈÒ ÌÏ ‰ÈÏ‡ ÂÏ‡˜Â ‘And they told him, “No,sir.” ’

(xxiii) The use of the adverb /kamåna/ ‘also.’(xxiv) The use of words originating in Hebrew: ÌÈ˘µÏÙ /pila\¡•m/

‘concubines’; ¯¥Ò /sefer/ ‘scroll’; Ï¯‡Ú / >aril/, plural ÔÈÈÏ¯‡Ú/>ariliy•n/ ‘Christian man/men’; ˙‡·˘ /¡abbåt/ ‘Saturday,Shabbat’; ‰ÙÂÁ /˙uppa/ ‘marriage’; ‰¯Â˙ /tøra/ and ‰¯ÂË /†øra/‘Torah’; ·È¯ÈÚ / >#r#b/ ‘evening’; ÔÈ¥‚ /gefen/ ‘vine’; ÒÂ„˜ / <add¥s/‘sanctification’; Ú‡Ó˘ /¡Emå>/ ‘the prayer of the Shema’; ıÈÓÁ/˙am#ß/ ‘unleavened food’; ˙ÈˆÂ¯Á /˙arøß#t/ ‘Óaroset’; ‰ˆÓ /maßå/‘matza’; ı¥¯Î /kar¢faß/ ‘Karpas, greens for the Passover seder’;

136

7 7For more examples, see chapter 5, especially pp. 156–59.

¯¯ÂÓ /morer/ ‘bitter herbs’; ÔÈÓÂ˜È¥‡ /afikum•n/ ‘afikoman.’7 7

CHAPTER FIVE

ADDITIONAL LINGUISTIC ISSUES OF THE ¡arh¢ ¢ ¢¢ TRADITION

This chapter examines the use of pseudocorrections in Judeo-Arabicin general and in the Egyptian ¡ur¥˙ in particular. It demonstrateshow both hypercorrections and hypocorrections, which are twodifferent types of pseudocorrections, are used in the texts, and itdiscusses the implications of the standardization of pseudocorrectionsin Egyptian Judeo-Arabic for both the literary and the spoken varieties.Furthermore, the chapter develops a theoretical model for the use ofHebrew and Aramaic components in Jewish religiolects in general andin Judeo-Arabic in particular. Using Uriel Weinreich’s work on languagesin contact, this model demonstrates how components are transferredto Judeo-Arabic from two different directions, supplying the reasonsfor each direction and giving examples for each direction from thevarious Egyptian ¡ur¥˙. The chapter ends with a discussion of Hebrewand Aramaic lexical items employed in the Egyptian ¡ur¥˙.1

Issue One: PseudocorrectionsPseudocorrections are forms that “result from speakers’ and writers’desire to speak and write a more prestigious variety and to avoidstigmatized forms” (Hary 2007:277). The prevalence of these formsin Judeo-Arabic texts results from a traceable social process. At timesJudeo-Arabic authors want to embellish their writings with prestigious

1 Some of the material in this chapter was published in a different form inHary 1999 and 2007.

Classical Arabic forms, but their competence in Classical Arabic is

CHAPTER FIVE

insufficient. So, they “correct” certain forms although these correctionsare not necessary according to Classical Arabic norms (Blau 1970).Ultimately, these “corrected” forms create mechanisms for languagechange.2

I described in detail (Hary 2007:275) the process of the creation ofpseudocorrections, also termed “overcorrectness”:

Whenever a variety of a language with social, religious, economic,or other prestige comes into contact with a variety without suchprestige, speakers and writers of the latter will, at times, try touse forms of the former even if the forms are unnecessary in thatlinguistic environment. They will change or “correct” forms ofthe prestigeless variety and utilize the forms of the language withthe prestige. However, sometimes these speakers do not havesufficient knowledge of the prestigious variety. Thus, they changeor “correct” forms that do not need to be changed even accordingto the prestigious variety, and may arrive at forms that are “toocorrected” (hence, hypercorrections) or “halfway corrected” (or“not corrected enough”; hence, hypocorrections). Furthermore,speakers and writers may sometimes mix forms. Such pseudocor-rections stem from the desire of the speakers to “decorate”themselves with forms of the prestigious variety and to avoid thedominant usage of the prestigeless variety, often out of over-self-denial in order to gain prestige in their speech or writings. Attimes, such corrections can become standardized in the prestigelessvariety, thus contributing to language change.

The differences between hypercorrection and hypocorrection areexplained in detail in Hary 2007:277–78. John Ohala (1993) hasdiscussed both forms in regard to sound change. A famous examplefor this kind of sound change is the emergence of the umlaut in the

138

2 See Labov 1972:178–80. Examples of a linguistic change caused by apseudocorrection are the use of hamza in Arabic (Hary 2007:279), or the use of/lam/ in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic (chapter 4, pp. 94–95, and chapter 8, pp. 215–17,4-2.1), although there are scholars who interpret this phenomenon differently.

history of Old English (Yu 2006:527).

ADDITIONAL LINGUISTIC ISSUES OF THE ¡ar˙ TRADITION

As mentioned in chapter 4, pp. 94–95, pseudocorrections are one ofseveral components in the texts of Judeo-Arabic ¡ur¥˙. Pseudocorrec-tions, however, are particularly important because it is only possibleto identify dialectal features in the texts of the ¡ur¥˙ if the othercomponents, including pseudocorrections, are isolated. Identifyingpseudocorrections also helps to reconstruct the history of Arabicdialects. For example, there are many texts of Literary Written MiddleArabic (Hary 1992:55ff) that exhibit a mixture of Classical Arabicelements, vernacular features, pseudocorrected forms, and standardizedexamples of such forms. The characteristics of Middle Arabic dialectscan be extracted only by isolating Classical Arabic elements, on theone hand, and pseudocorrections, on the other hand, leaving the dialectalfeatures of the texts as the remainder. Only a careful examination ofMiddle Arabic texts can reveal dialectal or pseudocorrected featuresand distinguish between them.3

There are a number of examples of hypercorrections in the ¡ur¥˙that might be analyzed. For example, the shift of the uvular stop /q/ tothe glottal stop /</ in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic is well established.4 Insome instances in the ¡ar˙ of Genesis, the ¡ar˙an marks a literaryArabic regular glottal stop (hamza) with a qof.5 In fact, in his desire toembellish his writing with Classical Arabic elements, the ¡ar˙an“corrects” the text by replacing a regular glottal stop (hamza), whichhe should have written with an alef, with a qof, in an effort to suggestthat the origin of this hamza was the Classical Arabic qåf, althoughthis is actually not the case. Thus, the ¡ar˙an writes: ˙Ï˜ÒÂ /wi-sa<alt/(15 3b,20) ‘and I asked’; Ï˜Ò!Â /wi-nis<al/ (15 4a,16) ‘and we will ask’;‡‰Á¯ËÓ Ï‰‡ ‰Ï‡ Ï˜ÒÂ (15 23b,9) ‘and he asked the people of herplace’; ÔÂÚ¯¥ ˙‡È˘ÂÂË ‰Ï‡ Ï˜ÒÂ (15 24a,15) ‘and he asked Pharaoh’s

139

3 See the methodology section in chapter 4, pp. 93ff.4 See Grotzfeld 1967; Hary 1992:263; Rosenbaum 2002c:123.5 See also chapter 4, pp. 96–97 and p. 106, 1.7.1.

eunuchs’; Á¯ËÓ Ï‡ Ï‰‡ ÂÏ˜ÒÂ (15 6a,13) ‘and the men of the place

CHAPTER FIVE

asked’; ¯ÈÂÂ‡Ò˜ / <asåwir/ (15 3a,15) ‘wristbands’; ¥ÂÏ˜ /<ul¥f/ (15 4a,20)‘thousands’; ÔÓ‡˜ /<åmin/ (15 32b,5) ‘believe.’ All of these examplesare clear hypercorrections, rather than hypocorrections, and followthe criteria established first by Blau (1970:12–15) and then refined byHary (1992:64–66 and 2007:277–78). First, the underlying form whichis changed to match the prestigious form is the same as the latter anddid not need to be “corrected.” Thus, colloquial forms /sa<al/ ‘ask,’/asåwir/ ‘wristbands’, /ul¥f/ ‘thousands,’ and /åmin/ ‘believe’ areperfectly standard in literary Arabic as well. Second, the resultingforms do not contain any dialectal elements and they go too far. Inhypocorrections, on the other hand, forms contain dialectal elementsand do not go far enough. Finally, the surface forms in the above-mentioned examples exist in the prestigious variety, whereas in casesof hypocorrection they may not.

In another example, the orthography in Ì‰¯·‡ „ÂÂ"Â (15 4b,11) ‘andAbraham proceeded (lit. added)’ also may be interpreted as a hyper-correction. Classical Arabic interdental /ƒå</ shifts in urban Arabicdialects to a stop /d/ and at times to a fricative /z/ (chapter 4, pp.104–5, 1.4). In an effort to decorate his work with classicism, the¡ar˙an, aware of this shift, chooses the dalet with a supralinear dot(") to demonstrate that he “knows” that the origin of the fricative /z/in /zawwid/ is the Classical Arabic voiced interdental fricative /ƒ/. Infact, the verb /zawwid/ ‘add’ can be written in Egyptian Judeo-Arabicwith a zayin („ÂÂÊ), as both the literary and the colloquial forms containthe fricative /z/, leaving no need to correct it to a /ƒå</ (").

Another example of a hypercorrection is also related to the orthogra-phy: ˙ˆÂ (3 25,8) ‘middle.’ In Egyptian Judeo-Arabic dialect, emphati-zation /s/ > /ß/ in the environment of other emphatic phonemes is notuncommon (chapter 4, p. 108, 1.11.3). The scribe, who probablypronounced the word /waßa†/ as a result of emphatization, understoodthat in the orthography only one of the two emphatic consonants was

140

originally emphatic, but he did not know which one. Thus, he mixed


the two, resulting in the hypercorrection spelling of ˙ˆÂ.6

In addition to hypercorrections, hypocorrections can also be detectedin the texts of the ¡ur¥˙. For example, there is ample use of thenegative particle /lam/ in Late and Modern Egyptian Judeo-Arabictexts. This particle can come before verbs in both the perfect andimperfect forms, and it can negate verbless clauses (nouns, pronouns,and prepositions).7 Arnold has made a case for the appearance of thisparticle in the spoken dialect of the Jews of Iskenderoun in thenortheastern Mediterranean, demonstrating that it is the combinationof /lå/ and /må/, and thus accounting for its emphatic character (2006–2007:11–12). Rosenbaum (2002a) has attempted to show that theparticle was part of colloquial Egyptian Arabic speech, although Wagnerhas disagreed (2007:175–77). Rosenbaum also reviewed other scholars’positions and concluded that none of them has really considered /lam/to be part of colloquial Egyptian speech. He has claimed that Blau(1970:95), Hary (1987:280, 1992:314), Hopkins (1984:153), and Khan(1991: 231–32, 1992:236 n. 38) all considered the particle /lam/ to bea pseudocorrection, a pseudoclassical form, or a hypocorrection.Avishur (1992:166) and Woidich (1968:108) have considered /lam/ tobe an element of standard Arabic, and Davies, while considering it aspart of the colloquial, has still regarded it as a “[violation] of theclassical rules” (1981:304). Moreover, Spitta-Bey did not consider/lam/ to be part of the colloquial (1880:169 n. 1). Furthermore, Goitenalso considered /lam/ to be a pseudoclassical form (1972:258, quotedin Hary 1992:294 n. 154). Rosenbaum has admitted that the particlederived from standard Arabic and may be used in the colloquial as“the result of either pseudocorrection or a desire to elevate the linguisticstyle” (2002a:595). With the publication of more texts in Late Egyptian

141

6 See Blau 1995:35‚ and Hary 2009, the critical edition of the Haggadah,note to ms. 3 25,8.

7 See Hary 1992:294–95 and also chapter 4, pp. 94–95 and pp. 126–27,3.3.3, and also chapter 8, 4-1.3–4-1.5; 4-2.1–4-2.3; 4-2.7.

Judeo-Arabic in Hary 2009, there are now many texts in both Late

CHAPTER FIVE

and Modern Egyptian Judeo-Arabic that show the use of /lam/ in theEgyptian dialect. For Late Egyptian Judeo-Arabic:

(i) Fragments of Egyptian Judeo-Arabic folktales from seventeenth-century Cairo (Lebedev 1965, 1977)

(ii) Il-maßri wir-r•fi ‘Townsmen and Fellah,’ a seventeenth-centuryGeniza text (Goitein 1972)

(iii) Darkhei no>am ‘Ways of Pleasantness,’ in which verbatimtestimonies of seventeenth-century Egyptian Judeo-Arabic arequoted (Blanc 1981, 1985)

(iv) Megillat p¥r•m il-mißriyy•n ‘The Cairene Purim Scroll,’ a sixteenth-century Egyptian Judeo-Arabic historical and liturgical text (Hary1992)

(v) ⁄ur¥˙ of Genesis, Esther, and Passover Haggadah (Hary 2009)

Examining the data from Egyptian Judeo-Arabic written and oraltexts (see above i–v), in addition to Rosenbaum’s analysis (2002a)and the materials on standard Egyptian dialect published by Davies(1981) and >Awwåd (1968), as well as Modern Judeo-Arabic folktalesabout R. Abraham ibn Ezra (Avishur 1992), and Rosenbaum’s extensiveModern Judeo-Arabic recordings (2002b, 2002c), it is possible totrace the history of the negative particle /lam/ in Egyptian Arabic. Theplethora of examples provided in Late and Modern Egyptian Judeo-Arabic for the use of /lam/ preceding both perfect and imperfect verbs,as well as before verbless clauses, leaves no doubt as to the extensiveuse of the particle in the texts (the literary variety) as early as thesixteenth century. It also raises the possibility of the employment ofthe particle in colloquial Egyptian Arabic. Furthermore, Jewishreligiolects in general (chapter 1, 23–24) tend to maintain archaic forms.Thus, it is not surprising that the phenomenon has extended all theway to twentieth-century Egyptian Judeo-Arabic variety.

There are two questions that are still answered only partially. Thefirst question is whether /lam/ was indeed an integral part of the

142

spoken variety, as promoted by Rosenbaum (2002a, see discussion


above). The second question is what the origin of this phenomenonmight be; however, it is safe to assume that the desire to elevatespeech style, so common in the creation of pseudocorrections in Judeo-Arabic, has prompted the process of hypocorrection in the case of/lam/ preceding perfect verbs.8 Once this mechanism was in process,/lam/ preceding perfect verbs became standardized in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic9 and was extended to other syntactic positions: before imperfectverbs as well as before verbless clauses preceding nouns, pronouns,and prepositions. Rosenbaum’s contribution, then, lies in insistingthat the feature has to be part of the colloquial (although we can notbe sure of it), whereas my analysis attempts to present the process ofits extensive use, at least in the written variety. Chapter 8 of thisvolume provides many examples of the particle before verbless clauses(p. 214, 4-1.3–4-1.5), before perfect verbs (pp. 215–17, 4-2.1), andbefore imperfect verbs (pp. 217–19, 4-2.3; 4-2.7).

143

8 On this process see Hary 1987:280; 1992:294, 314; 2007:278–79. See alsochapter 4, 94–95, and chapter 8, pp. 215–17, 4-2.1.

9 See Hary 1992:67, 2007:278–79.

CHAPTER FIVE

Issue Two: The Theoretical Background of the Use of Hebrew andAramaic Components in Judeo-ArabicJewish religiolects in general share the common feature of includingand incorporating Hebrew and Aramaic components in them (chapter1, 21–22). These components need to be studied within the frameworkof languages or dialects in contact and they can be found along most ofthe Jewish linguistic spectrum. Hebrew and Aramaic elements shouldbe considered together because the Hebrew found throughout the Jewishlinguistic spectrum before the twentieth century is postbiblical andnaturally mixes with Aramaic (Blau 1981:133 n. 1). Furthermore,speakers and writers of the religiolects did not distinguish betweenHebrew and Aramaic elements. From the twentieth century onward,however, influenced by the Zionist movement and the State of Israel,Jewish religiolects include elements of modern Israeli Hebrew (Benor2008).

Judeo-Arabic, as explained in chapter 2 (p. 37) is the meeting pointof Classical Arabic, Arabic dialects, and Hebrew and Aramaic. Theinteraction of these varieties is diagrammed in figure 2 (p. 38). Indeed,Hebrew and Aramaic influence Judeo-Arabic—as well as other Jewishreligiolects—in all areas of the variety, but especially in the lexicon.

Blau has claimed that the extent to which Hebrew and Aramaicelements are used in Jewish religiolects in general, and in Judeo-Arabicin particular, is dependent upon the personal style of the author, theliterary genre, and the Hebrew and Aramaic knowledge of the readers(Blau 1981:44–45). The use of Hebrew and Aramaic components,however, positioned within the larger framework of varieties in contact,also appears to depend upon stimulus or resistance factors ofinterference (Hary 1999:68). Interference consists of deviations fromthe norms of either variety that occur as a result of influence fromanother variety (Lehiste 1988:1–27). In other words, interferencebetween Hebrew and Aramaic on the one hand and Judeo-Arabic onthe other hand can be viewed from two directions:

144

(i) Direction A: Hebrew and Aramaic are the recipient languages and

Hebrew/Aramaic

Arabic

Judeo-Arabic

Arabic


Arabic is the source or primary language. As Hebrew and Aramaicexperience interference from Arabic, they may accept and encouragethis interference or resist it. As a result of this interference, the Hebrewand Aramaic features, along with other elements, take on the Arabicstructure and grammar to shape Judeo-Arabic. For example, when aHebrew noun is used in Judeo-Arabic and experiences interferencefrom the Arabic structure, it takes an Arabic plural morpheme (howeverinfrequently) in Direction A. Thus, the Hebrew word Ï¯Ú ‘uncircumcisedman’ is transferred “as is” into Judeo-Arabic Ï¯Ú where it assumes theadditional meaning of a Christian man. Its plural, however, is ÔÈÈÏ¯‡Ú,which uses the Arabic plural morpheme /•n-/ in Direction A (seebelow, 2.6, pp. 152–53). Thus, the plural noun />ariliy•n/ is incorporatedinto the Arabic structure. Figure 13 illustrates this direction:

Figure 13. Direction A: Hebrew and Aramaic are the recipient languages

(ii) Direction B: Arabic is the recipient language and Hebrew andAramaic are the source languages. In this direction Arabic experiencesinterference from Hebrew and Aramaic. Arabic then may accept andencourage or resist this interference, which, along with other elements,helps shape Judeo-Arabic. For example, Hebrew plural nouns arefrequently transferred into Judeo-Arabic “as is” with their Hebrew

145

plural morpheme /-im/ (masculine) or /-ot/ (feminine). In such cases

Arabic Judeo-Arabic

Hebrew/Aramaic

Hebrew/Aramaic

CHAPTER FIVE

the Arabic experiences interference from Hebrew, and this interferenceleaves these nouns with their Hebrew plural morphemes untouchedalong the lines of Direction B. Thus, Hebrew nouns such as ÌÈ˘µÏÙ‘concubines’ (with the masculine plural form /-im/) and ˙ÂÂˆÓ‘commandments’ (with the feminine plural form /-ot/) appear in Judeo-Arabic with their Hebrew plural morphemes. Figure 14 illustratesDirection B:

Figure 14. Direction B: Arabic is the recipient language

Uriel Weinreich, in his pioneering study of languages in contact, hasargued that varieties in contact are subject to many factors that stimulateor resist interference (1979:64–65). In Jewish religiolects in generaland in Judeo-Arabic in particular, the level of interference is related tothe existence of a native speaker community, which speaks the sourceor primary language. In general, Direction A is common to Jewishreligiolects, primarily because Hebrew and Aramaic, which were usedfor liturgy, rabbinic literature, and rabbinic correspondence, functionedlargely as literary languages (ibid., 89). Without the backing of acommunity of native speakers, Hebrew and Aramaic are prone toheavy interference. When Hebrew and Aramaic elements are found inJewish religiolects, these elements are, for the most part, integrated

146

grammatically and lexically into the Jewish religiolect (in Direction A),


because the source, primary, or dominant languages are used bycommunities of native speakers, while Hebrew and Aramaic are not.Thus, although both words in the Yiddish phrase /ye¡íva bóxer/ ‘astudent of a religious academy’ come from Hebrew (/ye¡ivá/ > /ye¡íva/;/baxúr/ > /bóxer/), the word order is Germanic rather than Semitic,because the Hebrew components are fully integrated into the Germanicstructure of Yiddish. Similarly, the Judeo-Italian verbal form gannavi‘she steals’ has an Italian grammatical structure, although its rootcomes from the Hebrew g-n-v ‘steal.’

Likewise Hebrew and Aramaic elements in Judeo-Arabic texts tendto experience interference in Direction A. They are incorporated fullyinto the Arabic structure, primarily because the linguistic communityof Arabic-speaking Jews lacks the competence of Hebrew and Aramaicnative speakers. Thus, the phrase ˙ÂÏ‡˘Ï‡ ‰"‰ ‘these questions’1 0

(Blau 1981:137), which contains a Hebrew word, still follows Arabicgrammatical structure. Hebrew ˙ÂÏ‡˘ ‘questions’ is treated as aninanimate plural; therefore, the preceding demonstrative pronoun ‰"‰‘this’ is in the singular feminine form, following standard Arabic practice.Moreover, ˙ÂÏ‡˘ ‘questions’ takes the Arabic definite article /al-/ asopposed to the Hebrew /ha-/, thereby fully incorporating the Hebrewnoun into the Arabic grammatical structure.

In addition to the encouraged interference that occurs in DirectionA, as demonstrated in the previous examples, there are also examplesof resistance to interference. In these cases the Hebrew and Aramaiccomponents are not fully incorporated. For example, the Hebrew phrasein the following sentence is not fully integrated into the Arabic: ‰˜·ÈÂ‰‡ÏË·Ï ‰Î¯· ¬˘ È¥ (93 1,6) ‘there is a doubt whether the blessing (was

147

1 0The Hebrew words appear in a different font (Gilboa) and they are italicizedin the translation. Sometimes it is difficult to decide if the word is written inHebrew or is the Judeo-Arabic spelling of the word, copied from the Hebrew.

1 1The word ‰Î¯· ‘blessing’ is in Hebrew as indicated by the khaf; ‰‡ÏË·Ï hasan additional alef, reflecting the pronunciation of the long /å/ (see below, 1.1).

recited) in vain.’1 1 The Hebrew phrase ‰‡ÏË·Ï ‰Î¯· ‘the blessing (was

CHAPTER FIVE

recited) in vain’ is transferred into the Judeo-Arabic text “as is” withoutany modification, except, of course, for the lengthening of the vowel(see below, pp. 148–49, 1.1) and the supralinear dot above the kaf,despite the fact that certain adjustments would better incorporate itinto the Arabic structure. In this case the resistance to interferencestems from the literary and social prestige associated with the Hebrewphrase ‰‡ÏË·Ï ‰Î¯· as it is used commonly in Jewish liturgical life.1 2

In Judeo-Arabic in general and in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic in particular,the incorporation of Hebrew and Aramaic elements tends for the mostpart to follow Direction A.1 3 Indeed, the Hebrew and Aramaic elementsin the Egyptian ¡ur¥˙ often experience interference in Direction A andare incorporated fully into the Arabic structure, a result that followsfrom the fact that the ¡ar˙anim have Egyptian Arabic native capability.The texts of the Egyptian ¡ur¥˙, however, prove to be more complicated.They not only incorporate elements from Hebrew and Aramaic, but attimes they are also dependent on primary texts in these languages.Thus, there are also many instances in the texts of the ¡ur¥˙ whereDirection B operates and the Arabic in fact undergoes interferencefrom Hebrew and Aramaic. The following analysis includes examplesof both Direction A and Direction B interference in the Egyptian¡ur¥˙.

Cases of Interference in Direction A1. When Hebrew and Aramaic words are incorporated into Judeo-Arabic,they undergo phonetic or phonological interference from Arabic, thuschanging to “adapt” to the Arabic phonetic structure.

1.1 The vowel /a/ becomes lengthened [å]: Ú‡Ó˘1 4 /¡Emå>/ (74 2,1) ‘theprayer of the Shema’; Ô‡ÒÈ! /nisån/ (93 1,1) ‘(month of) Nisan’; ‰‡¡¯·

148

1 2For more examples of this resistance, see Hary 1999:71–72.1 3For details see ibid., 72–75.1 4This corrects the spelling I provided wrongly (ÚÓ˘) in Hary 1999:73.

/bEraxå/ (93 1,12) ‘blessing’; Â!‡ÂÂˆÂÂ /wi-ßiwwånu/ (93 1,14) ‘and He


commanded us’;1 5 ˙‡·˘ /¡abbåt/ (93 2,12) ‘Saturday, Shabbat’;‰‡¯˜ÈÓ /miqrå/ (74 20,18) ‘occasion’; Ì‡„ÚÂÓ /mo >adåm/ (74 20,9)‘their time.’ The lengthening occurs also in names: Ô‡Ú!Î /kEna>ån/ (1521b,1) ‘Canaan’; „‡ÚÏ‚ /gil>åd/ (15 22b,1) ‘Gil>ad.’1 6

1.2 The vowel /i/ or /e/ becomes lengthened [•]/[!]: ıÈÓÁ /˙am!ß/ (931,3; 1,6 and more) ‘unleavened food’; ·È¯ÈÚ />!r!b/1 7 (93 2,9) ‘evening’;ÔÈ¥‚ /gef!n/ or /gefen/ (74 20,10) ‘vine’; ˙ÈˆÂ¯Á /˙arøß!t/ (91 10a,7)‘Óaroset’ (chapter 4, p. 103, 1.1.7).

1.3 In Hebrew words with /ßadi/ (ˆ) that are borrowed into EgyptianJudeo-Arabic, there is evidence that speakers used the emphatic /ß/ toadapt to the Arabic phonetics: ‰ˆÓ /maßå/1 8 (3 1,11; 74 21,4) ‘matza’and ˙ÂˆÓ /maßøt/ (3 1,8; 74 21,3) ‘matzas’; ‰ˆÓ ÈˆÂÓ /møßi maßå/ (7421,4; 91 10a,2) ‘bring forth matza’; ıÈÓÁ /˙am!ß/ (93 1,3) ‘unleavenedfood’; Â!‡ÂÂˆÂÂ /wi-ßiwwånu/ (93 1,14) ‘and He commanded us’ (chapter4, p. 108, 1.11.5).

1.4 Emphatization occurs in Hebrew words borrowed into Judeo-Arabic, thus employing a regular Arabic phonological process in linewith Direction A (chapter 4, p. 108, 1.11.4).

1.4.1 /t/ > /†/: ËÚÓ ÈËÓ· /bi-mE†ei mE>a†/ (3 8,1) ‘few in number ,’ althoughit alternates with È˙Ó· (93 22,1).

1.4.2 /z/ > /"/: ¯#Ú ÈÏ‡1 9 /eli >e"er¢/ (93 15,9) ‘Eliezer’; ‰È¯#Ú / >a"ar¢ya/(93 15,9 and more) ‘Azarya’; ¯#Ú Ï‡ /el>a"ar¢/ (93 15-b,10) ‘Elazar,’

149

1 5See also Wagner 2007:83, 144.1 6For more examples, see chapter 4, p. 102, 1.1.5, and chapter 7, pp. 207–8,

3-2.5. Cf. Rosenbaum 2002b:36.1 7For different words such as />urubbå/, />erubbå/, and />arubbå/ in Egyptian

Judeo-Arabic, see Rosenbaum 2002c:134, 4.5.3.2.1 8Rosenbaum has provided evidence that in words borrowed from Hebrew,

Egyptian Jews kept the original Hebrew stress on the last syllable, unlikestandard Egyptian dialect (2002c:124, 135).

1 9Notice that the /eli/ in ¯#Ú ÈÏ‡ /eli >e"er¢/ and /el/ in ¯#Ú Ï‡ /el >a"ar¢/ areseparate, as if /eli/ functions as a separate word and /el/ as the definite article.

although these names alternate with nonemphatic /z/: ¯ÊÚÈÏ‡ /eli>ezer ¢/

CHAPTER FIVE

(3 3,10) ‘Eliezer’; ‰È¯ÊÚ / >azar ¢ya/ (3 3,11) ‘Azarya’; ¯ÊÚÏ‡ /el >azar ¢/ (33,11) ‘Elazar.’

1.4.3 /s/ > /ß/: ı¥¯Î /kar¢faß/ (74 21,2) ‘Karpas, greens for the Passoverseder,’ although it alternates with nonemphatic /s/, where theemphatization does not occur: Ò¥¯Î /karfas/ (74 21,2); ˙ˆÂ¯Á /˙arøßet/(74 21,11) and ˙ÈˆÂ¯Á /˙arøß!t/ (91 10a,7) ‘Óaroset,’ also alternatingwith ˙ÒÂ¯Á /˙arøset/ (3 22,11); ÔÈ·ÂˆÓ /mEßub•n/ (93 48,13) ‘seated.’2 0

1.5 The shift /q/ > /</ that occurs in urban Egyptian dialects happensalso in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic as part of Direction A, where theHebrew undergoes the same Arabic phonological process: ‰‡˘Ó /ma¡<e/(74 21,1) ‘a drink,’ derived from the Hebrew ‰˜˘Ó and /¡e<er/ ‘lie’(Rosenbaum 2002c:123), stemming from the Hebrew ¯˜˘. Rosenbaumhas reported the infrequent alternation of these two phonemes: /kadd•¡/and /<add•¡/ ‘the prayer of Kaddish,’ originating from Hebrew ˘È„˜

(ibid.) As is the case in modern Egyptian colloquial spelling, theorthography does not usually mark the glottal stop, which originatesfrom the uvular stop /q/, with an alef:2 1 ÒÂ„˜ /<add¥s/ (3 1,2)‘sanctification.’

1.6 The shift /v/ > /w/ occurs in words borrowed from the Hebrew, inline with Direction A and following the desire to adapt to the Arabicphonetic structure: Â!‡ÂÂˆÂÂ /wi-ßiwwånu/ (93 1,14) ‘and He commandedus.’ Rosenbaum reports the use of the voiced labiodental fricative /v/in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic, as in />avøn/ ‘sin’ (2002c:123), but there isno reference to this use in the texts of the Egyptian ¡ur¥˙ (chapter 4,p. 106, 1.8.2).

1.6.1 The letter · in Hebrew words borrowed into Judeo-Arabic ispronounced as a voiced bilabial stop /b/, even if in Hebrew it is anunvoiced labiodental fricative /v/. This is in order to follow the Arabicphonetic inventory: ·È¯ÈÚ />!r!b/ (93 2,9) ‘evening.’

150

2 0See chapter 4, p. 108, 1.11.4, and Hary 1999:73 for both 1.4.2 and 1.4.3.2 1See chapter 4, pp. 96–97 and p. 106, 1.7.1.


1.7 The shift /¡/ > /s/ occurs in the ¡ur¥˙ in some words borrowedfrom the Hebrew, but the shift is not common: ÒÂ„˜ /<add¥s/ (3 1,2)and ÷Â„˜ / <add¥s/ (93 10,16) ‘sanctification’; Ú·˘ØÚ·‡˘ ¯È· /b•r såbi>-sab>/ (15 6b,20; 7a,16) ‘Beer-Sheba.’ In ‰·È÷ (15 4b,20) ‘old age’ theshift /¡/ > /s/ could have happened, but it can also mark the use of aHebrew word, as is the case in ‡÷Ó (15 5a,10) ‘Masa.’2 2

2. Direction A occurs also through morphosyntactic processes.

2.1 The definite article attached to Hebrew words is the Arabicmorpheme /al-/ in a morphophonemic spelling (chapter 4, 1.15), thusincorporating the Hebrew words into the Judeo-Arabic structure: Ï‡ÌÈ˘µÏÙ (15 4b,17) ‘the concubines’; ‰„‚‰ Ï‡ (3 colophon) ‘theHaggadah’; ıÈÓÁ Ï‡ (93 1,3) ‘the unleavened’; ‰Î¯· Ï‡ (93 1,12) ‘theblessing’; ˙ÒÂ¯Á Ï‡ (3 22,8) ‘the Óaroset’; ÍÂÙ˘ Ï‡ (3 colophon) ‘the(prayer) Pour (Your Wrath)’; ˙·˘ Ï‡ (93 2,10) ‘the Shabbat’; Ï‡ÁÈ˘Ó (3 4,4) ‘the messiah.’

2.2 As mentioned frequently in this volume, the ¡ur¥˙ are verbatimtranslations of sacred texts. At times, when the Hebrew original doesnot have the definite article, the ¡ar˙an making the translation insertsthe Arabic definite article in Direction A to adapt the translation toregular Arabic style. Thus, although in Gen 49:12 there are no definitearticles preceding the nouns in the Hebrew text, ÌÈ!˘ Ô·ÏÂ ÔÈÈÓ ÌÈ!ÈÚ ÈÏÈÏÎÁ

·ÏÁÓ ‘(his) eyes are darker than wine and (his) teeth are whiter thanmilk,’ the ¡ar˙an adds them in order to be in line with Arabic structure:Ô·Ï Ï‡ ÔÓ Ô‡!Ò Ï‡ $ÈÈ·‡Â „È·! Ï‡ ÔÓ ÔÂÈÚ Ï‡ ¯ÓÁ‡ (15 36b,16–17) ‘(his)eyes are more red than wine and (his) teeth are whiter than milk’(chapter 8, pp. 267–68, 9-1.4–9-1.6).

2.3 The Arabic genitive marker /bEtå>/ is added to Hebrew words andphrases that are incorporated into the text in Direction A: ˙‡È¯˜ ˙˜ÂÁ·Âˆ Ï‡ Ú‡˙· ÚÓ˘ (93 15,3) or, with the addition of the definite article,

151

2 2See Hary 1992:260, 3.7, and chapter 4, p. 110, 1.13.4.

Á·Âˆ Ï‡ Ú‡˙· Ú‡Ó˘ ˙‡È¯˜ Ï‡ ˙˜Â (74 15,3) ‘the time of reciting the

CHAPTER FIVE

morning Shema’; ÔÈÓÂ˜È¥‡ Ú‡˙· ‡ˆÓ Ï‡ (3 22,13) ‘the matza of theafikoman’ (see chapter 4, pp. 116–17, 2.1.7).

2.4 Arabic prepositions may be added to Hebrew words, incorporatingthem into the Judeo-Arabic text in Direction A. In the title of the ¡ar˙of Esther, the preposition /bi/ is added after the Hebrew: ¯˙Ò‡ ˙Ï "‚Ó

È·¯Ú Á¯˘· (1302 1b,1) ‘the Scroll of Esther in Arabic ¡ar˙.’ In thefollowing example from the Haggadah, „Ú· Ô‡ÒÈ!· ¯˘Ú ˙Ú·¯‡ ˙ÈÏÈÏ˙È·¯Ú (93 1,1) ‘the night of the fourteenth of the month of Nisan afterthe evening prayer,’ the Arabic prepositions /bi/ ‘in’ and /ba >d/ ‘after’flank the Hebrew word Ô‡ÒÈ! ‘(the month of Nisan),’ although thelatter could be considered Judeo-Arabic; /ba>d/ comes before Hebrew˙È·¯Ú. Both the prepositions /bi/ ‘in’ and />ala/ ‘on’ are used in thefollowing example flanking Hebrew words to incorporate them intothe text: ‰Áˆ ‡ÏÚ ‰Î¯· Ï‡ ˛˙¸ÂˆÓ· ‰ÎÊ˙‡ (93 1,11–12) ‘he gains (themerit of performing) the commandment of (reciting) the blessing in theright way.’ It seems that in the following example the preposition /bi/is in Arabic: ˙·˘· ÁÒÙ ·È¯ÈÚ ÌÂÎÁÂÈ ‡"‡ (93 2,9) ‘if the evening beforePassover falls on Friday night …’ However, there is the possibilitythat the preposition /bi/ is indeed in Hebrew (/be-/) and that in thiscase the Hebrew underwent resistance and was transferred into theArabic “as is.” In the following sentence, though, the Arabic preposition/fi/ is used to incorporate the Hebrew words into the Judeo-Arabictext: ˘„˜ÓÏ ¯ ÎÊ ÂÏÂ˜ÈÂ ˙ÒÂ¯Á Ï‡ È¥ ÌÂ‰ÂÊÓµÈÂ (3 22,10–11) ‘and dip themin the Óaroset, and recite the blessing, in memory of the Temple.’

2.5 Arabic demonstrative pronouns are used with Hebrew words tointegrate them into the Arabic text: ‰‡¡¯· Ï‡ ‰„‰ (93 1,12) ‘thisblessing’; ‰„ ¯¯ÂÓ (74 10,14) ‘this bitter herb.’

2.6 Hebrew nouns in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic seldom receive Arabicplural morphemes in Direction A: ÔÈÈÏ¯‡Ú2 3 ‘uncircumcised (Christian)

152

2 3See Hary 1992:155 n. 119.

men.’ Rosenbaum (2002c:125) has reported /mamzer•n/ ‘bastards,’


but the form alternates with /mamzer•m/ (see below, Direction B, 4).

2.7 As is common in Jewish religiolects, Hebrew roots can receive themajority language patterns, creating mixed forms (chapter 1, pp. 21–22).Thus, the Hebrew root s-d-r of ‰!˘Ó È¯„Ò ‘the sections of the Mishna’receives interference from the Arabic plural form /fa>å>il/, resulting inJudeo-Arabic ¯„‡„Ò (74 22,16) ‘sections (of the Mishna).’2 4 Alongsimilar lines, the Hebrew root z-k-y ‘gain’ receives interference fromthe Arabic and may take either a first verbal pattern, resulting in ˙ÈÎÊ/zak!t/ (3 3,19) ‘I gained,’ or an /itfa>al/ form, resulting in ‰ÎÊ˙‡/itzaka/ (93 1,11) ‘(he) gained’ (chapter 4, p. 132, 4.3.3).

2.8 Hebrew terms and lexical items are incorporated syntactically intothe text in Direction A to be part of the Judeo-Arabic text: Ï‡ „‡ÏÂÂ‡ÏÂ˙‡È„‰ Ì‰¯·‡ ‰ËÚ Ì‰¯·‡Ï È"Ï‡ ÌÈ˘µÏÙ (15 4b,17) ‘and to Abraham’ssons by concubines, Abraham gave gifts’; ÍÂÙ˘ Ï‡Â È·¯Ú Ï‡· ‰„‚‰ Ï‡ (3colophon) ‘The Haggadah in Arabic and (the prayer) Pour (YourWrath)’; ‰¯ÈÓÁ ÏÎ ÏÂ˜È ‡Ó ÔÂ„· (93 2,11) ‘without reciting (the prayer inAramaic) all kinds of leavened food’; ˙·˘ Ï‡ È¥ ÔÂÎÈ Ô‡Î!‡ (93 8,15) ‘if(the Seder) falls on Shabbat’; ‰!‰ ÔÓ ˘Â„˜ Ï‡ Â„·È ÏÂÁ ÔÂÎÈ Ô‡Î!‡ (93 9,4)‘If (the seder) falls on a regular day, (the participants) start theSanctification from here.’ In the following example, however, the Arabicinterference of the Hebrew is resisted and the Hebrew term ÍÂ¯· ˘Â„˜‰

‡Â‰ ‘the holy One, blessed be He’ is inserted “as is,” including theHebrew definite article /ha-/: Á·„Â ‡Â‰ ÍÂ¯· ˘Â„˜‰ ‰È‚Â (93 87,14) ‘and theholy One, blessed be He, came and slew.’

Cases of Interference in Direction BUnlike other Judeo-Arabic texts, the ¡ur¥˙ contains many examplesof interference in Direction B where, rather than Hebrew and Aramaiccomponents being fully incorporated into the Arabic structure, the

153

2 4It is possible that in another context ¯„‡„Ò can also indicate the plural ofsiddur ‘prayer book.’ I thank Yona Sabar, personal communication.

Arabic structure instead experiences heavy interference from Hebrew

CHAPTER FIVE

and Aramaic elements. Direction B occurs in the ¡ur¥˙ when importantHebrew and Aramaic texts are translated into Judeo-Arabic. In otherwords, the role of the community of Arabic native speakers is lesssignificant in the texts of the ¡ur¥˙ that are dependent on these Hebrewand Aramaic texts. In these cases, the language “spirit” of the ¡ur¥˙ isthat of a Hebrew or Aramaic sacred Jewish text. Although the ¡ar˙animwere not native Hebrew or Aramaic speakers, they nevertheless basedcertain elements of the Judeo-Arabic translations quite closely onHebrew and Aramaic, the original languages of these sacred texts. Inthese cases, the Arabic is prone to heavy interference in Direction B.

3. When Hebrew and Aramaic components are found in Judeo-Arabic,in most cases they undergo phonetic and phonological change inDirection A to adapt to the Arabic phonemic inventory. However, theoccurrence of the phoneme /p/ in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic (chapter 4,p. 107, 1.9) is an example of Direction B. In this case, the Arabicundergoes interference from the Hebrew, does not resist the phoneme,which is not found in its phonemic inventory, and accepts it “as is.”This phoneme appears in words borrowed from the Hebrew: Ï‡ÌÈ˘µÏÙ (15 4b,17) ‘the concubines’; Ô„Ù (15 5b,1 and more) ‘Padan’;ÌÈ˙˘ÏÙ (15 6a,5 and more) ‘Philistines’; Ï‡È!Ù (15 16b,3) ‘Peniel’; Ï‡ÈÊ¯Ù (15 18b,9) ‘the Perizzites’; ÈËÂÙ (15 26b,12) ‘Poti’; ÁÒÙ (3 4,14and many other places) ‘Passover’; ‰ÙÂÁ (93 90,12 and many otherplaces) ‘marriage’; ˜ÂÒÙ (3 3,21 and many other places) ‘verse’; ‰Ú¯Ù(3 7,8 and many other places) ‘Pharaoh.’

However, the name ¯ÙÈËÂÙ ‘Potiphar’ is transferred into Judeo-Arabicin Direction A, and thus /p/ is adapted to the Arabic phonetic structure,becoming the labiodental fricative /f/: ¯¥ÈËÂ¥ /fo†ifar/ (15 23-1a,6)‘Potiphar.’

4. A Hebrew noun used in Judeo-Arabic does not usually receive anArabic plural morpheme in Direction A (see above, p. 145), but istransferred into the Judeo-Arabic “as is” in Direction B with its Hebrew

154

plural morpheme /-im/ (masculine) or /-ot/ (feminine): ÌÈ˘µÏÙ (15 4b,17)


‘concubines’; ÌÈ˙˘ÏÙ (15 6a,5 and more) ‘Philistines’; ÌÈÈ¯ˆÓ Ï‡ (914b,17) ‘The Egyptians,’ although it may alternate with ‰ÂÂ¯ˆÓ Ï‡/il-mEßarwa/ (3 8,17); ÁÒÙ ÌÈ!È„ (3 4,14) ‘the laws of Passover’; ˙ÂÂˆÓ(93 1,11) ‘commandments’; ˙Â¯ÂÓ˘ ˙ÂˆÓ (3 1,8) ‘guarded matzas.’2 5

5. The Judeo-Arabic accusative marker ‰Ï‡ /ilå/ undergoes interferencefrom Hebrew in Direction B. Consequently, in Later Egyptian Judeo-Arabic ¡ur¥˙, the translation of the Hebrew definite direct objectmarker ˙‡ as ‰Ï‡ /ilå/ is almost obligatory. See chapter 8, pp. 257–64,8.1 for further details.

6. Many additional morphological and syntactical processes wherethe interference is in Direction B are reported in Hary 1999:82–88.Furthermore, part 2 of this volume presents countless examples ofliteral or verbatim translations from the Hebrew and Aramaic textsinto Judeo-Arabic. In these verbatim translations Direction B is evidentin innumerable instances.

155

2 5For more examples, see Hary 1999:74 and Rosenbaum 2002c:125, 3.2(/mamzer•m/ ‘bastards, illegitimate children’).

CHAPTER FIVE

Issue Three: The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon in the ¡ur¥˙There are many Hebrew and Aramaic words that found their way intoEgyptian Judeo-Arabic not only in the religious and liturgical spheres,but also in other areas (Rosenbaum 2002c:129–43). In the texts of the¡ur¥˙ there are not many Hebrew and Aramaic words, as the ¡ar˙animmade it their point to attempt to translate every Hebrew and Aramaicword into Judeo-Arabic. This is common not only in Judeo-Arabic¡ur¥˙, but also in many other translations of sacred texts into variousJewish religiolects. Nonetheless, there are some instances where theHebrew and Aramaic words are copied and inserted into the Judeo-Arabic ¡ur¥˙, especially proper and place names. The followingparagraphs present a selection of these words.

6. There are many Hebrew and Aramaic proper names in the ¡ur¥˙.Some are adapted to varying extents to the Arabic structure throughDirection A, while others are copied “as is” into the Judeo-Arabictexts in Direction B. Figure 9 in chapter 3 (p. 85) illustrates thecontinuum of translation from least literal to most literal, where “leastliteral” includes names that have been adapted to the Arabic structurein Direction A, and “most literal” includes names that have beencopied “as is” into the Judeo-Arabic ¡ur¥˙ in Direction B.2 6

6.1 Proper names transferred in Direction A have been adapted to theArabic phonetic structure. This adaptation ranges from the spelling ofthe labiodental fricative /f/ with ¥ (including the supralinear dot), tothe spelling of the emphatic /ß/ with ˆ, to the marking of the longvowel /å/ with an alef, and more:

ÔÂ¯¥Ú (15 5a,2 and many other places) ‘Ephron’; ¯ÁÂˆ (15 5a,3) ‘Ío˙ar’;¯‚‡‰ (15 5a,7) ‘Hagar’; ¯‡„˜ (15 5a,10) ‘Qedar’; ÔÂÚ¯¥ (15 31b,7 andmany other places) ‘Pharaoh,’ alternating with ‰Ú¯Ù (see below,6.2); ¥ÒÂÈ (15 31b,4 and many other places) ‘Joseph’; ÔÈ·Â‡¯ (15

156

2 6For more examples and further discussion, see chapter 3, pp. 83–85.

33a,2 and more) ‘Reuben’; Â‡ÒÚ (15 5b,10 and more) ‘Esau,’ alternating


with ÂÈ˘Ú (see below, 6.2); ‡!Â·¯Á (1302 1b,14) ‘Óarbona’; Ô¡ÂÓÓ(1302 1b,22 and more) ‘Memukhan’; È¡„¯Ó (1302 2a,17 and more)‘Mordecai’; ¯#Ú ÈÏ‡ /eli >e"er¢/ (93 15,9) ‘Eliezer,’ alternating with¯ÊÚÈÏ‡ /eli>ezer¢/ (see below, 6.2); ‰È¯#Ú />a"ar¢ya/ (93 15,9 and more)‘Azarya,’ alternating with ‰È¯ÊÚ / >azarya/ (see below, 6.2); ¯#Ú Ï‡/el>a"ar¢/ (93 15-b,10) ‘Elazar,’ alternating with ¯ÊÚÏ‡ /el>azar ¢/ (seebelow, 6.2).

6.2 Proper names transferred in Direction B are copied “as is” into theJudeo-Arabic texts:

˜ÁˆÈ (15 5a,1 and many other places) ‘Isaac’; Ï‡ÚÓ˘È (15 5a,2 andmany other places) ‘Ishmael’; ‰¯˘ (15 5a,4 and many other places)‘Sarah’; ˙Á (15 5a,4) ‘Óet’ (Hittite); ˙ÂÈ·! (15 5a,9) ‘Nebayot’;Ï‡·„‡ (15 5a,10) ‘Adbeel’; ÚÓ˘Ó (15 5a,10) ‘Mishma’; ‰ÓÂ„ (155a,10) ‘Duma’; „„Á (15 5a,11) ‘Óadad’; ÌÈ˙˘ÏÙ (15 6a,5 and more)‘Philistines’; ÔÈÓÈ!· (15 32a,19 and more; 1302 2a,18) ‘Benjamin’;Ì‰¯·‡ (15 2a,1 and more; 3 6,2) ‘Abraham’; ¯ÂÁ! (15 2a,8 and more;3 6,2) ‘Na˙or’; ÔÓÂ‰Ó (1302 1b,14) ‘Mehuman’; ‡˙Ê· (1302 1b,14)‘Bizzta’; ‡˙‚· (1302 1b,14) ‘Bigta’; ¯˙Ê (1302 1b,15) ‘Zetar’; ¯È‡È(1302 2a,17) ‘Yair’; ÈÚÓ˘ (1302 2a,17) ‘Shimi’; ˘È˜ (1302 2a,17)‘Qish’; ¯˙Ò‡ (1302 2b,2 and more) ‘Esther’; ÔÓ‰ (1302 3a,4 andmore) ‘Haman’; ‰Ú¯Ù (3 7,8 and more) ‘Pharaoh,’ alternating withÔÂÚ¯¥ (see above, 6.1); ¯ÊÚÈÏ‡ /eli>ezer/ (3 3,10) ‘Eliezer,’ alternatingwith ¯#Ú ÈÏ‡ /eli>e"er¢¢/ (see above, 6.1); ‰È¯ÊÚ / >azarya/ (3 3,11) ‘Azarya,’alternating with ‰È¯#Ú />a"ar¢ya/ (see above, 6.1); ¯ÊÚÏ‡ /el>azar/ (33,11) ‘Elazar,’ alternating with ¯#Ú Ï‡ /el >a"ar¢¢/ (see above, 6.1);Ú˘Â‰È (3 5,20 and more) ‘Joshua’; Á¯˙ (3 6,2) ‘Tera˙’; ÂÈ˘Ú (3 6,8and more) and Â÷Ú (93 19,9 and more) ‘Esau,’ alternating with Â‡ÒÚ(see above, 6.1).

6.3 Place names transferred in Direction A have been adapted toArabic phonetics, either by lengthening the vowel /a/ to /å/ and markingit with an alef, or by marking the labiodental fricative /f/ with ¥, using

157

the supralinear dot, as well as by other means:

CHAPTER FIVE

¯‡¯‚ (15 6b,10 and other places) ‘Gerar’; ‰Ú·˘ (15 7a,15) ‘Shib>a’;Ú·˘ ¯È· (15 7a,16) ‘Bir Sheba >’; ‡¯ÓÓ (15 5a,3) ‘Mamre’; Ô‡Ú!Î (1534a,1 and more) ‘Canaan,’ alternating with ÔÚ!Î (see below, 6.4);˙¯¥‡ (15 35b,14 and more) ‘Ephrat’; ˜¯· ¯„‡!· (3 3,12–13) ‘BneiBraq.’

6.4 Place names transferred in Direction B are copied “as is” into theJudeo-Arabic texts:

‡¯ÓÓ (15 5a,3) ‘Mamre’; ¯Â˘ (15 5a,15) ‘Shur’; Ì¯‡ Ô„Ù (15 5b,1)‘Padan-Aram’; ˜÷Ú (15 6b,15) ‘Eseq’; ‰!Ë÷ (15 6b,17) ‘Si†na’;Ï‡¯˘È (15 16a,20 and more; 3 2,5 and more) ‘Israel’; Ô˘Â˘ (1302 1b,4and more) ‘Shushan’; ÌÈÏ˘Â¯È (1302 2a,18) ‘Jerusalem’; ‰„Â‰È (13022b,1) ‘Judah’; Ï·· (1302 2b,1) ‘Babylon’; Ô˘Â‚ (3 7,19 and more)‘Goshen,’ although it is also translated ‰ÊÈ‚ (15 31b,20 and more)‘Giza’; ÔÚ!Î (3 7,18 and more) ‘Canaan,’ alternating with Ô‡Ú!Î (seeabove 6.3); ¯ÈÚ˘ (3 6,9) and ¯ÈÚ÷ (93 19,10) ‘Se>ir’; È!ÈÒ (3 16,20 andmore) ‘Sinai.’

7. Liturgical and religious terms:¯¥Ò (15 title) ‘book’ (religious);2 7 ÔÒÈ! (1302 3a,12) and Ô‡ÒÈ! (931,1) ‘(month of) Nisan’; ¯„‡ (1302 3a,14; 3b,6 and more) ‘(monthof) Adar’; ÔÂÈÒ (1302 6a,7) ‘(month of) Sivan’; ¯¯ÂÓ (3 2,15) ‘bitterherbs’; Ú‡Ó˘ (74 2,1) alternating with ÚÓ˘ (3 3,15) ‘the prayer ofthe Shema’; ÁÈ˘Ó (3 4,4) ‘messiah’; ÁÒÙ ÌÈ!È„ (3 4,14) ‘the Laws ofPassover’; ÁÒÙ Ô·¯Â˜ (3 4,15) ‘the sacrifice of Passover’; ÔÈÓÂ˜È¥‡ (322,13 and more) ‘afikoman’; ˙Â¯ÂÓ˘ ˙ÂˆÓ (3 1,8) ‘guarded matzas’;˜ÂÒÙ (3 3,21 and many other places) ‘verse’; ı¥¯Î (74 21,2) /karfaß/‘Karpas’ (greens for the Passover Seder), alternating with Ò¥¯Î /karfas/(74 21,2); ˙ˆÂ¯Á /˙arøßet/ (74 21,11) ‘Óaroset,’ alternating with˙ÈˆÂ¯Á /˙arøß!t/ (91 10a,7); ‰ÏÈÓ (93 91,5) ‘circumcision’; ‰ÙÂÁ (9390,12) ‘marriage’; Ï‡¯÷È Ë·˘ (93 93,11) ‘Israelite tribe’ or ‘tribe of

158

2 7See also Rosenbaum 2002c:134.

Israel’; ‡Â‰ ÍÂ¯· ˘Â„˜‰ (93 87,14) ‘the holy One, blessed be He’; Ï‡


˙·˘ (93 8,15) and ˙‡·˘ /¡abbåt/ (93 2,12) ‘(the) Shabbat, (the)Saturday’; ÏÂÁ (93 9,4) ‘a regular day’; ÒÂ„˜ / <add¥s/ (3 1,2)‘sanctification,’ alternating with ÷Â„˜ /<add¥s/ (93 10,16); ‰‡¡¯·/bEraxå/ (93 1,12 and more) ‘blessing,’ alternating with ‰ Î¯· (93 1,12and more); ‰!˘Ó Ï‡ ÌÈ¯„Ò (93 3,4) ‘Mishna sections,’ alternatingwith ‰!˘Ó ‰È¯„Ò (93 11,12) and ‰!˘Ó Ï‡ È¥ ¯„‡„Ò (74 22,16 andmore); ‰¯Â˙ (74 22,13 and more) and ‰¯ÂË (93 92,7 and more) ‘Torah.’

8. Other terms:ÌÈ˘µÏÙ Ï‡ (15 4b,17) ‘the concubines.’

SummaryThis chapter highlights additional linguistic issues relevant to theanalysis of Egyptian ¡ur¥˙: the use of pseudocorrections in the textsand their standardization, the Hebrew and Aramaic components in the¡ur¥˙ and the ways they were incorporated into the texts, and a brieflook at the Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon used in the Judeo-Arabictexts.

159

PART II

A LINGUISTIC MODEL OF THE JUDEO-ARABIC

TRANSLATIONS OF SACRED TEXTS

CHAPTER SIX

APPLYING THE MODEL

This chapter, as an introduction to part 2, applies the linguistic modelof the ¡ur¥˙, introduced in chapter 3 of part 1. In other words, itprovides complex examples of how the ¡ar˙anim translated their sacredtexts using Mechanisms A and B (pp. 85–90). The chapter discussesmethodological considerations concerning the organization of the exam-ples and demonstrates the dynamic literal/interpretive linguistic tensionthat characterizes the translations. Furthermore, it discusses how calquetranslations, which represent the ultimate in verbatim translation, wereincorporated into the ¡ur¥˙.

Introductory NotesIn the following paragraphs the ¡ar˙anim’s work is analyzed in greatdetail, showing the literal/interpretive linguistic tension, which is theoutcome of translation Mechanisms A and B. I bring forth examplesfrom the various texts of the ¡ur¥˙ analyzed in this study: the booksof Genesis and Esther as well as the Passover Haggadah. Theseexamples are organized according to table 4, displayed on pp. 81–82.1

This organization cannot be done in neat linguistic categories, since inseveral cases examples may appear under different features.

Good illustrations of this kind of classification are examples (i) and

1 The following examples are taken only from the actual texts of the ¡ur¥˙.For the most part, they do not include the non-¡ur¥˙ parts of the texts whichaccompany the Haggadah. In other words, in general they do not contain anygrammatical phenomena from the Haggadah which are instructional or descriptive.

(ii) below. Note that each example begins with the Judeo-Arabic text,

CHAPTER SIX

followed, when deemed necessary, by a broad transcription, thenaccompanied by a citation of the manuscript (in bold) along withnumbers of the folio(s) and the line(s), and then the translation intoEnglish. The reader can find in Hary 2009 the actual critical editionsof the ¡ur¥˙ along with the folio and line numbering as well as theirtranslation into English.(i) ‰ÏÈÏ Ï‡ ¬Ï‡! (74 1,17) ‘that night.’ This example involves

demonstrative pronouns and gender agreement. In one analysis,this example may fall under Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: Pronouns;

Feature 6-4: Demonstrative pronouns, as it exhibits a certain demonstrativepronoun word order (chapter 8, 6-4.11). However, this example,following a different analysis, may also be classified under Level:

Morphosyntactic; Category: Agreement; Feature 10-3: Gender, since itdemonstrates an irregular gender agreement (ibid., 10-3.15), resultingfrom a literal translation of the Hebrew ‰ÏÈÏ‰ Â˙Â‡.

(ii) ¯˙ÎÈÏ Ô‡Ò"‡ Ï‡ ‰„˙·‡ Ô‡ Ô‡ÎÂ (15 0-1,18) ‘when men began toincrease.’ This example includes features of infinitives, prepositions,and finite verbs. The translation of the Hebrew infinitive construct·]Ï in ·]Ï Ì„‡‰ ÏÁ‰ ÈÎ È‰ÈÂ ‘and it came to pass when man began toincrease’ (Gen 6:1) is Judeo-Arabic ¯˙ÎÈÏ ‘to increase’ with thepreposition /li-/ followed by the finite verb /yiktir/. In one analysisthis example can be found in Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: Verb

Conjugation; Feature 7-1: Infinitives. This is an example of a verbatimtranslation of the Hebrew preposition !Ï, associated with theinfinitive construct, into Judeo-Arabic /li-/, followed by a finiteverb, even if in regular Arabic style we would have expected theparticle /an/. This kind of example may also fall under Level:

Morphosyntactic; Category: Prepositions/Particles; Feature 5-1: Prepositions,as it involves the preposition /li-/, or even under Level: Morphosyntactic;

Category: Verb Conjugation; Feature 7-2: Finite verbs, as it also involvesthe employment of a Judeo-Arabic finite verb rather than theHebrew infinitive construct.

164

APPLYING THE MODEL

Methodological NotesAs described in chapter 3 (pp. 75 and 89–90), various ¡ar˙anim musthave composed the ¡ur¥˙, since many manuscripts of the same ¡ar˙exist. When two separate examples of the same text from two differentmanuscripts are compared and assigned the same analysis, it is actuallyassumed that both examples were composed by the same ¡ar˙an.Consider, for example, the phrase ÈÂÂ˜ ÈÂÂ˜ Ï‡· (93 22,10–11) ‘veryvery,’ which translates rather literally the Hebrew „‡Ó „‡Ó·. However,in other manuscripts of the Egyptian Haggadah, the Hebrew phraseis translated more interpretively and in accordance with regularcolloquial use: ÈÂÂ˜ ÈÂÂ˜ (3 8,9) and ÈÂÂ‡˜ ÈÂÂ‡˜ (91 4b,13). In otherwords, when these two examples are compared and analyzed in chapter8, p. 230, 5-1.37, it is assumed that mss. 3, 91, and 93 are copies ofan earlier prototype ¡ar˙. It is quite possible, though, that thesemanuscripts have been composed by two or more different ¡ar˙anim.However, the ¡ur¥˙ can be viewed within one translation tradition. Itis probable that the tradition of the ¡ar˙ was unified either by a“chief ¡ar˙an,” who directed the work of the translation, or by“translation schools” that included rabbis and disciples who engagedin the work of the ¡ar˙. Consequently, the same analysis can beassigned to examples from different manuscripts.

The detailed analysis presented in this chapter highlights theunderstanding that the ¡ar˙ created its own Judeo-Arabic grammarand structure. For example, the use of /ila/ to mark the definite directobject is obligatory in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic ¡ur¥˙: ‰Ï‡ ¥ÒÂÈ ·‡‚ÂÔÂÚ¯¥ ‰Ï‡ ·Â˜ÚÈ ¬¯‡·Â ÔÂÚ¯¥ Ì‡„Â˜Ï Â¥˜ÂÂ ‰Â·‡ ·Â˜ÚÈ (15 34a,12–13;underlining is mine) ‘And Joseph brought Jacob, his father, andpresented him to Pharaoh. Jacob then blessed Pharaoh.’ As is customaryin the texts of the ¡ur¥˙, /ila/ marks the definite direct objects ·Â˜ÚÈ‘Jacob’ and ÔÂÚ¯¥ ‘Pharaoh,’ precisely emulating the Hebrew ˙‡ inGenesis.

165

CHAPTER SIX

The kind of overlapping in the features discussed above, coupledwith the need to search for Mechanism B in the ¡ur¥˙, as mentionedin chapter 3, highlights the need to scan the texts “from head to toe.”This method of scanning yields a better understanding of the ¡ar˙an’swork. Therefore, the following section provides examples that illustratethis complex analysis, using the method of scanning “from head totoe” and presenting several examples that can be analyzed on differentlevels (phrase, word, morphosyntax, and segment) and thereby producedifferent analytical results. Some examples illustrate the literal natureof the translation and some the interpretive nature. Furthermore,numerous examples demonstrate simultaneous literal/interpretive trans-lation of the different features listed in table 4 (pp. 81–82)..

Dynamic Literal/Interpretive Linguistic Tension: Complex CasesThe following examples from the ¡ur¥˙ of Genesis and the PassoverHaggadah can be scanned “from head to toe” all the way from thephrase through the word and the morphosyntactic levels, down to thesegment level. All of the examples demonstrate the literal/intepretivelinguistic tension interwoven in the work of the ¡ar˙anim.

(1) ÌÏÎ˙ÈÏ Ì˙È Ï·˜ ‡Â‰ Ô‡ÎÂ (15 2b,15) ‘He had scarcely finishedspeaking’ is a strange word sequence, which looks on the surface likean exact translation of the Hebrew ¯·„Ï ‰ÏÎ Ì¯Ë ‡Â‰ È‰ÈÂ (Gen 24:15) inLevel: Phrase; Feature 1-1: Word-for-word translation. Indeed, when thissentence is further scanned, similar verbatim translations occur, butnot always. On Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: Prepositions/Particles;

Feature 5-1: Prepositions, the preposition Ï·˜ ‘before’ followed by theverb Ì˙È ‘finished’ is a clear literal translation of ‰ÏÎ Ì¯Ë, whereas inregular Arabic structure we would have expected the particle /an/ inbetween (/qabla an yatimm/). In fact, in Saadia’s translation the particle/an/ appears in this sentence, ‚¯ÙÈ Ô‡ Ï·˜ Â‰Ù . Further, on the morpho-syntactic level, either on Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: Prepositions/

166

Particles; Feature 5-2: Coordinative particles and conjunctions, or on Level:

APPLYING THE MODEL

Morphosyntactic; Category: Verb Conjugation; Feature 7-2: Finite verbs, ÌÏÎ˙ÈÏ/li-yitkallim/ ‘to speak’ translates verbatim Hebrew ¯·„Ï with theequivalent Judeo-Arabic particle /li-/. Regular Arabic style, though,requires the particle /an/. Moreover, the independent pronoun ‡Â‰‘he’ is also translated literally, as evidenced by the spelling, whichmay be an imitation of the Hebrew ‡Â‰; however, the pronunciation/huwwa/ complicates the analysis by pointing toward the interpretivedirection (Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: Pronouns; Feature 6-1: Independent

personal pronouns). Another indication of the interpretive direction canbe seen on Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: TMA; Feature 11-1: Tense/Aspect.Here, the verb Ô‡ÎÂ is in the perfect, although in the Hebrew È‰ÈÂ is inthe imperfect followed by the vav consecutive. Conversely, the secondverb Ì˙È is in the imperfect, following regular Arabic structure, unlikethe Hebrew perfect ‰ÏÎ, also in an interpretive mode. On the segmentallevel, Level: Segment; Category: Orthography/Phonology; Feature 13-6: Hebrew-

influenced orthography, the literal mode is further observed in the spellingof the independent pronoun ‡Â‰ with a final alef as an imitation of theHebrew spelling and as part of the Hebraized orthography. Therefore,the above example, when scanned from “head to toe” on differentlevels, can produce both literal and interpretive translations.

(2) ˙‡ÓÂ ‰"Ò ÔÈ˙ÒÂ ÔÈ"˙‡Â ‰È‡Ó ÚÒ˙ „¯È Ì‡È‡ ÏÂÎ Â"‡ÎÂ (15 0-1,4-5) ‘Andall the days of Jared came to 962 years, and then he died’ translatesthe Hebrew ˙ÂÓÈÂ ‰"˘ ˙Â‡Ó Ú˘˙Â ‰"˘ ÌÈ˘˘Â ÌÈ˙˘ „¯È ÈÓÈ ÏÎ ÂÈ‰ÈÂ (Gen 5:20).When this sentence is scanned in various ways, the outcome maydiffer depending on the level. On the phrase level in Level: Phrase;

Feature 1-1: Word-for-word translation, the Judeo-Arabic sentence lookslike a verbatim translation, but upon a closer look, interpretivetranslation is also revealed. Remaining on the phrase level, in Level:

Phrase; Category: Word order; Feature 2-3: Numerals, the word order of thenumerals clearly follows regular Judeo-Arabic structure, not imitatingthe Hebrew original, in a typical interpretive translation. On the word

167

level, the literal translation is observed. Both ÏÂÎ /kull/ ‘all’ and „¯È

CHAPTER SIX

/yered/ ‘Jared’ are similar to their Hebrew equivalents in Level: Word;

Category: Lexicon; Feature 3-2: Word choice (considerations of sound/appearance).Finally, on the morphosyntactic level we see another example ofinterpretive translation. Both Â"‡ÎÂ /wa-kånu/ ‘(they) were’ and ˙‡ÓÂ/wa-måt/ ‘and (he) died’ are in the perfect, whereas Hebrew ÂÈ‰ÈÂ and˙ÂÓÈÂ are in the imperfect, succeeding vav consecutive. The ¡ar˙anthen interprets these grammatical forms in the ¡ar˙ under Level: Morpho-syntactic; Category: TMA; Phenomenon 11-1: Tense/Aspect. Conversely, Â"‡ÎÂ/wa-kånu/ ‘and (they) were’ shows a clear verbatim translation inLevel: Morphosyntactic; Category: Agreement; Feature 10-2: Number: plural, asthe verb is in the plural preceding a singular subject (ÏÂÎ /kull/ ‘all’) oran inanimate plural subject (Ì‡È‡ /ayyåm/ ‘days’). This phenomenonis unusual in Arabic but it imitates the Hebrew plural ÂÈ‰ÈÂ in a literaltranslation. A comparable literal translation is evident in ms. 15 0-1,7,where the singular verb Ô‡ÎÂ appears in a similar sentence Ì‡È‡ ÏÂÎ Ô‡ÎÂ‘And all the days were … ,’ but this time the Hebrew is also in thesingular (È‰ÈÂ, Gen 5:23).

(3) ¯‚‡˙Ï ˙ÂÂ¥Ó (15 2a,4), which translates ¯Á›ÒÏ ¯·›Ú ‘according to thegoing merchants’ weights’ (Gen 23:16), means literally ‘passed to amerchant.’ It is a clear verbatim translation, even when the sentence isscanned in different ways. First, on the phrase level in Level: Phrase;

Feature 1-1: Word-for-word translation, it is a verbatim translation of theHebrew. Second, on the word level in Level: Word; Category: Lexicon;

Feature 3-1: Word Choice (semantic considerations), the ¡ar˙an chose carefullythe Judeo-Arabic words, which translate exactly the biblical Hebrewwords. In other words, ˙ÂÂ¥Ó and ¯‚‡˙ are literal translations of ¯·›Ú

and ¯Á›Ò respectively. Third, on the morphosyntactic level in Level:

Morphosyntactic; Category: TMA; Feature 11-1: Tense/Aspect, the participle inJudeo-Arabic ˙ÂÂ¥Ó is the exact equivalent of the participle in Hebrew¯·›Ú. Similarly, under Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: Prepositions/Particles;

Feature 5-1: Prepositions, the Judeo-Arabic preposition /li-/ in Judeo-Arabic

168

¯‚‡˙Ï is an exact copy of the Hebrew preposition !Ï ‘to’ in ¯Á›qÃÏ.

APPLYING THE MODEL

Finally, the translation ¯‚‡˙Ï /li-tågir/ ‘to a merchant’ poses a problem.Why did the ¡ar˙an subtract the definite article in the Judeo-Arabictranslation, when he actually needed it both in the verbatim translation,as the Hebrew includes it in ¯Á›qÃÏ, and in the interpretive translation,as the definite article is called for by regular Judeo-Arabic structureunder Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: Definiteness; Feature 9-4: Deleting the

definite article where not needed? It is possible, that the reading of ¯‚‡˙Ï isactually /li-t-tågir/ ‘to the merchant’ in a phonetic spelling, where boththe alif and the låm of the Arabic definite article are not pronounced.The alif is waßla and the låm of the definite article assimilates fully tothe tå<. This sort of spelling is not surprising in Late Egyptian Judeo-Arabic spelling, as part of the Hebraized orthography which alsoincludes phonetic spelling (Hary 1996c).

(4) È!Ï‡ ‰È·ˆ Ï‡ ˙"‡ÎÂ (15 2b,12) ‘and the young woman who...’translates ¯˘‡ ‰¯Ú"‰ ‰È‰Â (Gen 24:14). When the sentence is scanned indifferent categories, both literal and interpretive tendencies are revealed.On the surface, when the relative pronoun in this sentence is examinedon Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: Pronouns; Feature 6-3: Relative pronouns ,its role as a literal translation is apparent. As seen in chapter 8 (pp.240–41, 6-3.1 through 6-3.3), the relative pronoun È!Ï‡ /allaƒ•/ is a“frozen” masculine form of Later Egyptian Literary Judeo-Arabic thatis used to modify any noun it follows, regardless of its gender ornumber. Consequently, /allaƒ•/ is the verbatim equivalent of the Hebrewrelativizer ¯˘‡. Furthermore, /allaƒ•/ does not follow the regular Arabicgender paradigm on Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: Agreement; Feature

10-3: Gender, and thus is once more adhering to the verbatim translation.However, the verb ˙"‡ÎÂ ‘and (she) was’ is in the feminine, although ittranslates the masculine Hebrew ‰È‰Â. The same appears in the translationof ‰ÓÏÚ‰ ‰È‰Â (Gen 24:43) ‘let the young woman’ into ‰È·ˆ Ï‡ ˙"‡ÎÂ(15 3b,14) ‘and the young woman was.’ Both translations are indeedinterpretive under Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: Agreement; Feature 10-3:

169

Gender and Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: TMA; Feature 11-1: Tense/Aspect .

CHAPTER SIX

In fact, the ¡ar˙an did not understand the modal meaning of theHebrew ‰È‰Â, and opted to use the feminine verb ˙"‡ÎÂ in order to agreewith the feminine noun in Judeo-Arabic, not following the Hebrewmasculine verb ‰È‰.

