# Aramaic: ܥܵܠܡܵܢܵܝܵܐ



## fdb

Moderator's Note:The following discussion is split from this thread in the Arabic forum.


Drink said:


> adapted to fit Arabic patterns better by shortening the first vowel).



Quite the contrary is the case. The shortening of the stem vowel before the nisba ending in ʽalm-ānī is a characteristically Aramaic phenomenon, very well known in Syriac (where all the vowels are clearly indicated). It is the same thing that happened with the name of the town Ḥarrān > Aramaic nisba Ḥarr(ə)n-ānāyā > Arabic nisba Ḥarnānī.


----------



## Drink

If that's the case, then it must have been a late borrowing. The Peshitta New Testament spells the word with a long vowel: ܥܵܠܡܵܢܵܝܵܐ (`ālmānāyā). Look up Hebrews 9:1, for example, here or here.


----------



## fdb

Drink said:


> If that's the case, then it must have been a late borrowing. The Peshitta New Testament spells the word with a long vowel: ܥܵܠܡܵܢܵܝܵܐ (`ālmānāyā). Look up Hebrews 9:1, for example, here or here.



...or a borrowing not from Syriac, but from another of the Aramaic languages.

My point is simply that the shortening of the stem vowel is a typical feature in Aramaic, but not in Arabic. In individual cases there is often a paradigmatic levelling in Syriac, resulting in the retention (or reinstatement) of the long vowel.


----------



## Drink

Ok, but you said this phenomenon is very well known in Syriac. Could you give some examples of it in Syriac? Note that your example of Ḥarrān > Ḥarr(ə)nānāyā is a bit different, because that vowel is directly before the nisba, while in `āl(ə)mā > `āl(ə)mānāyā, there is another consonant and optional schwa in between.


----------



## fdb

Lots of examples in Brockelmann, _Grundriss_ I, 397-400 and Nöldeke, _Syr. Gram_. par. 135-6.


----------



## Drink

Thanks for the sources, but I cannot find any examples of this in them. Brockelmann mentions the phenomenon in your example of _Ḥarrān_ > _Ḥarr(ə)nānāyā_ (i.e. _-āC_ > _-(ə)Cāyā_), but says nothing about _-āCVC_ > _-aC(ə)Cāyā_. Nöldeke doesn't mention either of them. If I am missing something, could you tell me exactly which page and paragraph it is in?


----------



## JAN SHAR

fdb, what do you mean by nisba? Do you mean the gentilic ending? If that is what you mean then the gentilic determined masculine plural ending is always āye, isn't it? Like the plural of yəhūdāy ( = Jew) is yəhūdāye in the determined state. Is that the case also with ܥܵܠܡܵܢܵܝܵܐ? If so, then yes, it must be the gentilic ending.


----------



## Drink

JAN SHAR said:


> fdb, what do you mean by nisba? Do you mean the gentilic ending?


If by "gentilic ending" you mean nisba, then yes. I don't think it is worth recategorizing Semitic phenomena according to Latin grammar, when there is already a Semitological term for it.



JAN SHAR said:


> If that is what you mean then the gentilic determined masculine plural ending is always āye, isn't it? Like the plural of yəhūdāy ( = Jew) is yəhūdāye in the determined state. Is that the case also with ܥܵܠܡܵܢܵܝܵܐ? If so, then yes, it must be the gentilic ending.


Firstly, I'm lost as to the connection between this question and this thread.

But to answer your question: yes and no. yəhūdāyē is the plural of yəhūdāyā (i.e. the emphatic/determined state). The plural of the absolute state yəhūdāy is yəhūdāyīn (or yəhūdāyī in some later dialects). Furthermore, in some dialects, the intervocalic y turns to glottal stop, so you have yəhūdāy, but yəhūdā’ā, yəhūdā’ē, and yəhūdā’ī(n).

But again, I do not understand the relevance of this question to this thread.


----------