(5) ‰¯ÓÓ ‚¯Ó (15 19b,14) translates the Hebrew place name ‡¯ÓÓ (Gen35:27) and can be used as a good example of the complexities of theliteral/interpretive tension. On the word level (Level: Word; Category:

Lexicon; Feature 3-2: Word choice (considerations of sound/appearance)), thechoice of ‚¯Ó ‘meadow’ is a calque translation, since the ¡ar˙an triedto express the meaning of the name. He did so at other points in themanuscript as well (15 2a,6; 2a,9). The addition of the word ‰¯ÓÓ tothe translation of the name intensifies the verbatim translation, becauseit is almost a copy of the Hebrew original (‡¯ÓÓ). On the segmentallevel (Level: Segment; Category: Orthography/Phonology; Feature 13-6: Hebrew-

influenced orthography), however, the word ‰¯ÓÓ is spelled with a finalhe, which may indicate a literal translation, since it imitates the Hebraizedorthography, where frequently the ¡ar˙an has spelled the final alifwith a he. However, the appearance of the Judeo-Arabic ‰¯ÓÓ is notexactly like the Hebrew ‡¯ÓÓ, and thus ‰¯ÓÓ is not a precise copy.This may point in the direction of interpretive translation. In anotherplace in Genesis (49:30), the Hebrew name ‡¯ÓÓ is translated simplyas ‰¯ÓÓ (15 37b,1) ‘Mamre.’ This also may indicate both verbatimtranslation, as the same name appears in the ¡ar˙ and the ¡ar˙an hasused the Hebraized orthography with the final he, as well as interpretivetranslation, since the Judeo-Arabic ‰¯ÓÓ is not an exact copy of theHebrew ‡¯ÓÓ (see chapter 9, p. 322, 13-6.8).

(6) ··Ò Ï‡ ˘‡ (3 2,8) ‘what is the reason?’ translates the Hebrew ‰Ó‘what’ in a nonverbatim manner for emphasis and clarification (Level:

Phrase; Feature 1-1: Word-for-word translation). At the same time, theinterrogative pronoun itself, ˘‡ (3 2,8) ‘what,’ is an Egyptian colloquialchoice (chapter 4, pp. 114–15, 2.1.6.1) away from literal tendencies

170

and more in the direction of an interpretive mode (Level: Word; Category:

APPLYING THE MODEL

Lexicon; Feature 3-2: Word choice (considerations of sound/appearance). On theother hand, ‡Ó ‘what’ in another manuscript of the Haggadah (9313,1) translates the Hebrew ‰Ó in a literal manner because it is asimilar word with a similar sound.

(7) ÔÈÒÓµÓ ‰"Á‡ ÒÈÏ (3 2,10-11) ‘we do not dip.’ This sentence translatesverbatim the Hebrew ÔÈÏÈ·ËÓ Â"‡ ÔÈ‡ in Level: Phrase; Feature 1-1: Word-for-

word translation. Furthermore, the negation phrase ‰"Á‡ ÒÈÏ followsverbatim the Hebrew Â"‡ ÔÈ‡ ‘we do not,’ where the ¡ar˙an created anexact Judeo-Arabic equivalent to the Hebrew under Level: Morphosyntactic;

Category: Negation; Feature 4-1: Nominal and did not use the more syntheticregular Arabic /lasna/. Similarly, ÔÈÒÓµÓ, as a participle, is equivalentto the Hebrew/Aramaic participle ÔÈÏÈ·ËÓ in a literal translation in Level:

Morphosyntactic; Category: TMA; Feature 11-1: Tense/Aspect. However, inanother manuscript, ÂÒÓµ" (93 13,2) ‘we dip’ in the imperfect is morein line with regular Egyptian Judeo-Arabic use (chapter 4, pp. 118–19,2.2.2.2) and thus approaches the interpretive mode.

(8) ¯ˆÓ ‚Â¯¡ È¥ ÈÎÁ"Ï ‰"ÈÏÚ ‰ÈÈˆÂ (3 3,5) ‘it is our duty to tell the story ofthe exodus from Egypt.’ This sentence is a clear word-for-wordtranslation of the Hebrew ÌÈ¯ˆÓ ˙‡ÈˆÈ· ¯ÙÒÏ Â"ÈÏÚ ‰ÂˆÓ under Level: Phrase;

Feature 1-1: Word-for-word translation, and is strange in regular Arabicstyle. However, in order to make the translation even more verbatim,the ¡ar˙an could have chosen the Judeo-Arabic preposition /bi-/, inimitation of the Hebrew /bE-/, in Level: Morphosyntactic; Category:

Prepositions/particles; Feature 5-1: Prepositions. He did not do so, and in aslightly more interpretive translation he preferred the prevalent Judeo-Arabic /fi/ in order to facilitate better comprehension. Furthermore,ÈÎÁ"Ï ‘for us to tell’ also presents competing translation tendencies: onthe one hand, under Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: Verb Conjugation;

Feature 7-1: Infinitives, the translation is verbatim, because the ¡ar˙animitated the Hebrew preposition !Ï in ¯ÙÒÏ with the Judeo-Arabic/li-/, although he could have chosen regular Arabic /an/. On the other

171

hand, under Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: Verb Conjugation; Feature 7-2:

CHAPTER SIX

Finite verbs, the translation approximates the more interpretive tendency,because the ¡ar˙an used a finite verb, unlike the Hebrew.

(9) The independent pronoun ‰"Á‡ (3 2,12) ‘we’ (chapter 4, p. 112,2.1.1) is translated from the Hebrew into colloquial Egyptian Judeo-Arabic interpretively under Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: Pronouns;

Feature 6-1: Independent personal pronouns, but if the same pronoun isscanned on the segmental level, there is a more verbatim outcome: inLevel: Segment; Category: Orthography/ Phonology; Feature 13-6: Hebrew-

influenced orthography, the pronoun, spelled with a final he instead ofalef, is in line with the Hebraized orthography, thus reflecting a literalmode.

(10) ‰‚‡Á Ò"‚ ÁÒÙ Ô·¯Â˜ „Ú· ÔÈ·¯˜Ó ÒÈÏ ÁÒÙ ÌÈ"È„Î ÂÏ ÏÂ˜ ‰˙"‡ Ô‡ÓÎ (34,14) ‘you too must spell out to him according to the laws of Passover,that we do not offer anything at all after the Passover sacrifice’ translatesthe Hebrew ÔÓÂ˜ÈÙ‡ ÁÒÙ‰ ¯Á‡ ÔÈ¯ÈËÙÓ ÔÈ‡ ¨ÁÒÙ‰ ˙ÂÎÏ‰Î ÂÏ ¯ÂÓ‡ ‰˙‡ Û‡Â. Onthe surface, under Level: Phrase; Feature 1-1: Word-for-word translation, thiscomplex example looks like a verbatim translation of the Hebreworiginal, as an Arabic reader would find this sentence strange. However,upon a closer look, using the scanning model on different levels, otherissues are revealed.

On both the phrase and the word levels, the possessive compoundÁÒÙ ÌÈ"È„ ‘the laws of Passover’ is translated literally without anymodifications to the first term of the i!åfa and uses a Hebrew word(ÌÈ"È„), although it is different from the Hebrew original (˙ÂÎÏ‰). Theidea of using a Hebrew word is in line with a more verbatim translationunder Level: Word; Category: Lexicon; Feature 3-2: Word choice (considerations

of sound/appearance), but the choice of a different Hebrew word is moreinterpretive. In other manuscripts, though, the ¡ar˙an used ÔÈ"È„ (742,11; 93 16,13) ‘laws’ more interpretively in an attempt to achieve anArabic plural suffix /-•n/ rather than the Hebrew plural suffix ÌÈ-,although he may have imitated the Mishnaic Hebrew or the Aramaic

172

suffix. However, even in mss. 74 and 93, the ¡ar˙an still used a

APPLYING THE MODEL

Hebrew word in a literal mode on the word level, and did not modifythe first term of the i!åfa, leaving the /n¥n/ untouched, thus reflectingagain a more verbatim translation on the phrase level. In yet anotherfeature on the phrase level, the ¡ar˙an succeeded in adaptingsyntactically ÁÒÙ ÌÈ"È„ ‘the laws of Passover’ into the phrase ÌÈ"È„ÎÁÒÙ by using the Judeo-Arabic preposition /ka-/ in a more interpretivetranslation, although the kaf may indicate the Hebrew /kE-/ in ˙ÂÎÏ‰Î

ÁÒÙ‰.Continuing the scanning, there are more examples on the word

level. The ¡ar˙an used the Hebrew word Ô·¯Â˜2 ‘sacrifice’ in a literalmode to explain the Hebrew original interpretively, and in anothermanuscript he used the Arabic Ô‡·¯Â˜ (74 2,11) ‘offering’ interpretivelyas evidenced by the use of the alef. In yet another part of the sentence,the ¡ar˙an chose the colloquial Arabic ‰‚‡Á Ò"‚ ‘nothing’ to interpretthe Hebrew original under Level: Word; Category: Lexicon; Feature 3-1:

Word choice (semantic considerations).Scanning further down on the morphosyntactic level, Ô‡ÓÎ ‘also,’

which translates the Hebrew Û‡Â, lacks a translation of the coordinatingvav under Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: Preposition/Particles; Feature 5-2:

Coordinative particles and conjunctions. Moreover, ÂÏ ÏÂ˜ ‘spell out to him’translates verbatim the Hebrew ÂÏ ¯ÂÓ‡; however, in another of theHaggadah manuscript (74 2,11) the colloquial ÂÏÂ˜ /<ullo/ is used withthe enclitic preposition /-lo/ attached to the verb under Level:

Morphosyntactic; Category: Preposition/Particles; Feature 5-1: Prepositions inan interpretive way. Remaining on the morphosyntactic level, ÔÈ·¯˜Óis a participle, as is the Hebrew original that reflects a verbatimtranslation on Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: TMA; Feature 11-1: Tense/

Aspect; however, ˘Â˜¯¥È ‡Ó (74 2,11) and ˘Â˜È¯¥È ‡Ó (93 16,13) ‘notdivide’ are used in other manuscripts interpretively. Similarly, the

173

2 It is possible that Ô·¯Â˜ reflects the Judeo-Arabic /qurbån/ ‘sacrifice’ wherethe alef is missing in scriptio defectiva.

Hebrew ÔÈ‡ is translated literally as ÒÈÏ in ms. 3 4,14, but in the other

CHAPTER SIX

manuscripts (74 2,11 and 93 16,13) it is translated by the colloquial/ma … ¡/ in Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: Negation; Feature 4-2: Verbal

more in the interpretive direction. In addition, the ¡ar˙an did nottransfer the definite article from the Hebrew ÁÒÙ‰ ˙ÂÎÏ‰Î into theJudeo-Arabic ÁÒÙ ÌÈ"È„Î ‘according to the laws of Passover,’ althoughit was needed on Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: Definiteness; Feature 9-4:

Deleting the definite article where not needed.Finally, on the segmental level ‰˙"‡ is spelled with a final he in

imitation of the Hebrew spelling and as part of the Hebraizedorthography in a literal translation under Level: Segment; Category:

Orthography/Phonology; Feature 13-6: Hebrew-influenced orthography.

(11) ‰ÏÈÏ Ï‡ ¬Ï˙ (3 3,13–14) ‘that night’ translates the Hebrew Â˙Â‡

‰ÏÈÏ‰. On the surface, when scanning the gender of the demonstrativepronoun, the outcome is an interpretive translation: the pronoun is inthe feminine agreeing with the feminine Arabic noun ‰ÏÈÏ ‘night,’ butin Hebrew the pronoun Â˙Â‡ is in the masculine. However, in anothermanuscript of the Haggadh, ‰ÏÈÏ Ï‡ ¬Ï‡! (74 1,17) ‘that night’ appears,where the masculine demonstrative pronoun /ƒålik/ modifies a femininenoun /l!la/ ‘night’ (see chapter 8, pp. 247–48, 6-4.11). This choicereflects a literal translation, so that the Hebrew masculine pronounÂ˙Â‡ is rendered with an equivalent Judeo-Arabic masculine pronoun/ƒålik/. This analysis works on Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: Agreement;

Feature 10-3: Gender. The analysis becomes more complicated when thisexample is scanned under Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: Pronouns; Feature

6-4: Demonstrative pronouns. Under this scanning, the demonstrativepronouns in ‰ÏÈÏ Ï‡ ¬Ï˙ (3 3,13–14), ‰ÏÈÏ Ï‡ ¬Ï‡! (74 1,17) ‘thatnight’ and ÌÂÈ Ï‡ ¬Ï‡! (3 5,12) ‘that day’3 are translated interpretivelyas they follow regular Arabic style, where the demonstrative pronounsprecede the modified nouns. Other demonstrative pronouns, on the

174

3 The latter example translates the Hebrew ‡Â‰‰ ÌÂÈ· , where the demonstrativepronoun follows the noun it modifies.

other hand, are translated literally as they follow the Hebrew word

APPLYING THE MODEL

order. For example, ‰!‡‰ ¯ÈË¥ Ï‡ „ÈÚ ÌÂÈ (93 60,9) ‘this festival ofunleavened bread,’ which follows verbatim the Hebrew ‰Ê‰ ˙ÂˆÓ‰ ‚Á ÌÂÈ;and È„‡‰ ‰È"Â„ Ï‡ (3 4,3) ‘this world,’ which follows literally theHebrew ‰Ê‰ ÌÏÂÚ‰. Furthermore, in the ¡ar˙ some demonstrativepronouns are translated into colloquial Egyptian Judeo-Arabic to goalong with the interpretive translation: ¯¡˙¥ÂÓ ‰„ ‰„ÂÂ‰ /hawda damuftaxar/ (3 3,7–8) ‘this (masc.) is praiseworthy,’ translating theHebrew Á·Â˘Ó ‰Ê È¯‰; ‰È‡ˆÚ Ï‡ È„ /di l- >ißåya/ (3 13,2) ‘this (fem.) is therod,’ translating ‰ËÓ‰ ‰Ê; and ÈÏÂ„ ˙‡ÓÏÎ ˙‡Ï˙ /talåt kalimåt døli/ (317,18–19) ‘these three words,’ translating ÂÏ‡ ÌÈ¯·„ ‰˘ÂÏ˘ . On theother hand, these last three examples also present verbatim translationssince the demonstrative pronoun placement in them is similar to thatof the Hebrew, following its word order.

(12) „Â„Á Ï‡ ÔÈ· „‰Ú Ï‡ È¥ (3 6,14–15) ‘in the pact between the edges’translates the Hebrew ÌÈ¯˙·‰ ÔÈ· ˙È¯Ÿ·œa. Scanning the definite article inLevel: Morphosyntactic; Category: Definiteness; Feature 9-1: Adding the definite

article where needed yields an interpretive translation, as the ¡ar˙anadded the definite article to the noun />ahd/ ‘pact’ to follow regularArabic style, despite the fact that in the Hebrew original the definitearticle is lacking (˙È¯Ÿ·œa). In other words, the ¡ar˙an chose in this casenot to slavishly copy the Hebrew text. Furthermore, scanning thepreposition /fi/ under Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: Prepositions/Particles;

Feature 5-1: Prepositions yields similar results. There, the phrase Ï‡ È¥„Â„Á Ï‡ ÔÈ· „‰Ú (3 6,14–15) ‘in the pact between the edges’ alsofollows the interpretive translation, as the ¡ar˙an chose the morecommon Judeo-Arabic preposition /fi/ to translate the Hebrew !·. Intwo other manuscripts (ËÂË˘ Ï‡ ÔÈ· „‰‡· in 91 3a,8 and Ï‡ ÔÈ· „‰Ú·ËÂË˘ in 93 20,3), though, the ¡ar˙an chose the Judeo-Arabic preposition/bi-/ to imitate the Hebrew preposition in a verbatim way.

(13) ·ÒÎÓ· Â‚Â¯¡È ¬Ï‡! „Ú·Â ‡"‡ Ú¯‡˘‡ ÂÓ„¡‡ È!Ï‡ ·Ú˘ Ï‡ ‰Ï‡ ‰"‡ÓÎÂÌÈ#Ú (3 6,18–19) ‘And also the nation, whom they served, will I

175

judge, and afterward they will leave with great possessions’ translates

CHAPTER SIX

the Hebrew ÏÂ„‚ ˘‹Î¯· Â‡ˆÈ ÔÎ È¯Á‡Â ¨ÈÎ"‡ Ô„ Â„›·ÚÈ ¯˘‡ ÈÂ‚‰ ˙‡ Ì‚Â. Althoughthis sentence is taken from the Passover Haggadah, it is also a quotationfrom Gen 15:14 and is clearly a verbatim translation of the Hebrew,especially under Level: Phrase; Feature 1-1: Word-for-word translation.

Scanning this sentence on the word level under Level: Word; Category:

Lexicon; Feature 3-1: Word choice (semantic considerations) indicates theliteral/interpretive tension. The ¡ar˙an translates the Hebrew word Ô„‘judge’ into Judeo-Arabic Ú¯‡˘‡ /u¡åri>/ ‘I enact a law’ with a slightlydifferent meaning, placing the translation closer to the interpretiveside, as opposed to the translation ÌÂÎÁ‡ /a˙kum/ ‘I judge,’ appearingin other manuscripts of the Haggadah (91 3a,11; 93 20,6), which iscloser to the literal side. Similarly, scanning under Level: Word; Category:

Lexicon; Feature 3-2: Word choice (considerations of sound/appearance) in Â‚Â¯¡ÈÌÈ#Ú ·ÒÎÓ· (3 6,19) ‘they will leave with great possessions,’ the¡ar˙an chose the Judeo-Arabic preposition /bi-/ to translate the Hebrew!·. This is an exact rendering of the Hebrew, despite the fact that the¡ar˙an could have chosen the more regular Arabic preposition /fi/.

Down on the morphosyntactic level, the verbatim translation is seenin Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: Cases; Feature 8-1: Accusative , where the¡ar˙an copied the Hebrew direct definite object marker ˙‡ /et/ intoJudeo-Arabic ‰Ï‡ /ila/ as is so usual, and in fact almost obligatory, inEgyptian ¡ur¥˙: ·Ú˘ Ï‡ ‰Ï‡ ‰"‡ÓÎÂ ‘and also the nation’ translatingthe Hebrew ÈÂ‚‰ ˙‡ Ì‚Â. Similarly, under Level: Morphosyntactic; Category:

TMA; Feature 11-1: Tense/Aspect, the verbs ÂÓ„¡È (91 3a,11) and ÂÓ„¡˙ÒÈ(93 20,6) ‘(they) serve’ are both in the imperfect, following the HebrewÂ„›·ÚÈ ‘they serve’ literally; however, in another manuscript the ¡ar˙anemployed the Judeo-Arabic perfect ÂÓ„¡‡ (3 6,18) ‘(they) served’ in amore interpretive direction.

Further down on the segmental level, under Level: Segment; Category:

Orthography/Phonology; Feature 13-6: Hebrew-influenced orthography, the influ-ence of the Hebraized orthography is seen in the direction of literaltranslation. Both the preposition ‰Ï‡ that marks the definite direct

176

object and the independent pronoun ‰"‡ (91 3a,11) ‘I’ clearly follow

APPLYING THE MODEL

the literal direction, as they are directly influenced by Hebreworthography, with its use of Judeo-Arabic final he to denote both thealif maqß¥ra bi-ßurat il-yå< and final alif respectively. In two othermanuscripts, on the other hand, the spelling of ‡"‡ (3 6,19; 93 20,6)‘I’ is more interpretive as it follows the Arabicized orthography.

(14) The phrase È„‡‰ ‰È"Â„ Ï‡ (3 4,3) ‘this world,’ which translates‰Ê‰ ÌÏÂÚ‰, reveals opposing directions of translation. Scanning themorphosyntactic level under Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: Pronouns;

Feature 6-4: Demonstrative pronouns, the demonstrative pronoun wordorder follows the Hebrew word order in a literal translation, althougha different word order in Literary Arabic could have been expected.The ¡ar˙ translation, though, follows the same word order as colloquialArabic, /id-dunya di/. On the other hand, scanning on Level: Morphosyn-

tactic; Category: Agreement; Feature 10-3: Gender, the gender of the demon-strative pronoun is translated interpretively, in accord with the femininegender of the Arabic noun it modifies and not the gender of the Hebrewmasculine noun ÌÏÂÚ ‘world.’ Down on the segmental level under Level:

Segment; Category: Orthography/Phonology; Feature 13-6: Hebrew-influenced

orthography, ‰È"Â„ exhibits the literal/interpretive linguistic tension asthe word ends with a he in imitation of the Hebrew orthography in aliteral mode, but in a different manuscript the spelling ‡ÈÈ"Â„ (93 13,2)reveals the interpretive mode, since the final alef, representing theArabicized orthography, follows the Arabic spelling with its final alif.

(15) The sentence Ï‡¯˘È ÂÓÂ˜Ï ‰ÚÈ¯˘ Ï‡ ‰ËÚ È!Ï‡ ¬Â¯·Ó (74 2,7) ‘Blessedis He who has given the Torah to His people, Israel,’ which translatesthe Hebrew Ï‡¯˘È ÂÓÚÏ ‰¯Â˙ Ô˙"˘ ÍÂ¯·, can be analyzed differently invarious categories. Scanning under Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: Cases;

Feature 8-1: Accusative results in a verbatim translation: the Judeo-Arabicsentence lacks the definite object marker /ila/ just as the Hebrew doesnot employ /et/. This occurs despite the fact that the ¡ar˙an addedthe definite article in the ¡ar˙ (see chapter 8, p. 259, 8-1.7). On the

177

other hand, in another category (Level: Morphosyntactic; Category:

CHAPTER SIX

Definiteness; Feature 9-1: Adding the definite article where needed) the definitearticle appears in the ¡ar˙, although it does not in the Hebrew original.This phenomenon is analyzed interpretively, as the presence of thedefinite article deviates from its absence in the Hebrew original.

Calque TranslationsBorrowing, or the introduction of linguistic features from one languageto another, is common in the texts of the ¡ur¥˙. Borrowing is agradual process: first a linguistic feature is introduced into the hostlanguage through a bilingual community and is not yet adapted phono-logically or morpho-logically. Once it is integrated into the host languageand adopted by the monolingual community, it becomes part of thehost language (Mahootian 2006:513). One type of borrowing is theloan, a “linguistic unit (usually a lexical item) which has come to beused in a language or dialect other than the one where it originated”(Crystal 2003:275). According to Crystal, there are several kinds ofloan processes:(i) Loan words, where both form and meaning are adopted by a host

language with some adaptation in the phonological system. Forexample, some Palestinians use the morpheme /p/ in their Arabicin words borrowed from the Hebrew: /kupatxolim/ ‘healthmaintenance organization, HMO’; Japanese takshi from Englishtaxi.

(ii) Loan blends, where the meaning is borrowed along with onlypartial borrowing of the form. For example, when some Palestiniansborrow Hebrew words and insert them into their dialect, theyonly change some phonological features of the borrowed word.Thus, in /kubatxolim/, the Hebrew voiceless bilabial stop /p/ ischanged to the voiced equivalent /b/, because the former does notexist in the Arabic phonemic inventory; however, the voicelessvelar fricative /x/ is not changed to the native Arabic voicelesspharyngeal fricative /˙/.

178

(iii) Loan shifts, where the meaning is borrowed, but the form follows

APPLYING THE MODEL

the phonological behavior of the host language. In Hebrew /xumus/‘hummus’ is taken from Arabic /˙ummuß/;4 Japanese maketo‘indoor market’ is borrowed from English market.

(iv) Loan translations, where the morphemes of the borrowed wordare translated verbatim. For example, accomplished fact (fromFrench fait accompli), superman (from German Übermensch),Hebrew /gored¡xakim/ (from English skyscraper), Hebrew/zemargi¡tov/ (from English it feels good).

Loan translations are also known as calque translations, a term usedin historical linguistics, comparative linguistics, and sociolinguistics“to refer to a type of borrowing, where the morphemic constituentsof the borrowed word or phrase are translated item by item intoequivalent morphemes in the new language” (Crystal 2003:61). Theterm comes from French calquer ‘to trace, to copy.’ Bussmann citesfour processes for the creation of calques (1996:62):(i) Through meaning that is borrowed through change and expansion

of the meaning in the new language. For example, write, originally‘to scratch,’ influenced by Latin scribere.

(ii) Through a neologism, which is loosely based on a foreign concept.(iii) By way of a verbatim loan translation of the several morphemes.

For example, crispbread (from German Knäckebrot), power politics(from German Machtpolitik).

(iv) Through a loose loan translation. For instance, brotherhood fromLatin fraternitas.

Because of the ¡ar˙an’s desire to translate the sacred text verbatim,and sometimes because of his poor understanding of the text, manycalque translations found their way into the ¡ar˙. In calque translationsthe ¡ar˙an has translated the original text word for word, reflecting

179

4 Thus, in the target language, in this case Hebrew, /˙/ becomes /x/, /ß/becomes /s/, and the geminate is abolished. Egyptians always say that they canidentify Israeli tourists in Cairo by their typical (Naot) sandals and their frequentrequest to eat /xumus/, not /˙ummuß/.

each word with an equivalent in the target language. Furthermore, the

CHAPTER SIX

¡ar˙an has also translated into the host language (Judeo-Arabic) themorphemes of the guest language (Hebrew or Aramaic). The end resultusually cannot be understood in the host language if knowledge of theoriginal text is missing or inadequate.

The following is a representation of several examples from each ofthe ¡ur¥˙ discussed in this book:

Genesis:• Ú„Â" ‡ÏÂ (Gen 41:21) ‘and it was not known’ is rendered ¥¯Ú" ÌÏÂ

(15 25b,15–16) ‘and we did not know.’ In this calque translationthe ¡ar˙an has “copied” the Hebrew nif>al verbal prefix as a Judeo-Arabic imperfect first person plural verbal prefix /n-/, thus changingthe meaning slightly. This is done in order to achieve a verbatimtranslation (chapter 8, p. 217, 4-2.2).

• ‰ÏÙÎÓ‰ ˙¯ÚÓ (Gen 25:9) ‘the cave of Machpela’ is translated by aJudeo-Arabic calque: ‰È"˙Ó Ï‡ ˙¯‡µÓ (15 5a,2) ‘the cave of thedouble.’ In this case the Hebrew ‰ÏÙÎÓ is translated verbatim intoJudeo-Arabic ‰È"˙Ó to indicate the meaning of the name in a calquetranslation (chapter 9, pp. 322–23).

• È‡] ÈÁÏ ¯‡· (Gen 25:11) ‘Be>er La˙ai Ro >i’ is translated word forword by the ¡ar˙an into È"‡¯#" ÈÈÁ Ï‡ ¯È· (15 5a,6) ‘a well of theliving, seeing.’ It is clear that this phrase does not make sense onits own; it is nonetheless a calque translation of the Hebrew placename (chapter 9, p. 323).

• ¯˘‡Î (Gen 24:22 and other places) ‘when, where, as’ is analyzedby the ¡ar˙an as consisting of two morphemes: !Î and ¯˘‡; thusthe conjunction is translated verbatim into Judeo-Arabic, also withthe two attached morphemes, /ka-/ and /allaƒ•/, resulting in È!Ï‡Î(15 3a,4 and other places) ‘when.’ In Esther the conjunction isalso rendered as a calque translation, but in a more analytic structure:È!Ï‡ ‡ÓÎ (1302 2b,22 and more) ‘when’ (chapter 8, p. 232, 5-2.3).

Esther:

180

• ‰Ò„‰ (Esth 2:7) ‘Hadassah’ is rendered ‡"ÈÒ¯Ó (1302 2b,1) ‘Mars•na’

APPLYING THE MODEL

(myrtle). The ¡ar˙an actually transferred the meaning of the Hebrewname ‘Hadassah’ (myrtle) into the Judeo-Arabic calque translation(see chapter 9, p. 323, 13-6.8).

• The Hebrew name ‡˙„Ó‰ ‘Hammedatha’ (Esth 9:10) is rendered Ï‡‡˙„Ó (1302 7a,1) ‘the Medatha.’ The ¡ar˙an has mistakenly inter-preted the Hebrew name as having two morphemes: the definitearticle /ha-/ and the name ‡˙„Ó, and thus translated it accordingly(see chapter 7, p. 191, n. 3).

Haggadah:• „‚"Î ‘as against’ is reflected verbatim in „‡ˆÂ˜Î (3 4,8), clearly a

calque translation (see chapter 8, p. 224, 5-1.15).• Hebrew „ÂÚ·Ó ‘whilst’ has the Judeo-Arabic equivalent ÔÈÁ· ÔÓ (3

5,13), composed of three parts (see chapter 8, pp. 224–25, 5-1.16).• ‰ÓÎÂ ‰ÓÎ ˙Á‡ ÏÚ ‘how much more so?’ is reflected literally in the

¡ar˙: ˘È‡ „˜Â ˘È‡ „˜ ‰„Á‡Â ‰ÏÚ (3 17,5), where each of the Hebrewwords has a Judeo-Arabic equivalent.

• ˙È·‰ ˙¯˜Ú ‘the mistress of the house’ is reflected verbatim in ˙ÓÈ˜Ú˙È· Ï‡ (3 20,10), where the ¡ar˙an has translated Hebrew ˙¯˜Ú

into ‰ÓÈ˜Ú ‘sterile,’ using its root ‘sterile, barren.’ This is indeedthe intended meaning in Ps 113; however, in modern Hebrew themeaning has changed into ‘the mistress of the house.’

• „‡Ó È˙È"Ú È"‡ ‘I am greatly afflicted’ is translated literally as ‡"‡ÈÂÂ˜ ˙·ÂÂ‡‚ (3 24,20) ‘I greatly answered.’ The Hebrew verb È˙È"Ú

stems from the root >-n-h, which can mean both ‘poor’ and ‘answer.’The ¡ar˙an has chosen the second meaning and arrived at thebizarre calque translation (chapter 7, pp. 201–2, 3-1.5).

181

CHAPTER SIX

The Organization of the ExamplesThe organization of the examples according to the categories presentedin table 4 facilitates the examination of the literal/interpretive linguistictension as well as the translation mechanisms (A and B). In the followingchapters of part 2, I cite examples of literal translations (Lit.) as wellas interpretive translation (Int.) for each feature. Following the literaland the interpretive examples, I present cases, when possible, thatillustrate both literal and interpretive elements at the same time (L/I).Seldom do I use the same example to illustrate different features.Obviously, for reasons of space and redundancy, not all the examplesthat can be extracted from the texts of the ¡ur¥˙ can be presented, butusually at least three examples from each text for every feature areoffered. The examples are taken from Genesis, Esther, and the PassoverHaggadah and presented in that order.

The organization of the examples employs a numbering systemthat follows table 4 (pp. 81–82). Each feature is divided into threeparts: literal translation (Lit.), interpretive translation (Int.) and literal/interpretive translation (L/I). The examples are marked in consecutivenumbers; thus the examples of Level: Morphosyntactic; Category: Verb

Conjugation; Feature 7-1: Infinitives, for instance, are numbered from 7-1.1through 7-1.15, where 7-1.1 through 7-1.8 are examples of literaltranslation, 7-1.9 through 7-1.12 are examples of interpretive transla-tions, and 7-1.13 through 7-1.15 demonstrate the literal/interpretivetranslation with its linguistic tension (chapter 8, pp. 250–56).

In order to facilitate reading the text and finding the various examples,the headers of the odd-numbered pages in chapters 7 through 9 changein order to indicate the various features that are discussed within eachchapter. Thus, the reader can use the headers as a guide to the contentsof each chapter, reducing the constant need to refer to table 4.

For purposes of comparison, when deemed necessary, both SaadiaGaon’s translation (Derenbourg 1893) and the Protestant Arabic

182

translation of the Bible (Al-Kitåb al-Muqaddas 2004) are provided.

CHAPTER SEVEN

THE PHRASE AND THE WORD LEVELS

This chapter analyzes the ¡ur¥˙ of Genesis, Esther, and the PassoverHaggadah, scanning selected examples through the phrase and wordlevels. Based on the theoretical model of the analysis of the ¡ar˙,including table 4, presented in chapter 3 (pp. 81–82), many examplesof the different categories and features appear below. Note the expla-nation of the organization of the examples at the end of chapter 6 (p.182). Note also that the headers on the odd-numbered pages of thischapter include, in addition to the name of the chapter as in the rest ofthe volume, the various features discussed on the relevant pages foreasier referencing.

Word-for-Word TranslationLevel: Phrase; Category 1Feature 1-1 — Word-for-word translation

Lit.: The following examples are word-for-word translations, whichare typical of the ¡ar˙:(1-1.1) In Genesis: The translation of Ï˜ ̆ ›̇‡Ó Ú·¯‡ ı¯‡ È!ÚÓ˘ È!I‡

¯›·˜ Í˙Ó ˙‡Â ‡È‰ ‰Ó Í!È·Â È!È· ÛÒÎ (Gen 23:15) into Judeo-Arabic‰Ï‡Â ‡È‰ ˘È‡ Í!È·Â È!È· ‰ƒ¥ Ï‡˜˙Ó ˙È‡Ó Ú·¯‡ "¯‡ ‰!ÚÓÒ‡ È„ÈÒÔ¥„‡ ¬˙ÈÈÓ (15 2a,1-2) ‘My master, hear us! Land worth fourhundred silver (coins), what is it between me and you? (Goand) bury your dead’ is a clear word-for-word translation withthe exception of the first plural pronominal suffix /-na/ in‰!ÚÓÒ‡, rather than the singular pronoun /-ni/ in the HebrewÈ!ÚÓ˘. Both Saadia and the Protestant translation of the Bible

CHAPTER SEVEN

offer more interpretive translations for this verse. Saadia in histranslation, »‰ƒÙ Ï‡˜«˙Ó »‰È‡Ó Ú·¯‡ ÈÂ‡Ò˙ »‰ƒÂ¯ È!Ó ÚÓÒ‡ È„ÈÒ ‡ÈÍ˙ÈÓ ‡‰ÈÙ ÔÙ„‡ Í!È·Â È!È· È‰ ‡Ó, added a few words after /isma </,changed the order of the question /må hiyya bayni wa-baynak/,did not use the Judeo-Arabic accusative marker /ila/, and added/f•hå/ after /idfan/ for clarification. Likewise, in a similar attemptto be understood, the composer of the Protestant translationtranslated the biblical verse into /yå sayyid• isma>n• ar!un bi-arba >imi<ati ¡åqili fi!!atin må hiyya bayni wa-baynaka. fa-idfanmayyitaka/. Thus, the translator added the preposition /bi/, andlike Saadia, he changed the word order of the question /må hiya/and did not use the Judeo-Arabic accusative marker /ila/.

Likewise, the translation of Ì‰¯·‡ ˙‡ Í¯· ß‰Â ÌÈÓÈ· ‡· ÔLÊ Ì‰¯·‡Â

ÏÎ· (Gen 24:1) into Judeo-Arabic, Ì‡È‡ Ï‡ È¥ ÈÈ‡‚ ¡È˘ Ì‰¯·‡ÂÏÂÎ Ï‡ È¥ Ì‰¯·‡ ‰Ï‡ ¬¯‡· ‰ÏÏ‡Â (15 2a,11–12) ‘and Abrahamwas old, advanced in years, and God had blessed Abraham in all(things),’ is again a word-for-word translation. Note the unusualuse of Ì‡È‡ Ï‡ È¥ ÈÈ‡‚ , which literally translates ÌÈÓÈ· ‡·; the SVword order in ¬¯‡· ‰ÏÏ‡Â , following a similar Hebrew wordorder; the use of the Judeo-Arabic accusative marker ‰Ï‡¨slavishly imitating the Hebrew ˙‡; and the use of ÏÂÎ Ï‡ È¥translating verbatim the Hebrew ÏÎÃa. Both Saadia and theProtestant translation translated this verse differently to reflectinterpretive concerns and to adhere more closely to standardArabic structure.

Similarly, the translation of ÍÏÓÈ·‡ Û˜˘ÈÂ ÌÈÓÈ‰ Ì˘ ÂÏ ÂÎ¯‡ ÈÎ È‰ÈÂ

Â˙˘‡ ‰˜·¯ ˙‡ ˜ÁˆÓ ˜ÁˆÈ ‰!‰Â ‡¯ÈÂ ÔÂÏÁ‰ „Ú· ÌÈ˙˘ÏÙ ÍÏÓ (Gen 26:8) inthe Egyptian ¡ar˙ is word for word, as each of the Hebrewwords has a Judeo-Arabic equivalent in the same word order.This in turn has created some peculiar Arabic structures, as in„!Ú È¥ ÌÈ˙˘ÏÙ ÍÏÓ ¬ÏÓ È·‡ ¥¯˙˘‡Â ¬‡!‰ Ì‡È‡ Ï‡ ÂÏ ÂÏÂÂË Ô‡ Ô‡ÎÂÂ˙‡¯Ó ‰˜·¯ ‰Ï‡ ¬ÁƒÓ ˜ÁˆÈ ‰„ÂÂ‰Â ¯#!Â ¬‡·Â˘ Ï‡ (15 6a,15–18)

184

‘And it came to pass, when his days there lengthened, that

THE PHRASE AND THE WORD LEVELS: WORD-FOR-WORD TRANSLATION

Abimelech king of the Philistines looked down through thewindow and saw, behold! Isaac was jesting with Rebecca hiswife.’(1-1.2) In Esther: The sentence Â˙!ËÏÒ ¯‡˜Â‡ ‡!µ ‡Ï‡ Â¯Â#! È¥¯‡˙Î Ì‡ÈÈ‡ Â˙ÈÈ¯·Î ˙ÈÈ¯¡¥ ¯‡˜Â‡ ‡Ï‡Â (1302 1b,5–6) ‘with hisdisplay of the richness of his glorious kingdom and the honor ofhis splendorous majesty for many days’ is clearly a word-for-word translation of the Hebrew ¯˜È ˙‡Â Â˙ÂÎÏÓ „Â·Î ¯˘Ú ˙‡ Â˙›‡¯‰·

ÌÈ·¯ ÌÈÓÈ Â˙ÏÂ„‚ ˙¯‡Ù˙ (Esth 1:4), which actually yields some sortof an “un-Arabic” sentence.

The same is true for Ï‡ ¯Ó‡ ‡„Î Ô‡ ·ˆµÓ ÒÈÏ ÔÂ!‡˜ Ï‡Î ·¯˘ Ï‡ÂÏ‚¯Â Ï‚¯ ‡ƒ¯Î Ú!ˆÈÏ Â˙È· ¯È·Î ÏÎ ‡ÏÚ ¬ÏÓ (1302 1b,5–6) ‘and thedrinking was according to the law, there was no coercion, forthe king had ordered all the officers of his house to do accordingto every man’s will,’ which translates verbatim ÔÈ‡ ˙„Î ‰È˙˘‰Â

˘È‡Â ˘È‡ ÔÂˆ¯Î ˙Â"ÚÏ Â˙È· ·¯ ÏÎ ÏÚ ÍÏÓ‰ „ÒÈ ÔÎ#ÈÎ Ò!›‡ (Esth 1:8).Similarly, the sentence ‡Ï‡ ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ÔÈ‡„Ó ÏÎ ‡Ï‡ ·È˙‡ÎÓ ÏÒ¯Â

‡‰˙·‡˙ÎÎ ‰!È„ÓÂ ‰!È„Ó (1302 2a,9) ‘and he sent letters to all thekingdom’s provinces, to each province in its own script’ is averbatim translation of the Hebrew ÍÏÓ‰ ˙Â!È„Ó ÏÎ Ï‡ ÌÈ¯ÙÒ ÁÏ˘ÈÂ

‰·˙ÎÎ ‰!È„ÓÂ ‰!È„Ó Ï‡ (Esth 1:22). In the Protestant translation,which is less verbatim and more in line with Arabic structure,we see /wa-arsala kutuban ilå kulli buldåni l-maliki ilå kulli bilådin˙asaba kitåbatihå/.(1-1.3) In the Haggadah: The Judeo-Arabic translation ‰ÈˆÂ¯ˆÓ ‚Â¯¡ È¥ ÈÎÁ!Ï ‰!ÈÏÚ (3 3,6) ‘It is incumbent upon us to tell theexodus from Egypt’ is a word-for-word translation of the Hebreworiginal ÌÈ¯ˆÓ ˙‡ÈˆÈ· ¯ÙÒÏ Â!ÈÏÚ ‰ÂˆÓ , although, as in example 5-1.34in chapter 8 (pp. 228–29), the preposition /bi-/ could have beenused in an even more verbatim translation.

Similarly in the Haggadah, È‚Â¯¡ È¥ ÈÏ ‰ÏÏ‡ Ú!ˆ ‰„ ··Ò È¥ ÂÏ ÏÂ˜ÂÂÏ ÌÏÂ ÈÏ ¯ˆÓ ÔÓ (3 4,20–5,1) ‘and say to him, it is because of

185

that which God did for me when I went out from Egypt, for me

CHAPTER SEVEN

and not for him’ is a verbatim translation of the Hebrew originalÂÏ ‡ÏÂ ÈÏ ÆÌÈ¯ˆÓÓ È˙‡ˆ· ÈÏ ÈÈ ‰˘Ú ‰Ê ¯Â·Ú· ÂÏ ¯ÂÓ‡Â. Here too, thepreposition /bi-/ could have been used in an even more verbatimtranslation.

Likewise, the Judeo-Arabic translation ËÈµ Ï‡ ˙‡·!Î ‰ÂÂ·¯¬˙ÏÚ‚ (3 8,12–13) ‘I have made you multiply ten thousand likethe vegetation of the field’ is a word-for-word translation thatreproduces the word order of the Hebrew original ÁÓˆÎ ‰··¯

ÍÈ˙˙! ‰„˘‰.

Sometimes, the word-for-word translation is exact, disregardingany medieval or other interpretation of the biblical text:(1-1.4) The sentence ‰¯˘Ú ÂÂ‡ ‰!ÚÓ ‰È·ˆ Ï‡ „Ú˜˙ (15 3a,14) ‘Letthe girl stay with us two days or ten’ is an almost exact translationof the Hebrew ¯Â"Ú Â‡ ÌÈÓÈ Â!˙‡ ‰¯Ú!‰ ·˘˙ (Gen 24:55), except forthe translation of the Hebrew ÌÈÓÈ ‘days’ into Judeo-Arabic ÔÈÓÂÈ‘two days.’ This translation does not take into account themedieval interpretations of ‘a year or ten months.’ The Protestanttranslation is similar, but Saadia follows the medieval interpreta-tion.

Similarly, the Judeo-Arabic Â‰ÓÂ‡ „Ú· ˜ÁˆÈ ‰ÏÒ˙‡Â (154b,10–11) ‘and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s (death)’is a literal translation of the Hebrew ÂÓ‡ È¯Á‡ ˜ÁˆÈ ÌÁ!ÈÂ (Gen24:67). Both Saadia and the Protestant translation used /ba>damawt ummihi/ ‘after his mother’s death’ interpretively.

Int.: On the other hand, at times the ¡ar˙an has added to the translationinterpretive words lacking in the Hebrew original.(1-1.5) In Genesis: The sentence Â˙˘‡ ‰˜·¯ ¯‰˙Â ß‰ ÂÏ ¯˙ÚÈÂ (Gen25:21) in the ¡ar˙ is an interpretive translation. In his translationÂ˙‡¯Ó ˙„ÏÂÂ ˙Ï·ÁÂ ‰ÏÏ‡ Â˙‡Ïˆ Ï·˜Â (15 5b,3) ‘God accepted hisprayer, and his (Isaac’s) wife became pregnant and gave birth,’the ¡ar˙an “explained” Hebrew ¯˙ÀÚÈÂ ‘allowed Himself to be

186

entreated’ as Â˙‡Ïˆ Ï·˜Â ‘accepted his prayer’; he did not mention

THE PHRASE AND THE WORD LEVELS: WORD-FOR-WORD TRANSLATION

Rebecca by her name although it was mentioned in the Hebrewtext, and he added ˙„ÏÂÂ ‘and she gave birth’ for clarification.

In ‰ÏÏ‡ „!Ú ÔÓ ¯Ó‡ ·ÂÏË˙Ï ˙Á‡¯Â (15 5b,5) ‘she went to askGod (about) the issue,’ the ¡ar˙an added the noun ¯Ó‡ ‘issue’in order to clarify the Hebrew equivalent, ß‰ ˙‡ ˘¯„Ï ÍÏ˙Â (Gen25:22).

Similarly, the Judeo-Arabic sentence ÔÓÊ ¯‰˘ ‰È‡ÚÓ „ÂÚ˜Â˙Â(15 10b,11–12) ‘and stay with me a month’s time’ is a clearinterpretation of the Hebrew equivalent ÌÈÓÈ ˘„›Á ÂÓÚ ·˘ÈÂ (Gen29:14) ‘and he stayed with him for a month.’ First, in theJudeo-Arabic translation the person is changed, from the third(·˘ÈÂ) to the second („ÂÚ˜Â˙) and in another place from the third(ÂÓÚ) to the first (‰È‡ÚÓ), using direct speech; and second, thetranslation of ÌÈÓÈ ‘days’ is expressed as ÔÓÊ ‘time’ in the Judeo-Arabic ¡ar˙.(1-1.6) In Esther: The translation Ï‡ ÔÈÓ„‡¡ Ô‡È·ˆ Ï‡ ÂÏ‡˜ÂÔ‡ Â‰Ï Ô‡ËÏÒ (1302 2a,12) ‘The courtiers who served the rulersaid …’ does not follow the Hebrew ÂÈ˙¯˘Ó ÍÏÓ‰ È¯Ú! Â¯Ó‡ÈÂ (Esth2:2) word for word, in a probable attempt to clarify it.

Similarly, in ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ˙È· ‡Ï‡ Ô‡ÓÎ È‚˙ ÌÏ (1302 2b,13) ‘shewould not come again to the king’s house,’ translating the HebrewÍÏÓ‰ Ï‡ „ÂÚ ‡Â·˙ ‡Ï (Esth 2:14), the ¡ar˙an added the word /b"t/‘house’ in an interpretive manner.

Likewise, the phrase È!ÈÓÈ Ï‚¯ (1302 2a,17–18) may seem atfirst glance to be a literal translation of È!ÈÓÈ ˘È‡ ‘a Benjaminite’(Esth 2:5), but the addition of ÔÈÓÈ!· Ë·Ò ÔÓ (1302 2a,18) ‘fromthe tribe of Benjamin’ is clearly interpretive, so that readerswould fully understand the phrase.(1-1.7) In the Haggadah: „‡ÏÂ‡ Â!ÂÎ! Ï‡¯˘È "¯‡ È¥ ‰È‡‚ Ï‡ ‰!Ò Ï‡ÔÈ˜Â˙ÚÓ (3 2,6–7) ‘next year we will be free children in the Landof Israel.’ Clearly this sentence does not follow the Hebrewverbatim, ÔÈ¯ÂÁ È!· ‰‡·‰ ‰!˘Ï. The ¡ar˙an “explained” the context

187

by adding the phrase Â!ÂÎ! Ï‡¯˘È "¯‡ È¥ ‘in the Land of Israel we

CHAPTER SEVEN

will be …’ for clarification. The deviation from the literal trans-lation may reflect the need to adjust the translation to a differentreadership: the biblical text is composed for the people in theLand of Israel, whereas the Judeo-Arabic Haggadah translationis for the people in the Diaspora, hence the need to add thephrase Â!ÂÎ! Ï‡¯˘È "¯‡ È¥ ‘in the Land of Israel we will be …’

It is common to find that the Hebrew ¯Ó‡!˘ and ¯Ó‡!˘ ‰ÓÎ aretranslated into the Judeo-Arabic ¡ar˙ as ˜ÂÒÙ Ï‡ Ï‡˜ ‡ÓÎ (33,21 and many other places) ‘as the (biblical) verse reads’ in aninterpretive translation by adding the word ˜ÂÒÙ Ï‡ ‘the verse’(see also below, p. 211, 3-2.21).

Furthermore, ··Ò Ï‡ ˘‡ (3 2,8) ‘what is the reason?’ Thisphrase translates the Hebrew ‰Ó ‘what’ in a nonverbatim mannerfor emphasis and clarification.

Moreover, in an interpretation of the Hebrew ¯Â·„‰ ÈÙ#ÏÚ ÒÂ!‡

‘compelled by the word,’ the ¡ar˙an wrote in Judeo-Arabic˜Ï‡¡ Ï‡ ÏÂ˜ ‰ÏÚ ·ÂˆµÓ (3 7,14) ‘compelled by the creator’swords.’

L/I: (1-1.8) The Hebrew phrase ÁÈ˘Ó‰ ˙ÂÓÈ ‘the days of the Messiah’is translated literally in ms. 93 15,16 ÁÈ˘Ó Ï‡ Ì‡ÈÈ‡; however, itis interpreted in ms. 3 4,4 ÁÈ˘Ó Ï‡ ˙˜Â ‘the time of the Messiah.’In ms. 74 2,6 both options are used in an interpretive mode:ÁÈ˘Ó Ï‡ Ì‡ÈÈ‡ ˙˜Â ‘the time of the days of the Messiah.’

Word Order: Syntactic AdaptationLevel: Phrase; Category 2: Word OrderFeature 2-1 — Syntactic adaptationLit.: It is usual in the ¡ar˙ to find the verb preceding its subject in

typical VSO Arabic word order when this is also the case in theHebrew original. For example, both /wa-˙alifu/ ‘and they swore’and /wa-rasalhum/ ‘and (he) sent them’ precede their respective

188

subjects /rågil/ ‘man’ and ‘Isaac’ in ÌÂ‰ÏÒ¯Â ‰Â¡‡Ï Ï‚‡¯ Â¥ÈÏÁÂ

THE PHRASE AND THE WORD LEVELS: SYNTACTIC ADAPTATION

˜ÁˆÈ (15 7a,12) ‘and they swore to one another and then Isaacsent them away,’ following similar word order in the Hebrewverse ˜ÁˆÈ ÌÁÏ˘ÈÂ ÂÈÁ‡Ï ˘È‡ ÂÚ·˘ÈÂ (Gen 26:31). However, themorphosyntactic adaptation of the Hebrew text does not extendto the number of the verb, as the verb Â¥ÈÏÁÂ /wa-˙alifu/ ‘andthey swore’ is in the plural, following literally its Hebrewequivalent ÂÚ·˘ÈÂ. Moreover, if the Hebrew original exhibits anSVO word order, where the verb follows the subject, the ¡ar˙anhas not adapted it syntactically to the Arabic but has translatedthis word order verbatim in an SVO word order, as the followingexamples show.(2-1.1) In Genesis: In the translation of Gen 24:35 ˙‡ Í¯· ß‰Â

„‡Ó È!„‡, a similar SVO word order is revealed in the ¡ar˙: ‰ÏÏ‡ÂÈÂÂ˜ È„ÈÒ ‰Ï‡ ¬¯‡· (15 3b,2) ‘and God greatly blessed my master.’In the same way the SVO word order occurs in ‰Ï‡ ¥Ï¡ Ô‡˘˜ÈÂ‡·˘ (15 4b,13) ‘and Yokshan begot Sheba’ in order to slavishlyfollow the Hebrew ‡·˘ ˙‡ „ÏÈ Ô˘˜ÈÂ (Gen 25:3). The same appliesto ·Â˜ÚÈ ‰Ï‡ ˙·Á ‰˜·¯Â (15 5b,15) ‘and Rebecca loved Jacob,’which follows the same SVO word order of the Hebrew ‰˜·¯Â

·SÚÈ ˙‡ ˙·‰›‡ (Gen 25:28).(2-1.2) In Esther: ¯ˆ˜ Ï‡ Ô˘Â˘ È¥ Ô‡Î È„Â‰È Ï‚¯ (1302 2a,17)‘There was a Jewish man in Shushan, the capital’ contains thesame SVO word order of the Hebrew in Esth 2:5, ‰È‰ È„Â‰È ˘È‡

‰¯È·‰ Ô˘Â˘·. Likewise, the Judeo-Arabic text keeps the HebrewSVO word order in ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ¯Ó‡· ÔÈÚÂÙ„Ó Â‚¯¡ ÔÈÈ‡¯‚ Ï‡ (13023b,8) ‘The runners went out, rushed by the king’s command’ ina literal translation. Similar is the SVO word order in both Ï‡Â‡ËÚ!‡ ¯Ó‡ (1302 3b,8) ‘the command was given’ and in ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ÂÙÈÈÎ˙È ÂÒÏ‚ ÔÓ‰Â (1302 3b,8–9) ‘the king and Haman were sittingand enjoying themselves,’ following the original Hebrew texts‰!˙! ˙„‰Â and ˙Â˙˘Ï Â·˘È ÔÓ‰Â ÍÏÓ‰Â (Esth 3:15) respectively.(2-1.3) In the Haggadah: ¯ˆÓ È¥ ÔÂÚ¯¥Ï ‰!ÂÎ „È·Ú (3 2,19) ‘we

189

were Pharaoh’s slaves in Egypt’ exhibits SVO word order just

CHAPTER SEVEN

like the Hebrew original, ÌÈ¯ˆÓ· ‰Ú¯ÙÏ Â!ÈÈ‰ ÌÈ„·Ú. Similarly, in Ï‡ÂÂÏÂ˜È ‰ÓÏÂÚ (3 4,2–3) ‘and the sages say,’ the verb follows itssubject to imitate Hebrew word order: ÌÈ¯ÓÂ‡ ÌÈÓÎÁÂ. In the sameway, the verb in ¯ˆÓ ÂÏÊ! Â„‡ÏÂÂ‡Â (91 3a,5) ‘and his childrenwent down into Egypt’ follows the subject in an SVO wordorder, just like the Hebrew original, ÌÈ¯ˆÓ Â„¯È ÂÈ!·Â.

This type of verbatim translation and avoidance of syntacticadaptation in the Judeo-Arabic structure may even occur whenthe Hebrew original uses an unusual word order for emphasis orstylistic reasons, as in the following examples with OV wordorder.(2-1.4) In Genesis: The Hebrew word order OV in Ô˙! ˙ $!„‚ÓÂ

‰Ó‡ÏÂ ‰ÈÁ‡Ï ‘and he gave gifts to her brother and her mother’(Gen 24:53) is retained in the ¡ar˙ in a verbatim translation,‡‰ÓÂ‡ÏÂ ‡‰Â·‡Ï ÏÚ‚ ˙‡È„‰Â (15 4a,10–11) ‘and he gave gifts toher father1 and her mother.’ The same applies to Ô‡È„‚ „ÂÏ‚ ‰Ï‡Â‰È„È‡ ‰ÏÚ ˙Ò·Ï ÊÚ‡Ó Ï‡ (15 7b,20–8a,1) ‘with the skins of thegoat-kids she dressed his arms,’ where the OV word order followsthe same word order as in ÂÈ„È ÏÚ ‰˘È·Ï‰ ÌÈÊÚ‰ ÈÈ„‚ ˙]›Ú ˙‡Â (Gen27:16). Similarly, the OV word order in ¬Ï Â˙ÏÚ‚ „ÈÒ (15 8b,12)‘a master have I installed over you’ follows the Hebrew OVword order in ÍÏ ÂÈ˙Ó˘ ¯È·‚ (Gen 27:37).(2-1.5) In Esther: The ¡ar˙an has employed OV word order in‡‰˙˜È¥¯Ï ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ÈËÚÈ ‡‰˙!ËÏÒÂ (1302 2a,6) ‘and the queenshipwill the king give to her friend,’ in order to translate the HebrewOV word order in ‰˙ÂÚ¯Ï ÍÏÓ‰ Ô˙È ‰˙ÂÎÏÓÂ (Esth 1:19). In ˙¯˘ÚÂ

190

1 The word /li-ab¥ha/ ‘to her father’ in ‡‰ÓÂ‡ÏÂ ‡‰Â·‡Ï ÏÚ‚ ˙‡È„‰Â (15 4a,10–11)‘and he gave gifts to her father and her mother’ mistranslates the Hebrew ‰ÈÁ‡Ï ‘toher brother’ (Gen 24:53). Later in the chapter, this mistake does not occur in Ï‡˜Â‡‰ÓÂ‡Â ‡‰Â¡‡ (15 4a,13–14) ‘her brother and mother said,’ translating the Hebrew‰Óœ‡Â ‰ÈÁ‡ ¯Ó‡ÈÂ (Gen 24:55). See Hary 2009, chapter 3, “Mistakes and Omissionsin the Texts.”

‰Ú!ˆ Ï‡ È$‡‰ ÔÈÚ!‡ˆ „È ‡ÏÚ ÔÊÂ‡ ‰ƒ¥ Ï‡˜˙Ó ¥‡Ï‡ (1302 3a,17–18)

THE PHRASE AND THE WORD LEVELS: SYNTACTIC ADAPTATION

‘I will weigh out ten thousand miskals2 of silver into the handsof those who are engaged in this business,’ the ¡ar˙an has usedOV word order to imitate the Hebrew original in ¯ÎÎ ÌÈÙÏ‡ ˙¯˘ÚÂ

‰Î‡ÏÓ‰ È" ›Ú È„È ÏÚ ÏÂ˜˘‡ ÛÒÎ (Esth 3:9). A similar OV word orderis employed in ÂÏ˙˜ „Â‰È Ï‡ Â„Ú ‡˙„Ó Ï‡ Ô·‡ ÔÓ‰ „‡ÏÂ‡ ˙¯˘Ú(1302 7a,1) ‘The ten sons of Haman, son of Madatha, enemyof the Jews, they killed,’ following the Hebrew in Ô· ÔÓ‰ È!· ˙¯"Ú

Â‚¯‰ ÌÈ„Â‰È‰ ¯¯›ˆ ‡˙„Ó‰ (Esth 9:10).3

(2-1.6) In the Haggadah: The Hebrew word order OVS in ¯‚

ÍÚ¯Ê ‰È‰È ‘your seed will be a stranger’ (although ¯‚ is technicallya predicate) is translated verbatim in the ¡ar˙: ¬ÏÒ! ÔÂÎÈ ·È¯µ (36,16) ‘your seed will be a stranger,’ in a similar unusual OVSword order. Similarly, the Hebrew OV word order in ÁÓˆÎ ‰··¯

ÍÈ˙˙! ‰„˘‰ is transferred intact into the Judeo-Arabic with thesame OV word order ¬˙ÏÚ‚ ËÈµ Ï‡ ˙‡·!Î ‰ÂÂ·¯ (3 8,12–13) ‘Ihave made you multiply ten thousand like the vegetation of thefield.’ In the same way, the word order in the Hebrew Â˜Ï ÌÈ‰ ÏÚÂ

˙ÂÎÓ ÌÈ œ̆ÓÁ, where the locative precedes the verb for emphasis, isstrictly imitated in the Judeo-Arabic ¡ar˙ Â·¯ƒ!‡ ¯Á· Ï‡ ‰ÏÚÂ‰·¯ƒ ÔÈÒÓ¡ (3 14,7–8) ‘and over the sea they (the Egyptians)were smitten with fifty plagues.’

The avoidance of syntactic adaptation of the Judeo-Arabicstructure may sometimes cause slight misunderstandings of thetext, as in the following example:(2-1.7) The phrase ÂÏ ˙„ÏÂ ‘bore to him’ in ¯ÂÁ! Ô·‡ Ï‡Â˙· ˙!·

191

2 A miskal is a measure of weight; in Egypt one miskal is equivalent to 4.68grams.

3 ‡˙„Ó Ï‡ can be considered a calque translation, as it translates the Hebrewname ‡˙„Ó‰ ‘Hammedatha.’ The ¡ar˙an has mistakenly interpreted the Hebrewname as having two morphemes: the definite article /ha-/ and the name. Seechapter 6, p. 181, and Hary 2009, chapter 3, “Mistakes and Omissions in theTexts.”

‰ÎÏÓ ÂÏ ˙„ÏÂ È$Ï‡ (15 4a,1) ‘the daughter of Bethuel, the son of

CHAPTER SEVEN

Nahor, whom Milcah (his wife) bore to him’ is an exact renditionof the Hebrew ÂÏ ‰„ÏÈ (Gen 24:47) without any syntacticadaptation. Saadia (‰Ï ‰˙„ÏÂ) and the Protestant translation(t????! t???"b????!Ë) employed syntactic adaptation by adding the‘returning’ pronoun (/al->å<id/, see Wright 1974, 2:346–47) /-hu/and resulting in a clearer translation.

Int.: (2-1.8) Infrequently, the ¡ar˙an has adapted the Hebrew textsyntactically in an interpretive manner. He has done so, forexample, by changing Hebrew SV into Judeo-Arabic VS, as isusual in Arabic. Thus, the Judeo-Arabic VS in Ï‡ È‚˙ ‡$‡‰·Â¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ‡Ï‡ ‰ÈÈ·ˆ (1302 2b,11) ‘in this way the girl would go tothe king’ translates the Hebrew SV in ÍÏÓ‰ Ï‡ ‰‡· ‰¯Ú!‰ ‰Ê·Â

(Esth 2:13).(2-1.9) The ¡ar˙an has also infrequently adapted the Hebrewtext syntactically in an interpretive manner while changingHebrew OV word order into regular Judeo-Arabic VO. Thus,OV ‰˘Ú ˙Â!È„ÓÏ ‰Á!‰Â ‘and he proclaimed an amnesty for theprovinces’ (Esth 2:18) was translated into Judeo-Arabic VOÔÈ‡„Ó ÏÏ ‰Á‡È¯ ÏÓÚÂ (1302 2b,20) ‘and he offered generosity (lit.‘made rest’) to the provinces.’

L/I: (2-1.10) The translation Â!‡Î ‰ÈÈ·‡!‚‡ ‰„‡·Ú ÔÈ„·‡Ú ‡„˙·‡ Ï‡ ÔÓ‡!˙‡‰·‡ (93 18,14) ‘from the beginning, our fathers were wor-shippers of strange gods’ follows the SVO Hebrew word orderin Â!È˙Â·‡ ÂÈ‰ ‰¯Ê ‰„Â·Ú È„·ÂÚ ‰ÏÁ˙Ó , but other manuscripts use amore syntactically adapted Judeo-Arabic word order of VSO ina more interpretive mode: ÔÈ„·‡Ú ‰!˙‡‰·‡ Â!‡Î ‰„˙·‡ Ï‡ ÔÓ‰ÈÈ·!‚‡ ‰„‡·Ú (3 5,17–18 and, with spelling variation, 91 2b,14).

Word Order: AdverbsFeature 2-2 — AdverbsLit.: The word order of the following several adverbs follows the

192

Hebrew verbatim even if it is not called for by Arabic structure,

THE PHRASE AND THE WORD LEVELS: ADVERBS

exhibiting a strong literal translation tendency.(2-2.1) In many instances the place of the adverb Ô‡ÓÎ /kamån/‘also’ in the Judeo-Arabic phrase follows verbatim the place ofÌ‚ in the biblical Hebrew phrase. For example, Ô‡ÓÎ ˙Ï‡˜ÂÈ˜Ò‡ ¬Ï‡Ó‚Ï (15 3a,1) ‘And she said, “I will also water yourcamels” ’ translates verbatim ·‡˘‡ ÍÈÏÓ‚Ï Ì‚ ¯Ó‡˙Â (Gen 24:19);˙‡·!Ï Á¯ËÓ Ô‡ÓÎÂ ‰!ÚÓ ¯È˙Î ¥ÏÚ Ô‡ÓÎÂ Ô·˙ Ô‡ÓÎ ‰ÈÏ‡ ˙Ï‡˜Â (153a,8–9) ‘and she said to him, “There is a lot of straw as well asforage in our place, and also a place to spend the night” ’ translatesverbatim ÔÂÏÏ ÌÂ˜Ó Ì‚ Â!ÓÚ ·¯ ‡ÂÙÒÓ Ì‚ Ô·˙ Ì‚ ÂÈÏ‡ ¯Ó‡˙Â (Gen 24:25);and ‰ÈÏÚ Ô‡ÓÎ ÂÓˆ‡¡˙‡Â (15 6b,16) ‘and they fought also overit’ translates verbatim ‰ÈÏÚ Ì‚ Â·È¯ÈÂ (Gen 26:21).

The same occurs in the ¡ar˙ of the book of Esther. In È‚˙ ÌÏ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ˙È· ‡Ï‡ Ô‡ÓÎ (1302 2b,13) ‘she would not go again tothe house of the king’ and in Ô‡ÓÎ ¬˙·ÏË ˘È‡Â (1302 7a,4) ‘andwhat is your further request?,’ the place of /kamån/ in thephrase is the same as the place of „ÂÚ in the original Hebrew inEsth 2:14 and 9:12 respectively.

Furthermore, the Haggadah displays the same feature. In thefollowing examples, the place of Ô‡ÓÎ /kamån/ or ‰!‡ÓÎ /kamåna/follows verbatim the place of the Hebrew word Û‡ or Ì‚: Ô‡ÓÎÂ!‡!Ò ‰Ï‡ Ò¯„ ‰˙!‡ (3 4,20) ‘you also, extinguish his teeth’;ÂÓ„¡‡ È$Ï‡ ·Ú˘ Ï‡ ‡Ï‡ ‰!‡ÓÎÂ (3 6,18) ‘and also that nationwhom they worshiped’; and ‰!È‰¯Î ‰ÏÚ ‡Â‰ Ô‡ÓÎ „‡Ê!ÈÂ (3 9,4–5)‘may also join our enemies.’(2-2.2) Similar is the word order of ÔƒÈÈ‡ /ay!an/ ‘also’ in thevarious ¡ur¥˙. In Classical Arabic /ay!an/ is generally locatedafter the phrase to which it refers,4 but in the Egyptian ¡ur¥˙ itusually follows verbatim the place of its biblical equivalent.

193

4 See Reckendorf 1895–98:110–11. In colloquial Egyptian Arabic the use ofthe adverb /ay!an/ is limited (Hinds and Badawi 1986:46).

Thus, in the book of Esther the place of /ay!an/ in Ï‡ È˙˘Â ÔƒÈÈ‡

CHAPTER SEVEN

‰ÓÂÊÚ ˙Ú!ˆ ‰ÎÏÓ (1302 9b,13) ‘Queen Vashti also threw a banquet’is similar to the place of its Hebrew equivalent Ì‚ in È˙˘Â Ì‚

‰˙˘Ó ‰˙˘Ú ‰ÎÏÓ‰ (Esth 1:9) before and not after È˙˘Â, which itmodifies. Furthermore, in „Â‰È ÏÏ ¯Î‡· ÔƒÈÈ‡ ‡ËÚ!È (1302 7a,5)‘let tomorrow also be given to the Jews,’ /ay!an/ precedes/båkir/ ‘tomorrow’ as is the case in ÌÈ„Â‰ÈÏ ¯ÁÓ Ì‚ Ô˙!È (Esth9:13). The same occurs in È¥ ÔƒÈÈ‡ Ô˘Â˘ È¥ È$Ï‡ „Â‰È Ï‡ Â˜ÂÂ‚˙‡Â¯„‡ ¯‰˘Ï ±¥ Ï‡ ÌÂÈ (1302 7a,8) ‘Then the Jews in Sushan wereassembled on the fourteenth day of Adar as well,’ followingstrictly the placement of Ì‚ in Esth 9:15.(2-2.3) The adverb Ë˜¥ /faqa†/ ‘only’ in regular Arabic use usuallycomes after the phrase to which it relates; however, in ‰Ï‡ Ë˜¥Ú‚¯˙ ÌÏ È!·‡ (15 2b,4) ‘Only, do not take my son back’ theadverb /faqa†/ comes before the phrase it modifies in a clearword-for-word translation of ·˘˙ ‡Ï È!· ˙‡ ˜¯ (Gen 24:8). Thesame holds true for the placement of /faqa†/ in ¬ÚÓ ‰!Ú!ˆ È$Ï‡ÎÂ·ÈÈË Ë˜¥ (15 7a,9–10) ‘just as we have done only good withyou,’ following directly its position in the Hebrew Â!È˘Ú ¯˘‡ÎÂ

·ÂË ˜¯ ÍÓÚ (Gen 26:29). In the same way, the ¡ar˙an has placed/faqa†/ in ¬!Ó Ì#Ú‡ ÈÒ¯ÂÎ Ï‡ Ë˜¥ (15 26b,4) ‘only in the throneshall I be above you’ before the phrase it modifies, as in theHebrew ÍÓÓ Ï„‚‡ ‡ÒÎ‰ ˜¯ (Gen 41:40). Furthermore, /faqa†/ morefrequently translates in Genesis Hebrew Í‡ ‘only,’ and in thiscase too it appears before the phrase it modifies in a verbatimtranslation of the Hebrew. Thus, the place of /faqa†/ in Ï‡˜Â‡È‰ È˙¡Â‡ ˙ÏÂ˜ Ë˜¥Â ‡È‰ ¬˙‡¯Ó ‰„ÂÂ‰ Ë˜¥ (15 6a,18–19) ‘and hesaid, “Indeed, she is your wife!” How (lit. only) can you say,“She is my sister?” ’ follows verbatim its place in the Hebrew

194

5 The second /faqa†/ in this example actually translates Hebrew ÍÈ‡ ‘how’;apparently the scribe confused ÍÈ‡ and Í‡. See Hary 2009, chapter 3, “Mistakesand Omissions in the Texts.”

biblical verse ‡È‰ È˙ÂÁ‡ ˙¯Ó‡ ÍÈ‡Â ‡È‰ Í˙˘‡ ‰!‰ Í‡ ¯Ó‡ÈÂ (Gen 26:9).5


Similarly, in È˙Âˆ È¥ ÚÓÒ‡ Ë˜¥ È!·‡ ‡È (15 7b,16–17) ‘My son,only heed my voice,’ the ¡ar˙an has placed /faqa†/ before thephrase it modifies, following the Hebrew ÈÏÂ˜· ÚÓ˘ Í‡ È!· (Gen27:13). Along the same lines /faqa†/ appears in ‚¯¡ ‚Â¯¡ Ë˜¥ Ô‡ÎÂ˜ÁˆÈ ‰È‚Â „!Ú ÔÓ ·Â˜ÚÈ (15 7b,20–8a,1) ‘and it was when Jacobhad scarcely left from the presence of Isaac,’ translating verbatim˜ÁˆÈ È!Ù ˙‡Ó ·˜ÚÈ ‡ˆÈ ‡›̂ È Í‡ È‰ÈÂ (Gen 27:30).(2-2.4) Along the same lines, the ¡ar˙an translates the Hebrewmodal interjection (or vocative) ‡! using the Judeo-Arabic adverbÔ‡Ï‡ /al<ån/ ‘now,’ placing it in the same position in the sentencethat ‡! occupies in the Hebrew original. Thus, in Genesis, /al<ån/follows the imperative verb in ÈÎ¯ÂÂ ˙Á˙ ¬„È Ô‡Ï‡ ÏÚ‚‡ (15 2a,14)‘place now your hand under my thigh,’ just as ‡! does in theHebrew ÈÎ¯È ˙Á˙ Í„È ‡! ÌÈ˘ (Gen 24:2). The same applies to ¥„‡ˆÌÂÈ Ï‡ ÈÓ‡„Â˜Ï Ô‡Ï‡ (15 2b,10) ‘(you) make it happen now infront of me today,’ following ÌÂÈ‰ È!ÙÏ ‡! ‰¯˜‰ (Gen 24:12), andto ¬˙¯‚ ÔÓ ‰ÈÓ ÏÈÏ˜ ÔÓ Ô‡Ï‡ È!ÈË¥˘ (15 2b,19) ‘let me drink nowa little water from your jug,’ following verbatim ËÚÓ ‡! È!È‡ÈÓ‚‰

Í„ÎÓ ÌÈÓ (Gen 24:17). The ¡ar˙an was so strict about translatingevery Hebrew ‡! with Judeo-Arabic /al<ån/ that he mistakenlyparsed the verb ‰!ËÁ‡ ‘I would bear the loss’ (Gen 31:39),translating it as Ô‡Ï‡ ˙ÈË¡‡ (15 14b,7–8).

In Esther the Hebrew interjection ‡! does not appear, but inthe Haggadah, occurrences similar to those in Genesis appear.The position of Ô‡ Ï‡ /al<ån/ ‘now’ in "¯‡ È¥ ¬„È·Ú Ô‡ Ï‡ Â„ÂÚ˜ÈÔ˘Â‚ (3 7,20) ‘let your servants dwell now in the land of Goshen’follows verbatim the position in its Hebrew equivalent ‡! Â·˘È

Ô˘Â‚ ı¯‡· ÍÈ„·Ú. In the same way, the position of /al<ån/ in Ï‡ ÔÈ¥ÌÂ‰‰‡Ï‡ Ô‡ (3 23,11) ‘where is their God now?’ follows verbatimthe position of its Hebrew equivalent in Ì‰È‰¿‡ ‡! ‰È‡ . Likewisein ÂÓÂ˜ ÏÂÎÏ Ô‡ Ï‡ „‡ˆÂ˜ ‰¥ÂÂ‡ ‰ÏÏ‡Ï È¯Â„! (3 25,3–4) ‘My vowsto God I will pay now in the presence of all his people,’

195

following literally the Hebrew ÂÓÚ ÏÎÏ ‡! ‰„‚! ÌÏ˘‡ ß‰Ï È¯„!.

CHAPTER SEVEN

(2-2.5) Whereas the Judeo-Arabic adverb /al<ån/ is reserved bythe ¡ar˙anim for the translation of Hebrew ‡! in both Genesisand the Passover Haggadah, Egyptian Judeo-Arabic /dilw <at(i)/‘now’ translates Hebrew ‰˙Ú ‘now’ in both texts, as well asÂÈ˘ÎÚ ‘now’ in the Haggadah (Esther does not have biblical‰˙Ú). As has been shown above, this adverb is situated in thesame position as its Hebrew equivalent in a literal translation,although frequently it does follow common Arabic structure.Thus, in Genesis the position of /dilwa<ti/ in Ô‡Î!‡ È˙˜ÂÂÏ„ÂÏƒ¥ ÔÈÚ!‡ˆ ÌÂ˙!‡ (15 4a,4–5) ‘and now, if you do kindness’follows verbatim the position of ‰˙Ú in „ÒÁ ÌÈ˘›Ú ÌÎ˘È Ì‡ ‰˙ÚÂ

(Gen 24:49). The same applies to the other instances of /dilwa<ti/in Genesis. For example, ‰!Ï ‰ÏÏ‡ ÚÒÂ È˙˜ÂÂÏ„ Ô‡ (15 6b,19) ‘fornow God has given us a wide space’ translates verbatim ‰˙Ú ÈÎ

Â!Ï ß‰ ·ÈÁ¯‰ (Gen 26:22), and ‰ÏÏ‡Ï ¬Â¯·Ó È˙˜ÂÂÏ„ ‰˙!‡ (15 7a,10–11) ‘now, you are blessed by God’ translates literally ‰˙‡

ß‰ ÍÂ¯· ‰˙Ú (Gen 26:29). In all these instances the position ofJudeo-Arabic /dilwa<ti/ in the phrase follows verbatim theposition of ‰˙Ú in the biblical text.6

Along the same lines Judeo-Arabic /dilwa<ti/ appears in theHaggadah in the same position as its Hebrew original: ˙˜Â Ï„Â˜Ï‡¡ Ï‡ ‰!·¯˜ (3 5,18) ‘and now God has brought us near …’translates verbatim ÌÂ˜Ó‰ Â!·¯˜ Â˘ÎÚÂ . Similar is the translation ofHebrew ‡! Â·˘È ‰˙ÚÂ into Judeo-Arabic Â„ÂÚ˜È ˙˜Â Ï„Â (3 7,19)‘and now let them dwell,’ and ß‰ ÍÓ˘ ‰˙ÚÂ into Judeo-Arabic Ï„Â

196

6 /dilwa<ti/ translates all occurrences of ‰˙Ú that appear in Genesis, except forGen 29:34, where the Hebrew adverb is simply not translated. /dilwa<ti/ alsotranslates three instances of Hebrew ‰!‰ ‘behold,’ although many other instancesof ‰!‰ are translated as /hawda/. In one strange case, /dilwa <ti/ translates Hebrew‰·Â: ÏÈƒ¥ ˙Ú!ˆ Ô‡ ¥¯Ú‡ È˙˜ÂÂÏ„Â (15 2b,14) ‘and may I now know that you havedone kindness,’ which oddly translates „ÒÁ ˙È˘Ú ÈÎ Ú„‡ ‰·Â ‘and through her may Iknow that you have done kindness’ (Gen 24:14).

‰ÏÏ‡ ¬ÏÚ‚ ˙˜Â (3 8,3) ‘and now God has made you …’


(2-2.6) The same applies to the sentence position of the adverbÈÂÂ˜ ‘very’ in the ¡ar˙, as it follows verbatim the position of „›‡Ó

in the Hebrew text. In Genesis, for example, Ï‡ ˙!ÒÂÁ ‰È·ˆ Ï‡ÂÈÂÂ˜ ¯#!Ó (15 2b,17) ‘and the girl is very good looking’ translatesverbatim „›‡Ó ‰‡¯Ó ˙·›Ë ‰¯ÚÓ‰Â (Gen 24:16); È„ÈÒ ‰Ï‡ ¬¯‡· ‰ÏÏ‡ÂÈÂÂ˜ (15 3b,2) ‘and God has greatly blessed my master’ translatesliterally „›‡Ó È!I‡ ˙‡ Í¯· ß‰Â (Gen 24:35); and ÈÂÂ˜ ¯Â·ÂÎ Ô‡ „!Ú (156b,5) ‘until he became very great’ translates verbatim Ï„‚ ÈÎ „Ú

„›‡Ó (Gen 26:13).The same occurs in Esther, where Hebrew „›‡Ó is translated by

Egyptian Judeo-Arabic /giddan/. In both cases where the adverbappears, its position in the sentence follows the Hebrewequivalent: Ô„‚ ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ Ë¡ÒÂ (1302 1b,17–18) ‘then the kingbecame very angry,’ translating „›‡Ó ÍÏÓ‰ Ûˆ˜ÈÂ (Esth 1:12) andÔ„‚ ‰ÎÏÓ Ï‡ ˙˘Ú˙¯‡Â (1302 3b,14–15) ‘and the queen was greatlydistressed,’ translating „›‡Ó ‰ÎÏÓ‰ ÏÁÏÁ˙˙Â (Esth 4:4).

In the Haggadah ÈÂÂ˜ ÈÂÂ˜ Ï‡· ÂÓ#ÂÚÂ (93 22,10–11) ‘and theyincreased a lot’ follows literally the Hebrew „‡Ó „‡Ó· ÂÓˆÚÈÂ (seep. 230, 5-1.37). Similarly, in ÈÂÂ˜ ÏÈ˜˙ ‰!¥ (3 12,7) ‘very heavydestruction’ the ¡ar˙an has placed /<awi/ at the end of thephrase, as is expected in Judeo-Arabic structure and followingthe Hebrew „‡Ó „·Î ¯·C. The same occurs in ÈÂÂ˜ ˙·ÂÂ‡‚ ‡!‡ (324,20) ‘I answered a lot,’ which translates verbatim the Hebrew„‡Ó È˙È!Ú È!‡ ‘I am greatly afflicted’ (see pp. 201–2, 3-1.5).(2-2.7) The adverb and vocative ‰„ÂÂ‰ ‘behold, indeed, here’ isregularly chosen to translate verbatim Hebrew ‰!‰ (in Genesisand Esther) and È¯‰ (in the Haggadah), using the same wordorder as the Hebrew.

In Genesis: ·ˆ˙!Ó ‰!‡ ‰„ÂÂ‰ (15 2b,11) ‘Indeed, I stand’translates ·ˆ %! ÈÎ $!‡ ‰!‰ (Gen 24:13); Ï‡Ó‚ Ï‡ ‰ÏÚ ¥˜‡Â ‰„ÂÂ‰Â (153a,16–17) ‘and indeed he is standing by the camels’ translatesÌÈÏÓ‚‰ ÏÚ „Ó›Ú ‰!‰Â (Gen 24:30); and ¬Ó‡„Â˜Ï ‰˜·¯ ‰„ÂÂ‰ ‘Here is

197

Rebecca before you’ translates ÍÈ!ÙÏ ‰˜·¯ ‰!‰ (Gen 24:51).

CHAPTER SEVEN

In Esther: ¥˜‡Â ÔÓ‰ ‡„ÂÂ‰ (1302 4b,20) ‘Here Haman is standing’translates „Ó›Ú ÔÓ‰ ‰!‰ (Esth 6:5); ‰·˘¡ Ï‡ ‡„ÂÂ‰ ÔƒÈÈ‡ (13025b,10) ‘indeed also the tree’ translates ıÚ‰ ‰!‰ Ì‚ (Esth 7:9); and˙ÈËÚ ÔÓ‰ ˙È· ‡„ÂÂ‰ (1302 6a,4) ‘I gave indeed Haman’s house’translates È˙˙! ÔÓ‰ ˙È· ‰!‰ (Esth 8:7).

In the Haggadah: in both of the following examples /hawda/appears at the same position as its Hebrew equivalent. ‰„ ‰„ÂÂ‰¯¡˙¥ÂÓ (3 3,7–8) ‘Indeed, this is praiseworthy’ translates ‰Ê È¯‰

Á·%̆ Ó; and ‰!Ò ÔÈÚ·Ò Ô·‡Î ‰!‡ ‰„ÂÂ‰ (3 3,18–19) ‘Indeed, I amabout seventy years old’ translates ‰!˘ ÌÈÚ·˘ Ô·Î È!‡ È¯‰.

Int.: (2-2.8) The adverb and vocative ‰„ÂÂ‰ ‘behold, indeed, here’can, at times, be positioned at a different place in the sentencethan its Hebrew equivalent in an interpretive translation: ‰˜·¯Â‰‚¯‡¡ ‰„ÂÂ‰ (15 2b,15) ‘and indeed Rebecca is leaving’ translates˙‡ˆ $È ‰˜·¯ ‰!‰Â (Gen 24:15).

L/I: (2-2.9) In the Haggadah the adverb Ë˜¥ /faqa†/ translates Hebrew„·Ï· ‘only,’ following verbatim the same word order as its Hebrewequivalent, but at the same time it also follows the item itmodifies in an interpretive mode, unlike the examples above in2-2.3, where /faqa†/ follows verbatim the Hebrew, but does notsucceed the item it modifies as required by the Arabic structure:‰!Â!¥ÈÏ ‰!ÈÏÚ ¥˜Â Ë˜¥ „Á‡Â ÌÏ Ô‡ (3 7,2–3) ‘for not one only hasrisen up to annihilate us’ translates Â!È˙ÂÏÎÏ Â!ÈÏÚ „ÓÚ „·Ï· „Á‡ ‡Ï˘;and ‡Â‰ ¬¯‡·Â˙ ÒÂ„Â˜ Ï‡ ¬¥ Ë˜¥ ‰!˙‡‰·‡Ï ÌÏ È$Ï‡ (3 19,9–10)‘it was not only our ancestors that the Holy One, blessed beHe, redeemed’ translates verbatim the Hebrew Â!È˙Â·‡ ˙‡ ‡Ï˘

‡Â‰ ÍÂ¯· ˘Â„˜‰ Ï‡‚ „·Ï·.

Word Order: NumeralsFeature 2-3 — NumeralsInt.: It is quite common in the ¡ar˙ to find the regular Judeo-Arabic

198

word order for the numerals (hundreds-units-tens), which is not

THE PHRASE AND THE WORD LEVELS: NUMERALS

in line with Hebrew word order. This is a typical interpretivetranslation that favors Judeo-Arabic structure over a literaltranslation (the following examples are just a small sample):(2-3.1) In Genesis: The phrase ÔÈ!Ò ÔÈ˙Ï˙Â ‰È‡Ó!Ó˙ (15 0-1,1)‘eight hundred and thirty years’ follows regular Judeo-Arabicword order, and thus translates interpretively the different wordorder of the Hebrew ‰!˘ ˙Â‡Ó ‰!Ó˘Â ‰!˘ ÌÈ˘Ï˘ ‘thirty years andeight hundred years’ (Gen 5:16). Likewise, ‰ÒÓ¡Â ‰È‡Ó!Ó˙‰!Ò ÔÈÚÒ˙Â (15 0-1,2) ‘eight hundred and ninety-five years’ hasregular Judeo-Arabic word order, despite the different Hebrewword order: ‰!˘ ˙Â‡Ó ‰!Ó˘Â ‰!˘ ÌÈÚ˘˙Â ˘ÓÁ (Gen 5:17). In the sameway, the word order of the numerals in ‰!Ò ÔÈ!Ó˙Â ÔÈ!˙‡Â ‰È‡Ó(15 0-1,12–13) ‘one hundred and eighty-two years’ is regular,and not the same as the Hebrew ‰!˘ ˙‡ÓÂ ‰!˘ ÌÈ!Ó˘Â ÌÈ˙˘ (Gen5:28), indicating an interpretive translation.(2-3.2) The same occurs in the ¡ar˙ of Esther: ˙Ú·ÒÂ ˙È‡Ó‰!È„Ó ÔÈ¯˘ÚÂ (1302 1b,3; 6a,9) ‘one hundred and twenty-sevenprovinces’ observes regular Judeo-Arabic word order, notfollowing the Hebrew word order of ‰!È„Ó ‰‡ÓÂ ÌÈ¯˘ÚÂ Ú·˘ (Esth1:1; 8:9) in an interpretive translation. Furthermore, the ¡ar˙anin Esther has used Arabic numerals in his translation: ¯‰˘ Ï‡ È¥‰È¥ #$ È¥ ÔÂÈÒ ¯‰˘ ‡ÂÂ‰ ˙Ï‡˙ Ï‡ (1302 6a,7) ‘in the third month,i.e., the month of Sivan, on the twenty-third.’(2-3.3) In the Haggadah as well, the ¡ar˙an has translated theHebrew word order of the numerals interpretively: ÔÈÒÓ¡Â ÔÈ˙ÈÓ‰·¯ƒ (3 15,17) ‘two hundred and fifty plagues’ does not followthe Hebrew word order ˙ÂÎÓ ÌÈ˙‡ÓÂ ÌÈyÓÁ , but is an interpretivetranslation.

L/I.: As seen above, the ¡ar˙an has usually retained regular Judeo-Arabic word order in the numerals, but in the following examples,the numerals’ word order is the same as in the Hebrew; it may

199

appear to be a literal translation, but it actually follows regular

CHAPTER SEVEN

Judeo-Arabic word order at the same time.(2-3.4) In Genesis: ‰!Ò ÔÈ˙ÒÂ ‰ÒÓ¡ (15 0-1,5) ‘sixty-five years’is in regular Judeo-Arabic word order, which also follows theHebrew word order: ‰!˘ ÌÈ˘˘Â ˘ÓÁ (Gen 5:21). Similarly, ˙Ï˙‰!Ò ‰È‡Ó (15 0-1,7) ‘three hundred years’ follows the Hebrewword order of ‰!˘ ˙Â‡Ó ˘Ï˘ (Gen 5:22), but is also in regularArabic structure.

Lexicon: Semantic ConsiderationsLevel: Word; Category 3: LexiconFeature 3-1 — Word or root choice (semantic considerations)Lit.: (3-1.1) There are a few cases where the ¡ar˙an has translated

the meanings of Hebrew place and personal names into Judeo-Arabic, and not just phonetically transcribed the name. Thus,the translation of the name of the cave ‰ÏÙÎÓ‰ ‘the Machpelah’into Judeo-Arabic ‰È!˙Ó Ï‡ (15 2a,9), literally ‘the doubled,’ isa clear literal choice by the ¡ar˙an. He translated verbatim theHebrew root k-f-l ‘double’ into Judeo-Arabic t-n-y ‘double’ andalso copied the Hebrew locative initial mem into Judeo-Arabiclocative m•m, as well as the pattern ma-R1R2R3-a.7 Of course,had the ¡ar˙an copied the Hebrew Machpelah into Judeo-Arabicwith the actual phonetics of the Hebrew name, as he did inmany other place names as well as personal names (see below,3-2.1), we would have had an even more literal translation.Similarly, the Hebrew place name È‡] ÈÁÏ ¯‡· (Gen 24:62) istranslated verbatim semantically into ¯#‡! ÈÈÁ Ï‡ ¯È· (15 4b,3)‘the well of the living looker.’8 The same occurs in Esther withthe translation of the personal Hebrew name ‰Ò„‰ (Esth 2:7)

200

7 See also the section on calque translation in chapter 6, pp. 178–81.8 Although notice that the ¡ar˙an translated ÈÁÃÏ as ÈÈÁ Ï‡ and not the more

literal ÈÈÁ ÏÏ.

‘myrtle’ into Judeo-Arabic ‡!ÈÒ¯Ó (1302 2b,1) ‘myrtle.’ Along

THE PHRASE AND THE WORD LEVELS: SEMANTIC CONSIDERATIONS

the same lines, in the Haggadah the ¡ar˙an translated ˜¯· È!·

into ˜¯· ¯„‡!· (3 3,12–13) ‘the (large) towns (districts) ofBraq.’9

Other translations of words according to their literal meaningare:(3-1.2) The ¡ar˙an translated literally the verb Ú„È ‘know’ inthe biblical (sexual) sense into Judeo-Arabic />araf/: ÌÏ Ï‚‡¯Â‡‰¥¯Ú (15 2b,17) ‘and no man had known her.’(3-1.3) It seems that when the ¡ar˙an translated the Hebrew·ÂËÏ … ‰ &p˘ÈÂ ‘treated her … with kindness’1 0 (Esth 2:9) into‡‰¯ÈÈµ (1302 2b,6) ‘change her,’ he preferred a verbatim transla-tion, rather than interpretive.(3-1.4) The translation of the Hebrew Â˙›‡¯‰· ‘when he displayed’(Esth 1:4) into Â¯Â#! È¥ (1302 1b,5) has probably gone through afew stages. First, the ¡ar˙an wished to translate verbatimÂ˙›‡¯‰·, using the Judeo-Arabic root n-!-r, equivalent to theHebrew root ‰‡¯. However, since the Hebrew verb is in thehif>il form, the ¡ar˙an needed to use the IV form in Judeo-Arabic.Since verbal form IV has quite frequently become form I in thecolloquial and in Later Judeo-Arabic,1 1 the ¡ar˙an used verbalform I here as well, with the meaning of verbal form IV ‘display’and not the meaning of form I ‘see.’ It is also possible, ofcourse, that the ¡ar˙an simply mistranslated Hebrew ‰‡¯‰

‘display’ into Judeo-Arabic /na#ar/ ‘see’ in form I.(3-1.5) Sometimes, the ¡ar˙an was so eager to translate theHebrew text verbatim that he even ignored the actual meaning

201

9 The ¡ar˙an took the Hebrew È!· to mean ‘large towns’ and connected it tothe root b-n-y ‘build.’ Cf. the use of ‰È˙ $!· to mean ‘its villages’ in Num 21:25.

1 0This is one possible translation (Tanakh 1988); there are other possibilities.1 1For Later Judeo-Arabic, see Hary 1992:280, 2.5.2; and Davies 1981:117–18.

For the colloquial, see Mitchell 1978:72–74. Even in Classical Judeo-Arabic wefind this phenomenon, although it is limited (Blau 1980:73–74).

of the lexeme. Consequently, the text contains many calque

CHAPTER SEVEN

translations (chapter 6, pp. 178–81), which are typical of trans-lations of sacred texts in various Jewish varieties. Thus, in theHaggadah, the ¡ar˙an translated Hebrew „‡Ó È˙È!Ú È!‡ ‘I amgreatly afflicted’ literally as ÈÂÂ˜ ˙·ÂÂ‡‚ ‡!‡ (3 24,20) ‘I answeredgreatly.’ The Hebrew verb È˙È!Ú stems from the root >-n-h, whichcan mean both ‘poor’ and ‘answer.’ The ¡ar˙an chose the secondmeaning and arrived at the bizarre and unclear calque translationin the Judeo-Arabic text.

Int.: (3-1.6) Sometimes the ¡ar˙an translated names of places inter-pretively, either by translating them according to meaning or byusing actual Arabic place names. Thus, the biblical Hebrewplace name ‡¯ÓÓ ‘Mamre’ (Gen 23:17) was translated interpre-tively into Judeo-Arabic ‚¯Ó (15 2ba,6) ‘meadow,’ probablythe ¡ar˙an’s attempt to describe the place with the field andthe vegetation surrounding it. Furthermore, the ¡ar˙an translatedthe place names Ì˙Ù and ÒÒÓÚ¯ in the Haggadah into the Egyptianplace names ÌÂÈ¥ Ï‡ and ‰ÒÓ‰· Ï‡ (3 9,9-10) respectively.(3-1.7) The word È˙ÈÈ¯„Â‚ (15 2b,1) ‘my home (root) country’ isan interpretive choice of the ¡ar˙an translating Hebrew È˙„ÏÂÓ

(Gen 24:7) ‘my native land.’ The ¡ar˙an used the Judeo-Arabicroot g-z-r (‘root, source’) and not the root w-l-d employed byboth Saadia (È„ÏÂÓ, Derenbourgh 1893:34) and the Protestanttranslation (/m•låd•/, Al-Kitåb al-Muqaddas 2004:29).(3-1.8) The choice of the verb È‚˙ (15 2b,3) ‘come’ is a possibleinterpretation of the Hebrew ˙ÎÏÏ … ‰·‡˙ ‘want’ (Gen 24:8). Inother words, the ¡ar˙an collapsed the two verbs into one, È‚˙,although later in the sentence he used ÁÂ¯˙Ï ‘to go.’ Saadia andthe Protestant translation did not do that; the former used in histranslation È%ÓÏ‡ … ˜Ù‡Â˙ ‘agree to come,’ while the Protestant

202

1 2It is also possible that the ¡ar˙an misunderstood the Hebrew verb ‰·‡˙‘consent’ and confused it with the root ‡Â· ‘come.’ See Hary 2009, “General

translation employed ¡UA" ‘want.’1 2

THE PHRASE AND THE WORD LEVELS: SEMANTIC CONSIDERATIONS

(3-1.9) The ¡ar˙an translated ‰ÓÎ˘ ‘her shoulder’ (Gen 24:15)into Judeo-Arabic ‡‰Ò‡¯ (15 2b,16) ‘her head’ interpretively.This translation can be seen as “cultural,” since it is common tosee women in Egypt carring their jars of water over their heads,rather than on their shoulders. Interestingly enough, both Saadia’stranslation and the Protestant translation exhibit the more literaltranslation /katf/ ‘shoulder.’(3-1.10) In the sentence ‰ÚÈ‡Ë ¯˙Ò‡ È¡„¯Ó Ì‡ÏÎ ‡Ï‡Â (13022b,22) ‘and Esther obeys Mordechai’s words,’ the ¡ar˙an clearlyinterpreted Hebrew ‰"›Ú ‘do’ in ‰" ›Ú ¯˙Ò‡ ÈÎ„¯Ó ¯Ó‡Ó ˙‡Â (Esth2:20) as ‰ÚÈ‡Ë ‘obey.’(3-1.11) The ¡ar˙an interpreted Hebrew „È ‘hand’ metaphoricallyas ‰¯„˜Ø‰¯„Â˜ ‘might.’ Thus, ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ˙¯„˜Î (1302 1b,11) ‘withthe king’s might’ appears in Esther, translating the Hebreworiginal ÍÏÓ‰ „ÈÎ ‘in accordance with the king’s wealth; inabundance’ (Esth 1:7). In the Haggadah as well, we find Ï‡‰ÓÈ#Ú Ï‡ ‰¯„Â˜ (3 14,11) ‘the great strength,’ translating theHebrew ‰ÏÂ„‚‰ „È‰ . Furthermore, Judeo-Arabic ·¯ Ï‡ ˙¯„Â˜ (314,9) ‘God’s might’ translates ÌÈ‰¿‡ Ú·ˆ‡; and ‰ÏÏ‡ ˙¯„Â˜ (326,13) ‘God’s might’ translates ÈÈ ÔÈÓÈ ‘God’s right hand.’1 3

(3-1.12) ˙¯ƒÁ È¥ ‘in the presence of’ is used in the texts of the¡ur¥˙ in some sort of interpretive mode. The idiom is employedin the translation of several Hebrew phrases. For example, È¥˙¯ƒÁ (15 2a,4; 30b,19; 37b,13) translates È!Ê‡· ‘in the ears of’(Gen 23:16; 44:18; 50:4) and is clearly a metaphorical interpre-tation of the Hebrew. The same applies to ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ˙¯ƒÁ È¥(1302 2a,4; 3a,17; 5a,20; 5b,19; 7a,5), which translates ÍÏÓ‰ ÏÚ(Esth 1:19; 3:9; 5:4, 8; 9:13).

203

Comments on the Critical Editions.”1 3Note that the last two examples do not refer to ‘hand,’ but to ‘finger’ and

‘right hand’ respectively.

Similarly, the use of ˙¯ƒÁÏ (15 2a,7) ‘in the presence of,’

CHAPTER SEVEN

which translates È!ÈÚÏ ‘in the eyes of’ (Gen 23:18); ¬˙¯ƒÁÏ (1534b,15) ‘in your presence,’ translating ÍÈ!ÈÚÏ ‘in your eyes’(Gen 47:19); ÌÂ‰˙¯ƒÁÏ (15 28a,7) ‘in their presence,’ whichtranslates Ì‰È!ÈÚÏ ‘in their eyes’ (Gen 42:24); ÌÂÎ˙¯ƒÁÏ (3 12,18)‘in your presence,’ translating ÍÈ!ÈÚÏ ‘in your eyes’;1 4 ¬˙¯ƒÁ ‰ÏÚ(15 32b,14) ‘in your presence,’ rendering ÍÈ!ÈÚ ÏÚ ‘in your eyes’(Gen 46:4); and the common use of ˙¯ƒÁ È¥ (over twenty-fiveoccurrences in Genesis, ten occurrences in Esther, and at leastone occurrence in the Haggadah) to translate È!ÈÚ·1 5 are alsointerpretive, but less so than the examples in the precedingparagraph.

The same applies to ¬˙¯ƒÁ ‰ÏÚ (15 32b,14) ‘in your presence,’which translates ÍÈ!ÈÚ ÏÚ ‘on your eyes’ (Gen 46:4). Moreover,˙¯ƒÁ È¥ (1302 4b,13; 5b,20), translating È!ÙÏ (Esth 5:14; 8:5)and Â˙¯ƒÁ È¥ (1302 5b,20), translating ÂÈ!ÙÏ (Esth 8:5), are evenless interpretive.1 6

(3-1.13) The choice of /¡a††/ ‘shore’ in ¯‰! Ï‡ Ë˘ È¥ (3 6,1) ‘atthe shore of the river’ to translate the Hebrew ¯‰!‰ ¯·Ú· ‘beyondthe river’ is an interpretive choice. In another place, when theHebrew text appears with the preposition ‘from,’ as in ¯·ÚÓ

¯‰!‰, the ¡ar˙ exhibits the preposition /min/: ¯‰! Ï‡ Ë˘ ÔÓ (36,5–6). Thus, the ¡ar˙an consistently translates ¯·Ú ‘beyond’with Ë˘ ‘shore’ and not with any lexeme that expresses thenotion of ‘beyond.’1 7

L/I: (3-1.14) The Hebrew word ‰¯Â˙ ‘Torah’ is translated in three

204

1 4Notice the inconsistency in the translation of the pronominal suffix.1 5This translation also occurs in combination with various pronominal suffixes.1 6For a further treatment of “more” or “less” interpretive (or literal) translation,

see pp. 83–85 above, especially p. 85.1 7See BDB:719, ¯‰!‰ ¯·Ú· ‘beyond the river,’ but also ¯·ÚÓ ‘to the other side

of.’

different ways in the Haggadah: literally as ‰¯Â˙ (for example,

THE PHRASE AND THE WORD LEVELS: APPEARANCE CONSIDERATIONS

in 74 22,13) and ‰¯ÂË (for example in 93 90,12), obviouslytaken from the Hebrew original. It is, however, also translatedinterpretively by ‰ÚÈ¯˘ (for example in 3 3,6), avoiding thephonetically similar words /tøra/ and /†øra/.(3-1.15) The choice of the word ¯‡˙ÂÎ /kutår/ (3 21,6) ‘many’in the Haggadah to translate Hebrew ÌÈ¯Á‡ ‘other’ is an inter-pretive choice of the ¡ar˙an; however, in other manuscripts,the translation is verbatim: ÔÈ¯¡‡ (74 12,5) and ÔÈ¯¡Â‡ (91 9b,14;93 45,5) ‘other (pl.).’(3-1.16) In the Haggadah the ¡ar˙an chose to translate ÛÂÒ ÌÈ

‘the Red Sea’ as ÔÂ$¯Â‡ Ï‡/ÔÂ„¯Â‡ Ï‡ ¯Á· (93 73,13; 73,15; 91113a,2; 13a,4) ‘the Jordan River,’ thus providing his owninterpretation, while in 74 16,17, the ¡ar˙an kept the originalmeaning: ÌÂÊÏÂ˜ Ï‡ ¯Á· ‘the Red Sea’ (Wehr 1994:920).

Lexicon: Sound/Appearance ConsiderationsFeature 3-2 — Word (or root) choice: considerations of sound/appearance

Lit.: This feature is a common phenomenon in Jewish translations ofthe Hebrew Bible.1 8 Saadia makes a special effort to use Arabicwords that sound like the Hebrew originals.1 9 The same occursin the Septuagint, which uses /drepanon/ (1 Sam 13:21) ‘sickle’for the Hebrew Ô·¯„ /darban/ ‘goad,’ and /trof"/ (Ps 111:5) ‘food’for the Hebrew Û¯Ë /†eref/ ‘prey’ (Greenspahn 2002:46).(3-2.1) In several places in the ¡ur¥˙, one may find Hebrewbiblical personal names copied unchanged into the Judeo-Arabicin clear literal mode. The following examples are just a sample.

In Genesis: Ï‡ÏÏ‰Ó (15 0-1,1) ‘Mahalalel’; „¯È (15 0-1,2) ‘Jared’;

205

1 8See above, pp. 83–85, and Greenspahn 2002:46.1 9See Malter 1921:145 and Galliner 1903:11, quoted by Greenspahn 2002:46

n.16.

ÍÂ!Á (15 0-1,3) ‘Enoch’; ÁÏ˘Â˙Ó (15 0-1,6) ‘Metushelah’; ÍÓÏ

CHAPTER SEVEN

(15 0-1,10) ‘Lemech’; ÁÂ! (15 0-1,10) ‘Noah’; Ì˘ (15 0-1,17)‘Shem’; ÌÁ (15 0-1,18) ‘Ham’; ˙ÙÈ (15 0-1,18) ‘Jephet’; ¯ÂÁ!(15 2b,8; also in the Haggadah, 3 6,2) ‘Nahor’; ‰˜·¯ (15 2b,15)‘Rebecca’; Ï‡Â˙· (15 2b,16) ‘Bethuel’; ‰ÎÏÓ (15 2b,16) ‘Milcah’;Ì‰¯·‡ (15 2b,16) ‘Abraham’; ‰¯ÂË˜ (15 4b,11) ‘Keturah’; ‡·˘(15 4b,13) ‘Sheba’; ¯¥Ú (15 4b,15) ‘Epher’; Ú„È·‡ (15 4b,15)‘Abida’; ‰Ú„Ï‡ (15 4b,15) ‘Eldaah’; and, of course, the morecommon names Ì‰¯·‡ (15 2a,1; also in the Haggadah, 3 6,2);˜ÁˆÈ (15 2a,17; also in the Haggadah, 3 6,8); and ·Â˜ÚÈ (155b,11; also in the Haggadah, 3 6,8).2 0

In the book of Esther: È˙˘Â (1302 1b,13) ‘Vashti’; ÔÓÂ‰Ó (13021b,14) ‘Mehuman’; ‡˙Ê· (1302 1b,14) ‘Bizzeta’; ‡!Â·¯Á (13021b,14) ‘Óarbona’; ¯˙Ê (1302 1b,15) ‘Zetar’; ÒÎ¯¡ (1302 1b,15)‘Carcas’; È¡„¯Ó (1302 2a,17) ‘Mordechai’; ¯È‡È (1302 2a,17)‘Yair’; ÈÚÓ˘ (1302 2a,17) ‘Shimei’; ¯˙Ò‡ (1302 2b,2) ‘Esther’;and more.

In the Haggadah: ¯ÊÚÈÏ‡ (3 3,10) ‘Eliezer’; ÚÂ˘Â‰È (3 3,10)‘Joshua’; ‡·È˜Ú (93 14,15) and ‰·È˜Ú (3 3,12) ‘Akiva’; ÔÂ¥¯Ë (33,12) ‘Tarfon’; Á¯˙ (3 6,2) ‘Terah’; ‰„Â‰È (3 14,2) ‘Judah’; ÈÒÂÈÈÏÈÏ‚ Ï‡ (3 14,5) ‘Jose, the Galilean’; Ï‡ÈÏÓ‚ (3 17,18) ‘Gamliel.’(3-2.2) Similarly, place names are also sometimes copied intothe ¡ar˙ verbatim.

In Genesis: Ì¡˘ (15 22a,1) ‘Shechem’; ÔÂ¯·Á (15 22a,4)‘Hebron’; and ·ÈÊ¡ (15 23a,5) ‘Chezib.’

In Esther: Ô˘Â˘ (1302 1b,4) ‘Shushan’; ÌÈÏ˘Â¯È (1302 2a,18)‘Jerusalem’; and Ï·· (1302 2b,1) ‘Babylon.’

In the Haggadah: ¯ÈÚ˘ (3 6,9) ‘Seir’; ÔÚ!Î (3 7,18) ‘Canaan’;Ô˘Â‚ (3 7,19) ‘Goshen’; and È!ÈÒ (3 16,20) ‘Sinai.’

In the following examples, although the ¡ar˙an has chosen

206

2 0This spelling (·Â˜ÚÈ) may also indicate the Judeo-Arabic pronunciation /ya >q¥b/.·˜ÚÈ appears once in 15 10b,4.

personal and place names that are phonetically similar to the


Hebrew names they translate, the Judeo-Arabic spelling indicatesmore clearly the Judeo-Arabic pronunciation. This is a slightshift along the continuum—away, to a small degree, from theliteral translation end, but still far from the interpretive side.Thus, the addition of matres lectionis (vowel letters) may indicatethe quality of the vowel or its quantity.(3-2.3) The marking of /e/: The Hebrew name ˙ÕÁ ‘Óet’ (possiblyHittites) (Gen 23:16) is translated literally into Judeo-Arabic˙ÈÁ (15 2a,4). Here the ¡ar˙an has made sure that the short /e/vowel in the Hebrew name ˙ÕÁ is expressed in the Judeo-Arabictranslation by the yod and thus has not copied the Hebrewname blindly.(3-2.4) The marking of /u/: In the same way, the addition of thevav in ÍÂ!Á (15 4b,15) ‘Óanoch,’ as opposed to the Hebrew Í $!Á

(Gen 25:4), emphasizes the /o/ (or, maybe /ø/) pronunciation in/˙anox/ (or /˙anøx/).(3-2.5) /a/ > /å/: The spelling of ÌÈÈ¯Â‰! Ì‡¯‡ (15 2b,7) ‘Aram-Naharaim’ may reflect a possible long /å/ in Ì‡¯‡ and a possible/o/ or /u/ in ÌÈÈ¯Â‰!. Furthermore, although the name Ô·Ï (153a,13; 3 7,7) ‘Laban’ appears to be a copy of the Hebrew Ô·Ï,in the same verse in Genesis, Ô‡·Ï (15 3a,13) /labån/ appears,possibly indicating the lengthening of the second short vowel/a/ > [a:]. The same holds true for the following personal andplace names with a possible Judeo-Arabic /å/ pronunciation:Ô‡¯ÓÊ (15 4b,12) ‘Zimran’ for Hebrew Ô¯ÓÊ (Gen 25:2); Ô‡˘˜È(15 4b,12) ‘Yokshan’ for Hebrew Ô˘˜È (Gen 25:2); Ô‡„Ó (154b,12) ‘Medan’ for Hebrew Ô„Ó (Gen 25:2); Ô‡È„Ó (15 4b,12)‘Midian’ for Hebrew ÔÈ„Ó (Gen 25:2); ˜‡·˘È (15 4b,13) ‘Yishbak’for Hebrew ˜·˘È (Gen 25:2); Ô‡„„ (15 4b,14) ‘Dedan’ for HebrewÔ„„ (Gen 25:3); Ô‡Ú!Î (15 21b,1) ‘Canaan’ for Hebrew ÔÚ!Î (Gen

207

37:1); Ô‡˙Â„ (15 22a,8) ‘Dotan’ for Hebrew Ô˙I (Gen 37:17);

CHAPTER SEVEN

and „‡ÚÏ‚ (15 22b,1) ‘Gil>ad’ for Hebrew „ÚÏ‚ (Gen 37:25).2 1

(3-2.6) In the same way, the glide /w/ appears in the personalname ÁÂÂ˘ (15 4b,13) ‘Shuah,’ where the glide in /¡uwa˙/ isindicated by the two vavs.(3-2.7) Emphatization (tafx•m) also can be shown in this way.In the Haggadah the personal names ¯#Ú Ï‡ /el>a#ar/ (93 15-b,10)‘Elazar’ and ‰È¯#Ú />a#arya/ (93 15,9 and more) ‘Azarya’ demon-strate emphatization (see chapter 4, p. 108, 1.11.4 and chapter5, pp. 149–50, 1.4.2).

The following examples demonstrate the ¡ar˙an’s choice ofJudeo-Arabic words that are phonetically similar to their Hebrewequivalen, indicating a clear verbatim choice of word or root:(3-2.8) In Genesis: The choice of the verb ¬ÿ̄ ·Â (15 2b,8) ‘causedto kneel down’ is preferred because of the phonetic proximityto the Hebrew verb ÍVŸ· 'ÈÂ (Gen 24:11); the ¡ar˙an could havechosen a different verb, for example, ŒU?%« as in Saadia or theProtestant translation. Similarly, the ¡ar˙an chose the Judeo-Arabic ÔÈÚ /<"n/ (15 2b,11 and 18) ‘spring’ to translate the HebrewÔÈÚ (Gen 24:13 and 24:16), probably because of sound proximityin a literal fashion. Furthermore, Ô·˙ /tibn/ (15 3a,3) ‘straw’ isphonetically close to the Hebrew Ô·˙ (Gen 24:25). Along thesame lines, the ¡ar˙an chose the verbal noun ÏÎ‡Ó (15 24b,12)‘eating’ in order to follow verbatim the Hebrew ÏÎ‡Ó (Gen 40:17),where he could have chosen the more ordinary /<akl/.(3-2.9) In Esther: The choice of ¯„ (1302 1b,10) ‘pearls’ isverbatim, as it translates the phonetically approximate Hebrew¯„ (Esth 1:6). Similarly, È˙„ÏÂÂÓ (1302 6a,3) ‘my birth place; myfamily’ translates literally È˙„ÏÂÓ in Esth 8:6. Saadia used È„ÏÂÓ‘birth place’ and the Protestant translation employed w?&??M?'

208

2 1See also chapter 4, p. 102, 1.1.5 and chapter 5, pp. 148–49, 1.1.

‘my kind; my group.’


The use of Hebrew words in the ¡ar˙ is not common, but itdoes occur as part of the literal translation:(3-2.10) Although the verb ÈÈÁ /˙ayy/ (15 4b,18) ‘live’ exists inregular Arabic use, its choice in this example is clearly a verbatimtranslation of the Hebrew ÈÁ (Gen 25:7). Both Saadia and theProtestant translation used the more common />å¡/ ‘live.’(3-2.11) Judeo-Arabic lexemes may change their meanings inorder to imitate their phonetically similar Hebrew counterparts.Thus, Judeo-Arabic ‰!È„Ó /mad•na/ (1302 1b,3) changes itsmeaning in the ¡ar˙ from ‘city’ to ‘province,’ as it is a copy ofthe Hebrew ‰!È„Ó ‘state, province’ (Esth 1:1) (Hary 1994a:32).

Int.: Hebrew place names are sometimes translated interpretively bytheir Judeo-Arabic counterparts in the various ¡ur¥˙.(3-2.12) In Genesis the place name ·‚!‰ ı¯‡ ‘the region of theNegev’ (Gen 24:62) is translated interpretively as ÈÏ·˜ Ï‡ "¯‡‘the land of the south’ (15 4b,3).(3-2.13) In Esther the Hebrew place name ˘ÂÎ ‘Cush,’ identifiedas Ethiopia (Esth 1:1), is interpreted in the ¡ar˙ as ˘·Á Ï‡(1302 1b,2) ‘Ethiopia.’ Both Saadia and the Protestant translationhave used the Hebrew word /k¥¡/. Similarly, the Hebrew placename Â„Â‰ ‘India’ (Esth 1:1) is translated in the ¡ar˙ as „!‰ Ï‡(1302 1b,2). Both Saadia and the Protestant translation alsoused /al-hind/. Likewise, the Hebrew place name Ò¯Ù (Esth 1:3,14) is translated interpretively by either „!‰ Ï‡ (1302 1b,5)‘India’ or Ì‚Ú Ï‡ (1302 1b,20) ‘Persia.’ Both Saadia and theProtestant translation translated the place name as /fåris/, amore literal tendency.(3-2.14) In the Haggadah regular Judeo-Arabic interpretivetranslations appear in ¯ˆÓ (3 2,3 and elsewhere) ‘Egypt’; ÏÈ! Ï‡(3 10,19) ‘the Nile’; ÔÂ„¯Â‡ Ï‡ (3 20,17) ‘the Jordan’; and more.

L/I: (3-2.15) The personal name Â"Ú ‘Esau’ is translated with an

209

interpretive orthography in Genesis as Â‡ÒÚ (15 5b,10); however,

CHAPTER SEVEN

in the Haggadah the name is copied from Hebrew in a moreliteral translation: ÂÈ˘Ú (3 6,8) and Â˘Ú (91 3a,4). Similarly, thepersonal name ‰Ú¯Ù ‘Pharaoh’ is translated interpretively inGenesis and in the Haggadah into ÔÂÚ¯¥ (15 22b,18; 3 2,19);however, ‰Ú¯Ù (3 7,8), copied from the Hebrew, also occurs,but rarely. This is good evidence for a verbatim imitation of theHebrew letters in Judeo-Arabic, as the letter fe without thesupralinear dot hardly exists in the Egyptian ¡ur¥˙. In the sameway, the personal name ˘Â¯Â˘Á‡ ‘Ahasuerus’ in the book ofEsther is usually translated interpretively as È¯È˘„Ê‡ Ï‡; however,in 1302 1b,15 ˘Â¯Â˘Á‡ appears in the ¡ar˙ in a verbatimtranslation. Saadia used ˘¯Â˘Á‡ and the Protestant translationemployed /<a˙a¡w•r¥¡/ as well.(3-2.16) The use of the s•n in both ‰·È÷· (15 4b,20) ‘in old age’and in ‡÷ÓÂ (15 5a,10) ‘and Massa (name)’ indicates verbatimtranslation of the Hebrew words that are copied in a letter-for-letter manner into the ¡ar˙. On the other hand, the sin in ÂÓ÷Â/wi-sammu/ (15 5b,10) ‘and they named’ indicates the regularJudeo-Arabic phoneme /s/, but at the same time a literal tendencyby using the sin and not the samekh. This represents furtherevidence for the literal/interpretive linguistic tension in the workof the ¡ar˙anim.(3-2.17) The Hebrew place name È„Ó ‘Madai’ (Esth 1:14, 18,19) is translated literally È„‡Ó (1302 1b,20) and È„Ó (1302 2a,3;2a,5) ‘Madi,’ but also interpretively ˘·Á Ï‡ (1302 1b,5)‘Ethiopia’ (Esth 1:3). Saadia consistently used the place name˙‡‰‡Ó and the Protestant translation ÍœU(.(3-2.18) As mentioned above, the use of Hebrew words in the¡ar˙ as part of a literal translation is not common and can besporadic and inconsistent. For example, ÌÈ˘µÏÙ Ï‡ (15 4b,17)‘the concubines’ (notice the pronunciation of the /\/ in theJudeo-Arabic) appears in the Haggadah, but in Esther È¯‡¯Ò Ï‡

210

(1302 2b,13) appears. In Genesis, Saadia used ‡Ó‡ /<imå/ ‘slave


girls’ (25:6) and in Esther (2:14) ¯‡Â‚ /$uwårin/ ‘slave girls,’whereas the Protestant translation was more consistent with/sarår•y/ ‘concubines.’(3-2.19) ‡Ó (93 13,1) ‘what’ translates the Hebrew ‰Ó in aliteral manner, whereas the choice of ˘‡ in another manuscript(3 2,8) is an Egyptian Judeo-Arabic colloquial interrogativepronoun more in the direction of the interpretive mode.(3-2.20) Judeo-Arabic ÏÂÎ (3 5,20) ‘every, all’ always translatesHebrew ÏÎ, maybe also because of sound and lexical proximity.However, when the Hebrew ÏÎ relates to time, as in ‰ÏÈÏ‰ Â˙Â‡ ÏÎ

‘all that night,’ the ¡ar˙an translated it in an interpretive mode,using the Judeo-Arabic /†¥l/ ‰ÏÈÏ Ï‡ ¬Ï˙ ÏÂË (3 3,13–14) ‘all thatnight.’(3-2.21) ˜ÂÒÙ (3 3,21 and many other places) ‘verse’ is a Hebrewword used in the ¡ar˙ in a verbatim way.2 2 However, this worddoes not appear in the Hebrew text (we find there ¯Ó‡!˘ and ‰ÓÎ

¯Ó‡!˘), and it is used in the ¡ar˙ in an interpretive translation(see p. 188, 1-1.7, above).(3-2.22) The translation ¯‰˘ Ï‡ Ò‡¯ (3 5,11) ‘the beginning ofthe month’ is the typical verbatim translation of the Hebrew˘„›Á ˘‡¯; however, in another manuscript (93 14,4–5), Ï‡ ÏÂ‡¯‰˘ appears as a regular Arabic phrase in an interpretivetranslation. Furthermore, the ¡ar˙an has added the definite articlein the Judeo-Arabic translation (¯‰˘ Ï‡) as needed, even whenthe Hebrew did not have it, in yet another indication of theinterpretive mode (see other examples in chapter 8, p. 268,9-1.6).(3-2.23) Whereas the Judeo-Arabic Egyptian dialect form Ï‡‰ÂÂ¯ˆÓ /il-maßarwa/ (3 8,17) ‘the Egyptians’ is employed in an

211

2 2Note the letter fe without the supralinear dot, which hardly appears inEgyptian ¡ur¥˙, another indication of the literal nature of the translation.

interpretive translation, in another manuscript ÌÈÈ¯ˆÓ Ï‡ (91

CHAPTER SEVEN

4b,17) ‘the Egyptians’ appears as a transcribed Hebrew word(ÌÈÈ¯ˆÓ) in a verbatim translation.(3-2.24) Furthermore, in the Haggadah, in one manuscript theHebrew phrase is incorporated into the Judeo-Arabic verbatimas follows: Á·„Â ‡Â‰ ÍÂ¯· ˘Â„˜‰ ‰È‚Â (93 87,14) ‘and the Holy One,blessed be He, slew.’ In another manuscript, however, the Hebrewphrase is translated into Judeo-Arabic: ‡Â‰ ¬¯‡·Â˙ Ò„˜ÂÓ Ï‡ ‰È‚ÂÁ·„Â (74 25,14) ‘and the Holy One, blessed be He, slew.’

With regard to the literal/interpretive linguistic tension, someadditional interesting examples appear in the choice of Hebrewwords in the ¡ar˙ that are written and pronounced with Arabicphonological influence.(3-2.25) ˙È¯˜ (3 3,15) ‘reading’ is a copy of the Hebrew word˙‡È¯˜, but with hamza deletion in the dialect, the word is writtenwithout the alif and its pronunciation probably approximates/qriat/. On the one hand, ˙È¯˜ is a literal translation because the¡ar˙an simply copied the Hebrew word, but on the other hand,it is interpretive, because he used Judeo-Arabic orthographyand phonology. In other manuscripts of the Haggadah the ¡ar˙ancopied the Hebrew word letter for letter in a more verbatimmanner: ˙‡È¯˜ (74 2,1; 93 15,3).(3-2.26) Similarly, the Hebrew prayer ÚÓ˘ ‘Hear!’ was copiedinto the ¡ar˙ in mss. 3 3,15 and 93 15,3 verbatim. However, inms. 74 2,1 it is spelled under the influence of Judeo-Arabic

212

phonology, where the vowel /a/ is lengthened: Ú‡Ó˘ /¡Emå>/.

CHAPTER EIGHT

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL

Like the previous and the following chapters, this chapter analyzesthe ¡ur¥˙ of Genesis, Esther, and the Passover Haggadah, scanning,this time, selected examples through the morphosyntactic level. Theanalysis of the data is based upon the theoretical model advanced inchapter 3, including the use of table 4 (pp. 81–82).

Negation: NominalLevel: Morphosyntactic; Category 4: NegationFeature 4-1 — NominalLit.: (4-1.1) The negation of the first plural independent pronoun

/i˙na/ takes an interesting twist in ÔÈÒÓµÓ ‰!Á‡ ÒÈÏ (3 2,10–11)‘we do not dip.’ This sentence translates word for word theHebrew equivalent ÔÈÏÈ·ËÓ Â!‡ ÔÈ‡ . In Arabic the phrase ‘we arenot’ consists of the more synthetic /lasna/; however, in orderto follow the more analytic Hebrew Â!‡ ÔÈ‡ , the ¡ar˙an createdan exact Judeo-Arabic equivalent to the Hebrew.(4-1.2) Similarly, the negation of ÂÒÈÏ (15 0-1,8) ‘he is not’ is aclear literal translation, as the ¡ar˙an combined the pronominalsuffix /-o/ with /lays/ in the same way the Hebrew has it,namely Â!!È‡, whereas the result /layso/ does not exist in regularArabic use.1

In Genesis: ˘ÂÂ˜!Ó ÂÒÈÏ È"Ï‡ (15 12b,7) ‘who is not speckled’

1 This feature can also be analyzed under 6-2.1, pronominal suffixes (p. 238).

translates „S! Â!!È‡ ¯˘‡ (Gen 30:33); ÒÓ‡ Ï‡ ÒÓ‡Î ‡È‡ÚÓ ÂÒÈÏ

CHAPTER EIGHT

(15 13a,12) ‘who is not with me2 as in earlier days’ translatesÌÂ˘Ï˘ ÏÂÓ˙Î ÂÓÚ Â!!È‡ (Gen 31:2); and ÂÒÈÏ „ÏÂ Ï‡Â (15 22b,9) ‘andthe boy is not (here)’ renders Â!!È‡ „ÏÈ‰ (Gen 37:30).

In the Haggadah: Ï‡ÒÈ ¥¯ÚÈ ÂÒÈÏ È"Ï‡Â (3 5,8) ‘and the onewho does not know how to ask’ translates the Hebrew Â!È‡˘Â

ÏÂ‡˘Ï Ú„ÂÈ.

/lam/ can be used in the ¡ur¥˙ to negate nouns, pronouns,and prepositions in “un-Arabic” constructions, although thereis a possibility of colloquial use here (see pp. 126–27, 3.3.3).3

(4-1.3) In Genesis, ˙˜Â ÌÏ (15 10a,19) ‘not yet time’ translates˙Ú ‡Ï (Gen 29:7); Ô‡ÓÎ Ï‡˜!È ·Â˜ÚÈ ÌÏ (15 16a,19–20)4 ‘nolonger will (your name) be called Jacob’ translates ¯ÓÀ‡"È ·SÚÈ ‡Ï

„ÂÚ (Gen 32:29); Ô‡Ï‡ ÌÏ (15 17a,1) ‘not now’ translates ‡! Ï‡

(Gen 33:10); ÏÒ! Ï‡ ÔÂÎÈ ÂÏ ÌÏ (15 23a,8–9) ‘the seed would notcount as his’ translates Ú¯Ê‰ ‰È‰È ÂÏ ‡Ï (Gen 38:9).(4-1.4) In the following examples in Esther, the /lam/ precedesthe prepositions />ala/ and /ka-/ respectively: ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ‡ÏÚ ÌÏÂ„ÁÂÏ (1302 1b,23) ‘not only against the king’ translates ÏÚ ‡Ï

Â„·Ï ÍÏÓ‰ (Esth 1:16), and ÔÂ!‡˜ Ï‡Î ÌÏ È"Ï‡ ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ Ì‡„˜Ï È‚‡(1302 4a,11) ‘I will go before the king, not according to thelaw’ renders ˙„Î ‡Ï ¯˘‡ ÍÏÓ‰ Ï‡ ‡Â·‡ (Esth 4:16).(4-1.5) In the Haggadah as well, /lam/ negates nouns, pronouns,and prepositions: ¬ÈÏÓ ÌÏÂ ‰!‡ (91 5b,16) ‘I, and not an angel’renders Í‡ÏÓ ‡ÏÂ È!‡; ÂÏ ÌÏÂ ÌÂÎÏ (3 4,18) ‘to you (pl.) and not tohim’ translates ÂÏ ‡ÏÂ ÌÎÏ; ÌÂ‰Ï ÌÏ #¯‡ È¥ (3 6,16) ‘in a land thatis not theirs’ translates Ì‰Ï ‡Ï ı¯‡·; Ë˜¥ „Á‡Â ÌÏ Ô‡ (3 7,2–3)‘for not one only’ renders „·Ï· „Á‡ ‡Ï˘; and ¬‡ÏÓ „È ‰ÏÚ ÌÏ (3

214

2 Note that Hebrew ÂÓÚ ‘with him’ is rendered ‡È‡ÚÓ ‘with me’ in Judeo-Arabic.3 On the use of /lam/ in Egyptian Arabic, see Rosenbuam 2002a:588–95.4 Semantically the /lam/ here negates the verb Ï‡˜!È, but it directly precedes

the personal name ·Â˜ÚÈ.

11,10–11) ‘not by an angel’ translates Í‡ÏÓ È„È ÏÚ ‡Ï.

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL: NEGATION – VERBAL

L/I.: (4-1.6) The negation particle /lays/ is used in the ¡ur¥˙ inregular Arabic style, but at the same time it also serves as aliteral translation, thus reflecting the literal/interpretive tension.

In Genesis: ‰!ÚÓ Ï‚‡¯ ÒÈÏ (15 15a,5) ‘there is no man withus’ translates Â!ÓÚ ˘È‡ ÔÈ‡ (Gen 31:50); ‰ÈÓ ‰È¥ ÒÈÏ Èƒ‡¥ ¯È· Ï‡Â(15 22a,19) ‘and the pit is empty with no water in it’ translatesÌÈÓ Â· ÔÈ‡ ˜V ¯Â·‰Â (Gen 37:24); and ¯È· Ï‡ È¥ ¥ÒÂÈ ÒÈÏ (15 22b,8)‘Joseph is not in the pit’ translates ¯Â·· ÛÒÂÈ ÔÈ‡ (Gen 37:29).

In the book of Esther: ·ˆµÓ ÒÈÏ ÔÂ!‡˜ Ï‡Î ·¯˘ Ï‡Â (13021b,11–12) ‘Drinking was according to the law, where no onewas forced’ translates Ò! ›‡ ÔÈ‡ ˙„Î ‰È˙˘‰Â (Esth 1:8); and ¯˙Ò‡Ì‡Â ·‡ ‡‰Ï ÒÈÏ Ô‡ ÂÓÚ ˙!· (1302 2b,2) ‘Esther, his uncle’sdaughter, as she does not have a father and a mother’ translatesÌ‡Â ·‡ ‰Ï ÔÈ‡ ÈÎ Â„I ˙· ¯˙Ò‡ (Esth 2:7).

In the Haggadah: Ì!µ ÏÏ ‰Ú¯Ó ÒÈÏ (3 7,17) ‘there is no pasturefor the flocks’ translates Ô‡ˆÃÏ ‰Ú¯Ó ÔÈ‡; and Ô‡ËÏÂˆ ‰!Ï ÒÈÏ (9375,9) ‘we do not have a king’ translates ÍÏÓ Â!Ï ÔÈ‡.

Negation: VerbalFeature 4-2 — Verbal

Lit.: (4-2.1) The use of the particle /lam/ to negate the perfect in the¡ar˙ is a verbatim translation that imitates the Hebrew originalin its use of the negation particle and the following tense/aspect(see also pp. 293–94, 11-2.1–11-2.3).

In Genesis: ‡‰¥¯Ú ÌÏ Ï‚‡¯Â (15 2b,17) ‘and no man hadknown her’ translates ‰Ú„È ‡Ï ˘È‡Â (Gen 24:16); ˙¥¯Ú ÌÏ ‰!‡Â(15 9b,19) ‘and I did not know’ translates È˙Ú„È ‡Ï ÈÎ!‡Â (Gen28:16); and ·Â˜ÚÈÏ ˙„ÏÂÂ ÌÏ (15 11b,1–2) ‘(she) had not borneto Jacob’ renders ·SÚÈÏ ‰„ÏÈ ‡Ï (Gen 30:1).

In Esther: ˙ÏÓÚ ÌÏ (1302 1b,22) ‘(she) did not do’ translates‰˙#Ú ‡Ï (Esth 1:15); ÈÈ˘ ˙·ÏË ÌÏ (1302 2b,15) ‘(she) did notask for anything’ translates ¯·„ ‰˘˜· ‡Ï (Esth 2:15); and ·‰! ÏÏÂ

215

Ì‰ÿ„È Âÿ„Ó ÌÏ (1302 7a,11) ‘and they did not lay their hands on

CHAPTER EIGHT

the spoils’ translates Ì„È ˙‡ ÂÁÏ˘ ‡Ï ‰Ê··Â (Esth 9:16).In the Haggadah: ÌÎÁ ÌÏ (3 7,9) ‘did not issue an edict’

translates ¯Ê‚ ‡Ï; ÏÊ! ÌÏ (3 7,15) ‘did not go’ translates „¯È ‡Ï;and Ú!ˆ ÌÏ (3 16,2) ‘did not execute’ translates ‰#Ú ‡Ï.

In the above examples the ¡ar˙an could have used /ma … ¡/instead, in an interpretive colloquial translation, as he indeeddid in some other places (see below, p. 218, 4-2.5).

Note that in Later Egyptian Judeo-Arabic in general, and inthe texts of the ¡ur¥˙ in particular, the negation particle /lam/appears, not infrequently, preceded by a perfect verb.5 Thismay be an outcome of the appearance of a common hypocor-rection, occurring frequently, which consequently resulted inthe standardization of the phenomenon in Later Egyptian Judeo-Arabic. In other words, in the Judeo-Arabic dialect, the regularparticle for negating the past tense was /må/. The writer didnot choose it because it was the unmarked form, dominant inhis dialect, and thus not prestigious enough to suit his taste.Instead he chose the prestigious marked Classical Arabic nega-tion particle /lam/. However, he “corrected” only halfway: heonly changed /må/ to /lam/ and did not replace the perfect formfollowing it with the jussive, as required by standard ClassicalArabic.6 When a pseudocorrection becomes prevalent in thevariety, at some point it ceases to be a pseudocorrection andbecomes an accepted form of the variety. Here, because these

216

5 See Blau 1981:223; Hary 1992:294–95, 314; 2007:276–77; Rosenbuam2002:588–95. See also the extensive discussion of the phenomenon in thisvolume in chapter 4, pp. 94–95, 126–27; and in chapter 5, pp. 141–43.

6 This example follows the criteria for hypocorrections as outlined in Hary1992:63–67 and 2007. The underlying form differs from the form in theprestigious variety; the resulting form contains a vernacular feature (the use ofthe perfect form, not the jussive); it does not go far enough (i.e., it does notchange to the jussive); and the form /lam/ followed by the perfect does not existin the prestigious variety, nor in the dialect.

forms were regularly used in Later Egyptian Judeo-Arabic,

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL: NEGATION – VERBAL

they became standardized at one point at least in writing. Thisis a case where a pseudocorrection was created, used quitefrequently, and then became standardized as part of the dialect.

I agree with Rosenbaum that there is a possibility, albeitunproven, that /lam/ was used in Egyptian Arabic the dialect,7

but I maintain that my original analysis of this phenomenon,first articulated in my doctoral thesis in 1987 and later in 1992(pp. 67, 294, 314), is valid. In other words, synchronically wemay say that /lam/ is part of colloquial Egyptian Arabic, butthere are good reasons to assume that diachronically entered tocolloquial Egyptian from the literal variety, through hypocor-rections that later became standardized.(4-2.2) The example ¥¯Ú! ÌÏÂ (15 25b,15–16) ‘and we did notknow’ is a calque translation of the Hebrew Ú„Â! ‡ÏÂ (Gen41:21) ‘and it was not known.’ In this case the ¡ar˙an transferredthe Hebrew nif>al verbal prefix into a Judeo-Arabic imperfectfirst person plural verbal prefix /n-/, thus changing the meaningslightly. This was done in order to reflect the verbatim transla-tion.8

(4-2.3) The use of /lam/ followed by the imperfect reflects aliteral translation, but it may also reflect spoken Cairene Judeo-Arabic.9

In Genesis: Ú¥¯È ÌÏ (15 26b,10) ‘will not raise’ translates ‡Ï

ÌÈ¯È (Gen 41:44); Â˙ÂÓ˙ ÌÏÂ (15 27b,19) ‘and you may not die’renders Â˙ÂÓ˙ ‡ÏÂ (Gen 42:20); and ¬ÈÏ‡ Â·È‚‡ ÌÏ (15 28b,9) ‘Iwill not bring him to you’ translates ÍÈÏ‡ Â!‡È·‡ ‡Ï (Gen 42:37).

In Esther: ¯ÈÈµ˙È ÌÏÂ (1302 2a,5) ‘and it will not change’translates ¯Â·ÚÈ ‡ÏÂ (Esth 1:19); ¯·¡˙ ÌÏ (1302 2b,7) ‘(she) will

217

7 Rosenbuam 2002a:595.8 See chapter 6, pp. 178–81, “Calque Translation.”9 See chapter 4, p. 126, 3.3.3, and later in this chapter, p, 294, 11-2.4–11-2.6.

not inform’ renders „È‚˙ ‡Ï (Esth 2:10); and ¯„˜˙ ÌÏ (1302

CHAPTER EIGHT

5a,14) ‘you will not be able’ translates ÏÎÂ˙ ‡Ï (Esth 6:13).In the Haggadah: È˘˙¡! ÌÏ (93 59,9–10) ‘we will not be

embarrassed’ translates ÌÏÎ$! ‡Ï; ÏÂ˜È ÌÏ (3 17,18) ‘is not saying’translates ¯Ó‡ ‡Ï; ‚Â¯¡È ÌÏ (3 17,19) ‘is not performing’ renders‡ˆÈ ‡Ï; and ¯Ò˜ ÌÏ (93 58,2) ‘is not lacking’ translates ¯ÒÁ ‡Ï.(4-2.4) The negation particle /lays/ can be used, although rarely,to negate verbs in a verbatim way, creating a “strange” Arabicconstruction. In the book of Esther the ¡ar˙an used /lays/ totranslate verbatim the Hebrew ÔÈ‡ in ·È˘‰Ï ÔÈ‡ (Esth 8:8); however,he used the particle with the passive verb /yurga>/, Ú‚¯È ÒÈÏ(1302 6a,6) ‘(it) will not be revoked.’ Note that in Hebrew thephrase ·È˘‰Ï ÔÈ‡ can mean both ‘(it) will not be revoked’ and‘(it) must not be revoked,’ while in Judeo-Arabic only the firstmeaning is possible.

Int.: (4-2.5) The spoken use of /ma … ¡/ is used infrequently tonegate the imperfect in an interpretive translation, using spokenEgyptian Judeo-Arabic: ˘¥¯ÚÈ ‡Ó /mayi>raf¡/ (3 4,10) ‘(he)does not know.’ This same particle can be used to negate theperfect, also in an interpretive translation: ˘È·ÁÓ /ma˙abb!¡/(15 23-1a,19) ‘(he) did not want’ (see pp. 125–26, 3.3.1).(4-2.6) Similarly infrequent is the spoken use of /mu¡/ to negatethe participle, which is also an interpretive translation, usingregular spoken Egyptian Judeo-Arabic: ÔÈÁÈ‡¯ ˘ÂÓ /mu¡ ray˙•n/(3 1,4) ‘(they) are not going’ (chapter 4, p. 126, 3.3.2).

L/I: (4-2.7) The negation of the imperfect with /lam/ to indicate thenegated imperative is usual in the ¡ur¥˙ in a literal translation,as /lam/ is the verbatim equivalent of the Hebrew ÏÃ‡:

In Genesis: ¥‡¡˙ ÌÏ (15 7a,1) ‘do not fear’ translates ‡¯È˙ Ï‡

(Gen 26:24); „Â¡‡˙ ÌÏ (15 9a,10) ‘do not take’; and ÈÏ ÈËÚ˙ ÌÏÈÈ˘ (15 12b,2) ‘do not give me a thing.’

In Esther: Â·¯˘˙ ÌÏÂ ÂÏÎ‡˙ ÌÏÂ (1302 4a,10) ‘and do not eat

218

and do not drink’ translates Â˙˘˙ Ï‡Â ÂÏÎ‡˙ Ï‡Â (Esth 4:16) and

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL: PREPOSITIONS

ÈÈ˘ ı˜!˙ ÌÏ (1302 5a,9) ‘do not leave out a thing’ renders Ï‡

¯·„ ÏÙ˙ (Esth 6:11).In the Haggadah: ‰!‚ÈÂÁ˙ ÌÏÂ (93 59,6) ‘and do not make us

need’ translates Â!ÎÈ¯ˆ˙ Ï‡ ‡!Â; ‰!‡Ò!˙ ÌÏ (93 60,1) ‘do notforget us’ renders Â!ÁÎ˘˙ Ï‡; and ‰!ÎÂ¯˙˙ ÌÏÂ (93 60,2) ‘do notleave us’ translates Â!Á!Ê˙ Ï‡Â.

However, Esther includes an example where the negationparticle /lå/ is used in a more interpretive mode: È¥ ÈÓÓ¡˙ ‡Ï¬Ò¥! (1302 4a,6) ‘do not fool yourself,’ thus demonstrating theliteral/interpretive linguistic tension.

PrepositionsLevel: Morphosyntactic; Category 5: Prepositions/ParticlesFeature 5-1 — Prepositions

Lit.: (5-1.1) The Judeo-Arabic preposition /ka-/ ‘like, about’ isregularly selected to translate verbatim the Hebrew % Ÿk, probablybecause of phonetic and semantic proximity, using the sameword order as the Hebrew: ‰!Ò ÔÈÚ·Ò Ô·‡Î ‰!‡ (3 3,18-19) ‘Iam about seventy years old’ translates ‰!˘ ÌÈÚ·˘ Ô·Î È!‡; ·Î‡ÂÎÎ‰ÓÒ Ï‡ (3 8,4) ‘like the stars of the heaven’ renders È·ÎÂÎÎ

ÌÈÓ˘‰; and Ô‡¥¯¡ Ï‡Î ˛Â¸ÒÂ˜¯È Ï‡·‚ Ï‡ (74 11,17-12,1) ‘themountains danced like young sheep’ renders ÌÈÏÈ‡Î Â„˜¯˙ ÌÈ¯‰‰.

This preposition is used in the translation even when regularArabic use does not call for it, just to keep the biblical “spirit”in the ¡ar˙ in a typical literal translation.1 0 This is the waythat the Judeo-Arabic /ka-/ behaves in Â„ÈÒ ÂÚÈÓÒÎ Ô‡ÎÂ (1523-1b,15–16) ‘when his master heard,’ translating literally È‰ÈÂ

ÂÈ!I‡ Ú›Ó˘Î (Gen 39:19); and in ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ÒÂÏ‚Î Ì‡ÈÈ‡ Ï‡ ¬Ï‡" È¥(1302 1b:3) ‘in those days as the king sat,’ which translates

219

1 0Note that in Hebrew %Ÿk is also employed as an aspectual morpheme for acontinuous action, much like English as.

ÍÏÓ‰ ˙·˘Î Ì‰‰ ÌÈÓÈ· (Esth 1:2). Similarly, the Judeo-Arabic

CHAPTER EIGHT

preposition /bi-/ ‘in’ renders verbatim Hebrew %· in ˙Ï‡ÓÎ·ÂÈÏÂ„‰ Ì‡ÈÈ‡ Ï‡ (1302 1b,7) ‘and when these days were fulfilled,’which translates ‰Ï‡‰ ÌÈÓÈ‰ ˙Â‡ÏÓ·Â (Esth 1:5).(5-1.2) In the Egyptian ¡ar˙ it is a common practice to translateHebrew „Ú ‘until’ as „!Ú, probably because of phonetic proximi-t y, as is the case in the previous section, which indicates averbatim translation. In Genesis this preposition appears inthis way regularly in 15 3a,1; 3b,1; 5a,15; 6b,5; 7,16; andmore. Similarly, in the ¡ar˙ of the book of Esther, Judeo-Arabic„!Ú (1302 3b,11; 4a,17; 4b,1; and more) is also used regularlyto translate Hebrew „Ú. In the Passover Haggadah, though,the ¡ar˙an used the Judeo-Arabic preposition „!ÚÏ (3 3,14;3,20; 20,4) ‘until’ to translate Hebrew „Ú in a more commoncolloquial use. In one case the ¡ar˙an used „!ÚÂ (3 20,4) ‘anduntil’ to translate literally the Hebrew „ÚÂ with the coordinatingvav, but in another manuscript of this translation (93 43,5) hestill employed the more colloquial form „!ÚÏ.

This literal translation is seen even more clearly in thetranslation of the Hebrew „›‡Ó „Ú ‘to a very (big) extent’ (Gen27:33, 34) into Judeo-Arabic ÈÂÂ˜ „!Ú (15 8b,5; 8b,7). Likewise,¯˘‡ „Ú ‘until that’ (Gen 27:44; 28:15; 29:8) is also literallytranslated into È"Ï‡ „!Ú (15 9a,4; 9b,16; 10a,20). In the sameverbatim way, Hebrew Ì‡ „Ú ‘until if, whether’ (Gen 24:19,33) is translated into Judeo-Arabic Ô‡Î!‡ „!Ú (15 3a,1; 3b,1).Finally, the same occurs in the sentence ÍÏÓ ¬ÏÓ È·‡ ¥¯˙˘‡Â¬‡·Â˘ Ï‡ „!Ú È¥ ÌÈ˙˘ÏÙ (15 6a,16-17) ‘and Abimelech, king ofthe Philistines, gazed down through the window,’ translatingÔÂÏÁ‰ „Ú· ÌÈ˙˘ÏÙ ÍÏÓ ÍÏÓÈ·‡ Û˜˘ÈÂ (Gen 26:8). In this example the¡ar˙an literally matched the Hebrew „Ú· ‘through’ (Gen 26:8)with the two equivalent Judeo-Arabic prepositions /fi/ and/>and/ to produce „!Ú È¥. In the book of Esther a similar phenom-enon occurs in the sentence ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ·‡· Ì‡„˜Ï „!Ú ‡‚Â (1302

220

3b,11) ‘and he came to the front of the king’s gate.’ In this


instance too, the ¡ar˙an matched the Hebrew È!ÙÏ „Ú (Esth4:2) with the equivalent Judeo-Arabic prepositions Ì‡„˜Ï „!Ú.(5-1.3) The use of „!Ú is also applied elsewhere. Thus „!Ú ÔÓ(15 2a,11; 5a,4; 8a,20; and more; 1302 5a,7) ‘from’ translatesliterally the Hebrew ˙‡Ó (Gen 23:20; 25:10; 27:30; and more;Esth 7:7). The same occurs in È„!Ú ÔÓ (15 31a,13) ‘from me,’which translates È œ̇‡Ó (Gen 44:28); Â„!Ú ÔÓ (15 7a,13) ‘fromhim’ rendering Â˙‡Ó (Gen 26:31); ÌÂÎ„!Ú ÔÓ (15 7a,6) ‘from you(masc. pl.)’ for ÌÎ˙‡Ó (Gen 26:27); and ÌÂ‰„!Ú ÔÓ (15 28a,6)‘from them (masc.)’ for Ì˙‡Ó (Gen 42:24). Furthermore, „!Ú ÔÓ(15 26a,13; 31a,14; 31a,19; and more; 1302 5a,7) ‘from’ alsotranslates ÌÚÓ (Gen 41:33; 44:29, 32; and more); È„!Ú ÔÓ (1514a,13) ‘from me’ for ÈÓÚÓ (Gen 31:31); and ‰!„!Ú ÔÓ (15 6b,9)‘from us’ for Â!ÓÚÓ (Gen 26:16). In one place in Genesis (24:27),though, ÌÚÓ is translated verbatim as ‰ÚÓ ÔÓ (15 3a,11) ‘from.’(5-1.4) The Judeo-Arabic preposition /li-/ in „Ï· ÏÏ ‰¯· (152a,11) ‘outside the city’ translates verbatim the Hebrew ıÂÁÓ

¯ÈÚÏ (Gen 24:11), whereas regular Arabic use calls for a zeropreposition, /barra l-balad/.(5-1.5) The combination of the Judeo-Arabic prepositions /li-/and /min/ is used to translate literally the equivalent Hebrew%ÓÏ: ÔË˜ „ÚÂ ÏÂ„‚ÓÏ ‘big and small alike’ (Esth 1:5) becomes ÔÓÏ¯Èµˆ „!ÚÂ ¯È·Î (1302 1b,7–8).

Some Judeo-Arabic verbs take the same prepositions as theirHebrew equivalent just to satisfy the verbatim translation, andare thus different from regular Arabic use:(5-1.6) The following sentences exemplify the nonuse of prep-ositions or the employment of a zero preposition: ¯„˜! ÌÏ·ÈÈË ÂÂ‡ Èƒ¯ ¬ÈÏ‡ ÌÏÎ˙! (15 4a,7–8) ‘we cannot speak to youbad or good’ follows verbatim the Hebrew Â‡ Ú¯ ÍÈÏ‡ ¯·„ ÏÎÂ! ‡Ï

·ÂË (Gen 24:50), with a zero preposition preceding ‘bad or

221

good.’ In Saadia as well as in the Protestant translation, the

CHAPTER EIGHT

preposition /bi-/ is used in an interpretive translation, forexample /bi-¡arr/ ‘in bad.’ In the same way, the Hebrew sentence˘„Á ¯È˘ ÍÏ ‰„Â!Â ‘and we shall thank you with a new song’ istranslated verbatim into ‰„È„‚ ‰ÁÈ·Ò˙ ¬Ï ¯ÂÎ˘!Â (3 21,11), usinga zero preposition for the concept of “with,” following theHebrew original.(5-1.7) The Judeo-Arabic preposition /ma>a/ ‘with’ in Ú!ˆÂÈ„ÈÒ ÚÓ Ïƒ¥Ó (15 2b,10) ‘and deal graciously with my master’is a verbatim translation of the Hebrew ÌÚ in È!„‡ ÌÚ „ÒÁ ‰˘ÚÂ

(Gen 24:12). Rather than /ma>a/, the preposition /ilå/ is expectedin this sentence, as is the case in Saadia and the Protestanttranslation.(5-1.8) In the sentence ˙¯‡µÓ ‰Ï‡ Â˙‡¯Ó ‰¯˘ ‰Ï‡ Ì‰¯·‡ Ô¥„‰È!˙Ó Ï‡ ËÈµ (15 2a,8–9) ‘Abraham buried his wife Sarah in thecave of the field of the Machpelah,’ the second preposition‰Ï‡ ‘to’ follows slavishly Hebrew Ï‡ in Gen 23:19, despitethe fact that it means ‘in.’ Here, the ¡ar˙an could have translatedinterpretively using Judeo-Arabic /fi/, but chose to be “loyal”and literal to the Hebrew original.(5-1.9) In the phrase ÔÈÚ Ï‡ ‰ÏÚ Ï‡Ó‚ Ï‡ ‰ÏÚ ¥˜‡Â ‰„ÂÂ‰Â (153a,15–16) ‘and behold, he stood by the camels at the spring,’the first />ala/ translates verbatim Hebrew ÏÚ, meaning in thiscontext ‘by, beside.’ The ¡ar˙an could have chosen anotherJudeo-Arabic preposition to reflect the meaning more accurately,but he opted to preserve the Hebrew text by using ‰ÏÚ. In theProtestant translation, the translator chose the prepositionbM! ‘by’ to better reflect the accurate meaning; however, Saadiaalso selected ÈÏÚ.(5-1.10) The Judeo-Arabic preposition /fi/, which means ‘for’in ¬˙!· ÏÁ¯ È¥ ÔÈ!Ò Ú·Ò ¬Ó„¡‡ (15 10b,16) ‘I will serve youseven years for your daughter Rachel,’ is a literal translation ofthe Hebrew Í˙· ÏÁ¯· ÌÈ!˘ Ú·˘ Í„·Ú‡ (Gen 29:18) and is different

222

from regular Arabic use.


(5-1.11) ‰!È¥ ¬¯‡Ú˙ÈÂ (3 9,5) ‘and he will fight us’ is a literaltranslation of the Hebrew Â!· ÌÁÏ!Â , as /it >årak/ usually takes azero preposition. The translation could have been even moreliteral had the ¡ar˙an chosen the preposition /bi-/.1 1

(5-1.12) In order to keep the translation as literal as possible,the ¡ar˙an at times used the preposition /li-/ ‘to,’ even if theArabic verb required a zero preposition.

In Genesis: ÏÁ¯Ï ·Â˜ÚÈ Ò‡·Â (15 10b,6) ‘Then Jacob kissedRachel’ translates ÏÁ¯Ï ·˜ÚÈ ˜˘ÈÂ (Gen 29:11); ÏÁ¯Ï ·Â˜ÚÈ ¯·¡Â(15 10b,7) ‘and Jacob told Rachel’ renders ÏÁ¯Ï ·˜ÚÈ „‚ÈÂ (Gen29:12); ‡‰Â·‡Ï ˙¯·¡Â (15 10b,8) ‘and she told her father’translates ‰È·‡Ï „‚˙Â (Gen 29:12); and Â‰Ï Ò‡·Â Â‰Ï ˜!ÚÂ (1510b,9–10) ‘and he embraced him and kissed him’ renders ˜·ÁÈÂ

ÂÏ ˜˘!ÈÂ ÂÏ (Gen 29:13).Similarly, the preposition /li-/ in ¬!·‡Ï ¯·¡˙Â (3 5,9) ‘and

you shall tell your son’ from the Haggadah constitutes aliteral translation of the Hebrew %Ï in Í!·Ï ˙„‚‰Â; the Arabicverb /axbar/ does not take this preposition, but rather a zeropreposition. The same applies to ‡‰ÓÂ‡ ˙È·Ï ˙¯·¡Â (15 3a,12)‘and (she) told (this) to her mother’s household.’(5-1.13) The preposition /li-/ becomes subject to the Hebreworiginal, even when it creates “un-Arabic” sentences: Ô‡ÓÎÈ˜Ò‡ ¬Ï‡Ó‚Ï (15 3a,1; 3b,16) ‘I will also water your camels.’Here, the Judeo-Arabic /li-/ is an imitation of the Hebrew %Ï in·‡˘‡ ÍÈÏÓ‚Ï Ì‚ (Gen 24:19, 44). Furthermore, in Gen 24:46 theHebrew %Ï does not appear, ‰˜˘‡ ÍÈÏÓ‚ Ì‚, but the ¡ar˙ stilluses it: È˜Ò‡ ¬Ï‡Ó‚Ï Ô‡ÓÎÂ (15 3b,19). This supports theargument that the ¡ar˙ created its own unique Judeo-Arabicstructure. In another place, however, when the Hebrew doesnot have the preposition %Ï, in ‰˙˜˘‰ ÌÈÏÓ‚‰ Ì‚ (Gen 24:46),

223

1 1See Chapter 3, pp. 83–85, “The Translation Continuum.”

neither does the ¡ar˙, ˙˜Ò Ï‡Ó‚ Ï‡ Ô‡ÓÎÂ (15 3b,20) ‘and (she)

CHAPTER EIGHT

also watered the camels.’ Both Saadia and the Protestanttranslation used a zero preposition in all cases with the verb/saqå/ ‘water, give drink,’ as is customary in Arabic structure.(5-1.14) The preposition />ala/ in ‰˜‡ÓÁ È¡„¯Ó ‡ÏÚ ÔÓ‰ ‡ÏÓ˙‡Â(1302 4b,5) ‘Haman was filled with wrath at Mordecai’ followsfaithfully the Hebrew ÏÚ in ‰ÓÁ ÈÎ„¯Ó ÏÚ ÔÓ‰ ‡ÏÓÈÂ (Esth 5:9).Both Saadia and the Protestant translation employed />ala/ aswell.

Several prepositions, used in combination with other prep-ositions, nouns, or even verbs, are employed in the ¡ar˙ totranslate literally their Hebrew equivalent. In other words, theseJudeo-Arabic prepositions are clear literal translations of theHebrew originals, using calque translations.1 2

(5-1.15) „‡ˆÂ˜Î (3 4,8) ‘as against’ clearly translates verbatimthe Hebrew „‚!Î, using a combination of literal translation andthe local dialect in order to be understood. Hebrew „‚! istranslated with the colloquial [<ußßåd], while the Judeo-Arabicpreposition /ka-/ is added in order to account for the Hebrewequivalent Ÿk /kE-/ (see above 5-1.1), thus fully preserving andimitating the Hebrew text. Other instances of Hebrew „‚! aretranslated by „‡ˆÂ˜ (3 25,4; 25,8). Furthermore, in the sameway, Judeo-Arabic ‰!„‡ˆÂ˜Ï (3 21,7) ‘toward us’ and‡‰„‡ˆÂ˜Ï (15 2b,18) ‘toward her’ also translate literally HebrewÂ!˙‡¯˜Ï and ‰˙‡¯˜Ï respectively, with three clear morphemes:/li-/ ‘to,’ /<ußßåd/ ‘opposing, toward,’ and the various pronominalsuffixes.(5-1.16) The Judeo-Arabic ÔÈÁ ÔÓ (15 23-1a,12) ‘from the time’changes regular Arabic structure just to accommodate theverbatim translation of the Hebrew Ê‡Ó (Gen 39:5), with its

224

1 2See also chapter 6, pp. 178–81, “Calque Translation.”

two morphemes: Hebrew %Ó is translated by /min/ and Ê‡ by


/˙•n/ to arrive at /min ˙•n/. Similarly, the Judeo-Arabic ÔÈÁ· ÔÓ(3 5,13) ‘whilst’ translates literally the Hebrew „ÂÚ·Ó, this timewith its three morphemes: Hebrew %Ó is translated by /min/, %·

by /bi-/, and „ÂÚ by /˙•n/ to arrive in the innovative /min bi-˙•n/.(5-1.17) Similarly, combinations of Judeo-Arabic />ala/ withother nouns and prepositions are also representations of averbatim translation. Thus, ÏÂ˜ ‰ÏÚ (3 7,14) ‘in accordancewith’ translates literally the Hebrew ÈÙ ÏÚ (where ÏÂ˜ ‘word’renders Hebrew ‰Ù ‘mouth’), and „È ‰ÏÚ (3 11,10) ‘by meansof, through’ translates verbatim the Hebrew È„È ÏÚ. Likewise,··Ò ‰ÏÚ (3 18,3; 18,4; 18,10) ‘for a reason, because’ is a literaltranslation of Hebrew ÌÂ˘ ÏÚ, with / >ala/ translating Hebrew ÏÚ‘on’ and /sabab/ translating Hebrew ÌÂ˘ ‘reason.’ In anothermanuscript Ô‡˘ ‡ÏÚ (91 8a,18; 8b,1) is used to translate ÌÂ˘ ÏÚ .In the same manner, ‰‚Â ‰ÏÚ (15 2a,9) ‘on the face of, facing’ isa verbatim translation of the Hebrew È!Ù ÏÚ, with />ala/ translatingHebrew ÏÚ ‘on,’ as in the previous example, and /wagh/translating Hebrew È!Ù ‘face of.’ Still with the preposition />ala/,‰ÏÚ ÔÓ (15 4b,6; 15 24b,13) ‘from above’ occurs in Genesis,translating verbatim the Hebrew ÏÚÓ (Gen 24:64; 40:17). TheProtestant translation, on the other hand, chose />an/ in thisexample in a more interpretive translation, and Saadia usedboth />an/ and /fawqa/ respectively. In the same way, in˜ÁˆÈ ‰ÏÚ ÔÓ ÌÂ‰ÏÒ¯Â (15 4b,18) ‘then (he) sent them away fromIsaac,’ the ¡ar˙an used ‰ÏÚ ÔÓ to translate verbatim the HebrewÏÚÓ in ˜ÁˆÈ ÏÚÓ ÌÁÏ˘ÈÂ (Gen 25:6), whereas both Saadia and theProtestant translation used />an/.(5-1.18) The Judeo-Arabic preposition /li-/ is used both in··ÒÏ (3 4,18) ‘in accordance with’ and in Ï‚‡Ï (74 2,13) inverbatim translation of the Hebrew %Ï in ÈÙÏ.(5-1.19) Similarly, both the Judeo-Arabic prepositions /fi/ and/bi-/ in ··Ò È¥ (3 4,20) ‘for this’ and in ··Ò· (91 2b,3) translate

225

literally the Hebrew %· in ¯Â·Ú· ‘for.’

CHAPTER EIGHT

(5-1.20) Judeo-Arabic Â!È·‡Ó È¥ (15 2a,16) /fi mab!no/ ‘amongit’ translates verbatim the Hebrew Â·¯˜· (Gen 24:3).(5-1.21) Judeo-Arabic ˙˜ÂÂÏ (15 2b,9) /li-wa<t/ ‘at the time’ isa literal translation of ˙ÚÏ (Gen 24:11).(5-1.22) The preposition Â!˙‡¯˜Ï ‘toward us’ (Gen 24:65) istranslated verbatim by ‡!‰„!ÈÏ (15 4b,7). The Hebrew root ‡¯˜

‘call’ in the preposition Â!˙‡¯˜Ï is translated by a Judeo-Arabicverb using the root n-d-h ‘call’; thus the Judeo-Arabic translationincludes /li-/ + /yunadih/ + /na/, echoing verbatim the originalHebrew structure.(5-1.23) The preposition Ì‡„˜Ï in Ì‡„˜Ï ‰ÎÏÓ Ï‡ È˙˘Â Â·È‚ÈÏ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ (1302 1b,15–16) ‘to bring Vashti, the queen, before theking’ translates verbatim the Hebrew È!ÙÏ in Esth 1:11. Thesame preposition Ì‡„˜Ï appears in ÏÎ Ì‡„˜Ï ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ¯Ó‡ ‡"Î‰ÚÈ¯˘ Ï‡ ÔÈ¥¯‡Ú (1302 1b,18–19) ‘this was the king’s procedurebefore all those who knew the Law,’ also translating HebrewÈ!ÙÏ (Esth 1:13).

Int.: (5-1.24) The Judeo-Arabic preposition „!Ú is also used inter-pretively. For example, in the sentence ÈÈÁ Ï‡ ¯È· „!Ú ˜ÁˆÈ „Ú˜ÂÈ!‡¯$! (15 5a,6) ‘and Isaac settled near Beer-Lahai-Roi,’ thepreposition „!Ú translates the Hebrew ÌÚ (Gen 25:11) interpre-tively in the sense of ‘near, close to.’ In the same way, in thesentence ‰ÏÏ‡ „!Ú ÔÓ ¯Ó‡ ·ÂÏË˙Ï ˙Á‡¯Â (15 5b,5) ‘and (she)went to inquire of God,’ which translates ß‰ ˙‡ ˘]„Ï ÍÏ˙Â (Gen25:22), the ¡ar˙an used the Judeo-Arabic prepositions „!Ú ÔÓto translate the Hebrew ˙‡ interpretively.(5-1.25) Sometimes, a preposition may be inserted for interpre-tive clarification. In the sentence Ï‡ ˙È· È¥ Ô‡ÂÒ! ÏÏ ‰ÓÂÊÚ ˙Ú!ˆ‰!ËÏÒ (1302 1b,13) ‘(she) threw a banquet for the women inthe royal house,’ which translates ˙ÂÎÏÓ‰ ˙È· ÌÈ˘! ‰˙˘Ó ‰˙#Ú

(Esth 1:9), the ¡ar˙an added the prepositions /lil-/ ‘to the’ and

226

/fi/ ‘in,’ which are lacking in the Hebrew original.


(5-1.26) In ·¯ Ï‡ ‰ÚÓ ÍÂ!Á ‰˘Ó˙‡Â (15 0-1,6) ‘and Enoch walkedwith God,’ which renders ÌÈ‰¿‡‰ ˙‡ ÍÂ!Á ÍÕÏ‰˙ÈÂ (Gen 5:22), the¡ar˙an translated Hebrew ˙‡ into Judeo-Arabic /ma >a/ ‘with’in a clear interpretive manner. In other words, the ¡ar˙an didnot translate Hebrew ˙‡ blindly into Judeo-Arabic /ilå/ in thisinstance. Realizing that Hebrew ˙‡ had indeed a differentmeaning, the ¡ar˙an expressed it in his translation (see alsopp. 261–62, 8-1.14).(5-1.27) In the same way, the ¡ar˙an interpretively translatedHebrew È!Ù ÏÚ ‘on the surface’ using Judeo-Arabic />ala/ in ‰ÏÚ#¯‡ Ï‡ (15 0-1,18) ‘on earth’ (‰Ó„‡‰ È!Ù ÏÚ, Gen 6:1).(5-1.28) The use of the preposition /min/ in ÏÈÏ˜ ÔÓ Ô‡Ï‡ È!ÈË¥˘‰ÈÓ (15 2b,19) ‘let me sip a little water,’ despite the fact thatit is lacking in the Hebrew ÌÈÓ ËÚÓ ‡! È!È‡ÈÓ‚‰ (Gen 24:17),points to an interpretive translation, reflecting regular Arabicstyle.(5-1.29) Similarly, the ¡ar˙an employed /minhum/ ‘from them’to translate Ì ›̇‡ ‘them’ in a clear interpretive translation inÌÂ‰!Ó #¯‡ Ï‡ ˙Ï˙Ó‡Â (3 8,9–10) ‘and the land was filled withthem,’ rendering Ì ›̇‡ ı¯‡‰ ‡ÏÓ˙Â.

At times the ¡ar˙an used spoken Judeo-Arabic prepositionsin a probable attempt to translate interpretively:(5-1.30) The Egyptian Judeo-Arabic preposition /<uddåm/,which is also used in the spoken variety, may be employedinterpretively, as in ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ Ì‡„˜ ÔÈÓ„‡¡ Ï‡ (1302 1b,15) ‘servingbefore the king,’ where /<uddåm/ translates interpretively theHebrew È!Ù ˙‡ (Esth 1:10). Similarly, /<uddåmhum/ in ÂÏ„‰·ÈÏÌ‰Ó‡„˜ ÌÂ‰Ê‡Â‚‡ (1302 2a,2) ‘(they) will treat their husbandscontemptuously in their presence’ translates interpretivelyHebrew Ô‰È!ÈÚ· Ô‰ÈÏÚ· ˙ÂÊ·‰Ï (Esth 1:17).(5-1.31) The choice of the preposition /zayy/ ‘like’ in ‡Ó È‡Ê

227

Ï‡˜ (91 2b,8) ‘as it is said,’ rendering ¯Ó‡!˘, is interpretive,

CHAPTER EIGHT

since the ¡ar˙an chose an Egyptian Judeo-Arabic dialectalpreposition for his translation.

At other times the ¡ar˙an selected a nonequivalent Judeo-Arabic preposition to translate the Hebrew original, also in aninterpretive attempt. In other words, the ¡ar˙an may havetranslated Hebrew %· ‘in, at’ into Judeo-Arabic /min/ ‘from’ orHebrew Ï‡ ‘to’ into Judeo-Arabic /fi/ ‘in’ for clarification.(5-1.32) Thus, although the Hebrew text uses the prepositionÃa ‘in the’ in ıÂÁÃa „ÓÚ˙ ‘(you [masc. sg.]) stand outside’ (Gen24:31), the ¡ar˙an employed the Judeo-Arabic preposition ÔÓ/min/ ‘from’ in an interpretive translation: ‰¯· ÔÓ ¥˜Â˙ (153a,17–18).(5-1.33) Similarly, ÌÈ˘!‰ ˙È· Ï‡ appears in Esth 2:3, but theJudeo-Arabic translation employs /fi/ in ‡Ò! Ï‡ ˙È· È¥ (13022a,14) ‘in the women’s quarters’ in place of Hebrew Ï‡.

L/I: (5-1.34) The Hebrew preposition %· ‘in, at’ may be translatedliterally into Judeo-Arabic with the phonetically similar Judeo-Arabic equivalent /bi-/, but it may also be translated interpre-tively with Judeo-Arabic /fi/. Thus, the use of the Judeo-Arabicpreposition /bi-/ in ÌÈ$Ú ·ÒÎÓ· Â‚Â¯¡È (3 6,19) ‘they come outwith great wealth’ is literal, as it is phonetically similar to theHebrew %· in ÏÂ„‚ ˘ÂÎ¯· Â‡ˆ"È . On the other hand, in ‚Â¯¡ È¥ ÈÎÁ!Ï¯ˆÓ (3 3,6) ‘to tell the story of the exodus from Egypt’ the¡ar˙an chose the Judeo-Arabic preposition /fi/, and not /bi-/,in translating ÌÈ¯ˆÓ ˙‡ÈˆÈ· ¯ÙÒÏ, in order to be better understoodby employing the common Judeo-Arabic preposition. Thischoice of the preposition /fi/ in the ¡ar˙ to translate Hebrew%· in the interpretive mode is extremely common and occursfrequently in the texts of the ¡ur¥˙. Similarly, verbatimtranslation appears in ÏÈÏ‡˜ Ò‡!· (91 4b,7) and in ÏÈÏ˜ Ò‡!·(93 22,6) ‘with a few people,’ where the Judeo-Arabic prep-

228

osition /bi-/ is used to render the Hebrew %· in ËÚÓ È˙Ó·. In 3


8,2, however, the interpretive translation ÏÈÏ˜ Ò‡! È¥ occurs,with the more common use of the preposition /fi/, thus reflectingthe literal/interpretive linguistic tension. In the same way /bi-/in Ò¥! ÔÈÚ·Ò· (91 4b,7; 93 22,6) ‘with seventy people’ reflectsa literal translation, compared with the more interpretive useof /fi/ in Ò¥! ÔÈÚ·Ò È¥ (3 8,2), rendering the Hebrew ˘Ù! ÌÈÚ·˘·.(5-1.35) Prepositions preceding Hebrew „È /yad/ in prepositionalphrases can also be translated in literal/interpretive manner.Thus, following the previous examples with /bi-/ and /fi/, thesame phenomenon appears in the translation of the Hebrew„È· ‘in the hand of.’ In Genesis it is translated interpretively È¥„È (15 8a,2; 12b,12; 36b,8; 24a,1), whereas in Esther, Hebrew„È· is treated both literally „È· (1302 3b,4; 6a,11) and interpre-tively „È ÔÚ (1302 1,12; 1,15). In the Haggadah, it is translatedliterally by „È· or „ÈÈ· in mss. 74, 91, and 93 and less literallyby „È È¥ in ms. 3 (2,20; 11,6; 12,4).

Hebrew „ÈÓ (Gen 32:12; 33:20; 38:20; 48:22) is translatedliterally as „È ÔÓ (15 15b,13; 17a,16; 23b,9; 36a,20) ‘from,’ andso is Hebrew „È ˙Á˙ (Gen 41:35), which is translated verbatimas „È ˙Á˙ (15 26a,17) ‘under the authority of.’ Such is also thecase with Hebrew ÈØ„È ÏÚ (Gen 41:42; Esth 3:9, 6:9) ‘into thehand/s of,’ which is translated verbatim by „È ‰ÏÚ (15 26b,6)and „È ‡ÏÚ (1302 3a,17–18; 5a,5) respectively. On the otherhand, Hebrew „È Ï‡ is translated interpretively in Esther (2:3,8, 14) by „È ‡ÏÚ (1302 2a,14; 2b,4; 2b,12) ‘in the charge of.’(5-1.36) The verb /daxal/ ‘cohabit’ in its sexual sense takes thepreposition /ilå/ in a literal translation in ‡‰ÈÏ‡ Ï¡„Â (15 11a,1)‘and he cohabited with her,’ following the Hebrew prepositionÏ‡ in ‰ÈÏ‡ ‡›·ÈÂ (Gen 29:23). The same occurs in ‰Ï‡ Ô‡ÓÎ Ï¡„ÂÏÁ¯ (15 11a,11) ‘and he cohabited with Rachel also,’ where the¡ar˙an followed verbatim the same Hebrew preposition in ‡›·ÈÂ

ÏÁ¯ Ï‡ Ì‚ (Gen 29:30). On the other hand, in an interpretive

229

mode, the ¡ar˙an translated ‰ÈÏ‡ ‰‡Â·‡Â (Gen 29:21) as ÏÂ¡„‡Â

CHAPTER EIGHT

‡‰ÈÏÚ (15 11a,1) ‘and I may cohabit with her,’ using the Judeo-Arabic preposition />ala/ to translate Hebrew Ï‡.(5-1.37) The Hebrew adverb „‡Ó „‡Ó· ‘very very’ is translatedliterally as ÈÂÂ˜ ÈÂÂ˜ Ï‡· (93 22,10–11) ‘very very’1 3 to accountfor the preposition %· ‘in’ at the beginning of the adverb (chapter7, p. 197, 2-2.6). However, in other manuscripts, the phrase istranslated more interpretively and in accordance with regularcolloquial use: ÈÂÂ˜ ÈÂÂ˜ (3 8,9) and ÈÂÂ‡˜ ÈÂÂ‡˜ / <awi <awi/ (914b,13) without the preposition /bi-/.(5-1.38) The preposition ¬Ó‡„Â˜Ï (3 5,15) ‘in front of you’has two facets: on the one hand, /<uddåmak/ is clearly in thedialect, thus reflecting interpretive translation, but on the otherhand, the proclitic /li-/ is intended to translate verbatim HebrewÍÈ!ÙÏ. The same is true for ÂÓ‡„˜Ï /li-<uddåmo/ (1302 1b,5) ‘infront of him,’ which translates ÂÈ!ÙÏ (Esth 1:3).(5-1.39) The zero preposition in ¯ˆÓ ÂÏÊÈ! Â„‡ÏÂÂ‡Â (91 3a,5)‘and his children went down into Egypt’ is a verbatim translationof ÌÈ¯ˆÓ Â„¯È ÂÈ!·Â with the zero preposition there as well, wherethe verb ÏÊ! takes the direct object ¯ˆÓ. In another manuscript,however, the addition of the Judeo-Arabic preposition /li-/appears in an interpretive translation: ¯ˆÓÏ ÂÏÊ! Â„‡ÏÂÂ‡Â (9319,10) (see also p. 265, 8-2.4).(5-1.40) The preposition />al!na/ in ÔÈÈ¯ˆÓ Ï‡ ‰!ÈÏÚ ÂÒ‡Â (915a,1) ‘and the Egyptians were harsh toward us,’ which translatesÌÈ¯ˆÓ‰ Â!˙Â‡ ÂÚ¯ÈÂ, is used interpretively as it follows regularArabic use, whereas in ‰ÂÂ¯ˆÓ Ï‡ ‰!‡ÈÈ‡ ÂÒ‡˜Â (3 9,2), theobject pronoun /iyyåna/ is employed to imitate the HebrewÂ!˙Â‡ in a verbatim translation.(5-1.41) The literal/interpretive linguistic tension is vividly seen

230

1 3Note, however, that the phrase ÈÂÂ˜ ÈÂÂ˜ Ï‡· employs the definite article,which is not used in the Hebrew original.

in Esth 2:17. The ¡ar˙ reads, ‡‰Ò‡¯ ‡ÏÚ È¥ ‰!ËÏÒ ‚‡˙ ÏÚ‚Â

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL: COORDINATING PARTICLES

(1302 2b,18–19) ‘then (he) set the royal crown upon her head,’with the preposition /fi/ erased in the manuscript. It seemsthat the author wished to translate the Hebrew ˙ÂÎÏÓ ¯˙Î Ì˘ÈÂ

‰˘‡¯· literally and did so by using /fi/ to translate Hebrew %·,but finally regretted this for fear of forming an odd Arabicsentence. Accordingly, he erased the preposition /fi/ and wrote/>ala/ instead.1 4

Coordinating Particles and ConjunctionsFeature 5-2 — Coordinating particles and conjunctionsLit.: (5-2.1) Judeo-Arabic particle Ô‡ (/an/ or /in/) is used to translate

several Hebrew particles and pronouns.1 5 For example, the¡ar˙an used Ô‡ ‘that’ to translate verbatim the Hebrew ÈÎ

‘that,’ usually at the beginning of a sentence.In Genesis: ‰„˙·‡ Ô‡ Ô‡ÎÂ (15 0-1,18) ‘When men began’

translates ÏÁ‰ ÈÎ È‰ÈÂ (Gen 6:1); ÔÓÂ‰ ÔÈ·ÈÈË Ô‡ … Â̄ $!Â (15 0-1,19–20)‘and they saw … that they were good’ translates ˙›·›Ë ÈÎ ÆÆÆ Â‡¯ÈÂ

‰!‰ (Gen 6:2) and È˙¥ÈÈË ‰Ï‡ È‚˙ Ô‡ (15 3b,10) ‘then you cometo my people’ translates È˙ÁÙ˘Ó Ï‡ ‡Â·˙ ÈÎ (Gen 24:41).

In Esther: È„Â‰È ‡ÂÂ‰ È"Ï‡ Ì‰Ï ¯·¡ Ô‡ (1302 3a,9) ‘that he toldthem that he is Jewish’ translates verbatim ‡Â‰ ¯˘‡ Ì‰Ï „È‚‰ ÈÎ

È„Â‰È (Esth 3:4); ÈÓÂ˜Â ‡!‡ ‡!ÈÚ·!‡ Ô‡ (1302 5b,1) ‘that we havebeen sold, I and my people’ renders ÈÓÚÂ È!‡ Â!¯ÎÓ! ÈÎ (Esth 7:4);and ‰ÈÈ„¯ Ï‡ ‰ÈÏ‡ ˙ˆÏ¡ Ô‡ (1302 5b,6) ‘that evil reached him’renders ‰Ú¯‰ ÂÈÏ‡ ‰˙ÏÎ ÈÎ (Esth 7:7).

In the Haggadah: ·¯‰˙ Ô‡ ¯Á· ‡È ¬Ï ˘‡ (3 20,17) ‘whathappened to you, O sea, that you withdraw?’ translates ÍÏ ‰Ó

231

1 4See also Hary 2009, the edition of ms. 1302. In another ¡ar˙ of the bookof Esther, printed in Livorno in 1868 and used by Jews from Cairo, Alexandria,Damascus, and Aleppo, the translator used /fi/ in this place.

1 5For the use of Ô‡ as the conditional particle and the relative pronoun, see5-3 and 6-3.9 respectively in this chapter.

ÒÂ!˙ ÈÎ ÌÈ‰; ÂÏƒ¥ Ô‡ÓÈ„ Ô‡ (93 58,1) ‘for his grace is forever’

CHAPTER EIGHT

renders Â„ÒÁ ÌÏÂÚÏ ÈÎ; ·ÈÈË Ô‡ ‰‡Ï‡Ï Â¯ÂÎ˘‡ (93 63,2) ‘praiseGod, for He is good’ translates ·ÂË ÈÎ ß‰Ï Â„Â‰; and ‰Ï‡ È!¥È ·Á Ô‡·Â˜ÚÈ (3 23,6) ‘for he wished to annihilate Jacob’ renders ÏÎ‡ ÈÎ

·SÚÈ ˙‡.(5-2.2) At times, the Judeo-Arabic particle Ô‡ translates Hebrew%˘ with the meaning of ‘for, that’ in the Haggadah: ÚÈÓ‚ È¥ Ô‡ÈÏ‡ÈÏ Ï‡ (3 2,10) ‘that on all other nights’ renders ˙ÂÏÈÏ‰ ÏÎ·˘ ;‰!Â!¥ÈÏ ‰!ÈÏÚ ¥˜Â Ë˜¥ „Á‡Â ÌÏ Ô‡ (3 7,2–3) ‘For it was not oneman only who rose against us to destroy us’ translates „Á‡ ‡Ï˘

Â!˙ÂÏÎÏ Â!ÈÏÚ „ÓÚ „·Ï·; and ÌÎÁ ÌÏ ‰Ú¯Ù Ô‡ (3 7,8) ‘that Pharaohdid not decree’ translates ¯Ê‚ ‡Ï ‰Ú¯Ù˘.

Furthermore, biblical Hebrew ÈÎ with the meaning of ‘for,because’ may be also translated into Judeo-Arabic Ô‡. Forexample, ˙˜Â Ï‡ ‡"‡‰ È¥ È˙ÎÒ˙ ‡"‡ Ô‡ (1302 4a,7) ‘for if youremain silent at this time’ translates ˙‡Ê‰ ˙Ú· È˘È¯Á˙ ˘¯Á‰ Ì‡ ÈÎ

(Esth 4:14), and Ì!µ ÏÏ ‰Ú¯Ó ÒÈÏ Ô‡ (3 7,17) ‘because there isno pasture for the flocks’ translates Ô‡ˆÏ ‰Ú¯Ó ÔÈ‡ ÈÎ.(5-2.3) A more literal rendering, reflecting a calque translation(chapter 6, pp. 178–81), can be seen in È"Ï‡Î (15 3a,4; 4a,9;7a,9; and many other places) ‘when.’ This conjunction is averbatim translation of the Hebrew ¯˘‡Î ‘when, where, as’(Gen 24:22 and other places), where the two morphemes ofthe conjunction are translated literally: the Hebrew preposition%Î ‘as’ is translated by the Judeo-Arabic preposition /ka-/, andthe Hebrew relative pronoun ¯˘‡ is translated by Judeo-Arabic/allaƒ•/ and is attached to the preposition, resulting in È"Ï‡Î/ka-allaƒ•/. A similar example appears in Esther, where ‡ÓÎÈ"Ï‡ (1302 2b,22; 5a,8) also translates ¯˘‡Î (Esth 2:20; 6:10),with the same analysis, but in a more analytic structure.(5-2.4) The ¡ar˙an chose Judeo-Arabic ÔÈÁ ‘then’ in È¯·!˙ ÔÈÁÈ!‡¥ÏÁ ÔÓ (15 3b,10) ‘then (you) will be absolved from myoath’ to translate verbatim the Hebrew Ê‡ in È˙Ï‡Ó ‰˜!!z Ê‡ (Gen

232

24:41) without paying any attention to the form of the verb

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL: COORDINATING PARTICLES

that follows the particle. The same applies to ˙˙¯¥ ÔÈÁ (1536b,5) ‘(you) have desecrated,’ which translates ˙ÏÏœÁ Ê‡ (Gen49:4).

Int.: (5-2.5) The Hebrew particle %˘ /¡E/ in ÌÈÁ! ‹Ó ¯Â¯ÓÂ ‰ˆÓ ˘È˘ ‰Ú˘·

ÍÈ!ÙÏ is omitted in the translation in favor of an interpretiveand regular Judeo-Arabic style, ¯¯ÂÓ Ï‡Â ¯ÈË¥ Ï‡ ˙Ú‡Ò È¥¬Ó‡„Â˜Ï ÔÈËÂËÁÓ (3 5,14–15) ‘at the time when the unleavenedbread and the bitter herbs are placed before you.’1 6

L/I: (5-2.6) The Judeo-Arabic coordinating conjunction /wa-/ ismissing before the adjective />a •̀m/ ¯È·ÎÂ ÌÈ$Ú ¯È·Î ·Ú˘Ï (37,11–12) ‘a great, mighty, and populous nation’ in a literaltranslation, as it is lacking also in the Hebrew ·¯Â ÌÂˆÚ ÏÂ„‚ ÈÂ‚Ï .This is as opposed to regular Judeo-Arabic style, where theadjectives are all connected with the coordinating conjunction/wa-/. However, in a different place in the Haggadah, thecoordinating conjunction is nonetheless added in the ¡ar˙,despite the fact that it is lacking in the Hebrew text in aninterpretive translation: ÌÈ$ÚÂ ¯È·Î ·Ú˘Ï (3 8,7–8) ‘a great andmighty nation,’ which translates ÌÂˆÚ ÏÂ„‚ ÈÂ‚Ï.1 7

(5-2.7) The sentence ÂÏ ÏÈ‡Á˙! ‰Ï‡Ú˙ (3 9,3) ‘Come, let us dealwisely with him’ follows verbatim the Hebrew ÂÏ ‰ÓÎÁ˙! ‰·‰ asan asyndetic sentence. In other manuscripts, though, the Judeo-Arabic version is syndetic, yielding a more interpretive transla-tion, ÂÏ ÏÈÈ‡Á˙È! ‰˙Á ‰Ï‡Ú˙ (91 5a,1–2).(5-2.8) As in 5-2.2 the ¡ar˙an translated verbatim Hebrew %˘‘that, for’ in ‡Â‰ ÍÂ¯· ˘Â„˜‰˘ into Judeo-Arabic Ô‡ in ÒÂ„Â˜ Ï‡ Ô‡‡Â‰ ¬¯‡·Â˙ (93 20,1–2) ‘For the Holy One, blessed be He.’ Inanother manuscript, the ¡ar˙an did not do so, and the sentence

233

1 6See example 6-3.12 below for a different analysis.1 7Note that there are variant readings of this sentence in the Haggadah,

following biblical ÌÂˆÚ ÏÂ„‚ ÈÂ‚Ï (Deut 26:5).

lacks a translation of the Hebrew %˘: ‡Â‰ ¬¯‡·Â˙ ÒÂ„Â˜ Ï‡ (3

CHAPTER EIGHT

6,13) ‘The Holy One, blessed be He,’ which is more interpretive.

Conditional ParticlesFeature 5-3 — Conditional particles

Int.: The Hebrew conditional particle Ì‡ is frequently translated byregular Judeo-Arabic /in/ and usually is followed by the perfect/kån/ of the conditional verbal structure.(5-3.1) In Genesis: Èƒ¯ ‰!‡ÚÓ Ú!ˆ˙ Ô‡Î Ô‡ (15 7a,9–10) ‘if youdo harm to us’ translates ‰Ú¯ Â!ÓÚ ‰˘Ú˙ Ì‡ (Gen 26:29), and Ô‡Â‰!‡ ‰˙ÈÈÓ ÒÈÏ Ô‡Î (15 11b,3) ‘and if not, let me die’ renders Ì‡Â

ÈÎ!‡ ‰˙Ó ÔÈ‡ (Gen 30:1).(5-3.2) In Esther: ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ˙¯ƒÁ È¥ ÔÒÁÈ Ô‡Î Ô‡ (1302 2a,4) ‘if itpleases the king’ translates ·ÂË ÍÏÓ‰ ÏÚ Ì‡ (Esth 1:19); Ô‡Î Ô‡‰!ËÏÒ ÏÏ È˙ÏˆÁ ‡"‰Î ˙˜ÂÏ (1302 4a,8) ‘if you have become aqueen for a time such as this’ renders ˙ÂÎÏÓÏ ˙Ú‚‰ ˙‡ÊÎ ˙ÚÏ Ì‡

(Esth 4:14); and È¡„¯Ó „Â‰È Ï‡ ÏÒ! ÔÓ Ô‡Î Ô‡ (1302 5a,13) ‘IfMordecai is of Jewish descent’ renders ÈÎ„¯Ó ÌÈ„Â‰È‰ Ú¯ÊÓ Ì‡

(Esth 6:13).(5-3.3) In the Haggadah: /in kån/ in the conditional meaningappears only once, and not in the language of the translationitself but rather in the directions assigned for conducting theseder: ˙·˘ Ï‡ ‚Â¯¡ È¥ „ÈÚ Ï‡ ÔÂÎÈ Ô‡Î Ô‡Â (93 10,4) ‘and if theholiday falls on Shabbat.’

Judeo-Arabic /in/ and /kån/ appear together regularly, andthey are often combined into one word orthographically, Ô‡Î!‡.(5-3.4) In Genesis: ÁÂ¯˙Ï ‰¯Ó Ï‡ È‚˙ ÌÏ Ô‡Î!‡Â (15 2b,3) ‘if thegirl does not wish to go’ translates ˙ÎÏÏ ‰˘‡‰ ‰·‡˙ ‡Ï Ì‡Â (Gen24:8); È!‡¥ÏÁ ÔÓ È¯·!Ó ÔÂÎ˙Â ¬Ï ÂËÚÈ ÌÏ Ô‡Î!‡Â (15 3b,11) ‘and ifthey do not give you [the girl], you will be released from myadjuration’ translates È˙Ï‡Ó È˜! ˙ÈÈ‰Â ÍÏ Â!˙È ‡Ï Ì‡Â (Gen 24:41);and ‰ÈÏ Â¯·¡ È„ÈÒ ‰ÚÓ ˜ÁÂ Ïƒ¥ ÔÈÚ!‡ˆ ÌÂ˙!‡ Ô‡Î!‡ (15 4a,4–5) ‘if

234

you do what is kind and right to my master, inform me’ translates

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL: CONDITIONAL PARTICLES

ÈÏ Â„È‚‰ ß‰ ˙‡ ˙Ó‡Â „ÒÁ ÌÈ ›̆Ú ÌÎ˘È Ì‡ (Gen 24:49).(5-3.5) In Esther: ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ‡‰È· Èƒ‡¯ Ô‡Î!‡ Ô‡ (1302 2b,13–14)‘unless the king desires her’ renders ÍÏÓ‰ ‰· ıÙÁ Ì‡ ÈÎ (Esth2:14); È‚‰ Ï‡˜ È"Ï‡ Ô‡Î!‡ Ô‡ (1302 2b,15) ‘but rather whatHegai said’ translates È‚‰ ¯Ó‡È ¯˘‡ ˙‡ Ì‡ ÈÎ (Esth 2:15); and¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ˙¯ƒÁ È¥ ÔÒÁÈ Ô‡Î!‡Â (1302 4b,2) ‘and if it pleases theking’ translates ÍÏÓ‰ È!ÈÚ· ÔÁ È˙‡ˆÓ Ì‡ (Esth 5:8).(5-3.6) As seen above in 5-3.3, in the Haggadah Ô‡Î!‡ /in kån/does not appear in the language of the translation itself, butrather it appears several times in the directions assigned forconducting the seder: ‰!‰ ÔÓ ˘Â„˜ØÒÂ„˜ Ï‡ Â„·È ÏÂÁ ÔÂÎÈ Ô‡Î!‡(93 8,12; 9,4) ‘if (Passover) falls on a weekday, begin thekiddush from here,’ and ‰!‰ ÔÓ ÒÂ„˜ Ï‡ Â„·È ˙·˘ Ï‡ È¥ ÔÂÎÈ Ô‡Î!‡(93 8,15) ‘if (Passover) falls on Shabbat, begin the kiddushfrom here.’

The literary conditional particle ‡"‡ is quite rare in the textsof the ¡ur¥˙:(5-3.7) In Esther: ˙˜Â Ï‡ ‡"‡‰ È¥ È˙ÎÒ˙ ‡"‡ Ô‡ (1302 4a,7) ‘ifyou keep silent at this time’ translates ˙Ú· È˘È¯Á˙ ˘¯Á‰ Ì‡ ÈÎ

˙‡Ê‰ (Esth 4:14).(5-3.8) In the Haggadah ‡"‡ appears in directions given foradministering the seder, as in 5-3.3 and 5-3.6: ·È¯ÈÚ ÌÂÎÁÂÈ ‡"‡˙·˘· ÁÒÙ (93 2,9) ‘if the evening before Passover occurs onShabbat.’

The Hebrew conditional particle ÂÏ‡ or ÂÏ, and ‡ÏÂÏ in thenegative, can be translated with either ®Ô‡Î© ÂÏ or Ô‡Î Ô‡ , and‰ÏÂÂÏ/‡ÏÂÂÏ in the negative, as in the following examples.(5-3.9) In Genesis: in ¥ÒÂÈ ‰!Ï È·¡È ÂÏ ÂÏ‡˜Â (15 38a,11) ‘Andthey said, “What if Joseph still bears a grudge against us,” ’ ÂÏ/law/ translates Hebrew ÂÏ in Gen 50:15. Furthermore, in both‰ÈÏ Ô‡Î ˜ÁˆÈ ÚÊ¥Â Ì‰¯·‡ ‰‡Ï‡ ‡ÈÂ·‡ ‰‡Ï‡ ‡ÏÂÂÏ (15 14b,12–13)

235

‘Had not the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the

CHAPTER EIGHT

fear of Isaac, been with me ...’ (translating Gen 31:42) and Ô‡‰!Ï‚Ú˙Ò‡ ‰ÏÂÂÏ (15 29a,8) ‘if we had not hastened’ (renderingGen 43:10),1 8 ‰ÏÂÂÏ/‡ÏÂÂÏ /lawla/ translates the Hebrew negativeconditional particles ‡ÏÂÏ and ÈÏÂÏ respectively.(5.3-10) In Esther: in ‡!ÈÚ·!‡ ¯‡Â‚ÏÂ „È·ÚÏ Ô‡Î Ô‡Â (1302 5b,1–2)‘had we (only) been sold as slaves and mistresses’ Ô‡Î Ô‡Âtranslates Hebrew ÂÏ‡Â in Esth 7:4.(5.3-11) In the Haggadah: in ‰!‚¯¡‡ ÌÏ Ô‡Î ÂÏÂ (3 3,1–2) ‘and ifhe had not brought us out’ Ô‡Î ÂÏÂ translates Hebrew ÂÏ‡Â.Similarly, /wa-lawkån/ in ¬‡!‰ Ô‡Î Ô‡ÎÂÏÂ (3 5,2) ‘and if he hadbeen there’ renders Hebrew ÂÏ‡Â. In the same way, the sectionof dayyenu is inundated with Ô‡Î ÂÏ translating Hebrew ÂÏ‡,such as in ÌÂ‰˙‡‰‡Ï‡ È¥ Ú!ˆ Ô‡Î ÂÏ (3 16,3) ‘if he had executedjudgment upon their gods.’(5.3-12) The following example features a translation of HebrewÂÏ, not in its conditional use but in its “wish” meaning: Ï‡˜Â¬Ó‡ÏÎÎ ÔÂÎÈ ˙È¯‡È Ô‡·Ï (15 12b,9) ‘And Laban said, “May it beaccording to your words,” ’ translating Í¯·„Î È‰È ÂÏ Ô‰ Ô·Ï ¯Ó‡ÈÂ

(Gen 30:34).

Judeo-Arabic Ô‡Î Ô‡ also translates Hebrew Ì‡ and otherparticles in their nonconditional meanings.(5.3-13) For example, in Genesis, Ô‡Î Ô‡ translates the emphaticmeaning of Hebrew Ì‡ in ‰!‡ ‰„ ˘ÈÏ Ô‡Î Ô‡ (15 5b,4–5) ‘why isthis, then, happening to me?,’ whereas Ô‡Î Ô‡ translates ÔÎ Ì‡

‘then’ in ÈÎ &!‡ ‰Ê ‰ÓÏ ÔÎ Ì‡ (Gen 25:22). 1 9 Furthermore, Ô‡Î Ô‡renders the comparative meaning of Ì‡ in Ô‡ Â‡ÒÚ È!·‡ ‰„ ‰˙!‡ÌÏ Ô‡Î (15 8a,8) ‘Are you my son Esau or not?,’ translating

236

1 8Notice that the verb used in the Hebrew text is Â!‰Ó‰Ó˙‰ ‘we dawdled,’ theopposite of /ista>galna/ ‘we hastened.’

1 9In this example it is also possible that the ¡ar˙an translated Ì‡ into Ô‡ andÔÎ into Ô‡Î, following the orthographic and phonetic similarity.

Hebrew Ì‡ ‘or’ in ‡Ï Ì‡ Â˘Ú È!· ‰Ê ‰˙‡‰ (Gen 27:21). In another

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL: INDEPENDENT PRESONAL PROUNOUNS

case, Ô‡Î Ô‡ in ¬ÚÓ ‰ÏÏ‡ Ô‡Î Ô‡ ‰!¯$! ¯È$! (15 7a,7) ‘we haveindeed seen that God was with you’ simply translates Hebrew‰È‰ ÈÎ in ÍÓÚ ß‰ ‰È‰ ÈÎ Â!È‡¯ Â‡¯ (Gen 26:28). Yet in another case,Ô‡Î Ô‡ is employed to render ‘so that’ or ‘until’ in Ô‡ÓÎ ˙Ï‡˜ÂÂ·¯˘ÈÏ ÂÓ˙ Ô‡Î!‡ „!Ú È˜Ò‡ ¬Ï‡Ó‚Ï (15 3a,1) ‘and she said, “Letme draw water for your camels, so that they finish drinking,” ’translating Ì‡ „Ú ‘so that’ in ˙Â˙˘Ï ÂÏÎ Ì‡ „Ú ·‡˘‡ ÍÈÏÓ‚Ï Ì‚ ¯Ó‡˙Â

(Gen 24:19).2 0

Independent Personal PronounsLevel: Morphosyntactic; Category 6: PronounsFeature 6-1 — Independent personal pronounsInt.: It is common to find in the Egyptian ¡ur¥˙ regular Judeo-Arabic

translations of the independent personal pronouns, reflectinginterpretive translations.2 1

(6-1.1) Both ‰˙!‡ (15 3b,16; 3 4,14; 74 2,11; and many moreoccurrences) and ‡˙!‡ (1302 3a,8; 91 2b,3; 93 16,12) ‘you(masc. sg.)’ reflect Judeo-Arabic pronunciation of /inta/ in aninterpretive translation(6-1.2) Both È˙!‡ (15 3a,6; 4a,1; 4a,20; 1302 4a,6; 3 8,15; 914b,16; 93 23,1) and ˙!‡ (1302 4a,8) ‘you (fem. sg.)’ reflectJudeo-Arabic pronunciation of /inti/, demonstrating interpretivetranslation.(6-1.3) The independent pronouns ‰!Á‡ (15 10a,16; 3 2,12;3,3; 74 1,6; 10,9; 91 8b,1) and ÔÁ! (93 13,2; 14,4) ‘we’ areinterpretive translations into colloquial and literary Judeo-Arabic respectively.(6-1.4) As in the previous example, standard Arabic ÌÂ˙!‡ (15

237

2 0For a different use of /inkån/ see the section on interrogative pronouns, p.248, example 6-5.2.

2 1For an in-depth analysis of the orthography of independent personal pronouns,see chapter 9, pp. 318–19, 13-6.7.

4a,4 and many more occurrences; 3 24,5; 93 62,15) and Ì˙!‡

CHAPTER EIGHT

(1302 6a,5) as well as the colloquial Â˙!‡ (74 14,1; 91 10b,19;93 65,11) ‘you (masc. pl.)’ are typical interpretive translations.(6-1.5) ÌÂ‰ (only in 15 5a,11) and ÔÓÂ‰ (15 18a,10; 18a,15; andmore) ‘they’ are also interpretive translations, reflecting stan-dard and colloquial Egyptian Judeo-Arabic use respectively.

Pronominal SuffixesFeature 6-2 — Pronominal suffixes

Lit.: (6-2.1) The pronominal suffix /-o/ in ÂÒÈÏ (15 0-1,8 and otherplaces; 3 5,8) ‘he is not’ is a clear verbatim translation of theHebrew suffix Â% in Â!!È‡. The uninflected standard /laysa/ wouldhave been sufficient according to Arabic usage, but in order torender literally the Hebrew, which includes the pronominalsuffix, the ¡ar˙an added the equivalent pronominal suffix tothe Judeo-Arabic /laysa/, resulting in /layso/ (see pp. 213–14).(6-2.2) The ¡ar˙an has frequently used the uncommon Judeo-Arabic /iyyå-/ followed by the appropriate pronominal suffixesin order to render verbatim the Hebrew definite direct object˙‡ /et/ followed by its pronoun suffixes, although he couldhave employed the pronominal suffixes following the verbs ina more synthetic and more regular Judeo-Arabic style.2 2

In Genesis the ¡ar˙an translated verbatim È˙›‡ Â¯Á‡˙ Ï‡ (Gen24:56) into ‰È‡È‡ Â¯¡‡˙ ÌÏ (15 4a,15) ‘do not delay me,’ where‰È‡È‡ /iyyåya/ renders È˙›‡. Similarly, ‰È‡È‡ ÌÂ˙‰¯Î ÌÂ˙!‡Â (157a,6) ‘you hate me’ translates verbatim È˙›‡ Ì˙‡!˘ Ì˙‡Â (Gen26:27), where ‰È‡È‡ /iyyåya/ renders È˙›‡; and ‰ÈÏ‡ ‡‰‡È‡ ·‡‚Â(15 11a,3) ‘and he brought her to him’ translates verbatim ‡·ÈÂ

ÂÈÏ‡ ‰ ›̇‡ (Gen 26:27), where ‡‰‡È‡ /iyyåha/ renders ‰˙›‡.The same occurs in the Haggadah. In the example ‰‡ÈÈ‡ ˙È˘ÓÂ

238

2 2An even rarer translation of ˙‡ plus a pronominal suffix is the preposition/ilå/ plus a pronominal suffix. See below in this chapter, p. 261, 8-1.12.

(93 19,7–8) ‘and I led him,’ the ¡ar˙an used Judeo-Arabic

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL: PRONOMINAL SUFFIXES

‰‡ÈÈ‡ /iyyåh/ ‘him’ in order to translate verbatim the HebrewÂ˙Â‡ ÍÈÏÂ‡Â, although he could have employed the pronominalsuffix /-o/ in /wa-ma¡¡eto/ in a more regular Judeo-Arabic style.Similarly, the ¡ar˙an’s choice of ‰‡ÈÈ‡ /iyyåh/ ‘him’ in ˙¯ÂÂÈÏ

‰‡ÈÈ‡ (3 6,9) ‘to inherit it’ reflects his intention to produce aliteral translation. In the same way, the example ÔÈ˜È‡ƒÓÌÂ‰‡ÈÈ‡ (3 11,3) ‘oppress them’ demonstrates how the ¡ar˙anpreferred to give a literal translation of the Hebrew originalÌ˙Â‡ ÌÈˆÁÂÏ, avoiding the more common Judeo-Arabic pronominalsuffix /-hum/.(6-2.3) On the other hand, when the Hebrew uses the thirdplural pronominal suffix (rather than /et/ followed by thepronoun suffix) as in ÌÂ„·ÚÂ, the ¡ar˙an imitated it in yet anotherverbatim translation of the Hebrew: ÌÂ‰ÂÓ„¡˙ÒÈÂ (91 3a,9) or¿¨™¨º®í!¨ (3 6,17) ‘and they served them.’ In this case, the¡ar˙an’s choice does coincide with regular Judeo-Arabic use.

Int.: (6-2.4) In order to achieve a standard Arabic style, the ¡ar˙andid not render the Hebrew pronoun suffix Í% in the Hebrewphrase ‡! Í˘È Ì‡ ‘if indeed you …’ (Gen 24:42), resulting in themore interpretive Ô‡Ï‡ „Â‚ÂÂÓ Ô‡Î!‡ (15 3b,12) ‘if available now,’without the pronoun /-ak/ attached to /mawg¥d/. Likewise, the¡ar˙an did not translate the Hebrew pronoun suffix ÌÎ% in Ì‡

ÌÈ# ›Ú ÌÎ˘È ‘if you do’ (Gen 24:49), and in fact, he did nottranslate ÌÎ˘È at all, but rather interpreted it to be the independentpronoun ÌÂ˙!‡ ‘you (masc. pl.)’ in ÔÈÚ!‡ˆ ÌÂ˙!‡ Ô‡Î!‡ (154a,4–5) ‘if you do.’(6-2.5) Although the feminine singular pronominal suffix doesnot occur in the Hebrew ÌÈÈ„˘ ‘breasts,’ it does appear in the¡ar˙ in an interpretive translation, ¬Ê‡Ê· (3 8,14) ‘your breasts.’(6-2.6) In an instance of self-identification with the protagonistsin the text, the ¡ar˙an translated ÌÈÒœÓ È¯# ÂÈÏÚ ÂÓÈ#ÈÂ ‘and they

239

set taskmasters on him (the Israelites)’ into ˙‡ÂÂ˘· ‰!ÈÏÚ ÂÏÚ‚Â

CHAPTER EIGHT

ÒÎÓ (3 9,7–8) ‘and they set taskmasters over us.’ Consequently,the Hebrew third masculine singular pronominal suffix is nottranslated verbatim, but rather by the first plural /-na/. Thisoccurs in all the various manuscripts of the Haggadah; however,interestingly enough, it does not take place in the Judeo-Arabic¡ar˙ of Exodus, from which this verse is taken, and the transla-tion there is more literal: ‰ÈÒ‡˜ ˙‡Â˘· ‰ÈÏÚ ÂÏÚ‚Â (15 39b,11–12)‘and they appointed cruel masters on him (the Israelites),’following ÌÈÒœÓ È¯# ÂÈÏÚ ÂÓÈ#ÈÂ in Exod 1:11.(6-2.7) A similar, yet not identical, situation occurs in thetranslation of Gen 26:7. The Hebrew text uses the third personverbal pronoun in È˙˘‡ ¯Ó‡Ï ‡¯È ÈÎ ‡È‰ È˙›Á‡ ¯Ó‡ÈÂ ‘and he said,“She is my sister,” as he was afraid to say, “my wife” ’ (emphasisis mine). The Judeo-Arabic ¡ar˙ uses the first person verbalpronoun /xuft aq¥l/ in È˙‡¯Ó ÏÂ˜‡ ˙¥Â¡ Ô‡ ‡È‰ È˙¡Â‡ Ï‡˜Â (156a,14) ‘and he said, “She is my sister,” as I was afraid to say,“my wife” ’ (emphasis is mine).

L/I: (6-2.8) The ¡ar˙an was consistent in both the literal translationof Hebrew ˙‡ /et/ followed by pronominal suffixes into /iyyå-/with pronominal suffixes, as seen in 6-2.2, and the literaltranslation of pronominal suffixes following verbs, as seen in6-2.3. Thus, indeed, the Hebrew Ì ›̇‡ Â!ÚÂ is translated verbatimas ÌÂ‰‡ÈÈ‡ Â¥!ÚÈÂ (3 6,17; 93 20,5) ‘and they tortured them,’following the examples in 6-2.2. However, as an exception, inanother manuscript, the ¡ar˙an used the pronominal suffix/-hum/ in an interpretive translation: ÌÂ‰Â¥!ÚÈÂ (91 3a,10) ‘andthey oppressed them,’ as is usually the case in Arabic structure.

Relative PronounsFeature 6-3 — Relative pronounsLit.: The relative pronoun, usually È"Ï‡ /allaƒ•/ (masc. sg.), is used

240

throughout the ¡ur¥˙ to modify all nouns, regardless of their

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL: RELATIVE PROUNOUNS

number and gender. This is done to follow the Hebrew ¯˘‡,which does not change according to number or gender, unlikeits Classical Arabic equivalent. Furthermore, È"Ï‡ is a “frozen”form of the Later Egyptian Literary Judeo-Arabic relativepronoun.2 3 This is evident in many instances in the ¡ur¥˙.(6-3.1) In Genesis: ÌÏÎ˙‡ È"Ï‡ ‰ƒ¥ Ï‡ (15 2a,3–4) ‘the moneyabout which he had spoken,’ where /allaƒ•/ modifies the femininenoun /fa""a/. In both Â‰ÚÓ È"Ï‡ ‰Ï‡‚¯ Ï‡ ÔÈÏ‚¯Â (15 3a,20) ‘andthe feet of the men who are with him’ and ÌÈ˘µÏÙ Ï‡ „‡ÏÂÂ‡ÏÂÌ‰¯·‡Ï È"Ï‡ (15 4b,17) ‘and to the sons of Abraham’s concu-bines,’ /allaƒ•/ modifies plural nouns: /rigåla/ and /pila\¡im/.(6-3.2) In Esther: In ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ Ô‡„Ó ÏÎ È¥ È"Ï‡ ÌÓÂ‡ Ï‡ ÏÎ ‡ÏÚÂ(1302 2a,1) ‘against all the nations which are in all the provincesof the king,’ È"Ï‡ modifies an inanimate plural. In ‰ÈÈ·ˆ Ï‡Â¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ÔÈ!ÈÚ È¥ ÔÒÁ˙ È"Ï‡ (1302 2a,15–16) ‘and the girl whopleases the king,’ /allaƒ•/ modifies a feminine noun. Similarly,/allaƒ•/ in ‰!È„ÓÂ ‰!È„Ó ÏÎ È¥ È"Ï‡ ˙‡Â˘· ÏÏÂ (1302 3b,2) ‘and tothe Pashas who are in every town’ modifies the plural /ba¡awåt/‘Pashas.’(6-3.3) In the Haggadah as well, “frozen” È"Ï‡ /allaƒ•/ modifiesfeminine nouns, as in ÔÈ˜È‡ƒÓ ¯ˆÓ È"Ï‡ ‰˜Èƒ Ï‡ ‰Ï‡ ˙¯$!ÂÌÂ‰‡ÈÈ‡ (3 11,3–4) ‘I have seen the oppression wherewith theEgyptians oppress them’; or plural inanimate nouns, as in ˘‡È"Ï‡ Ì‡ÎÁ‡ Ï‡Â ÌÂÒ¯ Ï‡Â „‡‰Â˘ Ï‡ (3 4,7–8) ‘what are thetestimonies, statutes, and judgments which …’; and ¯˘Ú ÈÏÂ„ÒÂ„Â˜ Ï‡ ·‡‚ È"Ï‡ ˙‡·¯ƒ (3 13,14) ‘these are the ten plagueswhich the Holy One has brought.’

Sometimes, the position of the relative pronoun is innovativeand does not follow regular Judeo-Arabic structure; however,

241

2 3See Hary 1992:308–9. In Classical Judeo-Arabic /allaƒ•/ is not always thepreferred relative pronoun. See Blau 1980:235–37.

it strictly follows the position of its Hebrew equivalent.

CHAPTER EIGHT

(6-3.4) The position of /allaƒ•/ in È"Ï‡ ‰‚¯‡¡ ‰„ÂÂ‰ ‰˜·¯Â˙„ÏÂÂ˙‡ (15 2b,15) ‘and then Rebecca, who was born … ,came out’ is irregular according to Arabic word order, but itfollows verbatim the Hebrew original ‰„Ï 'È ¯˘‡ ˙‡ˆ &È ‰˜·¯ ‰!‰Â

(Gen 24:15),2 4 following the literal translation method.

È"Ï‡ /allaƒ•/ (masc.) is also used to translate Hebrew %˘ and¯˘‡ even in their complementizer meaning. Consequently, /allaƒ•/gains the complementizer function in the texts of the ¡ur¥˙ inLater Egyptian Judeo-Arabic, in addition to its function ofrelative pronoun.(6-3.5) In Genesis: ˙˜‡ÓÁ Ú‚¯˙ È"Ï‡ „!Ú ÏÈÏ˜ Ì‡È‡ ÂÚÓ „ÂÚ˜˙Â¬Â¡‡ (15 9a,4) ‘and (you) stay with him a few days until yourbrother’s anger has subsided,’ in which /allaƒ•/ translates thecomplementizer Hebrew ¯˘‡ (Gen 27:44).2 5 Similarly, in ÌÏ˙Ú!ˆ Ô‡Î Ô‡ È"Ï‡ „!Ú ¬ÎÂ¯˙‡ (15 9b,17) ‘I will not leave youuntil I do … ,’ Judeo-Arabic È"Ï‡ /allaƒ•/ translates the Hebrewcomplementizer ¯˘‡ in Gen 28:15. Although in the Hebrewtext neither %˘ or ¯˘‡ appears in ÚÈ„Â‰ È¯Á‡ ÛÒÂÈ Ï‡ ‰Ú¯Ù ¯Ó‡ÈÂ

Í˙Â‡ ÌÈ‰ÂÏ‡ (Gen 41:39), the complementizer meaning exists in¬‡È‡ ·¯ Ï‡ ¥¯Ú È"Ï‡ „Ú· ¥ÒÂÈ ‰Ï‡ ÔÂÚ¯¥ Ï‡˜Â (15 26b,1–2) ‘ThenPharaoh said to Joseph, “After God has informed you.” ’ Indeed,the Protestant translation rendered the sentence with the com-plementizer /må/ in tÒK"« pLK!« U# bF$ ‘after God has informedyou.’(6-3.6) In the book of Esther: in ˙ÏÓÚ ÌÏ È"Ï‡ ‡ÏÚ (13021b,22) ‘that (she) did not do’ Judeo-Arabic È"Ï‡ translates theHebrew complementizer ¯˘‡ in ‰˙˘È ‡Ï ¯˘‡ ÏÚ (Esth 1:15).

242

2 4Although notice here that the ¡ar˙an did not follow verbatim the wordorder of ‰˜·¯ ‰!‰Â, as he translated ‰„ÂÂ‰ ‰˜·¯Â.

2 5See below, p. 281 n. 51 to section 10-3.2, a reference to the irregularagreement in ÏÈÏ˜ Ì‡È‡ ‘a few days.’

Similarly, in È˙˘Â È‚˙ ÌÏ È"Ï‡ ¯ÈÈµ˙È ÌÏÂ (1302 2a,5) ‘(it) will

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL: RELATIVE PROUNOUNS

not be changed [revoked], stating that Vashti may not come,’Judeo-Arabic È"Ï‡ is employed for the complementizer ¯˘‡ inEsth 1:19. Likewise, in È„Â‰È ‡ÂÂ‰ È"Ï‡ Ì‰Ï ¯·¡ Ô‡ (1302 3a,9)‘that he informed them that he was Jewish,’ /allaƒ•/ is used totranslate the complementizer ¯˘‡ in Esth 3:4. The Protestanttranslation used the complementizer /anna/ in its translationÍœuN% tÒ&U$ r'd?()« tÒ&ô ‘because he informed them that he isJewish.’(6-3.7) In the Haggadah as well, Judeo-Arabic /allaƒ•/ translatesthe Hebrew complementizer %˘ in the following examples:Hebrew „¯È ‡Ï˘ „ÓÏÓ ‘teaching that he did not go down’ istranslated as ÏÊ! ÌÏ È"Ï‡ ÌÏÚ˙‡ (3 7,15). Similarly, HebrewÏ‡¯˘È ÂÈ‰˘ „ÓÏÓ ‘teaching that Israel was’ is translated as ÌÏÚ˙‡Ï‡¯˘È Â!‡Î È"Ï‡ (3 8,6–7). Also Judeo-Arabic È"Ï‡ ÏÈ‡˜ ‰˙!‡ÔÈÈ¯ˆÓ Ï‡ Â·¯ƒ!‡ (3 14,5–6) ‘you say that the Egyptians weresmitten’ translates Hebrew ÌÈÈ¯ˆÓ‰ Â˜Ï˘ ¯ÓÂ‡ ‰˙‡.

In some cases, È"Ï‡ /allaƒ•/ (masc. sg.) translates verbatim theoriginal Hebrew ¯˘‡ followed by the preposition %Ï indicatingpossession, and sometimes it is translated verbatim followedby the preposition /li-/:(6-3.8) The phrase ¯ˆÓ ¬ÏÓÏ È"Ï‡ Ê‡·¡ Ï‡Â (15 24a,12–13)‘and the baker of the king of Egypt’ follows literally the Hebrewin Gen 40:5 ÌÈ¯ˆÓ ÍÏÓÏ ¯˘‡ ‰Ù›‡‰Â . Similarly, È"Ï‡ È¥ (15 23-1b,2)‘since’ translates verbatim the Hebrew ¯˘‡· (Gen 39:9).

Infrequently, Judeo-Arabic Ô‡ rather than È"Ï‡ is used for therelative pronoun:(6-3.9) This is the case in two instances in Esther, where the¡ar˙an translated Hebrew ¯˘‡ as Ô‡: ÂÒ‡¯ È¥ ‰!ËÏÒ ‚‡˙ ÏÚ‚!È Ô‡(1302 5a,4–5) ‘whose royal crown is put on his head,’ renderingthe relative pronoun ¯˘‡ in Â˘‡¯· ˙ÂÎÏÓ ¯˙Î Ô (z $! ¯˘‡Â (Esth 6:8);and ÂÓÎÁÈ „Â‰È Ï‡ Ô‡ (1302 6b,2)‘that the Jews will reign,’ also

243

translating ¯˘‡ in ÌÈ„Â‰È‰ ÂËÏ˘È ¯˘‡ (Esth 9:1).

CHAPTER EIGHT

Int.: (6-3.10) In an interpretive translation, the colloquial relativepronoun /illi/ also occurs in the texts of the ¡ur¥˙, translatingHebrew %˘ and ¯˘‡, as a manifestation of the dialect: ÈÏ‡ ‡ÈÈ‰‡!˙‡‰·‡Ï ˙È¥˜ÂÂ (91 3a,13) ‘it is that (promise) which hasstood by our fathers’ translates Â!È˙Â·‡Ï ‰„ÓÚ˘ ‡È‰.

L/I: (6-3.11) The ¡ar˙an translated the Hebrew relative pronoun%‰2 6 literally as the Judeo-Arabic definite article Ï‡, even whenthe latter is not used as a relative pronoun in regular Arabicusage. He did so in order to achieve an exact verbatim translation:for example, ÈÎÁÈÏ ¯˙ÎÓ Ï‡ ÏÎÂ (3 3,6–7) ‘and all who tell atlength,’ which translates ¯ÙÒÏ ‰·¯Ó‰ ÏÎÂ. In other manuscripts(74 1,14; 93 14,7), however, the interpretive mode prevailsand the regular Arabic relative pronoun /allaƒ•/ appears: ÏÎÂÈÎÁÈÏ ¯˙ÎÈ È"Ï‡ ‘and all who tell at length.’(6-3.12) Sometimes the ¡ar˙an translated Hebrew %˘ using theJudeo-Arabic relative pronoun È"Ï‡ just for the sake of a verbatimtranslation. For example, ÍÈ!ÙÏ ÌÈÁ!‹Ó ¯Â¯ÓÂ ‰ˆÓ˘ ‰Ú˘· was translatedinto ¬Ó‡„Â˜ ÔÈËÂËÁÓ ¯È¯ÂÓ Ï‡Â ¯ÈË¥ Ï‡ È"Ï‡ ˙Ú‡Ò È¥ (93 18,7–8)‘at the time when unleavened bread and bitter herbs are placedbefore you.’ In other manuscripts, however, regular Arabic usewas preferred instead of a literal translation: ¯ÈË¥ Ï‡ ˙Ú‡Ò È¥¬Ó‡„Â˜Ï ÔÈËÂËÁÓ ¯¯ÂÓ Ï‡Â (3 5,14–15).2 7

Demonstrative PronounsFeature 6-4 — Demonstrative pronounsIn the ¡ar˙ the demonstrative pronouns /håda/ ‘this’ (masc.), /hådi/‘this’ (fem.), and /hadøli/ ‘these’ are usually translated literally in

244

2 6The use of %‰ as a relative pronoun is much less frequent in Hebrew than itsuse as the definite article.

2 7See above, p. 233, example 5-2.5, for a different analysis.

accordance with the Hebrew word order, where the demonstrative

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL: DEMONSTRATIVE PROUNOUNS

pronouns follow the noun they modify.2 8 This behavior is notconsistent with literary Arabic use, where demonstrative pronounsprecede the nouns they modify. However, this is in line with colloquialArabic use, where demonstrative pronouns follow the nouns theymodify, as is the case in the ¡ar˙. On the other hand, this is not thecase with /ƒalika/ ‘that’ (masc.) and /tilka/ ‘that’ (fem.). In the lattercases, the translation is interpretive, because these pronouns precedethe nouns they modify, as is the case in literary Arabic use, but notaccording to Hebrew word order.

Lit.: The demonstrative pronoun /håda/ ‘this’ (masculine):(6-4.1) In Genesis: The placement of the demonstrative pronounin ‰„‡‰ ÌÂÈ Ï‡ (15 35a,9) ‘this day’ follows verbatim theHebrew demonstrative pronoun word order in ‰Ê‰ ÌÂÈ‰ (Gen47:26), and not literary Arabic usage /håƒå l-yawm/. However,this translation does follow colloquial Egyptian Arabic wordorder, where the demonstrative pronoun follows the noun itmodifies: /il-yøm da/. The same occurs in the translation of‰Ê‰ ÌÂ˜Ó‰ (Gen 28:17) as ‰"‡‰ Á¯ËÓ Ï‡ (15 9b,20) ‘this place’and in ‰„‡‰ ˙È· Ï‡ (15 24b,8) ‘this house,’ which is the verbatimtranslation of ‰Ê‰ ˙È·‰ (Gen 40:14).(6-4.2) In the Haggadah: In the examples ‰"‡‰ ¯ÈË¥ Ï‡ „ÈÚ ÌÂÈ(93 60,9) ‘this festival of unleavened bread’ and ˙·Ò Ï‡ ÌÂÈ È¥‰"‡‰ (93 82,14) ‘on this Saturday,’ the Judeo-Arabic demon-strative pronoun ‰"‡‰ follows the noun it modifies, as is thecase in Hebrew in ‰Ê‰ ˙ÂˆÓ‰ ‚Á ÌÂÈ and ‰Ê‰ ˙·˘‰ ÌÂÈ· respectively.

The demonstrative pronoun /hådi/ ‘this’ (fem.):(6-4.3) In Genesis: È„‡‰ #¯‡ Ï‡ (15 13b,5) ‘this land’ is a

245

2 8This seems to work for Genesis and for the Haggadah. In Esther only theplural demonstrative pronoun /hadøli/ follows the noun it modifes, and eventhis feature may not be a literal translation, since the demonstrative pronoun is adialectal form, thus following colloquial Judeo-Arabic use. See chapter 4, p.125, 3.1.

literal translation following the Hebrew demonstrative pronoun

CHAPTER EIGHT

word order in ˙‡Ê‰ ı¯‡‰ (Gen 31:13). The same applies for Ï‡È„‡‰ ‰˜Èƒ (15 28a,2) ‘this anguish,’ which translates ˙‡Ê‰ ‰¯ˆ‰

(Gen 42:21), and for È„‡‰ ‰·ËˆÓ Ï‡ (15 15a,9–10) ‘this pillar,’following the Hebrew ˙‡Ê‰ ‰·ˆÓ‰ (Gen 31:52).(6-4.4) In the Haggadah: The phrase È„‡‰ ‰!Ò Ï‡ (3 2,6) ‘thisyear’ translates verbatim the Aramaic demonstrative pronounword order in ‡Î‰ ‡˙˘‰ , not following regular Arabic use as in/håƒihi s-sana/ ‘this year.’ Other examples include È„‡‰ ‰ÏÈÏ Ï‡(3 2,9) ‘this night,’ which translates verbatim ‰Ê‰ ‰ÏÈÏ‰ ; and Ï‡È„‡‰ ‰È!Â„ (3 4,3), which translates literally ‰Ê‰ ÌÏÂÚ‰.

The masculine and feminine demonstrative pronouns in Estherfollow an interpretive translation (6-4.10), but the pluraldemonstrative pronoun /hadøli/ ‘these’ follows the Hebrewword order in all of the Egyptian ¡ur¥˙. The reason is that theplural pronoun itself is in colloquial Judeo-Arabic and thusfollows colloquial word order, which also coincides with theHebrew word order.(6-4.5) In Genesis: The examples ÈÏÂ„‰ Ì‡ÏÎ Ï‡Î (15 3a,13)2 9

‘like these words,’ translating ‰Ï‡ ÌÈ¯·„Î (Gen 24:28); Ï‡ ÏÂÎÈÏÂ„‰ Èƒ‡¯‡ (15 6a,8–9) ‘all these countries,’ which translatesÏ‡‰ ˙›ˆ¯‡‰ ÏÎ (Gen 26:3); and ÈÏÂ„‰ ‰Ï‡‚Â¯ Ï‡Â (15 18a,10) ‘andthese men,’ translating ‰Ï‡‰ ÌÈ˘!‡‰ (Gen 34:21) demonstrate aword order similar to that in the Hebrew original and in colloquialArabic use.(6-4.6) In Esther: The example ÈÏÂ„‰ Ì‡ÈÈ‡ Ï‡ (1302 1b,7)follows the Hebrew word order in ‰Ï‡‰ ÌÈÓÈ‰ (Esth 1:5), as inJudeo-Arabic colloquial use.(6-4.7) In the Haggadah: The word order of the demonstrativepronoun /(ha)døli/ ‘these’ in ÈÏÂ„ ˙‡ÓÏÎ ˙‡Ï˙ (3 17,18–19)

246

2 9See also pp. 277–78, 10-2.8 for an analysis of number agreement in thisexample.

‘these three words’ and in ÈÏÂ„‰ ·È‡‚Ú Ï‡ ÏÎ (3 19,17–18) ‘all

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL: DEMONSTRATIVE PROUNOUNS

these miracles’ follows verbatim the Hebrew ÂÏ‡ ÌÈ¯·„ ‰˘Ï˘ andÂÏ‡‰ ÌÈÒ!‰ ÏÎ respectively, and also follows Judeo-Arabiccolloquial word order.

Int.: The demonstrative pronoun /ƒalik/ ‘that’ (masc.):(6-4.8) In a marked difference from the examples above, ¬Ï‡"ÌÂÈ Ï‡ (3 5,12) ‘that day’ appears in literary Arabic wordorder. This is an interpretive translation, not following theHebrew word order of the equivalent demonstrative pronoun‡Â‰‰ ÌÂÈ·.

The demonstrative pronoun /tilka/ ‘that’ (fem.):(6-4.9) The word order of /tilka/ is translated interpretively inthe texts of the ¡ur¥˙, not following the equivalent Hebrewdemonstrative pronoun word order. For example, Ï‡ ¬Ï˙ È¥#¯‡ (15 6b,3) ‘in that land’ translating ‡È‰‰ ı¯‡· (Gen 26:12); È¥‰!Ò Ï‡ ¬Ï˙ (15 6b,4) ‘in that year’ translating ‡È‰‰ ‰!˘· (Gen26:12); and ‰ÏÈÏ Ï‡ ¬Ï˙ (15 6b,20; 3 3,13–14) ‘that night’ arein regular Arabic structure, where the demonstrative pronounprecedes the modified noun, a departure from Hebrew wordorder.

The ¡ar˙ of the book of Esther generally follows regularArabic structure in an interpretive translation:(6-4.10) ÌÂÈ Ï‡ ‡"‡‰Â (1302 2a,3) ‘and this day’; ‰Ú!ˆ Ï‡ È"‡‰(1302 3a,18) ‘this craft’; ÌÂÈ Ï‡ ¬Ï‡" (1302 7a,2) ‘that day’;and ‰ÏÈÏ Ï‡ ¬Ï˙ (1302 4b,14) ‘that night.’ Ì‡ÈÈ‡ Ï‡ ¬Ï‡" (13021b,3) ‘those days’ is interesting since it follows Arabic structurein terms of word order, but not in terms of agreement. Theagreement, though, does not indicate a literal translation, as itdoes not follow the Hebrew Ì‰‰ ÌÈÓÈ· (Esth 1:2). The pluraldemonstrative pronoun /hadøli/ ‘these’ is treated above in 6-4.6.

L/I: (6-4.11) On the one hand, in the example ‰ÏÈÏ Ï‡ ¬Ï‡" (74

247

1,17) ‘that night,’ the demonstrative pronoun follows regular

CHAPTER EIGHT

Arabic word order and not Hebrew word order; thus, as inexample 6-4.8 above, it is translated interpretively. On theother hand, the demonstrative pronoun /ƒalik/ in this exampleis in the masculine, whereas it modifies a feminine noun. Thisis in line with the Hebrew masculine demonstrative pronoun in‰Ê‰ ‰ÏÈÏ‰;3 0 thus, it represents a verbatim translation.3 1

Interrogative Pronouns and ParticlesFeature 6-5 — Interrogative pronouns and particlesLit.: (6-5.1) In the example Ô‡·Ï ‰Ï‡ Â¥¯Ú˙ Ô‡Î!‡ ÌÂ‰Ï Ï‡˜Â (15

10a,16–17) ‘and he said to them, “Do you know Laban?,” ’the Hebrew interrogative particle %‰ in Ô·Ï ˙‡ Ì˙Ú„È‰ Ì‰Ï ¯Ó‡ÈÂ

(Gen 29:5) is translated as /inkån/, which usually renders theHebrew Ì‡ ‘if.’ This is an attempt to translate quite literallythe Hebrew interrogative particle.(6-5.2) Another attempt to translate the Hebrew interrogativeparticle %‰ is found in the Haggadah, where Judeo-Arabic Ô‡ isused: È‚ÈÏ ·¯ Ï‡ ·¯‚ Ô‡Î Ô‡ Â‡ (3 12,14) ‘or did God try to go?’translating ‡›·Ï ÌÈ‰¿‡ ‰Ò!‰.(6-5.3) Yet another effort to translate the interrogative particle%‰ results in an even more literal translation in the followingexample, as the ¡ar˙an interpreted it as a definite article: Ï‡˜ÂÂ‰Ï Ì‡ÏÒ Ï‡ ÌÂ‰Ï (15 10a,17–18) ‘and he said to them, “Is hewell?,” ’ which is the translation of ÂÏ ÌÂÏ˘‰ Ì‰Ï ¯Ó‡ÈÂ (Gen29:6).

Int.: (6-5.4) The Hebrew interrogative particle %‰ is sometimesrendered in the ¡ar˙ in an interpretive mode. Thus, ‰ÚÓ ÈÁÂ¯˙Ï‚‡¯ Ï‡ (15 4a,17) ‘will you go with the man?’ does not reflectthe Hebrew %‰ in ˘È‡‰ ÌÚ ÈÎÏ˙‰ (Gen 24:58). Similarly, ‰ÏÏ‡ Á‚!

248

3 0See also p. 282, 10-3.4, for example.3 1See also chapter 6, pp. 174–75, example 11.

Â˜È¯Ë (15 3a,3–4) ‘Did God make his journey prosperous?’

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL: INTERROGATIVE PROUNOUNS/PARTICLES

translates implicitly the interrogative particle %‰ in ß‰ ÁÈÏˆ‰‰

ÂÎ¯„ (Gen 24:21).

L/I: (6-5.5) The Hebrew interrogative pronoun ‰Ó ‘what’ is usuallytranslated interpretively in the texts of the ¡ur¥˙ by colloquialEgyptian Judeo-Arabic ˘È‡ /!¡/ (15 2a,2; 6a,20; 8a,6; and more;1302 3b,17; 4b,17; 5a,1; and more; 74 2,10; 2,13; 2,16; andmore; 93 16,11; 17,3; 17,10; and more) and ˘‡ (3 2,9; 4,12;4,17; and more; 91 2b,1; 2b,6; 3a,17; and more) ‘what.’3 2 Rarelyare literary Judeo-Arabic ‡"‡Ó (1302 1b,21) and ‡Ó (93 13,1)‘what’ used. However, a clearly verbatim translation emergesin one interesting case: The Hebrew particle ‰Ó in ÌÂ˜Ó‰ ‡¯Â! ‰Ó

‰Ê‰ (Gen 28:17) means in this context ‘how’ as an adverbialparticle and is not the interrogative particle ‘what.’ The ¡ar˙an,in his desire to be verbatim, rendered the Hebrew adverbialexclamatory particle ‰Ó literally as Judeo-Arabic ˘È‡ ‘what’:‰"‡‰ Á¯ËÓ Ï‡ È¥ ¥È¡ÂÓ ˘È‡ (15 9b,20) ‘What full of awe is (in)this place.’(6-5.6) In a similar manner, various Hebrew interrogative adverbsmeaning ‘where’ are translated interpretively by colloquialJudeo-Arabic ÔÈ¥ /f!n/ ‘where.’ For example, ‰!‡ is rendered byÔÈ¥ (15 16a,4; 22b,9); ‰ÙÈ‡ also by ÔÈ¥ (15 22a,6); and the sameholds true for ‰È‡ (15 23b,9; 3 23,11; 74 13,5; 91 10b,9;3 3 9364,8) and È‡ (1302 5b,3). Similar are ÔÈ¥ ÔÓ /min f!n/ (3 14,5)‘from where,’ which translates interpretively the Hebrew ÔÈ!Ó,and ÔÈ!Ó /min!n/ (3 14,17; 74 7,4; 7,10; 91 6b,10; 7a,1) ‘fromwhere.’ However, the latter may be considered a verbatimtranslation because of its orthographic/phonetic proximity tothe Hebrew ÔÈ!Ó. Rarely is literary Judeo-Arabic ÔÈ‡ ÔÓ (93

249

3 2The interrogative /!¡/ is a feature of colloquial Egyptian Judeo-Arabic. Seechapter 4, pp. 114–15, 2.1.6.1.

3 3Note that in this example the letter /fe/ lacks the supralinear dot: ÔÈÙ.

31,9; 32,7) used. The example È!·‡ ‡È Ú!ˆ‡ ˘È‡ ÔÈ¥ ¬ÏÂ (15

CHAPTER EIGHT

8b,13) ‘(where) what shall I do for you, my son?,’ whichtranslates the Hebrew È!· ‰˘Ú‡ ‰Ó ‡ÂÙ‡ ‰ÎÏÂ (Gen 27:37) ‘andwhat then shall I do for you, my son?,’ on the other hand, is averbatim translation based on a misreading or pseudocorrection.The ¡ar˙an considered Hebrew ‡ÂÙ‡ ‘then’ to be the interrogativeadverb ‰ÙÈ‡ ‘where’ because of their orthographic/phoneticresemblance, thus translating it similarly by Judeo-Arabic ÔÈ¥‘where.’

Verb Conjugation: InfinitivesLevel: Morphosyntactic; Category 7: Verb ConjugationFeature 7-1 — Infinitives

Lit.: The Hebrew preposition %Ï in infinitive constructs is oftentranslated verbatim by Judeo-Arabic /li-/ followed by a finiteverb, even if regular Arabic style calls for the particle /an/.However, this feature should not be placed on the extremeliteral side of the continuum, since Judeo-Arabic employs afinite verb after /li-/, unlike the uninflected Hebrew verbfollowing %Ï.(7-1.1) In Genesis: In ‰È‡¯ÂÂ ÁÂ¯˙Ï ‰¯Ó Ï‡ È‚˙ ÌÏ ‰Ó·Â¯ (152a,18) ‘maybe the woman will not come to follow me’3 4 the¡ar˙an followed verbatim the Hebrew infinitive construct ˙ÎÏÏ

in Gen 24:5 with the Judeo-Arabic preposition /li-/ in ÁÂ¯˙Ï/li-tr¥˙/ ‘to come,’ although the particle /an/ is expected inregular Arabic use. Similarly, in Ï‡ Ú!ˆÈÏ È·ˆ Ï‡ ¯¡‡˙‡ ÌÏÂ‰"‡‰ Ì‡ÏÎ (15 18a,7) ‘and the lad did not delay doing thisthing,’ the ¡ar˙an used /li-/ in Ú!ˆÈÏ ‘to do’ instead of theexpected /an/ in a verbatim translation of ˙Â#ÚÏ (Gen 34:19).Furthermore, the same use of /li-/ occurs in Â„ÂÚ˜ÈÏ ‘to sit’ inÂ„ÂÚ˜ÈÏ ‰Ï‡‚Â¯ Ï‡ ‰!Ï ÂÚÂÂ‡Ë (15 18a,14–15) ‘the people comply

250

3 4For a possible analysis of ÁÂ¯˙Ï ÆÆÆ È‚˙, see chapter 7, pp. 202–3, 3-1.8.

with us to sit…’ which translates ˙·˘Ï in Gen 34:22.

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL: INFINITIVES

(7.1-2) In Esther as well, the Hebrew infinitive construct istranslated with /li-/ followed by the inflected verb, even if theparticle /an/ is required by the Judeo-Arabic structure. Thus,the Judeo-Arabic /li-tigi/ ‘to come (3rd fem. sg.)’ in ‡!„ ‡ÓÏÂ‡Ï‡ È‚˙Ï … ¯˙Ò‡ ˙˜Â (1302 2b,14–15) ‘and when the timecame for Esther … to come’ is a verbatim translation of theHebrew ‡Â·Ï (Esth 2:15). In the same way, the ¡ar˙an employedJudeo-Arabic /li-/ verbatim in Â·È‚ÈÏ ‘to bring’ in … ÔÓÂ‰ÓÏ Ï‡˜‰ÎÏÓ Ï‡ È˙˘Â Â·È‚ÈÏ (1302 1b, 14–15) ‘he told Mehuman … tobring Queen Vashti,’ translating verbatim the Hebrew infinitiveconstruct ‡È·‰Ï in Esth 1:11. Similar is the use of /li-/ with thefinite verb ·È‚ÈÏ ‘to bring’ in ‰ÎÏÓ Ï‡ È˙˘Â ‡Ï‡ ·È‚ÈÏ ¯Ó‡ (13022a, 2-3) ‘he ordered to bring Queen Vashti,’ a verbatim translationof the Hebrew ‡È·‰Ï in Esth 1:17.(7-1.3) In the Haggadah: The Judeo-Arabic preposition /li-/ inÈÎÁÈÏ ‘to tell’ in ÈÎÁÈÏ ¯˙ÎÓ Ï‡ ÏÎÂ (3 3,6–7) ‘and all who tell atlength’ is a clear word-for-word translation of the Hebrew %Ï

in ¯ÙÒÏ as part of the infinitive construct. Similarly, in ·Ò‡ÁÚ!ˆÈÏ „Á Ï‡ ‰Ï‡ (3 6,13–14) ‘He premeditated the end toperform,’ the ¡ar˙an translated the Hebrew ˙Â˘ÚÏ with theJudeo-Arabic Ú!ˆÈÏ, using /li-/ in a verbatim way. In the sameway, the ¡ar˙an chose once more the Judeo-Arabic preposition/li-/ in Ú!ˆÈÏ ‘to do’ in Ú!ˆÈÏ ÈÏÓ¯‡ Ï‡ Ô·Ï ·ÏË ˘‡ (3 7,7–8)‘What did Lavan the Aramean ask to do’ to imitate the Hebrew%Ï in ˙Â˘ÚÏ, whereas he could have chosen the more normativeArabic particle /an/.(7-1.4) As mentioned in the above examples, it is quite regularin the ¡ar˙ to find the Judeo-Arabic preposition /li-/ translatingverbatim the Hebrew %Ï as part of the infinitive construct,where one would expect the particle /an/. When the expectedparticle /an/ is used, as in Ï‡˜!˙ Ô‡ ˙ÈƒÁ ÌÏÂ (93 15,11) ‘(I) didnot understand (why the exodus from Egypt) is recited,’ it

251

actually translates Hebrew %˘, as in ¯Ó‡˙˘ È˙ÈÎÊ ‡ÏÂ. In another

CHAPTER EIGHT

translation of the same place in ms. 3, though, the Judeo-Arabic/li-/ is still preserved: ÏÂ˜‡Ï ˙ÈÎÊ ÌÏÂ (3 3,19).

It is quite common in the ¡ur¥˙ to find instances where the¡ar˙an followed the biblical text verbatim by translating Hebrewinfinitive constructs preceded by the prepositions %· or %Î andsometimes followed by a pronoun suffix as well. On the otherhand, as can be seen below in the L/I section (pp. 254–56),especially in the book of Esther, the ¡ar˙an was not consistentin this literal translation and at times he translated these Hebrewinfinitive constructs using Judeo-Arabic finite verbs.(7-1.5) In Genesis: The Hebrew infinitive construct Â˙Á˜· in‰˜·¯ ˙‡ Â˙Á˜· (Gen 26:20) is translated verbatim by Judeo-Arabicmaßdar preceded by the preposition /fi-/ and followed by thepronominal suffix /-o/ in order to imitate the Hebrew: Â„¡‡ È¥‰˜·¯ ‰Ï‡ (15 5a,20) ‘when taking (he took) Rebecca’; ÛÈËÚ‰·Â

Ô‡ˆ‰ (Gen 30:42) is rendered literally as Ì!µ Ï‡ ¯È¡‡˙ È¥Â (1513a,4) ‘and when the flock is late’; ˙Â‡¯Î (Gen 33:10) is translatedverbatim as ¯$!ÓÎ in ¬‡ÏÓ Ï‡ ‰‚Â ¯$!ÓÎ (15 17a,2–3) ‘likeseeing the face of the angel.’ Likewise is the verbatim translationof the infinitive construct ÂÁ¯·· in ÂÈÁ‡ È!ÙÓ ÂÁ¯·· (Gen 35:7) asÂ·Â¯‰ È¥ in ‰Â¡‡ ‰‚Â ÔÓ Â·Â¯‰ È¥ (15 19a,5) ‘during his escapefrom his brother.’(7-1.6) In Esther there are cases of verbatim translations ofthis feature, such as ÒÂÏ‚Î (1302 1b,3) ‘while sitting,’ which isthe literal translation of the Hebrew ˙·)˘Î (Esth 1:2). Thesituation, however, is more complex as is seen in the L/I sectionbelow (pp. 254–56). Furthermore, the Hebrew infinitive abso-lute ˙Â˜˘‰Â (Esth 1:7), which is not preceded by a preposition,is translated verbatim by the verbal noun ·¯˘ Ï‡Â (1302 1b,10)‘and drinking.’(7-1.7) In the Haggadah more literal translations of the infinitiveconstruct preceded by %· or %Î appear. Thus, ÌÈ¯ˆÓÓ È˙‡ˆ· is

252

translated into ¯ˆÓ ÔÓ È‚Â¯¡ È¥ (3 5,1) ‘during my leaving Egypt’;


ÌÈ¯ˆÓ ˙‡ ÂÙ‚!· is literally translated into ¯ˆÓ ‰Ï‡ Â·¯ƒ È¥ (3 18,7)‘when striking Egypt’; and ÌÈ¯ˆÓÓ Ï‡¯˘È ˙‡ˆ· is rendered into È¥¯ˆÓ ÔÓ Ï‡¯˘È ‚Â¯¡ (3 20,13) ‘upon Israel’s leaving Egypt.’(7-1.8) As for the biblical Hebrew infinitive absolute followedby an imperfect, the ¡ar˙an translated it literally. In Ú‚¯‡ ÚÂ‚¯¬!·‡ ‰Ï‡ (15 2a,18) ‘shall I indeed take your son back?’ the¡ar˙an used the Arabic absolute object (Wright 1974, 2:54ff)to strictly translate the Hebrew Í!· ˙‡ ·È˘‡ ·˘‰ (Gen 24:5).Similarly, in the Haggadah the ¡ar˙an translated Ú„˙ Ú„È (Gen15:13) ‘you will surely know’ literally, also using the Arabicabsolute object ¥¯Ú˙ ¥È¯Ú (3 6,16) ‘you will surely know.’ Inboth examples the infinitive precedes the finite verb in order tofollow the Hebrew word order and deviates from regular Arabicstructure.

Int.: (7-1.9) The regular use of the preposition /li-/ in the verbatimtranslation of biblical Hebrew infinitive constructs does notappear in Gen 24:33. The verse Ï›Î‡Ï ÂÈ!ÙÏ Ì#ÂÈÂ ‘and there wasset (food) in front of him to eat’ is translated interpretivelywith the use of the noun /akl/ ‘food,’ as in ÏÎ‡ ÂÓ‡„Â˜ ÏÚ‚Â (153a,20) ‘and he set food before him,’ although the definite articleis expected to precede the noun, or at least the tanw•n indefiniteaccusative in a more literal style.(7-1.10) Similarly, sometimes the Hebrew infinitive constructis not translated literally with /li-/ followed by the finite verb,but is interpreted for clarity. For example, the infinitive ˙Â#ÚÏ

‘to do’ in È˙˘Â ‰ÎÏÓ· ˙Â˘ÚÏ ‰Ó ˙„Î (Esth 1:15) is translated by aJudeo-Arabic passive for clarification in ‡"‡Ó ÔÂ!‡˜ Ï‡ ·ÒÁÈ˙˘Â ‰ÎÏÓ Ï‡ È¥ ÏÚ¥ÂÈ (1302 1b,21–22) ‘by law, what should bedone to Queen Vashti.’(7-1.11) In three cases in Esther the infinitive construct istranslated into regular Arabic structure using /an/ followed bythe finite verb, as in Ï‚¯ ÏÏ Ú!ˆ!È Ô‡ ˜È‡Ï ˘È‡ (1302 5a,1) ‘what

253

is appropriate to be done to the man’ for ˘È‡· ˙Â˘ÚÏ ‰Ó (Esth

CHAPTER EIGHT

6:6); ‡"Î Ú!ˆ!È Ô‡ ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ Ï‡˜Â (1302 7a,7) ‘The king ordered(that this is) to be done like that’ for ÔÎ ˙Â˘ÚÕ‰Ï ÍÏÓ‰ ¯Ó‡ÈÂ (Esth9:14); and Ú!ˆÈ Â!ÂÎÈ Ô‡ Ì‰ÈÏÚ ˙ÿ·˙ÈÏ (1302 7b,4) ‘charging themto make’ for ÌÈ ›̆Ú ˙ÂÈ‰Ï Ì‰ÈÏÚ ÌÈ˜Ï (Esth 9:21).(7-1.12) In the Haggadah an interpretive translation of theinfinitive construct ›̄Ó‡Ï appears. Instead of the usual verbatimtranslation of /li-/ followed by the finite verb, È¥ ¬!·‡Ï Â¯·¡˙ÂÔÏÈ‡˜ ÌÂÈ Ï‡ ¬Ï‡" (3 5,9–10) ‘and you shall tell your son onthat day, saying’ occurs, where ÔÏÈ‡˜ translates interpretivelyHebrew ›̄Ó‡Ï.

L/I: (7-1.13) The translation of Gen 24:30, which includes twoinfinitive constructs, ˙›‡¯Î ‘when (he) saw’ and ÂÚÓ˘ÎÂ ‘andwhen (he) heard,’ illustrates the literal/interpretive linguistictension. On the one hand, the second is translated literallyÂÚÓÒÎÂ /wa-ka-sam>o/ (15 3a,15), where each Hebrew morphemehas a verbatim Judeo-Arabic equivalent: %Â - /wa-/; %Î - /ka-/;ÚÓ˘ /sam>/ and the pronominal suffix %Â - /-o/, as seen above in7-1.5. On the other hand, the first infinitive construct in thebiblical verse is translated unusually in an interpretive way¥‡˘ Ô‡ Ô‡ÎÂ (15 3a,14), where the Hebrew infinitive constructis interpreted by a Judeo-Arabic perfect, usually used in thespoken variety.(7-1.14) The linguistic tension concerning the translation ofthe Hebrew infinitive construct preceded by the prepositions%Î /kE-/ and %· /bE-/ can be seen best in several places in the¡ar˙ of the book of Esther. Sometimes the Hebrew infinitivesare translated as such by Judeo-Arabic verbal nouns, thuskeeping the literal translation: ÒÂÏ‚Î (1302 1b,3) ‘while sitting’follows the Hebrew ˙·)˘Î (Esth 1:2); Â¯Â$! È¥ (1302 1b,5) ‘whenhe displayed’ translates the Hebrew Â˙›‡¯‰· (Esth 1:4);˙Ï‡ÓÎ·Â (1302 1b,7) ‘when (these days) were fulfilled’ renders

254

the Hebrew ˙‡ÂÏÓ·Â (Esth 1:5); and Ì‰ÏÂ˜· (1302 3a,8) ‘when


they said’ translates the Hebrew Ì¯Ó‡· (Esth 3:4). The Protestanttranslation used finite verbs in these examples: /lammå jalasa/‘when he sat’ for Esth 1:2; /liyu#hira/ ‘to display’ for Esth1:4; /wa-lammå nqa"at/ ‘and when (the days) were completed’for Esth 1:5; /wa-kån¥ yaq¥l¥na/ ‘and they said’ for Esth 3:4.Other times in the ¡ar˙, the Hebrew infinitives are translatedinterpretively into finite verbs preceded by the conjunction‡ÓÏ in order to make comprehension easier: ˙ÈÈ„‰ ‡ÓÏ (13022a,11) ‘when (the rage) subsided’ translates the Hebrew Í&÷Î

(Esth 2:1); Â˙‡Ó ‡ÓÏÂ (1302 2b,3) ‘when (her father and mother)died’ is the equivalent of the Hebrew ˙ÂÓ·Â (Esth 2:7); ‡ÓÏÚÓÒ!‡ (1302 2b,3) ‘when (it) was announced’ renders theHebrew ÚÓ˘‰· (Esth 2:8); ‡!„ ‡ÓÏÂ (1302 2b,9) ‘and when (it)arrived’ translates the Hebrew ÚÈ‚‰·Â (Esth 2:12); and ¯$! ‡ÓÏ(1302 4a,15) ‘when (he) saw’ renders the Hebrew ˙Â‡¯Î (Esth5:2). Here too the Protestant translation employed finite verbs,for the most part, in its translation: />indamå sakana/ ‘when(the king’s rage) had subsided’ for Esth 2:1; /fa-lammå måta/‘when (the parents) had died’ for Esth 2:7; and /fa-lammåsumi>a/ ‘when (the king’s order and his law) were heard’ forEsth 2:8. This is not the case in Genesis and in the Haggadah.There, the ¡ar˙an translated verbatim any Hebrew infinitiveconstructs preceded by %· or %Î (see above p. 252–53, 7-1.5and 7-1.7 respectively), although their occurrence in the Hag-gadah is rather scarce.

A good illustration of the literal-interpretive tension is thetranslation of ı·˜‰· ‘(they) were brought together’ (Esth 2:8;2:19). In the first citation the ¡ar˙an translated it verbatimwith the Judeo-Arabic verbal noun Ô‡ÈÓÏ· (1302 2b,4) ‘ingathering,’ and in the second he translated it interpretively as afinite verb preceded by /lamma/, ÂÓÏ˙‡ ‡ÓÏÂ (1302 2b,20) ‘andwhen they gathered.’

255

(7-1.15) Whereas in the example Ï‡ÒÈÏ (93 16,7) ‘to ask,’ the

CHAPTER EIGHT

regular Judeo-Arabic preposition /li-/ appears, translatingliterally the Hebrew infinitive construct ÏÂ‡˘Ï, in anothermanuscript Ï‡ÒÈ ˘¥¯ÚÈ (3 4,10) ‘does not know how to ask’occurs, without the Judeo-Arabic /li-/, in accordance withinterpretive translation into colloquial Egyptian Judeo-Arabic.

Verb Conjugation: Finite VerbsFeature 7-2 — Finite verbsLit.: (7-2.1) The ¡ar˙an transferred verbatim the pi>el form as well

as the root and meaning of the finite verb ˜ÁÃ̂ Ó in Gen 26:8 intoits Judeo-Arabic fa>>al equivalent ¬ÁƒÓ (15 6a,17) ‘(Isaac) wasjesting.’

Int.: (7-2.2) It is common in the ¡ar˙ to translate Hebrew finiteverbs into regular Arabic style.

In Genesis: Â·¯˘ÈÏ ÂÓ˙ (15 3a,1) ‘they have completed todrink’ for ˙Â˙˘Ï ÂÏÎ (Gen 24:19) and È˜Ò‡ ¬Ï‡Ó‚Ï (15 3a,1) ‘Iwill water your camels’ for ·‡˘‡ ÍÈÏÓ‚Ï (Gen 24:19).

In Esther: ‰ÓÂÊÚ ˙Ú!ˆ (1302 1b,13) ‘threw a banquet’ for‰˙˘Ó ‰˙˘Ú (Esth 1:9) and È!‡ËÏÒ ¯Ó‡ ‚¯¡È (1302 2a,4–5) ‘let aroyal order go out’ for ˙ÂÎÏÓ ¯·„ ‡ˆÈ (Esth 1:19).

In the Haggadah: ˙˜Â ÏˆÁ (3 3,15) ‘time arrived’ for ÔÓÊ ÚÈ‚‰;¬‡¯Ú Ï‡ ‰!¥„‡ˆÈ (3 9,4) ‘if a battle finds us unexpectedly’ for‰ÓÁÏÓ ‰!‡¯˜˙; and ÂÏ ÏÂ˜ ‰˙!‡ (3 4,14) ‘you, tell him’ for ‰˙‡

ÂÏ ¯ÂÓ‡.

L/I: (7-2.3) The verbs in È˙È‚Â È˙¯Â·ÂÎÂ È˙¯Â˙ÂÎÂ (91 4b,15) ‘(you[fem.]) multiplied, increased and came …’ translate literallythe Hebrew È‡·˙Â ÈÏ„‚˙Â È·¯˙Â with the equivalent of the Qalconjugation. However, in È˙È‚Â ¬˙Ó$ÚÂ ¬˙¯˙ÎÂ (3 8,13–14) ‘(I)multiplied and increased you, and (you [fem.]) came …’; the¡ar˙an interpreted the Hebrew text and changed the first twoverbs into causal forms. Still, the verb È˙È‚Â ‘and (you [fem.])

256

came’ is conjugated like the Hebrew original finite verb È‡·˙Â.

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL: ACCUSATIVE

Cases: AccusativeLevel: Morphosyntactic; Category 8: CasesFeature 8-1 — AccusativeThis feature is one of the more interesting manifestations of thework of the ¡ar˙anim’. Since ˙‡ /et/ is a clear and consistent markerof the definite direct object in Hebrew, the ¡ar˙anim felt the necessityto transfer it into their ¡ur¥˙. This was done in order to faithfullytransfer the Hebrew text into the Judeo-Arabic translation. Indeed, inLater Egyptian Judeo-Arabic ¡ur¥˙, the translation of the definitedirect object marker ˙‡ as ‰Ï‡ /ilå/ is almost obligatory.3 5 In otherwords, the definite direct object is almost always marked in the textsof the ¡ur¥˙. There are various reasons for preferring /ilå/ over /li-/.First, /ilå/ is a free morpheme, which can serve as an appropriateequivalent to the Hebrew ˙‡—also a free morpheme, whereas /li-/ isa clitic. Second, /ilå/ is missing from the spoken dialect of LaterEgyptian Judeo-Arabic and therefore can be assigned a new function.Finally, languages typically need a marker for the unexpected. Thesubject is evident in a sentence, whereas the direct object is less soand, as a result, it needs a marker. The more prominent the marker is,the better choice it is. Indeed, /ilå/ is more prominent than /li-/.

Lit.: (8-1.1) In Genesis /ilå/ translates word for word Hebrew ˙‡ inthe following examples: ˜ÁˆÈ ‰Ï‡ ¥Ï¡ Ì‰¯·‡ (15 5a,19–20)3 6

‘Abraham begot Isaac’ translates ˜ÁˆÈ ˙‡ „ÈÏÂ‰ Ì‰¯·‡ (Gen 25:19);‰ÈÓ Ï‡ ¯‡È·‡ ‰Ï‡ ¯¥ÁÂ (15 6b,10–11) ‘and he dug the wells ofwater’ translates ÌÈÓ‰ ˙]‡· ˙‡ ›̄ÙÁÈÂ (Gen 26:18); and „‚ÂÂ ·¯ Ï‡¬„È·Ú ·!" ‰Ï‡ (15 30b,12–13) ‘God has found the sin of yourservants’ translates ÍÈ„·Ú ÔÂÚ ˙‡ ‡ˆÓ ÌÈ‰Ï‡‰ (Gen 44:16).

257

3 5See Hary 1991b for the development of the use of /ilå/ from Later toModern Judeo-Arabic and the translation of ˙‡ in other Judeo-Arabic dialectsand other Jewish religiolects.

3 6The underlining of /ilå/ and ˙‡ is mine, for emphasis only.

(8-1.2) In Esther /ilå/ behaves similarly: ¯‡˜Â‡ ‡!µ ‡Ï‡ Â¯Â$! È¥

CHAPTER EIGHT

Â˙!ËÏÒ (1302 1b,5–6) ‘displaying the great glory of his kingdom’translates Â˙ÂÎÏÓ „Â·Î ¯ ›̆Ú ˙‡ Â˙›‡¯‰· (Esth 1:4); Ï‡ È˙˘Â ‡Ï‡ ·È‚ÈÏ‰ÎÏÓ (1302 2a,3) ‘to bring Queen Vashti’ translates ˙‡ ‡È·‰Ï

‰ÎÏÓ‰ È˙˘Â (Esth 1:17); and Hebrew ¯˙Ò‡ ˙‡ ÍÏÓ‰ ·‰‡ÈÂ ‘and theking loved Esther’ (Esth 2:17) is translated verbatim as Ï‡ ·ÁÂ¯˙Ò‡ ‡Ï‡ ¬ÏÓ (1302 2b,17), using /ilå/.(8-1.3) Finally, in the Haggadah the same phenomenon appears:‰!˙‡‰·‡ ‰Ï‡ … ‰!‚¯¡‡ ÌÏ (3 3,1–2) ‘(he) did not deliver us,our forefathers, out of …’ translates Â!È˙Â·‡ ˙‡ … ‡ÈˆÂ‰ ‡Ï; ‰!ÏÂÎ‰ÚÈ¯˘ Ï‡ ‰Ï‡ ÔÈ¥¯‡Ú (74 1,13) ‘all of us are learned in theTorah’ renders ‰¯Â˙‰ ˙‡ ÌÈÚ„ÂÈ Â!Ï‹k; and ‰Ï‡ ‰!Ï ‡ËÚ‡ Ô‡Î ÂÏÌÂ‰Ï‡Ó (3 16,7) ‘if he had given us their wealth’ translates ÂÏ‡

Ì!ÂÓÓ ˙‡ Â!Ï Ô˙!.

However, Judeo-Arabic /ilå/ is usually employed to mark thedefinite direct object only when the Hebrew equivalent has theaccusative marker ˙‡, and it is usually omitted when it islacking in the Hebrew text.(8-1.4) In Genesis: Ï‡Ó‚ Ï‡ ¬ÿ¯·Â (15 2b,8) ‘and he made thecamels kneel down’ does not contain /ilå/, although it is expectedbefore the definite direct object, because the Hebrew text doesnot have it: ÌÈÏÓ‚‰ Í Ÿ̄·*ÈÂ (Gen 24:11). Similar examples are: ˙ÏÓÂ‡‰˙¯‚ (15 2b,18) ‘and she filled her jar,’ which translates ‡ÏÓ˙Â

‰„Î (Gen 24:16), and ˙È· Ï‡ ˙Èƒ¥ (15 3a,18) ‘I vacated thehouse,’ which renders ˙È·‰ È˙È!Ù (Gen 24:31).(8-1.5) In Esther: /ilå/ does not appear in the following examplessince the Hebrew equivalents do not contain the Hebrew ˙‡:Ì‰Ê‡Â‚‡ ÂÏ„‰·ÈÏ (1302 2a,2) ‘to treat their husbands contemp-tuously’ translates Ô‰ÈÏÚ· ˙ÂÊ·‰Ï (Esth 1:17); Ì‰Ê‡Â‚‡ Â¯·˙ÚÈ(1302 2a,7) ‘(they) respect their husbands’ renders ¯˜È Â!˙È

Ô‰ÈÏÚ·Ï (Esth 1:20); and ‰·˘¡ Ï‡ Ú!ˆÂ (1302 4b,13) ‘and heprepared (made) the gallows (tree)’ translates ıÚ‰ ˘ÚÈÂ (Esth

258

5:14).


(8-1.6) In the Haggadah the Judeo-Arabic accusative marker/ilå/ does not appear before /¡idyat \a"abo/ in ˙ÈÈ„˘ ÌÂ‰È¥ ÏÒ¯ÈÂ·ƒµ (3 15, 12) ‘He sent forth against them the fierceness of hisanger,’ in slavish imitation of the Hebrew original, which lacksthe accusative marker ˙‡: ÂÙ‡ ÔÂ¯Á Ì· ÁÏ˘È . The same occurs in‰!˙Ê‡Ú ‰¥Î ÌÏÂ (3 16,14) ‘and he did not meet our needs,’which translates Â!ÈÎ¯ˆ ˜ÙÒ ‡ÏÂ, and in ‰!‡„Ú‡ ˜¯µ ÌÏÂ (3 16,12)‘and he did not sink our enemies,’ which renders Â!È¯ˆ Ú˜˘ ‡ÏÂ .This is also the case in the other manuscripts (74, 91, and 93),although in another place in the ¡ar˙, ‰!‡„Ú‡ ‰Ï‡ ˜¯µ (3 17,11)appears with the Judeo-Arabic accusative marker /ilå/, showingthe productivity of this phenomenon (see below).(8-1.7) In yet another interesting example, the ¡ar˙an translatedthe Hebrew ‰¯Â˙ Ô˙! ‘gave the Torah’ by adding the definitearticle to the Judeo-Arabic object, as expected in regular Arabicstyle: ‰ÚÈ¯˘ Ï‡ ‰ËÚ (74 2,7) ‘gave the Torah’ (see examplesbelow in 9-1.4, 9-1.5, and 9-1.6). Despite the fact that thetranslated phrase contains the definite direct object, the ¡ar˙andid not add /ilå/ as expected, because the Hebrew original didnot have ˙‡ (and did not need it because the direct object thereis indefinite); thus the ¡ar˙an preserved the word-for-wordtranslation without the definite direct object marker.3 7

On the other hand, sometimes the Judeo-Arabic accusativemarker /ilå/ comes before a definite direct object, even if theHebrew original lacks it, thus demonstrating how this markerbehaves regularly in the ¡ar˙, which creates its own grammarand structure. In this case, a literal translation method hasbecome part of the style of the ¡ar˙, along with the productiveuse of /ilå/. Examples of this phenomenon are found in Genesis

259

3 7This example can also be analyzed as an interpretive translation because ofthe lack of the accusative marker /ilå/.

and the Haggadah, but not in Esther.

CHAPTER EIGHT

(8-1.8) In Genesis: The phrase È˜È¯Ë ‰Ï‡ Á‚!ÂÓ (15 3b,13)‘make successful my way’ translates the Hebrew ÈÎ¯„ ÁÈÏˆÓ

(Gen 24:42), although the latter does not have the marker /et/in it. Similar is the example ˙‡!·Â „‡ÏÂÂ ‰Ï‡ ¥ÈÏ¡Â (15 0-1,4)‘(he) begot sons and daughters,’ which renders ˙Â!·Â ÌÈ!· „ÏÂÈÂ

(Gen 5:19). Later in the chapter, though, the Judeo-Arabic textis regular, without /ilå/: ˙‡!·Â „‡ÏÂÂ‡ ¥ÈÏ¡Â (15 0-1,7) ‘(he) begotsons and daughters,’ following the Hebrew ˙Â!·Â ÌÈ!· „ÏÂÈÂ (Gen5:22).(8-1.9) In the Haggadah: The sentence ‰Ï‡ Ï˙˜ Ô‡Î ÂÏÌÂ‰¯‡Î·‡ (3 16,7) ‘if he had killed their firstborn’ translatesHebrew Ì‰È¯ÂÎ· ‚¯‰ ÂÏ‡ without ˙‡. Likewise, in the sentenceÌÂ‰¯‡Î·‡ ‰Ï‡ Ï˙˜ ÌÏÂ (3 16,4) ‘(he) did not kill their firstborn,’the ¡ar˙an used the definite direct object marker /ilå/ evenwhen ˙‡ was lacking in the Hebrew Ì‰È¯ÂÎ· ‚¯‰ ‡ÏÂ, although inother manuscripts (74, 91, and 93) as well as in another placein the same manuscript (3 17,9), /ilå/ is not used in the translation,following the Hebrew text verbatim.

In the same way, the use of the Judeo-Arabic accusativemarker /ilå/ takes on a life of its own and is sometimes used inthe ¡ar˙ to translate other items with similar accusativemeanings:(8-1.10) In the example È˜Ò‡ ¬Ï‡Ó‚ ‰Ï‡Â (15 2b,13) ‘and I willwater your camels,’ /ilå/ renders Hebrew Ì‚Â ‘and also’ in Ì‚Â

‰˜˘‡ ÍÈÏÓ‚ (Gen 24:14), but uses /ilå/ as a definite direct objectmarker.3 8

(8-1.11) In another example from the book of Esther, ÔÓ‰ ‡ˆÂÌÂ˜ ‡Ò‡Â¯ ‡Ï‡Â ‰!È„ÓÂ ‰!È„Ó ÏÎ È¥ È"Ï‡ ˙‡Â˘· ÏÏÂ ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ‰¯ÊÂÏÌÂ˜Â (1302 3b,1–2) ‘Haman commanded the viziers of the king

260

3 8Note that a few verses below, in Gen 24:19, the ¡ar˙an has translated theHebrew Ì‚ into regular Egyptian Judeo-Arabic Ô‡ÓÎ ‘also.’

and the pashas, who were in every province, and the high


officials of every people,’ the two instances of /li-/ and oneinstance of /ilå/ (underlined above) translate Hebrew Ï‡, whichappears to substitute for ˙‡ in this verse (Esth 3:12) as thedefinite direct object marker.

Furthermore, the Judeo-Arabic accusative marker /ilå/ cansometimes translate the Hebrew object pronoun that contains˙‡, as is seen in the following examples in Genesis:3 9

(8-1.12) The preposition /ilayha/ in ‡‰ÈÏ‡ ˙Ï˜ÒÂ (15 3b,20)‘and I asked her’ is a verbatim translation of the Hebrew inflectedpronoun ‰˙›‡ in ‰ ›̇‡ Ï‡˘‡Â (Gen 24:47). Likewise, Judeo-Arabic/ilayhum/ in ÌÂ‰ÈÏ‡ ˙¥„‡ˆÓ Ï‡ ÏÂÎ ‰Ï‡ ÂÏ Â¯·¡Â (15 28a,15) ‘andthey told him of all that had happened to them’ is a copy ofÌ ›̇‡ in Ì ›̇‡ ˙]S‰ ÏÎ ˙‡ ÂÏ Â„È‚ÈÂ (Gen 42:29).

In addition, with regard to the accusative, the ¡ar˙an some-times translated the Hebrew original with an equivalentaccusative—however, without the actual tanw•n, as it is generallylacking in Judeo-Arabic.(8-1.13) The Hebrew ·ÂË Â‡ Ú¯ ÍÈÏ‡ ¯·„ ÏÎÂ! ‡Ï ‘(we) will not beable to speak to you bad or good’ (Gen 24:50) is translatedverbatim into ·ÈÈË ÂÂ‡ Èƒ¯ ¬ÈÏ‡ ÌÏÎ˙! ¯„˜! ÌÏ with /ra"i/ and/†ayyib/ in the accusative case, without the actual tanw•n.

Int.: Infrequently prepositions are used to translate Hebrew ˙‡ inan interpretive manner:(8-1.14) In several instances in Genesis the preposition /ma>a/‘with’ translates Hebrew ˙‡ interpretively, as the ¡ar˙an hasdistinguished between the homonyms ˙‡ and ÌÚ (BDB, pp.84–87): ·¯ Ï‡ ‰ÚÓ ÍÂ!Á ‰˘Ó˙‡Â (15 0-1,6; 0-1,8) ‘and Enochwalked with God’ translates ÌÈ‰¿‡‰ ˙‡ ÍÂ!Á ÍÏ‰˙ÈÂ (Gen 5:22,

261

3 9For the more usual translation of ˙‡ followed by suffixed pronouns, seeabove, pp. 238–40, feature 6-2, pronominal suffixes.

24) (see also p. 227, 5-1.26.); È„ÈÒ ‰ÚÓ ˜ÁÂ Ïƒ¥ ÔÈÚ!‡ˆ (15 4a,5)

CHAPTER EIGHT

‘(you) perform kindness and favor with my master’ rendersÈ!„‡ ˙‡ ˙Ó‡Â „ÒÁ ÌÈ˘›Ú (Gen 24:49); ¬˙‡¯Ó ‰ÚÓ ÌÂ˜ Ï‡ „Á‡Â „˜¯(15 6b,1) ‘one of the people might have slept with your wife’translates Í˙˘‡ ˙‡ ÌÚ‰ „Á‡ ·Î˘ (Gen 26:10). Moreover, thephrase ‰ÏÏ‡ „!Ú ÔÓ ¯Ó‡ ·ÂÏË˙Ï (15 5b,5) ‘in order for (you) toask for instructions from God’ translates ß‰ ˙‡ ˘]„Ï ÍÏ˙Â (Gen25:22), where ˙‡ is translated interpretively by Judeo-Arabic„!Ú ÔÓ.(8-1.15) In Esther, the preposition /ka-/ ‘as’ in ¯Ó‡Î ˙ÏÓÚ ÌÏ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ (1302 1b,22) ‘(she) did not do what the king hadinstructed (her)’ renders interpretively the Hebrew ˙‡ in ‡Ï

ÍÏÓ‰ ¯Ó‡Ó ˙‡ ‰˙˘Ú (Esth 1:15).(8-1.16) Likewise, in the Haggadah the preposition /min/translates Hebrew ˙‡ in ÌÂ‰!Ó #¯‡ Ï‡ ˙Ï˙Ó‡Â (3 8,10) ‘and theland was filled with them,’ where the Hebrew Ì ›̇‡ is renderedby Judeo-Arabic /minhum/, according to the governing verb‰Ï˙Ó‡. Similarly, the preposition />ala/ translates Hebrew ˙‡

in the sentence ÌÈÈ¯ˆÓ Ï‡ ‰!ÈÏÚ ÂÒ‡Â (91 4b,17) ‘and the Egyptiansill-treated us,’ where the Hebrew Â!˙Â‡ is translated by Judeo-Arabic />al!na/.(8-1.17) Seldom did the ¡ar˙an paraphrase Hebrew ˙‡, as inthe translation of the Hebrew Á &! ÍÏ‰˙‰ ÌÈ‰¿‡‰ ˙‡ (Gen 6:9): È¥Á›! ‰˘Ó˙‡ ·¯ Ï‡ ˙Ú‡Ë (15 0-2,11) ‘Noah walked with God inobedience.’(8-1.18) In addition, regarding the accusative, it is uncommonto find the accusative tanw•n used in the text, but it doesappear when it is also used in the colloquial as a “frozen”form: Ô„‚ ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ Ë¡ÒÂ (1302 1b,17–18) ‘then the king becamevery angry.’(8-1.19) Judeo-Arabic /ilå/ does not only represent the markerfor the definite direct object. It may also render Hebrew Ï‡‘to’ in regular interpretive translation: ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ÔÈ‡Ê¡ ‡Ï‡ ·È‚ÈÏ

262

(1302 3a,18), rendering ÍÏÓ‰ ÈÊ!‚–Ï‡ ‡È·‰Ï (Esth 3:9). Thus,


Egyptian Judeo-Arabic /ilå/ has two functions.L/I: The above-mentioned verbatim translation of ˙‡ as Judeo-Arabic

/ilå/ is almost obligatory. The exceptions are few and far between.(8-1.20) In Genesis: In È˙Á Ï‡ È¯‡· ˙!· ˙È„Â‰È ‰¯Ó „¡‡Â (157a,17) ‘and (he) took as a wife Judith, the daughter of Beeri,the Hittite,’ the Hebrew ˙‡ in È˙Á‰ È¯‡·–˙· ˙È„Â‰È–˙‡ ‰˘‡ Á˜ÈÂ

(Gen 26:34) is not translated as Judeo-Arabic /ilå/, indicatingan interpretive mode. However, the ¡ar˙an did employ theaccusative marker /ilå/ in the continuation of the verse, ‰Ï‡ÂÈ˙Á Ï‡ ÔÂÏ‡ ˙!· ˙‡ÓÒ· (15 7a,17–18) ‘and Basemath, thedaughter of Elon, the Hittite,’ slavishly translating the HebrewÈ˙Á‰ Ô¿È‡–˙· ˙Ó˘·–˙‡Â, which includes the Hebrew ˙‡ in a literalmode.(8-1.21) In Esther: The phrase ‰ÎÏÓ Ï‡ È˙˘Â Â·È‚ÈÏ (1302 1b,15)‘for (them) to bring Queen Vashti’ does not include Judeo-Arabic/ilå/, although ˙‡ appears in the Hebrew: ‰ÎÏÓ‰ È˙˘Â–˙‡ ‡È·‰Ï

(Esth 1:11). Later in the chapter, however, the Judeo-Arabicaccusative marker /ilå/ occurs in: ‰ÎÏÓ Ï‡ È˙˘Â ‡Ï‡ ·È‚ÈÏ (13022a,3), translating the same Hebrew sentence ‰ÎÏÓ‰ È˙˘Â–˙‡ ‡È·‰Ï

in Esth 1:17. Furthermore, the Hebrew sentence ˙‡Â È˙˘Â ˙‡ ¯ÎÊ

‰ÈÏÚ ¯Ê‚! ¯˘‡ ˙‡Â ‰˙˘Ú ¯˘‡ (Esth 2:1) is translated as ‡Ï‡ ¯Î"‡‰ÈÏÚ ÌÎÁ!‡ È"Ï‡Â ˙Ú!ˆ ÈÊÏ‡ ‡Ï‡Â È˙˘Â4 0 (1302 2a,11-12) ‘(he)remembered Vashti, what she had done, and what had beendecided against her,’ where the third ˙‡ in the sentence is notrendered by /ilå/, probably because of the translation of theprevious ˙‡ as /ilå/.Likewise, in the sentence È‰ ‡‰¯ÈÈµÂ‡‰˙‡È·ˆÂ (1302 2b,6) ‘and he transferred her and her maids,’no /ilå/ appears in the translation, although ˙‡ exists in the

263

4 0Notice that the fricative /z/ appears in ÈÊÏ‡ (following the second /ilå/),representing the loss of the interdentals in the dialect; however, the classicalspelling È"Ï‡ with the interdental /ƒ/ appears in the continuation of the verse.See chapter 4, p. 105, 1.4.4.

equivalent ‰È˙Â¯Ú! ˙‡Â ‰!˘ÈÂ (Esth 2:9).

CHAPTER EIGHT

(8-1.22) In the Haggadah: The sentence Ï‡ ˙È· ‰!Ï ‰!· ÌÏÂÒ„˜Ó (3 17,4) ‘and (He) did not build the holy shrine for us’does not have the accusative marker /ilå/, despite the fact that˙‡ exists in the Hebrew ‰¯ÈÁ·‰ ˙È· ˙‡ Â!Ï ‰!· ‡ÏÂ; however, inother manuscripts (74 and 91), /ilå/ is included in a verbatimtranslation.

Cases: DirectionalFeature 8-2 — Directional

Lit.: The most striking verbatim translation of the directionalmorpheme occurs when the Hebrew directional suffix ‰% istransferred unchanged into Judeo-Arabic.(8-2.1) In Genesis: In the sentence ‰!È‡˙Â„ ÁÂ¯! ÂÏ‡˜ (15 22a,7–8)‘they said, “let us go to Dotan,” ’ the directional marker /-a/ inthe Judeo-Arabic ‰!È‡˙Â„ imitates the Hebrew ‰% in ‰!È˙I (Gen37:17).4 1 A similar example is ‰˙‡!Ó˙ (15 23a,15; 23a,16) ‘toTimnah.’ These translations, of course, could have been simpleorthographic transcriptions of the Hebrew words ‰!È˙I (Gen37:17) and ‰˙!Ó˙ (Gen 38:12, 13) in the Judeo-Arabic text, butthe addition of the alef in the Judeo-Arabic spelling in ‰!È‡˙Â„and ‰˙‡!Ó˙ indicates Arabic pronunciation /dotåyna/ and/timnåna/ (chapter 4, p. 102, 1.1.5) respectively, with a Hebrewdirectional suffix ‰%.

Less striking, but still quite verbatim are the cases where theHebrew directional ‰% is transformed into a zero prepositionwith implied accusative in the Judeo-Arabic.(8-2.2) In Genesis: In ˙È· Ï‡ Ï‚‡¯ Ï‡ ‰‚Â (15 3a,18) ‘and theman came to the house,’ which translates literally ˘È‡‰ ‡›·ÈÂ

264

4 1Note that the Hebrew directional suffix sometimes includes also an internalbase change or the addition of /t/ when the place name ends with an /-a/.

‰˙È·‰ (Gen 24:32), the Hebrew directional ‰% in ‰˙È·‰ is

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL: DIRECTIONAL

transformed into a zero preposition and implied accusative Ï‡˙È·. However, this translation also follows colloquial Arabicuse, namely the accusative directionality of the verb /ga/.Similarly, the directional ‰ˆ¯‡ ‘to the ground’ (Gen 24:52) istranslated literally by #¯‡ in the sentence ‰ÏÏ‡Ï #¯‡ „‚ÒÂ (154a,10) ‘and he bowed to the ground before God.’ In Saadia thetranslation reads />alå l-ar"/ and in the Protestant translation/ilå l-ar"/. In the same way, the biblical ÂÓ‡ ‰¯# ‰Ï‰›‡‰ ˜ÁˆÈ À‰Œ‡œ·ÈÂ

‘Isaac brought her to the tent of his mother Sarah’ (Gen 24:67)is translated verbatim in the ¡ar˙ into ‰¯˘ ˙ÓÈ¡ ˜ÁˆÈ ‡‰·‡‚ÂÂÓÂ‡ (15 4b,9), with the directional implied in ÂÓÂ‡ ‰¯˘ ˙ÓÈ¡‘to the tent of his mother Sarah.’ Furthermore, in ÔÓ ÌÂ‰ÏÒ¯ÂÈ˜¯˘ ÈÈÁ Â˙‡ÒÈÏÂ Â‰!·‡ ˜ÁˆÈ ‰ÏÚ (15 4b,18) ‘then he sent themaway from his son Isaac eastward, when he was still alive,’which translates ‰Ó„L ÈÁ Â!„ÂÚ· Â!· ˜ÁˆÈ ÏÚÓ ÌÁÏ˘ÈÂ (Gen 25:6), theuse of È˜¯˘ ‘eastward’ is directional following a zero prepositionand translates verbatim the Hebrew ‰Ó„L.

Int.: (8-2.3) The biblical Hebrew directional ‰!ÈÚ‰ ‘to the spring’(Gen 24:16) is translated interpretively by the ¡ar˙an as theJudeo-Arabic preposition /ilå/ in ÔÈÚ Ï‡ ‰Ï‡ ˙ÏÊ!Â (15 2b,17–18)‘and (she) went down to the spring.’ Similarly in Genesis, the¡ar˙an translated interpretively the Hebrew directional ‰ˆÂÁ‰

‘outward’ as ‰¯· ÔÓ (15 3a,14), with the preposition /min/.

L/I: (8-2.4) In the Haggadah biblical Hebrew directional ‰ÓÈ¯ˆÓ ‘toEgypt’ is frequently rendered in the ¡ar˙ as a zero prepositionin a verbatim way: ¯ˆÓ ÏÊ!Â (3 7,10–11 and many other places)‘and he went down to Egypt.’ However, it is also translatedinterpretively in ¯ˆÓÏ ÏÊ!Â (93 21,6) ‘and he went down toEgypt’ (see also p. 230, 5-1.39).

265

CHAPTER EIGHT

DefinitenessLevel: Morphosyntactic; Category 9: DefinitenessFeature 9-1 — Adding the definite article where neededLit.: The following examples are just a sample of the many literal

translations where the ¡ar˙an added the definite article in theJudeo-Arabic ¡ar˙, where it is needed in the Arabic and whereit also follows the Hebrew original.4 2 This is the standardconstruction and it is in agreement in all the relevant languagesand varieties: Aramaic, Arabic dialects, Classical Arabic,Hebrew, and Judeo-Arabic.(9-1.1) In Genesis: In the example ÏÂÎ Ï‡ È¥ (15 2a,12) ‘in all(things),’ the ¡ar˙an added the definite article to the noun/kull/ in regular Judeo-Arabic style, following as well the Hebrewtext ÏÎÃa (Gen 24:1). However, both Saadia and the Protestanttranslation wrote È˘ ÏÎ ÈÙ and ¡w??* Òq???+ w??,4 3 respectively,without the definite article. In the same way, Ï‡ ‰Ï‡ Ô‡ÓÎ ˙¯‚Â¯È· (15 3a,2) ‘and (she) continued running to the well’ includesthe definite article, following the Hebrew original, Ï‡ „ÂÚ ı¯˙Â

¯‡·‰ (Gen 24:20). The same applies to the definite articlepreceding /rågil/ ‘man’ in ·‰" Ì‡ÊÂ¡ Ï‚‡¯ Ï‡ „¡‡Â (15 3a,4–5)‘the man took a golden nose ring,’ following verbatim the Hebreworiginal ·‰Ê ÌÊ! ˘È‡‰ Á˜ÈÂ (Gen 24:22).(9-1.2) In Esther: In Ú·‡Ò Ï‡ ÌÂÈ Ï‡ È¥ (1302 1b,14) ‘on theseventh day,’ both the noun and its adjective appear with thedefinite article as is the case in the Hebrew ÈÚÈ·˘‰ ÌÂÈÃa (Esth1:10). In the same way, the definite article preceding ¯ˆ˜ in¯ˆ˜ Ï‡ Ô˘Â˘ (1302 2a,14) ‘Susan the capital’ follows the Hebrew‰¯È·‰ Ô˘Â˘ in Esth 2:3. Saadia as well used the definite article in

266

4 2This feature exists in many ¡ur¥˙ of the Bible. See Zafrani 1980:38–59.4 3This is in fact an i!åfa construction where the definiteness is implied. See

also below in 9-1.2.

˜ÒÂ‚Ï‡ ÔÒÂÒ ÈÏ‡; however, the translator in the Protestant

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL: DEFINITENESS

translation chose to employ sÓ*uÓ* W?FK-, without the definitearticle. Likewise, the definite articles in $¥‡Á ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ È˘‡ÂË ÔÓ‡Ò! Ï‡ (1302 2a,14–15) ‘one of the king’s eunuchs, the keeperof the women’ follow the Hebrew ÌÈ˘!‰ ¯ÓÂ˘ ÍÏÓ‰ ÒÈ¯Ò (Esth2:3).(9-1.3) In the Haggadah the definite article precedes the nounsin Ì‡ÎÁ‡ Ï‡Â ÌÂÒ¯ Ï‡Â „‰‡Â˘ Ï‡ ˘‡ (3 4, 12–13) ‘what are thetestimonies, statutes, and judgments,’ as is the case in theHebrew original. In the same way the definite articles in Ï‡ ˘‡ÌÂÎÏ È„‡‰ È„‡·Ú (3 4,17–18) ‘what does this service mean toyou?’ follow regular Arabic structure as well as the Hebreworiginal. Although the phrase ˜‡ÂÂ‡Ê Ï‡ ˜‡ÂÂ‡Ê È¥ (3 8,14)‘with ornaments’ contains the definite article, whereas it seemsto be lacking in the Hebrew ÌÈÈ„Ú È„⁄ÚÃa; it is present, however,preceding È„Ú, in È„⁄ÚÃa /ba->adi/ ‘with the ornament.’

Int.: On the other hand, the following is also just a sample ofexamples where the ¡ar˙an added the definite article in the¡ar˙, even when it is lacking in the Hebrew original, in a clearinterpretive translation, following regular Arabic use (see alsochapter 5, p. 151, 2.2).(9-1.4) In Genesis: In ·¯µÂÓ Ï‡ ˙˜ÂÂÏ (15 2b,9) ‘at eveningtime,’ the ¡ar˙an added the definite article to the noun, asrequired in regular Arabic structure in an interpretive translation.The definite article is lacking in the Hebrew ·¯Ú ˙ÚÏ (Gen24:11), but it is also employed in both Saadia and the Protestanttranslation. Similarly, in the false i!åfa ¯$!Ó Ï‡ ˙!ÒÂÁ ‰È·ˆ Ï‡Â(15 2b,17) ‘and the young woman with the fine beauty,’ thenoun appears with the definite article (¯$!Ó Ï‡), as expected inArabic, and not following the Hebrew text’s ‰‡¯Ó (Gen 24:16)without the definite article. The same occurs in Ï‡ ‰ÈÏÚ ˙¥˙Ï‡ÂÏ‡Ó˘ Ï‡ ‰ÏÚ ÂÂ‡ ÔÈÓÈ (15 4a,6) ‘and I turn, right or left.’ Both

267

ÔÈÓÈ Ï‡ ‘right’ and Ï‡Ó˘ Ï‡ ‘left’ have the definite article,

CHAPTER EIGHT

although they translate Hebrew ÔÈÓÈ ‘right’ and Ï‡Ó# ‘left’ (Gen24:49), which lack the definite article. Like the Hebrew, Saadiadid not use the definite article, but rather the indefinite accusative«‰̌¯ÒÈ Â‡ «‰̌!ÓÈ, and the Protestant translation employed the same,/yam•nan <aw ¡imålan/. A similar addition of the definite articleoccurs in ÌÁÏ Ï‡ Ô‡ÓÂÒÂ ¯$!Ó Ï‡ ˙‡!ÒÂÁ ˙‡¯˜· (15 25a,5–6)‘good-looking and sturdy cows,’ although it does not occur inthe Hebrew original, ¯˘· ˙Â‡È¯·Â ‰‡¯Ó ˙ÂÙÈ ˙Â¯Ù (Gen 41:2).(9-1.5) In Esther: In order to follow a regular Arabic structure,the ¡ar˙an added the definite article to the nouns in Ï‡ ˙!ÒÁ¯$!Ó Ï‡ ˙·ÈÈËÂ ‰¯Âˆ (1302 2b,2) ‘with a beautiful face and oflovely appearance,’ whereas it is lacking in ˙·ÂËÂ ¯‡&z ˙ÙÈ ‰¯Ú!‰Â

‰‡¯Ó (Esth 2:7). Similarly, in ÒÈÎ Ï‡ Ò·Ï· (1302 3b,12) ‘in agarment of sackcloth,’ the definite article precedes /k•s/‘sackcloth,’ although it is not in the Hebrew original ˜˘ ˘Â·Ï·

(Esth 4:2), for interpretive reasons. Sometimes the definitearticle is added to place names when it is required by regularArabic structure. Thus, „!‰ Ï‡ (1302 1b,2) ‘India’ and ˘·Á Ï‡(1302 1b,2) ‘Ethiopia’ take the definite article. Both translate,in an interpretive translation, the Hebrew Â„Â‰ and ˘·Á (Esth1:1), which occur without the definite article. The same appliesto the personal name È¯È˘„Ê‡ Ï‡ (1302 1b,2 and many otherplaces), which translates interpretively Hebrew ˘Â¯Â˘Á‡ withoutthe definite article.(9-1.6) In the Haggadah the following examples have the definitearticle as required by Arabic structure, although it is lacking inthe Hebrew original: ‰ÈÈ„Â·Ú Ï‡ ˙È· ÔÓ (3 5,6) ‘from the houseof bondage’ translates ÌÈ„·Ú ˙È·Ó , and ¯¯ÂÓ Ï‡Â ¯ÈË¥ Ï‡ (3 5,14–15)‘the unleavened bread and the bitter herb’ renders ‰ˆÓÂ ıÓÁ (seealso chapter 7, p. 211, 3.2-22).

L/I: (9-1.7) The utterance ‰„Â„ÓÓ Ï‡ Ú‡¯„ È¥Â ‰„È„˘ Ï‡ „È È¥ (3

268

2,20–3,1) ‘with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm’


translates the Hebrew ‰ÈÂË! ÚÂ¯Ê·Â ‰˜ÊÁ „È· , which does notexhibit any definite article. Here, we witness an interestingexample of the literal/interpretive linguistic tension. On theone hand, in ‰„È„˘ Ï‡ ‘the mighty’ and in ‰„Â„ÓÓ Ï‡ ‘theoutstretched,’ the ¡ar˙an added the Judeo-Arabic definitearticle, as it may be used thus in regular Judeo-Arabic structure.On the other hand, in „È ‘hand’ and in Ú‡¯„ ‘arm,’ he did notdo so and remained faithful to the Hebrew text, which omitsthe definite article.4 4

(9-1.8) Ú‡Ó˘ ˙‡È¯˜ Ï‡ ˙˜Â ÂÏˆÁ (74 1,17–2,1) ‘the time torecite the prayer of the Shema> has come.’ In this example, thephrase Ú‡Ó˘ ˙‡È¯˜ ‘reciting the Shema>’ is a copy of theHebrew ÚÓ˘ ˙‡È¯˜ and is treated as a compound noun in averbatim translation. Thus, adding a definite article to it is aninterpretive move, since it is absent in the Hebrew. The phraseis not treated as an i!åfa, since in that case the ¡ar˙an wouldhave probably attached the definite article to the second termof the i!åfa (Ú‡Ó˘). Other manuscripts (3 3,15; 93 15,3),however, follow the Hebrew original in a literal translation anddo not include the definite article: ÚÓ˘ ˙®‡©È¯˜ ˙˜Â ÂØÏˆÁ.(9-1.9)4 5 In „·‡ ÔÓ (3 6,1–2) ‘forever’ the ¡ar˙an did not addthe definite article as required by regular Arabic use, so that hecould follow verbatim the Hebrew original, ÌÏÂÚÓ without thedefinite article. In other manuscripts, however, the definitearticle is added: „·‡ Ï‡ ÔÓ (93 19,1) ‘forever’ in a moreinterpretive manner.(9-1.10) Similarly, in ¬‡¯Ú ‡!¥„‡ˆÈ Ô‡ (93 23,8) ‘that should awar occur’ there is no definite article attached to the noun

269

4 4This phenomenon, however, may be related to a colloquial feature (seechapter 4, p. 125, 3.2).

4 5Both examples 9-1.9 and 9-1.10 can also be treated under feature 9-4, asliteral translations.

/>iråk/ ‘war,’ in order to imitate the lack of the definite article

CHAPTER EIGHT

in the Hebrew ‰ÓÁÏÓ ‰!‡¯˜˙ ÈÎ . In another manuscript, however,the definite article is added, as required by regular Arabic style,in an interpretive manner, ¬‡¯Ú Ï‡ ‰!¥„‡ˆÈ Ô‡ (3 9,4).

Feature 9-2 — Adding the definite article where not neededLit.: The ¡ur¥˙ do not exhibit this feature in literal translation.

Int.: As above, this phenomenon does not occur regularly, eveninterpretively.(9-2.1) In Genesis, in the sentence Ï‡ ÌÂ¥ ‰ÏÚ ‰¯È·Î Ï‡ ‰¯‚Á Ï‡Â¯È· (15 10a,12–13) ‘and the big stone is on the mouth of thewell,’ the ¡ar˙an added the definite article to the adjective‰¯È·Î /kab•ra/ ‘big,’ where it was not required in either theHebrew or the Arabic. The Hebrew text reads ÈÙ ÏÚ ‰ÏI‚ Ô·‡‰Â

¯‡·‰ (Gen 29:2) ‘and the stone on the mouth of the well isbig.’ Consequently, the addition of the Judeo-Arabic definitearticle has changed the meaning of the Hebrew verse. In bothSaadia and the Protestant translation, the definite article doesnot appear before the adjective, and so the latter translationsare more in line with the Hebrew. In Saadia ÈÏÚ «ˇ‰ÓÈ$Ú «ˇ‰¯¡ˆÂ‡‰ÈÙ ‘and a big stone is (found) on it’ appears and the Protestanttranslation reads «Îd?O??(?+ ÊU??+ d?.??("« r, vK! d??/?(«Ë ‘and thestone on the mouth of the well was big.’ Similarly, the ¡ar˙anadded the definite article to ÌÎÁ ‘custody’ in Ï‡ È¥ ÌÂ‰‡È‡ ÏÚ‚Â‰ÈÏÚ˘Ó Ï‡ ˙˘‡· ˙È· ÌÎÁ (15 24a,8) ‘and he placed them incustody, in the house of the chief executioner,’ where it wasnot needed in the Judeo-Arabic. The Hebrew equivalent ¯Ó˘ÓŸa

‘in custody’ (Gen 40:3) contains no definite article and it isomitted by both Saadia and the Protestant translation.(9-2.2) In Esther, in the phrase ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ‰‚Â ÔÈ¯$‡! Ï‡ (13021b,20–21) ‘those who see the king’s face,’ which translatesthe Hebrew ÍÏÓ‰ È!Ù È‡] (Esth 1:14), there is no need for the

270

definite article; however, this translation is interpretive, em-


ploying the direct object ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ‰‚Â /wagh il-malik/ that followsÔÈ¯$‡! Ï‡ rather than using an i!åfa, as in the Hebrew.

Feature 9-3 — Deleting the definite article where neededLit.: The following is a sample of examples of literal translations

where the ¡ar˙an subtracted the definite article from thefollowing nouns, although it is required by regular Arabicstructure, in agreement with the Hebrew original:(9-3.1) In Genesis: The example Â‰Ï È"Ï‡ ÏÂÎ È¥ (15 2a,13) ‘inall that is his’ shows the lack of the definite article, where it isrequired in Judeo-Arabic. This translation follows the HebrewÂÏ ¯˘‡ ÏÎŸa (Gen 24:2). Similarly, in both Saadia’s ‰Ï ‡Ó ÚÈÓ& ÈÏÚand the Protestant translation’s t" U?# lO??L?0 vK!, the definitearticle does not appear, following the Hebrew original. In thesame way, the omission of the definite article from the nouns‰ƒ¥ /fi""a/ or /fa""a/ ‘silver,’ ·‰" /ƒahab/ ‘gold,’ and ÌÂ„‰ /hud¥m/‘clothes’ in ÌÂ„‰Â ·‰" ÈÚ‡ÂÂ‡Â ‰ƒ¥ ÈÚ‡ÂÂ‡ „·Ú Ï‡ ‚¯¡Â (15 4a,10–11)‘and the servant brought out objects of silver and gold, andclothes’ is a verbatim translation of ·‰Ê ÈÏÎÂ ÛÒÎ ÈÏÎ „·Ú‰ ‡ˆÂÈÂ

ÌÈ„‚·Â (Gen 24:53), where the same Hebrew nouns lack thedefinite article.(9-3.2) In the book of Esther: the omission of the definitearticle from the noun in ‰ÓÂÊÚ Ú!ˆ (1302 1b,4) ‘threw a banquet’is the verbatim equivalent of the Hebrew ‰˙˘Ó ‰˘Ú (Esth 1:3),which also lacks the definite article. The definite article isabsent from both Saadia’s ‡ÒÏ‚Ó Ú!ˆ and the Protestant transla-tion’s W$œQ?????# ÂU?????-« . Similarly, the definite article is omitted inÈ!‡ËÏÒ ¯Ó‡ (1302 2a,4–5) ‘royal edict’ and in ·È˙‡ÎÓ ÏÒ¯Â(1302 2a,9) ‘and he sent letters,’ literally following the Hebrew˙ÂÎÏÓ ¯·„ (Esth 1:19) and ÌÈ¯ÙÒ ÁÏ˘ÈÂ (Esth 1:22) respectively.Note that Saadia, unlike the Egyptian ¡ar˙, used the definitearticle in ÍÏÓÏ‡ ¯Ó‡ to render the first phrase, but not in £˙Ú·Â

271

·˙Î· for the second phrase.

CHAPTER EIGHT

(9-3.3) In the Haggadah: in ‰Ó‰Â¥ ‰!ÏÂÎ ‰ÓÏÂÚ ‰!ÏÂÎ ÂÏÂ ‰˙Á (33,4–5) ‘even if all of us were wise, all of us men of knowledge,’the definite article is lacking from the nouns, as is the case inthe Hebrew ÌÈ!Â·! Â!Ï‹k ÌÈÓÎÁ Â!Ï‹k ÂÏÈÙ‡Â in the Haggadah.

Int.: As expected, there are no examples of omitting the definitearticle in the ¡ar˙ where required that do not follow the Hebrew.

Feature 9-4 —Deleting the definite article where not neededLit.: (9-4.1) In Genesis: In ‡‰¥¯Ú ÌÏ Ï‚‡¯Â (15 2b,17) ‘and no man

had known her,’ the ¡ar˙an did not supply the article, despitethe fact that it is needed, in order to imitate the Hebrew text‰Ú„È ‡Ï ˘È‡Â (Gen 24:16), which also lacks the definite article.Similarly, in ‰ÈÓÂ Ï‡Ó‚ ÏÏ ¥ÏÚÂ Ô·˙ ÏÚ‚Â (15 3a,19) ‘and he gavestraw and forage to the camels, and water,’ the definite articleis not attached to Ô·˙ /tibn/, ¥ÏÚ / >alaf/, or ‰ÈÓ /mayya/, althoughit is expected in regular Arabic use. Both Saadia and theProtestant translation lack the definite articles, which may alsobe due to the influence of the Hebrew text. The lack of thedefinite article indicates a verbatim translation, as it is lackingin the Hebrew original as well: ÌÈÓÂ ÌÈÏÓ‚ÃÏ ‡ÂÙÒÓÂ Ô·˙ Ô˙ÈÂ (Gen24:32). In the same way, the word ˜Á /˙aqq/ ‘truth’ in ˜È¯Ë È¥˜Á (15 4a,3–4) ‘the way of truth’ does not have the definitearticle, in order to follow verbatim the Hebrew ˙Ó‡ Í¯„· (Gen24:48), although it is required in regular Arabic use, as is seenin Saadia’s translation, ˜ÁÏ‡ ˜È¯Ë È¥ . The Protestant translationused a noun-adjective phrase, 5#1 o%d2 w, ‘in a true way.’(9-4.2) In Esther the ¡ar˙an did not add the definite article¯È·Î ‘big’ and ¯Èµˆ ‘small’ in ¯Èµˆ „!ÚÂ ¯È·Î ÔÓÏ (1302 1b,7–8)‘big and small alike,’ in order to imitate the Hebrew originalÔË˜ „ÚÂ ÏÂ„‚ÓÏ (Esth 1:5), which also lacks the definite article.Likewise, the ¡ar˙an considered /sanat it-tålita/ in Ï‡ ˙!Ò È¥‰˙Ï‡˙ (1302 1b,4) ‘in the year of the third’ to be an i!åfa, in

272

order to imitate the Hebrew possessive compound ˘ÂÏ˘ ˙!˘·


(Esth 1:3). This is the reason for subtracting the definite articlefrom ‰!Ò /sana/, whereas in standard Arabic /sana/ would requirethe definite article in a noun-adjective phrase. Indeed, bothSaadia and the Protestant translation used a noun-adjectivephrase /f• as-sana a®-®åli®a/ ‘in the third year.’

Int.: As expected, there are no examples that do not follow theHebrew original of subtracting the definite article in the ¡ar˙where it is unnecessary.

L/I: (9-4.3) In the Haggadah there are several cases where theliteral/interpretive linguistic tension is evident. In the followingexample, the ¡ar˙an did not add the definite article to theparticiple Ò¯‡Á /˙åris/ ‘who keeps,’ although it is expected inregular Arabic use (Wright 1974, 2:63): ÂÓ˘Ú Ò¯‡Á ¬Â¯·Ó (36,12) ‘blessed be He who keeps His promise.’ This is done tofollow verbatim the Hebrew original Â˙ÁË·‰ ¯ÓÂ˘ ÍÂ¯·, whichalso lacks the definite article. In another manuscript, though,the ¡ar˙an has added the definite article in an interpretivetranslation: ÂÓ˘Ú Ò¯‡Á Ï‡ ¬Â¯·Ó (93 20,1). Similarly, in „‰Ú·ËÂË˘ Ï‡ ÔÈ· (93 20,3) ‘in the pact between the banks,’ the¡ar˙an subtracted the definite article from the noun „‰Ú / >ahd/‘pact’ where subtraction was not required. As in the previousexample, he did so in order to follow the Hebrew original ˙È¯·œa

ÌÈ¯˙·‰ ÔÈ·. In another manuscript, however, the ¡ar˙an addedthe definite article to arrive at a more interpretive translation:„Â„Á Ï‡ ÔÈ· „‰Ú Ï‡ È¥ (3 6,14–15).(9-4.4) In a rare example, #¯‡ È¥ ¯ÂÂ‡‚!Ï (3 7,17) ‘to settle in theland,’ the noun #¯‡ /ar"/ ‘land’ lacks the definite article, althoughin the Hebrew original it exists in ı¯‡Àa ¯Â‚Ï . In another manuscript,though, #¯‡ ÏÈÙ (91 4b,3) ‘in the land’ appears, conformingwith the Hebrew original and regular Arabic structure.

273

CHAPTER EIGHT

Agreement: NumberLevel: Morphosyntactic; Category 10: AgreementFeature 10-1 — Number: dual

Lit.: Because the dual form ceased to be productive in biblical Hebrewfor the most part, it seems that the ¡ar˙an did not use it in the¡ar˙, but rather translated the Hebrew literally.(10-1.1) In Genesis: The phrase ¯ÈÂÂ‡Ò‡ ÔÈ!˙‡ (15 3a,5) ‘twowristbands’ is a verbatim translation of the Hebrew ÌÈ„ÈÓˆ È!˘

(Gen 24:22). In order to be faithful to the original text, the¡ar˙an avoided using the Arabic dual form. Similarly, ÔÈ!˙‡˙‡!· (15 10b,13) ‘two daughters’ is a verbatim translation ofthe Hebrew ˙Â!· È˙˘ (Gen 29:16). The use of ¯‡ÂÂ‚‡ Ï‡ ÔÈ!˙‡(15 14a,16) ‘the two maidservants’ to translate ›̇‰Ó⁄‡‰ È˙˘ (Gen31:33) is similar (see below p. 299, 12-1.1–12.1.3).(10-1.2) In Esther: The phrase È˘‡ÂË ÔÈ!˙‡ (1302 2b,23) ‘twoeunuchs’ translates verbatim the Hebrew ÈÒÈ¯Ò È!˘ (Esth 2:21).(10-1.2) In the Haggadah: In ¬Ó‡„Â˜Ï ÔÈËÂËÁÓ ¯¯ÈÓ Ï‡Â ¯ÈË¥ Ï‡(3 5,14–15) ‘leavened bread and bitter herb are placed beforeyou,’ it is safe to assume that the participle ÔÈËÂËÁÓ /ma˙†¥†•n/is in the plural and not in the dual, in a verbatim translationfollowing the Hebrew original plural ÌÈÁ!‹Ó.

Int.: (10-1.3) There are some instances, on the other hand, wherethe ¡ar˙an used the dual form in regular Arabic style, forexample, ÔÈ˙¯Ó (3 2,12) ‘twice.’

Feature 10-2 — Number: pluralLit.: The ¡ar˙ exhibits cases where a plural verb precedes its plural

subject in order to follow verbatim the Hebrew text, althoughthere are other explanations for this phenomenon, as seen below.(10-2.1) In Genesis: The verb ÂË·¡˙‡ /itxaba†u/ ‘they fumbledabout’ in ‡‰!È·Ó È¥ „‡ÏÂÂ‡ Ï‡ ÂË·¡˙‡Â (15 5b,4) ‘and the childrenfumbled about inside her’ is a plural form in imitation of the

274

Hebrew ‰·¯˜· ÌÈ!·‰ ÂˆˆÂ¯˙ÈÂ (Gen 25:22), despite the fact that

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL: AGREEMENT – NUMBER

Classical Arabic calls for the verb to be singular before itsplural subject. However, this phenomenon occurs also in thecolloquial and is prevalent in Later Judeo-Arabic (Hary 1992:290–91) as well as in Classical Judeo-Arabic (Blau 1995:129–30), so it is a dialectal as well as a regular Judeo-Arabicphenomenon. The same occurs in Ô‡È·Âˆ Ï‡ Â¯·ÎÂ (15 5b,12–13)‘and the boys grew up,’ with the plural verb preceding itsplural subject, following the Hebrew ÌÈ¯Ú!‰ ÂÏ„‚ÈÂ (Gen 25:27).Similar is ÔÈÈƒ¯ Ï‡Â ÔÈÚ‡È¥Â¯ Ï‡ ˙‡¯˜· Ï‡ ÂÏÎ‡Â4 6 (15 25b,14)‘and the lean ugly cows ate,’ where the verb ÂÏÎ‡Â ‘and (they)ate’ is in the plural despite the fact that it comes before itssubject ˙‡¯˜· Ï‡ ‘the cows’ in a verbatim translation of˙ÂÚ¯‰Â ˙Â˜¯‰ ˙Â¯Ù‰ ‰!ÏÎ‡˙Â (Gen 41:20), and also in agreementwith colloquial use. Even when the subject is an inanimateplural, its preceding verb can be plural to imitate the Hebreworiginal: Ï‡Ï‰Ó ÈÓÈ ÏÎ ÂÈ‰ÈÂ (Gen 5:17) is translated literally: Â!‡ÎÂÏ‡ÏÏ‰Ó Ì‡È‡ ÏÂÎ (15 0-1,1) ‘all Mahalalel’s days were ...’4 7

(10-2.2) Also in Genesis the verb appears in the plural beforeits dual subject: ÌÂ‰!È!˙‡ Ì‡ÏÁ ÂÓÏÁÂ (15 24a,11) ‘and both ofthem dreamed a dream,’ imitating the Hebrew original ÂÓÏÁÈÂ

Ì‰È!˘ ÌÂÏÁ (Gen 40:5). In the following example with a dualsubject, Ï‡Â˙·Â Ô·Ï ·ÂÂ‡‚Â (15 4a,6) ‘Then Laban and Bethuelresponded,’ on the surface it seems as if it is translated inter-pretively, because a singular verb /wa-gåwab/ precedes Labanand Bethuel. However, upon a closer investigation, one noticesthe Hebrew verb in the Hebrew equivalent Ï‡Â˙·Â Ô·Ï ÔÚÈÂ (Gen24:50), which is also in the singular; thus, a verbatim translationis achieved after all.

275

4 6For the colloquial adjective ÔÈÚ‡È¥Â¯, see chapter 4, p. 123, 2.4.1.4 7However, /kull/ ‘all’ may be considered to be the subject and not /ayyåm/

‘days.’ Even if this is the case, a singular verb would be expected.

(10-2.3) In Esther: The verb ÂÏ‡˜Â in Ï‡ ÔÈÓ„‡¡ Ô‡È·ˆ Ï‡ ÂÏ‡˜Â

CHAPTER EIGHT

Ô‡ËÏÒ (1302 2a,12) ‘and the courtiers who served the rulersaid’ is in the plural, although it precedes a plural noun. Thisis a verbatim translation of the plural Hebrew verb Â¯Ó‡ÈÂ (Esth2:2). Similar is the case in ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ „È·Ú ÂÏ‡˜Â (1302 3a,7) ‘andthe king’s courtiers said,’ following the Hebrew plural in Â¯Ó‡ÈÂ

ÍÏÓ‰ È„·Ú (Esth 3:3). The plural verb /gu/ behaves similarly in‡‰È˘‡ÂËÂ ¯˙Ò‡ ˙‡È·ˆ Â‚Â (1302 3b,14) ‘Esther’s maids and hereunuchs came.’ In this case the Judeo-Arabic verb /gu/ is amasculine form preceding the feminine plural subject ˙‡È·ˆ/ßabiyåt/, whereas in the Hebrew original the verb is in thefeminine plural form ‰ÈÒÈ¯ÒÂ ¯˙Ò‡ ˙Â¯Ú! ‰!‡·˙Â (Esth 4:4). Notethat in Saadia, the first two verbs mentioned above that precedeplural subjects are also in the plural, but the third one in Esth4:4 is in the feminine singular, following regular Arabic structure.In the Protestant translation, however, all the verbs above thatprecede plural subjects are in the singular, according to regularArabic structure.(10-2.4) In the Haggadah: In the following examples the verbspreceding their plural nouns are in the plural as well: Ï‡ Ê·Â¡‰!˙‡‰·‡ ÂÏÎ‡ È"Ï‡ ÔÈÎ‡ÒÓ (3 2,1–2) ‘the bread of affliction,which our fathers ate’; ÌÂ‰"ÈÓ‡Ï˙ Â‚ ‡Ó „!ÚÏ (3 3,14) ‘untiltheir students came’; and ÔÈ„·‡Ú ‰!˙‡‰·‡ Â!‡Î (3 5,17) ‘ourfathers were worshippers.’ All of these translate verbatim theHebrew, where the plural verbs also precede the plural nouns.

Quite frequently, when modifying nonhuman plural nouns,the modifiers may be in the plural in order to strictly copy theHebrew original, although we would have expected the modifiersto be in the feminine singular. However, spoken Arabic mayalso exhibit a similar phenomenon (Mitchell 1978:24–25), andin this case the translation cannot be considered verbatim, butrather interpretive.(10-2.5) In Genesis: In the example Ô‡Î!‡ „!Ú È˜Ò‡ ¬Ï‡Ó‚Ï Ô‡ÓÎ

276

Â·¯˘ÈÏ ÂÓ˙ (15 3a,1) ‘I will also water your camels, until they


finish drinking,’ the verbs ÂÓ˙ ‘(they) finished’ and Â·¯˘È ‘(they)drink’ are in the plural, although they modify the nonhumanplural Ï‡Ó‚ ‘camels,’ probably in deference to the Hebrewtext, ˙Â˙˘Ï ÂÏÎ Ì‡ „Ú ·‡˘‡ ÍÈÏÓ‚Ï Ì‚ (Gen 24:19), where the verbÂÏÎ ‘finished’ is also in the plural. The same holds true whenthe verb precedes the subject: Â·¯˘ÈÏ Ï‡Ó‚ Ï‡ ÂÓ˙ (15 3a,4)‘the camels finished drinking.’ In the same way, in Ï‡Ó‚ ‰„ÂÂ‰ÂÔÈÈ‡‚ (15 4b,5) ‘Here, the camels are approaching,’ the participleÔÈÈ‡‚ is in the plural to render verbatim the Hebrew original ÌÈ‡·

(Gen 24:63). Similarly, plural adjectives may follow nonhumanplural nouns in a verbatim translation: ¯$!Ó Ï‡ ˙‡!ÒÂÁ ˙‡¯˜·ÌÁÏ Ï‡ Ô‡ÓÂÒÂ (15 25a,5–6) ‘good-looking and sturdy cows’follows verbatim the Hebrew ¯˘· ˙›‡È¯·Â ‰‡¯Ó ˙ÂÙÈ ˙Â¯Ù (Gen41:2).(10-2.6) In Esther: In ÔÈ¯ƒÁ˙ÒÓ Â!ÂÎÈÏ Ì‡Â˜‡ Ï‡ ÏÎÏ (1302 3b,7)‘to all the peoples, in order for them to be ready,’ both theverb Â!ÂÎÈ /yak¥nu/ and the participle ÔÈ¯ƒÁ˙ÒÓ /mustax"ir•n/are in the plural, although they modify Ì‡Â˜‡ /aqwåm/ ‘peoples,nations.’(10-2.7) In the Haggadah: In ¯‡˙ÂÎ Ï‡ „‡ÈÈÚ‡ Ï‡Â „ÈÚ‡ÂÂÓ ÏÏ (321,6) ‘to other feasts and festivals,’ the adjective ¯‡˙ÂÎ /kutår/is in the plural, although it modifies nonhuman plural nouns, inorder to imitate the Hebrew plural nouns in ÌÈÏ‚¯ÏÂ ÌÈ„ÚÂÓÏ

ÌÈ¯Á‡. The same, however, may occur in the dialect. Similarly,the pronominal suffix /hum/ in ÌÂ‰ÂÓ„ in Ï‡ ÔÓÂ ÁÈ‡·Ê Ï‡ ÔÓÌÂ‰ÂÓ„ ÏˆÁÈ È"Ï‡ ÁÈ‡Ò¥ (3 21,8–10) ‘of the sacrifices and of theholy paschal offerings, whose blood …’ is in the plural, followingthe Hebrew original ÌÓ„, although it modifies the nonhumanplural nouns ÁÈ‡·Ê ‘sacrifices’ and ÁÈ‡Ò¥ ‘paschal offerings.’

Other issues of number agreement:

277

(10-2.8) The imitation of the Hebrew plural occurs also in the

CHAPTER EIGHT

demonstrative pronouns, as in ÈÏÂ„‰ Ì‡ÏÎ Ï‡Î4 8 (15 3a,13) ‘likethese words’ and ÈÏÂ„‰ Ì‡ÏÎ Ï‡ „Ú· Ô‡ÎÂ (15 24a,5) ‘and itcame to pass after these things.’ Here the ¡ar˙an used thespoken Egyptian Judeo-Arabic plural form ÈÏÂ„‰ /hadøli/ ‘these’(chapter 4, p. 114, 2.1.4.3) in order to imitate the Hebrewplural form in ‰Ï‡‰ ÌÈ¯·„Î (Gen 24:28) and ‰Ï‡‰ ÌÈ¯·„‰ (Gen40:1) respectively, although the Judeo-Arabic plural demon-strative pronoun modifies the singular noun /kalåm/. Both theProtestant translation and Saadia employ /håƒihi l-um¥r/.(10-2.9) In ÔÈ„Â‚ÂÂÓ Ï‡ ÌÂ˜ Ï‡ ÏÎÏ (1302 1b,7) ‘to all the peoplewho were present,’ the ¡ar˙an preferred to be true to theHebrew original and change the Judeo-Arabic number fromsingular to plural in order to imitate the biblical style with itsplural adjective, ÌÈ‡ˆÓ!‰ ÌÚ‰ ÏÎÏ (Esth 1:5). Consequently, non-agreement and verbatim translation in the ¡ar˙ are favored hereover regularity and nonliteral translation.(10-2.10) As in the previous example, even when the pluralsubject is collective, the verb preceding it and the adjectivemodifying it are in the plural, in order to imitate the Hebrew:ÔÈ¯Â‰˘Ó Ï‡¯˘È Â!‡Î È"Ï‡ (3 8,6–7) ‘and Israel was renowned.’This sentence copies the Hebrew ÌÈ!ÈÈÂˆÓ Ï‡¯˘È ÂÈ‰˘ ‘that thechildren of Israel were distinguished.’ Similar is the exampleÌÂ‰‡ÈÈ‡ ÔÈ˜È‡ƒÓ ¯ˆÓ È"Ï‡ (3 11,3–4) ‘that the Egyptians harassthem,’ which renders the Hebrew Ì ›̇‡ ÌÈˆÁÂÏ ÌÈ¯ˆÓ ¯˘‡.(10-2.11) In ÔÈÚÂÓ‚Ó Â!‡Î È"Ï‡ ÆÆÆ ¯ÊÚÏ‡ È·¯Â ÚÂ˘Â‰È È·¯Â ¯ÊÚÈÏ‡ È·¯(3 3,10–12) ‘Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Elazar… who were assembled,’ the relative pronoun È"Ï‡ is in thesingular, although it modifies a plural subject, for two reasons.First, the relative pronoun translates the Hebrew ¯˘‡ in a literalway, and second, it is a “frozen” form used in the Judeo-Arabictexts for all numbers and genders (see pp. 240–44, 6-3).

278

4 8See above p. 246, 6-4.5 for an analysis of the demonstrative pronouns.


Int.: (10-2.12) The verse Ï‡Ó‚ Ï‡ ‰ÏÚ ˙·Î¯Â ‡‰!‡È·ÂÒÂ ‰˜·¯ ˙Á‡¯ÂÏ‚‡¯ Ï‡ ‰¯Â ˙Á‡¯Â (15 4b,1–2) ‘Then Rebecca and her maidswent and rode the camels, and went …’ exhibits interpretivetranslation. The ¡ar˙an employed the initial verb ˙Á‡¯ in thesingular, following standard Arabic structure, but also in linewith the Hebrew. The continuation of the verse suggests adeparture from the Hebrew because the Judeo-Arabic verbs˙·Î¯ and ˙Á‡¯ are in the singular, as opposed to the Hebrew‰!·Î¯˙ and ‰!ÎÏ˙, where they appear in the plural: ‰˜·¯ Ì˜˙Â

‰!ÎÏ˙Â ÌÈÏÓ‚‰ ÏÚ ‰!·Î¯˙Â ‰È˙]Ú!Â (Gen 24:61).(10-2.13) In ÆÆÆ ‡˙Ó„‡ ¯˙˘ ‰!˘¯Î ‰ÈÏ‡ ÔÈ·È¯˜ Ï‡Â (1302 1b,19)‘Those closest to him—Carshena, Shetar, Admata …’ the¡ar˙an preferred regular Arabic style over a literal translationof the Hebrew ‡˙Ó„‡ ¯˙˘ ‡!˘¯Î ÂÈÏ‡ ·]˜‰Â (Esth 1:14) by changingthe Hebrew singular ·]˜ ‘close’ to Judeo-Arabic plural ÔÈ·È¯˜in order to accommodate the Arabic structure.(10-2.14) In Esther: Ì‡ÏÎ Ï‡ ‡"‡‰ (1302 2a,11) ‘this discussion’follows regular Arabic structure, where Ì‡ÏÎ /kalåm/ is acollective noun, although it translates a Hebrew plural noun‰Ï‡‰ ÌÈ¯·„‰ (Esth 2:1).4 9

L/I: (10-2.15) The sentence ‡‰ÓÂ‡Â ‡‰Â¡‡ Ï‡˜Â (15 4a,13–14) ‘herbrother and mother said’ may seem an interpretive translation,as the verb /wa-qål/ ‘said’ preceding its subjects /ax¥ha wa-ummuha/ ‘her brother and her mother’ is in the singular.However, upon a closer observation, this verb is also in thesingular in the Hebrew original ‰Óœ‡Â ‰ÈÁ‡ ¯Ó‡ÈÂ (Gen 24:55), thuscreating a literal translation as well. Both Saadia and theProtestant translation also employ the singular verb /wa-qåla/.

Quite frequently the ¡ar˙an preferred to translate interpre-

279

4 9See also below, p. 280, 10-2.16–10-2.18.

tively, observing regular Judeo-Arabic structure when ensuring

CHAPTER EIGHT

the agreement of the demonstrative pronouns;5 0 however, thesetranslations also follow the Hebrew original:(10-2.16) In Genesis: The spoken Egyptian Judeo-Arabic pluraldemonstrative pronoun /hadøli/ is used in ÈÏÂ„‰ Èƒ‡¯‡ Ï‡ (156a,11) ‘these lands’ in order to modify the plural noun /arå"i/in a colloquial construction. The same occurs in ‰Ï‡‚Â¯ Ï‡ÂÈÏÂ„‰ (15 18a,10) ‘and these men’ and in ÈÏÂ„‰ ‰È‡ˆÚ Ï‡ (1523b,18–19) ‘these rods.’ These are interpretive translationsinto the spoken variety, but they also follow the Hebrew useof plural demonstrative pronouns.(10-2.17) In Esther: The plural demonstrative pronoun /hadøli/is a spoken form that is compatible with colloquial agreement,appearing in ÈÏÂ„‰ Ì‡ÈÈ‡ Ï‡ (1302 1b,7) ‘these days.’ Thistranslation follows also the Hebrew agreement: ‰Ï‡‰ ÌÈÓÈ‰ (Esth1:5).(10-2.18) In the Haggadah: The ¡ar˙an used the spokenEgyptian Judeo-Arabic plural demonstrative /døli/ to modifythe plural nouns „‡ÏÂ‡ /awlåd/ and ˙‡ÓÏÎ /kalimåt/ respectivelyin „‡ÏÂ‡ Ï‡ ÈÏÂ„ (3 10,17) ‘these are the sons’; ÈÏÂ„ ˙‡ÓÏÎ ˙‡Ï˙(3 17, 18–19) ‘these three words’; and ÔÓÂ‰ ÈÏÂ„Â (3 17,20) ‘andthese are.’ The Hebrew also uses the plural demonstrativepronouns in these cases.

Agreement: GenderFeature 10-3 — Gender

Lit.: There are instances in the ¡ur¥˙ where the ¡ar˙an matched thegender of a word in the Judeo-Arabic translation with thegender of the corresponding word in the Hebrew text; the

280

5 0This has not always been the case. For example, note the use of thesingular demonstrative pronoun in Ì‡ÈÈ‡ Ï‡ ¬Ï‡" (1302 1b,3 and 2b,22) ‘thosedays,’ which translates Ì‰‰ ÌÈÓÈ· (Esth 1:2; 2:21).

translation thus departs from standard Arabic usage.

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL: AGREEMENT – GENDER

(10-3.1) In Genesis: The verb Ô‡ÎÂ in ‰ÏÏ‡ ˙Î¯· Ô‡ÎÂ (15 23-1a,14)‘the Creator’s blessing was’ is in the masculine, although thenoun /baraka/ ‘blessing’ is in the feminine. This is done inorder to imitate the masculine Hebrew verb in the biblicalverse, ß‰ ˙Î¯· È‰ÈÂ (Gen 39:5). Similarly, although ˜È¯Ë /†ar•q~†ar•</‘way’ can be both masculine and feminine in both ClassicalArabic and colloquial Egyptian, the ¡ar˙an chose to treat it asfeminine in ‡‰ÈÏÚ ÁÈÈ‡¯ ‰!‡ È"Ï‡ È˜È¯Ë (15 3b,13) ‘my wayaccording to where I go’ to imitate the Hebrew noun Í¯„ ‘way,’which is treated as feminine in ‰ÈÏÚ ÍÏ›‰ ÈÎ!‡ ¯˘‡ ÈÎ¯„ (Gen24:42). Í¯„ ‘way,’ though, is usually masculine (BDB, p. 202),so the ¡ar˙an’s choice reflects a variation in Hebrew usage.(10-3.2) In Esther: The agreement in ¯‡˙Î Ì‡ÈÈ‡ (1302 1b,6)‘many days’ follows the Hebrew ÌÈ·¯ ÌÈÓÈ (Esth 1:4), wherethe plural adjective ÌÈ·¯ modifies the plural inanimate nounÌÈÓÈ. In literary Arabic the adjective is expected to be a femininesingular form; however, in the colloquial it may appear eitherin the feminine singular or in the plural (Mitchell 1978:24–25).A similar example exhibiting these agreement issues is È!‡Â‡ÔÈ¯ÈÈµÓ (1302 1b,11) ‘various vessels.’ Here too the Judeo-Arabicfollows verbatim the Hebrew plural adjective in ÌÈ!Â˘ ÌÈÏÎ (Esth1:7).5 1

(10-3.3) In the Haggadah: In ¯ˆÓ ‚Â¯¡ Ï‡˜!˙ Ô‡ ˙ÈƒÁ ÌÏÂ (9315,11) ‘I did not understand why the exodus from Egypt isrecited,’ the ¡ar˙an used a feminine passive verb Ï‡˜!˙ /tin <ål/‘is recited’ to modify the masculine noun ¯ˆÓ ‚Â¯¡ /xur¥g mißr/‘the exodus from Egypt,’ in order to copy the feminine genderof the Hebrew ÌÈ¯ˆÓ ˙‡ÈˆÈ . Similarly, the accusative pronoun

281

5 1On the other hand, the translation ÏÈÏ˜ Ì‡È‡ (15 9a,4) ‘a few days’ isunique as it does not follow verbatim the Hebrew ÌÈ„Á‡ ÌÈÓÈ (Gen 27:44), nordoes it follow regular Arabic use.

/-ha/ in ‡‰¯Ò¥ (3 3,20) ‘interpreted it’ is in the feminine,

CHAPTER EIGHT

although it refers to the masculine noun ¯ˆÓ ‚Â¯¡ /xur¥g mißr/‘the exodus from Egypt.’ This is a literal translation designedto imitate the original Hebrew feminine ÌÈ¯ˆÓ ˙‡ÈˆÈ.

Sometimes, the Judeo-Arabic demonstrative pronoun followsverbatim the gender of its Hebrew equivalent, thus deviatingfrom regular Arabic structure:(10-3.4) In Genesis: The feminine demonstrative pronoun ¬Ï˙/tilka/ in ˙˜ÂÂ Ï‡ ¬Ï˙ È¥ (15 22b,19) ‘at that time’ follows theHebrew feminine pronoun in ‡È‰‰ ˙Ú· (Gen 38:1) and not standardArabic agreement structure. Likewise, in the following examplesthe feminine demonstrative pronoun È„‡‰ /hådi/ is used inimitation of the Hebrew feminine equivalent ˙‡Ê: È„‡‰ Ú!ˆ‡ ÔÓ(15 30b,14) ‘for me to act this (way)’ follows the Hebreworiginal ˙‡Ê ˙Â˘ÚÓ (Gen 44:17), and ÂÚ!ˆ‡ È„‡‰ ˙ÈˆÂ ‰˙!‡Â (1532a,13–14) ‘and you are bidden, do as follows’ renders ‰˙‡Â

˙‡Ê ˙ÈÂ‹ˆ (Gen 45:19).(10-3.5) In Esther: /tilka/ in ˙˜Â Ï‡ ¬Ï˙ (1302 6a,7) ‘that time’follows the gender of its Hebrew equivalent ‡È‰‰ ˙Ú· (Esth5:9), and does not follow standard Arabic agreement structure.(10-3.6) In the Haggadah: In ‰!È¡˘ Ï‡ ˙ÈÈÏ‚˙ ‰„ (3 12,13) ‘thisdenotes the appearance of the Divine Presence,’ the ¡ar˙anhas used the masculine demonstrative pronoun ‰„ /da/ toslavishly copy the Hebrew equivalent in ‰!ÈÎ˘ ÈÂÏÈ‚ ‰Ê, althoughaccording to Arabic agreement standards a feminine pronoun iscalled for.

Int.: (10-3.7) In Genesis: The noun ÔÈÈ‡ÏÓ Ï‡ (15 2b,9) ‘those(women) who draw water’ is in the masculine, following regularcolloquial Arabic use (chapter 4, p. 128, 3.6.3), in which thefeminine form is seldom used, and does not imitate the Hebrewfeminine noun ›̇·‡&̆ ‰ ‘the women who draw water’ (Gen 24:11)in an interpretive translation. Similarly, the participle ÔÈ‚¯‡¡

282

(15 2b,12) ‘come out’ is in the masculine, reflecting regular


colloquial Arabic use, despite the fact that in the Hebrew thefeminine plural is employed in ˙›‡ˆ&È (Gen 24:13). Furthermore,the adjective ÔÈ·ÈÈË /†ayyib•n/ in ÔÓÂ‰ ÔÈ·ÈÈË Ô‡ (15 0-1,20) ‘forgood-looking they are’ is in the masculine, despite the fact thatit refers to a feminine noun, Ô‡Ò!‡ Ï‡ ˙‡!· (15 0-1,19) ‘thedaughters of men.’ This constitutes an interpretive translationaccording to spoken Egyptian Judeo-Arabic standards and doesnot imitate the feminine noun in ‰!‰ ˙›·›Ë ÈÎ (Gen 6:2).(10-3.8) In Esther: In Ì‰ÏÂ˜· Ì‰Ó‡„˜ Ì‰Ê‡Â‚‡ ÂÏ„‰·ÈÏ ‡Ò! Ï‡(1302 2a,2) ‘the women will treat their husbands contemptu-ously in their (masc. pl.) presence, saying (masc. pl.) …’ theverb ÂÏ„‰·È and the several pronouns appear in the masculineplural when referring to the feminine plural human nouns Ï‡‡Ò! ‘the women,’ following colloquial use. Similar is ‡Ò! Ï‡Ì‰Ê‡Â‚‡ Â¯·˙ÚÈ (1302 2a,7) ‘the women respect their husbands,’where both the verb Â¯·˙ÚÈ and the pronominal suffix /-hum/ inÌ‰Ê‡Â‚‡ are in the masculine plural describing a feminine pluralnoun, ‡Ò! Ï‡ ‘the women.’ The same occurs in ‡Ò! Ï‡ $¥‡ÁÌ‰˜‡ÂÊ ‡ËÚ!ÈÂ (1302 2a,15) ‘the keeper of the women; and letthem be provided with their cosmetics,’ where the pronoun inÌ‰˜‡ÂÊ ‘their cosmetics’ is in the masculine plural.(10-3.9) The Hebrew ‰È¯ÚÂ Ì]Ú ˙‡Â ‘and you (fem.) are nakedand bare’ in the Haggadah contains Ì]Ú in the masculine. The¡ar˙an translated it into />uryåna/ in the feminine to match thegender of the independent pronoun /inti/ ‘you (fem.)’ in aninterpretive translation, ‰¥Â˘ÎÓÂ ‰!‡È¯ÂÚ È˙!‡Â (3 8,15) ‘and you(fem.) are naked and bare.’

The ¡ar˙anim quite frequently employed interpretive trans-lation with regard to the gender of the demonstrative pronouns,thus following regular Arabic agreement structure.(10-3.10) In Genesis: The demonstrative pronoun ‰„ /da/ in

283

‰„ È!‡¥ÏÁ (15 2b,4) ‘this oath’ is in the masculine, not following

CHAPTER EIGHT

the Hebrew ˙‡Ê È˙Ú‹·˘Ó ‘from this (fem.) oath to me,’ as itmodifies a masculine Judeo-Arabic noun. In ‰„‰ ÌÂ‰Ï Ú!ˆÂ (1528a,9) ‘and he did that to them,’ the ¡ar˙an employed themasculine demonstrative pronoun ‰„‰ /håda/ following regularArabic use and not imitating ÔÎ Ì‰Ï ˘ÚÈÂ (Gen 42:25).(10-3.11) In Esther: ‰ÏÈÏ Ï‡ ¬Ï˙ È¥ (1302 4a,14) ‘on that night’the feminine demonstrative pronoun ¬Ï˙ /tilka/ follows regularArabic agreement structure, although the Hebrew uses themasculine demonstrative noun ‡Â‰‰ ‰ÏÈÏ· (Esth 6:1). Thisphenomenon occurs because of the different genders of theHebrew ‰ÏÈÏ (masc.) and the Judeo-Arabic ‰ÏÈÏ (fem.). In thesame way, in È„ ˘È‡ ‡ÏÚÂ È„ ˘È‡ (1302 3b,17) ‘what this is andwhy this is,’ the ¡ar˙an employed the feminine È„ /di/, notfollowing the masculine ‰Ê in ‰Ê ‰Ó ÏÚÂ ‰Ê ‰Ó (Esth 4:5). A similarexample is the verse È„ ‡ÏÚ È¡„¯ÓÏ ‰ÈÈ¯·ÎÂ ¯‡˜Â‡ Ú!ˆ!‡ ˘È‡(1302 4b,17) ‘what honor and greatness have been conferredon Mordecai for this?,’ with the colloquial use of the femininepronoun È„ /di/ translating the Hebrew masculine demonstrativepronoun ‰Ê in Esth 6:3.(10-3.12) In the Haggadah: The masculine demonstrativepronoun ‰„ /da/ in ‰„ ˘‡ (3 5,4) ‘what is this?’ reflects aninterpretive translation, as it does not follow the Hebrew original˙‡Ê ‰Ó, which contains a feminine demonstrative pronoun. Sim-ilarly, the demonstrative pronouns È„‡‰ /hådi/ and ¬Ï˙ /tilka/are common in È„‡‰ ‰ÏÈÏ Ï‡ (3 2,9; 2,11; 2,13; and more) ‘thisnight’ and in ‰ÏÈÏ Ï‡ ¬Ï˙ (3 3,13–14) ‘that night.’ These pronounsagree with the gender of the Judeo-Arabic ‰ÏÈÏ ‘night’ and notwith the Hebrew, indicating an interpretive mode. The sameoccurs in È„‡‰ ‰È!Â„ Ï‡ (3 4,3) ‘this world,’ where the ¡ar˙anhas followed Judeo-Arabic agreement.

L/I: (10-3.13) In Genesis, in the story of Joseph, the adjectival

284

agreement used in the interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream shows


the literal/interpretive linguistic tension. For example, Ú·ÒÌÁÏ Ï‡ Ô‡ÓÂÒÂ ¯$!Ó Ï‡ ˙‡!ÒÂÁ ˙‡¯˜· (15 25a,5–6) ‘sevenhandsome and sturdy cows,’ on the one hand, contains anexample of literal agreement that strictly follows the Hebreworiginal: ˙‡!ÒÂÁ ‘handsome’ is a feminine plural adjective fol-lowing the Hebrew feminine plural ˙ÂÙÈ (Gen 41:2) as well asmodifying the feminine plural noun ˙‡¯˜· ‘cows.’ On theother hand, the masculine plural adjective Ô‡ÓÂÒ ‘sturdy’appears; here the ¡ar˙an did not imitate the original Hebrewfeminine plural adjective ˙›‡È¯· ‘healthy’ but practicedinterpretive translation (chapter 4, pp. 127–28, 3.5.1). Thesame occurs in ÔÈÚÏ‡Ë ÔÈ¯¡Â‡ ˙‡¯˜· (15 25a,7) ‘other cowsrising,’ where the ¡ar˙an employed the masculine pluraladjective ÔÈ¯¡Â‡ and the masculine participle ÔÈÚÏ‡Ë to modify afeminine plural noun, thereby not following the gender of theHebrew original. Similarly, later in the chapter, the ¡ar˙anagain used the interpretive mode in Ï‡ ÔÈ!ÒÂÁ ˙‡¯˜· Ï‡ Ú·Ò¯$!Ó (15 25a,9) ‘seven handsome and sturdy cows,’ by em-ploying the masculine plural adjective ÔÈ!ÒÂÁ to modify thefeminine plural noun ˙‡¯˜·. This way, he avoided the literaltranslation and used a Judeo-Arabic Egyptian colloquial pattern.(10-3.14) In Esther: ˙˜Â Ï‡ ¬Ï˙ (1302 6a,7) ‘at that time’renders ‡È‰‰ ˙Ú· (Esth 8:9), where the feminine demonstrativepronoun /tilka/ modifies the masculine noun ˙˜Â /waqt/. Thisis a verbatim translation in an attempt to imitate the equivalentHebrew feminine noun ˙Ú ‘time.’ In other places, though,interpretive translations appear, where ˙˜Â Ï‡ ‡"‡‰ (13024a,7) ‘at this (masc.) time’ and ‡"‰Î ˙˜ÂÏ (1302 4a,8) ‘for atime such as this (masc.)’ follow regular Arabic agreementrules, not imitating the original Hebrew ˙‡Ê‰ ˙Ú· and ˙‡ÊÎ ˙ÚÏ

(Esth 4:14) respectively.(10-3.15) In ‰ÏÈÏ Ï‡ ¬Ï‡" (74 1,17) ‘that night,’ the masculine

285

demonstrative pronoun ¬Ï‡" /ƒålika/ modifies a feminine noun

CHAPTER EIGHT

‰ÏÈÏ /l!la/ ‘night.’ This is done in order to imitate literally thegender of the equivalent Hebrew masculine pronoun Â˙Â‡ ‘that,the same,’ which modifies the masculine Hebrew noun ‰ÏÈÏ

‘night.’ In another manuscript, however, the demonstrativepronoun is in the feminine, agreeing with its feminine Arabicnoun in an interpretive translation: ‰ÏÈÏ Ï‡ ¬Ï˙ (3 3,13–14)‘that (fem.) night.’ Furthermore, in the example ‰„ ··Ò· /bisababda/ (93 17, 5–6) ‘for this reason,’ the demonstrative pronoun‰„ /da/ is masculine, rendering the Hebrew masculinedemonstrative ‰Ê ¯Â·Ú·, while agreeing with the masculine Judeo-Arabic ··Ò /sabab/. However, in another manuscript thetranslation is not literal, as the ¡ar˙an used the femininedemonstrative pronoun È„ /di/: È„ ··Ò· /bisabab di/ (91 2b,3–4) ‘for this (fem.) reason.’ Similar is ‰!¥ Ï‡ ‰„ (3 12,4) ‘thisis the murrain,’ where the demonstrative ‰„ /da/ is in themasculine while in another manuscript the ¡ar˙an has used thefeminine ‰!¥ Ï‡ ‰È„ (91 6a,1) ‘this is the murrain,’ possiblyinfluenced by the seemingly feminine /fanå/ with the /-a/ ending.(10-3.16) The colloquial genitive marker /bitå>/ (masc. sg.)usually appears in the Haggadah, with only some attestationfor /bitå>a/ (fem. sg.). In the following examples the marker/bitå>/ (masc. sg.) modifies feminine nouns, which may indicateverbatim translation of the Hebrew genitive marker Ï˘ ‘of.’Since in Hebrew, the marker Ï˘ ‘of’ is not declined for gender,the ¡ar˙an may have chosen to do the same in the Judeo-Arabic¡ar˙, employing the unmarked form /bitå>/, and thus the femininemarker /bitå>a/ is not used here: Ú·¯ Ú‡˙· ˙!‡Î … ‰·¯ƒÂ ‰·¯ƒ ÏÎ˙‡·¯ƒ (3 14,18–19 – 15,1–2) ‘each plague … was of fourplagues’; ˙‡·¯ƒ ÒÓ¡ Ú‡˙· ˙!‡Î … ‰·¯ƒÂ ‰·¯ƒ ÏÎ (3 15,9–10 –15,11) ‘each plague … was of five plagues’; ‡ˆÓ Ï‡ Â„Â¡‡ÈÔÈÓÂ˜È¥‡ Ú‡˙· (93 48,13) ‘they hold the matza of the afikoman.’On the other hand, in other manuscripts the ¡ar˙an followed

286

the interpretive method and used the feminine form /bitå>a/ for

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL: TENSE AND ASPECT

agreement: ÔÈÓÂ˜È¥‡ ˙Ú‡˙· ‰ÈÈ·‡¡Ó Ï‡ ‰¯ÈË¥ Ï‡ ¥ˆÂ! Â„¡‡È (7422,1) ‘(the participants) take half of the hidden matza of theafikoman’; ÔÈÓÂ˜¥ Ï‡ ˙ÈÚ˙· ‰¯ÈË¥ Ï‡ ÒÂ! Â„¡È (91 10a,12) ‘(theparticipants) take half of the matza of the afikoman.’5 2

Tense and AspectLevel: Morphosyntactic; Category 11: TMAFeature 11-1 — Tense/aspect

Lit.: It seems that in many instances the ¡ar˙an has meticulouslytranslated the Hebrew participle as an Arabic participle, evenif it is strange in regular Arabic style. This is done to producea verbatim grammatical translation.(11-1.1) In Genesis: ‰¯˙˘ÂÓÏ /li-mu¡tara/ (15 2a,7) ‘to thepossession’ translates the Hebrew ‰!˜ÓÏ (Gen 23:18), attemptingto keep the seemingly participle unchanged in a verbatim trans-lation; however, ‰!˜Ó can be considered a noun (BDB, p. 889).Similarly, the ¡ar˙an has preserved the participle in ÔÎ‡Ò /såkin/(15 2a,7) ‘dwell’ in order to render slavishly the Hebrewparticiple ·˘ÂÈ (Gen 24:3), although he could have chosen themore regular Arabic imperfect. In the same way, when translatingGen 24:13, the ¡ar˙an preserved the participle forms of both·ˆ! ‘stand’ and ˙›‡ˆ&È ‘come out’ by employing ·ˆ˙!Ó /muntaßib/(15 2b,11) and ÔÈ‚¯‡¡ /xarg•n/ (15 2b,12) respectively in theJudeo-Arabic, whereas he could have used the imperfect in amore regular Arabic style.(11-1.2) In Esther: The participle ÔËÏÒ˙Ó ‘rule’ in Ï‡ ‡Â‰… ÔËÏÒ˙Ó Ï‡ È¯È˘„Ê‡ (1302 1b,2) ‘he is Xerxes who rules …’translates verbatim the Hebrew participle ÍÏ›Ó in ˘Â¯Â˘Á‡ ‡Â‰

… ÍÏ›Ó‰(Esth 1:1); the participles ÔÈ¯$‡! ‘those who see’ and

287

5 2For a possible frozen use of the masculine singular form /bitå>/ in EgyptianJudeo-Arabic dialect, see chapter 4, pp. 116–17, 2.1.7.

ÔÈÒÏ‡‚ ‘those who rank’ in ‡ÏÂÂ‡ ÔÈÒÏ‡‚ Ï‡ ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ‰‚Â ÔÈ¯$‡! Ï‡

CHAPTER EIGHT

‰!ËÏÒ Ï‡ È¥ (1302 1b,20–21) ‘those seeing the face of the king,occupying the first rank in the kingdom’ render verbatim thetwo participles ÈÕ‡] and ÌÈ· &̆È in Esth 1:14; and the participleÈ·¯Ó ‘bring up’ in ¯˙Ò‡ ‡ÈÈ‰ ‡!ÈÒ¯Ó Ï‡ È·¯Ó Ô‡ÎÂ (1302 2b,1–2)‘and he (Mordecai) had brought up Myrtle, i.e., Esther’translates the Hebrew participle ÔÓ›‡ ‘foster’ in Esth 2:7.(11-1.3) In the Haggadah: The Hebrew participle ÔÈ·ÂÒÓ ‘recline’is preserved in the Judeo-Arabic ¡ar˙ in the participle ÔÈÈÎ˙Ó(3 2,16). Similarly, the Hebrew ÌÈ„·Ú%̆ Ó ‘enslaved’ is also ren-dered in the Judeo-Arabic as a participle, ÔÈÓ„¡˙ÒÂÓ (3 3,4)‘enslaved.’ The same is true of the translation of ˙‡ ÌÈÚ„ÂÈ Â!ÏÎ

‰¯Â˙‰ ‘all of us know the Torah,’ which also uses the participlein ‰ÚÈ¯˘ Ï‡ ÔÈ¥¯‡Ú ‰!ÏÂÎ (3 3,5–6).

Int.: Not infrequently do we find in the texts of the ¡ur¥˙ interpretiveArabic translations in regard to the aspect of Hebrew verbs,both perfect and imperfect, following vav consecutive. In thesecases the ¡ar˙anim indicated clearly their interpretation of thetense/aspect. The ¡ar˙anim used the regular Arabic coordinatingconjunction /wa-/ to render Hebrew vav consecutive.(11-1.4) In Genesis: The ¡ar˙an has employed the Judeo-Arabicperfect to translate the Hebrew imperfect5 3 following the vavconsecutive: ‰!Ò ÔÈ˙ÒÂ ÔÈ!˙‡Â ‰È‡Ó „¯È ˘‡ÚÂ (15 0-1,2–3) ‘AndJared had lived 162 years,’ in which ˘‡ÚÂ /wa- >å¡/ translatesHebrew imperfect ÈÁÈÂ (Gen 5:18); ÏÚ‚Â (15 2b,5) ‘And (he)put’ exhibits a Judeo-Arabic perfect verb, translating Hebrewimperfect following vav consecutive, Ì#ÈÂ (Gen 24:9); Ï‡ ÂÏÎ‡Â˙‡¯˜· (15 25a,8) ‘and the cows ate’ renders ˙Â¯Ù‰ ‰!ÏÎ‡˙Â

288

5 3Note that “the Hebrew imperfect” refers only to the grammatical form of theverb. The actual tense/aspect of the verb following vav consecutive is complexin biblical Hebrew. See Hatav 2004 and 2007, where she has convincinglyargued that biblical Hebrew verb forms do not encode tenses but only aspect andmodality.

(Gen 41:4).


(11-1.5) In Esther: As above, the ¡ar˙an has translated Hebrewimperfect following vav consecutive with the Judeo-Arabicperfect: È¯È˘„Ê‡ Ï‡ Ì‡ÈÈ‡ È¥ Ô‡ÎÂ (1302 1b,2) ‘and it came topass, in the days of Xerxes’ renders ˘Â¯Â˘Á‡ ÈÓÈ· È‰ÈÂ (Esth 1:1);Ô¡ÂÓÓ Ï‡˜Â (1302 1b,22) ‘and Memuchan said’ translates ¯Ó‡ÈÂ

ÔÎ‹ÓÓ (Esth 1:16); and ·È˙‡ÎÓ ÏÒ¯Â (1302 2a,9) ‘and he sentletters’ translates the Hebrew imperfect following vavconsecutive ÌÈ¯ÙÒ ÁÏ˘ÈÂ (Esth 1:22).(11-1.6) In the Haggadah as well, the ¡ar˙an has employedthe perfect to translate the Hebrew imperfect following vavconsecutive: ˜ÁˆÈ ‰Ï‡ ÂÏ ˙ËÚÂ (3 6,7–8) ‘and I gave him Isaac’renders ˜ÁˆÈ ˙‡ ÂÏ Ô˙‡Â; ¬‡!‰ ÔÓ ‡!‰‡Ï‡ ‰ÏÏ‡ ‰!‚¯¡‡Â (3 2,19–20)‘and the Eternal One, our God, has taken us out of there’translates Ì˘Ó Â!È‰Ï‡ ß‰ Â!‡ÈˆÂÈÂ; and ÔÈ¯¡‡ ˙‡‰‡Ï‡ Â„·ÚÂ (3 6,2-3)‘and they served other gods’ translates ÌÈ¯Á‡ ÌÈ‰¿‡ Â„·ÚÈÂ.

Conversely, the ¡ar˙an has employed the Judeo-Arabicimperfect to translate a Hebrew perfect that follows vavconsecutive:(11-1.7) In Genesis: ¬Á¯ËÓ ‰ÏÚ ¬Ú‚¯ÈÂ (15 24b,5) ‘and (he) willrestore your place’ translates the Hebrew Í!Î ÏÚ Í·È˘‰Â (Gen40:13); Ïƒ¥ ‰È‡ÚÓ Ô‡Ï‡ Ú!ˆ˙Â (15 24b,7) ‘and (you) will do mea favor’ renders the Hebrew „ÒÁ È„ÓÚ ‡! ˙È˘ÚÂ (Gen 40:14); and‰„‡‰ ˙È· Ï‡ ÔÓ È!‚¯¡˙Â (15 24b,8) ‘and (you) will get me out ofthis house’ translates the Hebrew ‰Ê‰ ˙È·‰ ÔÓ È!˙‡ˆÂ‰Â (Gen40:14). In all these examples the Hebrew is in the perfectfollowing a vav consecutive, and the Judeo-Arabic interpretivetranslation is in the imperfect.

Sometimes the interpretation is made clearer when the ¡ar˙an

289

5 4The noun ‚ÈÏ¡ ‘bay, canal’ translates the Hebrew ÂÁ‡ ‘reed grass.’ Wehrexplains that Z?OK?) was the “[n]ame of Cairo’s ancient city canal which was

abandoned and leveled at the end of the 19th century” (1994:293).

has used the colloquial imperfect prefix /bi-/: ‚ÈÏ¡ Ï‡ È¥ ÂÚ¯È·Â5 4

CHAPTER EIGHT

(15 25a,6) ‘and they graze in a grassy area in Cairo.’ Thisverse translates the Hebrew imperfect following vav consecutivein ÂÁ‡· ‰!ÈÚ¯˙Â (Gen 41:2).(11-1.8) In Esther: The following Judeo-Arabic verbs are inthe imperfect, rendering Hebrew perfects that succeed vavconsecutive: ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ¯Ó‡ ÚÓÒ!ÈÂ (1302 2a,7) ‘and the king’sorder is heard’ translates ÍÏÓ‰ Ì‚˙Ù ÚÓ˘!Â (Esth 1:20); ˘ÈÚÈÂ(1302 4a,4) ‘and may (he) live’ renders ‰ÈÁÂ (Esth 4:11); andÂ˘È·Ï‰Â ‘dressed up’ (Esth 6:9) is translated as the Judeo-Arabicimperfect ÂÒ·ÏÈÂ (1302 5a,5).(11-1.9) In the Haggadah: ‰ÈÏ‡ ÏÂ˜˙Â (3 5,4) ‘and you say tohim’ translates Hebrew ÂÈÏ‡ ˙¯Ó‡Â; ¬!·‡Ï ¯·¡˙Â (3 5,9) ‘and youshall tell your son’ translates Í!·Ï ˙„‚‰Â; and ÌÂ‰‡ÈÈ‡ Â¥!ÚÈÂ (36,17) ‘and they tortured them’ renders Ì˙Â‡ Â!ÚÂ.

At other times, regardless of vav consecutive, the ¡ar˙anhas changed the morphological verbal forms of Hebrew aspectsand tenses in the Judeo-Arabic in an interpretive manner. Forexample, a Hebrew /po>el/ participle may be translated intoJudeo-Arabic as an imperfect form, /yaf>al/. While the meaningof the verb may be similar in both languages, the morphologicalform differs and thus the translation is considered interpretive.(11-1.10) In Genesis: The ¡ar˙an has translated the Hebrewparticiple ÏÎ›‡ ‘eat’ (Gen 40:17) by the Judeo-Arabic imperfectform in an interpretive manner: ÌÂ‰‡È‡ ÏÂÎ‡È ̄ ÈË Ï‡Â (15 24b,13)‘and the birds are eating them.’ Furthermore, in ÌÏÁ ÔÂÚ¯¥Â (1525a,4) ‘and Pharaoh dreamed,’ the ¡ar˙an has also changed theHebrew participle ÌÏ›Á ‘dream’ (Gen 41:1) in the Judeo-Arabictranslation, but this time into a perfect form according to context.In another instance, the ¡ar˙an translated the biblical Hebrewparticiple ¯˙ÂÙ ‘interpreter’ as a Judeo-Arabic verbal noun: ÒÈÏÂÔÂÚ¯¥Ï ÌÂ‰‡È‡ ¯Èˆ¥˙ (15 25a,16–17) ‘and there is no interpretation

290

of them for Pharaoh.’


(11-1.11) In Esther: In ‡˘Ó˙È Ô‡Î È¡„¯Ó (1302 2b,8) ‘Mordecaiwas walking up and down,’ the ¡ar˙an translated the Hebrewparticiple ÍÏ‰˙Ó ‘walk about’ (Esth 2:11) using the Judeo-Arabicimperfect form, although semantically /kån yaf>al/ is pasthabitual. In the same way, the ¡ar˙an translated the Hebrewparticiple ÚÈ‚Ó ‘reach’ (Esth 4:3) using the Judeo-Arabicimperfect form ÏˆÁÈ Ô‡Î (1302 3b,13) ‘reach.’ Furthermore, theverb È‚˙ /tigi/ in ‰ÈÈ·ˆ Ï‡ È‚˙ ‡"‡‰·Â (1302 2b,11) ‘in this waythe girl would go’ is in the imperfect, although its Hebrewequivalent is in the perfect: ‰‡· ‰¯Ú!‰ ‰Ê·Â (Esth 2:13). Thesame holds true for the two imperfect verbs È‚˙ and Ú‚¯˙ inÚ‚¯˙ ‡ÈÈ‰ Á·ˆ Ï‡ È¥Â È‚˙ ‡ÈÈ‰ ·¯µÓ Ï‡¥ (1302 2b,12) ‘She wouldgo in the evening and in the morning she would return,’ whichtranslate the two perfect Hebrew verbs in ‡È‰ ¯˜··Â ‰‡· ‡È‰ ·¯Ú·

‰·˘ (Esth 2:14). In the same way, the colloquial imperfectmorphological form /ban#ur/ in È„Â‰È Ï‡ È¡„¯Ó ‡Ï‡ ¯$!‡· È"Ï‡(1302 4b,10) ‘as long as I see Mordecai, the Jew’ translatesthe Hebrew participle ‰‡] (Esth 5:13).(11-1.12) In the Haggadah: ÔÏÈ‡˜ /qaylan/ (3 5,10) ‘saying’ isan interpretive translation of the Hebrew ¯Ó‡Ï, since it doesnot use the Hebrew infinitive construct. Instead, this form is aparticiple in accordance with regular Judeo-Arabic style. In‰Â·‡ ÚÈÈƒ ÈÏÓ¯‡ (3 7,10) ‘An Aramean would have destroyedhis father,’ the ¡ar˙an translated the participle „·›‡ as the Judeo-Arabic perfect ÚÈÈƒ. Conversely, in ˙·‡! ¬¯Ú˘Â (3 8,14–15)‘and your hair is grown,’ the ¡ar˙an translated the perfect ÁÕnœ̂

as the Judeo-Arabic participle ˙·‡! in an interpretive mode.

L/I: (11-1.13) The translation ÔÈÒÓµÓ (3 2,11) ‘dip’ is equivalent tothe Hebrew participle ÔÈÏ·ËÓ in a literal translation; however, inÂÒÓµ! (93 13,2) ‘(we) dip,’ the verb is in the imperfect, more inline with regular Arabic usage and thus in the interpretive

291

mode. Similarly, the participle ÔÈÏÎ‡Â (3 2,12) ‘have eaten’ is

CHAPTER EIGHT

equivalent to the Hebrew participle ÔÈÏÎÂ‡ in a literal translation.5 5

However, other manuscripts use the colloquial imperfect formÂÏÎ‡! (91 8b,1; 93 13,4) ‘we eat’ in an interpretive mode.Likewise, the Judeo-Arabic participle ¯˙ÎÓ /mukattar/ in ÏÎÂÈÎÁÈÏ ¯˙ÎÓ Ï‡ (3 3,6–7) ‘and all who tell at length’ literallytranslates the Hebrew participle ‰·¯Ó, whereas in other manu-scripts the more common Judeo-Arabic imperfect ¯˙ÎÈ occursin an interpretive mode: ÈÎÁÈÏ ¯˙ÎÈ È"Ï‡ ÏÎÂ (74 1,14; 93 14,7).(11-1.14) The translation of the Hebrew participles in theHaggadah further exhibits the literal/interpretive linguistictension. The Hebrew participle „ÓÏÓ is translated literally bythe Judeo-Arabic participle ÌÏÚ˙!Ó5 6 (93 21,13; 22,8), but inother manuscripts, it is translated by the perfect ÌÏÚ˙‡ (37,15; 8,6) and the colloquial bi-imperfect ‰!ÓÏÚÈ· (91 4b,2) and‡!ÓÈÏÚÈ· (91 4b,10). Further in the Haggadah, the perfect‰!ˆÏ¡ ‘delivered us’ appears in ÌÂ‰„È ÔÓ ‰!ˆÏ¡ ‡Â‰ (3 7,5) ‘Hedelivered us from their hands,’ differing from the Hebrewparticiple Â!ÏÈˆÓ in an interpretive mode. However, in 93 20,13–14 a similar participle in the Judeo-Arabic appears in aliteral translation, ÌÂ‰„È ÔÓ ‡!ˆÏ¡Ó ‡Â‰.(11-1.15) The literal/interpretive tension is also manifest inperfect and imperfect verbs in the Haggadah. The ¡ar˙aninterpretively translated the Hebrew imperfect Â„·ÚÈ by a Judeo-Arabic perfect: ÂÓ„¡‡ (3 6,18) ‘(they) served.’ However, in

292

5 5Note that the literal translation is a reflection of morphology only. Semanti-cally, the participle ÔÈÏÎ‡Â /wakl•n/ signifies present perfect: ‘have eaten.’

5 6This verb is unclear to me. It appears at the end of line 13 in 93 21 asÏÚ˙!Ó, so I assumed a final mem at the end, as if it had been cut off at the end ofthe line by some physical fault in the manuscript. The resulting verb ÌÏÚ˙!Ó isstrange, with its combination of verbal forms VII and VIII. It is difficult toassume ÏÚ˙!Ó ‘cursed,’ as it does not fit the context. In any case, for ourpurposes here, I treat the verb as a participle. Furthermore, the appearance ofÌÏÚ˙!Ó here becomes clearer later in the manuscript (93 22,8).

other manuscripts he preserved the imperfect in a literal

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL: MOOD

translation: ÂÓ„¡È (91 3a,11) and ÂÓ„¡˙ÒÈ (93 20,6) ‘(they) shallserve.’

MoodFeature 11-2 — MoodLit.: It is common to see the perfect succeed the negation particle

ÌÏ /lam/ in the ¡ar˙,5 7 whereas the imperfect jussive mood isexpected in regular Arabic use. One of the reasons for thisphenomenon in the ¡ur¥˙ could be the adherence to the Hebrewperfect verb. On the other hand, one must consider thepossibility of colloquial use here.5 8

(11-2.1) In Genesis: ¯¡‡˙‡ ÌÏ (15 18a,7) ‘(he) was not late’translates the Hebrew ¯ÃÁÕ‡ ‡Ï (Gen 34:19); Â˘¯Î ÌÏ (15 19a,1)‘(they) did not drive away’ translates the Hebrew ÂÙ„¯ ‡Ï (Gen35:5); and ˙¯„˜ ÌÏ (15 20a,9) ‘(it) was not able’ translates theHebrew ‰ÏÎÈ ‡Ï (Gen 36:7).(11-2.2) In Esther: ˙ÏÓÚ ÌÏ (1302 1b,22) ‘(she) did not do’translates the Hebrew ‰˙˘Ú ‡Ï (Esth 1:15); ˙˙‡‚ ÌÏ (13022a,3) ‘(she) did not come’ translates the Hebrew ‰‡· ‡Ï (Esth1:17); and ˙¯·¡ ÌÏ (1302 2b,10) ‘(she) did not inform’ translatesthe Hebrew ‰„È‚‰ ‡Ï (Esth 2:10).(11-2.3) In the Haggadah: Ô‡Î ÌÏ (91 2b,5) ‘(he) was not’translates the Hebrew ‰È‰ ‡Ï; ‰!‚¯¡‡ ÌÏ (3 3,1–2) ‘(he) did notdeliver us’ translates the Hebrew ‡ÈˆÂ‰ ‡Ï , although in anothermanuscript the ¡ar˙an has kept the perfect but used the negationparticle /la/: ‚¯¡‡ ‡Ï (93 14,2–3) ‘(he) did not deliver’; and ÌÏ˙ÈÎÊ (3 3,19) ‘(I) did not understand’ translates È˙ÈÎÊ ‡Ï.

At the same time, the ¡ar˙an quite infrequently has also

293

5 7This is a common phenomenon in Later Egyptian Judeo-Arabic. See chapter4, pp. 93–95 and p. 126, 3.3.3, and chapter 5, 141–43, as well as Hary1992:294–95, 2007:276–77. See also pp. 215–17, 4-2.1, earlier in this chapter.

5 8See the analysis in chapter 4, pp. 94–95 and p. 126, 3.3.3.

employed the imperfect, following ÌÏ /lam/ in adherence to the

CHAPTER EIGHT

Hebrew original, although this feature may also reflect colloquialEgyptian use. This is done to indicate either a negated imperfector a negated imperative (see above pp. 217–18, 4-2.3).(11-2.4) In Genesis: Â·¯ƒ! ÌÏ (15 22a,13) ‘(we) will not hithim’ translates the Hebrew Â!Î! ‡Ï (Gen 37:21), and ¥¯Ú!È ÌÏ(15 26a,10) ‘will not be known’ translates the Hebrew ÚB+eÈ ‡Ï

(Gen 41:31).(11-2.5) In Esther: ¯ÈÈµ˙È ÌÏ (1302 2a,5) ‘(it) will not change’translates the Hebrew ¯Â·ÚÈ ‡Ï (Esth 1:19); È‚˙ ÌÏ (1302 2a,5)‘(she) will not come’ translates the Hebrew ‡Â·˙ ‡Ï (Esth 1:19);and ¯·¡˙ ÌÏ (1302 2b,7) ‘(she) will not say’ translates theHebrew „È‚˙ ‡Ï (Esth 2:10). The phrase Â·¯˘˙ ÌÏÂ ÂÏÎ‡˙ ÌÏÂ(1302 4a,10) ‘and do not eat and do not drink’ translates theHebrew imperative Â˙˘˙ Ï‡Â ÂÏÎ‡˙ Ï‡Â (Esth 4:16).(11-2.6) In the Haggadah: ¥¯ÚÈ ÌÏ (74 2,9) ‘(he) does notknow’ translates the Hebrew Ú„ÂÈ Â!È‡; ‰!Ï ı˜!È ÌÏ (93 58,2)‘(we) will not lack’ translates the Hebrew imperative ¯ÒÁÈ Ï‡

Â!Ï; and ‰!‚ÈÂÁ˙ ÌÏ (93 59,6) ‘do not make us need’ translatesthe Hebrew imperative Â!ÎÈ¯ˆ˙ Ï‡.

Int.: It is more uncommon for the ¡ar˙an to employ the imperfectafter ÌÏ /lam/ as is expected in standard Arabic (although in thejussive mood), even when the Hebrew original is in the perfect.This can also be in line with the possible colloquial Judeo-Arabicuse of /lam/ in Egyptian Arabic.5 9

(11-2.7) In Genesis: The ¡ar˙an has used the imperfect in the¡ar˙, although in the Hebrew original the perfect is used: ÌÏ¬ÂÒÓÏ! (15 7a,9) ‘(we) did not touch you’ translates the Hebrew

294

5 9See chapter 4, pp. 94–95, and Rosenbaum 2002a:588–95.6 0It is possible, however, that the ¡ar˙an has mistakenly interpreted the

Hebrew ÍÂ!Ú‚! as if it were in the imperfect, because of the initial nun which canbe confused with the imperfect first plural nun prefix.

ÍÂ!Ú‚! ‡Ï (Gen 26:29);6 0 Â¯„˜È ÌÏ (15 21b,7) ‘(they) were not

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL: PASSIVE

able’ translates the Hebrew ÂÏÎÈ ‡Ï (Gen 37:4); and Â·È‚‡ ÌÏ (1529a,7) ‘I did not bring him’ translates the Hebrew ÂÈ˙Â‡È·‰ ‡Ï

(Gen 43:9).(11-2.8) In the Haggadah: ÏÂ˜È ÌÏ (3 17,18) ‘(he) did not say’translates the Hebrew ¯Ó‡ ‡Ï, and ‚Â¯¡È ÌÏ (3 17,19) ‘(he) didnot come out’ renders the Hebrew ‡ˆÈ ‡Ï with its perfect form.

Voice: PassiveFeature 11-3 — Voice: passiveLit.: There are many instances where the ¡ar˙an has used the Judeo-

Arabic passive, usually by employing verbal form VII, infa>al(see chapter 4, pp. 118–19, 2.2.4) to render literally the Hebrewpassive equivalent.(11-3.1) In Genesis: The following are Judeo-Arabic passiveforms: Ô¥„!‡ /indafan/ in Ì‰¯·‡ Ô¥„!‡ ¬‡!‰ (15 5a,4) ‘thereAbraham was buried’ translates the Hebrew ¯·R (Gen 25:10);ÂÚÓ‚!È /yangami>u/ in Ô‡ÚËÂ˜ Ï‡ ÏÂÎ ÂÚÓ‚!È (15 10b,1) ‘all theflocks will be gathered’ translates Hebrew ÂÙÒÀ‡"È (Gen 29:8);and Ú!ˆ!È /yanßani>/ in ‰!Á¯ËÓ È¥ Ú!ˆ!È ÌÏ (15 11a,6–7) ‘(it) willnot be done in our place’ renders ‰ À̆Ú"È (Gen 29:26).(11-3.2) In Esther: The passive ·˙Î!È /yinkitib/ renders verbatimin È„ÓÂ Ò¯Ù ÚÈ‡¯˘ È¥ ·˙Î!ÈÂ (1302 2a,5) ‘let it be written in thelaws of Persia and Media’ its Hebrew equivalent in È˙„· ·˙ÀkÈÂ

È„ÓÂ Ò¯Ù (Esth 1:19). Similar are the following passive forms:ÌÎÁ!‡ /in˙akam/ in ‡‰ÈÏÚ ÌÎÁ!‡ È"Ï‡Â (1302 2a,12) ‘and whathad been decreed against her,’ translating ¯Ê‚! (Esth 2:1) andÚÓÒ!‡ /insama>/ in ¬ÏÓ Ï‡ ¯Ó‡ ÚÓÒ!‡ ‡ÓÏ (1302 2b,3) ‘Whenthe king’s order was heard,’ rendering ÚÓ,̆ œ‰· (Esth 2:8).(11-3.3) In the Haggadah: Ï‡˜!˙ /tin<ål/ in ‚Â¯¡ È¥ Ï‡˜!˙ È"Ï‡¯ˆÓ (74 2,2–3) ‘that the exodus from Egypt will be told’ and¬¥!È‡ /infakk/ in ¬¥!È‡ Ô‡Î ÌÏ (91 2b,5) ‘had not been redeemed’are both passive forms that render literally the Hebrew passive

295

forms ¯ÓÀ‡-z and Ï‡‚! respectively.

CHAPTER EIGHT

The ¡ar˙an has also used other forms to translate the Hebrewpassive, including the itfa>al form, passive participle, and more:(11-3.4) In Genesis, using the form itfa>al: ‡!‰ ÂÚÓ‚˙‡Â (1510a,13) ‘and (they) were gathered here’ translates ‰Ó˘ ÂÙÒ‡!Â

(Gen 29:3); ¯‡Ó˙Ï ¯·¡˙‡Â (15 23a,15–16) ‘and Tamar wastold’ translates ¯Ó˙Ï „‚ 'ÈÂ (Gen 38:13); and Â‰‚Â ÔÓ ÂÏ‰·˙‡ (1531b,9) ‘(they) were scared of his face’ renders ÂÈ!ÙÓ ÂÏ‰·! (Gen45:3). In ·ˆË!Ó ÌÏÒ ‰„ÂÂ‰Â (15 9b,9) ‘and here a ladder is set,’the ¡ar˙an has used a passive participle to translate ÌÏÒ ‰!‰Â

· ‹̂Ó (Gen 28:12).(11-3.5) In Esther, using the form itfa>al: ÌÈÏ˘Â¯È ÔÓ ˙˙˘˙‡(1302 2a,18) ‘(he) was exiled from Jerusalem’ translates ‰Ï‚À‰

ÌÈÏ˘Â¯ÈÓ (Esth 2:5); ‡ÏÓ˙‡ (1302 3a,10; 4b,5) ‘(he) was filled’renders ‡ÏÀÓÈ (Esth 3:5; 5:9); and Â‰„!˙‡ (1302 3b,1) ‘(they)were called’ translates Â‡ .̄J$È (Esth 3:12). The ¡ar˙an has alsoused the passive participle: „ÿ̄ ¥ÓÂ ÿ̇̇ ˘Ó (1302 3a,15) ‘scatteredand dispersed’ renders „¯ÙÓÂ ¯Ê‹ÙÓ (Esth 3:8). Furthermore, inthe following verse it is possible that the Judeo-Arabic internalpassive, an unusual feature in the religiolect, is employed:Ì‡ÈÈ‡ Ï‡ ¯‡·¡‡ ·‡˙Î È¥ ·˙Î‡Â ‰·˘¡ Ï‡ ‡ÏÚ ÌÂ‰!È!˙‡ Â·Ïˆ‡Â(1302 3a,2–3) ‘and the two of them were hanged on a stakeand it was recorded in the book of the history of days,’ translatingverbatim the two Hebrew passive verbs ÂÏ,zÈÂ and ·˙ÀkÈÂ (Esth2:23).(11-3.6) In the Haggadah, using the form itfa>al: ˙Ï˙Ó‡ /imtalit/in ÌÂ‰!Ó #¯‡ Ï‡ ˙Ï˙Ó‡Â (3 8,9–10) ‘and the land was filledwith them’ translates Hebrew ‡ÏÀn!z. The passive participle·ÂˆµÓ /ma\ß¥b/ in ˜Ï‡¡ Ï‡ ÏÂ˜ ‰ÏÚ ·ÂˆµÓ (3 7,14) ‘compelledby the word of the creator’ renders literally the Hebrew ÒÂ!‡.

Int.: On the other hand, at times the ¡ar˙an has chosen not totranslate a Hebrew passive by a Judeo-Arabic passive for inter-

296

pretive or stylistic reasons. The following are some examples.

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL: PASSIVE

(11-3.7) In Genesis: In ¬Ï ˙·È‚ È"Ï‡ È˙Î¯· ‰Ï‡ Ô‡Ï‡ „Â¡ (1517a,3) ‘take now my blessing which (I) brought to you,’ the¡ar˙an has used the active verb ˙·È‚ /gibt/ ‘(I) brought’ totranslate the Hebrew passive in ÍÏ ˙‡À·‹‰ ¯˘‡ È˙Î¯· ˙‡ ‡! Á˜

‘please accept my gift which has been brought to you’ (Gen33:11).(11-3.8) In Esther: The Hebrew passive verb ‰‡¯˜! ‘(she) wassummoned’ (Esth 2:14) is not rendered as passive in the Judeo-Arabic ¡ar˙, ÌÒ‡· ‡‰‰„!ÈÂ (1302 2b,14) ‘and (he) calls her byname.’(11-3.9) In the Haggadah: In many places the ¡ar˙an hastranslated the Hebrew passive ¯Ó‡!˘ ‰ÓÎ ‘as it was said’ intoJudeo-Arabic active voice, for example in ˜ÂÒÙ Ï‡ Ï‡˜ ‡ÓÎ (38,2) ‘as the verse said.’

The ¡ar˙an infrequently has chosen to employ the Judeo-Arabic passive, although the Hebrew original does not have it:(11-3.10) In Genesis: The ¡ar˙an has employed the form VIIverbal pattern infa>al in È¯·!˙Â (15 2b,4) ‘(you) are exonerated’to translate the Hebrew active ˙È˜!Â ‘(you) will be clear’ (Gen24:8).(11-3.11) In Esther: The use of the Judeo-Arabic passive /yuf>al/‘will be done’ in È˙˘Â ‰ÎÏÓ Ï‡ È¥ ÏÚ¥ÂÈ ‡"‡Ó (1302 1b,21–22)‘what will be done with Queen Vashti’ is interpretive, as ittranslates a Hebrew infinitive construct in È˙˘Â ‰ÎÏÓ· ˙Â˘ÚÏ ‰Ó

(Esth 1:15).(11-3.12) In the Haggadah, the passive verb Â·¯ƒ!‡ /in"arabu/in ¯ˆÓ È¥ ÔÈÈ¯ˆÓ Ï‡ Â·¯ƒ!‡ (3 14,6) ‘The Egyptians were smittenin Egypt’ translates the Hebrew active verb Â˜Ï ‘(they) suffered.’Similar is ¯ÂÂ„!‡ /indawwar/ (3 20,15) ‘(it) was turned,’ translatingthe Hebrew active verb ·›Ò$È.

297

L/I: (11-3.13) The ¡ar˙an has employed the active verb Â¥ÈÏ¡

CHAPTER EIGHT

/xallifu/6 1 in ÌÂ‰Ï Â¥ÈÏ¡ ˙‡!·Â (15 0-1,19) ‘and they begot daughtersfor themselves’ in an interpretive mode, although the Hebrewcontains a passive verb Ì‰Ï Â„Ï 'È ˙Â!·Â ‘and daughters were bornto them’ (Gen 6:1). On the other hand, in later occurrences the¡ar˙an, in a verbatim translation, has translated the Hebrewpassive ‰„Ï 'È ‘was born’ (Gen 24:15) with the Judeo-Arabicpassive ˙„ÏÂÂ˙‡ (15 2b,15), and he has rendered the Hebrewpassive „Ï 'È in ÌÈ!· È!˘ „Ï'È ÛÒÂÈÏÂ (Gen 41:50) with the Judeo-Arabicpassive ¥Ï¡˙‡ in „‡ÏÂÂ‡ ÔÈ!˙‡ ¥Ï¡˙‡ ¥ÒÂÈÏÂ (15 26b,20) ‘andtwo children were born to Joseph.’(11-3.14) The ¡ar˙an has translated the Hebrew passive ¯ÓÀ‡-z

in ÌÈ¯ˆÓ ˙‡ÈˆÈ ¯ÓÀ‡ -z˘ È˙ÈÎÊ ‡ÏÂ into Ï‡˜!˙ in Ï‡˜!˙ Ô‡ ˙ÈƒÁ ÌÏÂ¯ˆÓ ‚Â¯¡ (93 15,11) ‘I did not understand why the exodus fromEgypt is recited’ in a verbatim manner (see 11-3.3); however,in another manuscript he has employed the active verb ˙ÈÎÊ inan interpretive mode: ¯ˆÓ ‚Â¯¡ È¥ ÏÂ˜‡Ï ˙ÈÎÊ ÌÏÂ (3 3,19) ‘I didnot make it to tell about the exodus from Egypt.’(11-3.15) The Hebrew ‡Â‰ Ì‚ ÛÒÂ!Â is translated into passiveverbal form VII infa>al to render verbatim the Hebrew nif>al,‡Â‰ Ô‡ÓÎ „‡Ê!ÈÂ (3 9,4) ‘will also be joined.’ In other manuscripts,though, the ¡ar˙an has preferred to use an active verb in amore interpretive manner, ‡ÂÂ‰ Ô‡ÓÎ „ÈÊÈÈÂØ„ÈÊÈÂ (91 5a,3; 9323,9) ‘he will also join.’(11-3.16) The Hebrew passive participle ·Â˙Î ‘is written’ istranslated verbatim by the Judeo-Arabic passive participle·Â˙ÎÓ (93 79,4) ‘is written,’ but Hebrew ¯Ó‡!˘ is rendered bythe Judeo-Arabic active voice, ˜ÂÒÙ Ï‡ Ï‡˜ ‡ÓÎ (93 79,1) ‘asthe verse said.’

298

6 1Of course there is a slight possibility that Â¥ÈÏ¡Â should be read as thepassive /wa-xullifu/; however, the vowel /u/ is usually marked in Later EgyptianJudeo-Arabic, and previous examples in the ¡ar˙ indicate the reading /xallifu/.

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL: NUMERALS

Numerals with Counted NounsLevel: Morphosyntactic; Category 12: NumeralsFeature 12-1 — With counted nouns

Lit.: The number ÔÈ!˙‡ /itn!n/ ‘two’ can accompany the countednoun, replacing a dual form and imitating Hebrew structure(see above p. 274, 10-1.1). This, of course, can also reflectspoken Egyptian Judeo-Arabic usage (chapter 4, p. 129, 3.8.1).(12-1.1) In Genesis: ·ÂÚ˘ ÔÈ!˙‡ (15 5b,6) ‘two nations’ rendersÌÈÈ &‚ È!˘ (Gen 25:23); ÌÓÂ‡Ï ÔÈ!˙‡ (15 5b,6) ‘two peoples’translates ÌÈÓ‹‡Ï È!˘ (Gen 25:23); ÊÚ‡Ó Ô‡È„‚ ÔÈ!˙‡ (15 7b,10)‘two kids’ translates ÌÈÊÚ ÈÈ„‚ È!˘ (Gen 27:9); and ˙‡ËÁÓ ÔÈ!˙‡Ï(15 15b,7) ‘for two camps’ renders ˙Â!ÁÓ È!˘Ï (Gen 32:8).(12-1.2) In Esther: È˘‡ÂË ÔÈ!˙‡ (1302 2b,23; 4b,15) ‘twoeunuchs’ translates ÍÏÓ‰ ÈÒÈ¯Ò È!˘ (Esth 2:21).(12-1.3) In the Haggadah: ·Â·ÁÓ ÔÈ!˙‡· (93 83,4) ‘for twogold pounds’ renders Aramaicized Hebrew ÈÊÂÊ È¯˙· . The phrase˙Â¡¯· ÔÈ!˙‡ (3 22,4) ‘two blessings’ appears in the instructionsto the Passover leader. This could indicate a verbatim translation,but it could also reflect colloquial Egyptian Judeo-Arabic use.

There are other instances where the counted nouns followverbatim the Hebrew original and not regular Arabic structure:(12-1.4) ÌÂ‰˙‡¯·ÂÎ ¯˘Ú ÔÈ!˙‡ (15 5a, 13) ‘twelve of their chiefs,’where the counted noun is in the plural following the Hebrewplural Ìœ‡È˘! ‘chieftains’ (Gen 25:16). In regular Arabic structure,a singular counted noun following the number ‘twelve’ isexpected. The same applies to Â„‡ÏÂ ¯˘Ú „Á‡Â (15 16a,13) ‘andhis eleven children,’ translating ÂÈ„ÏÈ ¯˘Ú „Á‡ ˙‡Â (Gen 32:23)and to ¬„È·Ú ¯˘Ú È! «˙‡ (15 27b,8) ‘twelve of your servants,’rendering ÍÈ„·Ú ¯˘Ú ÌÈ!˘ (Gen 42:13) (chapter 4, p. 130, 3.8.3).

At times the counted noun is in agreement with the Hebreworiginal in a literal translation, but at the same time it also

299

adheres to standard Arabic structure:

CHAPTER EIGHT

(12-1.5) In Genesis the following nouns appear in the singular,following verbatim the Hebrew original, but also adhering tostandard Arabic use: ‰ƒ¥ ‘a piece of silver’ in ‰ƒ¥ ÔÈ¯˘Ú· (1522b,6–7) ‘for twenty pieces of silver’ translates ÛÒÎ ÌÈ¯˘Ú·

(Gen 37:28); ‰!Ò ‘year’ in ‰!Ò ˙È‡Ó!Ó˙ (15 0-1,3–4) ‘eighthundred years’ and in ‰!Ò ÔÈ˙Ò (15 5b,12) ‘sixty years’ renders‰!˘ ˙Â‡Ó ‰!›Ó˘ (Gen 5:19) and ‰!˘ ÌÈ˘˘ (Gen 25:26) respectively.(12-1.6) In Esther: In ‰ƒ¥ Ï‡˜˙Ó ¥‡Ï‡ ˙¯˘ÚÂ (1302 3a,17)‘and ten thousand miskals [a type of weight] of silver,’ whichtranslates Hebrew ÛÒÎ ¯ÎÎ ÌÈÙÏ‡ ˙¯˘ÚÂ ‘and ten thousand talentsof silver’ (Esth 3:9), both in Hebrew and in Judeo-Arabic thefirst counted noun is in the plural and the second in the singular;the counted noun „‡ÏÂ‡ ‘children’ in ÔÓ‰ „‡ÏÂ‡ ˙¯˘Ú (13027a,1) ‘the ten sons of Haman’ is plural in both the ¡ar˙ andthe Hebrew original ÔÓ‰ È!· ˙¯˘Ú (Esth 9:10). Similar are thecounted nouns in the following two examples: ˙Ú·ÒÂ ˙È‡Ó‰!È„Ó ÔÈ¯˘ÚÂ (1302 1b,3) ‘one hundred and twenty-seven prov-inces,’ translating ‰!È„Ó ‰‡ÓÂ ÌÈ¯˘ÚÂ Ú·˘ (Esth 1:1), and ˙ÈÈÓÌÂÈ ÔÈ!‡Ó˙Â (1302 1b,6) ‘one hundred and eighty days,’ renderingÌÂÈ ˙‡ÓÂ ÌÈ!ÂÓ˘ (Esth 1:4).(12-1.7) In the Haggadah: the counted nouns ˙‡·¯ƒ ‘plagues’and ˙‡ÓÏÎ ‘words’ are plural in both the ¡ar˙ and the Hebrew:˙‡·¯ƒ ¯˘Ú (3 13,14; 3 14,7) ‘ten plagues’; ˙‡·¯ƒ ÒÓ¡ (315,11) ‘five plagues’; ˙‡ÓÏÎ ˙‡Ï˙ (3 17,18–19) ‘three words’;the counted noun ‰!Ò ‘year’ is singular in both the ¡ar˙ andthe Hebrew original: ‰!Ò ÔÈÚ·Ò (3 3,19) ‘seventy years.’

Rarely does the word order of the counted noun follow thenonstandard Hebrew original in a literal translation, where thecounted noun precedes the numeral:(12-1.8) In Genesis: ÔÈ˙È‡Ó ˙‡‚Ú! ÔÈ¯˘Ú ‰ÒÈÈ˙Â ÔÈ˙È‡Ó ÊÚ‡ÓÔÈ¯˘Ú Ô‡¥¯¡Â (15 15b,18–19) ‘two hundred she-goats and twenty

300

he-goats, two hundred ewes and twenty rams’ translates ÌÈÊÚ

THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC LEVEL: NUMERALS

ÌÈ¯˘Ú ÌÈÏÈ‡Â ÌÈ˙‡Ó ÌÈÏÁ¯ ÌÈ¯˘Ú ÌÈ˘È˙Â ÌÈ˙‡Ó (Gen 32:15); Ô‡¯˙‰¯˘Ú ˘ÂÁ!Â ÔÈ¯˘Ú ¯È‡ÓÁ ‰¯˘Ú ¯˜·Â ÔÈÚ·¯‡ (15 15b,19–20) ‘fortycows and ten bulls, twenty she-asses and ten he-asses’ renders‰¯˘Ú ÌXÈÚÂ ÌÈ¯˘Ú ˙ &! &˙‡ ‰¯˘Ú ÌÈ¯ÙÂ ÌÈÚ·¯‡ ˙Â¯Ù (Gen 32:16); and‰¯˘Ú ¥ÒÂÈ Ô‡ÂÂ¡‡ (15 27a,15) ‘ten of Joseph’s brothers,’ translates‰¯˘Ú ÛÒÂÈ ÈÁ‡ (Gen 42:3) (see also below, p. 302, 12-.1.11).

At times the structure of the numeral does not follow Arabicstructure, but rather imitates the Hebrew original in a verbatimtranslation:(12-1.9) In Genesis: The numeral in Ï‡Ó‚ ‰¯˘Ú (15 2b,6) ‘tencamels’ follows the Hebrew ÌÈÏÓ‚ ‰¯˘Ú (Gen 24:10), whereas inregular Arabic usage an i!åfa construction of the numeral withthe counted noun is expected, />a¡árat gimål/. The same is trueof the phrase ·‰„ ‰¯˘Ú (15 3a,5–6) ‘ten (pieces of) gold,’which follows verbatim the Hebrew ·‰Ê ‰¯˘Ú (Gen 24:22) interms of both the absolute form of the number ‘ten,’ as in theprevious example, and the number of the counted noun, whichis singular in the Judeo-Arabic translation, just like the Hebrew.(12-1.10) In the Haggadah: ı‡¡˘‡ Ú·¯‡ (3 4,8) ‘four sons’appears, but in two other manuscripts the i!åfa rule is preserved:ı‡¡˘‡ ˙Ú·¯‡ (74 2,8) and ı¡˘‡ ˙Ú·¯‡ (93 16,5–7).

Int.: At times the ¡ar˙an chose to follow regular Arabic structurewhen using the singular counted noun, instead of imitating theHebrew original:(12-1.11) In Genesis: ÔÈ¯˘Ú Ô‡¥¯¡Â … ÔÈ¯˘Ú ‰ÒÈÈ˙Â ÔÈ˙È‡Ó ÊÚ‡Ó(15 15b,18–19) ‘two hundred she-goat and twenty he-goats …and twenty rams’ translates the Hebrew ÌÈ¯˘Ú ÌÈ˘È˙Â ÌÈ˙‡Ó ÌÈÊÚ

ÌÈ¯˘Ú ÌÈÏÈ‡Â … (Gen 32:15). In this example the Judeo-Arabiccounted nouns are in the singular, following regular Arabicstructure, whereas the equivalent Hebrew counted nouns are inthe plural (for the literal replication of word order, see 12-1.8).

301

(12-1.12) In the Haggadah: ‰·¯ƒ ÔÈÒÓ¡ (3 14,7-8) ‘fifty plagues’;

CHAPTER EIGHT

‰·¯ƒ ÔÈÚ·¯‡ (3 15,6) ‘forty plagues’; and ‰·¯ƒ ÔÈ˙È‡Ó (3 15,7)‘two hundred plagues,’ where the noun ‰·¯ƒ ‘plague’ is singular,while the equivalent Hebrew ˙ÂÎÓ ‘plagues’ is plural.

Some counted nouns reflect dialectal use in an interpretivetranslation:(12-1.13) In Genesis: The counted noun in ÔÈ!Ò ÔÈ˙Ï˙Â ‰È‡Ó!Ó˙(15 0-1,1) ‘eight hundred and thirty years’ is in the plural,whereas the Hebrew counted noun is in the singular: ‰!˘ ÌÈ˘¿˘

‰!˘ ‰!›Ó˘Â (Gen 5:16) (see chapter 4, p. 130, 3.8.3).

L/I: (12-1.14) As seen above (12-1.11–12-1.12), sometimes thecounted noun follows regular Arabic structure and not theHebrew original, as is the case with the Judeo-Arabic singular·ÎÂÎ ‘star’ in the verse ‰ÈÏ ÔÈ„‚‡Ò ·ÎÂÎ ¯˘Ú „Á‡ÂÂ (15 21b,16–17)‘and eleven stars were bowing down to me’ (unlike 12-1.4 onpp. 299–300). The singular Judeo-Arabic ·ÎÂÎ ‘star’ translatesthe original Hebrew plural ÌÈ·ÎÂÎ ‘stars’ in ÌÈ·ÎÂÎ ¯˘Ú „Á‡Â

ÈÏ ÌÈÂÁ˙˘Ó (Gen 37:9), interpretively following Classical Arabicstructure. However, the participle ÔÈ„‚‡Ò ‘bowing down’ thatfollows the counted noun is in the plural, imitating the Hebrew

302

plural participle ÌÈÂÁ˙˘Ó ‘bowing down’ in a verbatim manner.

CHAPTER NINE

THE SEGMENT LEVEL

Following the path of inquiry in the last two chapters, this chapteranalyzes the ¡ur¥˙ of Genesis, Esther, and the Passover Haggadah,scanning selected examples through the segmental level and followingthe model presented in table 4 of chapter 3 (pp. 81–82). This chapteremphasizes Judeo-Arabic orthography and phonetics/phonology andthe connection between them.1 As mentioned in chapter 4 (pp. 96–99),Judeo-Arabic orthography ought to be considered cautiously whenreconstructing phonetic and phonological structure. When the orthog-raphy, however, is supported by additional evidence, phonetic andphonological features can be established with greater certainty. Manyof the examples presented in this chapter are connected to the Hebraizedorthography (Hary 1991a:124, 1996c:732), where Hebrew influencedJudeo-Arabic orthography in the late periods of the religiolect. TheHebrew influence on the orthography reflects a tendency toward literaltranslation, because the Judeo-Arabic Hebraized orthography is closelyassociated with the Hebrew sacred texts. Conversely, the featuresdiscussed in this chapter are also connected to spoken Egyptian Judeo-Arabic elements. By adhering more to the colloquial, the ¡ar˙an hasturned to the interpretive mode, and he has done so in order to makethe translated sacred texts more comprehensible to his readers.

1 I have discussed the connection between Judeo-Arabic orthography andphonetics/phonology in chapter 4, pp. 96–99, as well as in Hary 1990, 1991a,1996b, and elsewhere.

CHAPTER NINE

Note that throughout the chapter, phonemic transcription appears,as is customary, between slashes / / and allophonic transcription betweensquare brackets [ ] (see above, p. xix).

AssimilationLevel: Segment; Category 13: Orthography/PhonologyFeature 13-1 — AssimilationInt.: The following is evidence in the texts of the ¡ur¥˙ that assimilation

processes have occurred. This can be seen as a sign of an inter-pretive translation process, whereby the ¡ar˙an representedcolloquial use in the texts.(13-1.1) In Genesis partial assimilation occurs in ÏÂ¡˙˙ /titxul/(15 36b,7) ‘enter’ as devoicing /d/ > /t/ (see p. 107, 1.10.1).(13-1.2) In Esther the verb /xammim/ ‘imagine’ may reflect afull assimilation process [n] > [m] in the Arabic verb /xammin/in ¬Ò¥! È¥ ÈÓÓ¡˙ ‡Ï (1302 4a,6) ‘do not imagine in your soul.’2

L/I: (13-1.3) In Genesis the regressive voicing shift /x/ > [\] mayoccur at times: Ì‡ÊÂµ Ï‡ /il-\!uzåm/ (15 3a,14; 4a,2) ‘the nosering.’ This can be seen as a voicing assimilation in the environmentof the voiced [z], compared to the literary form /xuzåm/, althoughÌ‡ÊÂ¡ /xuzåm/ (15 3a,5) and ‰ÓÊ¡‡ Ï‡ /il-axzima/ (15 18b,19),without the assimilation, occur in the text as well.(13-1.4) The opposite regressive devoicing shift also appears:/\/ > [x]. This can be seen as a voicing assimilation in theenvironment of the voiceless [s]: ‰ÈÏ‚¯ ÏÒ¡ÈÏ /li-yixsal rigl!h/ (153a,19) ‘to wash his feet’ and ÂÏÒ¡‡Â (15 18b,15) ‘and theywashed,’ although µ /\/ occurs in other examples of the verb:ÌÂ‰ÈÏ‚¯ ÂÏÒµÂ /wi-\aßalu rigl!hom/ (15 29b,14) ‘and they washedtheir feet’; Â‰‚Â ÏÒµÂ (15 30a,3) ‘and he washed his face’; È¥ ÏÒµ

304

2 However, there is also the possibility of a scribal error in the manuscript.

„È·! Ï‡ (15 36b,15) ‘wash in wine.’

THE SEGMENT LEVEL: EMPHATIZATION AND DEEMPHATIZATION

Emphatization and DeemphatizationFeature 13-2 — Emphatization and DeemphatizationInt.: In the following examples, despite the fact that the Hebrew

names were copied into the Judeo-Arabic, their spelling illustratesthe possible emphatization that might have occurred in theemphatic environment in a more interpretive translation.(13-2.1) In Genesis: /d/ becomes ["] in Â¯ƒÁ„ /da˙"ar¢u/ (15 10a,13)‘they caused to roll down,’ probably because of the environmentof the emphatic /r¢/.(13-2.2) In the Haggadah: in ‰!ËÂˆ /ßø†na/ (3 9,17) ‘our voice,’/t/ becomes emphatic [†] in the environment of emphatic /ß/. Inanother example, ı¥¯Î /kar¢faß/ (74 21,2) ‘Karpas’ (greens forthe Passover Seder) translates the Hebrew ÒÙ¯Î, and theemphatization /s/ > [ß] may have occurred in the environmentof [r¢]. A similar emphatization occurs in ¯"Ú Ï‡ /el>a#ar¢/ (9315-b,10) ‘Elazer’; ¯"Ú ÈÏ‡ /eli>e#er¢/ (93 15,9) ‘Eliezer’; and in‰È¯"Ú (93 15,9 and more) / >a#ar¢ya/ ‘Azariah,’ with the emphati-zation of /z/ > [#] in the environment of [r¢].

More infrequently, deemphatization may occur in the environ-ment of plain obstruents.(13-2.3) In Genesis: Â·ÂÏ˙˙ /til¥bu/ (15 29a,7) ‘you seek,’ where/†/ becomes [t] after plain /t/, compared with the literary form/ta†l¥bu/.(13-2.4) In Esther: ¯„¡‡ /axdar/ (1302 1b,8) ‘green,’ where /"/ >[d] following plain /x/, compared with the literary form /ax"ar/.(13-2.5) In the Haggadah: emphatic /ß/ becomes plain /s/ inÚ!ÒÈÏ /li-yisna>/ (91 3a,17) ‘for him to do,’ compared with theliterary form /yaßna>/.

L/I: (13-2.6) In Genesis deemphatized [t] occurred in È˙¥ÈÈ˙ /tayfati/(15 3b,7) ‘my family’ and in ¬‡È¯˙ /tar•<ak/ (15 3b,9) ‘yourway,’ but the corresponding original emphatic /†/ occurs as well

305

and more frequently: È˙¥ÈÈË /†ayfEti/ (15 3b,9; 3b,10) and ˜È¯Ë

CHAPTER NINE

/†ar•</ (15 18b,18; 19b,4; 23a,19; and more).(13-2.7) The Judeo-Arabic word ‰¯Â˙ /tøra/ (74 22,13) ‘Torah’is clearly a literal translation of the Hebrew ‰¯Â˙ ‘Torah’; however,in another manuscript, the translation of ‰¯ÂË /†ør¢a/ (93 90,12)underwent the regressive emphatization /t/ > [†], influenced bythe environment of the emphatic [r¢].

ElisionFeature 13-3 — ElisionInt.: The disappearance of the hamza is common in spoken Egyptian

Judeo-Arabic, and where it is evident in the texts of the ¡ur¥˙,it indicates an interpretive mode of translation:(13-3.1) In Genesis: ÔÏÈ‡˜ /qåylan/ (15 0-1,13 and more) ‘saying,’compared to literary Arabic /qå<ilan/; ‰¯Ó /mara/ (15 2a,17) ‘wife,’compared to literary Arabic /imra<a/; and ¯È· /b•r/ (15 22a,14)‘well,’ compared to literary Arabic /bi<r/.(13-3.2) In Esther: ‡¯ÊÂ /wuzara/ (1302 1b,5) ‘ministers, nobles,’compared to literary Arabic /wuzarå</; ‡!µ /\ana/ (1302 1b,6)‘wealth,’ compared to literary Arabic /\anå</; and ‡ÏÎÂ /wukala/(1302 2a,13) ‘deputies,’ compared to literary Arabic /wukalå</,where the alif mamd¥da becomes shortened /å</ > /a/ and thehamza is elided (see 13-6.5).(13-3.3) In the Haggadah: both ‰Ó‰Â¥ /fuhama/ (3 3,5) ‘wisepeople,’ compared to literary Arabic /fuhamå</; and ‰„˙·‡3

/ibtida/ (3 5,17) ‘beginning,’ compared to literary Arabic /ibtidå</,underwent the same elision process as above (see 13-6.5).(13-3.4) The alif waßla in Ú!ˆÂ4 (15 2b,10) ‘and do!’ (imperative)is elided to indicate the Judeo-Arabic pronunciation /wi-ßna>/ in

306

3 Note that the vowel /a/ is represented here by the letter ‰, probably influencedby Hebrew script as part of the Hebraized orthography (Hary 1996c:732).

4 This represents a phonetic spelling, which is one part of the Hebraizedorthography of Late Judeo-Arabic (ibid.).

an interpretive mode.

THE SEGMENT LEVEL: ORTHOGRAPHIC MARKING OF THE GLIDES

Orthographic Marking of the GlidesFeature 13-4 — Orthographic marking of the glidesLit.: This phenomenon is connected to the Hebraized orthography

used in premodern Egyptian ¡ur¥˙ represented in this volume.As mentioned in Hary (1996c:732), marking the glides by twovavs and two yods to denote /w/ and /y/ respectively is part ofthis orthographic tradition. This marking is in line with a literaltranslation technique, as it is heavily influenced by Talmudicorthography, where this marking occurs.(13-4.1) In Genesis: ·ÂÂ‡‚È (15 25b,8) ‘answer’; È!‡„ÂÂ‰ (15 25b,9)‘here I am’; ‰ÏÎÂÂ ÏÈÎÂÂÈÂ (15 26a,14–15) ‘appoint agents,’ as wellas #ÈÈ·‡ (15 12b,11; 13b,3; 36b,17) ‘white’; È˙ÈÈ„‰Ø˙ÈÈ„‰ (1517a,2; 30a,9) ‘(my) gift’; and ˙‡·ÈÈËØÔÈ·ÈÈËØ·ÈÈË (15 2b,7; 25b,18;1b,20; and many other cases) ‘good,’ although the two yodsmay also refer to a ¡adda; however, ÔÈ·ÈË (pl.) (15 25b,20;26a,3; 26a,16) ‘good’ with one yod also appears (see below,13-4.4).(13-4.2) In Esther: ¯‡˜ÂÂ‡ (1302 6a,21) ‘glory’; ÔÈ„Â‚ÂÂÓ (13021b,7) ‘present (pl.)’; È˙„ÏÂÂÓ (1302 6a,3) ‘my birth place, myfamily’ as well as ˙ÈÈ¯¡¥ (1302 1b,6) ‘pride’; Â˙ÈÈ¯·Î (13021b,6) ‘his majesty’; #ÈÈ·‡ (1302 1b,8) ‘white’; and ÔƒÈÈ‡ (13021b,13) ‘also.’(13-4.3) In the Haggadah: ‰„‡ÂÂÊ (3 18,16; 74 10,12; 91 8b,7;93 40,6) ‘provisions, supplies’; ‰ÂÂ¯‡ˆÓ (3 20; 74 10,14; 918b,9) ‘Egyptians’; È¯‡ÂÂÈÏØÈ¯ÂÂÈ®Ï© (3 19,6; 74 11,1; 91 8b,11; 9340,16) ‘to look (upon)’; as well as ˙‡ÈÈÁ (74 10,15; 91 8b,9; 9340,15) ‘life’; ‰ÈÈÒ‡˜Ø‰ÈÈˆ‡˜Ø‰ÈÈÒ‡ (74 10,16; 91 8b,13) ‘harsh’;and Ô‡ÏÈÈ‡˜Ø $‡ÏÈ‡˜ (74 11,2; 91 8b,15; 93 41,11) ‘saying.’

Int.: At times, the ¡ar˙an has marked the glides with one vav or oneyod, a choice that is less influenced by the Hebraized orthographyand thus approaches the interpretive mode.

307

(13-4.4) In Genesis examples of /w/ denoted with one vav are

CHAPTER NINE

rare: Â‡ (15 30b,2) ‘or,’ although ÂÂ‡ ‘or’ appears more frequently(15 4a,6; 4a,14; 31a,1; and more); and ‰„Â‰ (15 18a,11) ‘here,’although it is very rare; ‰„ÂÂ‰ (15 2b,11; 2b,15; 3b,13; and manymore occurrences) ‘here’ with two vavs is much more common.For /y/ with one yod: Ì‡È‡ (15 12,13) ‘days’; $‡ÏÈ‡˜ (15 3b,5)‘saying’; and ÔÈ·ÈË (15 25b,20; 26a,3; 26a,16) ‘good (pl.).’(13-4.5) In Esther there are some examples where the /w/ isindicated with one vav: ¯‡˜Â‡ (1302 1b,6; 4b,6; 4b,9; and more)‘glory,’ although ¯‡˜ÂÂ‡ (1302 6a,21) occurs as well; È!‡Â‡ (13021b,6; 4b,6; 4b,9; and more) ‘vessels’; È!‡ÏÂ‡ (1302 3b,1) ‘first,’although see ‡ÏÂÂ‡ (1302 1b,21) ‘first’; „‡ÏÂ‡ (1302 4b,7; 6a,12;7a,7) ‘children,’ although „‡ÏÂÂ‡ (1302 7a,6) ‘children’ doesexist. The glide /y/ denoted with one yod is more rare: Ì‡È‡(1302 2b,10) ‘days,’ although Ì‡ÈÈ‡ (1302 1b,2; 1b,3; 1b,6; andmore) is much more prevalent; ÔÈ‡„Ó (1302 2a,9; 6b,6; 6b,8; andmore) ‘provinces,’ but see also ÔÈÈ‡„Ó (1302 6b,3) with twoyods; È˘‡ÂË ÔÈ!˙‡ (1302 2b,23; 4b,15) ‘two eunuchs’ signifiescontraction of the diphthong in /itn!n/.(13-4.6) In the Haggadah the glide /w/ is sometimes spelledwith one vav: Â‡ (3 2,12) ‘or,’ although ÂÂ‡ (74 1,7) also occurs;ÂÏÂ (3 2,11) ‘even,’ although ÂÂÏÂ (93 13,2) also appears; ˙¯ÂÈÏ(93 19,10) ‘to inherit,’ although ˙¯ÂÂÈÏ (3 6,9) appears too.Similarly, the /y/ is marked with one yod, either to indicate thecontraction of the diphthong, as in ·Â·ÁÓ ÔÈ!˙‡· (93 83,4) ‘fortwo gold pounds,’ or as a spelling device: ÈÏ‡ÈÏ (3 2,10) ‘nights,’although ÈÏ‡ÈÈÏ (74 1,6; 93 13,6) also appears; ÔÈÈÎ˙Ó (3 2,16)‘reclined,’ although ÔÈÎ˙Ó (93 13,8) also occurs.

L/I: The literal/interpretive tension in marking the glides is evidentthroughout the different manuscripts of the various EgyptianJudeo-Arabic ¡ur¥˙ examined in this volume and in Hary 2009.Mss. 74, 91, and 93 of the Haggadah frequently mark the

308

glides with two vavs and two yods to denote /w/ and /y/

THE SEGMENT LEVEL: ORTHOGRAPHIC MARKING OF THE GLIDES

respectively, as influenced by the Talmudic orthography, in anattempt to be closer to the literal mode of translation. Ms. 3 ofthe Haggadah, however, approaches the interpretive end of theliteral/ interpretive continuum and often denotes the glides withone vav and one yod. The issue in ms. 15 (Genesis) and ms.1302 (Esther) is a bit more complicated. In ms. 15 the ¡ar˙anhas marked /w/ with two vavs, approaching the literal end ofthe continuum, but he has usually marked /y/ with only oneyod, representing a more interpretive mode. He sometimes,however, has marked the /y/ with two yods, but usually thismarking denotes a gemination (¡adda). The situation is quitethe opposite in ms. 1302. There, the ¡ar˙an has marked /y/with two yods, approaching the literal end of the continuum,but he usually—not always—marked /w/ with only one vav,representing a more interpretive mode. The following are just afew examples of each of the glides: the literal/interpretive tensionis exhibited by marking the glides with two vavs and two yodsin a literal mode in mss. 15, 74, 91, and 93 and by not markingthe glides in this way in a more interpretive practice in ms. 3.Ms. 1302 exhibits here its own particularities.(13-4.7) Marking /w/: „‡ÏÂÂ‡ (74 1,3; 91 4b,12; 93 14,4; 150-1,1) ‘children’ contains two vavs marking /w/ in a literal mode,whereas „‡ÏÂ‡ (3 2,7; 1302 6a,125) approaches the interpretivemode by using the Arabicized orthography and not marking theglide. The same phenomenon occurs in the following: ÂÂÏÂ (742,15; 93 13,2; 15 36b,14) ‘if,’ as opposed to ÂÏÂ (3 2,11); ÂÂ‡ (741,7; 93 57,6; 15 4a,6) ‘or,’ as opposed to Â‡ (3 2,12); Ø¯‡˜ÂÂ‡¯‡˜ÂÂ (74 11,12; 91 14b,14; 93 81,5; and even in 3 20,6) ‘glory,’

309

5 The usual spelling in 1302 is indeed „‡ÏÂ‡ with one vav (4b,7; 6a,12; 7a,1;7a,7); however, there is one place in the manuscript where „‡ÏÂÂ‡ appears withtwo vavs (1302 7a,6).

as opposed to ¯‡˜Â‡ (1302 1b,6; 4b,6; 4b,9; and more).

CHAPTER NINE

(13-4.8) Marking /y/: ˙ÈÈ„˘Ø˙ÈÈ„È˘ (74 2,16; 91 2b,6; 93 17,10)‘might’ includes two yods marking the palatal glide /y/ using aliteral mode, whereas ˙È„˘ (3 5,5) employs the Arabicizedorthography, marks the glide with only one yod, and approachesthe interpretive mode. The same occurs in the following: „ÈÈ·(74 1,10) ‘with a hand,’ as opposed to Â„ÈØ„È È¥ (15 30b,14; 32,20); ‰ÈÈ!Â„Ø‡ÈÈ!Â„ (74 2,5; 93 15,15) ‘world,’ as opposed to‰È!Â„ in 3 4,3; 15 37a,14; ÈÏ‡ÈÈÏ Ï‡ (74 1,5; 93 13,1) ‘the nights,’as opposed to ÈÏ‡ÈÏ Ï‡ (3 2,10); and #ÈÈ·‡ (15 12b,11; 13021b,8) ‘white,’ with two yods in a literal mode. This literal tendencyis not always the case in mss. 15 and 1302, although it is morefrequent in 1302 (see also above): 6 Ì‡ÈÈ‡ (1302 1b,2 and manyother cases) ‘days,’ as opposed to Ì‡È‡ (15 12,13; 1302 2b,10,only in one place) ‘days.’ Another example is ÔÏÈÈ‡˜ (91 2b,9);Ô‡ÏÈÈ‡˜ (93 18,3) ‘saying’ with two yods; and ÔÏÈ‡˜ (3 5,10)and $‡ÏÈ‡˜ (15 3b,5; 7b,7; 10a,5; and many other cases) withone yod.7

Diacritic MarksFeature 13-5 — Diacritic marksLit.: (13-5.1) In rare cases the ¡ar˙an has marked Arabic få< with a

pe without a supralinear dot, moving in the direction of a literaltranslation and shying away from imitating Arabic orthography,where the supralinear dot exists (·):8 In Genesis: ˙ÙÈ (15 0-1,18)‘Yefet’ and ÈÙ (15 38a,5) ‘in’ and in Esther:9 ÏÚÙÂÈ (1302 1b,21)‘be done’; ˜ÂÙ (1302 3a,5) ‘above’; and È!ÙÈÏ (1302 3a,11) ‘to

310

6 In the Ì‡ÈÈ‡ ‘days’ example, the two yods may mark the gemination ( ta¡d•d)and not the glide, but this is not the case in ÔƒÈÈ‡ /ay"an/ (1302 1b,13) ‘also,’where the two yods clearly mark the glide [y].

7 In only one place in ms. 15 does $‡ÏÈÈ‡˜ appear with two yods: 15 3a,16.8 Of course, this kind of marking could also be interpreted as a scribal error.9 This feature is much more widespread in Esther.

eliminate.’ The pe without a supralinear dot in ÍÂÙ˘ Ï‡ (3

THE SEGMENT LEVEL: HEBREW-INFLUENCED ORTHOGRAPHY

colophon) ‘the (prayer) Pour Your Wrath’ represents thevoiceless fricative labiodental /f/, but the word ÍÂÙ˘ is in Hebrew.

There are other cases where pe without a supralinear dotappears, but they indicate the voiceless stop bilabial /p/, notthe fricative /f/, sometimes using Hebrew lexemes in the Judeo-Arabic text. In Genesis: ˘„ÏÙ (15 1a,9) ‘Pildash’ and Ô„Ù (155b,1) ‘Paddan’; in Esther: Ò¯Ù (1302 2a,3) ‘Persia’; in theHaggadah: ÁÒÙ (93 2,9 and many other occurrences) ‘Passover’;˜ÂÒÙ Ï‡ (3 3,21 and many other occurrences) ‘the verse’; and‰Ú¯Ù (3 7,8 and more) ‘Pharaoh.’

Int.: (13-5.2) In an interesting example, the ¡ar˙an has added themadda to the Hebrew alef in ÏÎ° ÌÏ (15 3a,20) ‘I will not eat,’following standard Arabic orthography in an interpretive mode.

L/I: (13-5.3) In ¬ÂÙ¯ÚÈ (91 10b,4) ‘(they will) know you’ the spellingof Ù without the supralinear dot represents a literal tendency,because it can be an imitation of the Hebrew orthography fe (Ù).However, in ¬Â¥¯ÚÈ (93 63,10) the spelling of Judeo-Arabic ¥with a supralinear dot demonstrates the interpretive tendency,as this is part of the orthographic tradition of standard Arabic,namely, indicating the få< with a supralinear dot (chapter 3, p.78, ii).

Hebrew-Influenced OrthographyFeature 13-6 — Hebrew-influenced orthographyAs is the case in Feature 13-4 above, this phenomenon is intimatelyconnected to the Hebraized orthography used frequently in premodernEgyptian ¡ur¥˙. However, the distribution of this phenomenon in thevarious manuscripts is not the same as that of Feature 13-4. Forexample, ms. 3 consistently marks Arabic final alif with a he in clearimitation of Hebrew orthography, as the final /-a/ sound in Hebrew isoften marked with a he (Hebrew ‰). Consequently, marking final alif

311

with a he (Judeo-Arabic ‰) is an indication of literal translation, as it

CHAPTER NINE

is so influenced by Hebrew orthography. On the other hand, in Feature13-4, ms. 3 exhibits some interpretive modes by frequently not markingthe glides with two vavs or two yods.The following examples illustrate this phenomenon of Hebrew-

influenced orthography, where Genesis (ms. 15) as well as mss. 3 and74 of the Haggadah usually exhibit the Hebrew-influenced phenomenain a literal mode. Esther (ms. 1302), on the other hand, does notdemonstrate Hebrew-influenced features, thus revealing a more inter-pretive mode. Mss. 91 and 93 of the Haggadah are less consistent:they usually do not exhibit the Hebrew-influenced orthography in aninterpretive mode, but not always.

L/I: (13-6.1) Marking final alif:In Genesis (ms. 15) as well as in the Haggadah (ms. 3) the finalalif is marked with a he (‰), for the most part, as an imitation ofHebrew spelling for final /-a/ sound, and as part of the Hebraizedorthography in a literal mode. On the other hand, Estherfrequently denotes the final alif with an alef (‡) as part of theArabicized orthography in an interpretive mode. Mss. 74, 91,and 93 of the Haggadah are not always consistent, althoughms. 74 tends to mark the final alif literally with a he (‰) whilemss. 91 and 93 tend to mark it interpretively with an alef (‡©Æ

For example, ‰„ÂÂ‰ (15 2b,11; 2b,15; 3a,16; and many moreoccurrences; 3 3,7; 3,18; 74 1,14; 2,2; 91 6a,1)1 0 ‘indeed, here,’as opposed to ‡„ÂÂ‰ (1302 4b,20; 5b,10; 6a,4; 3 12,5; 74 18,15;91 14a,7; 93 14,8; 15,10; 27,10; 78,12); ‰!‰ (15 8b,5; 23b,12; 32,5; 2,6; 74 1,2; 1,3; 93 8,12; 9,4; 78,9) ‘here,’ as opposed to‡!‰ (15 10a,13; 21b,7; 27b,11; 29a,9; 93 12,6; 12,7); ‰!ÏÂÎ (1527b,6; 3 3,4; 74 1,12) ‘all of us,’ as opposed to ‡!ÏÂÎ (93 13,8)in the Arabicized orthography in an interpretive mode; ‰!ÂÎ (1528a,17; 3 3,3; 74 1,10) ‘(we) were,’ as opposed to ‡!ÂÎ (93

312

1 0Exceptions exist in these manuscripts; see the examples below for details.

14,1); ‰!Â·‡ (15 13a,7; 28a,18; 29b,19; 31a,18; and more; 3


6,14; 7,8; 93 59,5; 61,2) ‘our father,’ as opposed to ‡!Â·‡ (913a,8; 3a,18; 93 20,3; 21,4); ‰!˙‡‰·‡ (15 33b,18; 34a,5; 3 2,3;3,2; 5,17; 7,2; 9,16; and many other occurrences; 74 1,1; 1,11;5,4; and more; 91 5a,10; 5a,12; 8a,19; and more; 93 58,8; 58,9;60,4; and many more occurrences) ‘our fathers,’ as opposed to‡!˙‡‰·‡ (91 2b,14; 3a,13; 8b,16; and more; 93 14,3; 18,14;20,11; and more); ‰!ËÂˆ (3 9,17; 10,8; 74 5,4; 5,9) ‘our voice,’as opposed to ‡!ËÂˆ (91 5a,11; 5a,16; 93 24,7; 25,3). Anotherprevalent example is ‰%‡‰ (15 2a,18; 2b,6; 4a,18; and manymore occurrences; 3 2,2; 74 20,3; 93 60,9; 82,14; 82,15) ‘this,’as opposed to ‡%‡‰ (1302 2a,3; 2a,11; 2b,11; and many otheroccurrences) and ‡%‰ (93 12,4; 28,15); the particle ‡ÓÏ (13022a,1; 2a,11; 2b,2; and more) ‘when’ follows the usual trend(although ‰ÓÏ occurs once in Esther [1302 1b,14]).

In somewhat different manuscript behavior, the relativepronoun ‰Ó (74 1,17) ‘that’ ends with a final he (‰), markingfinal alif in imitation of Hebrew in the literal mode, whereas inother manuscripts (15 31b,13; 1302 3a,7; 4a,3; 4a,17; 3 3,14;93 15,2) the pronoun is spelled ‡Ó with a final alef in theinterpretive mode. The interrogative pronoun ‡%‡Ó (1302 1b,21)‘what’ does follow the usual trend. ‰%‡ÓÏ (93 64,7) ‘why,’with a final he, points to the inconsistency of ms. 93 (see alsobelow, p. 319, 13-6.7).(13-6.2) Marking final vowel /-a/:It is often difficult to decide whether he (‰) and alef (‡) markfinal alif or final vowel /a/. In Genesis (ms. 15) as well as in theHaggadah (ms. 3), for the most part final vowel /-a/ is markedwith a he as an imitation of the Hebrew spelling for a final /-a/vowel, and as part of the Hebraized orthography in a literalmode. On the other hand, Esther (ms. 1302) marks the final alif

313

with ‡ as part of the Arabicized orthography in an interpretive

CHAPTER NINE

mode.1 1 Mss. 74, 91, and 93 of the Haggadah are not alwaysconsistent, although ms. 74 tends to mark the final alif literallywith a he (‰) while mss. 91 and 93 tend to mark it interpretivelywith an alef (‡).

For example, ‰„·‡ (3 5,8) ‘begin’ as opposed to ‡„·‡ (912b,8); ‰„Î (15 3a,16; 13a,15; 13a,17; and more) ‘this way’ asopposed to ‡„Î (1302 1b,12);1 2 ‰˙!‡ (15 3b,16; 7a,10; 8a.4;and many more occurrences; 3 4,14; 5,8; 14,5; and more; 742,14; 12,3; 12,9; 91 2b,8; 6b,10) ‘you’ as opposed to ‡˙!‡(1302 3a,8; 91 2b,3; 9b,10; 93 16,12; 18,2; 31,9; and more).(13-6.3) Marking alif maqß¥ra bi-ß¥rat il-yå<:The trend shown above in 13-6.1 continues here. The ¡ur¥˙ ofGenesis (ms. 15) and the Haggadah (mss. 3 and 74) mark, forthe most part, alif maqß¥ra bi-ß¥rat il-yå< with a he (‰) inimitation of the Hebrew orthography, in a literal translationmode. The ¡ar˙ of Esther (ms. 1302), on the other hand, marksalif maqß¥ra bi-ß¥rat il-yå< with an alef (‡) in a more interpretivemanner. As above, mss. 91 and 93 are less consistent, althoughms. 93 tends to denote it with an alef (‡).

For example, the accusative marker ‰Ï‡ (15 0-1,3; 1b,4; 1b,5and many more occurrences; 3 3,2; 3,21; 4,19; and more;1 3 741,11; 2,4; 2,13; and more) and ‰ÏÈ‡ (91 2b,2; 2b,3; 3a,3; andmore) are spelled with a final he (‰) to mark the alif maqß¥rabi-ß¥rat il-yå< in literal imitation of the Hebrew as part of theHebraized orthography. On the other hand, mss. 93 (14,3; 15,12;

314

1 1This spelling can also be considered a literal translation since it may be partof the Hebraized orthography, as influenced by the spelling of the BabylonianTalmud (Hary 1991a:124).

1 2This spelling may, however, indicate final alef (‡), as ‡%Î (1302 1b,18;3a,6) appears in the manuscript, probably reflecting Arabic «c!.

1 3‡Ï‡ in 3 7,9 represents /illå/ ‘except’ (with a final alif). In 74 6,1 even thisword is spelled with a final he (‰) ‰Ï‡.

17,4; and more) and 1302 (1b,6; 1b,16; 2a,3; and many more


occurrences) exhibit ‡Ï‡ in a more interpretive mode as part ofthe Arabicized orthography. Ms. 91 shows inconsistency, where‡ÏÈ‡ (91 3a,1; 3a,2) appears, as opposed to ‰ÏÈ‡, shown above.

The same holds true for the preposition ‰ÏÚ (15 0-1,18; 2a,9;2b,5; and many more occurrences; 3 7,9; 7,14; 9,4; and more; 745,19; 6,9; 7,1; and more; 91 3a,18; 4b,1; 5a,3; and more) ‘on,’ asopposed to ‡ÏÚ (1302 1b,3; 1b,9; 1b,10; and many more occur-rences; 911 4 5b,10; 5b,11; 93 21,4; 21,13; 23,9; and more).

The particle ‰˙Á (3 2,11; 3,4; 22,14; 74 1,12; 22,1; 91 5a,2;10a,13-‰˙ÈÁ) ‘even’ is spelled with a final he (‰) to mark thealif maqß¥ra bi-ß¥rat il-yå< in literal imitation of the Hebrew aspart of the Hebraized orthography. On the other hand, ‡˙Áappears in 1302 (4b,8), 74 (1,6), and 93 (13,2; 14,5; 23,8) in amore interpretive mode.

The following verb follows the regular trend: ‰ˆÂ (15 6b,2;9a,19; 15a,20; and many more occurrences; 3 4,13; 10,18; 742,10; 5,13) ‘command’ with a final he (‰) as opposed to Ø‡ˆÂ‡ˆÂÂ‡Ø‡ˆÂ‡ (1302 2b,7; 3a,6; 6a,8; and more; 91 5b,3; 93 16,12;25,13) with a final alef (‡). The verb ‰Ï‡ÚÂ˙Ø‰Ï‡Ú˙ ‘may (He)be exalted,’ on the other hand, appears only with a final he (‰)(15 22a,2; 3 4,6; 5,19; 9,3; and more; 91 2b,15; 5a,1; 93 16,4;18,15; 23,7; and more). Ms 74 usually writes Â¢˙ (2,7; 8,5;9,15) for /ta>ålå/, although ‰ÏÚ˙˙ with a final he (‰) also occurs(74 19,5).

Unlike the above trend, the verb ‡ËÚ‡ ‘give’ consistentlyappears with a final alef ‡ in ms. 3 of the Haggadah (3 16,6;16,7; 16,18; and more) in an interpretive mode. The same holdstrue for ms. 93 (36,1; 36,2; 36,13; and more), where ‡ËÚ‡alternates with ‡ËÚ, both with a final alef ‡. Ms. 74 of the

315

1 4These examples are the exception in ms. 91, but they still show the ¡ar˙an‘sinconsistency in this manuscript.

Haggadah, on the other hand, consistently denotes the verb

CHAPTER NINE

with a final he (‰) in a literal manner, following the trend mentionedabove: ‰ËÚ (74 8,12; 8,14; 9,5; and many more occurrences).Ms. 91 is inconsistent again: ‡ËÚ‡ (91 7b,19; 8a,1; 8a,7) and‰ËÚ‡ (91 7b,5). This verb follows the usual orthographictendencies of the ¡ar˙ of Genesis with the final he (‰) in aliteral mode: ‰ËÚ (15 3b,2; 3b,4; 4b,17; and many other cases)and that of the ¡ar˙ of Esther with the final alef (‡): ‡ËÚ (13022b,20; 3b,20; 5b,14; and more), as well as other variants: ‡ËÚ!‡(1302 3b,6; 3b,8; 4a,18; and more) ‘was given’ and ‡ËÚ!È (13022a,15; 2b,11; 5a,5; and more) ‘will be given.’

Atypical to ms. 3 is ‡¯‚ÂÓ (3 3,10) ‘event,’ which is spelledwith a final alef (‡), representing the interpretive mode as partof the Arabicized orthography. ‰¯‚ÂÓ (74 1,15), on the otherhand, follows the trend mentioned above for ms. 74.(13-6.4) Marking alif maqß¥ra bi-ß¥rat il-alif:‰ÈÈ!Â„Ø‰È!Â„ (15 37a,14; 3 4,3; 21,2; 74 2,5; 12,3) ‘world’ isspelled with a final he (‰) to mark the alif maqß¥ra bi-ß¥ratil-alif as part of the Hebraized orthography. This is done becausethe final /-a/ vowel of a word is usually spelled with a he (‰) inHebrew, and in order to imitate this spelling behavior, the ¡ar˙anhas done the same in Judeo-Arabic in a literal mode of translation.On the other hand, mss. 91 9b,10 and 93 15,15; 45,2 exhibit‡ÈÈ!Â„ in the Arabicized orthography in a more interpretive mode.These variant spellings of /dunyå/ continue the trend establishedabove for the different manuscripts of the ¡ur¥˙.

Other examples follow this trend. From Genesis: ‰È‡¯ÂØ‰È‡¯ÂÂ(15 2a,18; 3b,8; 14b,3) ‘behind me’ and ‰È‡È‡ (15 4a,15; 7a,6;12a,7; and more) ‘me’ (direct object). From Esther: ‡!„ (13022b,9; 2b,14) ‘neared’ and ‡ÿÏÚ (1302 3a,4; 4b,7) ‘elevated.’(13-6.5) Marking alif mamd¥da (see 13-3.2 and 13-3.3):In Genesis, as seen above, the examples follow the Hebraizedorthography, where the alif mamd¥da is marked with a he (‰)

316

in a literal translation: ‰„˙·‡ (15 29b,4; 29b,7) ‘beginning’;


‰¯ÊÂÂ (15 26b,8) ‘ministers’; ‰¯Â (15 4b,2; 16a,7; 19a,2; andmore) ‘behind’; and ‰Î· (15 30a,3; 31b,6) ‘crying.’ In ‡ÂÂÒ (1520a,9) ‘together’ the alif mamd¥da is denoted with an alef (‡),contrary to the trend in Genesis.

In Esther the alif mamd¥da is marked with an alef (‡) in aninterpretive mode. For example ‡¯ÊÂ (1302 1b,5; 6a,8) ‘ministers’;‡Ò‡Â¯ (1302 1b,5; 1b,20; 1b,23; and many other occurrences)‘officials’; ‡Ò! (1302 2a,2; 2a,14; 2a,15; and many more examples)‘women’; ‡!µ (1302 1b,6) ‘wealth’; ‡ÏÎÂ (1302 2a,13) ‘deputies’;and ‡·˙Î (1302 3b,1) ‘scribes.’ Exceptions such as ‰ÒÂ¯ (13021b,16) ‘officials’ and ‰¯ÊÂ (1302 3b,2) ‘ministers’ also occur aspart of the Hebraized orthography, an indication of a literaltranslation, as part of the literal/interpretive tension.

The different manuscripts of the Haggadah follow, for themost part, earlier trends, but with more inconsistencies: ‰Ó‰Â¥(3 3,5) ‘understanding’; ‰ÓÏÂÚ (3 3,5; 74 1,13; 93 14,5) ‘learnedpeople’; ‰„˙·‡Ø‰„˙·È‡ (3 5,17; 91 2b,14) ‘beginning’; ‰Ó¯ÂÎ (320,9; 20,10; 93 43,9) ‘nobles’; and ‰¯ÂÂÏ (3 20,16; 20,18; 7411,17) ‘backward.’ On the other hand, the following examplesdisplay the alif mamd¥da with a final alef (‡), as part of theArabicized orthography in an interpretive mode: ‡Ó‰Â¥ (74 1,13;93 14,6) ‘understanding’; ‡„˙·‡ (93 18,14) ‘beginning’; ‡ÂÂÒ (32,16; 74 1,9; 93 13,7; 62,2) ‘whether’; and ‡¯‡ÂÂÏØ‡¯ÂÂÏ (919b,3; 9b,5; 93 44,4; 44,6) ‘backward.’(13-6.6) Marking the tå< marb¥†a:In general, the tå< marb¥†a is denoted with a he (‰) as part ofthe Arabicized orthography in an interpretive translation modein Genesis, Esther, and mss. 3 and 74 of the Haggadah. Onceagain, mss. 91 and 93 show some inconsistencies, where the tå<marb¥†a can be marked alternatively with a he (‰) or with analef (‡).

For example, ‰ÏÈÏ (15 6a,20; 12a,1; 12a,4; and more; 1302

317

14b,14; 3 2,9; 2,11; 2,13; and more; 74 1,5; 1,6; 1,7; and more;

CHAPTER NINE

91 5b,13; 9b,12; 93 13.1; 13,3; 13,4; and more) ‘night’; ‰ƒ¥ (152a,2; 2a,3; 3b,3; and more; 1302 1b,9; 1b,10; 3a,17; and more; 323,12; 74 13,6; 91 10b,10; 93 64,9) ‘silver’; and ‰ÈÈ·ˆ (15 3a,12;1302 2a,15; 2b,2; 2b,5; and more) ‘young woman.’

Infrequently, though, as part of a more literal translation, thetå< marb¥†a may be denoted with an alef (‡), probably influencedby the spelling conventions of the Babylonian Talmud and aspart of the Hebraized orthography (Hary 1991a:124, 1996c:732).

In Genesis this feature is rare: ‡ˆÈÏ¡˙ (15 31b,15) ‘deliverance’and ‡‰È¯Î (15 30a,6) ‘calamity’ end with an alef (‡), the latterprobably because of the wish to avoid two consecutive hes.The ¡ar˙an of Genesis has sometimes represented names witha final alef (‡), although in Hebrew they end in a he (‰): ‡‰Ï·(15 19b,8; 19b,11) ‘Bilha’; ‡ÊÈÓ (15 20a,17) ‘Miza’; and ‡!Ú(15 20a,19; 20a,15; 20a,16; and more) ‘Ana’ (see also p. 324).

In Esther: ‡¯Ó (1302 4a,3) ‘woman’ and ‡·ÈÈË (1302 5b,20)‘good.’ ‡¯Î· (1302 4b,9) ‘tomorrow’ can be explained as standardArabic, as in /bukra/ ‘early morning,’ but it can also reflectspoken /bukra/.

In the Haggadah: ‡ÈÈ·!‚‡ (91 2b,14) ‘foreign,’ as opposed to‰ÈÈ·!‚‡/‰ÈÈ·‡!‚‡ (3 5,18; 93 18,14); ‡¯˙ÂÎ (91 4b,9; 93 22,8)‘multitude,’ as opposed to ‰¯˙ÂÎ (3 8,4); ‡ÂÂ·¯ (91 4b,14)‘myriad,’ as opposed to ‰ÂÂ·¯ (3 8,12; 93 22,15); ‡ÓÈ‰· (915b,14) ‘beast,’ as opposed to ‰ÓÈ‰· (3 11,15; 74 6,2; 93 27,2);‡ÈÈ¯· (91 7b,12; 7b,13) ‘desert,’ as opposed to ‰ÈÈ¯· (3 16,14;16,15; 17,12; 74 9,1; 9,3; 9,18; and more; 91 8a,9; 93 36,9;36,10; 73,16; and more); ‡˜È„ (91 5b,6; 5b,7; 7a,4; and more; 9326,3; 32,10; 32,11; and more) ‘anguish,’ as opposed to ‰˜Èƒ/‰˜È„ (3 11,3; 15,3; 15,4; 74 7,17; 18,1; 17,16); ‡¯„Â˜/‡¯ƒÂ˜ (916b,15; 6b,17; 31,13) ‘power,’ as opposed to ‰¯„Â˜ (3 14,10; 747,6); ‡ÈÈ„Â·Ú (91 9a,14) ‘slavery,’ as opposed to ‰ÈÈ„Â·Ú (3 5,6;19,18; 74 18,11; 91 2b,7; 14a,1; 93 42,9; 58,12; 78,6; and more);

318

‡¯‡˘‡ (93 31,15) ‘signal,’ as opposed to ‰¯‡˘‡ (3 14,14);


‡˜‡ÓÁ (93 32,10; 32,11; 33,8; and more) ‘anger,’ as opposedto ‰˜‡ÓÁ/‰˜ÓÁ (3 15,3; 15,4; 15,13; and more; 74 7,12; 7,13;8,1; and more); and ‡ÚË˜ (93 46,5; 47,3; 47,11) ‘piece,’ asopposed to ‰ÚË˜ (93 46,6; 47,11a). Interesting is the spellingof ‡ÏÈË! (91 10a,1) ‘wash (the hands)’ with a final alef (‡), asthe lexeme is an imitation of the Hebrew ‰ÏÈË!.(13-6.7) The spelling of independent pronouns:The orthography of the independent pronouns reflects theliteral/interpretive linguistic tension (see also chapter 8, pp.237–38, 6-1).

The first person independent pronoun ‰!‡ (15 2a,16; 3 3,18;74 2,2; 91 5b,17; 93 97,12; and many other cases) followsverbatim the Hebraized orthography with its use of final he (‰)to indicate final alif, whereas the spelling ‡!‡ (15 13a,11, plus alimited number of occurrences; 1302 4a,4 and many other cases;3 6,19; and more; 91 10b,6; and more; 93 20,6; and more) ‘I’indicates the interpretive direction, as it follows standard Arabicspelling.

The spelling of the second singular masculine independentpronoun follows literal trends: ‰˙!‡ (15 3b,16; 7a,10; 8a,4; andmany more occurrences; 3 4,14; 5,8; 14,5; and more; 74 2,14;12,3; 12,9; 91 2b,8; 6b,10) ‘you’ is spelled with a final he (‰) asan imitation of the Hebrew spelling and as part of the Hebraizedorthography. The spelling of ‡˙!‡ (1302 3a,8; 91 2b,3; 9b,10;93 16,12; 18,2; 31,9; and more) with a final alef (‡), though,may have been influenced by the Babylonian Talmud. Thisspelling as well is part of the Hebraized orthography (Hary1991a:124, 1996c:732), used in the literal translation. On theother hand, both spellings indicate a pronunciation of /anta/ or/inta/, which follows regular Arabic structure in interpretivemode (see also chapter 8, p. 237, 6-1.1).

For the most part, the spelling of the third singular independent

319

pronoun follows the Hebraized orthography in a literal

CHAPTER NINE

translation, as it is an exact or almost exact copy of the Hebrewpronoun with the final alef (‡): ‡Â‰ (15 10b,7; 1302 1b,2; 3 3,2;74 1,1; 93 12,5) and ‡ÂÂ‰ (15 4b,7; 1302 2a,7; 2b,17; 3a,12; andmore; 74 2,16; 91 2b,6) ‘he’ (Hary 1991a:124; Blau 1980:57).On the other hand, Â‰ (3 2,3) is spelled in the Arabicizedorthography in the direction of the interpretive mode.

Similarly, ‡È‰ (15 2a,2 and more; 3 26,19) ‘she’ is also anexact imitation of the Hebrew spelling in a literal translationand, in addition, both ‡ÈÈ‰ (1302 1b,17; 2b,1; 2b,12; and more;74 15,16; 93 31,12) and ‰ÈÈ‰ (91 12a,19) mark the final vowel/-a/ with an alef (‡) and he (‰) respectively, in a somewhat lessliteral mode. On the other hand, È‰ (only in 1302 2b,6) is spelledin the Arabicized orthography and, like Â‰, in the direction ofthe interpretive mode.

The first plural independent pronoun ‰!Á‡ (15 10a,16; 3 2,12;3,3; 74 1,6; 10,9; 91 8b,1) ‘we’ is spelled with a final he (‰),indicating the Hebraized orthography in a literal translation;however, the pronunciation /i˙na/ is typical colloquial EgyptianArabic in an interpretive mode (see chapter 8, p. 237, 6-1.3).(13-6.8) The spelling of personal and place names:It is clear from the different ¡ur¥˙ that, when translating propernames, the ¡ar˙anim were struggling along the literal/interpretivetranslation scale (chapter 3, pp. 83–85).

In literal translation, at times the ¡ar˙anim copied the Hebrewnames verbatim into the Judeo-Arabic translation. The followingpersonal names are copied into the Judeo-Arabic ¡ar˙:

In Genesis: „¯È (15 0-1,2; 1b,3; 1b,4) ‘Jared’; ÍÂ!Á (15 0-1,3;1b,5; 1b,6; and more) ‘Enoch’; ÁÏ˘Â˙Ó (15 0-1,6; 1b,9; 1b,10;and more) ‘Methushelah’; ÍÓÏ (15 0-1,10; 0-1,12; 0-1,15; andmore) ‘Lamech’; ÌÁ (15 0-1,18) ‘Ham’; ˙ÙÈ (15 0-1,18) ‘Japheth’;Ì‰¯·‡ (15 2a,1; 2a,3; 2a,7; and more) ‘Abraham’; ‰˜·¯ (152b,15; 3a,13; 3a,15; and more) ‘Rebecca’; and ‰¯˘ (15 2a,9;

320

4b,9; 5a,4; and more) ‘Sarah.’


In Esther: È˙˘Â (1302 1b,9; 1b,17; 1b,22 and more) ‘Vashti’;ÔÓÂ‰Ó, ‡˙Ê·, ‡!Â·¯Á, ‡˙‚· (1302 1b,14) ‘Mehuman, Bizta,Harbona, Bigta’; ¯˙Ê (1302 1b,15) ‘Zetar’; ¯˙˘ (1302 1b,19)‘Shetar’; and ‡˙Ó„‡, ˘È˘¯˙, Ò¯Ó, ‡!Ò¯Ó (1302 1b,20) ‘Admata,Tarshish, Meres, Marsena’ all transcribe verbatim the Hebrewnames. Notice that both ‡˙µ·‡ (1302 1b,14) ‘Avagta’ andÔ¡ÂÓÓ (1302 1b,20; 1b,22; 2a,9) ‘Memuhan’ indicate the fricativepronunciations /\/ and /x/ of the Hebrew gimel (‚) and kåf (Î)respectively, in accordance with Hebrew phonology. Moreover,the verbatim translation is so exact that even in the translationof the name ÒÎ¯¡ (1302 1b,15) ‘Carcas,’ the fricative pronunci-ation is indicated because the name in the Hebrew text comesafter the conjunction våv ÒÃkYÃÎ "Â (Esth 1:10). It would have beenaccurate in the ¡ar˙ to translate the name ÒÎ¯Î ‘Carcas’ usingthe stop pronunciation according to Arabic phonology, but theneed to transfer the names verbatim overrode Arabic phonology.

In the Haggadah the following Hebrew and Aramaic personalnames are inserted verbatim into the ¡ar˙: ÚÂ˘Â‰È/Ú˘Â‰È (3 3,10;74 1,15; 91 2b,16; 93 14,14) ‘Joshua’; ÔÂ¥¯Ë (3 3,12; 74 1,16; 9314,15) ‘Tarfon,’ with the supralinear dot above the pe to indicatethe fricative nature of the fe; ‡ÓÂÊ (93 15,12) ‘Zoma,’ although‰ÓÂÊ with a final he (‰) appears in 3 3,20 and in 74 2,3 as partof the Hebraized orthography; Á¯˙ (3 6,2; 91 2b,18; 93 19,1)‘Terah’; Ì‰¯·‡ (3 6,2; 91 2b,18; 93 19,2; and more)1 5 ‘Abraham’;¯ÂÁ! (3 6,2; 91 2b,18; 93 19,2) ‘Nahor’; ˜ÁˆÈ (3 6,8; 91 3a,3; 9319,9) ‘Isaac’; ·Â˜ÚÈ/·˜ÚÈ (3 6,8; 91 3a,3; 93 19,9) ‘Jacob’; ÂÈ˘Ú/Â˘Ú1 6 (3 6,8; 91 3a,4; 93 19,9) ‘Esau’; and ‰Ú¯Ù/‰Ú¯¥ (3 9,9;10,18; 14,9; 74 5,7; 93 25,13) ‘Pharaoh,’ although the moreinterpretive translation ÔÂÚ¯¥ is frequent (see below).

321

1 5See above p. 320, for the occurrences of Ì‰¯·‡ in Genesis.1 6Sometimes Â÷Ú has a s•n (÷) in it (93 19,9).

CHAPTER NINE

As with the preceding personal names, the following placenames are copied into the Judeo-Arabic ¡ar˙.

In Genesis: ÔÂ¯·Á (15 2a,10; 19b,15; 22a,4) ‘Hebron’; ¯ÂÁ!1 7

(15 2b,8; 3a,8; 4a,1; and more) ‘Nahor’; ¯Â˘ (15 5a,15) ‘Shur’;and ¯Â˘‡ (15 5a,16) ‘Assyria.’

In Esther: Ô˘Â˘ (1302 1b,4; 1b,7; 2a,14; and more) ‘Shushan’translates verbatim the Hebrew Ô˘Â˘ (Esth 1:2 and more);ÌÈÏ˘Â¯È (1302 2a,18) ‘Jerusalem’ translates the Hebrew ÌÈÏ˘Â¯È;and Ï·· (1302 2b,1) ‘Babylon’ renders the Hebrew name Ï··.

In the Haggadah: Ï‡¯˘È (3 2,5; 74 1,3; 91 3a,6; 931 8 12,8; andmore) ‘Israel’; ¯ÈÚ˘1 9 (3 6,9; 91 3a,4) ‘Se>•r’; ÔÚ!Î2 0 (3 7,18; 914b,5; 93 21,16) ‘Canaan’; Ô˘Â‚ (3 7,19; 91 4b,6; 93 21,17)‘Goshen’; and È!ÈÒ (3 16,20; 16,21; 74 9,7; 9,9; 91 7b,17; 7b,19;93 36,15; 36,16) ‘Sinai.’

In a more literal mode, the ¡ar˙an sometimes translated Hebrewnames verbatim into Judeo-Arabic in a calque translation.

In Genesis: The place name ‡¯ÓÓ (Gen 23:17 and more) ‘Mamre’is translated verbatim as ‚¯Ó (15 2a,6; 2a,9), which means‘meadow.’ In another place in the text, the ¡ar˙an wrote ‚¯Ó‰¯ÓÓ (15 19b,14) to translate ‡¯ÓÓ (Gen 35:27), where he bothoffered a calque translation (‚¯Ó) and a copy of the Hebrewname (‰¯ÓÓ), although with a final he (‰) in line with the Hebraizedorthography. Finally, ‰¯ÓÓ ‘Mamre’ appears alone in 15 37b,1,indicating both verbatim and interpretive modes of translation(see chapter 6, p. 170). Furthermore, the Hebrew ‰ÏÙÎÓ‰ ˙¯ÚÓ

(Gen 25:9) ‘the cave of Machpela,’ ‰ÏÙÎÓ‰ ‰„˘ ˙¯ÚÓ (Gen 23:19;50:13) ‘the cave of the field of Machpela,’ and ‰ÏÙÎÓ‰ ‰„˘ (Gen

322

1 7This place name is also used as a personal name.1 8Sometimes Ï‡¯÷È has a s•n in it (93 19,1).1 9Sometimes ¯ÈÚ÷ has a s•n in it (93 19,10).2 0See below for Ô‡Ú!Î in an interpretive mode in Genesis.

49:30) ‘the field of the Machpela’ are also rendered as calques


in Judeo-Arabic: ‰È!˙Ó Ï‡ ˙¯‡µÓ (15 5a,2) ‘the cave of thedouble,’ ‰È!˙Ó Ï‡ ËÈµ ˙¯‡µÓ (15 2a,9; 5a,2) ‘the cave of the fieldof the double,’ and ‰È!˙Ó Ï‡ ËÈµ (15 37b,1) ‘the field of thedouble’ respectively. In these examples the Hebrew ‰ÏÙÎÓ istranslated verbatim by Judeo-Arabic ‰È!˙Ó to indicate the meaningof the name. The Hebrew name ‰ÏÙÎÓ in Gen 23:17, where it isnot accompanied by ‰¯ÚÓ ‘cave’ or ‰„˘ ‘field,’ is translated as‰¯‡µÓ (15 2a,5) ‘cave’ because the Hebrew original lacks theword for cave or field. Finally in Genesis, È!‡¯"!/¯"‡! ÈÈÁ Ï‡ ¯È·(15 4b,3; 5a,6) ‘a well of the living, seeing’ is a clear calquetranslation of the place name È‡] ÈÁÏ ¯‡· (Gen 24:62; 25:11)‘Beer Lachai Roi.’ The Judeo-Arabic phrase È!‡¯"!/ÈÈÁ Ï‡ ¯È·¯"‡! is unclear, but it is a literal translation of the Hebrew placename.

In Esther: ‡!ÈÒ¯Ó (1302 2b,1) ‘Marsina’ (myrtle) translatesverbatim the Hebrew name ‰Ò„‰ (in Esth 2:7) ‘Hadassah,’ as thename in Hebrew literally means ‘myrtle.’

In the Haggadah: The place name ˜¯· ¯ƒ‡!·/˜¯· ¯„‡!· /banå"ir¢braq/ (3 12-13; 74 1,16) ‘large towns, districts of Beraq’ translatesverbatim the Hebrew town name ˜¯· È!·.

Moving along the literal/interpretive continuum, in a moreinterpretive translation of personal names, the following namesin Genesis have alef (‡) in them to indicate long /å/ pronunciation:Ô‡¯ÓÊ /zimrån/ (15 4b,12) ‘Zimran’ (Hebrew Ô¯ÓÊ in Gen 25:2);Ô‡˘˜È /yoq¡ån/ (15 4b,12; 4b,13) ‘Jokshan’ (Hebrew Ô˘˜È inGen 25:2); Ô‡„Ó /medån/ (15 4b,12) ‘Medan’ (Hebrew Ô„Ó inGen 25:2); Ô‡È„Ó /midyån/ (15 4b,12; 4b,15) ‘Midian’ (HebrewÔÈ„Ó in Gen 25:2); and ˜‡·˘È /yi¡båq/ (15 4b,13) ‘Iishbak’ (Hebrew˜·˘È in Gen 25:2). The personal name ÁÂ! (15 0-1,13; 0-1,15;0-1,17) is copied into the Judeo-Arabic ¡ar˙ in a scriptio plenatranslating Hebrew Á! (Gen 5:29 and more). Similarly, the Hebrew

323

name ÔÂ¯ÙÚ (Gen 23:14 and more) ‘Ephron’ seems to be copied

CHAPTER NINE

verbatim into the ¡ar˙, but the translation adds the supralineardot above the pe to indicate the fricative /f/: ÔÂ¯¥Ú / >efrøn/ (152a,1; 2a,3; 2a,5; and more). The Hebrew name ˙Á ‘Heth’ (Gen23:16; and more) is written in the ¡ar˙ with a yod to indicatethe vowel /e/: ˙ÈÁ /˙et/ (15 2a,4; 2a,8; 2a,11; and more). Elsewherein Genesis, the ¡ar˙an sometimes rendered names with a finalalef (‡), although in Hebrew they end in a he (‰): ‡‰Ï· (1519b,8; 19b,11) ‘Bilhah’; ‡ÊÈÓ (15 20a,17) ‘Mizzah’; and ‡!Ú (1520a,19; 20a,15; 20a,16; and more) ‘Anah’ (see above p. 318,13-6.6). This could be viewed as an interpretive mode of transla-tion since the ¡ar˙an has deviated from the Hebrew spelling,but it could be perceived as part of the Hebraized orthography,where the final alef (‡) may represent the orthographic influenceof the Babylonian Talmud.

In Esther: The Hebrew personal name ˘Â¯Â˘Á‡ ‘Ahasuerus,Xerex’ is usually translated in the ¡ar ̇as È¯È˘„Ê‡ Ï‡ /al-azda¡•r•/(1302 1b,2; 1b,3; 1b,22; and more) in an interpretive mode.This name is usually used in Arabic to translate the names of anumber of Persian kings.2 1 It may be a variant of Ardash ir,which is the Middle Persian form of Old Persian Artakhshathra,the Greek form of which was Artaxerxes. Ardashir was thefounder of the Sassanian dynasty and a just ruler according toPersian tradition. On the other hand, /azhdahaa/ is a dragon,from which the word /zahhaak/, denoting the evil ruler withsnakes growing from his shoulders, is derived. In a few placesin Esther, the name ˘Â¯Â˘Á‡ ‘Ahasuerus’ is copied verbatim intothe Judeo-Arabic text as ˘Â¯Â˘Á‡ (1302 1b,15).

In the Haggadah the personal name ‰Ú¯Ù ‘Pharaoh’ is translatedinterpretively into Judeo-Arabic ÔÂÚ¯¥ (3 2,19; 74 1,10; 91 13a,4;93 14,1; and more) ‘Pharaoh,’ although see above for the literal

324

2 1See H. Massé, “Ardashir,” EI2, 1:626.

translation of ‰Ú¯¥. Furthermore, in 3 14,5 the Hebrew name ÈÒÂÈ


ÈÏÈÏ‚‰ is translated verbatim into ÈÏÈÏ‚ Ï‡ ÈÒÂÈ, whereas in 74 7,4the translation reflects the Egyptian Judeo-Arabic pronunciationof the definite article ÈÏÈÏ‚ ‡ , and thus is interpretive. Note thatin Arabic the /l/ of the definite article /al/ or /il/ is fully assimilatedto the first consonant of the noun if it is a coronal. Theseconsonants are also known as /˙ur¥f ¡amsiyya/ ‘sun letters.’The phoneme /g/ in Egyptian Arabic is an exception: although itis not a coronal, it is still considered a /˙arf ¡amsiyya/, thus/ig-gal•l•/.

The same interpretive mode occurs for place names, wherethe spelling is helpful in understanding the Judeo-Arabicpronunciation.

In Genesis the spelling of ÌÈÈ¯Â‰! Ì‡¯‡ /aråm nah¥rayim/ (152b,7) ‘Aram Naharaim’ indicates the long vowels in an interpre-tive mode; ¯ˆÓ /mißr/ (15 5a,16; 6a,6; 22b,2; and more) ‘Egypt’translates Hebrew ÌÈ¯ˆÓ; the Hebrew place name ·‚!‰ ı¯‡ (Gen24:62) ‘the region of the Negev’ is translated interpretively asÈÏ·˜ Ï‡ #¯‡ (15 4b,3) ‘the region of the south.’ Likewise, theHebrew place name ¯¯‚ ÏÁ! (Gen 26:17) is translated interpretivelyas ¯‡¯‚ È„‡ÂÂ (15 6b,10) ‘the valley of Grar,’ as the word ÏÁ! istranslated into È„‡ÂÂ ‘valley’ and the name ¯‡¯‚ has an alef (‡),to indicate the long /å/. Similarly, the place name Ú·˘ ¯‡· (Gen26:23; 26:33) ‘Beer-Sheba’ is translated as Ú·‡˘ ¯È· /b•r såbi>/(15 6b,20), literally ‘the well of Såbi> (seventh),’ and Ú·˘ ¯È·(15 7a,16): ¯‡· is translated as /b•r/ and the alef (‡) is insertedto indicate long /å/. Furthermore, the place name Ô‡Ú!Î (15 2a,10;9a,10; 9a,20; and more) ‘Canaan’ translates slightly interpretivelythe Hebrew ÔÚ!Î (Gen 23:19 and more), marking the long /å/;however, in the Haggadah the Hebrew ÔÚ!Î is copied verbatiminto the ¡ar˙: ÔÚ!Î (3 6,7; 91 3a,2; 93 19,8) ‘Canaan’ (see above).

Place names in Esther can be translated interpretively as well:Hebrew Â„Â‰ (Esth 1:1; 8:9) is translated „!‰ Ï‡ (1302 1b,2;

325

6a,9), but „!‰ Ï‡ (1302 1b,5) also translates Ò¯Ù (Esth 1:3). Ò¯Ù

CHAPTER NINE

in Esth 1:14, on the other hand, is translated into Ì‚Ú Ï‡ (13021b,20), the Arabic name for Persia. A similar phenomenon occurswith the Hebrew place name ˘ÂÎ (Esth 1:1; 8:9), which is translatedas ˘·Á Ï‡ (1302 1b,2; 6a,9), but ˘·Á Ï‡ (1302 1b,5) also translatesÈ„Ó (Esth 1:3). È„Ó in Esth 1:14, on the other hand, is translatedby È„‡Ó Ï‡ (1302 1b,20), although the inserted alef (‡) reflectsan interpretive tendency.

Place names in the Haggadah are also translated interpretivelyat times: ¯ˆÓ (3 2,3; 74 2,3; 91 3a,5; 93 15,13; and more)‘Egypt’ translates the Hebrew ÌÈ¯ˆÓ; ÌÂÈ¥ (3 9,10; 74 5,2; 915a,7; 93 23,16) ‘Fayum’ translates Hebrew Ì&̇ Ù ‘Pithom’; HebrewÒÒÓÚ¯ ‘Raamses’ is translated as ‰ÒÓ‰·/‰ÒÈ!‰·/‰ÈÒ!‰· (3 9,10;74 5,2; 91 5a,7; 93 23,16) ‘Bahamsa (?)’; and Hebrew ›̄‡È istranslated into Judeo-Arabic ÏÈ! (3 10,19; 74 5,14; 91 5b,5; 9325,14) ‘(the) Nile.’

Furthermore, in a clear deviation from the Hebrew-influencedorthography and in an interpretive Arabic mode, the name ¯ÊÚÏ‡

‘Elazar’ is translated in one manuscript as ¯"Ú Ï‡ /el>a#ar¢/ (9315-b,10). The ¡ar˙an separated the Ï‡ from ¯"Ú as if it werethe Arabic definite article, where it is actually the Hebrew wordÏÕ‡ ‘God.’ Furthermore, the Judeo-Arabic spelling ¯"Ú Ï‡, byusing the emphatic /#/, indicates that the pronunciation of thename is changed in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic to be in accordancewith Arabic phonology, yielding /el>a#ar¢/, where Hebrew /z/became emphatic Judeo-Arabic /#/. Other manuscripts and eventhe same ¡ar˙an of 93 have copied the Hebrew name into theJudeo-Arabic translation in a clear verbatim mode: ¯ÊÚÏ‡ (33,11; 3,18; 74 1,1; 2,2; 93 14,14). The same analysis holds truefor the name ‰ÈÈ¯"Ú />a#ar¢ya/ (93 15,9) ‘Azariah,’ translating theHebrew ‰È¯ÊÚ with the shift /z/ > /#/ in the environment of theemphatic [r¢]. As above, other manuscripts, including the ¡ar˙an

326

of 93 in another place, have copied the Hebrew name into the


Judeo-Arabic translation: ‰È¯ÊÚ/‰ÈÈ¯ÊÚ (3 3,11; 3,18; 74 1,15; 2,2;93 14,15).2 2

Finally, the following example demonstrates well the literal/interpretive linguistic tension in which the ¡ar˙anim found them-selves. On the surface the name ‰·È˜Ú ‘Akiva’ in the Judeo-Arabictext (3 3,12) looks as if it is translated in the literal mode, sinceit is spelled with a final he (‰), as part of the Hebraized orthog-raphy. A closer look, though, reveals that the Hebrew word isspelled with a final alef (‡), ‡·È˜Ú; therefore, Judeo-Arabic ‰·È˜Úis actually in the interpretive mode. However, the ¡ar˙an heardthe name Akiva, with its final /-a/ vowel, and therefore chosethe final he (‰) in imitation of normative Hebrew orthography,thus translating it after all in a more literal mode. In anothermanuscript of the Haggadah ‡·È˜Ú (93 14,15) appears, whichagain can be considered either literal, as it is an exact copy ofthe Hebrew ‡·È˜Ú (or perhaps even influenced by the Aramacizedspelling of the Babylonian Talmud with final alef [‡]) or inter-pretive, as it is not spelled with a final he (‰).

SummaryThe last three chapters have provided selected data to exemplify themodel of the analysis of the texts of the ¡ur¥˙ presented in chapter 3.The data have been scanned from head to toe through the phrase andthe word levels (chapter 7), the morphosyntactic level (chapter 8),and the segmental level (chapter 9).

327

2 2See also chapter 4, pp. 108, 1.11.4 and chapter 5, pp. 149–50, 1.4.2.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arnold, Werner. 2006–7. “The Arabic Dialect of the Jews of Iskenderun.” Romano-

Arabica: Peripheral Arabic Dialects, n.s. 6–7:7–12.

Avishur, Yitzhak. 1979. “The Folk Literature of the Jews of Iraq in Judeo-Arabic.”

Pe‘amim 3:83–90. [in Hebrew]

———. 1988. “Modern Judeo-Arabic Translations of the Bible in the Orient: A

Cultural-Linguistic Presentation.” In Studies in Jewish Languages: Bible

Translations and Spoken Dialects, ed. M. Bar-Asher. Jerusalem: Misgav

Yerushalayim. 39–54. [in Hebrew]

———. 1991. “Translations of the Old Testament into Judeo-Arabic in Iraq.” In

Studies in the History and Culture of Iraqi Jewry, ed. Y. Avishur. Or Yehuda:

The Babylonian Jewry Heritage Center, Institute for Research on Iraqi Jewry.

139–65. [in Hebrew]

———. 1992. “New Folk Tales Concerning R. Abraham Ibn Ezra (and His Son)

from Egypt and Iraq.” In Studies in the Works of Abraham Ibn Ezra, ed. I.

Levin and M. Itzhaki. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. 163–92. [in Hebrew]

———. 2001. Studies in Judaeo-Arabic Translations of the Bible. Tel Aviv–Jaffa:

Archaeological Center Publications.

Avrahami, Y. 1994. “Ha-moqshiya: tirgum ha-miqra le->arvit yehudit shel tunis

me-<et R. mordEkhai ˙ay diyyan” [The Translation of the Bible into the Judeo-

Arabic of Tunis by R. Mordecai Óay Diyyan]. In History and Creativity in the

Sephardi and Oriental Jewish Communities, ed. T. Alexander, A. Haim, G.

Hasa-Rokem, and E. Hazan. Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim. 73–88. [in Hebrew]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ayyar, L. V. Ramaswami. 1993. The Evolution of Malayalam Morphology. Thrissur:

Kerala Sahitya Akademi.

Azulai, Haim Yoseph David. N.d. “Haggadah shel pesa˙ ma>a ¡ar˙ bi-l- >arabi” [A

Passover Haggadah with an Arabic ¡ar˙]. [in Hebrew and Judeo-Arabic]

Badawi, El-Said. 1973. Mustawayåt l->arabiyyati l-mu>åßira f• mißr [Levels of

contemporary Arabic in Egypt]. Cairo: Dår al-Ma>årif bi-Mißr. [in Arabic]

Bar-Asher, Moshe. 1988. “The Shar˙ of the Maghreb: Judeo-Arabic Exegesis of the

Bible and Other Jewish Literature: Its Nature and Formation.” In Studies in

Jewish Languages: Bible Translations and Spoken Dialects, ed. M. Bar-Asher.

Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim. 3–34. [in Hebrew]

———. 1998. Traditions linguistiques des Juifs d’Afrique du Nord . Jerusalem:

Bialik Institute. [in Hebrew]

———. 2001. Commentaire biblique leshon limmudim de Rabbi Raphael Berdugo .

3 vols. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute. [in Hebrew]

———. 2002. “Aspects of the Study of Jewish Languages and Literatures.” Pe‘amim

93:77–89. [in Hebrew]

Behnstedt, Peter. 1978. “Zur Dialektgeographie des Nildeltas.” Zeitschrift der

arabische Linguistik 1:64–92.

Behnstedt, Peter, and Manfred Woidich. 1985. Die ägiptisch-arabischen Dialekte ,

Band 1, Einleitung und Anmerkungen zu den Karten. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig

Reichert.

———. 1985. Die ägiptisch-arabischen Dialekte, Band 2, Dialektatlas von Ägypten .

Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert.

———. 1987. Die ägiptisch-arabischen Dialekte , Band 3, Texts, I. Delta-Dialekte,

Arabisch-Deutsch. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert.

———. 1988. Die ägiptisch-arabischen Dialekte , Band 3, Texts, II. Niltaldialekte;

III. Oasendialekte. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert.

———. 1994. Die ägiptisch-arabischen Dialekte , Band 4, Glossar, Arabisch-

Deutsch. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert.

———. 1999. Die ägiptisch-arabischen Dialekte , Band 5, Glossar, Deutsch-

Arabisch. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert.

Ben-Oren, Gershon. 2000. “Three Recent Bible Translations to Georgian.” Pe‘amim

330

84:78–87. [in Hebrew]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ben Sasson, H. H. 1994. A History of the Jewish People . Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Benabu, Isaac. 1988. “Contribution to a Symposium on ‘Bible Translation in

Judeo-Arabic and Ladino in Recent Times: A Cultural Linguistic Presentation.’

” In Studies in Jewish Languages: Bible Translations and Spoken Dialects , ed.

M. Bar-Asher. Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim. 47*–51*.

Benor, Sarah. 2004. “Second Style Acquisition: The Linguistic Socialization of

Newly-Orthodox Jews.” Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

———. 2008. “Towards a New Understanding of Jewish Languages in the 21st

Century.” Religion Compass. Vol. 3.

———. 2009. “Do American Jews Speak a ‘Jewish Language’? A Model of Jewish

Linguistic Distinctiveness.” Jewish Quarterly Review. Forthcoming.

Bickerton, Derek. 1975. Dynamics of a Creole System. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Birnbaum, Solomon Asher. 1971. “Jewish Languages.” Encyclopedia Judaica

10:66–69.

———. 1979. Yiddish: A Survey and a Grammar . Toronto: University of Toronto

Press.

Blanc, Haim. 1960. “Style Variations in Spoken Arabic: A Sample of Interdialectal

Educated Conversation.” In Contributions to Arabic Linguistics, ed. C. Ferguson.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 79–161.

———. 1964. Communal Dialects in Baghdad . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

———. 1974. “The Nekteb-Nektebu Imperfect in a Variety of Cairene Arabic.”

Israel Oriental Studies 4:206–26.

———. 1981. “Egyptian Arabic in the Seventeenth Century: Notes on the Judeo-

Arabic Passages of Darxe No‘am (Venice, 1697).” In Studies in Judaism and

Islam Presented to Shelomo Dov Goitein, ed. S. Morag, I. Ben-Ami, and N.

Stillman. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University. 185–202.

———. 1985. “Egyptian Judeo-Arabic: More on the Subject of R. Mordekhai b.

Yehuda Ha-Levi’s Sefer Darxe No‘am.” Sefunot n.s. 3/18:299–314. [in Hebrew]

Blau, Joshua. 1970. On Pseudo-Corrections in Some Semitic Languages. Jerusalem:

331

Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. 1991. “On the Multilayered Character of Medieval Judaeo-Arabic.” Sefunot

n.s. 5/20:165–70. [in Hebrew]

———. 1995. A Grammar of Medieval Judeo-Arabic. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: The

Magnes Press, The Hebrew University. [in Hebrew]

———. 1999. The Emergence and Linguistic Background of Judaeo-Arabic. 3rd

ed. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute.

Blau, Joshua, and Hopkins, Simon. 1984. “On Early Judaeo-Arabic Orthography.”

Zeitschrift für arabische Linguistik 12:9–27.

———. 1987. “Judaeo-Arabic Papyri: Collected, Edited, Translated and Analysed.”

Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 9:87–160.

Brzezina, Maria. 1986. Polszczyzna Zydów. Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo

Naukowe.

Bunis, David M. 1981. “A Comparative Linguistic Analysis of Judezmo and

Yiddish.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 30:49–70.

Bussmann, Hadumod. 1996. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics.

London: Routledge.

Chambers, Jack K., and Peter Trudgill. 1998. Dialectology. 2nd ed. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Chetrit, Joseph. 2007. Diglossie, hybridation, et diversité intra-linguistique: Études

socio-pragmatiques sur les langues juives, le judéo-arabe et le judéo-berbère.

Leuven: Peeters.

Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology . 2nd ed.

Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Corré, Alan. 1989. A ‘Diskionary’ and Chrestomathy of Modern Literary Judeo-

Arabic. Milwaukee: The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Language Resource

Center Software.

Crystal, David. 2003. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics . 5th ed. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Cuomo, Luisa-Ferretti. 2000. “Rashi in Italy: Echoes of Jewish Exegesis in the

Translations of Song of Songs into Italian and Judeo-Italian during the

Renaissance.” Pe‘amim 83:132–46. [in Hebrew]

David, Noa. 2005. “The Book of Job (1-10): A Linguistic Analysis of a Shar˙,”

332

M.A. thesis, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Davies, Humphrey. 1981. “17th-Century Egyptian Arabic: A Profile of the Colloquial

Material in Y¥suf al-⁄irb•n•’s Hazz al-Qu˙¥f f • ¡ar˙ qaß•d Ab • ⁄åd¥f.” Ph.D.

dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

———. 2005. Y¥suf al-Shirb•n•’s Kitåb Hazz al-Qu˙¥f bi-shar˙ qaß•d Ab• ⁄åd¥f[Brains Confounded by the Ode of Ab¥ ⁄åd¥f Expounded], vol. 1, Arabic Text .

Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters.

DeCamp, David. 1971. “Toward a Generative Analysis of a Part-Creole Continuum.”

In Pidginization and Creolization of Languages , ed. D. Hymes. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. 349–70.

Doron, David. 1979. “The Arabic Translation of the Torah by Issachar ben Susån

Hamma‘ravi: A Linguistic Study.” Ph.D. dissertation, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat

Gan, Israel. [in Hebrew]

———. 1995. “R. Mordechai Óai Diyyan’s Introduction to His Arabic Translation

of Genesis.” In East and Maghreb: Researches in the History of the Jews in the

Orient and North Africa VI, ed. S. Schwarzfuchs and E. Horowitz. Ramat-Gan:

Bar-Ilan University Press. 131–60.

Drory, Rina. 1992. “Words Beautifully Put: Hebrew versus Arabic in Tenth-Century

Jewish Literature.” In Genizah Research after Ninety Years: The Case of Judaeo-

Arabic, ed. J. Blau and S. C. Reif. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

53–66.

———. 2000. Models and Contacts: Arabic Literature and Its Impact on Medieval

Jewish Culture. Leiden and Boston: Brill.

Elqayam, Avraham, and Benjamin Hary. 1997. “A Judeo-Arabic Sabbatian

Apocalyptic Hymn.” Kabbalah: Journal for the Study of Jewish Mystical Texts

2:105–41.

Erez, Yehuda. 1959. “In the Eyes of an Emissary from Palestine.” In Encyclopedia

of Diasporas: Subcarpathian Ruthenia, ed. Y. Erez. Jerusalem: “Encyclopedia

of Diaspora” Publishers Inc. 231–56. [in Hebrew]

Erwin, Wallace M. 2004. A Short Reference Grammar of Iraqi Arabic . Washington,

DC: Georgetown University Press.

Fischer, Wolfdietrich, and Otto Jastrow. 1980. Handbuch der arabischen Dialekte .

Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

333

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fishman, Joshua A. 1981. “The Sociology of Jewish Languages from the Perspective

of the General Sociology of Language: A Preliminary Formulation.” International

Journal of the Sociology of Language 30:5–16.

———, ed. 1985a. Readings in the Sociology of Jewish Languages . Leiden: E. J.

Brill.

———. 1985b. “The Sociology of Jewish Languages from a General Sociolinguistic

Point of View.” In Readings in the Sociology of Jewish Languages, ed. J.

Fishman. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 3–21.

Ferguson, Charles. 1959. “Diglossia.” Word 15:325–40.

———. 1989. “Grammatical Agreement in Classical Arabic and the Modern Dialects:

A Response to Versteegh’s Pidginization Hypothesis.” Al-‘Arabiyya 22:5–17.

_____. 1996 [1991]. “Epilogue: Diglossia Revisited.” In Understanding Arabic:

Essays in Contemporary Arabic Linguistics in Honor of El-Said Badawi, ed.

A. Elgibali. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press. 49–67.

Futato, Mark D. 2003. Beginning Biblical Hebrew . Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Gairdner, W. H. 1926. Egyptian Colloquial Arabic: A Conversation Grammar .

2nd ed. London: Oxford University Press.

Galliner, Siegfried. 1903. Saadia al-Fajjûmi’s arabische Psalmenübersetzung und

Commentar (Psalms 73–89). Berlin: H. Itzkowski.

Gamliel, Ophira. 2008. “Oral and Written Literature in Jewish Malayalam (South

India).” Paper presented at a conference on Jewish languages, The Hebrew

University, Jerusalem, Israel.

Geva-Kleinberger, Aharon. 2004. Die arabische Stadtdialekte von Haifa in der

ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

———. 2005. “The Last Informant: A Text in the Jewish Arabic Dialect of

Peq•>•n.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 95:45–61.

———. 2008. Autochthonous Texts in the Arabic Dialect of the Jews of Tiberias .

Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Forthcoming.

Gil, Moshe. 1984. “The Origin of the Jews of Yathrib.” Jerusalem Studies in

Arabic and Islam 4:203–24.

Goitein, Shlomo Dov. 1972. “Townsmen and Fellah: A Geniza Text from the 17th

Century.” Asian and African Studies 8:257–61.

334

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gold, David. 1981. “Jewish Intralinguistics as a Field of Study.” International

Journal of the Sociology of Language 30:31–46.

———. 1989. Jewish Linguistic Studies . Haifa: Association for the Study of

Jewish Languages.

Gottreich, Emily Benichou. 2008. “Historicizing the Concept of Arab Jews in the

Maghrib.” Jewish Quarterly Review 98/4:433–51.

Greenspahn, Frederick E. 2000. “Why Do Jews Translate the Bible?” Paper presented

at the annual meeting of the Association for Jewish Studies, Boston, Massachusetts.

———. 2002. “How Jews Translate the Bible.” In Biblical Translation in Context,

ed. F. W. Knobloch. Bethesda, MD: University Press of Maryland. 43–61.

———. 2006. “Why Jews Translate the Bible.” In Biblical Interpretation in

Judaism and Christianity, ed. I. Kalimi and P. J. Haas. New York: T&T Clark.

179–95.

Grotzfeld, Heinz. 1967. “Ein Zeugnis aus dem Jahre 688/1289 für die Aussprache

des qåf also hamza in Kaireischen.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Morgenländischen

Gesellschaft 117:87–90.

Hary, Benjamin. 1987. “Judeo-Arabic, Written and Spoken in Egypt in the Sixteenth

and Seventeenth Centuries.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

———. 1990. “The Importance of the Orthography in Judeo-Arabic Texts.”

Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division D,

Volume 1. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies. 77–84.

———. 1991a. “The Tradition of Later Egyptian Judeo-Arabic Orthography.”

Massorot 5–6:119–37. [in Hebrew]

———. 1991b. “On the Use of <ilå and li in Judeo-Arabic Texts.” In Semitic

Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau On the Occasion of His Eighty-Fifth Birthday,

November 14th, 1991, ed. A. Kaye. Vol. 1. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

595–608.

———. 1992. Multiglossia in Judeo-Arabic: With an Edition, Translation and

Grammatical Study of the Cairene Purim Scroll. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

———. 1994a. “An Egyptian Judeo-Arabic ⁄ar˙ of the Book of Esther.” Proceedings

of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division D, Vol. 1. Jerusalem:

World Union of Jewish Studies. 25–32.

335

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. 1994b. “Linguistic Notes on an Egyptian Judeo-Arabic Passover Haggadah

and the Study of the Egyptian ⁄ar˙.” Actes des premières journées internationales

de dialectologie arabe de Paris, ed. D. Caubet and M. Vanhove. Paris: INALCO.

375–88.

———. 1995. “Judeo-Arabic in Its Sociolinguistic Setting.” Israel Oriental Studies

15:73–99.

———. 1996a. “The Importance of the Language Continuum in Arabic Multiglossia.”

In Understanding Arabic: Essays in Contemporary Arabic Linguistics in Honor

of El-Said Badawi, ed. A. Elgibali. Cairo: The American University in Cairo

Press. 69–90.

———. 1996b. “The ±•m/G•m in Colloquial Urban Egyptian Arabic.” Israel

Oriental Studies 16:153–68.

———. 1996c. “Adaptations of Hebrew Script.” In The World’s Writing Systems ,

ed. W. Bright and P. Daniels. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 727–34 and

741–42.

———. 1997a. “The Impact of the Cairo Genizah Documents on the Study of the

History of Arabic.” Bulletin of the Israeli Academic Center in Cairo, Special

Issue: The Cairo Genizah: One Hundred Years of Discovery 21:35–39.

———. 1997b. “On Later and Modern Egyptian Judeo-Arabic.” In Humanism,

Culture, and Language in the Near East: Studies in Honor of George Krotkoff,

ed. A. Afsaruddin and M. Zahniser. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 199–224.

———. 1999. “Hebrew Elements in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic Texts.” In Vena Hebraica

in Judaeorum Linguis, ed. S. Morag, M. Bar-Asher, M. Mayer-Modena. Milano:

Università delgi Studi di Milano. 67–91.

———. 2000a. “Egyptian Judeo-Arabic ¡ar˙: Bridging the Cultures of Hebrew

and Arabic.” In Judaism and Islam : Boundaries, Communication and Interaction.

Essays in Honor of William M. Brinner, ed. B. Hary, J. Hayes, and F. Astren.

Leiden: Brill. 395–407.

———. 2000b. “Egyptian Judeo-Arabic ¡ar˙ of Genesis.” Proceedings of the

Third International Conference of AÏDA (Association Internationale de

Dialectologie Arabe), ed. Manwel Mifsud. Malta. 53-58.

———. 2003. “Judeo-Arabic: A Diachronic Reexamination.” International Journal

336

for the Sociology of Language 163:61–75.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. 2004. “Jewish Languages, Are They Sacred?” In Lenguas en contacto de

la Antiguedad a la Edad Media, ed. P. Bádenas de la Peña, S. Torallas Tovar,

E. R. Luján, and M. A. Gallego. Madrid: CSIC. 225–44.

———. 2007. “Hypercorrection.” Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics .

Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill. 275–79.

———. 2009. Sacred Texts: The Tradition of the ¡ar˙ in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic,

with Critical Editions and Translations of the Book of Genesis, the Book of

Esther, and the Passover Haggadah. Leiden: Brill. Forthcoming.

Hary, Benjamin, and María Ángeles Gallego. 1999. “La Versión Española de

Maqre Dardeqe.” In Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Century , ed. J. T. Borrás

and A. Sáenz-Badillos. Vol 1. Leiden: Brill. 57–64.

Hary, Benjamin, and Martin J. Wein. 2008. “Religiolinguistics: Mapping the

Impact of Religion on Linguistic Varieties.” Paper presented at the University of

Haifa, Israel.

Hatav, Galia. 2004. “Anchoring World and Time in Biblical Hebrew.” Journal of

Linguistics 40:491–526.

———. 2007. “Teaching the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System.” Higher Hebrew

Education 12:5–52.

Hertz, Joseph H. 1936. Sermons, Addresses and Studies. 3 vols. London: Soncino.

Hinds, Martin, and El-Said Badawi. 1986. A Dictionary of Egyptian Arabic:

Arabic-English. Beirut: Librarie du Liban.

Hopkins, Simon. 1984. Studies in the Grammar of Early Arabic. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Horsnell, Malcolm J. A. 1999. A Review and Reference Grammar for Biblical

Hebrew. Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster University Press.

Jacobs, Neil G. 2005. Yiddish: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Jastrow, Otto. 1990. Der arabische Dialekt der Juden von >Aqra und Arb•l.Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

———. 1992. “Der arabische Dialekt der Juden von Kirkuk.” Jerusalem Studies in


337

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. 1999. “Three Anecdotes in Jewish Maslawi.” In Linguistic and Cultural

Studies on Arabic and Hebrew: Essays Presented to Moshe Piamenta for His

Eightieth Birthday. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 61–70.

Jochnowitz, George. 1985. “Had Gadya in Judeo-Italian and Shuadit (Judeo-

Provençal).” In Readings in the Sociology of Jewish Languages , ed. J. A.

Fishman. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 241–45.

———. 2001. “Sacred Texts in Judeo-Italian and Judeo-Provençal.” Paper presented

at the annual meeting of the Association for Jewish Studies, Washington, DC.

Israel, Jonathan I. 1989. European Jewry in the Age of Mercantilism 1550–1750.

Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Kaplan, Steven, and Meley Mulugetta. “Bible Translations into Ge>ez: Jewish and

Christian Contexts.” Pe‘amim 83:132–46. [in Hebrew]

Kasher, Rimon. 2000. “Aramaic Bible Translations.” Pe‘amim 83:70–107. [in

Hebrew]

Khan, Geoffrey. 1990. Karaite Bible Manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah .

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 1991. “A Study of the Judaeo-Arabic of Late Genizah Documents and Its

Comparison with Classical Judaeo-Arabic.” Sefunot n.s. 5/20:223–34. [in Hebrew]

———. 1992. “Notes on the Grammar of a Late Egyptian Judaeo-Arabic Text.”

Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 15:220–39.

Lebedev, Viktor Vladimirovitch. 1965. “Skazka o zolotoj gazele: obrazçik arabskogo

fol’klora XVII veka.” Semitskie Jazyki 2:521–32. [in Russian]

———. 1977. Pozdnij srednearabskij jazyk (XIII–XVIII VV). Moscow: Nauka. [in

Russian]

Lehiste, Ilse. 1988. Lectures on Language Contact . Cambridge, MA: The MIT

Press.

Levy, Lital. 2008. “Historicizing the Concept of Arab Jews in the Mashriq.”

Jewish Quarterly Review 98/4:452–69.

López-Morillas, Consulo. 1994. “Aljamiado and the Moriscos’ Islamicization of

Spanish.” In Perspective on Arabic Linguistics VI , ed. M. Eid, V. Cantarino

and K. Walters. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 17–23.

al-Ma\rib•, Y¥sef. 1968. Daf> al-ißr >an kalåm ahl mißr, ed. >Abd as-Salåm

338

A˙mad >Awwåd. Moscow (ms. 1606).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mahootian, Shahrzad. 2006. “Code Switching and Mixing.” Encyclopedia of

Language and Linguistics, ed. K. Brown. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

511–27.

Malter, Henry. 1921. Saadia Gaon, His Life and Works. Philadelphia: Jewish

Publication Society.

Maman, Aharon. 2000. “The Meghrebi Shar˙ of the Bible.” Pe‘amim 83:48–56.

[in Hebrew]

———. 2004. “The Sefrou (Morocco) Version of al->a¡ar kalimåt.” Jerusalem

Studies in Arabic and Islam 29:358–76.

Mansour, Jacob. 1991. The Jewish Baghdadi Dialect: Studies and Texts in the

Judaeo-Arabic Dialect of Baghdad. Or-Yehuda: The Babylonian Jewry Heritage

Center.

Matras, Yaron. 1991. “Zur Rekonstruktion des jüdischdeutschen Wortschatzes in

den Mundarten ehemaliger ‘Judendörfer’ in Südwestdeutschland.” Zeitschrift für

Dialektologie und Linguistik 58/3:267–93.

McGuirk, Russel. 1986. Colloquial Arabic of Egypt. London: Routledge.

Mejdell, Gunvor. 2006. Mixed Styles in Spoken Arabic in Egypt: Somewhere

between Order and Chaos. Leiden: Brill.

Mitchell, Terence Frederick. 1962. Colloquial Arabic: The Living Language of

Egypt. London: The English Universities Press.

———. 1978. An Introduction to Egyptian Colloquial Arabic. Oxford: Clarendon

Press.

Myhill, John. 2004. Language in Jewish Society: Toward a New Understanding .

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Newby, Gordon Darnell. 1971. “Observations about an Early Judaeo-Arabic.” Jewish

Quarterly Review 61:212–21.

———. 1988. A History of the Jews of Arabia from Ancient Times to Their

Eclipse Under Islam. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Norlin, Kjell. 1987. A Phonetic Study of Emphasis and Vowels in Egyptian

Arabic. Lund: Lund University, Department of Linguistics.

Ohala, John. 1993. “The Phonetics of Sound Change.” In Historical Linguistics:

Problems and Perspectives, ed. C. Jones. London: Longman. 237–78.

339

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ornan, Uzzi. 1985: “Hebrew Is Not a Jewish Language.” Le¡onénu 48/49:199–206.

[in Hebrew]

Paper, Herbert, ed. 1978. Jewish Languages: Theme and Variations. Cambridge:

Association for Jewish Studies.

Piamenta, Moshe. 1988. “Remarks following up the Lectures of Y. Avishur and H.

V. Sephiha.” In Studies in Jewish Languages: Bible Translations and Spoken

Dialects, ed. M. Bar-Asher. Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim. 75–78. [in Hebrew]

———. 1996. “Intra- and Intercommunal Appellations in Judeo-Yemeni.” In

Proceedings of the Colloquium on Logos, Ethos, Mythos in the Middle East

and North Africa, Budapest, September 1995, ed. K. Dévényi and T. Iványi.

Part 1, Budapest: Eötvös Lórand University; Csoma de Korös Society. 19–30.

Polliack, Meria. 1997. The Karaite Tradition of Arabic Bible Translation: A

Linguistic & Exegetical Study of Karaite Translations of the Pentateuch from

the Tenth & Eleventh Centuries CE. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Prager, Leonard. 1986. “A Preliminary Checklist of English Names of Jewish

Lects.” Jewish Language Review 6.

Rabin, Chaim. 1981. “What Constitutes a Jewish Language?” International Journal

of the Sociology of Language 30:19–28.

Rabin, Haim, et al. 1979. “Ha-leshonot ha-yehudiyot: ha-meshutaf, ha-meyu˙ad

ve-ha-be>ayati” [Jewish Languages: The Common, the Unique and the

Problematic]. Pe‘amim 1:40–66. [in Hebrew]

Rabinowitz, Louis Isaac. 1971. “Proselytes.” Encyclopedia Judaica 13:1182–94.

Reckendorf, Hermann. 1895–98. Die syntaktischen Verhältnisse des Arabischen.

Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Rickford, John R. 1987. Dimensions of a Creole Continuum: History, Texts, and

Linguistic Analysis of Guyanese Creole. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Rosenbaum, Gabriel. 2002a. “The Particles ma and lam and Emphatic Negation in

Egyptian Arabic.” In Sprich doch mit deinen Knechten aramäisch, wir verstehen

es!, ed. W. Arnold and H. Bobzin. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 583–98.

———. 2002b. “The Arabic Dialect of Jews in Modern Egypt.” Bulletin of the

Israeli Academic Center in Cairo 25:35–46.

———. 2002c. “Spoken Jewish Arabic in Modern Egypt: Hebrew and Non-Standard

340

Components.” Massorot 12:117–48. [in Hebrew]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. 2002d. “Hebrew Words and Karaite Goldsmiths’ Secret Language Used by

Jews and Non-Jews in Modern Egypt.” Pe‘amim 90:115–53. [in Hebrew]

———. 2004. “Egyptian Arabic as a Written Language.” Jerusalem Studies in


———. 2008. “Mixing Colloquial and Literary Arabic in Modern Egyptian Prose

through the Use of Free Indirect Style and Interior Monologue.” In Moyen arabe

et variétés moyennes de l’arabe à travers l’histoire (Actes du premier colloque

international, Louvain-la-Neuve, 10–14 May 2004), ed. J. Lentin and J.

Grand’Henry. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain, Institut

orientaliste de Louvain. 391–404.

Rosenbloom, Joseph R. 1978. Conversion to Judaism : From the Biblical Period

to the Present. Cincinnati, OH: HUC Press.

Rosenzweig, Franz. 1971. The Star of Redemption. Trans. William W. Hallo. New

York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Sabar, Yona. 1983. The Book of Genesis in Neo-Aramaic. Publications of the

Hebrew University Language Traditions Project, vol. 9. Jerusalem: The Magnes

Press. The Hebrew University.

———. 1988. The Book of Exodus in Neo-Aramaic. Publications of the Hebrew

University Language Traditions Project, vol. 12. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

The Hebrew University.

———. 2000. “The Pentateuch in Neo-Aramaic: Overview.” Pe‘amim 83:107–17.

[in Hebrew]

Sasson, David Solomon. 1932. Ohel David: Descriptive Catalogue of the Hebrew

and Samaritan Manuscripts in the Sasson Library, London. London: Oxford

University Press.

Schwarzvald (Rodrigue), Ora. 1989. The Ladino Translations of Pirke Aboth:

Studies in the Translation of Mishnaic Hebrew into Judeo-Spanish. Publications

of the Hebrew University Language Traditions Project, vol.13. Jerusalem: The

Magnes Press. The Hebrew University.

———. 1992. “Linguistic Trends in the Development of Ladino Translations.”

Paper presented at the conference, “Memories from Spain,” Paris.

———. 2001. “Judeo-Spanish Textbooks and Orthographic Issues.” Leshonenu

341

La‘am LI–LII 2:81–85. [in Hebrew]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sephiha, Haim Vidal. 1988. “Ladino: A Judeo-Spanish Calque.” In Studies in

Jewish Languages: Bible Translations and Spoken Dialects, ed. M. Bar-Asher.

Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim. 35–37. [in Hebrew]

Shenhav, Yehouda. 2003. The Arab-Jews: Nationalism, Religion and Ethnicity .

Tel Aviv: Am Oved Publishers. [in Hebrew]

Smith, Anthony D. 1993. “Ethnic Sources of Nationalism.” Survival V, 35/1.

Snir, Reuven. 2005. Arabness, Jewishness, Zionism: A Clash of Identities in the

Literature of Iraqi Jews. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute.

Sole, Aryeh. 1959. “Between the Two World Wars.” In Encyclopedia of Diasporas:

Subcarpathian Ruthenia, ed. Y. Erez. Jerusalem: “Encyclopedia of Diaspora”

Publishers Inc. 139–226. [in Hebrew]

Spiro, Socrates. 1923. Arabic-English Dictionary of the Modern Arabic of Egypt .

2nd ed. Cairo: Elias’ Modern Press.

Spitta-Bey, Wilhelm. 1880. Grammatik des arabischen Vulgärdialektes von Ägypten .

Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich’sche Buchhandlung.

Spolsky, Bernard, and Sarah Bunin Benor. 2006. “Jewish Languages.” In

Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. K. Brown. 2nd ed. Vol. 6.

Oxford: Elsevier. 120–24.

Spolsky, Bernard, and Elana Shohamy. 1999. The Languages of Israel: Policy,

Ideology and Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Stern, Karen B. 2008. Inscribing Devotion and Death: Archaeological Evidence

for Jewish Populations of North Africa. Leiden: Brill.

Stewart, Devin. 1994. “A Contribution to the Lexicography of Egyptian Arabic.”

Zeitschrift für arabische Linguistik 28:36–86.

Stewart, William. 1965. “Urban Negro Speech: Sociolinguistic Factors Affecting

English Teaching.” In Social Dialects and Language Learning , ed. R. Shuy.

Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. 10–18.

Stillman, Norman A. 1988. The Language and Culture of the Jews of Sefrou,

Morocco: An Ethnolinguistic Study. [Manchster, England]: University of

Manchester.

———. 1991. “Language Patterns in Islamic and Judaic Societies.” In Islam and

Judaism: 1400 Years of Shared Values, ed. S. Wasserstrom. Portland, OR: The

342

Institute for Judaic Studies in the Pacific Northwest. 41–55.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Tedghi, Joseph. 1994. “A Moroccan Ma˙zor in Judeo-Arabic.” Massorot 8:91–160.

[in Hebrew]

Thomsen, John. N.d. “Features of Faroese Diglossia.” Unpublished manuscript.

Timm, Erika. 2007. “Der Einfluss aschkenasischen Bibelübersetzung-stätigkeit auf

die jiddische Gemeinsprach.” In The Bible in/and Yiddish , ed. S. Berger.

Amsterdam: Menasseh ben Israel Institute. 21–41.

Tirosh-Becker, Ofra. 2006. “An Algerian Judeo-Arabic Translation of Piyyut ‘Mi

Khamokha’ by Rabbi Yehuda Ha-Levi.” Massorot 13–14:315–69. [in Hebrew]

Tobi, Yosef. 1996. “Another Popular Judeo-Arabic Translation of the Pentateuch.”

In Studies in Hebrew and Jewish Languages, Presented to Shelomo Morag, ed.

Moshe Bar-Asher. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute. 481–501.

———. 2002. “Translations of Sa>adia Liturgical Works into Arabic.” In Studies

in the History and Culture of the Jews in Babylonia, ed. Y. Avishur and Z.

Yehuda. Or-Yehuda: The Babylonian Jewry Heritage Center. 203–30.

Tomiche, Nada. 1964. Le parler arabe du Caire. The Hague: Mouton.

———. 1968. “La situation linguistique en Égypte.” In Le langage , ed. A.

Martinet. Paris: Gallimard. 1173–87.

Turniansky, Chava. 2007. “Reception and Rejection of Yiddish Renderings of the

Bible.” In The Bible in/and Yiddish, ed. S. Berger. Amsterdam: Menasseh ben

Israel Institute. 7–20.

Verschik, Anna. 2007. “Jewish Russian and the Field of Ethnolect Study.” Language

in Society 36/2:213–32.

Versteegh, Kees. 1984. Pidginization and Creolization: The Case of Arabic.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

———. 1997. The Arabic Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Wacholder, Ben Zion. 1956. “The Haskalah and the Proselytizing of Jews During

the Gaonic Era.” Historia Judaica 18.

Wagner, Esther-Miriam. 2007. “A Linguistic Analysis of Judaeo-Arabic Letters

from the Cairo Genizah.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.

Wehr, Hans. 1976. Arabic-English Dictionary , ed. J. Milton Cowan. 3rd ed.

Ithaca, NY: Spoken Languages Services.

———. 1994. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, ed. J. Milton Cowan. 4th

343

ed. Ithaca: Spoken Languages Services.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wein, Martin J. 2005. “Only Czecho-German Jews? A Response to Dimitri

Shumsky’s Concept of Czecho-German Jews.” Zion 70/3:383–92. [in Hebrew]

———. 2007. “Nation-Cleansing and Wars of Authenticity: Czech Nationalism

and Jewish History, 1914–1952.” Ph.D. dissertation, Ben-Gurion University,

Beer-Sheva, Israel.

———. 2009. “Chosen Peoples—Holy Tongues: Religion, Language, Nationalism

and Politics in Bohemia and Moravia in the Seventeenth to Twentieth Centuries.”

Past and Present. Forthcoming.

Weinreich, Max. 1945. “Der Yivo un di problemen fun undzer tsayt.” Yivo-bleter

25/1.

———. 1980. History of the Yiddish Language. Transl. S. Noble and J. Fishman.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Weinreich, Uriel. 1979. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems . The

Hague: Mouton.

Wexler, Paul. 1981. “Jewish Interlinguistics: Facts and Conceptual Framework.”

Language 57/1:99–145.

———. 2006. Jewish and Non-Jewish Creators of ‘Jewish’ Languages with

Special Attention to Judaized Arabic, Chinese, German, Greek, Persian,

Portuguese, Slavic (Modern Hebrew/Yiddish), Spanish, and Karaite, and Semitic

Hebrew/Ladino: A Collection of Reprinted Articles from across Four Decades

with a Reassessment. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Woidich, Manfred. “Negation and negative Sätze im Ägyptisch-arabischen.” Ph.D.

dissertation, University of Munich, Munich.

———. 1990. Materialen zur Kenntnis des kairenisch-arabischen . Amsterdam:

Instituut voor het Moderne Nabiije Oosten, Universiteit van Amsterdam.

Wright, W. 1974. A Grammar of the Arabic Language, Translated from the

German of Caspari and Edited with Numerous Additions and Corrections. 3rd

ed. 2 vols. Beirut: Librairie du Liban.

Yerushalmi, David. 2000. “Judeo-Persian Bible Translations.” Pe‘amim 84:21–39.

[in Hebrew]

Yu, Alan. 2006. “Sound Change: Phonetic.” Encyclopedia of Language and

Linguistics, ed. K. Brown. 2nd ed. Vol. 11. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 525–28.

344

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Zafrani, Haim. 1980. Littératures juives en Occident musulman. Paris: Geuthner.

———. 1988. “Jewish Languages in the Maghreb under Islam and Judeo-Arabic

Translations of the Bible.” In Studies in Jewish Languages: Bible Translations

and Spoken Dialects, ed. M. Bar-Asher. Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim.

55–67. [in Hebrew]

Bible Editions, Lexicons, and Translations:

Al-Kitåb al-Muqaddas ayy kutubu al->ahdi al-qad•mi wa-l->ahdi al-jad•di. 2004.

Dår al-Kitåb al-Muqaddas f• al-⁄arq al-<Awßa† [in Arabic].

Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures. The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional

Hebrew Text. 1988. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

BDB = Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds. N.d. A Hebrew

and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Derenbourg, J., ed. 1893. Oevres Complète de R. Saadia ben Yosef Al-Fayyoûmî .

Paris: Ernest Leroux, Éditeur.

Elliger, K., and W. Rudolph. 1990. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia . 4th ed.

Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

Fisch, Harold, ed. 1992. The Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem: Koren Publishers.

Kafah, Yosef. 1962. Five Scrolls with Saadia’s Translations and Interpretations.

Jerusalem: Ha-Agudah le-Hatsalat Ginze Teman.

Scherman, Nosson, ed. 1996. Tanach: The Stone Edition. New York: Mesorah

Publications.

345

INDEX

>Abd al->Al, |åda, 97n8>Abd al->Al•m, Óusayn, 97n8Abraham ibn Ezra, 142accusative case (Feature 8-1),

129, 176, 177, 257–64accusative marker, 21, 184,

257–64, 314. See also directobject, definite

adjective-noun agreement,277–78, 280–81, 282, 283,284–85

adjectives, 123adverbs (Feature 2-2), 129, 131,

136, 192–98, 230afikoman (defined), 116n53agreement (Category 10),

127–28, 274–87alif, final, 312–16alif mamd¥da, 104, 306,

316–17alif maqß¥ra bi-ß¥rat il-alif,

316alif waßla, 306Amidah, 66, 68Arab Israelis, 31Arab Jews, 30–32

Arab Muslim culture, 62Arabic language

colloquial, 87, 140. Seealso Egyptian Arabic,colloquial; EgyptianJudeo-Arabic, spoken

Classical, 137–38development of, 44dialects of, 24standard, 38–40, 44, 78,

87, 95, 97, 132, 141,147, 184, 237, 279–80,282, 294, 300, 311,318–19

See also Egyptian Judeo-Arabic; Judeo-Arabic

Arabic script, 9, 19, 55Arabic-speaking Jews, 32Arabicized orthography. See

orthography, Arabicized>arabiyya, al-, 24, 40Aramaic, 6, 25, 48, 51–54,

61–62, 64–65, 69, 85–86, 88,93

See also Hebrew/Aramaicelements; Hebrew/Aramaic loans

INDEX

archaic forms, 23–24, 60, 134,142

argot, borrowing of, 17–18article. See definite articleAshkenazi Jewry, 45assimilation (Feature 13-1), 75,

79, 85, 107, 110, 304Association for Jewish Studies,

47asyndetic clauses, 89, 130, 233/>ayn/, in Egyptian Judeo-

Arabic, 105

Babylonian Jewry, 47Bakr•, °mån, 97Benjamin of Tudela, 47Berberic, 26Bird Milk, 97Bukharic, 26Bustanai b. Óaninai, 15n23

‘Cairene Purim Scroll,’ 142Cairo Collection, 63–65Cairo Geniza, 95, 101, 142calque translations, 163, 170,

178–81, 200, 201–2, 217,224, 232, 322–23

Canaanic, 26cases (Category 8), 128–29,

257–65Catalanic, 26Christian languages, 9, 17

348

complementizer, 242–43

conditional particles (Feature5-3), 234–37

conjunctions, coordinating,231–33

continuglossia, 37, 40–44conversion, to Judaism, 13–15coordinating particles and

conjunctions (Feature 5-2),166–67, 173, 231–33

Copts, 92n3co-territorial language, 7n6Cyrillic script, 20, 55Czernovitz conference (1908),

10, 20

Darkei no>am, 142deemphatization, 79, 108–9,

305–6. See alsoemphatization

defective spelling, 98, 173n2definite article, 67–69, 110–11,

125, 147, 151, 153, 181adding where needed

(Feature 9-1), 78, 175,177–78, 266–70

adding where not needed(Feature 9-2), 270–71

deleting where needed(Feature 9-3), 271–72

deleting where not needed(Feature 9-4), 78, 169,174, 272–73

INDEX

definiteness (Category 9),266–73

See also accusativemarker; definite article

derash, 67diacritic marks (Feature 13-5),

78, 310–11dialect (defined), 10–11dialectalism, migrated or

displaced, 22–23, 103, 114,134

Diaspora, 13, 48, 59, 188diglossia, 38n12. See also

continuglossiadiphthongs, contraction of, 103,

308direct object, definite, 21, 58, 69,

165, 176, 238. See alsoaccusative marker

directional case (Feature 8-2),264–65

dual, 123dual agreement (Feature 10-1),

274

Ecclesiastes, book of, 64Egyptian Arabic

colloquial, 79, 89, 96, 97,101, 106, 123, 150, 165,170, 173, 174, 177. Seealso Arabic language,colloquial; Egyptian

349

Judeo-Arabic, spoken

urban, 96See also Egyptian Judeo-

Arabic, spoken; Judeo-Arabic, Cairene

Egyptian Christians, 92n3Egyptian Judeo-Arabic, spoken

23, 34n8, 37, 64, 89, 91–136,141–43, 172, 175. See alsoArabic, colloquial; EgyptianArabic, colloquial

adjectives in, 123adverbs in, 131agreement in, 127–28alif mamd¥da in, 104assimilation in, 107asyndetic clauses in, 130/>ayn/ in, 105case in, 128–29data for the study of, 92,

141–42deemphatization in,

108–9. See also tarq•qdefinite article in, 110–11,

125diphthongs in, 103dual in, 123emphatization in, 107–8.

See also tafx•mfeatures of, summarized,

134–36genitive marker in, 116–17/g•m/ in, 96, 105glides in, 106

INDEX

hamza in, 103–4Hebrew loans in, 102, 106,

108interdental shift in, 104–5lexicon of, 131–33loss of final consonants

in, 110morphology of, 112–24negation in, 125–27nouns in, 122, 127–28,

132–33numerals in, 123–24,

129–30/p/ in, 107phonetics and phonology

of, 100–11prepositions in, 131pronouns in, 112–16, 125,

128, 130/qåf/ in, 106reconstruction of, 93–99sound plural in, 123sound shifts in, 109–10syntax of, 125–30tafx•m in, 107–8. See also

emphatizationtarq•q in, 108–9. See also

deemphatizationverbs in, 117–22, 127, 132vowel shifts in, 100–103vowel shortening in,

102–3, 104

350

Egyptian Muslims, 92n3

elision (Feature 13-3), 306emphatization, 107–8, 134–35,

140, 149–50, 208and deemphatization

(Feature 13-2), 305–6.See also deempha-tization

ethnicity, 12, 31ethnolect (defined), 12Ezekiel, book of, 64

Faroese, 41Farsi, 26Film Industry Regulations, 45finite verbs (Feature 7-2), 164,

167, 171–72, 252, 255, 256

/g/, in urban Egyptian Arabic,96

gemination, 307, 309gender, in analysis of ¡ar˙ and

tefilot latini, 61gender agreement (Feature

10-3), 67, 69, 77, 116, 128,164, 169, 170, 174, 177,280–87

genitive marker, 116–17,151–52, 286–87

/!•m/, in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic, 96, 105

glides, 106, 208orthographic marking of

(Feature 13-4), 307–10

INDEX

Gurjic, 26Gyoto-Italian, 23

haf†arot, 52Haggadah, 25, 52, 64, 65

sample linguistic analyisof, 75–80

Haketiya, 26hamza, 103–4, 138n2, 212, 306˙art il-yah¥d, 33, 36head-to-toe scanning, 74–80, 90

examples of, 166–78Hebraism, 30n2Hebraized orthography, see

Hebrew-influencedorthography (Feature 13-6);orthography, Hebraized

Hebrew,translation of into Judeo-

Arabic, 57–59translation into Judeo-

Spanish 59–60Hebrew Bible, 19, 25, 52

as sacred text, 54–55translation of, 53–57, 60translations of, 48, 65, 72,

182See also medieval biblical

interpretationHebrew script, 9, 13, 19, 19n30,

54, 55–56Hebrew/Aramaic elements, 9,

351

13, 17–18, 20

in argot, 17–18in Hebraized orthography,

43in Jewish religiolects, 21,

137in Judeo-Arabic, 29, 33,

35–38, 40, 44, 134,144–55

in ¡ur¥˙, 54, 156–59Hebrew/Aramaic loans, 6, 102,

106, 108, 148–51Hebrew-influenced

orthography (Feature 13-6),167, 170, 172, 174, 176,177bis, 311–27

Hertz, Joseph, 48, 53Hessonian dialects, 17Óusayn, ˇaha, 35n9hyperaccommodation, 16hypercorrections, 97, 138,

139–41hypocorrections, 95, 138, 140,

141–43, 216–17standardization of, 78,

94–95

I’d Like to Get Married, 97n8i!åfa construction, 122, 123,

129–30, 136, 172–73,266n42, 269, 271, 272\ayr ˙aq•qiyya, 94, 267

identity, religious, 5–6

INDEX

infinitives (Feature 7-1), 88,164, 171, 250–56

intelligibility, mutual, 7, 10–11,22

interdentals, 104–5, 140loss of, 263n39

interferenceof Hebrew/Aramaic on

Judeo-Arabic, 145–46,153–55

of Judeo-Arabic onHebrew/Aramaic,144–45, 146–53

morphological, 151–53,154–55

phonological, 148–51,154–55

resistance to, 147–48syntactic, 153, 155

intermediate product (IP),86–89. See also translation,process of

Isaiah, book of, 64Israeli Hebrew, 144Israeli Postal Service, 45Issachar ben Susan, 56–57,

61–62Italkian, 26

jargon, borrowing of, 17Jeremiah, book of, 64Jewish assimilation, 54

352

Jewish English, 16, 17, 21, 25,27

Orthodox, 11, 16n24Jewish identity, 13, 59, 62, 68Jewish languages, 5n1, 6, 7, 9,

16definition of, 8–13development of, 8study of, 8See also Jewish

religiolects; Jewishvarieties; and entriesbeginning with Judeo-

Jewish linguistics, 7, 16Jewish literature, 22Jewish Malayalam, 21–22, 23,

24, 25, 27, 52Jewish religiolects, 13, 16, 19

and archaic forms, 23–24,142

and Hebrew/Aramaicelements, 21–22, 144

and interference, 146–47defined, 12–13. See also

religiolect, definedJewish varieties, 5–6, 25–27

characteristics of, 19–25development of, 13–16

Jewish-defined languages, 5n1,18–19, 23

Jews, Arabic-speaking, 32Jidyó, 26Job, book of, 64

INDEX

Judaism, conversion to, 13–15Judeo-Alsatian, 26Judeo-Arabic, 7, 8, 9, 15, 25–26

Baghdadi, 22Cairene, 22–23, 69, 91n1.

See also EgyptianJudeo-Arabic

Classical, 34, 35, 36, 37,39–40, 41–42, 43, 56, 61

Contemporary, 34, 37, 43,45–49

defined, 29–30Dialectal Spoken, 38dialects of Haifa, Peq•>•n,

and Tiberias,105n36Early, 34, 35Egyptian See Egyptian

Judeo-Arabicextent of, 27folk literature in, 36, 37history of, 30–37Iraqi, 37, 37n11Late, 52Later Egyptian literary,

169Later, 34, 36, 42, 43, 56Literary Written, 33Maghrebi, 37Moroccan, 24, 46, 49number of speakers, 49orthography of, 20, 33, 61periodization of, 34

353

Pre-Islamic, 34, 35

spoken Baghdadi, 92Standard Written, 38structure of, 37–39Syrian, 37Tunisian, 98n13Yemenite, 37

Judeo-Arabic continuglossia,40–44

Judeo-Arabic continuum,38–41

Judeo-Arabic folktales, 142Judeo-Arabic letters, 95, 101Judeo-Arabic literature, 29, 40Judeo-Arabic speakers, 30–32,

49Judeo-Aramaic, 14Judeo-Berber, 8, 15, 26, 52Judeo-Catalan, 26Judeo-Crimchak, 26Judeo-Czech, 26Judeo-Dutch, 8, 27Judeo-French, 26

currently spoken inFrance, 27

Judeo-Georgian, 25, 26, 52Judeo-German, 8. See also

YiddishJudeo-Greek, 14, 26Judeo-Italian, 6, 8, 17, 21, 23,

25, 26, 52, 61Judeo-Kurdish, 26Judeo-Neo-Aramaic, 25, 26, 52Judeo-Persian, 8, 18, 26, 52

INDEX

Judeo-Polish, 8Judeo-Portugese, 26Judeo-Provençal, 8, 26, 52Judeo-Russian, 8, 27Judeo-Slavic, 26Judeo-Spanish, 7, 9, 18, 19n29,

24, 25, 26, 27, 44, 45, 47, 52,60

currently spoken in LatinAmerica, 27

Hebrew roots, 22Judeo-Tajik, 26Judeo-Tat, Judeo-Tatic, 9, 26Judezmo, 26Juhuri, 26

Knaanic, 26Kulturbund, 9n12

Ladino, 25, 26, 45, 52, 59–60/lam/ (negative particle), 94–95,

126–27, 138n2, 141–43,215–19

See also verbal negation(Feature 4-2)

languageco-territorial, 7n5defined, 9–10, 10–11, 17majority, 7n6

language variety, 11. See alsovariety

languages, classification of, 9

354

Latin alphabet, 19n30, 20, 55

lect (defined), 12n16lexicon (Category 3), 200–12linguistics, Jewish, 7literal/interpretive continuum,

68–76literal/interpretive tension,

57–60in ¡ar˙, 166–78, 182See also translation;

word-for-wordtranslation (Feature 1-1)

liturgical/religious terms, in¡ar˙ texts, 158–59

loan processes, 178–79loan translations, 179loans, 102, 106, 108, 148–51locative. See directional case

(Feature 8-2), 264–65lu\a al-wuß†a, al-, 40

Maimonides, Moses, 39majority dialect, 134majority language, 7n6, 17, 23,

24, 25Malayalam, 19n32. See also

Jewish MalayalamMaltese, 44il-maßri wir-r•fi, 142. See also

‘Townsmen and Fellah’matres lectionis, 207–8Mechanism A, 86–87, 89–90,

163, 182. See also translation,process of

INDEX

Mechanism B, 87–90, 163, 166,182. See also translation,process of

medieval biblical interpretation,186

Megillat p¥r•m il-mißriyy•n,142

megillot, 52mEllå˙, 33, 36methodology, 66–80, 93–99,

165–66Middle Arabic, Literary

Written, 139Midrashic literature, 25, 52, 55.

See also medieval biblicalinterpretation

migration, 13, 22–33. See alsodialectalism, migrated ordisplaced

migration language, 6Minor Prophets, book of, 64mistranslations, 190n1mixed forms, 153Mizrahi Democratic Rainbow,

31n4Mizrahim, 30Modern Hebrew, 18mood (Feature 11-2), 293–95Moroccan Judeo-Spanish, 26morphosyntactic level (of

analysis), 74, 166, 213–302Muslim Arabic, Morrocan, 24

355

Muslim languages, 9, 17

Muslim Malayalam, 19, 19n32.See also Jewish Malayalam

nationalism, 31–32negation (Category 4), 125–27,

213–19in analysis of shar˙, 69of nouns. See nominal

negation (Feature 4-1)of verbs. See verbal

negation (Feature 4-2)nominal negation (Feature 4-1),

171, 213–15non-Jewish (term), 6n2nouns, 123, 127–28, 132–33

with numerals (Feature12-1), 299–302

See also cases (Category8); nominal negation

noun-verb agreement, 274–77,279, 280, 281, 282

number, in analysis of ¡ar˙, 69number agreement, 274–80numerals, 123–24, 129–30

(Category 12), 299–302(Feature 2-3), 167,

199–200with counted nouns

(Feature 12-1), 299–302

object marker, 165Onqelos, 61, 68, 87. See also

Targum

INDEX

OrthographyArabicized, 20, 35–36, 43,

61, 177, 309, 310, 312,313, 315, 316, 317, 320

Hebraized, 20, 33, 36, 43,44, 104, 167, 170, 172,174, 177

Hebrew-influenced(Feature 13-6), 167, 170,172, 174, 177bis,311–27

hypercorrection and,140–41

Jewish varieties and,20–21

Phonetic, 20, 35phonology and, 96–99religious symbolism of,

55–56Talmudic, 19

orthography/phonology(Category 13), 212, 305–27

overcorrectness. Seepseudocorrections

/p/, in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic,107, 154

paraphrase, in analysis of ¡ar˙,69

Parsic, 26participles, 67–68, 70, 119, 127,

132, 168–69, 171, 173, 218,

356

273, 274, 277, 282, 285,

287–88, 290–93negation of, 126, 218passive, 296–97, 299

particles, 69as accusative markers,

259–60coordinating, 231–34conditional (Feature 5-3),

234–37passive voice (Feature 11-3),

295–99Peq•>•n, 21, 105n36personal names. See proper

namespeshat, 67Phonetic orthography. See

orthography, Phoneticphonetic spelling, 169phonetics, of Egyptian Judeo-

Arabic, 100–11phonology

of Egyptian Judeo-Arabic,100–11

orthography and, 96–99phrase (term), 73n25phrase level (of analysis), 74,

166, 183–200Pirkei Avot, 25, 52, 59piyyu†im, 64place names. See proper namesplural, sound, 123plural agreement (Feature

10-2), 168, 274–80

INDEX

Portugesic, 26prepositions (Feature 5-1), 131,

152, 164, 166, 168, 171, 173,175, 185, 219–31

in analysis of ¡ar˙, 69infinitives and, 250–56interference and, 152

prepositions/particles (Category5), 219–37

prestige language, 137–38pronominal suffixes (Feature

6-2), 238–40pronoun-noun agreement, 278,

279, 280–81, 282–83,284–85, 286

pronouns (Category 6), 237–50demonstrative (Feature

6-4), 164, 174–75, 177,244–48

in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic,111–14, 125, 128, 130

independent personal(Feature 6-1), 167, 172,237–38

interference and, 152interrogative (Feature 6-5),

98, 248–50relative (Feature 6-3), 169,

240–44spelling of, 319–20

proper names, 156–58, 268literal/interpretive tension

357

and, 170

spelling of, 320–27translation of, 83–85, 200,

202, 205–8, 209–10proselytism. See conversion, to

JudaismPsalms, book of, 64pseudoclassical forms, 141pseudocorrections, 39, 40,

216–17, 250defined, 138in the ¡ar˙ tradition,

137–43standardization of, 93, 95See also hypercorrections;

hypocorrectionsPuzzle, 97n8

/qåf/, in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic,106

Qa>•d, Y¥suf al-, 97

religiolect, 29defined, 12–13Jewish, 52–53

religious identity, 5–6Revivo, Haim, 46root choice. See word (or root)

choiceRosenzweig, Franz, 53Ruth, book of, 64

Saadia Gaon, 48, 56–57, 61, 62,70, 87, 93, 94, 182. See also

INDEX

Saadia ibn Yosef al-Fayy¥m•Saadia ibn Yosef al-Fayy¥m•,

36. See also Saadia Gaon¡adda, 307, 309Samaw<al bnu >Ådiyå<, as-, 35‘sanctity by association,’ 56¡ar>, 25, 52¡ar˙ (pl. ¡ur¥˙), 25, 30, 36, 37,

39, 52Hebrew/Aramaic lexicon

in, 156–59linguistic analysis of, 139,

163–78. See alsomorphosyntactic level;phrase level; segmentlevel; word level

linguistic elements of, 93origin of, 61–63literal/interpretive tension

in, 66–74non-standard Arabic of,

57, 59, 66, 88, 185, 218,223, 230–31

previous research on,65–68

reconstruction of spokenEgyptian Judeo-Arabicand, 93–99

sources for, 63–65unique grammar and

structure of, 165, 259¡ar˙an (pl. ¡ar˙anim),

358

translation principles of,

67–68, 69, 76, 85–90, 165–66¡ur¥˙. See ¡ar˙ (pl. ¡ur¥˙)script, Arabic. See Arabic scriptscript, Cyrillic. See Cyrillic

scriptscript, Hebrew. See Hebrew

scriptscriptio defectiva, 98, 173n2scriptio plena, 323segment level (of analysis), 74,

166, 304–27Semitic languages, 9Sephardi Jews, 52‘Sephardi/Mizrahi’ caucus,

47–48Sephardim, 30Septuagint, 61, 68, 205Shuadit, 26Shul˙an >Arukh, 15Siddur, 25, 52slaves, 14–15sociolinguistics, 5–7, 9–10‘Story of Hannah, The,’ 64,

100‘Story of Joseph, The,’ 64‘Story of the Book of Esther,

The,’ 64‘Story of the Destruction, The,’

64, 100‘Story of the Ten Rabbis,’ 64,

100‘Story of Zechariah, The,’ 64stress, Hebrew, 149n18

INDEX

suffixes, pronominal (Feature6-2), 238–40

syntactic adaptation (Feature2-1), 188–92

syntax, of Egyptian Judeo-Arabic, 125–30

tå< marb¥†a, 317–23Tafilalt tradition, 67tafs•r, 56–57, 71. See also

Saadia Gaontafx•m, 107–8. See also

emphatizationTalmud, 25, 47, 52Talmudic orthography, 307,

309tamsir, 25, 52tanw•n, 253, 261, 262Targum, 61tarq•q, 108–9. See also

deemphatizationtavsili, 25, 52taytsh, 25, 52tefila, 25, 52tefilot latini, 61tefilot vulgar, 61tense-mood-aspect (T-M-A)

(Category 11), 69, 287–299tense/aspect (Feature 11-1),

167, 168bis, 170, 171,173–74, 176, 287–93

This Rooster Is an Ox, 97

359

T-M-A. See tense-mood-aspect(T-M-A) (Category 11)

‘Townsmen and Fellah,’ 142.See also il-maßri wir-r•fi

translationeducation and, 58–59, 61,

62, 63etymological, 54process of, 85–90sacred texts and, 24–25,

53–57word choice and, 71, 75See also calque

translations; literal/interpretive tension;Mechanism A;Mechanism B; ¡ar˙an(pl. ¡ar˙anim),translation principles of

translation continuum, 83–85

uvular stop (/q/), shift of, 96–97

variety (defined), 10, 11–12See also Jewish varieties

verb conjugation (Category 7),250–56

verbal forms, 201verbal negation (Feature 4-2),

174, 215–19verbs, 117–22, 127, 131

finite (Feature 7-2), 164,167, 172, 256

INDEX

final-hamza, 121See also noun-verb

agreement; tense-mood-aspect (T-M-A)(Category 11)

vocative, 195, 197voice, passive (Feature 11-3),

295–299vowel lengthening, 98, 148–49,

207vowel shifts, 100–103vowel shortening, 104

‘Ways of Pleasantness,’ 142Weinreich, Max, 10women

as audience for ¡ur¥˙,53–54, 61, 62

deemphatization and,108–9n41

word (or root) choice, 71, 75considerations of

sound/appearance and(Feature 3-2), 76, 77,168, 170, 171, 172, 176,205–12, 219, 220,228–29

360

semantic considerationsand (Feature 3-1), 168,173, 176, 200–205

word level (of analysis), 74,166, 200–12

word order, 9, 69, 241–42,244–48

word order (Category 2),188–200

word-for-word translation(Feature 1-1), 166, 167, 168,170, 171bis, 172, 176,183–88

Yahuudiyya, al-, 35Yédisch-Daïtsch, 26Yeshivish, 11Yevanic, 14, 26Yiddish, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12n20, 15,

17, 18, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 45,46, 52, 65

and linguistic interference,147

Yinglish, 11YIVO (Institute for Jewish

Studies), 45

Zarphatic, 26

Date post:	02-May-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	daniel-budeanu
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times